Mount Specifications?

In my search for the right telescope, I've become a bit confused about
mounts. I find I like the German Equatorial mounts in general, they
make sense to me, but I'm a bit confused about what I'm reading.

Now, let me begin by saying that I'm an engineer and I may be making
this whole thing too complicated. If I am, feel free to slap me and
be done with it.

I've been reading what the "standard" telescope comes with in a
package. Now, Celestron sells a wide variety of their telescopes with
a CG-5 mount. These telescopes weigh anywhere from 25 pounds to over
100. I can't find any information on the load bearing capability of
the mounts themselves, though.

It isn't just Celestron. Orion, Meade, everybody seems to do the same
thing.

So where is there information on mounts? A telescope that wobbles and
vibrates all over the place isn't going to be much good.

"Edward Smith" wrote in message
...
Now, let me begin by saying that I'm an engineer and I may be making
this whole thing too complicated. If I am, feel free to slap me and
be done with it.

Nope, you hit the nail on the head. The mount is critical and there is no
standard way to rate them. Even the social contract of "diffraction
limited" means more than mount specs.

I've been reading what the "standard" telescope comes with in a
package. Now, Celestron sells a wide variety of their telescopes with
a CG-5 mount. These telescopes weigh anywhere from 25 pounds to over
100. I can't find any information on the load bearing capability of
the mounts themselves, though.

You won't get a CG-5 to hold anywhere close to 100 lbs. You need to modify
the tripod to get it to hold much over 25.

It isn't just Celestron. Orion, Meade, everybody seems to do the same
thing.

Yes.

So where is there information on mounts? A telescope that wobbles and
vibrates all over the place isn't going to be much good.

Mostly you ask around. There are specialized groups at Yahoo for scopes and
mounts both. Those give good places to start, as well as meade-uncensored
etc.

There are several factors to consider. First, visual requirements are not
nearly as stiff as what you need for long-term photo work. Then there
weight. And tube length needs to be taken into account. A heavy but short
tube is easier to hold steady than a lighter but longer OTA. Then there is
the mount itself, the tripod and the hub. You mentioned the CG-5 as an
example. If you swap out the hub and put in some legs you can really tighten
down or a pier, it becomes a fairly substantial mount, completely different
from the original. Some of the has been taken care of with the new tripods,
but there is still room for improvement.

All together, it means there are no standard ways of rating a mount and you
just need to ask around to find out what a mount will really hold. Even
then, it is best to find the local astroclub and see if somebody has the
mount you are interested in and will let you see it for yourself.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
************************************************** **********