Re: Users of CG5 mount
From: Bettrel (bettrel_at_aol.com)
Date: 08/21/04
- Next message: John C. Polasek: "Re: PHOTO OF THE WEEK, Barnard's Star"
- Previous message: BllFs6: "Getting amateurs to visit DARK sites..."
- In reply to: Carsten A. Arnholm: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Next in thread: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Reply: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Reply: Chris1011: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Aug 2004 18:32:58 GMT
"Yes, and if you throw out the bearings, the paper thin die cast parts that
resemble Swiss cheese internally, and a few other bits and pieces, you might be
on the road to something great!
Happy hunting
Unca Rollo"
While I think you're overstating the deficiencies of the mounts, it's easy to
point out how "bad" they are in many ways without pointing out where one can
get a comparable mount with comparable load capacity for the same price. Not
everyone is in the position to afford a mount made my Losmandy, Takahashi, AP,
Software Bisque, etc.. Would it be better to not be able to observe at all
because of the complete lack of a mount until you can afford one that passes
your criteria for quality? I could understand this attitude if they charged as
much as, say, the Vixen GP mounts, but... come on, they're practically _giving_
the scopes away some telescopes, charging, what, $100 or so premium for a
mounted scope versus the OTA alone? It _is_ an elitist attitude and it _is_
very annoying. Not unlike Marie Antoinette's alleged "Let them eat cake."
comment. I would love to have one of those better mounts... but when it's a
choice between one of those and paying for college and general living expenses,
I can live with my CG5 that, apparently, isn't suited to hold any telescope and
tracks every way but east to west and every speed other than 1RPD. Of course,
the fact that it can hold my C9.25", Telerad, 8x50 finder, AP Maxbright
diagonal and exhibit only 2-3 seconds of visible shaking with a good rap to the
scope and track for long enough periods of time to suit me just fine must be
all an illusion, right?
>In some cases a belt/pulley solution is simpler & better. This is one such
>case, as that is what I have on my mounts and I know it works. It would be a
>good idea IMHO if someone mass produced belt & pulley kits for existing
>mounts. It would probably be cheaper than very accurate spurs, and it
>eliminates the high frequency problem 100%
>
>All you need to do is remove 2 spur gears & replace them with 2 pulleys and
>a belt. If the kits were easily/cheaply available, anyone could do the fix
>to their mount.
>In some cases a belt/pulley solution is simpler & better. This is one such
>case, as that is what I have on my mounts and I know it works. It would be a
>good idea IMHO if someone mass produced belt & pulley kits for existing
>mounts. It would probably be cheaper than very accurate spurs, and it
>eliminates the high frequency problem 100%
>
>All you need to do is remove 2 spur gears & replace them with 2 pulleys and
>a belt. If the kits were easily/cheaply available, anyone could do the fix
>to their mount.
>
>Clear skies
>Carsten A. Arnholm
>http://arnholm.org/
>N59.776 E10.457
>
>
Sounds like a great idea to me, I'm all for it. Now who's going to figure out
and market this puppy, huh? I'd certainly look into buying it and I'm sure I'm
not the only one.
Tonya
- Next message: John C. Polasek: "Re: PHOTO OF THE WEEK, Barnard's Star"
- Previous message: BllFs6: "Getting amateurs to visit DARK sites..."
- In reply to: Carsten A. Arnholm: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Next in thread: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Reply: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Reply: Chris1011: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|