Rowan AZ100 Mount Owners Thread

[Stu]

18 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

I have the T-Pod 110. I think it's high enough, however for more clearance you could get a Rowan half-pillar that you would also need with the BB as well.

I'm hoping that @Dek Rowan Astro will drill out the base of the half-pillar for it to connect to the top plate of the T-Pod directly, this will make for a really solid connection.

What connection is needed Martin? The pillar is flat bottomed so is fairly universal.

[johninderby]

The Rowan pillar etenstion is a nice bit of kit. Thught it would be released by now but think sorting out the motors certification is keeping them a bit busy at the moment..

Edited June 8, 2022 by johninderby

[Deadlake]

53 minutes ago, Stu said:

What connection is needed Martin? The pillar is flat bottomed so is fairly universal.

The M12 bolt needs to be the right length, no universal standard. The bottom of the half-pillars have some room to tap some holes which if they match with the T-Pod can be connected via M8 bolts.

It's quite solid, however I'd like it really solid...

Edited June 8, 2022 by Deadlake

[Deadlake]

53 minutes ago, johninderby said:

The Rowan pillar etenstion is a nice bit of kit. Thught it would be released by now but think sorting out the motors certification is keeping them a bit busy at the moment..

Is tracking going to be here for summer I wonder....

[Saganite]

10 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

Is tracking going to be here for summer I wonder....

I think it will, and  having seen the tracking motors working at the Kettering Astro show, they will be worth the wait whenever it happens.  When it does happen and I have them on my AZ100, then I am going to make history as the first Amateur astronomer to say , I have my dream scopes, I have my dream mount with motors, I have my dream bino with my dream eyepiece pairs.....I am done !!...

Edited June 8, 2022 by Saganite

[johninderby]

Never underestimate how much a picky standards agency can hold up things. Hopefully not much longer though. 

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Deadlake said:

The M12 bolt needs to be the right length, no universal standard. The bottom of the half-pillars have some room to tap some holes which if they match with the T-Pod can be connected via M8 bolts.

It's quite solid, however I'd like it really solid...

I have that problem with my Planet; the bolt is too short to connect to the pillar so I still need to sort that out.

I’m sure Rowan could put some addition holes in the right place given the right measurements.

[swsantos]

9 hours ago, Speedmaster said:

Thanks for your input santos. The 110 was not high enough?

 

I’m wondering , It looks like the rubber feet are screwed to the tripod. What’s the thread?
 

thanks 

I bought the TPOD130 for my Nova Hitch originally and wanted the 130 for it instead of the 110 because of its extra height. The 110 might be enough for the AZ100 and I might have bought that instead if I was buying a new tripod for the AZ100, but I would rather use a taller tripod without its legs extended instead of a shorter tripod with its legs extended so I am happy with the AZ100 on the TPOD130. When I am observing at least one, sometimes two of the legs are not extended at all and I like it that way.

 

Regarding the question about the threads, are you asking me what the mount's feet threads are? If so they are M10. I didn't like the movable rubber pad feet it came with so bought aftermarket ones designed for another tripod that are more like the Berlebach one I had before. They are the non moving solid rubber pointed type. Let me know if that's the thread info you are looking for. 

 

Steve

Edited June 9, 2022 by swsantos

[Speedmaster]

On 09/06/2022 at 02:58, swsantos said:

I bought the TPOD130 for my Nova Hitch originally and wanted the 130 for it instead of the 110 because of its extra height. The 110 might be enough for the AZ100 and I might have bought that instead if I was buying a new tripod for the AZ100, but I would rather use a taller tripod without its legs extended instead of a shorter tripod with its legs extended so I am happy with the AZ100 on the TPOD130. When I am observing at least one, sometimes two of the legs are not extended at all and I like it that way.

 

Regarding the question about the threads, are you asking me what the mount's feet threads are? If so they are M10. I didn't like the movable rubber pad feet it came with so bought aftermarket ones designed for another tripod that are more like the Berlebach one I had before. They are the non moving solid rubber pointed type. Let me know if that's the thread info you are looking for. 

 

Steve

Hey Steve. Thanks for Feedback it was exactly what I was asking for 👍

 

indeed you’re right about the height of the tripod and using or not the full legs length. I tend to think exactly the same. 

I’ll have to take some  measurements on my uni 18 to see what is the actual  height. 
 

did you use an eq6 mount adaptor for the Rowan? As I don’t think Avalon makes a specific Rowan one. 

[moriniboy]

Found that one of the ADM replacement dual saddles fits the AZ100 so I ordered two of them (35mm spacing and M8 bolts)

As I do Ha and white light solar at the same time I needed both scopes to look at the sun. Rowan makes an az adjuster but its not designed for the ADM so I adjusted out one edge of the LHS saddle by approx 0.75mm using two M6 grub screws (and threadlocked in place) to bring them into line.

Not exactly conventional but I saved £213, happy chappie.

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by moriniboy

[swsantos]

6 hours ago, moriniboy said:

Found that one of the ADM replacement dual saddles fits the AZ100 so I ordered two of them (35mm spacing and M8 bolts)

As I do Ha and white light solar at the same time I needed both scopes to look at the sun. Rowan makes an az adjuster but its not designed for the ADM so I adjusted out one edge of the LHS saddle by approx 0.75mm using two M6 grub screws (and threadlocked in place) to bring them into line.

Not exactly conventional but I saved £213, happy chappie.

 

If we could get Anthony to modify one of those saddles and add the threaded holes for the pan handle then that would be great. 

[swsantos]

9 hours ago, Speedmaster said:

Hey Steve. Thanks for Feedback it was exactly what I was asking for 👍

 

indeed you’re right about the height of the tripod and using or not the full legs length. I tend to think exactly the same. 

I’ll have to take some  measurements on my uni 18 to see what is the actual  height. 
 

did you use an eq6 mount adaptor for the Rowan? As I don’t think Avalon makes a specific Rowan one. 

Yes, the EQ6 adapter is in reality also an AZ1010 adapter.

I had the bottom of my custom riser machined like the bottom of the AZ100 with a 12mm threaded hole and the top of the riser is machined like the top of the TPOD130 with a 12mm stud.

[moriniboy]

Sorry if this has been covered before in this thread but I'm looking for solutions re balancing.

As The AZ100's bearings are that good its easy for the scope to move excessively when swapping weighty ep's over.

To give an example I have a TV Nagler 26mm (702g) and a BGO 5mm with a TV bronze equaliser (418g) a difference of 284g, this is enough to throw my APM 152 f8 scope off balance. I find I'm constantly having to shimmy the scope about to re-balance.

Tightening the tension screw (alt axis clutch) helps a lot but sometimes the scope still creeps downwards.

[johninderby]

Tightening the Alt Lock will help although with a long refractor it can  require rebalancing. Perhaps asliding a balance weight on the scopes dovetail might help.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adm-counterweight-kits/adm-dovetail-counterweight-kit-d-series.html

Edited June 13, 2022 by johninderby

[Stu]

13 hours ago, moriniboy said:

Sorry if this has been covered before in this thread but I'm looking for solutions re balancing.

As The AZ100's bearings are that good its easy for the scope to move excessively when swapping weighty ep's over.

To give an example I have a TV Nagler 26mm (702g) and a BGO 5mm with a TV bronze equaliser (418g) a difference of 284g, this is enough to throw my APM 152 f8 scope off balance. I find I'm constantly having to shimmy the scope about to re-balance.

Tightening the tension screw (alt axis clutch) helps a lot but sometimes the scope still creeps downwards.

I did some testing with the AZ75 using a sliding weight on the handle (to quote Vic Reeves, ‘that was my idea!’) 🤣

It worked pretty well, and gave a convenient way of maintaining balance. It’s not an official thing, yet, as the chaps are busy with getting the motor kit approved but potentially it’s something they could easily do if there is demand.

[johninderby]

Time for one of these in the front window perhaps Rowan. 😁

[Deadlake]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

I did some testing with the AZ75 using a sliding weight on the handle (to quote Vic Reeves, ‘that was my idea!’) 🤣

It worked pretty well, and gave a convenient way of maintaining balance. It’s not an official thing, yet, as the chaps are busy with getting the motor kit approved but potentially it’s something they could easily do if there is demand.

The issue I would have with the above is the scopes I have are mounted as far back as they can go. More weights needed on the front to balance



I actually asked Derek if it was possible for the handle + bracket to be mounted on the front.

If the handle was left as a balance style bar then weights could be added on. 

Having the weights below the scope would also help...

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Deadlake

[Alan White]

Looking at the image, surely a longer Vixen rail would allow the scope to be slid further forwards?
This must be a very tail heavy scope and set up.

[Deadlake]

51 minutes ago, Alan White said:

Looking at the image, surely a longer Vixen rail would allow the scope to be slid further forwards?
This must be a very tail heavy scope and set up.

The saddle will collide with the FT3545 focuser, remember the focuser can be rotated.

The scope can go back a couple more cm's using a Losmandy rail, but it's not going to help.

Adding a BV or for a rich field scope a APM 20 XWA + a 2" BBHS diagonal all add's up.

So no it cannot go back any more, or the saddle moved forward to help.

Note with this load:

The balance point is here.

If the dovetail was moved back it will obstruct the focuser.

I have considered swapping the FT3545 for an APM 2.7" focuser, however the issue is that with a BV or 2" diagonal with an APM XWA 20 mm or TV 55 mm Plossl will not find focus....

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Deadlake

[Alan White]

Oh dear, the compromise moment I think.
Looks like that load together with a very long out focus is your FT focuser,
is the undoing with this set up. That's not good.

These short length refractors can be very challenging to ballace.
Somehow looks like counter weights out front on either a longer Vixen rail or slung under somehow.
I am sure it will come together for you.

 

[Deadlake]

3 minutes ago, Alan White said:

Oh dear, the compromise moment I think.
Looks like that load together with a very long out focus is your FT focuser,
is the undoing with this set up. That's not good.

These short length refractors can be very challenging to ballace.
Somehow looks like counter weights out front on either a longer Vixen rail or slung under somehow.
I am sure it will come together for you.

 

It needs a 1 kg weight at the front.

However I'd like the weight attached to the AZ100 not the dovetail as setup is easier.

Hence the follow up to Stu's solution above.

This is a request from some users on CN as well, not just me who wants to repurpose the pan handle.

[Stu]

4 hours ago, Deadlake said:

The issue I would have with the above is the scopes I have are mounted as far back as they can go. More weights needed on the front to balance



I actually asked Derek if it was possible for the handle + bracket to be mounted on the front.

If the handle was left as a balance style bar then weights could be added on. 

Having the weights below the scope would also help...

 

I’ve experimented with exactly that Martin. The best benefit is having the handle hanging down from the front, under the scope. In this configuration you can achieve perfect balance even with heavy eyepieces or binoviewers. Just needs Rowan to make a bracket with some threaded holes in the right place and away you go.

I’ll add some pictures when I find them.

[Stu]

Here you go, I faced similar problems and this works well. They quickly produced some weights which fit the handle and all that is needed is a bracket designed for the job. I’m sure different sized weights could be made, these were just done as a quick test.

[Deadlake]

18 minutes ago, Stu said:

Here you go, I faced similar problems and this works well. They quickly produced some weights which fit the handle and all that is needed is a bracket designed for the job. I’m sure different sized weights could be made, these were just done as a quick test.

I'd like the bar to be horizontal with the scope.

The pan handle has a 10 mm thread, the trick is the bracket needs deeper to move the bar away from the scope.

Just need to find a bar with a 10 mm thread size on the end to it and away you would go. 

Quite a few balance bars with a 10 mm thread on TS.

[Stu]

10 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

I'd like the bar to be horizontal with the scope.

The pan handle has a 10 mm thread, the trick is the bracket needs deeper to move the bar away from the scope.

Just need to find a bar with a 10 mm thread size on the end to it and away you would go. 

Quite a few balance bars with a 10 mm thread on TS.

All quite doable, just needs the correct bracket. I prefer the bar hanging down as it balances the off axis weight of heavy eyepieces and binoviewers fully.