Dave (and Niall and Dr. Clay and all),
Many thanks for your help. Sorry I did not sign myself -- name is Pieter
Strauss (Spraudp is a tag I can't figure out how to change).
To correct a misapprehension, when I had made a correction and "recentered the
star" I did use the handbox, so I wasn't undoing the adjustment.
"Star in the south" was B scorpii, and later in the evening Antares, so I was
on the meridian, but closer to the ecliptic than the equator. The moon was
pretty bright, so I had to go for fairly bright stars.
If I could sum up your advice, I was not clear (on this new wedge) which way
the adjustment would move the wedge east and west. For a reasonably intelligent
person, I am very bad at spatial relationships (left and right and up and down
when looking through a variety of optical systems).
So for next time, I will:
1. Write it down (thanks, Niall!).
2. Verify which way each adjustment moves the wedge before I start the
process.
3. Keep going until I get it right.

I am still confused about my problems getting the "star in the west" to change
its apparent motion. So let me ask this, to see if I understand the directions
from the Eagle Creek Observatory site:
With illuminating reticule crosshairs properly aligned to the LX90, it is
clear what up and down motions are when working with the star in the south.
However, when I point the LX90 to the star in the west (I can't see the east
from my site), I am confused as to up and down are. I decided that the
crosshairs which were level with the southern horizon when doing the star in the
south are still the reference ones. When working with the star in the west,
they are nearly vertical. Therefore I orient my head to the eyepiece the same
way as when working with the star in the south. "rising" is now rising above
these crosshairs, and "falling" is falling below these crosshairs.
Am I right? Or was I trying to correct the wrong motion?
My eternal gratitude to the one who can 'splain this to a spatially challenged
old guy.

CS
Pieter Strauss

--- In lx90@yahoogroups.com, "DaveE" <astrostar@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Spraudp,
>
> I am no expert on the various methods of alignment, but reading your
> account, especially step 2, it reads as if you made an initiate
> adjustment and then to re-centre the star have undone that adjustment?
> The way I understand things is to make the adjustemnt as you appear to
> have done, but then to re-centre the star using the Handbox slew
> buttons. Measure the new drift rate and repeat accordingly. This applies
> to each axis in turn.
>
> Having made one set of corrections, i.e. RA and Azimuth, you would be
> advised to go back to RA, and re-check. This is due to the coupling
> effect of the mount if not perfectly manufactured, few are, to have the
> axes purpendicular to each other.
>
> I admit to have very good results when using WCS. The only odd thing
> about it is having to make the actual correction for the Azimuth error
> using a star in the South. Again though, when re-centrering the star
> after making each mount adjustment, you use the Handbox.
>
> I'm sorry, if after writing this, I have mis-understood your text but
> for me that's how it read.
>
> Equally, I hope this will have been of some help to you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dave
>
> PS As you might see, I've been trying out the beta rich text editor.
>
> --- In lx90@yahoogroups.com, "spraudp" <pieters@> wrote:
> >
> > Don't know if everybody is totally tired of this topic, but here goes!
> I'm pretty well ready to give up on drift alignment, and just get used
> to jellyfish stars in my images.
> > 1. Rig detailed below. Following drift alignment process provided by
> Eagle Creek Observatory website for LX90.
> > 2. RA adjustment: star in south drifts down. Spend 1 hour of 5 minute
> drifts, with 1/4 turns on RA adjuster (Mitty wedge). Cannot detect any
> difference in rate of drift -- but I am turning the wedge, because I
> have to bring the scope back to the star to start the next drift.
> > 3. What the heck! Maybe I'm turning it the wrong way (but shouldn't I
> see an increase in drift rate? Guestimate how far to turn it back, then
> start the adjustment process in the opposite direction, with
> increasingly aggressive adjustments. After 1 hour the star does now seem
> to drift only to the right, not down.
> > 4. DEC adjustment: star in the west drifts down. I understand I am
> using a star in the west, not east, and try to adjust accordingly. Spend
> 1 hour trying first both lowering and raising the wedge tilt plate.
> Cannot detect any increase in rate or direction of drift. Decide to hang
> self after tidying up OBS.
> > 5. Park scope. Position is now well off the original 90 degree mark.
> Return scope to 90 degree mark. In finder, Polaris is now in lower left
> quadrant, whereas it was in the upper left quadrant just after Kochab's
> clock alignment.
> > 6. Perform Jimmy D/triangle alignment, close up OBS, decide not to
> hang self.
> > Question is: shouldn't I have detected a marked increase in drift
> and/or direction during these adjustments? I know the Mitty adjuster is
> very fine, but I increased the aggressiveness of the adjustments (1/4
> turn, 1/2 turn, finally 1 turn), but could detect no significant
> improvement, especially in the DEC adjustment phase.
> >
> > Any advice, or should I just learn to love jellyfish?
> >
> > Rig:
> > Permanent Skyshed pier, new Mitty wedge, 8" LX90 classic, Meade 12 mm
> illuminated reticule eyepiece in Meade supplied diagonal. Meade supplied
> straight-thru 50 mm finder, crosshairs aligned to RA and DEC of scope.
> Performed Kochab's clock alignment before drift alignment. Performed 1
> star alignment on LX90. LX90 was setup as best I can with arms parallel,
> and fairly well balanced. (Was balanced for cameras attached, which I
> had to leave off so I could get at the finder.) Location latitude 40,
> longitude 105. Autostar 43Eg installed.
> >
> > PS Tried WCS, but the two nights I spent on it had me adjusting the
> scope practically out of the state, so decided straight drift alignment
> was the way to go.
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>