|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ ************************************************** ********** |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CUREA 2004 at Mount Wilson Observatory now accepting applications | Mike Simmons | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | February 27th 04 02:40 AM |
Mount specifications?? | Edward Smith | Amateur Astronomy | 49 | January 14th 04 05:07 PM |