Skywatcher Wave150i Review

[@bluegrassastro]

I have posted a screen shot of the PHD graph in the community tab.

[@landi05]

Thanks for the Review and Unboxing, one of the best reviews yet of the Wave 150i in my opinion

[@bluegrassastro]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@annikasoraya4322]

Weldone mate!

[@siegfriednoet]

Very nice review, that Wave 150 mount looks really interesting. But I wonder why nobody on the internet does a real test with heavy payloads on these strainwave mounts. That being said, I would never trust that tripod ...

[@bluegrassastro]

Thanks. The tripod is the problem for more weight. When the adapter for the EQ6-R tripod comes out in January, I'll test with a large refractor and a SCT. Not willing to chance it with the CF tripod.

[@siegfriednoet]

@@bluegrassastro Thanks, looking forward to you review with larger payload.

[@KJRitch]

Thank you for taking a chance on this new mount. I’m surprised the typical influencers haven’t been given mounts to throughly review yet. Low carbon, what nonsense. Looks like once you adjust the altitude you can’t put the mount back in the case. I have to set up and tear down every session and would need to put the mount back in the case. Guess you have to cut the foam. Looks like guiding worked out great. How did your orthogonal graph come out in PHD2, right angle? Did the Guiding Assistant show any backlash in the pyramid graph?

[@bluegrassastro]

You are very welcome. Yes, you have to move the altitude back in order to place it back into the case. Another slight issue, if you use their pier extension, it requires tools (allen wrench) to remove three screws in order to remove. If you are going to be placing it back into the case each time, this is sort of a pain. I have posted a screen shot of the PHD graph in the community tab. There was almost zero backlash and the graph was a perfect right angle. I've had clouds since my first night, but hope to get it back our early next week for some more star time.

[@HeavenlyBackyardAstronomy]

I've been looking at this mount to replace my Celestron CGX mount (which is showing its age) and host the big Celestron 11" Edge scope. I am impressed with its statistics, and seeing it functioning in the field shows that those stats are very real. One of the reasons I prefer investing in this mount vs. the AM5N is the issue of being able to balance in the declination axis. I understand your mount has a clutch for this axis; is that correct? BTW, I went to Murray State University many, many years ago and now live in Savannah, GA. Clear skies - Patrick -

[@bluegrassastro]

Pat, Love your channel. I went to your rival school, also a long time ago, Western Ky Univ. The releases are not actually clutches, but rather locking pins. You remove them and the axis can move freely for a limited amount. It would certainly allow you to balance in either axis. Clear skies.

[@JonnyBravo0311]

The 11" EdgeHD is not a scope I'd be comfortable strapping to a 150i or AM5N. Assuming your imaging camera is one of the modern 3.76 micron pixel sensors, even with a 0.7x reducer, you're at an image scale of 0.4"/px. No way these small strain wave gear mounts are going to track/guide well enough to support that scale.

[@HeavenlyBackyardAstronomy]

@@JonnyBravo0311 Good to know. Thank you, Johnny

[@lcmattern]

​@JonnyBravo0311 I would say it depends. The reason I say this, is people have had great success with 8" edge hd on the old am5. In addition, assuming you have paid for it, blur exterminator does a fantastic job correcting misshapen stars. I am on the trial and blown away what it does with my images from a 6"sct taken on a star adventure gti. (Yes i am at 15lbs payload on a mout rated for 11lbs)

[@siegfriednoet]

@@lcmattern If you have to rely on software to have round stars than I guess there is something wrong in your setup ....

[@mtnphot]

my question is with the usb and power connections running through the mount, why do you have so much stuff on top of the scope. makes sense if you don't have connections through the mount but not the way it is now. Just because the mount can handle the weight, it doesn't need to hold it all. By the way, with a usb connection on the mount, an eqdirect cable is unneccesary.

[@bluegrassastro]

I'm not using an EQ Direct cable, I'm using a USB connection for the mount. The only device on the top that could be moved down would be the mini PC. That would require another power connection below the mount instead of using the Pocket Power Box. I don't see the purpose in that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment.

[@mtnphot]

@@bluegrassastro All that stuff on top of your scope does not need to be there. You have feed through power and feed through usb. Why add weight to a mount when you don't need to especially at the top where it affects balance. Your PC and power bank can be on the mount tripod just as well where it does not affect the mount capacity and balance.

[@bluegrassastro]

@@mtnphot That defeats the purpose of the through-the-mount cabling. I would then have to have three usb cables (main camera, guide camera, and focuser), and two dew heater cables all running to the top of the mount. This substantially increases the possible of cable snag. The mini pc and power box and extremely light weight and have a negligible impact on the balance. This is the sole purpose of the through-the-mount cable design.