The idea with an EQ is that you don't have to adjust the declination but can just move the OTA (optical tube assembly) in RA. Otherwise you will lose the object as it speeds out of view. This is the only way to track at high magnification.
#Orion st80 manual
With a manual mount the RA and declination can also be controlled very precisely with fine 'slow motion' controls. Keeping it in field in the eyepiece will be a serious problem. Although looking north isn't easy with it set right next to the fence in the picture (ignore the metal cats and ultrasonic motion detector, they're to convince the neighbourhood cats to stop using my lawn as a toilet lol).Īt high magnifications (150x~300x) any object in the sky will appear to move incredibly fast in the field of view. This way I get the best view of the plane of the ecliptic. My Newtonian is set up for lunar/planetary observing and at the extreme north of my garden for this purpose. The Moon and planets more or less follow this 'plane of the ecliptic'. This 'apex' at due south is referred to as the transit. If you followed an object in the sky with your finger as it rose in the east it would appear to make a large arc in the sky with its apex due south until eventually setting in the west. The EQ mimics the Earth's rotation.ĭue to the rotation of the Earth objects in the sky appear to rise in the east, reach transit (highest point) in the south, then start to set in the west.
Both mounts travel in two planes, but achieve it differently.
Alt-az mounts have to travel in two planes: altitude and azimuth (up and down and in a circle). Or whether the tripod/mount has shifted slightly of course. Depending on how well polar aligned the mount is in the first place. The declination will move with the mount itself. The predominant difference is that tracking with an EQ basically only needs the OTA to travel or be driven in RA. Wouldn't they both basically track in Right Ascension? I mean the Earth doesn't rotate differently just because of the mount I I just need to research how the tracking works on each of those type mounts. Which is better for tracking, the Altitude-azimuth or the Equatorial mount? I understand that will partly be influenced by the quality of the mount. It'll definitely help me when I'm looking at different telescopes and equipment. Unless you can align it while lying on the ground lol. Often requiring a 90 degree eyepiece/reticule attachment. A small telescope is contained within some of the larger mounts to achieve this more accurately.
I can just about get away with a Vixen Porta with a sturdy tripod.Īltitude-azimuth mounts are pretty intuitive to use, unlike Equatorial mounts which were designed to track in Right Ascension often with a single motor drive (compensating for the Earth's rotation).ĮQ mounts have to be polar aligned and balanced (they have counterweights), basically this part of the mount (arrow points to Polaris) has to be aimed at the Pole star. My 102mm Starwave is just over four kilo, but with a diagonal, finder and eyepiece it can push five kilo. This can limit the weight of the telescope somewhat. As a rule of thumb the mount/tripod should be approximately twice the weight of the telescope, predominantly for stability. Although GOTO and Push-to mounts are popular. I tend to prefer manual mounts as they are easier to set-up usually.
0 kommentar(er)
