Re: Celestron CG-5 GT question (GEM question in general)


"John Banister" <banister@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dnmqru0bjf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I've got a CG5 GT on the way, maybe arriving today. What are some of
> the quirks I should look out for? Thanks.
>
> -John Banister
>
> "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1134406645.182610.165790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> As for the CG5 GT, once you get used to a few of its quirks, it is very
>> accurate indeed, as (or slightly more) accurate than the Celestron GPS
>> scopes.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Rod Mollise
Over the years, many of the hardware problems have been fixed (for
instance, the worm gear now has ball bearings to take the thrust, instead
of a rubber 'O' ring). The greases used are still not what many people
would like, but in most climates work OK (replacing with better lubricants
is a worthwhile service item in a while, but is no longer the 'essential'
change it used to be, unless you are in colder eniviroments...).
Personally, I'd start by replacing the power lead with something a little
more substantial (the bit of thin wire they provide is very poor, and
given that the scope likes a nice 'solid' supply, does not help it...).
Some people feel that the default 'startup' position, really has the head
180 degrees from where it should be placed, since the second 'safety'
clamp bolt next to the main locking bolt on the dovetail faces in the
direction that doesn't help it to lock if needed. If you have a heavy
scope in particular, it may be worth considering moving the initial
alignment marker by 180 degrees to rectify this. Depending on your
handcontroller version, there can be some odd behaviours, especially when
selecting targets like the Moon/Mars, with apparently random slews in the
'wrong' direction. If you don't see these, don't put too much weight on
the mount (honestly, the larger scopes that Celestron offer on this are
too big for the mount) and are lucky with the overall fit/assembly of the
unit, I personally feel this is one of the best value mounts around.
I suspect the 'oddities', being mentioned by Rod, are the random slews,
and these come from two sources. One is perhaps some firmware problems,
and these are then augmented by power, with the faults definiately
becoming more frequent if the supply is dubious. With a good supply, and
the modern handcontroller, they are now rare.

Good Luck


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Zhumell vs. Celestron vs. Meade
    ... First off none of these scopes on their present mount will be adequate ... The Zhumell seems to be a full length. ... >Celestron FirstScope 114 EQ Short Newtonian Reflector ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Galaxies OT: telescopes?
    ... it is the mount that is bad. ... In my experience they have terrible optics, ... optics is paramount in astronomy. ... operate the same way and cheap scopes always tout magnification - this ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: Zhumell vs. Celestron vs. Meade
    ... > You cannot get a good telescope on a decent mount for $200. ... scopes on perfectly adequate mounts. ... motor drive is *not* a necessity. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: GM8 Question...
    ... > stable than the Gm8, however in my case, if I had purchased the G11 I ... > the best telescope and mount is the one that you will use the most. ... >> While a GM-8 would no doubt work for the two refractor scopes I mention ... >> you can somehow leave the 3 Tripod Legs, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Agilent 6000 Oscilloscopes
    ... >> rates competitive with Tek 3000 series scopes, for similar prices. ... These seem like compelling scopes. ... Some of the quirks take a bit ...
    (sci.electronics.design)