Split Zygote2

Hello John think I bought a HEQ5 black version (non go-to) from you a few years ago. I have realigned the focuser using this adjustment on my SkyWatcher solid tube 250 dob fitted with the single speed basic focuser. In essence I flocked the tube, which involved removing all the optical components, then having put it all back together again I squared the focuser to the tube and re-centered the secondary, I also replaced the bearings, added adjustable counterweights, fitted rudimentary but effective setting circles and wheels. THEN I bought the latest greatest collimation device and destroyed the already pretty good collimation ... it takes a while getting this back - then (some people take longer to learn than others) I went and bought the newest latest greatest collimation device v. 2.0 and repeated the process ... and so it goes ad infinitum. Nowadays I just use the pole star! Apropos the focuser Why it's got a bad press I just don't know? Sample variation? Mine albeit single speed on a fast focal ratio scope is very precise (easy to find focus) and can hold a paracorr and Nagler 31 most adequately albeit not vertically as would sometimes be the case with a refractor. (minus the paracorr of course) The focuser on my Tak 130 NFB the 4 inch diameter drawer-tubed, huge ginormous one (bought new) racked out under its own weight and a 2inch diagonal ... not a little creep but an accelerating mass that hit the stops with a thunk that vibrated the whole scope and made you fear for the collimation. My Tak FC - 100DZ focuser didn't rack out but was so stiff that turning the focuser moved the scope off target. Both these issues took not a little time to resolve. So I am a BIIIG fan of this SW focuser. My SW 130PDS has the 2 speed version and that too has been hassle free and a joy to use - Roger Vine if memory serves commented on this focuser by saying "It is a gem" (as fitted to his 16 inch go to SW Dob). Note however that I did true up the flat bearing surface that interfaces with the focuser pinion (on the dob) by hand using a perfectly flat Japanese waterstone . Note also that for me the 10 inch Dob will outperform the 5 inch Tak (as it should) but only on a night of near perfect seeing otherwise it's pretty much of a draw. The Tak will however give me a better aesthetic experience - way better contrast, no light scatter, no diffraction spikes etc ....... or so I keep telling myself. Sorry gone off topic a bit! Just thought my 120 Equinox has a similar focuser and that has also been exceptional holding binoviewers equipped with dual morpheus eyepieces very well. No image shift or backlash is apparent in any of my examples of these SW focusers Michael

Hopefully below you may or may not see a scope with a Baader sliding counterweight on the far side.; the clamp is a V70 and it slides along a vixen rail parallel and opposite to the primary dovetail. The 1 kilo weights attach both to the V70 clamp and also screw to each other. Typically I use one to three stacked to slide backwards and forwards at need to balance the scope fore and aft when changing from mono to bino viewing or indeed from heavy wide angle 2 inch eyepieces to high power eyepieces. In my view it's a matter of personal choice. I much prefer the look of the Tak mounting cradle that you use and indeed have one but I also prefer the convenience of counterbalancing different set ups fore and aft with a sliding weight rather than moving the whole OTA backwards and forwards. "You pays your money and......"

Hello, I have a TOA 130 and find that for mono viewing wrapping divers' lead weights (these are soft plastic coated) on a cut down waist belt around the tube near the focuser to be very helpful and unusually cost effective way of minimising the length of the arc through which the eyepiece travels on this heroically front heavy scope when moving from the horizon to zenith (and I have the heavier NFB focuser). Typically I will add 3 kilos to the back end. Moreover by placing the weights asymmetrically around the tube it is possible to balance the scope in 3 axes i.e. to allow for the imbalance caused by bino-viewers for example where the scope is balanced when horizontal but not when vertical or at say 45 degrees. Additionally when using the scope in mono I find the 1.5 ED extender pretty much lives on the back end. I find this to be invisible in use and it helps with the fore aft balance by moving the prism and and eyepiece further away from the objective. I find it to be more convenient that say a powermate as it goes between the scope and the diagonal and not the diagonal and the eyepiece so causing less problems in 3 axis balance. Of course it does tend to put the eyepiece nearer the ground when viewing vertically. I second the comment above about a quick release for the finder scope and as you have fitted, a handle is pretty much essential although in my case I have tube rings and the handle is a Baader affair attached to a extra dovetail the other side of the OTA by two V70 clamps. I mostly use the scope with binoviewers which largely dispenses with the need for the divers' weights as described above. Note: as you use the scope on the AZ100 you might find my comments as linked below at the bottom of page 43 and over onto the next page(44) of interest. My TOA usually mounts on a AZ-EQ6 attached to a permanent pier outside. https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/345938-rowan-az100-mount-owners-thread/page/43/ but note that a stop to prevent the dovetails sliding out of the clamps is essential I would also suggest if you haven't got something already getting a raincoat of sorts that will quickly throw over the scope. I have certainly had rain (not much admittedly) fall on me out of a clear sky. Additionally it will provide more peace of mind while the scope is cooling to ambient. Note I am not talking about a full on scope cover. If you root around on the internet you may be able to find Roland Christen's comments on how to best look after your scope and prevent condensation after the viewing session. During the session although the dew shield on the TOA is not minimal I still fit an extension in the form of an astrozap affair and it hasn't dewed up as yet. Performance, well faultless to my eyes. It outperforms my 10 inch dobsonian on the moon on all but the most exceptional of nights when the dobsonian wins comfortably. Compared to the 120 Equinox, hard to say that it will reveal any extra detail but the contrast is greater, the colour correction better and it is more a question of a better aesthetic, less scatter, pinpoint stars, more saturated colour etc. I got it up to 700x plus magnification on one clear, transparent and still night before I ran out of eyepieces. The image was dim certainly but had not broken down into a mush - the Equinox alongside threw up its hands and surrendered at around 470x. (still a very creditable effort). To put it into photographic terms and you may not have had experience of this as it references technology from the Dark Ages the ED120 approximate the result of a medium format 6x4.5cm negative, the TAK a 6x7cm negative, the Dob a 4x5 inch negative. (I spent a lot of time in the darkroom in times past) Enjoy your scope, they are waaay better than our skies! Michael

I can only echo the sentiments of those above. I read the news with a sinking feeling in my stomach. I didn't know John but I have read his posts over many years, always with interest and with a keen anticipation; they have informed my purchase decisions as they did for many others. All good wishes to his family and friends at this very sad time. Michael.

Maybe but I would live with it a little it might be that adjusting the damper control and re balancing the scope helps. I adjusted the mesh of the worms when I first got mine but I left in about a 1/12th of a turn of free play when changing direction as the gearing reverses.

If you scroll down to the bottom of the page you will see my post there and also some follow ideas top of the next page.

Hello, sorry for the late reply but have only just seen your post. I guess you have seen the picture below but just in case... The AZ100 (I have one) only has one lock and it is the vertical knob to the right and on top of the horizontal altitude axis labelled altitude lock below. The clutches are the similarly lobe shaped knobs - the altitude clutch rotates with the mount the azimuth does not. However you will see other smaller knobs in the picture called damping adjusters mounted orthogonally to the altitude lock there are two pairs of these one for each axis one on the back and one on the front of the mount and it may be that you are mistaking these for locks. How do they all function? Well first the altitude lock does not lock the altitude axis it brakes it to the extent that you tighten it up. Done up as hard as possible by hand it will facilitate changing from a heavy eyepiece to a lighter one and then you then rebalance the scope. It will not in my experience lock the axis completely say when changing from bino viewers to a light eyepiece and the scope will likely do a nosedive as both the lock and and the clutches slip. So care must be exercised when using this lock as it may suddenly give. After its use typically when changing eyepieces it should be disengaged before using the mount. The damping adjusters are independent of the clutches and they enable you to dial out any backlash in the system so that when you centre an object and let go of the scope or slo-mo wheels it stays where you left it and the object doesn't drift up or down or left to right. These are used only when using the slo-mo cables and are generally done up equally back and front. They work best when the scope is well balanced but will help with a slight imbalance - essentially another measure of control. You can use the mount in 3 modes 1. Everything almost loosened off and you then push it around the sky. Tends to blow around in the breeze! 2. With the clutches a little tighter; you can either push the scope around and/or use the slo-mo having found the sweet spot where the clutches will slip but will also hold enough for the slo-mo gears to turn the axes 3. Finally you can use tighter clutches that you loosen off to acquire targets and then tighten up rather more than in number 2 and then exclusively use the slo-mo.You would do this if the scope was not balanced say when using binoviewers at high altitude targets. Note it is not such a good idea to tighten the clutches right up and then push the scope by hand as there is then a real danger of damaging the worm and worm gear. The mount should be operated only with the slo-mo controls to track if the clutches are tightened right up - making sure to loosen them off before slewing around the sky to a different target. I generally go with option number 2 and I do not use the slo-mo all that much. Enjoy your mount I have spent a lot on other alt az mounts and the AZ100 is by far superior to most. I note from the time of your post that you are either very dedicated or in a different time zone. Hope that the above will help you. I shall post another link to 3rd axis balancing but if I go off hunting this post will have doubtless escaped when I return!

Thanks once again

Thank you for your input. I shall have a go. Was thinking of going that route before my question BUT transferring the images I need from my iPad to the laptop is a pain so was trying to go the easy route which sometimes ends up not so.... Good to know that others have similar issues with mobile devices, thought it was just my practised incompetence, and the fact that they sense my antipathy! Thanks again to you both for your time and detailed help.

Thanks for replying - I have tried that - sort of but it terminally messed up the formatting. In that instance I think the issue was related to the idiosyncrasies caused by using an iPad and iOS which currently cannot seem to even to get pictures in Pages inserted where you want to put them. I mean it used to do so but then an update doubtless came along to further improve the functionality. Shall fire up the Desktop and try again. Advice much appreciated though.

Can anybody please point me in the direction of any tutorials/advice/whatever on how to post to the forum. Self evidently I can but the post in question is a long post and occasionally, doubtless due to user error and a really stupid right index finger, my posts disappear from this continuum before they are even finished. Can you for instance avoid this issue by posting a PDF file OR maybe better still save your work thus far either to finish later or to prevent its possible disappearance. My son says I am an IT MUPPET! Thanks Michael

You are welcome.

Hello Proxima, Yes I have it, a recent purchase used on about 6 occasions so far. With the essential caveat of "One man's meat is another man's poison" here are my initial impressions. My example is well constructed (with precise welds) of suitably robust metal, and the fitting of the black crosspieces (or feet) is both solid and well engineered to resist twist. The quality of finish is high and all is finished with a hard wearing powder coat (?) that is well applied with no runs or flaws. However, the black plastic end caps fitted on to the end of the black cross pieces (these contact the ground) whilst being perfectly adequate when used on wood or grass will likely wear badly if dragged around on concete or paving slabs. The padding of the seat is generous and the covering is extreemly well sewn and attached (no staple guns used here) and for me the angle of the chair back is most comfortable giving more of a sit upon experiance as opposed to the something that you perch on experiance that some chairs provide. It is lighter than my previous seat by Mey and more convenient in use. In use the distance between the front of the seat at its lowest setting and the far side of the backstay i.e. the maximum front to back measurement is circa 88cms, essential to know if you are short of space in a small dome. For me at 6ft 2 inch and 15 stone it feels both solid and safe and gives enough range of adjustment to view near the horizon and at the zenith with my excessively front heavy 130 mm refractors provided the tripod or pier is at set at the optimal height. The only NEGATIVE is that it can be initially, 'til you get the hang of it, a little fiddly to adjust the height of the seat. The black nylon (?) cams shown below MUST be located precisely into the semi circular indentations (you will note they are stepped with both a smaller and a larger diameter, the smaller is the one that locates into the indentations). If the cams are made longer (and this I did - then quickly undid!) they foul the backstay when adjusting the height. If you look carefully you will note where the backstay is located a cap head screw, then the main frame, two washers, followed by the backstay and out of sight a nyloc nut. This very tight clearance gives good resistance to twist and is I guess the reason for the dimensions of the black cams. If the cams are not correctly located the seat will twist and fall off the frame. This was for me an initial concern but in use after a little practice it becomes very easy to both adjust the seat height in the dark and to check that all is well (a sideways wiggle of the chair seat just prior to sitting does it for me). Having said that, once installed correctly it is hard for the seat to come adrift in use unless picked up by the front of the squab - a BIG NO, NO. The chair can be moved around by the tubular, horizontal handle (above the A cutout) and tilted every which way and all is well. After a few nights use, for me the chair inspires confidence and is way more comfortable to sit on than my previous chair. The seat is genrously deep front to back and doesn't seem to mind how you sit on it on it perched on the front, sat well back, or perched on the corners it just does its job. The white finish looks very smart and having walked into my black chair many times, white is the one I went for. Modifications Note: you can just see a white nylon stop on the backstay lower left of the above picture - this is not original but something I added to locate the seat when it is collapsed for transport. Also I have fitted very slightly longer cap head screws to fix the black nylon cams - the originals screws almost (but didn't quite) support them for their entire width - probably a quite unecessary mod. A further note on the cams as I have strayed into Cam Territory , Black Nylon (if nylon it be) ......... I am a little unsure of the long term suitability of this material for its intended use - I mean I am sure it will outlast me (at an age that I am certainly not going to admit to) but for a fifty year service life? Dunno! Mere speculation on my part, others with an engineering background will know better. However I have no way of knowing one way or the other ... other than, so far so good! When used at maximum extension this generic footstool (intermittently to be found at Lidl I guess) is a match made in heaven. A final note: the Asterion seat can accomodate bumpy grass and slight slopes beter than my Mey Musician's Chair which in its defense has had its safety stop blocks removed to adjust the seat lower. But the Mey seat sqab split, it screeches loudly when adjusted and it has banged my shins once too many times - it is also very heavy (although doubtless well designed for its intended use by a double base player or percussionist). The Asterion left; The Mey right - the Mey does not go as low even with the safety stops removed nor does it go as high BUT it is more compact front to back if space is limited and it trundles along on back wheels most happily if tilted Hence the new purchase of the Asterion. In conclusion there are seats by Berlebach that you might look at - I thought them to be a little too expensive (Berlebach have already had postitively oodles and noodles of my money) and anecdotally I have read (but do not know first hand) that their seat padding is a little less than generous. If I lost it would I buy the Asterion again? Sure, yes indeedy and quite quickly! Note my comments apply to my particular example - something that is not emphasised often enough. Michael

Yes and no. With longer scopes I do not, I just grab the diagonal as there is obviously a longer lever which confers more control. In truth I wouldn't engage the clutches at all but there is both the wind and your eye sockets which together conspire to move you off target - focusing also. So I use the minimal clutch tension that ameliorates these issues. This happens to be enough to enable the slow motion controls as well. I do find that for seamless operation I have to play with the dampening controls a little even for use without the slo-mo (regardless of what it says in the manual) With the TeleVue I have started to use the slo-mo controls with custom cut down cables which Rowan are happy to supply. A radial movement of say a centimetre at the focuser end with a small scope will move you off target more than the same centimetre movement when using a longer scope. Having said that I dislike slo-mo controls but probably because I am not all that used to them. As I am sure you know the slo-mo controls are helpful moving the scope when pointed at the zenith - not so much leverage from the scope. You cannot cuddle a refractor in the same way that you can cuddle a Dob to move it when pointed straight up .... and would you even want to? The optional handle for the AZ 100 may help with short tubes but unless it can be mounted other than directly in line with the dovetail clamp (i.e. at an angle like the AZ4) then its assistance viewing the zenith would be marginal.

AND finally solution no.3 (leaving no stone unturned is a character flaw I am afraid) . Same set up as my previous post with the clamps offset by 90 degrees but re-arranged to provide some horizontal counterbalance with the weights this time lowered with respect to the mounts horizontal axis rather than the scope - obviously fewer weights would require more lowering. The simplest most elegant solution requiring only one extra dovetail plate and no drilling. The fore and aft balancing of this particular scope with a 31mm Nagler at the back is problematic hence my preferred solution is in my 2nd post, note in this context an AZ4, Ercole or even TeleVue's own alt/az offered only a partial remedy. As regards as whether to offset the scope or the weights... Any scope gets exponentially heavier in relation to its price - a scope of 10 kilos costing £20 a kilo is way lighter than a 10 kilo scope costing £100s per kilo. Sliding such a scope up and down in the dovetail with cold fingers in the dark seems to me to be an accident waiting in the wings. Falling counterweights are always less of an issue broken feet or little heads notwithstanding! I have already dropped a few hints to Rowan but they are quite understandably busy with more pressing priorities.

The alternate approach: lowering the scope in relation to the horizontal axis; in this case by not so much as the imbalance with a regular eyepiece and diagonal is not so great but if you look carefully the offset of the scope to the horizontal axis of the mount becomes apparent. Note the Baader steel counterweight on the other side of the mount is to adjust the fore and aft balance of the refractor and is not primarily intended as a counterweight. Think I may have sorted the formatting issue of my previous post - user error again although it must be said that it didn't leave this end in such a muddle!

I have adopted this approach to fully balance the scope in all axes and it works well for me (hopefully the picture will upload or you will all be mightily puzzled) The 90 degree offset of these particular dovetail clamps is achieved without modifying either the mount or the clamps. The Losmandy dovetail however has had a couple of extra holes drilled in it to attach the flange which holds the counterweight bar. With this arrangement I can routinely mount refractors of up to 20 kilos all up weight with an additional 15 to 20 kilo of counterweight. If correctly adjusted the scope and binoviewers will stay exactly where you put them with all clutches completely disengaged as the offset of the weight with respect to the horizontal axis of the mount balances the offset of the binoviewer load with respect to the centre line of the OTA. Without this arrangement I have to tension the clutches significantly to overcome the imbalance! When correctly set up, using this weight offset approach, a sweet spot can be found where the scope can be moved precisely with one finger and without further adjustment the slow motion controls can also be employed. With care (scope vertical) the adjustment of the the weight offset is practical in the field and I have inscribed a rule on the dovetail to aid in this. A stop bolt to prevent the weight sliding through the clamp when the scope is horizontal is also a very good idea. The Rowan clamps are most excellently engineered and any slippage would be the result of user error but given long enough user error will almost inevitably occur. It is possible to extrapolate from this and produce an arrangement where the scope rather than the counterweight is offset from the horizontal axis of the mount (as in the Nova Hitch). I have made up a separate dovetail plate for doing this. I use this approach for shorter lighter scopes (TV85, a counterweight is unnecessary) where an Ethos and Powermate used in combination causes similar balance issues. Indeed completely balancing a TV 85 before this approach on any alt/az mount that I tried ( 4 in all including TeleVue's own before the AZ 100 came along) was all but impossible

Due South. This link to a Wiki article should be helpful. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meridian_(astronomy)

Thanks for the info on the SW Pillar John, I have on many occasions been almost seduced by its charms as it reminded me of my first Newtonian on a similar pillar topped off with a Fullerscope Mk.3 mount. Glad I didn't jump. Still and off topic (soggy) I still feel, even after more than a few refractors, a Mak and a Dob, that the only proper looking telescope is a big Newtonian on an equatorial pillar. So Sad!

Hi Jon I have just taken my HEQ5 tripod outside with mount and spreader fitted (to get some grip from the patio) and twisted it in the horizontal plane by grabbing the two nearest legs. Doing the same to the Uni 28, I found that the Berlebach is noticeably stiffer but not overwhelmingly so - the HEQ5 is pretty solid. However if you tap the HEQ5 with a knuckle it resonates and rings rather beautifully like a bell OR RATHER IT DID before I tightened up the spreader. I am not qualified to speculate, but I can offer two or three bits of anecdotal evidence: In his series of instructional books Ansel Adams (you may know of him - if not an American Landscape photographer) was of the opinion that the best tripod was a block of granite (cement can't remember which) with a 3/8 inch bolt in the top. The problem for photographers before the advent of digital when using slow film was longish exposures with long lenses. Adams found that at certain shutter speeds his most massive tripod with certain camera combinations produced the most blur due to resonance. Other photographers when faced with the same issues e.g. Bjorn Rorslett use/used video tripods costing many thousands which do not have a centre column extension. I personally find that an extension to a tripod is very necessary for my usage as I have 3 longish refractors but I know that it is a tradeoff. I think that going with the shorter extension is the way that I would myself initially go before incurring any other expenditure. If you look at the Astro-physics website under Portable Piers you will see that the diameters of the piers which are stayed are mostly either 8 or 10 inch which gives me paws for thought. Michael

Hello Parallaxerr The extension is a cut down Orion (I think) 16 inch for an HEQ5 - the tripod fitting at the bottom is therefore HEQ5 to match the Berlebach but with a EQ6 extension fitting at the top to match the AZ100. Whilst the Orion was well made with machined components at either end of the tube the white EQ6 fitting at the top seems to be a casting and tightening up the cap head screws even moderately eventually strips the threads (currently on no.2). Additionally the three tappings on both my examples are not precisely located even when used with the correct white EQ6 extension tube and this occasioned me drilling slightly over sized holes - hence the movement that I referred to.

AZ 100 mounted on a Todmorden pillar. Damping time at 200 - 300x magnification around 1 second or just under. I have used a variety of extension pillar heights attached to a variety of tripods and I have found that the greater the extension the more i.m.o. the tripod resembles a monopod causing the stability to decrease. In the instance above using the 6 inch extension on the Berlebach you can clearly see movement and flex between the elements of the extension and to a lesser extent in the tripod head on removing even a 5 kilo weight. I suspect but do not know (Planet on order) that the Planet's increased ability is due to its increased resistance to twisting and flex together with its larger cross section members and clamps which provide more friction/grip when in use. I have a cheap IKEA stacking chair in the shed which I subject to a load of around 100 kilo every time I flop into it (and this is not a static load nor is it applied evenly) the timber used in its construction is around 32x21mm in section and it has not failed, yet! Note that with either set up (tripod or concrete pillar) I could smoothly track across the lunar surface at high magnification whilst maintaining sharpness by just pushing on the tube of the scope without having to resort to the slo mo controls. This did require a delicate touch though.

Hi All, Using my sample of the AZ100 I found that the damping time of my longer refractors after tapping the focuser firmly in the vertical plane at around 200-300x magnification (mounted on Berlebach Uni 28 plus 6 inch extension) to be around 1 to 1 1/2 seconds The mount and tripod combo exhibited a similar characteristic when tapped horizontally. Note the locking castors as pictured on the tripod were removed. After installing the AZ100 on a pier (see next post for picture) this time dropped to under a second in both axial planes. Note the tapping was firm enough to move the target half way across the field of view. Thus the potential to achieve precise focus at high magnification was, I felt, an issue only related to the current astronomical seeing and was not in anyway compromised by the performance of the mount itself - and so it has proved in practice .

Hello Alan, you may have gathered already that I am incapable of any brevity except in moments of extreme crisis, apologies. Yes I still have the AZ EQ6 which I use in Alt/Az mode. It sits under foam and 3 layers of waterproofing mounted on a permanent pier fixed with security bolts for now I guess 3 or even 4!!?? years and in all weathers; there is no shortage of WEATHER here. Further waterproofed with ACF-50 (a sort of super duper WD-40) it has proved most reliable with almost the only signs of use being a somewhat scarred toe protector, counterbalance end stop thingy, hand nut - that has a death wish! The mount has had but 2 episodes due to operator error but otherwise has proved faultless in operation once I replaced all the power connectors. I use a large capacity Tracer lithium(?) battery to ensure an adequate power supply. It mostly puts out a measured at the mount 13.5 volts. Its pointing (AZ EQ6 ) is generally only to within a degree or so as I don't realign for every use and just use the Park Scope command which remembers sometimes more or sometimes less the alignment. Used thus things stay in the eyepiece field (100x or so) for 30 mins ish. I don't do astro-photography. I do and have done terrestrial photography quite extensively (dark room 35mm, medium format and 5x4 cameras) since the mid 80s and although I have moved to digital (much easier imo) I figured a quick way to spend a lot of money given my obsessive tendencies was photographing the sky besides which I wanted a contrast in my activities. As to why the AZ 100 when I have the AZ EQ6 (implicit in your question perhaps) ...... Well, the SW mount takes 8 mins to set up if I am lucky, up to 20 mins if I am tired or dozy and longer to put away in the early or not so early hours. It is something that I only consider if the forecast is very favourable. Here all too often just as you are set up the break in the clouds vanishes. Naturally enough, if you don't set up clear skies are pretty much guaranteed. Therefore flexibility and speed is of the essence. I also have an AZ4, a TeleVue Panoramic Head and an Ercole of which the only one I use is the AZ4 which works well (we have bonded) but it is at its limit with an Equinox 120 which is by far the lighter of my two refractors. I thought of getting another AZ EQ6 or maybe an iOptron CEM 60 to go on my castor equipped tripod (open the French Doors and roll it out) but both would have involved power supplies and alignment routines. The beauty of the AZ100 for me and I thought long and hard here is its flexibility in these circumstances. It can be rolled out for a quick peak no power, no alignment necessary - even I on a good day can generally find the moon and the planets; it is not so heavy that taking it a walk around the garden is inadvisable; it will cope with heavy scopes if you need it to and you can if time permits align to the sky with some precision. Bottom line - I am not constrained in my activity due to an initial early decision when the weather against all expectation improves. To be clear for my use I find a manual mount for lunar to be less than ideal; I look at a feature, look at the chart puzzle a little and go back to the eyepiece to find that the Moon has unaccountably moved - this is irritating - but this review of the map and comparing it to the country has got more fluent with experience and is no longer the impediment it once was. However I still prefer to use a driven mount for lunar observation for planets, well maybe..that depends.....? That said I find the AZ100 quite liberating in use. Comparing it to the AZ EQ6 it is not for me a question of "either or" but one of "both" and here I am fortunate. Again I offer the caveat that what best suits me may not be appropriate for you - I am still in the honeymoon phase with the AZ100 and this may despite my best efforts colour and inform my obvious enthusiasm. M

Hi, I can only comment in reference to using my particular sample, bearing in mind my limited experience of the unit and my limited experience in general for although I bought my first Newtonian in 1971, I only seriously started observing 6-7 yrs ago with the aquistion of a South facing garden and a relatively unobstructed horizon. I have now used the mount fairly intensively for just over 3 weeks for sadly no clouds were to be found in the box although I did search most carefully . AND also bear in mind that what is a deal breaker for me might not be of the slightest relevance or interest to you or others. I bought the mount together with the encoders and the full Nexus device with the display. Initially I considered purchasing without the encoders and I contacted FLO to see if these were available for retro fit after purchase. Steve @ FLO replied on April 30th "Yes, no problem. It will be possible to have encoders retro-fitted by ourselves or Rowan Engineering (nobody has requested this service yet so we don't have prices, but it can be done) In the event I decided with all the current uncertainty just to buy the mount with the encoders fitted. As to Nexus vs. Nexus ll - I thought about this but decided I would prefer a stand alone system to hopefully future proof myself against any operating system/software incompatibilities that may or may not arise in the future. For example my very favourite app for quickly displaying the amount of astronomical darkness on a calendar so a glance was enough to see the trend over a month or two became non functional with an iOS upgrade, and as for using Nikon's latest Raw Converters with Windows 10 - I don't even want to go there!! Note I have read of an impending revision of the Nexus unit. I have had experience of and still posses several alt az mounts and the ones with encoders or setting circles are the ones I use. I enjoy hunting for double stars that challenge my scopes' resolution and with my often fairly turbulent seeing it is comforting to know that in all likelihood I am actually staring at the correct stars. Notwithstanding my comments above I find that the Nexus unit and my iPad (original iPad air now operating iOS 12 something and likely soon to die as the Lightening socket is hanging on to existence by the merest thread) running SkySafari 4 Pro to be almost seamless in their integration and so far much less hassle than using SkySafari with Sky Wire or the Sky Watcher dongle to control my AZ EQ6. Note according to my son (an unbelievably ultra techie) I am a complete Muppet when it comes to anything that exists in the digital domain and even I found the instructions clear, complete and easy to follow without phoning my son who in any case evidently believes in using tough love in such situations! In use I do a two star alignment using Nexus connect it to the iPad's Wi-Fi (I think there is the option to align using SkySafai but I don't) open SkySafari click on the connect to scope it goes ping and I am off to the races; the cursor on SkySafari showing me where the scope is pointing. Additionally you can choose the option on the Nexus unit "Find using Planetarium" which allows you to use the SkySafari interface to select objects , perform searches or access your observing lists - I do not know if Nexus ll has this functionality it may well have but if it is important to you it might be worth checking. (Additionally my Nexus unit has a lot of catalogues which may facilitate a resolution when the Search function on SkySafari fails; doubtless it knows about the object but not under the pseudonym you are using). Having selected the object with SkySafari following the above procedures the main Nexus unit then displays arrows showing you which way to move the scope to find the object and does a countdown in degrees arriving at zero when the object is centred. When I have done my initial alignments well enough I find that my pointing error is about 1/10 of a degree. Looking at the specs for the encoders I feel that this could be improved upon by upgrading the support for the mount (currently a Berlebach Uni 28 with a SW extension for long refractors which is where I feel most of the flexing occurs). Lastly if I choose the lock screen option on SkySafari the representation of the night sky locks to the telescope's pointing so that as you move the scope the map moves underneath the cursor (scopes position) and you don't sail off the edge of the chart to where the dragons live. Finally (almost!) the ability to rebalance the scope without losing a precise alignment is a great boon - this did not resonate with me before purchase - yes my AZ EQ6 can do this but only when the less accurate auxiliary encoders are enabled which they never are. For me (and I emphasise the for me) the excellent engineering of the mount together with high resolution encoders and the Nexus unit form a system capable of much precision where the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Hope this of some help. Michael searchesYes, no problem. It will be possible to have encoders retro-fitted by ourselves or Rowan Engineering. (Nobody has requested this service yet so we don't have prices, but it can be done).