Mount specifications??

I can't find any information on the load bearing capability of
the mounts themselves, though.

It isn't just Celestron.

Losmandy gives weight limits for their mounts. For example their G-11 is rated
at 60 lbs.

I can't find any information on the load bearing capability of
the mounts themselves, though.

It isn't just Celestron.

Losmandy gives weight limits for their mounts. For example their G-11 is rated
at 60 lbs.

I can't find any information on the load bearing capability of
the mounts themselves, though.

It isn't just Celestron.

Losmandy gives weight limits for their mounts. For example their G-11 is rated
at 60 lbs.

Losmandy gives weight limits for their mounts. For example their G-11 is
rated
at 60 lbs.

Even when the weight is specified, the other important factor is the length of
the OTA, a 60Lb SCT is easier on a mount than a a 60lb Newt that is 6 feet
long...

jon

Losmandy gives weight limits for their mounts. For example their G-11 is
rated
at 60 lbs.

Even when the weight is specified, the other important factor is the length of
the OTA, a 60Lb SCT is easier on a mount than a a 60lb Newt that is 6 feet
long...

jon

Losmandy gives weight limits for their mounts. For example their G-11 is
rated
at 60 lbs.

Even when the weight is specified, the other important factor is the length of
the OTA, a 60Lb SCT is easier on a mount than a a 60lb Newt that is 6 feet
long...

jon

Edward Smith wrote in message . ..
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.

A mount has two purposes, A) to allow the telescope to be pointed at
any object in the sky, B) to allow such movement with delicate movement
and without vibration.

A) just requires 2 orthogonal axes, while B) requires the scope be in
near perfect balance, have bearings with little stiction, and be STIFF.


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.

Its not the weight, its the moment or inertia--e.g. how weight is
distributed. Take this mount and put 100 pounds of lead right at the
center of the axes. Mount moves freely, vibration is not induced.

Take 1/2 the lead and mount it 4 feet from the axes, and mount the
other 1/2 at 4 feet in the other direction, and bingo, big vibration
problems.

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.

You might notice that in the past the bigger telescopes would spend
as much money on the mount as they would on the rest of the system!

So what leads to this insufficient mounts from every major vendor?
Cost! What can you do about it? A) make your own, B) go DOB, C) only
buy the better systems.

Edward Smith wrote in message . ..
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.

A mount has two purposes, A) to allow the telescope to be pointed at
any object in the sky, B) to allow such movement with delicate movement
and without vibration.

A) just requires 2 orthogonal axes, while B) requires the scope be in
near perfect balance, have bearings with little stiction, and be STIFF.


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.

Its not the weight, its the moment or inertia--e.g. how weight is
distributed. Take this mount and put 100 pounds of lead right at the
center of the axes. Mount moves freely, vibration is not induced.

Take 1/2 the lead and mount it 4 feet from the axes, and mount the
other 1/2 at 4 feet in the other direction, and bingo, big vibration
problems.

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.

You might notice that in the past the bigger telescopes would spend
as much money on the mount as they would on the rest of the system!

So what leads to this insufficient mounts from every major vendor?
Cost! What can you do about it? A) make your own, B) go DOB, C) only
buy the better systems.

Edward Smith wrote in message . ..
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.

A mount has two purposes, A) to allow the telescope to be pointed at
any object in the sky, B) to allow such movement with delicate movement
and without vibration.

A) just requires 2 orthogonal axes, while B) requires the scope be in
near perfect balance, have bearings with little stiction, and be STIFF.


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.

Its not the weight, its the moment or inertia--e.g. how weight is
distributed. Take this mount and put 100 pounds of lead right at the
center of the axes. Mount moves freely, vibration is not induced.

Take 1/2 the lead and mount it 4 feet from the axes, and mount the
other 1/2 at 4 feet in the other direction, and bingo, big vibration
problems.

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.

You might notice that in the past the bigger telescopes would spend
as much money on the mount as they would on the rest of the system!

So what leads to this insufficient mounts from every major vendor?
Cost! What can you do about it? A) make your own, B) go DOB, C) only
buy the better systems.

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/