HAE69B

Have you considered the CEM70? Its a time proven mount, has the performance you need, and is considerably cheaper. IMO the biggest advantage to strain-wave mounts is their portability which means nothing on an observatory pier. I see no reason to pay so much extra for the HAE69 when you could have the CEM70 or even a CQM350 for less money without sacrificing performance.

Hi Reg,

Might you know what the difference is between the CEM70-NUC and the CEM70EC-NUC?   I can't seem to find the difference in the spec sheets.  I can guess that the "E" stands for Encoder, but the specs and description say nothing about encoders…

Thanks,
Jerry

Jerry Gerber:
Hi Reg,

Might you know what the difference is between the CEM70-NUC and the CEM70EC-NUC?   I can't seem to find the difference in the spec sheets.  I can guess that the "E" stands for Encoder, but the specs and description say nothing about encoders...

Thanks,
Jerry

The CEM70EC has encoders and from all I've read iOptrons encoders cause more problems then they solve. You'll be guiding anyway so even if they were rock solid they still wouldn't be worth the extra money IMO.

Hi Ryan,

Yes, I don't know what I was thinking.  There's no reason to use a strain wave mount in a permanent setup.   I think because I've been using the AM5 for the past 16 months and really enjoying the results I've been getting, I forgot that the whole reason I got it was for portability.

I am definitely not attached to Ioptron.   Ed over at DSP Remote thinks that the Ioptron mounts are lousy and he is discouraging me from getting one.  The only decision I've made is that I want to install a refractor, either a 130, 151 or 185mm aperture.   

I could get a a 1micro1000 if I want to spend that much, but I am open to looking at the EQ8R or the CEM70.

Jerry Gerber:
Hello!

I've been discussing this mount with a few owners and I am hearing mixed opinions.   I am considering setting up either a 130mm refractor or a 185mm refractor at a remote imaging hosting site.   If I go with the smaller refractor I'll put it on the AM5.  I already have this combination and it works great.  But if I go with the larger refractor I'll need a mount that can support more weight.  I love strain-wave mounts, so I am trying to find the very best one that can support nearly 50 lbs. 

I am looking at the HAE69B.  It has the electronics for WiFi on the mount itself, so no handset is needed.  That's an improvement.  I am also wondering if having an encoder on only one axis makes much of a difference; I'll be autoguiding so I don't know if an encoder will help with that.  If it would, I'd get it, if not, I won't.

I have been using the HAE69ec(b version with iMate) exclusively for the last 5 months. I have an AG Optical FA12 12.5" OTA that weighs about 50-55lbs after factoring in accessories. I have it in my backyard so I can't comment on its remote performance, but I can say the mount has been consistent after I dialed in the settings in the ASIair, which essentially is PHD2 light. 

It has been a very solid mount. I think my guiding is largley limited by my seeing. On good nights it tracks at about 0.3-0.4". On average nights 0.35-0.5". The value of the encoder on the RA is not for using it unguided, because I don't recommend using it that way. But if you used the AM5 you are familiar with the need to use fast exposures for guiding, no more than 1 second. It can be challenging to do that if you have a small FOV/ high focal length especially when tracking galaxies. With the encoder on the RA I have found that it guides very well even with exposures upto 3-4 seconds, which means you can guide on more stars and fainter stars. 

Jerry Gerber:
But what I am hearing from several people is that though the machining quality is excellent, polar alignment is not very responsive.   I'm now able to polar align the AM5 in less than 10 minutes, and get it under 1" on both altitude and Azimuth.   I know that if I set it up at a permanent installation I'll only be polar aligning once or maybe several times over a couple of years, but I still would prefer not to struggle with that.

Polar alignment has been extremely easy for me, just like the AM5. I have my HAE69ec mounted on the iOptron tripier 360a and I can PA in 5-10 minutes from scratch. More importantly it holds very well from night to night even when I bump it because I cover it with the TG 365 every night with the OTA, and it does not change much. 

Any comments one which strain-wave mount would work well with the Askar 185 triplet? 

Thanks!
Jerry

I have not used a 185 triplet, but my AGO FA12 is both heavier, and has a smaller image scale, with a center of mass that is farther out from the mount rotation axis than the Askar 185 apo. I'd imagine if it can handle my large AG Optical Truss, it should handle the Askar 185, but that is just an assumption.

The last 8 images I have published on my AB were all captured with the HAE69ec and the AG Optical FA12.

Jerry Gerber:
Thanks Ashraf! 
Jerry

Happy to help! BTW if you do decide to get the HAE69, I don't recommend the iMate version at all.  You lose the ability to connect to it via Wifi to control the mount. It only supports Wifi to connect to the iMate. Instead I recommend you get the C version, which does not have the imate. It also offers a USB-C port for direct control of the mount directly on the saddle. 

That is of course, unless you are completely happy with using the iMate remotely with Ekos / Kstars.

Ryan Wierckx:
For a remote setup I would recommend a traditional GEM rather than a strain wave mount. As Reg mentioned, their only real benefit is having less size and weight over traditional mounts. For a remote system, you want MORE size and weight rather than less, to improve stability, or at the very least, weight is a non-issue.

If you are attached to iOptron, the CEM series, I hear, is excellent. I managed to find a second hand AP 900 GTO for around the same price.

As for polar alignment, you'll only do it once as you mentioned. A device akin to the QHY Polemaster makes it pretty simple with most mounts. It is further aided by the fact there will be other mounts right next to yours already on the pole, so you can get pretty close just by eye.

I am also at DSP Remote -  Observatory 8. You'll love it.

I don't see a problem with the CEM70 recommendation either. It has a homing switch in it as well, which is very nice to have for remote usage. If a new 10 Micron isn't in the cards, going used for an AP mount or other premium offering is a good strategy as well.

I'm also in Building 8 at DSP Remote. My rig is directly south of Ryan's. 


​​​​​

Hey Bill and Reg,

I am still thinking about whether I want to go remote.  I hate flying, and I will have to fly to Tucson and rent a car to get there to setup, test and troubleshoot.  On the other hand, no more frustration at trying to image from my backyard when at 5pm the sky is perfectly clear but by 8pm the fog has rolled in (almost a given). 

If I decide to to it, I will definitely choose DSP Remote.  I've had several email discussions with Ed Thomas and he is very knowledgeable. He did say that Ioptron mounts are "garbage" although he said his partner uses them.   It seemed like a harsh judgement considering how many fine images I've seen taken with the CEM70.  I can easily afford the 10Micron 1000 mount, but am wondering if I should spend that amount.    Any other suggestions for an excellent mount for a 130mm or a 185mm refractor?

Jerry

Jerry Gerber:

Ryan Wierckx:
For a remote setup I would recommend a traditional GEM rather than a strain wave mount. As Reg mentioned, their only real benefit is having less size and weight over traditional mounts. For a remote system, you want MORE size and weight rather than less, to improve stability, or at the very least, weight is a non-issue.

If you are attached to iOptron, the CEM series, I hear, is excellent. I managed to find a second hand AP 900 GTO for around the same price.

As for polar alignment, you'll only do it once as you mentioned. A device akin to the QHY Polemaster makes it pretty simple with most mounts. It is further aided by the fact there will be other mounts right next to yours already on the pole, so you can get pretty close just by eye.

I am also at DSP Remote -  Observatory 8. You'll love it.

I don't see a problem with the CEM70 recommendation either. It has a homing switch in it as well, which is very nice to have for remote usage. If a new 10 Micron isn't in the cards, going used for an AP mount or other premium offering is a good strategy as well.

I'm also in Building 8 at DSP Remote. My rig is directly south of Ryan's. 


​​​​​

Hey Bill and Reg,

I am still thinking about whether I want to go remote.  I hate flying, and I will have to fly to Tucson and rent a car to get there to setup, test and troubleshoot.  On the other hand, no more frustration at trying to image from my backyard when at 5pm the sky is perfectly clear but by 8pm the fog has rolled in (almost a given). 

If I decide to to it, I will definitely choose DSP Remote.  I've had several email discussions with Ed Thomas and he is very knowledgeable. He did say that Ioptron mounts are "garbage" although he said his partner uses them.   It seemed like a harsh judgement considering how many fine images I've seen taken with the CEM70.  I can easily afford the 10Micron 1000 mount, but am wondering if I should spend that amount.    Any other suggestions for an excellent mount for a 130mm or a 185mm refractor?

Jerry

A 130mm and 185mm refractor are two completely different animals. I strongly urge you to see the size of these things in person. A 130mm refractor isn't that large. A 185mm refractor is extremely large (mostly lengthwise) and will be very heavy in comparison. 

A proper mount for a 185mm refractor is an AP900/1100 or similar products from other manufacturers. 

A proper mount for a 130mm refractor would definitely include the previously discussed CEM70.

I get the feeling that throwing around aperture dimensions like this is an indication that the true size, length, and weight of these two instruments is not understood. Don't make the mistake of getting aperture fever and being completely surprised when a mammoth sized telescope appears.

Bill
​​​​​​

Jerry Gerber:

Ryan Wierckx:
For a remote setup I would recommend a traditional GEM rather than a strain wave mount. As Reg mentioned, their only real benefit is having less size and weight over traditional mounts. For a remote system, you want MORE size and weight rather than less, to improve stability, or at the very least, weight is a non-issue.

If you are attached to iOptron, the CEM series, I hear, is excellent. I managed to find a second hand AP 900 GTO for around the same price.

As for polar alignment, you'll only do it once as you mentioned. A device akin to the QHY Polemaster makes it pretty simple with most mounts. It is further aided by the fact there will be other mounts right next to yours already on the pole, so you can get pretty close just by eye.

I am also at DSP Remote -  Observatory 8. You'll love it.

I don't see a problem with the CEM70 recommendation either. It has a homing switch in it as well, which is very nice to have for remote usage. If a new 10 Micron isn't in the cards, going used for an AP mount or other premium offering is a good strategy as well.

I'm also in Building 8 at DSP Remote. My rig is directly south of Ryan's. 


​​​​​

Hey Bill and Reg,

I am still thinking about whether I want to go remote.  I hate flying, and I will have to fly to Tucson and rent a car to get there to setup, test and troubleshoot.  On the other hand, no more frustration at trying to image from my backyard when at 5pm the sky is perfectly clear but by 8pm the fog has rolled in (almost a given). 

If I decide to to it, I will definitely choose DSP Remote.  I've had several email discussions with Ed Thomas and he is very knowledgeable. He did say that Ioptron mounts are "garbage" although he said his partner uses them.   It seemed like a harsh judgement considering how many fine images I've seen taken with the CEM70.  I can easily afford the 10Micron 1000 mount, but am wondering if I should spend that amount.    Any other suggestions for an excellent mount for a 130mm or a 185mm refractor?

Jerry

A 130mm and 185mm refractor are two completely different animals. I strongly urge you to see the size of these things in person. A 130mm refractor isn't that large. A 185mm refractor is extremely large (mostly lengthwise) and will be very heavy in comparison. 

A proper mount for a 185mm refractor is an AP900/1100 or similar products from other manufacturers. 

A proper mount for a 130mm refractor would definitely include the previously discussed CEM70.

I get the feeling that throwing around aperture dimensions like this is an indication that the true size, length, and weight of these two instruments is not understood. Don't make the mistake of getting aperture fever and being completely surprised when a mammoth sized telescope appears.

Bill
​​​​​​

I own the Askar 130 PHQ and it's a great telescope.   Not that heavy or large.   I think I'd forego the 185 and get the Askar 151 PHQ, it's FL is just a bit larger than the 130 but with an f7 rather than an f7.7 focal ratio, a bit faster.  And only about 32 lbs with dovetail and rings..

Jerry Gerber:
I own the Askar 130 PHQ and it's a great telescope.   Not that heavy or large.   I think I'd forego the 185 and get the Askar 151 PHQ, it's FL is just a bit larger than the 130 but with an f7 rather than an f7.7 focal ratio, a bit faster.  And only about 32 lbs with dovetail and rings..

Yeah the 130mm scopes are in that sweet spot. Not too large, not too small, and not too heavy. 

In any case, it is important to not just look at the weight of a telescope when considering a mount. The length of the scope, in focus with all of your gear attached to it, is more important and will help inform the decision of which mount is correct for your application, moreso than just looking at weight will. 

AP has this graph they show for their Mach 2 mount. As you will see the height and the length of the gear attached needs to be considered, in addition to the weight. So, don't make the mistake of reading the weight capacity of a mount and putting a scope way too long or way too tall on it. Or a combination of both...