VintageBigBlue.org

 

Re: [Losmandy_users] Re: Payload Capacity of G11


Apr 30, 2001

 


----------------------------

#3875 Apr 30, 2001

I would appreciate your opinion on the "practical" load capacity of a Gemini

equipped G-11, intended primarily for visual observing, with occasional 35mm

eyepiece projection photography of the moon and brighter planets. Are the

figures quoted by Losmandy exaggerated or can I expect reasonable tracking.

I intend to manually guide.



Thanks,



Frank



----------------------------

#21004 Jun 5, 2004

I'd like to get some opinions here please. This application would be

for very casual Star Party viewing. No photography. No GOTO, just a

pushto version. What are your thoughts of putting a Meade 10 SCT OTA

on this mount. I know its right at its load capacity of 30 lbs. Has

anyone ever pushed the mount this far? Do you think the mount has any

headroom built into it or is that an absolute spec or is it even over

spec'd ?? Wonder if there'd be a problem of stalling at the zenith.

Thanks for your candid comments.

Pat



----------------------------

#21017 Jun 5, 2004

Hi Pat,

I have about 25 or more pounds on my GM-8, and I using it for CCD

imaging at 900mm focal length. I would expect it would handle a 10"

SCT OK, although it's probably not ideal. It won't hurt the mount

to have 30 pounds on it, but it won't be as steady as a G-11.



I also put a 8" SCT on mine which it handles very easily, as it

should.



I like the GM-8 because it's very portable.



Phil S.





--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "patbrahaney" pcygnus@h...>

wrote: > I'd like to get some opinions here please. This application would

be > for very casual Star Party viewing. No photography. No GOTO, just

a > pushto version. What are your thoughts of putting a Meade 10 SCT

OTA > on this mount. I know its right at its load capacity of 30 lbs.

Has > anyone ever pushed the mount this far? Do you think the mount has

any > headroom built into it or is that an absolute spec or is it even

over > spec'd ?? Wonder if there'd be a problem of stalling at the

zenith. > Thanks for your candid comments.

> Pat



----------------------------

#21019 Jun 5, 2004

Pat,



If I'm not mistaken, the C11 (carbon tube) is lighter than the Meade 10"

so if you insist on putting that large of a scope on the GM-8 then I would

recommend going with the Celestron.



I don't think you'll have stalling problems if your scope is properly

balanced.



However, IMO the 10" Meade and C11 are too large for the GM-8...the C9.25

is the biggest SCT that I would recommend on a GM-8. Now, the G-11 is

another story, it will handle the C11 for astrophotography and a C14 for

visual.



If you decide to stick with the GM-8, at least consider upgrading the

tripod to the G-11 tripod or similar (I would have recommended a permanent

pier, but you said this is for star party use...so 'permanent' doesn't make

sense, right?).



Forrest Egan

fegan@...

www.digitalastro.com





-----Original Message-----

From: patbrahaney [mailto:pcygnus@...]

Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 7:42 AM

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Losmandy_users] GM-8 Load Capacity





I'd like to get some opinions here please. This application would be

for very casual Star Party viewing. No photography. No GOTO, just a

pushto version. What are your thoughts of putting a Meade 10 SCT OTA

on this mount. I know its right at its load capacity of 30 lbs. Has

anyone ever pushed the mount this far? Do you think the mount has any

headroom built into it or is that an absolute spec or is it even over

spec'd ?? Wonder if there'd be a problem of stalling at the zenith.

Thanks for your candid comments.

Pat



----------------------------

#21032 Jun 6, 2004

Guys, Thanks! Yes, I've had the same gut feelings about the mount.

I do have a G11 with a C14 and love it. It has become permanently

mounted in my Observatory so, I'm left with no alternate rig for

star parties. The work that I've gone through leveling, aligning,

and balancing, I just dont want to disturb that! I already had

the 10" so I was wishfully hoping for some opinions that could

support the aquisition of a GM 8. I dont really favor investing

in "economy" equipment but there is a mount that will definetly

support it. I'd rather invest in something that holds its value a

bit better and Loasmandy surely does that. Thanks for your advise,

Pat







--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Forrest Egan" fegan@b...>

wrote: > Pat,

>

> If I'm not mistaken, the C11 (carbon tube) is lighter than the

Meade 10" > so if you insist on putting that large of a scope on the GM-8 then

I would > recommend going with the Celestron.

>

> I don't think you'll have stalling problems if your scope is

properly > balanced.

>

> However, IMO the 10" Meade and C11 are too large for the GM-

8...the C9.25 > is the biggest SCT that I would recommend on a GM-8. Now, the G-

11 is > another story, it will handle the C11 for astrophotography and a

C14 for > visual.

>

> If you decide to stick with the GM-8, at least consider

upgrading the > tripod to the G-11 tripod or similar (I would have recommended a

permanent > pier, but you said this is for star party use...so 'permanent'

doesn't make > sense, right?).

>

> Forrest Egan

> fegan@d...

> www.digitalastro.com

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: patbrahaney [mailto:pcygnus@h...]

> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 7:42 AM

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> Subject: [Losmandy_users] GM-8 Load Capacity

>

>

> I'd like to get some opinions here please. This application would

be > for very casual Star Party viewing. No photography. No GOTO, just a

> pushto version. What are your thoughts of putting a Meade 10 SCT

OTA > on this mount. I know its right at its load capacity of 30 lbs. Has

> anyone ever pushed the mount this far? Do you think the mount has

any > headroom built into it or is that an absolute spec or is it even

over > spec'd ?? Wonder if there'd be a problem of stalling at the

zenith. > Thanks for your candid comments.

> Pat







----------------------------

#21198 Jun 20, 2004

Has anyone put a Meade 14" OTA on a G11? Is this a stupid idea (for

visual only)? The Meade is $2k less than the C14 tube for some

inexplicable reason. I can't seem to get a weight spec on the Meade.



Thanks



Rob Fields (zrfields@...)



----------------------------

#21200 Jun 20, 2004

Hi Rob, Meade themselves should be able to supply you with this

information readily. Go to Meade's Website, get thier toll free

number, and give them a holler.



The G-11 is a fine mount, but is just about maxxed out with a C-14.

I believe the Meade 14 is slightly heavier, but I'm not entirely

sure. For visual, yes, that might be about it. Any breezes, and you

will have considerable shake. Mark



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "rfields005" zrfields@c...>

wrote: > Has anyone put a Meade 14" OTA on a G11? Is this a stupid idea

(for > visual only)? The Meade is $2k less than the C14 tube for some

> inexplicable reason. I can't seem to get a weight spec on the

Meade. >

> Thanks

>

> Rob Fields (zrfields@c...)



----------------------------

#21203 Jun 21, 2004

Hello Rob

I have had a C-14 on my G-11 for a couple of years now and am very

pleased with the overall performance. The C-14 OTA is just under 50

pounds. To this point, I have used it visually only but depending on

the weight of your camera setup, I can see it being OK for

photography so long as there is no wind. I have upgraded my G-11 to

GoTo operation with the Astrometric Skywalker system and couldn't be

happier with it.

Take care and good luck with your project.

Bernd



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "rfields005" zrfields@c...>

wrote: > Has anyone put a Meade 14" OTA on a G11? Is this a stupid idea (for

> visual only)? The Meade is $2k less than the C14 tube for some

> inexplicable reason. I can't seem to get a weight spec on the

Meade. >

> Thanks

>

> Rob Fields (zrfields@c...)



----------------------------

#21205 Jun 21, 2004

Rob,



I have a Meade 14" on a Titan, and use it for imaging. That combination works well. The ota and the dovetail weigh about 67 lbs. This may be pushing it with a G-11 for visual only. But it may work, too. Sorry for no definitive answer.



Don ----- Original Message -----

From: Bernd

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 12:26 PM

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity





Hello Rob

I have had a C-14 on my G-11 for a couple of years now and am very

pleased with the overall performance. The C-14 OTA is just under 50

pounds. To this point, I have used it visually only but depending on

the weight of your camera setup, I can see it being OK for

photography so long as there is no wind. I have upgraded my G-11 to

GoTo operation with the Astrometric Skywalker system and couldn't be

happier with it.

Take care and good luck with your project.

Bernd



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "rfields005" zrfields@c...>

wrote:

> Has anyone put a Meade 14" OTA on a G11? Is this a stupid idea (for

> visual only)? The Meade is $2k less than the C14 tube for some

> inexplicable reason. I can't seem to get a weight spec on the

Meade.

>

> Thanks

>

> Rob Fields (zrfields@c...)





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT











---------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:

groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/



b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Losmandy_users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#21221 Jun 21, 2004

Wrong. I contacted Meade about the weight of their 14" OTA before

purchasing one...they do sell this seperate...Their tech support

pesonel did not know the weight of the OTA and checked with Scott

Byrum for me...He runs the show at Meade...His reply: Quote " write

me a letter and I will foward it to engineering" O.K.... The Meade

OTA weighs 60 lbs even . I use Custom Parallax tube rings and a

Losmandy 19" dovetail. Total weight is 73-74 lbs. with my setup. On

the G-11 it felt like the mount head was going to snap in 1/2. I

only took it out twice...things were steady...no shake,Was calm

though. When pointing at the Zenith it sounded like the motor was

straining and maybe even slipping when I tried to slew the scope. I

wasn't looking thru the eyepiece at that time but I wouldn't try to

slew the mount in that extreme position. Was able to acheive perfect

balance in ra and dec but I was not using a dew shield. I think the

life of the mount would suffer at this weight limit. I purchased the

Titan mount for this OTA. $6300.00 for the Titan mount, Tripod and

Polar scope. $2500.00-$2700.00 for the Meade 14" OTA with UHTC.

$70.00 for the Losmandy 14" Meade dovetail with risers. $9070.00

plus shipping.Compare to About $5500.00 for the Meade 14 LX200

(complete package) If you can live with their mount. The 14" LX200

is supposed to be the best mount they have made to date...They still

use plastic gearing though and the forks are humoungous and weigh a

ton. A 2 man job to assemble and take down. Wayne---



In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Mark"

apoman60612@y...> wrote: > Hi Rob, Meade themselves should be able to supply you with this

> information readily. Go to Meade's Website, get thier toll free

> number, and give them a holler.

>

> The G-11 is a fine mount, but is just about maxxed out with a C-14.

> I believe the Meade 14 is slightly heavier, but I'm not entirely

> sure. For visual, yes, that might be about it. Any breezes, and

you > will have considerable shake. Mark

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "rfields005"

zrfields@c...> > wrote:

> > Has anyone put a Meade 14" OTA on a G11? Is this a stupid idea

> (for

> > visual only)? The Meade is $2k less than the C14 tube for some

> > inexplicable reason. I can't seem to get a weight spec on the

> Meade.

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Rob Fields (zrfields@c...)







----------------------------

#21231 Jun 22, 2004

Well these two posts confirm what has been stated elsewhere, to wit:

that even if you assume comparable optics, what you save ($1800 or

so, depending on what you do about coatings) on the current low price

of the Meade 60lb 14" Ota vs. the 42lb Celestron 14" OTA you more

than lose on buying the extra mount to handle it (say $6500 for the

Titan vs. $2500 for the G11 without Gemini, $3100 for G11 with

Gemini). The C14 does fine on a G11 even in 15-20mph winds for

visual use but it would not be the first choic for imaging, though I

would imagine that for short exposures it would be OK. I guess the

real "economics" of the Meade 14 is in buying and using it with the

fork, which some folks will probably do with reasonable success.



regards

Greg N



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, Don Pray dppray@d...> wrote:

> It's absolutely amazing that Meade can't give a simple fact such as

the the weight of their OTA's. I've found this typical of the whole

company philosophy, which is to be non-user friendly, and backward in

general.

>

> I've owned a 14" LX200 for eight months, and like the three other

LX200's I've had over the past three or four years, it had the

inevitable electronics failure, and had to make the long trek back to

the factory. Every time this has happened, I've been scopeless for a

month and a half. This became unacceptable to me, so I put out the

extra money, and went with a better quality mount (the Titan) and put

a Meade 14" OTA on that. Now I have MUCH better tracking than the

Meade could ever do, and a great OTA (Meade does make reliable

optics).

>

> My second scope is a G-11 with a 12.5" f/4.8 Newtonian OTA. This

load comes up to about 64lbs, and initial tests indicate tracking

during imaging will be acceptable at least up to 120 sec, which is my

requirement. The mount seems not to notice this load at all. Both

scopes will run unattended all night. The Titan has been doing so for

a few months now.

>



----------------------------

#24948 Mar 31, 2005

One way to keep the hand controller from going splat onto the ground is

to make a loop in the cord,

and use the loop to hang the hand controller on the thumbscrews that

hold the mount to the tripod.

You still have to be careful, but it isn't likely to go flying to the

ground.



Concerning GM-8 load capacity: this is going to be a function of both

weight and length of the OTA.

I have an 8" f/7 reflector that weighs (with rings and dovetail) 25

pounds. The tube is 66 inches long.

The GM-8 is absolutely solid, at least for visual observation, with this

much weight on it. At one point

I had the same telescope in some very massive rotating rings, taking the

weight up to 35 pounds.

This was perhaps a bit beyond the capacity of the GM-8; vibration was

becoming something of a problem.



Clayton E. Cramer

clayton@...

www.scoperoller.com



----------------------------

#24951 Mar 31, 2005

On an SCT I just loop the hand controller through the handle on the

rear. Since the arse of an SCT is close to the mount it works out

well. This solution might not be available for other scopes. Velcro

is nice, but it is good to have something looped or tied in case it

gets pushed off. regards Greg N



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton E. Cramer"

clayton@c...> wrote: > One way to keep the hand controller from going splat onto the ground

is > to make a loop in the cord,

> and use the loop to hang the hand controller on the thumbscrews that

> hold the mount to the tripod.



----------------------------

#27646 Oct 31, 2005

Hi all,



Wanted to know if anyone had specific experience of this setup.



I am buying a 2nd hand G11. I shall eventually be mounting an 8" lx200-

about 46lbs(less without fork arms). Add guide scope weight and ccds

etc and we must be approaching 45-50lbs. The mount can support this,

but what about it's affect on tracking accuracy for imaging -

guided/unguided?



Thanks in advance



Anthony, Bristol UK



----------------------------

#27647 Oct 31, 2005

Hi Anthony,



maybe message #27617, #27618 and #27619 answer some of your questions.



regards Rainer





>

> Hi all,

>

> Wanted to know if anyone had specific experience of this setup.

>

> I am buying a 2nd hand G11. I shall eventually be mounting an 8"

lx200- > about 46lbs(less without fork arms). Add guide scope weight and ccds

> etc and we must be approaching 45-50lbs. The mount can support this,

> but what about it's affect on tracking accuracy for imaging -

> guided/unguided?

>

> Thanks in advance

>

> Anthony, Bristol UK

>



----------------------------

#27648 Oct 31, 2005

Anthony wrote:

>Hi all,

>

>Wanted to know if anyone had specific experience of this setup.

>

>I am buying a 2nd hand G11. I shall eventually be mounting an 8" lx200-

> about 46lbs(less without fork arms). Add guide scope weight and ccds

>etc and we must be approaching 45-50lbs. The mount can support this,

>but what about it's affect on tracking accuracy for imaging -

>guided/unguided?

>

>

Anthony,



My personal experience is that a G-11 can support in excess of 60 pounds

if you can keep it out of the wind. I have a C-11 and a *lot* of extra

bits on a G-11.



www.celestial-images.com/testing.html



A picture is worth a thousand words g> Tracks well but I need to keep

it out of the wind.





Regards



Bill







----------------------------

#27650 Nov 1, 2005

Hi Rainer and William,



Thanks for the info and pointers. I have been scanning the previous

posts Rainer, but did not stumble on those ones.



Thanks again



Anthony



----------------------------

#27651 Nov 1, 2005

Anthony,

I use a Celestron C9.25 SCT with an ST80 piggybacked on it with no

problems. I don't think the C9.25 weighs 40 lbs, though. Are you

sure the Meade 8" SCT weighs that much?

Jim Smith



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony" nthnyglover@y...>

wrote: >

> Hi all,

>

> Wanted to know if anyone had specific experience of this setup.

>

> I am buying a 2nd hand G11. I shall eventually be mounting an 8"

lx200- > about 46lbs(less without fork arms). Add guide scope weight and

ccds > etc and we must be approaching 45-50lbs. The mount can support

this, > but what about it's affect on tracking accuracy for imaging -

> guided/unguided?

>

> Thanks in advance

>

> Anthony, Bristol UK

>



----------------------------

#27653 Nov 1, 2005

I have a similar setup, except using the side-by-side saddle

arrangement which adds weight too:



www.eanet.com/kodama/astro/obs/dsc_0128.htm



An 8" schmidt camera is shown in this picture, but at times I replace

it with a C11/camcorder or 6" AP with medium format camera. The G11

Gemini operates fine slewing at the default speed on a 12V power

supply and tracks fine as well. But especially with a longer scope,

as Bill says, wind will become a noticeable effect.



Dave Kodama





--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "William R. Mattil"

wrmattil@i...> wrote: >

> Anthony wrote:

>

> >Hi all,

> >

> >Wanted to know if anyone had specific experience of this setup.

> >

> >I am buying a 2nd hand G11. I shall eventually be mounting an 8" lx200-

> > about 46lbs(less without fork arms). Add guide scope weight and ccds

> >etc and we must be approaching 45-50lbs. The mount can support this,

> >but what about it's affect on tracking accuracy for imaging -

> >guided/unguided?

> >

> >

> Anthony,

>

> My personal experience is that a G-11 can support in excess of 60

pounds > if you can keep it out of the wind. I have a C-11 and a *lot* of extra

> bits on a G-11.

>

> www.celestial-images.com/testing.html

>

> A picture is worth a thousand words g> Tracks well but I need to keep

> it out of the wind.

>

>

> Regards

>

> Bill

>



----------------------------

#27659 Nov 1, 2005

Hi Jim



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "jameslexman" jksmit0@u...>

wrote: >

> I just looked it up: the Meade 8" SCT OTA weighs 19 lbs.

> Jim Smith

>

That's great news for me. I was going by the manual which lists it

at 46lbs, (including fork arm arms). So loose the fork arms and add

on your imaging train and I was worried that it was going to get on

the heavy side.



I am much happier now. Where did you find that info?



Thanks again



Anthony



----------------------------

#27660 Nov 1, 2005

I looked at the data for that OTA from Anacortes Telescope and Wild

Bird(WWW.Buytelescopes.com).



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony" nthnyglover@y...>

wrote: >

>

>

> Hi Jim

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "jameslexman"

jksmit0@u...> > wrote:

> >

> > I just looked it up: the Meade 8" SCT OTA weighs 19 lbs.

> > Jim Smith

> >

> That's great news for me. I was going by the manual which lists it

> at 46lbs, (including fork arm arms). So loose the fork arms and

add > on your imaging train and I was worried that it was going to get

on > the heavy side.

>

> I am much happier now. Where did you find that info?

>

> Thanks again

>

> Anthony

>



----------------------------

#27661 Nov 1, 2005

I'm surprised it weighs that much. I was shocked at how light the 8" was

when removing from the forks.



Tony



----- Original Message -----

From: "jameslexman" jksmit0@...>

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:58 AM

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: Load capacity: p.s.





>I just looked it up: the Meade 8" SCT OTA weighs 19 lbs.

> Jim Smith

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony" nthnyglover@y...>

> wrote:

>>

>> Hi all,

>>

>> Wanted to know if anyone had specific experience of this setup.

>>

>> I am buying a 2nd hand G11. I shall eventually be mounting an 8"

> lx200-

>> about 46lbs(less without fork arms). Add guide scope weight and

> ccds

>> etc and we must be approaching 45-50lbs. The mount can support

> this,

>> but what about it's affect on tracking accuracy for imaging -

>> guided/unguided?

>>

>> Thanks in advance

>>

>> Anthony, Bristol UK

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>







----------------------------

#27663 Nov 2, 2005

It's pretty clear that the preferred SCT OTA for GEMs is the

Celestron line. One of the reasons is the weight, Celestron builds

lighter than Meade. A C8 is maybe 15 lbs. This impacts the

stability on the mount AND thermal cooldown (less mass is better).

I've already gone through the exercise of seeing how the market

values Meade OTAs, and one of the things I noticed going through

astromart archives is (a) there are a lot FEWER Meade OTAs

available and (b) they tend to sell at a more depreciated price than

the Celestrons.



The Celestron OTAs are spread across several generations. On the

used market some C8s are available in the $300-$400 range and that's

an excellent deal. I've paid that much for eyepieces.



So, if you're planning on putting a Meade OTA on a GEM, be sure that

it's because you really WANT that Meade. Otherwise it makes sense,

configuration-wise, to sell the Meade OTA and replace it with a

Celestron. The weight you save is roughly equivalent to the weight

of the imaging equipment you will probably put on the OTA.



regards

Greg N





--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Reynolds" kb8jvh@r...>

wrote: >

> I'm surprised it weighs that much. I was shocked at how light the

8" was > when removing from the forks.

>

> Tony

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "jameslexman" jksmit0@u...>

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:58 AM

> Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: Load capacity: p.s.

>

>

> >I just looked it up: the Meade 8" SCT OTA weighs 19 lbs.

> > Jim Smith

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony"

nthnyglover@y...> > > wrote:

> >>

> >> Hi all,

> >>

> >> Wanted to know if anyone had specific experience of this setup.

> >>

> >> I am buying a 2nd hand G11. I shall eventually be mounting an 8"

> > lx200-

> >> about 46lbs(less without fork arms). Add guide scope weight and

> > ccds

> >> etc and we must be approaching 45-50lbs. The mount can support

> > this,

> >> but what about it's affect on tracking accuracy for imaging -

> >> guided/unguided?

> >>

> >> Thanks in advance

> >>

> >> Anthony, Bristol UK

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yahoo! Groups Links

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>



----------------------------

#27664 Nov 2, 2005

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "jameslexman" jksmit0@u...>

wrote:



Hi Jim



I also have a C9.25 SCT & Tak FS-60C mounted on my G11 with NO

problems. I can take more then 10 min sub exposures. BTW - the C9.25

weighs in at 20 lbs.



Chris A

>

> Anthony,

> I use a Celestron C9.25 SCT with an ST80 piggybacked on it with no

> problems. I don't think the C9.25 weighs 40 lbs, though. Are you

> sure the Meade 8" SCT weighs that much?

> Jim Smith

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony"

nthnyglover@y...> > wrote:

> >

> > Hi all,

> >

> > Wanted to know if anyone had specific experience of this setup.

> >

> > I am buying a 2nd hand G11. I shall eventually be mounting an 8"

> lx200-

> > about 46lbs(less without fork arms). Add guide scope weight and

> ccds

> > etc and we must be approaching 45-50lbs. The mount can support

> this,

> > but what about it's affect on tracking accuracy for imaging -

> > guided/unguided?

> >

> > Thanks in advance

> >

> > Anthony, Bristol UK

> >

>



----------------------------

#37768 Jun 3, 2008

Hi guys, I finally ended up with my piggyback configuration:

C11 + DC11 + DR125 rings + WO ZS80FD.

In the end, I couldn't balance the rig with my 21lbs and 10lbs CWs.

I looks to me as the mount is loaded way up!

So here's my question:



The G11 stated load capacity rates 60lbs. Is this for AP or is it

really the most it'll handle?



I estimate my rig will be something like 12lbs (DC11+80FD+DR125) +

30lbs (C11+DC11) = 42 lbs...

Not to mention the camera and guider...

Is this ok for AP or am I pushing it?



Thanks



Ciao

xumie



----------------------------

#37769 Jun 3, 2008

Xumie,



42lbs should still be OK for imaging. I wouldn't try to load it up

much more than that, though. 60lbs is a maximum load, and works

mostly for visual. Others have done imaging with 60+lbs load, but

the mount is really not designed to do this well with this much

weight.



Regards,



-Paul

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Joao" xumaxer@...> wrote:

>

> Hi guys, I finally ended up with my piggyback configuration:

> C11 + DC11 + DR125 rings + WO ZS80FD.

> In the end, I couldn't balance the rig with my 21lbs and 10lbs CWs.

> I looks to me as the mount is loaded way up!

> So here's my question:

>

> The G11 stated load capacity rates 60lbs. Is this for AP or is it

> really the most it'll handle?

>

> I estimate my rig will be something like 12lbs (DC11+80FD+DR125) +

> 30lbs (C11+DC11) = 42 lbs...

> Not to mention the camera and guider...

> Is this ok for AP or am I pushing it?

>

> Thanks

>

> Ciao

> xumie

>







----------------------------

#37770 Jun 3, 2008

We have a few people that really load up the G11s including Rainer and

a couple of others. To push the mount hard you really want to do

things like a solid permanent pier. Probably the Ovision worm grade

would help too but I guess I'm the only person in N. America who has

one of these right now. Leastaways who is on this group. (Y'all feel

free to jump right in and try your own: what if I boogered the

installation? A negative results means nothing in one case from a

non-imager. But a positive result of course would speak volumes.)



If you're hauling the thing around and imaging with this load you

might consider an ATS pier as well, though I know of no test of ATS

vs. Losmandy default tripod. The wood tripod from Berlebach might be

good, wood is great at dampening, but again we lack tests. Actually

this is something I am equipped to do, which will happen sometime

after the Ovision project.



In any case: on the one hand I understand budget limitations. On the

other hand I understand frustration. It just seems to me that if you

don't have a lot of imaging experience you should shoot for an easy

configuration, like a four inch refractor on your G11, before moving

up to the harder categories: longer FL tubes, side mounted tracking

scope, etc.



So what if you've done a lot of imaging, then I say go for it, and

play with different tripods/piers to improve stability. If this is

your first serious foray, I would say, spend $500 on a used C8 OTA,

use that as your imaging configuration with your refractor, and then

try the C11 when you can. You can even buy an older c8 off the 'mart

for as little as $300 sometimes and you can retrofit it (from

Starizona) with fastar imaging systems. I would move to the C11 only

*after* I was completely comfortable with the c8.



A c8/Losmandy G11 was what propelled Wolfgang Promper to world renown.

He has moved on to other stuff, but some of the best deep sky ever

doen with an sct was done by him.



regards

Greg N







--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@...> wrote:

>

> Xumie,

>

> 42lbs should still be OK for imaging. I wouldn't try to load it up

> much more than that, though. 60lbs is a maximum load, and works

> mostly for visual. Others have done imaging with 60+lbs load, but

> the mount is really not designed to do this well with this much

> weight.

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Joao" xumaxer@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi guys, I finally ended up with my piggyback configuration:

> > C11 + DC11 + DR125 rings + WO ZS80FD.

> > In the end, I couldn't balance the rig with my 21lbs and 10lbs CWs.

> > I looks to me as the mount is loaded way up!

> > So here's my question:

> >

> > The G11 stated load capacity rates 60lbs. Is this for AP or is it

> > really the most it'll handle?

> >

> > I estimate my rig will be something like 12lbs (DC11+80FD+DR125) +

> > 30lbs (C11+DC11) = 42 lbs...

> > Not to mention the camera and guider...

> > Is this ok for AP or am I pushing it?

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Ciao

> > xumie

> >

>



----------------------------

#37771 Jun 3, 2008

I would add, in confirmation,



that a good pier, portable or not, is seriously more stable than almost

any

tripod when dealing with heavy loads. A well balanced G11 on pier can

carry "silly" load if need be, as long as balance is really good and the

load

isn't accompanied by too much moment i.e. >65" or more.



Just to make the point, I once loaded a Mewlon 300 (74 lb rig) on my G11

on 10" dia Parallax pier (w/flat top adapter), and the G11 did quite well.





Also; as a direct comparison (tripod vs. pier), I mounted my 8" f/9 APO

(65 lbs at 75") on the G11 standard tripod, and I was unable to even

glimpse object through the EP ... bobbin and a-weavin all over the place

:-(.

But using the same pier adapter, I loaded the 8" APO on the G11 using a

longer 10" dia pier, and it was functional. I'm not even (hinting) that

the G11

is a good match for the 8" APO under ANY circumstances, but the pier

was a significant improvement over the standard tripod ;-)



One more thing, the standard G11 adjustable tripod is really nice and

IMO, is a very good match for the G11 under normal conditions i.e.,

carrying rated loads. It's only when it is OVERloaded that it becomes

the weakest link. Again, IMHO ;-)



STEADY skies!



Mark







"gnowellsct" tim71pos@...>

Sent by: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

06/03/2008 03:14 PM

Please respond to

Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com





To

Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

cc



Subject

[Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity













We have a few people that really load up the G11s including Rainer and

a couple of others. To push the mount hard you really want to do

things like a solid permanent pier. Probably the Ovision worm grade

would help too but I guess I'm the only person in N. America who has

one of these right now. Leastaways who is on this group. (Y'all feel

free to jump right in and try your own: what if I boogered the

installation? A negative results means nothing in one case from a

non-imager. But a positive result of course would speak volumes.)



If you're hauling the thing around and imaging with this load you

might consider an ATS pier as well, though I know of no test of ATS

vs. Losmandy default tripod. The wood tripod from Berlebach might be

good, wood is great at dampening, but again we lack tests. Actually

this is something I am equipped to do, which will happen sometime

after the Ovision project.



In any case: on the one hand I understand budget limitations. On the

other hand I understand frustration. It just seems to me that if you

don't have a lot of imaging experience you should shoot for an easy

configuration, like a four inch refractor on your G11, before moving

up to the harder categories: longer FL tubes, side mounted tracking

scope, etc.



So what if you've done a lot of imaging, then I say go for it, and

play with different tripods/piers to improve stability. If this is

your first serious foray, I would say, spend $500 on a used C8 OTA,

use that as your imaging configuration with your refractor, and then

try the C11 when you can. You can even buy an older c8 off the 'mart

for as little as $300 sometimes and you can retrofit it (from

Starizona) with fastar imaging systems. I would move to the C11 only

*after* I was completely comfortable with the c8.



A c8/Losmandy G11 was what propelled Wolfgang Promper to world renown.

He has moved on to other stuff, but some of the best deep sky ever

doen with an sct was done by him.



regards

Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@...> wrote:

>

> Xumie,

>

> 42lbs should still be OK for imaging. I wouldn't try to load it up

> much more than that, though. 60lbs is a maximum load, and works

> mostly for visual. Others have done imaging with 60+lbs load, but

> the mount is really not designed to do this well with this much

> weight.

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Joao" xumaxer@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi guys, I finally ended up with my piggyback configuration:

> > C11 + DC11 + DR125 rings + WO ZS80FD.

> > In the end, I couldn't balance the rig with my 21lbs and 10lbs CWs.

> > I looks to me as the mount is loaded way up!

> > So here's my question:

> >

> > The G11 stated load capacity rates 60lbs. Is this for AP or is it

> > really the most it'll handle?

> >

> > I estimate my rig will be something like 12lbs (DC11+80FD+DR125) +

> > 30lbs (C11+DC11) = 42 lbs...

> > Not to mention the camera and guider...

> > Is this ok for AP or am I pushing it?

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Ciao

> > xumie

> >

>









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







----------------------------

#37772 Jun 3, 2008

I'd like to know why that is. I believe you, but it doesn't make

sense to me. The G11 standard tripod is incredibly overbuilt. When I

look at my ATS and look at the G11 I'm not convinced by the looks of

it that it is better than the G11 tripod. (It happens that I need it

for the AP900). In any case I'd like to know WHY the portable pier is

better. Permanent I can understand.



regards

Greg N



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, m.beale@... wrote:

>

> I would add, in confirmation,

>

> that a good pier, portable or not, is seriously more stable than almost

> any

> tripod when dealing with heavy loads. A well balanced G11 on pier can

> carry "silly" load if need be, as long as balance is really good and

the

> load

> isn't accompanied by too much moment i.e. >65" or more.

>

> Just to make the point, I once loaded a Mewlon 300 (74 lb rig) on my G11

> on 10" dia Parallax pier (w/flat top adapter), and the G11 did quite

well.

>

>

> Also; as a direct comparison (tripod vs. pier), I mounted my 8" f/9 APO

> (65 lbs at 75") on the G11 standard tripod, and I was unable to even

> glimpse object through the EP ... bobbin and a-weavin all over the

place

> :-(.

> But using the same pier adapter, I loaded the 8" APO on the G11 using a

> longer 10" dia pier, and it was functional. I'm not even (hinting)

that

> the G11

> is a good match for the 8" APO under ANY circumstances, but the pier

> was a significant improvement over the standard tripod ;-)

>

> One more thing, the standard G11 adjustable tripod is really nice and

> IMO, is a very good match for the G11 under normal conditions i.e.,

> carrying rated loads. It's only when it is OVERloaded that it becomes

> the weakest link. Again, IMHO ;-)

>

> STEADY skies!

>

> Mark

>

>

>

> "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...>

> Sent by: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> 06/03/2008 03:14 PM

> Please respond to

> Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

>

>

> To

> Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> cc

>

> Subject

> [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity

>

>

>

>

>

>

> We have a few people that really load up the G11s including Rainer and

> a couple of others. To push the mount hard you really want to do

> things like a solid permanent pier. Probably the Ovision worm grade

> would help too but I guess I'm the only person in N. America who has

> one of these right now. Leastaways who is on this group. (Y'all feel

> free to jump right in and try your own: what if I boogered the

> installation? A negative results means nothing in one case from a

> non-imager. But a positive result of course would speak volumes.)

>

> If you're hauling the thing around and imaging with this load you

> might consider an ATS pier as well, though I know of no test of ATS

> vs. Losmandy default tripod. The wood tripod from Berlebach might be

> good, wood is great at dampening, but again we lack tests. Actually

> this is something I am equipped to do, which will happen sometime

> after the Ovision project.

>

> In any case: on the one hand I understand budget limitations. On the

> other hand I understand frustration. It just seems to me that if you

> don't have a lot of imaging experience you should shoot for an easy

> configuration, like a four inch refractor on your G11, before moving

> up to the harder categories: longer FL tubes, side mounted tracking

> scope, etc.

>

> So what if you've done a lot of imaging, then I say go for it, and

> play with different tripods/piers to improve stability. If this is

> your first serious foray, I would say, spend $500 on a used C8 OTA,

> use that as your imaging configuration with your refractor, and then

> try the C11 when you can. You can even buy an older c8 off the 'mart

> for as little as $300 sometimes and you can retrofit it (from

> Starizona) with fastar imaging systems. I would move to the C11 only

> *after* I was completely comfortable with the c8.

>

> A c8/Losmandy G11 was what propelled Wolfgang Promper to world renown.

> He has moved on to other stuff, but some of the best deep sky ever

> doen with an sct was done by him.

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@> wrote:

> >

> > Xumie,

> >

> > 42lbs should still be OK for imaging. I wouldn't try to load it up

> > much more than that, though. 60lbs is a maximum load, and works

> > mostly for visual. Others have done imaging with 60+lbs load, but

> > the mount is really not designed to do this well with this much

> > weight.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > -Paul

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Joao" xumaxer@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi guys, I finally ended up with my piggyback configuration:

> > > C11 + DC11 + DR125 rings + WO ZS80FD.

> > > In the end, I couldn't balance the rig with my 21lbs and 10lbs CWs.

> > > I looks to me as the mount is loaded way up!

> > > So here's my question:

> > >

> > > The G11 stated load capacity rates 60lbs. Is this for AP or is it

> > > really the most it'll handle?

> > >

> > > I estimate my rig will be something like 12lbs (DC11+80FD+DR125) +

> > > 30lbs (C11+DC11) = 42 lbs...

> > > Not to mention the camera and guider...

> > > Is this ok for AP or am I pushing it?

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > Ciao

> > > xumie

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>







----------------------------

#37774 Jun 3, 2008

When I tried (only a few times) to really overweigh my G11, it was

certainly not the tripod that was the problem for me: the main

problem was the clutch. It wouldn't with even a slightest push. This

made mounting the OTAs and balancing the mount tricky.



It also felt like the whole DEC axis might bend under the weight.

Now, I know it wasn't bending, but it felt like it wasn't strong

enough to hold all that weight. Tracking was OK, but not great. You

could tell the Gemini motors weren't running smoothly, especially

under slew. This was with a 10" Meade SCT, side-by-side with a TEC140

refractor and a camera/filter wheel, and an autoguider.



Regards,



-Paul







--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...>

wrote: >

> I'd like to know why that is. I believe you, but it doesn't make

> sense to me. The G11 standard tripod is incredibly overbuilt.

When I > look at my ATS and look at the G11 I'm not convinced by the looks of

> it that it is better than the G11 tripod. (It happens that I need

it > for the AP900). In any case I'd like to know WHY the portable pier

is > better. Permanent I can understand.

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, m.beale@ wrote:

> >

> > I would add, in confirmation,

> >

> > that a good pier, portable or not, is seriously more stable than

almost > > any

> > tripod when dealing with heavy loads. A well balanced G11 on

pier can > > carry "silly" load if need be, as long as balance is really good

and > the

> > load

> > isn't accompanied by too much moment i.e. >65" or more.

> >

> > Just to make the point, I once loaded a Mewlon 300 (74 lb rig) on

my G11 > > on 10" dia Parallax pier (w/flat top adapter), and the G11 did

quite > well.

> >

> >

> > Also; as a direct comparison (tripod vs. pier), I mounted my 8"

f/9 APO > > (65 lbs at 75") on the G11 standard tripod, and I was unable to

even > > glimpse object through the EP ... bobbin and a-weavin all over the

> place

> > :-(.

> > But using the same pier adapter, I loaded the 8" APO on the G11

using a > > longer 10" dia pier, and it was functional. I'm not even

(hinting) > that

> > the G11

> > is a good match for the 8" APO under ANY circumstances, but the

pier > > was a significant improvement over the standard tripod ;-)

> >

> > One more thing, the standard G11 adjustable tripod is really nice

and > > IMO, is a very good match for the G11 under normal conditions

i.e., > > carrying rated loads. It's only when it is OVERloaded that it

becomes > > the weakest link. Again, IMHO ;-)

> >

> > STEADY skies!

> >

> > Mark

> >

> >

> >

> > "gnowellsct" tim71pos@>

> > Sent by: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> > 06/03/2008 03:14 PM

> > Please respond to

> > Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> >

> >

> > To

> > Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> > cc

> >

> > Subject

> > [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > We have a few people that really load up the G11s including

Rainer and > > a couple of others. To push the mount hard you really want to do

> > things like a solid permanent pier. Probably the Ovision worm

grade > > would help too but I guess I'm the only person in N. America who

has > > one of these right now. Leastaways who is on this group. (Y'all

feel > > free to jump right in and try your own: what if I boogered the

> > installation? A negative results means nothing in one case from a

> > non-imager. But a positive result of course would speak volumes.)

> >

> > If you're hauling the thing around and imaging with this load you

> > might consider an ATS pier as well, though I know of no test of

ATS > > vs. Losmandy default tripod. The wood tripod from Berlebach might

be > > good, wood is great at dampening, but again we lack tests.

Actually > > this is something I am equipped to do, which will happen sometime

> > after the Ovision project.

> >

> > In any case: on the one hand I understand budget limitations. On

the > > other hand I understand frustration. It just seems to me that if

you > > don't have a lot of imaging experience you should shoot for an

easy > > configuration, like a four inch refractor on your G11, before

moving > > up to the harder categories: longer FL tubes, side mounted

tracking > > scope, etc.

> >

> > So what if you've done a lot of imaging, then I say go for it, and

> > play with different tripods/piers to improve stability. If this is

> > your first serious foray, I would say, spend $500 on a used C8

OTA, > > use that as your imaging configuration with your refractor, and

then > > try the C11 when you can. You can even buy an older c8 off

the 'mart > > for as little as $300 sometimes and you can retrofit it (from

> > Starizona) with fastar imaging systems. I would move to the C11

only > > *after* I was completely comfortable with the c8.

> >

> > A c8/Losmandy G11 was what propelled Wolfgang Promper to world

renown. > > He has moved on to other stuff, but some of the best deep sky ever

> > doen with an sct was done by him.

> >

> > regards

> > Greg N

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@>

wrote: > > >

> > > Xumie,

> > >

> > > 42lbs should still be OK for imaging. I wouldn't try to load it

up > > > much more than that, though. 60lbs is a maximum load, and works

> > > mostly for visual. Others have done imaging with 60+lbs load,

but > > > the mount is really not designed to do this well with this much

> > > weight.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > -Paul

> > >

> > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Joao" xumaxer@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi guys, I finally ended up with my piggyback configuration:

> > > > C11 + DC11 + DR125 rings + WO ZS80FD.

> > > > In the end, I couldn't balance the rig with my 21lbs and

10lbs CWs. > > > > I looks to me as the mount is loaded way up!

> > > > So here's my question:

> > > >

> > > > The G11 stated load capacity rates 60lbs. Is this for AP or

is it > > > > really the most it'll handle?

> > > >

> > > > I estimate my rig will be something like 12lbs

(DC11+80FD+DR125) + > > > > 30lbs (C11+DC11) = 42 lbs...

> > > > Not to mention the camera and guider...

> > > > Is this ok for AP or am I pushing it?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

> > > > Ciao

> > > > xumie

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

>







----------------------------

#37775 Jun 3, 2008

You're not pushing it :-) Go ahead. The G11 is a rock steady mount for that weight.







Jose Canela







---------------



From: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joao

Sent: ter.a-feira, 3 de Junho de 2008 19:36

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Losmandy_users] G11 load capacity







Hi guys, I finally ended up with my piggyback configuration:

C11 + DC11 + DR125 rings + WO ZS80FD.

In the end, I couldn't balance the rig with my 21lbs and 10lbs CWs.

I looks to me as the mount is loaded way up!

So here's my question:



The G11 stated load capacity rates 60lbs. Is this for AP or is it

really the most it'll handle?



I estimate my rig will be something like 12lbs (DC11+80FD+DR125) +

30lbs (C11+DC11) = 42 lbs...

Not to mention the camera and guider...

Is this ok for AP or am I pushing it?



Thanks



Ciao

xumie











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#37776 Jun 3, 2008

Paul,



I once looked up the load ratings for the shaft bearings and worm gear large thrust bearing and both

were over half a ton at an rpm that the mount will never see. I doubt you can "overload" the mount

with astro equipment, it's just a question of how well it performs with the extra load.



Don

----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul K" pkane2001@...>

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:06 PM

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity





> When I tried (only a few times) to really overweigh my G11, it was

> certainly not the tripod that was the problem for me: the main

> problem was the clutch. It wouldn't with even a slightest push. This

> made mounting the OTAs and balancing the mount tricky.

>

> It also felt like the whole DEC axis might bend under the weight.

> Now, I know it wasn't bending, but it felt like it wasn't strong

> enough to hold all that weight. Tracking was OK, but not great. You

> could tell the Gemini motors weren't running smoothly, especially

> under slew. This was with a 10" Meade SCT, side-by-side with a TEC140

> refractor and a camera/filter wheel, and an autoguider.

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul



----------------------------

#37777 Jun 3, 2008

Don,



No doubt... But it still felt like the mount wasn't happy with all

that weight. I probably could've used it like this for visual, but

for imaging it just didn't feel at all solid. The difference is not

subtle when one compares overloaded G11 to a larger mount carrying

the same weight (like the Titan).



Regards,



-Paul



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Don D'Egidio" djd521@...>

wrote: >

> Paul,

>

> I once looked up the load ratings for the shaft bearings and worm

gear large thrust bearing and both > were over half a ton at an rpm that the mount will never see. I

doubt you can "overload" the mount > with astro equipment, it's just a question of how well it performs

with the extra load. >

> Don

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Paul K" pkane2001@...>

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:06 PM

> Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity

>

>

> > When I tried (only a few times) to really overweigh my G11, it

was > > certainly not the tripod that was the problem for me: the main

> > problem was the clutch. It wouldn't with even a slightest push.

This > > made mounting the OTAs and balancing the mount tricky.

> >

> > It also felt like the whole DEC axis might bend under the weight.

> > Now, I know it wasn't bending, but it felt like it wasn't strong

> > enough to hold all that weight. Tracking was OK, but not great.

You > > could tell the Gemini motors weren't running smoothly, especially

> > under slew. This was with a 10" Meade SCT, side-by-side with a

TEC140 > > refractor and a camera/filter wheel, and an autoguider.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > -Paul

>



----------------------------

#37786 Jun 4, 2008

As you can see in the photo, I must be pushing 80 lbs on the G11 with

the 14 inch scope, 4 inch guide scope, camera and associated

equipment. I don't use the Gemini, which makes it much easier for the

motors. I make sure that the mount is balanced which makes it very

easy to push the scope around to my target. At first I thought that

the mount was overloaded but I have not seen any evidence of a load

problem. I don't think twice about the load now when setting up.

Tracking is spot on and I plan on using it in the future for some F10

shots. I had been using the scope for F2 shots.





Dwight



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@...> wrote:

>

> Don,

>

> No doubt... But it still felt like the mount wasn't happy with all

> that weight. I probably could've used it like this for visual, but

> for imaging it just didn't feel at all solid. The difference is not

> subtle when one compares overloaded G11 to a larger mount carrying

> the same weight (like the Titan).

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Don D'Egidio" djd521@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Paul,

> >

> > I once looked up the load ratings for the shaft bearings and worm

> gear large thrust bearing and both

> > were over half a ton at an rpm that the mount will never see. I

> doubt you can "overload" the mount

> > with astro equipment, it's just a question of how well it

performs

> with the extra load.

> >

> > Don

> >

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: "Paul K" pkane2001@>

> > To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

> > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:06 PM

> > Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity

> >

> >

> > > When I tried (only a few times) to really overweigh my G11, it

> was

> > > certainly not the tripod that was the problem for me: the main

> > > problem was the clutch. It wouldn't with even a slightest push.

> This

> > > made mounting the OTAs and balancing the mount tricky.

> > >

> > > It also felt like the whole DEC axis might bend under the

weight.

> > > Now, I know it wasn't bending, but it felt like it wasn't strong

> > > enough to hold all that weight. Tracking was OK, but not great.

> You

> > > could tell the Gemini motors weren't running smoothly,

especially

> > > under slew. This was with a 10" Meade SCT, side-by-side with a

> TEC140

> > > refractor and a camera/filter wheel, and an autoguider.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > -Paul

> >

>







----------------------------

#37787 Jun 4, 2008

Dwight, that's pretty impressive. Maybe I'm just a chicken: I don't

put much more than 80lbs on my Titan, either :-)



Regards,



-Paul



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "dwight_talley"

dwight_talley@...> wrote: >

> As you can see in the photo, I must be pushing 80 lbs on the G11

with > the 14 inch scope, 4 inch guide scope, camera and associated

> equipment. I don't use the Gemini, which makes it much easier for

the > motors. I make sure that the mount is balanced which makes it very

> easy to push the scope around to my target. At first I thought

that > the mount was overloaded but I have not seen any evidence of a

load > problem. I don't think twice about the load now when setting up.

> Tracking is spot on and I plan on using it in the future for some

F10 > shots. I had been using the scope for F2 shots.

>

>

> Dwight

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@> wrote:

> >

> > Don,

> >

> > No doubt... But it still felt like the mount wasn't happy with

all > > that weight. I probably could've used it like this for visual,

but > > for imaging it just didn't feel at all solid. The difference is

not > > subtle when one compares overloaded G11 to a larger mount

carrying > > the same weight (like the Titan).

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > -Paul

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Don D'Egidio" djd521@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Paul,

> > >

> > > I once looked up the load ratings for the shaft bearings and

worm > > gear large thrust bearing and both

> > > were over half a ton at an rpm that the mount will never see.

I > > doubt you can "overload" the mount

> > > with astro equipment, it's just a question of how well it

> performs

> > with the extra load.

> > >

> > > Don

> > >

> > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > From: "Paul K" pkane2001@>

> > > To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:06 PM

> > > Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity

> > >

> > >

> > > > When I tried (only a few times) to really overweigh my G11,

it > > was

> > > > certainly not the tripod that was the problem for me: the

main > > > > problem was the clutch. It wouldn't with even a slightest

push. > > This

> > > > made mounting the OTAs and balancing the mount tricky.

> > > >

> > > > It also felt like the whole DEC axis might bend under the

> weight.

> > > > Now, I know it wasn't bending, but it felt like it wasn't

strong > > > > enough to hold all that weight. Tracking was OK, but not

great. > > You

> > > > could tell the Gemini motors weren't running smoothly,

> especially

> > > > under slew. This was with a 10" Meade SCT, side-by-side with

a > > TEC140

> > > > refractor and a camera/filter wheel, and an autoguider.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > > -Paul

> > >

> >

>



----------------------------

#37788 Jun 4, 2008

Paul,



I was out observing one time and placed my Skywatcher 6" F/8 refractor on top of my C11 using the

stepper system and was observing M27 with no problems. There was a small amount of shake when

focusing the refractor, but not the C11. The slight breeze also did not affect the setup, but the

infrequent gusts did shake the setup. I went away to observe through others scopes and came back

about 45 minutes later and M27 had moved slight off center.



Now when my G11 was mounted at the club's observatory and the club obtained a D&G 8" F/12 refractor,

there were vibrations problems when trying to focus the telescope and it was unusable with any kind

of breeze. If we had a dome and an electric focuser, it may still be mounted on my G11.



Don

----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul K" pkane2001@...>

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 7:55 AM

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity





> Dwight, that's pretty impressive. Maybe I'm just a chicken: I don't

> put much more than 80lbs on my Titan, either :-)

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul



----------------------------

#37789 Jun 4, 2008

Hi Don,

Glad to hear that there are a few Skywatcher 6" f8's still in action :-)

I use mine as a guide scope, mounted next to a William Optics FLT-110 (4") refractor that I use for imaging.. The two of them sit happily side by side on my G11 - I've been very impressed by how stable the set-up is, and very rarely get any sort of "wind wobble" even though it's just set up on my driveway.

Cheers

Rod







----- Original Message ----

From: Don D'Egidio djd521@...>

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, 5 June, 2008 12:17:39 AM

Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity





Paul,



I was out observing one time and placed my Skywatcher 6" F/8 refractor on top of my C11 using the

stepper system and was observing M27 with no problems. There was a small amount of shake when

focusing the refractor, but not the C11. The slight breeze also did not affect the setup, but the

infrequent gusts did shake the setup. I went away to observe through others scopes and came back

about 45 minutes later and M27 had moved slight off center.



Now when my G11 was mounted at the club's observatory and the club obtained a D&G 8" F/12 refractor,

there were vibrations problems when trying to focus the telescope and it was unusable with any kind

of breeze. If we had a dome and an electric focuser, it may still be mounted on my G11.



Don

----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul K" pkane2001@hotmail. com>

To: Losmandy_users@ yahoogroups. com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 7:55 AM

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity



> Dwight, that's pretty impressive. Maybe I'm just a chicken: I don't

> put much more than 80lbs on my Titan, either :-)

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul







Send instant messages to your online friends au.messenger.yahoo.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







----------------------------

#37791 Jun 4, 2008

Well guys, thanks for your input.



I don't have a permanent pier but in a couple of years (at the most)

I'll be abe to have one on my brother in law's to build new house.



It seems that I can do it if well balanced and if I don't tax it much

more.

I guess if I do AP, some subs will be lost...

I'll do it with a 0.63x FR on the C11 to get those tiny DSO's that the

80FD will "hardly" get.

For planetary, the C11 is great and don't need the guiding.



I still have a SW 70mm refractor that I use to help autoguiding the

80FD running on top of my CG5 GOTO, with great results (not at pro

level, yet lol) for me, of course.



let.s hope the weather clears up around here, so I can start to give

it a try.



Again, thank you all for your comments.



Ciao

xumie



----------------------------

#37801 Jun 4, 2008

I just can not understand how the tripod could be the limiting factor.

The welded tubes are 1/4" thick and quite robust! I never find the

tripod to be anything less than rock solid. More like a portable pier

than any tripod I have used.

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

>

> Very interesting Paul. I would suggest then that the major upgrade to

> "push the limits" would be the Maxon heavy duty motors.

>

> A lot of people say, however, that the tripod is a limiting factor.

> At some point I'll set the tripod up and compare it to the Berlebach

> but that's the only alternative I have around here.

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@> wrote:

> >

> > When I tried (only a few times) to really overweigh my G11, it was

> > certainly not the tripod that was the problem for me: the main

> > problem was the clutch. It wouldn't with even a slightest push. This

> > made mounting the OTAs and balancing the mount tricky.

> >

> > It also felt like the whole DEC axis might bend under the weight.

> > Now, I know it wasn't bending, but it felt like it wasn't strong

> > enough to hold all that weight. Tracking was OK, but not great. You

> > could tell the Gemini motors weren't running smoothly, especially

> > under slew. This was with a 10" Meade SCT, side-by-side with a TEC140

> > refractor and a camera/filter wheel, and an autoguider.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > -Paul

> >

> >

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > I'd like to know why that is. I believe you, but it doesn't make

> > > sense to me. The G11 standard tripod is incredibly overbuilt.

> > When I

> > > look at my ATS and look at the G11 I'm not convinced by the looks of

> > > it that it is better than the G11 tripod. (It happens that I need

> > it

> > > for the AP900). In any case I'd like to know WHY the portable pier

> > is

> > > better. Permanent I can understand.

> > >

> > > regards

> > > Greg N

> > >

> > >

> > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, m.beale@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I would add, in confirmation,

> > > >

> > > > that a good pier, portable or not, is seriously more stable than

> > almost

> > > > any

> > > > tripod when dealing with heavy loads. A well balanced G11 on

> > pier can

> > > > carry "silly" load if need be, as long as balance is really good

> > and

> > > the

> > > > load

> > > > isn't accompanied by too much moment i.e. >65" or more.

> > > >

> > > > Just to make the point, I once loaded a Mewlon 300 (74 lb rig) on

> > my G11

> > > > on 10" dia Parallax pier (w/flat top adapter), and the G11 did

> > quite

> > > well.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Also; as a direct comparison (tripod vs. pier), I mounted my 8"

> > f/9 APO

> > > > (65 lbs at 75") on the G11 standard tripod, and I was unable to

> > even

> > > > glimpse object through the EP ... bobbin and a-weavin all over the

> > > place

> > > > :-(.

> > > > But using the same pier adapter, I loaded the 8" APO on the G11

> > using a

> > > > longer 10" dia pier, and it was functional. I'm not even

> > (hinting)

> > > that

> > > > the G11

> > > > is a good match for the 8" APO under ANY circumstances, but the

> > pier

> > > > was a significant improvement over the standard tripod ;-)

> > > >

> > > > One more thing, the standard G11 adjustable tripod is really nice

> > and

> > > > IMO, is a very good match for the G11 under normal conditions

> > i.e.,

> > > > carrying rated loads. It's only when it is OVERloaded that it

> > becomes

> > > > the weakest link. Again, IMHO ;-)

> > > >

> > > > STEADY skies!

> > > >

> > > > Mark

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > "gnowellsct" tim71pos@>

> > > > Sent by: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> > > > 06/03/2008 03:14 PM

> > > > Please respond to

> > > > Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > To

> > > > Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> > > > cc

> > > >

> > > > Subject

> > > > [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > We have a few people that really load up the G11s including

> > Rainer and

> > > > a couple of others. To push the mount hard you really want to do

> > > > things like a solid permanent pier. Probably the Ovision worm

> > grade

> > > > would help too but I guess I'm the only person in N. America who

> > has

> > > > one of these right now. Leastaways who is on this group. (Y'all

> > feel

> > > > free to jump right in and try your own: what if I boogered the

> > > > installation? A negative results means nothing in one case from a

> > > > non-imager. But a positive result of course would speak volumes.)

> > > >

> > > > If you're hauling the thing around and imaging with this load you

> > > > might consider an ATS pier as well, though I know of no test of

> > ATS

> > > > vs. Losmandy default tripod. The wood tripod from Berlebach might

> > be

> > > > good, wood is great at dampening, but again we lack tests.

> > Actually

> > > > this is something I am equipped to do, which will happen sometime

> > > > after the Ovision project.

> > > >

> > > > In any case: on the one hand I understand budget limitations. On

> > the

> > > > other hand I understand frustration. It just seems to me that if

> > you

> > > > don't have a lot of imaging experience you should shoot for an

> > easy

> > > > configuration, like a four inch refractor on your G11, before

> > moving

> > > > up to the harder categories: longer FL tubes, side mounted

> > tracking

> > > > scope, etc.

> > > >

> > > > So what if you've done a lot of imaging, then I say go for it, and

> > > > play with different tripods/piers to improve stability. If this is

> > > > your first serious foray, I would say, spend $500 on a used C8

> > OTA,

> > > > use that as your imaging configuration with your refractor, and

> > then

> > > > try the C11 when you can. You can even buy an older c8 off

> > the 'mart

> > > > for as little as $300 sometimes and you can retrofit it (from

> > > > Starizona) with fastar imaging systems. I would move to the C11

> > only

> > > > *after* I was completely comfortable with the c8.

> > > >

> > > > A c8/Losmandy G11 was what propelled Wolfgang Promper to world

> > renown.

> > > > He has moved on to other stuff, but some of the best deep sky ever

> > > > doen with an sct was done by him.

> > > >

> > > > regards

> > > > Greg N

> > > >

> > > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Paul K" pkane2001@>

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Xumie,

> > > > >

> > > > > 42lbs should still be OK for imaging. I wouldn't try to load it

> > up

> > > > > much more than that, though. 60lbs is a maximum load, and works

> > > > > mostly for visual. Others have done imaging with 60+lbs load,

> > but

> > > > > the mount is really not designed to do this well with this much

> > > > > weight.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > -Paul

> > > > >

> > > > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Joao" xumaxer@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hi guys, I finally ended up with my piggyback configuration:

> > > > > > C11 + DC11 + DR125 rings + WO ZS80FD.

> > > > > > In the end, I couldn't balance the rig with my 21lbs and

> > 10lbs CWs.

> > > > > > I looks to me as the mount is loaded way up!

> > > > > > So here's my question:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The G11 stated load capacity rates 60lbs. Is this for AP or

> > is it

> > > > > > really the most it'll handle?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I estimate my rig will be something like 12lbs

> > (DC11+80FD+DR125) +

> > > > > > 30lbs (C11+DC11) = 42 lbs...

> > > > > > Not to mention the camera and guider...

> > > > > > Is this ok for AP or am I pushing it?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ciao

> > > > > > xumie

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > > >

> > >

> >

>







----------------------------

#44879 Jan 24, 2010

Hello Everyone, I would like to know what is the most realistic weight that a G11 can handle, keeping inmine for imaging not visual. Thanks John





---------------

Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer. 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#44880 Jan 24, 2010

I have a 40 lb load with my setup, including everything.

Floyd

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, John Flanagan john.flanagan43@...> wrote:

>

> Hello Everyone, I would like to know what is the most realistic weight that a G11 can handle, keeping inmine for imaging not visual. Thanks John

>

>

---------------

> Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer. 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>



----------------------------

#44881 Jan 25, 2010

John,



I also have about 40 pounds on my G11 and it works very well for imaging. I have a C9.25 now, but previously I had my 8" f/6 Newtonian on it and that scope also weighed 40 pounds and is 4 feet long. I had terrible performance with my Newtonian, because of the length.



So remember that length is a factor as well as weight.



-Joe

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "bakersfieldbiker" fblue@...> wrote:

>

> I have a 40 lb load with my setup, including everything.

> Floyd

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, John Flanagan john.flanagan43@> wrote:

> >

> > Hello Everyone, I would like to know what is the most realistic weight that a G11 can handle, keeping inmine for imaging not visual. Thanks John

> >

> >

---------------

> > Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer. 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

>



----------------------------

#44887 Jan 25, 2010

Mark makes a great point, it is not just weight but momment arm that gives you the load limmits for a mount.

Shorter scopes with larger aperture are best for the mid range load limmits.

If you have a long heavy scope, then maybe a Titan, AP, or MI mount would be a better choice.

Floyd

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, m.beale@... wrote:

>

> Ditto Joe's comments,

>

> Taking it to extremes, I used my G11 for star parties with 50 lb C14 on

> board with no real problems, but not for imaging.

> When I put my 180EDT on it, approx 10 lbs lighter, even the slightest

> breeze would cause platform to wobble to

> the point where it was not really usable visually :-(. Moment arm is a

> serious consideration once you go above 30 lbs or

> so when imaging with a G11 mount. Personally, I wouldn't even use a G11

> for imaging with a 6" APO, but I've also seen

> some excellent results with that combination so user tolerance and

> atmospheric conditions are also considerations.

> To be clear, I've had at least one G11 in my arsenal for 12 years now and

> consider them to be BY-FAR the most bang

> for the buck for medium duty mounts. If I sounded at all negative above,

> it's only because we're talking about pushing

> a fine mount beyond its' useful capabilities. When tuned and loaded

> properly, a G11 can keep up with mounts costing

> twice as much :-)))

>

> STEADY skies!

>

> Mark

>

>

>

> From:

> "Joe Ulowetz" joe.ulowetz@...>

> To:

> Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> Date:

> 01/25/2010 10:10 AM

> Subject:

> [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity

>

>

>

>

> John,

>

> I also have about 40 pounds on my G11 and it works very well for imaging.

> I have a C9.25 now, but previously I had my 8" f/6 Newtonian on it and

> that scope also weighed 40 pounds and is 4 feet long. I had terrible

> performance with my Newtonian, because of the length.

>

> So remember that length is a factor as well as weight.

>

> -Joe

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "bakersfieldbiker" fblue@>

> wrote:

> >

> > I have a 40 lb load with my setup, including everything.

> > Floyd

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, John Flanagan john.flanagan43@>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hello Everyone, I would like to know what is the most realistic weight

> that a G11 can handle, keeping inmine for imaging not visual. Thanks John

> > >

> > >

---------------

> > > Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet

> Explorer.. 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at

> downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>







----------------------------

#44891 Jan 25, 2010

I use an imaging rig weighing 45 pounds on my G11. It works fine, even in the strong winds that are a feature of this part of the country. My setup includes an Ultima-11, a beefy finder, an AT66ED for guiding and star-hopping, two dovetails on the SCT, appropriate cameras, etc., etc...



As long as the mount is reasonably balanced, it all works like a charm -- the mount is absolutely not taxed at this weight. I also use a slightly lighter reflector (20+ lbs for the OTA) with a longer tube and the same other scopes/cameras, and as long as I clamp down on the clutches before I start imaging, that works fine, too. This mount's mechanical performance is excellent!



--Mish



----------------------------

#44920 Jan 31, 2010

Thanks for your reply. John









---------------

From: bakersfieldbiker fblue@...>

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 12:57:07 PM

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity



.

Mark makes a great point, it is not just weight but momment arm that gives you the load limmits for a mount.

Shorter scopes with larger aperture are best for the mid range load limmits.

If you have a long heavy scope, then maybe a Titan, AP, or MI mount would be a better choice.

Floyd

--- In Losmandy_users@ yahoogroups. com, m.beale@... wrote:

>

> Ditto Joe's comments,

>

> Taking it to extremes, I used my G11 for star parties with 50 lb C14 on

> board with no real problems, but not for imaging.

> When I put my 180EDT on it, approx 10 lbs lighter, even the slightest

> breeze would cause platform to wobble to

> the point where it was not really usable visually :-(. Moment arm is a

> serious consideration once you go above 30 lbs or

> so when imaging with a G11 mount. Personally, I wouldn't even use a G11

> for imaging with a 6" APO, but I've also seen

> some excellent results with that combination so user tolerance and

> atmospheric conditions are also considerations.

> To be clear, I've had at least one G11 in my arsenal for 12 years now and

> consider them to be BY-FAR the most bang

> for the buck for medium duty mounts. If I sounded at all negative above,

> it's only because we're talking about pushing

> a fine mount beyond its' useful capabilities. When tuned and loaded

> properly, a G11 can keep up with mounts costing

> twice as much :-)))

>

> STEADY skies!

>

> Mark

>

>

>

> From:

> "Joe Ulowetz" joe.ulowetz@ ...>

> To:

> Losmandy_users@ yahoogroups. com

> Date:

> 01/25/2010 10:10 AM

> Subject:

> [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 load capacity

>

>

>

>

> John,

>

> I also have about 40 pounds on my G11 and it works very well for imaging.

> I have a C9.25 now, but previously I had my 8" f/6 Newtonian on it and

> that scope also weighed 40 pounds and is 4 feet long. I had terrible

> performance with my Newtonian, because of the length.

>

> So remember that length is a factor as well as weight.

>

> -Joe

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@ yahoogroups. com, "bakersfieldbiker" fblue@>

> wrote:

> >

> > I have a 40 lb load with my setup, including everything.

> > Floyd

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@ yahoogroups. com, John Flanagan john.flanagan43@ >

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hello Everyone, I would like to know what is the most realistic weight

> that a G11 can handle, keeping inmine for imaging not visual. Thanks John

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

> > > Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet

> Explorer.. 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at

> downloads. yahoo.com/ ca/internetexplo rer/

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>











---------------

Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!



www.flickr.com/gift/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#44922 Jan 31, 2010

I use Meade 12" SCT + lumicon GEG + HX 916/ST7E which is around 50+ pounds

and 90mm F10 meade refractor (metal body) which goes with meade DSI for

guiding and also a small finder. I believe in total this weight goes beyond

60 lbs! This setup proves very heavy for me to handle, but otherwise mount

seems ok with it. You can check below mentioned images:



indussky.com/viewphoto.php?pcid=4&cid=50&pid=35

indussky.com/viewphoto.php?pcid=3&cid=43&pid=34

indussky.com/viewphoto.php?pcid=1&cid=11&pid=21



These images are not great but may give you a little idea about capacity of

G11. The little elongation that you see in NGC 891 is due to two a sudden

jumps that mount takes due to the fault in the worm bearing. But I believe

if I could remove that (e.g. ovision replacement.) it would give me better

star image. Also above mentioned images are taken from city lights. Seening

was very very unstable when the moon shot was taken. ( moon image was

boiling! ).

I hope this helps.



Regards,

Nilesh Desai.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Kyran Daniel Mish kdmish@...> wrote:



>

>

> I use an imaging rig weighing 45 pounds on my G11. It works fine, even in

> the strong winds that are a feature of this part of the country. My setup

> includes an Ultima-11, a beefy finder, an AT66ED for guiding and

> star-hopping, two dovetails on the SCT, appropriate cameras, etc., etc...

>

> As long as the mount is reasonably balanced, it all works like a charm --

> the mount is absolutely not taxed at this weight. I also use a slightly

> lighter reflector (20+ lbs for the OTA) with a longer tube and the same

> other scopes/cameras, and as long as I clamp down on the clutches before I

> start imaging, that works fine, too. This mount's mechanical performance is

> excellent!

>

> --Mish

>

>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







----------------------------

#46085 Jun 11, 2010

Way back in January 2001 UPS murdered my C14. I had to wait about six months for the replacement to come from Company Seven.



Meantime, I had this G11, so I figured what the hell, I'll add the third bearings in RA and Dec, which at the time was a "fashionable" aftermarket addition. It was really done by the guys who were trying to eliminate various sources of PE.



The mount works fine, I'm just curious, whether anyone has a strong hunch, informed guess, or is willing to speculate as to how a mount with three bearings in each axis compares to a mount with two.



I couldn't tell you, I've only used the C14 with the G11 as modified.



I sometimes wonder, when I affirm that the G11 works fine with a C14, if my experience is colored by the third bearing. However, I've met other C14 owners who were happy with the G11/C14 as a visual combo.



Let me know what ya think?



Greg N



----------------------------

#46087 Jun 11, 2010

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

> The mount works fine, I'm just curious, whether anyone has a strong hunch, informed guess, or is willing to speculate as to how a mount with three bearings in each axis compares to a mount with two.



I'd have to know more about the configuration, i.e. 3 spaced evenly along the axis, two duplexed and one conrad, whatever.



The best you could hope for, practically speaking, are more rigid axes. Increased stiffness cuts down on deflection and raises the fundamental frequency of the mount.



----------------------------

#46088 Jun 11, 2010

It's more a case of "two one one side, one on the other." Losmandy inserts the far enough in to permit the addition of another one, with about an inch of space between the two. The one you add rides very close to the top.



Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "James" jamesv2@...> wrote:

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@> wrote:

>

> > The mount works fine, I'm just curious, whether anyone has a strong hunch, informed guess, or is willing to speculate as to how a mount with three bearings in each axis compares to a mount with two.

>

> I'd have to know more about the configuration, i.e. 3 spaced evenly along the axis, two duplexed and one conrad, whatever.

>

> The best you could hope for, practically speaking, are more rigid axes. Increased stiffness cuts down on deflection and raises the fundamental frequency of the mount.

>



----------------------------

#46089 Jun 11, 2010

The third bearing can be hard to install (it was for me). I found it really difficult to align the new baring with the other two, so that the axis shaft was not being tilted and squeezed by the three support points.



If the shaft is already held fairly tightly by the two existing bearings, inserting a third one without causing some sort of binding may be difficult. But, I guess that's also the benefit of the third bearing: it removes most of the shaft play that can be left in the two-bearing system.



By the way, the third bearing has no bearing G> on mount PE, but can help support a heavier load.



Regards,



-Paul



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

>

> It's more a case of "two one one side, one on the other." Losmandy inserts the far enough in to permit the addition of another one, with about an inch of space between the two. The one you add rides very close to the top.

>

> Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "James" jamesv2@> wrote:

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@> wrote:

> >

> > > The mount works fine, I'm just curious, whether anyone has a strong hunch, informed guess, or is willing to speculate as to how a mount with three bearings in each axis compares to a mount with two.

> >

> > I'd have to know more about the configuration, i.e. 3 spaced evenly along the axis, two duplexed and one conrad, whatever.

> >

> > The best you could hope for, practically speaking, are more rigid axes. Increased stiffness cuts down on deflection and raises the fundamental frequency of the mount.

> >

>



----------------------------

#46090 Jun 11, 2010

I've always wondered how there could be a connection to PE, but maybe the experts of 10 years ago were trying to correct some kind of "suspected noise" in the tracking. I don't know.



This procedure, along with lapping the worm wheel, are basically obsolete. They used to be talked about quite often. There's even a folder in FILES which has PE before and after lapping. I don't think I deleted it.



Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "paulkccd" yh@...> wrote:

>

> The third bearing can be hard to install (it was for me). I found it really difficult to align the new baring with the other two, so that the axis shaft was not being tilted and squeezed by the three support points.

>

> If the shaft is already held fairly tightly by the two existing bearings, inserting a third one without causing some sort of binding may be difficult. But, I guess that's also the benefit of the third bearing: it removes most of the shaft play that can be left in the two-bearing system.

>

> By the way, the third bearing has no bearing G> on mount PE, but can help support a heavier load.

>

> Regards,

>

> -Paul

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@> wrote:

> >

> > It's more a case of "two one one side, one on the other." Losmandy inserts the far enough in to permit the addition of another one, with about an inch of space between the two. The one you add rides very close to the top.

> >

> > Greg N

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "James" jamesv2@> wrote:

> > >

> > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > The mount works fine, I'm just curious, whether anyone has a strong hunch, informed guess, or is willing to speculate as to how a mount with three bearings in each axis compares to a mount with two.

> > >

> > > I'd have to know more about the configuration, i.e. 3 spaced evenly along the axis, two duplexed and one conrad, whatever.

> > >

> > > The best you could hope for, practically speaking, are more rigid axes. Increased stiffness cuts down on deflection and raises the fundamental frequency of the mount.

> > >

> >

>







----------------------------

#46093 Jun 11, 2010

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote: >

> It's more a case of "two one one side, one on the other." Losmandy inserts the far enough in to permit the addition of another one, with about an inch of space between the two. The one you add rides very close to the top.



Since your load is primarily an overturning moment with a small radial (~40-45 lb.) component, anything between the inboard and outboard bearings should see scant loading. A third set of needles would be effective in practical terms if you had pure radial loading (which you don't). Heavy duty spindles put the roller or duplex bearing on the inboard side to take the greater part of the radial load and a scant part of the moment loading. The outboard bearing is usually a conrad to take the moment without blowing too much on alignment.



It's been a year or so since I regreased my unit and I seem to recall needles both inboard and outboard on at least one axis. It's a groady but compact and cheap design good enough for this end of the food chain, which is, I suspect, exactly what Losmandy intended.



If the shaft does not bind under rotation, the addition of the extra bearing can do no harm.



Binding causes

1) Additional friction torque which is only a problem only if the motor stalls, overheats or attracts kooties.

2) Increased eccentricity. We used to bring grinder spindles into tolerance by scraping the outboard bearing retainer that clamped against the inner race to bend the spindle nose into compliance.

If there is no binding none of this will be of importance.



----------------------------

#46107 Jun 12, 2010

Judging from the tracking data we got when we put an Ovision on this thing I'd say that the third bearing did no harm. The report is here:



www.astromart.com/articles/article.asp?article_id=663



I've posted it before, but members come and go.



However, I'm wondering if there is any benefit to the third bearing at all. For example, extra stability in the wind with a C14?



There certainly were, once upon a time, a lot of people on this group who did this modification.



Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "James" jamesv2@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@> wrote:

> >

> > It's more a case of "two one one side, one on the other." Losmandy inserts the far enough in to permit the addition of another one, with about an inch of space between the two. The one you add rides very close to the top.

>

> Since your load is primarily an overturning moment with a small radial (~40-45 lb.) component, anything between the inboard and outboard bearings should see scant loading. A third set of needles would be effective in practical terms if you had pure radial loading (which you don't). Heavy duty spindles put the roller or duplex bearing on the inboard side to take the greater part of the radial load and a scant part of the moment loading. The outboard bearing is usually a conrad to take the moment without blowing too much on alignment.

>

> It's been a year or so since I regreased my unit and I seem to recall needles both inboard and outboard on at least one axis. It's a groady but compact and cheap design good enough for this end of the food chain, which is, I suspect, exactly what Losmandy intended.

>

> If the shaft does not bind under rotation, the addition of the extra bearing can do no harm.

>

> Binding causes

> 1) Additional friction torque which is only a problem only if the motor stalls, overheats or attracts kooties.

> 2) Increased eccentricity. We used to bring grinder spindles into tolerance by scraping the outboard bearing retainer that clamped against the inner race to bend the spindle nose into compliance.

> If there is no binding none of this will be of importance.

>



----------------------------

#46109 Jun 12, 2010

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

> However, I'm wondering if there is any benefit to the third bearing at all. For example, extra stability in the wind with a C14?



Under wind loading I suspect that the rotary joints of the mount would appear rigid in comparrison with the deflection at the foot of the tripod or foot of the pier ---- they have the greatest lever arm for moment loading. If you have to burn off the rest of the sixpack some windy night, tape or glue a laser pointer to the scope, aim it at a wall and see if it deflects and where. Keep moving it down until you perceive no motion or start seeing two spots. You might get an idea of where the deflection is originating.



----------------------------

#46502 Jul 21, 2010

Hi all,



I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder, diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26 inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations welcome.



Regards,



Bob



----------------------------

#46503 Jul 21, 2010

For a time I had an 8" f/6 Newtonian on my G11, weight 40 pounds (heavy tube), and it performed fine visually. I wasn't aware of any problems with the wind. I think you'd be fine.



-Joe

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "paleosonic" jean.pody1@...> wrote:

>

> Hi all,

>

> I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder, diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26 inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations welcome.

>

> Regards,

>

> Bob

>







----------------------------

#46504 Jul 21, 2010

On Wed, July 21, 2010 3:40 pm, paleosonic wrote: > Hi all,

>

> I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only

> (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder,

> diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26

> inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under

> breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it

> track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the

> bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations

> welcome.

>

> Regards,

>

> Bob



I think the G-11 would work fine for this visually. You will want to go

with more counterweight higher on the shaft so you have less vibration

between the torque of the large refractor and the counterweights. Hope

that makes sense. Basically with my 5" f5.x (23lbs or so loaded) and

counterweights out on the end of the shaft it can get some vibrations and

longer settle down times than with more weight up closer to the saddle

plate. Actually I like to use a big counterweight up close and then a

small one out on the end for fine tuning the balance.



I also just started using a G-8 visually with this same set up and it

works great too (so far anyway no wind yet).



----------------------------

#46506 Jul 22, 2010

I use a Meade 152ED (6" F/9 semi APO) on my G-11 all the time with no issues. If I "thump" the scope, the settling time is 1-2 sec max. In high winds it might be an issue, but under reasonable conditions it is great.



I'm using parallax rings, 17.5" dovetail on a 14" Robin Casady tip in saddle, standard G-11 tripod, etc.



The G-11 will work great for your application.



-Mark

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Eric S Pulley" pulley@...> wrote:

>

>

> On Wed, July 21, 2010 3:40 pm, paleosonic wrote:

> > Hi all,

> >

> > I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only

> > (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder,

> > diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26

> > inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under

> > breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it

> > track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the

> > bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations

> > welcome.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Bob

>

> I think the G-11 would work fine for this visually. You will want to go

> with more counterweight higher on the shaft so you have less vibration

> between the torque of the large refractor and the counterweights. Hope

> that makes sense. Basically with my 5" f5.x (23lbs or so loaded) and

> counterweights out on the end of the shaft it can get some vibrations and

> longer settle down times than with more weight up closer to the saddle

> plate. Actually I like to use a big counterweight up close and then a

> small one out on the end for fine tuning the balance.

>

> I also just started using a G-8 visually with this same set up and it

> works great too (so far anyway no wind yet).

>



----------------------------

#46508 Jul 22, 2010

I have a wo5.2" f7 and the g-ll mount is very. strable with this load.. I allso have a losmandy 12" tripod extension which with a refractor is a supper help when vewing near or at the zenith.

.

clear and dark skies

.

Dick Martin

--- On Wed, 7/21/10, paleosonic jean.pody1@...> wrote:





From: paleosonic jean.pody1@...>

Subject: [Losmandy_users] G-11 Load Capacity for Visual Use

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 4:40 PM





.







Hi all,



I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder, diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26 inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations welcome.



Regards,



Bob























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#46514 Jul 22, 2010

Yeah I use the G11 for my 10" Newt, which is an f/6, but I do sometimes notice some sympathetic vibration keeping me from focusing easily.



I'm probably going to acquire the AP900 adapter for the G11 tripod. The 10" f/6 is, I think significantly more of a management problem than the 6" f/9 refractor.



regards

Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Ulowetz" joe.ulowetz@...> wrote:

>

> For a time I had an 8" f/6 Newtonian on my G11, weight 40 pounds (heavy tube), and it performed fine visually. I wasn't aware of any problems with the wind. I think you'd be fine.

>

> -Joe

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "paleosonic" jean.pody1@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi all,

> >

> > I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder, diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26 inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations welcome.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Bob

> >

>







----------------------------

#46515 Jul 22, 2010

A 14 to 16 inch saddle is a good idea to improve stability and damping time.



The counterweight trick: I'd like to re-state it in simpler terms. A 20lb counterweight high up on the dec shaft close to the mount will be more stable than a 10lb counterweight all the way out on the end. Think of the counterweight as boinging around on the end of that shaft.



regards

Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "mark_scrivener" mark_scrivener@...> wrote:

>

> I use a Meade 152ED (6" F/9 semi APO) on my G-11 all the time with no issues. If I "thump" the scope, the settling time is 1-2 sec max. In high winds it might be an issue, but under reasonable conditions it is great.

>

> I'm using parallax rings, 17.5" dovetail on a 14" Robin Casady tip in saddle, standard G-11 tripod, etc.

>

> The G-11 will work great for your application.

>

> -Mark

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Eric S Pulley" pulley@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > On Wed, July 21, 2010 3:40 pm, paleosonic wrote:

> > > Hi all,

> > >

> > > I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only

> > > (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder,

> > > diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26

> > > inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under

> > > breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it

> > > track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the

> > > bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations

> > > welcome.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Bob

> >

> > I think the G-11 would work fine for this visually. You will want to go

> > with more counterweight higher on the shaft so you have less vibration

> > between the torque of the large refractor and the counterweights. Hope

> > that makes sense. Basically with my 5" f5.x (23lbs or so loaded) and

> > counterweights out on the end of the shaft it can get some vibrations and

> > longer settle down times than with more weight up closer to the saddle

> > plate. Actually I like to use a big counterweight up close and then a

> > small one out on the end for fine tuning the balance.

> >

> > I also just started using a G-8 visually with this same set up and it

> > works great too (so far anyway no wind yet).

> >

>



----------------------------

#46516 Jul 22, 2010

I'd like to add one thought:



The Berlebach version of the G11 tripod head is, hard to believe, even better than the OEM. It is thicker and more robust, very well machined. The OEM already sets a very high standard. I don't know if the Berlebach version improves stability, but it is a superb piece of machining.



regards

Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

>

> Yeah I use the G11 for my 10" Newt, which is an f/6, but I do sometimes notice some sympathetic vibration keeping me from focusing easily.

>

> I'm probably going to acquire the AP900 adapter for the G11 tripod. The 10" f/6 is, I think significantly more of a management problem than the 6" f/9 refractor.

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Ulowetz" joe.ulowetz@> wrote:

> >

> > For a time I had an 8" f/6 Newtonian on my G11, weight 40 pounds (heavy tube), and it performed fine visually. I wasn't aware of any problems with the wind. I think you'd be fine.

> >

> > -Joe

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "paleosonic" jean.pody1@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi all,

> > >

> > > I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder, diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26 inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations welcome.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Bob

> > >

> >

>



----------------------------

#46517 Jul 22, 2010

Hi Greg



I am not sure that your theory is correct, maybe for a retractor a few

inches from the saddle, but with a 12" SCT with a 80mm Guide scope sat

some 15" out it it does not act the same way, I find that a 1x11 &

1x21lb weights at the end of the bar is better matched than 2x21lb

weights further in.



I also do not consider the torque required to get this going and stop is

an issue at all, your mileage may vary but as I always say to people,

give it a go and find out what works for you.



I have tried a number of bar lengths from the standard 400mm right up to

800mm and stopped at 650mm for my usual nighttime setup only because the

longer bar looked odd with a single 21lb weight sat way out at the end.

I also have a 150mm bar for when I just have the PST attached, this

works with 1x11lb and is needed as I have the Robin Cassidy 14" saddle

which with a 14" dovetail weighs too much to just use the standard bar

with no weights on and rather than make a 4-6lb weight to suit made a

smaller bar instead..



Regards Badger





gnowellsct wrote: > A 14 to 16 inch saddle is a good idea to improve stability and damping time.

>

> The counterweight trick: I'd like to re-state it in simpler terms. A 20lb counterweight high up on the dec shaft close to the mount will be more stable than a 10lb counterweight all the way out on the end. Think of the counterweight as boinging around on the end of that shaft.

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "mark_scrivener" mark_scrivener@...> wrote:

>

>> I use a Meade 152ED (6" F/9 semi APO) on my G-11 all the time with no issues. If I "thump" the scope, the settling time is 1-2 sec max. In high winds it might be an issue, but under reasonable conditions it is great.

>>

>> I'm using parallax rings, 17.5" dovetail on a 14" Robin Casady tip in saddle, standard G-11 tripod, etc.

>>

>> The G-11 will work great for your application.

>>

>> -Mark

>>

>> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Eric S Pulley" pulley@> wrote:

>>

>>> On Wed, July 21, 2010 3:40 pm, paleosonic wrote:

>>>

>>>> Hi all,

>>>>

>>>> I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only

>>>> (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder,

>>>> diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26

>>>> inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under

>>>> breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it

>>>> track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the

>>>> bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations

>>>> welcome.

>>>>

>>>> Regards,

>>>>

>>>> Bob

>>>>

>>> I think the G-11 would work fine for this visually. You will want to go

>>> with more counterweight higher on the shaft so you have less vibration

>>> between the torque of the large refractor and the counterweights. Hope

>>> that makes sense. Basically with my 5" f5.x (23lbs or so loaded) and

>>> counterweights out on the end of the shaft it can get some vibrations and

>>> longer settle down times than with more weight up closer to the saddle

>>> plate. Actually I like to use a big counterweight up close and then a

>>> small one out on the end for fine tuning the balance.

>>>

>>> I also just started using a G-8 visually with this same set up and it

>>> works great too (so far anyway no wind yet).

>>>

>>>

>

>

>

>

---------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

>







----------------------------

#46518 Jul 22, 2010

Here is some help on what weight and where it should be on the shaft.. I comes

from Robin Casady's website and takes all the guess work out of the picture.. It

gives different calculations based on the location of the center of the scope

mass and shows the need for counterweight differences between a SCT and a

Refractor.



www.robincasady.com/Astro/WeightCalc.html



Luck, Bill









---------------

From: David Mercer david.mercer@...>

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 3:16:19 PM

Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Re: G-11 Load Capacity for Visual Use



.

Hi Greg



I am not sure that your theory is correct, maybe for a retractor a few

inches from the saddle, but with a 12" SCT with a 80mm Guide scope sat

some 15" out it it does not act the same way, I find that a 1x11 &

1x21lb weights at the end of the bar is better matched than 2x21lb

weights further in.



I also do not consider the torque required to get this going and stop is

an issue at all, your mileage may vary but as I always say to people,

give it a go and find out what works for you.



I have tried a number of bar lengths from the standard 400mm right up to

800mm and stopped at 650mm for my usual nighttime setup only because the

longer bar looked odd with a single 21lb weight sat way out at the end.

I also have a 150mm bar for when I just have the PST attached, this

works with 1x11lb and is needed as I have the Robin Cassidy 14" saddle

which with a 14" dovetail weighs too much to just use the standard bar

with no weights on and rather than make a 4-6lb weight to suit made a

smaller bar instead..



Regards Badger



gnowellsct wrote: > A 14 to 16 inch saddle is a good idea to improve stability and damping time.

>

> The counterweight trick: I'd like to re-state it in simpler terms. A 20lb

>counterweight high up on the dec shaft close to the mount will be more stable

>than a 10lb counterweight all the way out on the end. Think of the counterweight

>as boinging around on the end of that shaft.

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "mark_scrivener" mark_scrivener@...>

>wrote:

>

>> I use a Meade 152ED (6" F/9 semi APO) on my G-11 all the time with no issues.

>>If I "thump" the scope, the settling time is 1-2 sec max. In high winds it might

>>be an issue, but under reasonable conditions it is great.

>>

>> I'm using parallax rings, 17.5" dovetail on a 14" Robin Casady tip in saddle,

>>standard G-11 tripod, etc.

>>

>>

>> The G-11 will work great for your application.

>>

>> -Mark

>>

>> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Eric S Pulley" pulley@> wrote:

>>

>>> On Wed, July 21, 2010 3:40 pm, paleosonic wrote:

>>>

>>>> Hi all,

>>>>

>>>> I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only

>>>> (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder,

>>>> diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26

>>>> inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under

>>>> breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it

>>>> track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the

>>>> bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations

>>>> welcome.

>>>>

>>>> Regards,

>>>>

>>>> Bob

>>>>

>>> I think the G-11 would work fine for this visually. You will want to go

>>> with more counterweight higher on the shaft so you have less vibration

>>> between the torque of the large refractor and the counterweights. Hope

>>> that makes sense. Basically with my 5" f5.x (23lbs or so loaded) and

>>> counterweights out on the end of the shaft it can get some vibrations and

>>> longer settle down times than with more weight up closer to the saddle

>>> plate. Actually I like to use a big counterweight up close and then a

>>> small one out on the end for fine tuning the balance.

>>>

>>> I also just started using a G-8 visually with this same set up and it

>>> works great too (so far anyway no wind yet).

>>>

>>>

>

>

>

>

---------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

>















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#46519 Jul 22, 2010

Well--I use my 10lb weight way out at the end. The FS128 scope is very stable on the Berlebach G11. But we have people who are pushing for more...



SCTs are a special case in terms of evaluating stability. The mass of the SCT rides right over the axis of rotation and if you have a stiff Casady running out most of the length of the dovetail, it probably isn't going to need any manipulation of the counterweights.



So your views seem good to me.



Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, David Mercer david.mercer@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Greg

>

> I am not sure that your theory is correct, maybe for a retractor a few

> inches from the saddle, but with a 12" SCT with a 80mm Guide scope sat

> some 15" out it it does not act the same way, I find that a 1x11 &

> 1x21lb weights at the end of the bar is better matched than 2x21lb

> weights further in.

>

> I also do not consider the torque required to get this going and stop is

> an issue at all, your mileage may vary but as I always say to people,

> give it a go and find out what works for you.

>

> I have tried a number of bar lengths from the standard 400mm right up to

> 800mm and stopped at 650mm for my usual nighttime setup only because the

> longer bar looked odd with a single 21lb weight sat way out at the end.

> I also have a 150mm bar for when I just have the PST attached, this

> works with 1x11lb and is needed as I have the Robin Cassidy 14" saddle

> which with a 14" dovetail weighs too much to just use the standard bar

> with no weights on and rather than make a 4-6lb weight to suit made a

> smaller bar instead..

>

> Regards Badger

>

>

> gnowellsct wrote:

> > A 14 to 16 inch saddle is a good idea to improve stability and damping time.

> >

> > The counterweight trick: I'd like to re-state it in simpler terms. A 20lb counterweight high up on the dec shaft close to the mount will be more stable than a 10lb counterweight all the way out on the end. Think of the counterweight as boinging around on the end of that shaft.

> >

> > regards

> > Greg N

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "mark_scrivener" mark_scrivener@> wrote:

> >

> >> I use a Meade 152ED (6" F/9 semi APO) on my G-11 all the time with no issues. If I "thump" the scope, the settling time is 1-2 sec max. In high winds it might be an issue, but under reasonable conditions it is great.

> >>

> >> I'm using parallax rings, 17.5" dovetail on a 14" Robin Casady tip in saddle, standard G-11 tripod, etc.

> >>

> >> The G-11 will work great for your application.

> >>

> >> -Mark

> >>

> >> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Eric S Pulley" pulley@> wrote:

> >>

> >>> On Wed, July 21, 2010 3:40 pm, paleosonic wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Hi all,

> >>>>

> >>>> I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only

> >>>> (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder,

> >>>> diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26

> >>>> inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under

> >>>> breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it

> >>>> track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the

> >>>> bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations

> >>>> welcome.

> >>>>

> >>>> Regards,

> >>>>

> >>>> Bob

> >>>>

> >>> I think the G-11 would work fine for this visually. You will want to go

> >>> with more counterweight higher on the shaft so you have less vibration

> >>> between the torque of the large refractor and the counterweights. Hope

> >>> that makes sense. Basically with my 5" f5.x (23lbs or so loaded) and

> >>> counterweights out on the end of the shaft it can get some vibrations and

> >>> longer settle down times than with more weight up closer to the saddle

> >>> plate. Actually I like to use a big counterweight up close and then a

> >>> small one out on the end for fine tuning the balance.

> >>>

> >>> I also just started using a G-8 visually with this same set up and it

> >>> works great too (so far anyway no wind yet).

> >>>

> >>>

> >

> >

> >

> >

---------------

> >

> > Yahoo! Groups Links

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>







----------------------------

#46520 Jul 22, 2010

Greg



Good point about the rigidity of the larger Cassidy saddle, though the

reason I purchased it was that it made it a breeze to be able to fit the

OTA in from the side rather than the heart stopping way of trying to

slot 21Kg of SCT into the end in the dark, the only downside being that

as this saddle is not central on the mount it becomes a pain when using

a small scope such as the PST due to DEC balancing issues.



I must have a play and attempt to match the distance of the weights/arm

away from center line exactly to distance of the OTA from the same

point, may be interesting, but I think this may work out to be around

the 400mm of the original bar ;o)



I wonder if the longer arm would help to apparently smooth out the PE of

the worm? given the inertia required to start and stop the mount once

moving at sidereal, a good challenge for someone with a permanent setup

and the time and the ability to run the test



Badger





gnowellsct wrote: > Well--I use my 10lb weight way out at the end. The FS128 scope is very stable on the Berlebach G11. But we have people who are pushing for more...

>

> SCTs are a special case in terms of evaluating stability. The mass of the SCT rides right over the axis of rotation and if you have a stiff Casady running out most of the length of the dovetail, it probably isn't going to need any manipulation of the counterweights.

>

> So your views seem good to me.

>

> Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, David Mercer david.mercer@...> wrote:

>

>> Hi Greg

>>

>> I am not sure that your theory is correct, maybe for a retractor a few

>> inches from the saddle, but with a 12" SCT with a 80mm Guide scope sat

>> some 15" out it it does not act the same way, I find that a 1x11 &

>> 1x21lb weights at the end of the bar is better matched than 2x21lb

>> weights further in.

>>

>> I also do not consider the torque required to get this going and stop is

>> an issue at all, your mileage may vary but as I always say to people,

>> give it a go and find out what works for you.

>>

>> I have tried a number of bar lengths from the standard 400mm right up to

>> 800mm and stopped at 650mm for my usual nighttime setup only because the

>> longer bar looked odd with a single 21lb weight sat way out at the end.

>> I also have a 150mm bar for when I just have the PST attached, this

>> works with 1x11lb and is needed as I have the Robin Cassidy 14" saddle

>> which with a 14" dovetail weighs too much to just use the standard bar

>> with no weights on and rather than make a 4-6lb weight to suit made a

>> smaller bar instead..

>>

>> Regards Badger

>>

>>

>> gnowellsct wrote:

>>

>>> A 14 to 16 inch saddle is a good idea to improve stability and damping time.

>>>

>>> The counterweight trick: I'd like to re-state it in simpler terms. A 20lb counterweight high up on the dec shaft close to the mount will be more stable than a 10lb counterweight all the way out on the end. Think of the counterweight as boinging around on the end of that shaft.

>>>

>>> regards

>>> Greg N

>>>

>>> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "mark_scrivener" mark_scrivener@> wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>> I use a Meade 152ED (6" F/9 semi APO) on my G-11 all the time with no issues. If I "thump" the scope, the settling time is 1-2 sec max. In high winds it might be an issue, but under reasonable conditions it is great.

>>>>

>>>> I'm using parallax rings, 17.5" dovetail on a 14" Robin Casady tip in saddle, standard G-11 tripod, etc.

>>>>

>>>> The G-11 will work great for your application.

>>>>

>>>> -Mark

>>>>

>>>> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Eric S Pulley" pulley@> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> On Wed, July 21, 2010 3:40 pm, paleosonic wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>> Hi all,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only

>>>>>> (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder,

>>>>>> diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26

>>>>>> inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under

>>>>>> breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it

>>>>>> track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the

>>>>>> bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations

>>>>>> welcome.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Regards,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Bob

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>> I think the G-11 would work fine for this visually. You will want to go

>>>>> with more counterweight higher on the shaft so you have less vibration

>>>>> between the torque of the large refractor and the counterweights. Hope

>>>>> that makes sense. Basically with my 5" f5.x (23lbs or so loaded) and

>>>>> counterweights out on the end of the shaft it can get some vibrations and

>>>>> longer settle down times than with more weight up closer to the saddle

>>>>> plate. Actually I like to use a big counterweight up close and then a

>>>>> small one out on the end for fine tuning the balance.

>>>>>

>>>>> I also just started using a G-8 visually with this same set up and it

>>>>> works great too (so far anyway no wind yet).

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>

>>>

---------------

>>>

>>> Yahoo! Groups Links

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>

>

>

>

---------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

>







----------------------------

#46521 Jul 23, 2010

Thanks Bill, VERY helpfull.

.

Clear and Dark Skies

.

Dick Martin --- On Thu, 7/22/10, William Doskocz doskoczw@...> wrote:





From: William Doskocz doskoczw@...>

Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Re: G-11 Load Capacity for Visual Use

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Date: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 3:00 PM





.







Here is some help on what weight and where it should be on the shaft.. I comes

from Robin Casady's website and takes all the guess work out of the picture.. It

gives different calculations based on the location of the center of the scope

mass and shows the need for counterweight differences between a SCT and a

Refractor.



www.robincasady.com/Astro/WeightCalc.html



Luck, Bill



---------------

From: David Mercer david.mercer@...>

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 3:16:19 PM

Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Re: G-11 Load Capacity for Visual Use



.

Hi Greg



I am not sure that your theory is correct, maybe for a retractor a few

inches from the saddle, but with a 12" SCT with a 80mm Guide scope sat

some 15" out it it does not act the same way, I find that a 1x11 &

1x21lb weights at the end of the bar is better matched than 2x21lb

weights further in.



I also do not consider the torque required to get this going and stop is

an issue at all, your mileage may vary but as I always say to people,

give it a go and find out what works for you.



I have tried a number of bar lengths from the standard 400mm right up to

800mm and stopped at 650mm for my usual nighttime setup only because the

longer bar looked odd with a single 21lb weight sat way out at the end.

I also have a 150mm bar for when I just have the PST attached, this

works with 1x11lb and is needed as I have the Robin Cassidy 14" saddle

which with a 14" dovetail weighs too much to just use the standard bar

with no weights on and rather than make a 4-6lb weight to suit made a

smaller bar instead..



Regards Badger



gnowellsct wrote:

> A 14 to 16 inch saddle is a good idea to improve stability and damping time.

>

> The counterweight trick: I'd like to re-state it in simpler terms. A 20lb

>counterweight high up on the dec shaft close to the mount will be more stable

>than a 10lb counterweight all the way out on the end. Think of the counterweight

>as boinging around on the end of that shaft.

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "mark_scrivener" mark_scrivener@...>

>wrote:

>

>> I use a Meade 152ED (6" F/9 semi APO) on my G-11 all the time with no issues.

>>If I "thump" the scope, the settling time is 1-2 sec max. In high winds it might

>>be an issue, but under reasonable conditions it is great.

>>

>> I'm using parallax rings, 17.5" dovetail on a 14" Robin Casady tip in saddle,

>>standard G-11 tripod, etc.

>>

>>

>> The G-11 will work great for your application.

>>

>> -Mark

>>

>> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Eric S Pulley" pulley@> wrote:

>>

>>> On Wed, July 21, 2010 3:40 pm, paleosonic wrote:

>>>

>>>> Hi all,

>>>>

>>>> I have a 6-inch f9 refractor and am looking for a GEM for visual use only

>>>> (no imaging). Scope weight loaded with dovetail plate, rings, finder,

>>>> diagonal and eyepiece is approximately 28 lbs. Moment arm is around 26

>>>> inches. I would like it to be relatively steady in a mild wind or under

>>>> breezy conditions. I just want to be able to point the scope and have it

>>>> track the target. Will the G-11 (with the Losmandy pilar/tripod) fit the

>>>> bill? How will it perform with such a load? Any other recommendations

>>>> welcome.

>>>>

>>>> Regards,

>>>>

>>>> Bob

>>>>

>>> I think the G-11 would work fine for this visually. You will want to go

>>> with more counterweight higher on the shaft so you have less vibration

>>> between the torque of the large refractor and the counterweights. Hope

>>> that makes sense. Basically with my 5" f5.x (23lbs or so loaded) and

>>> counterweights out on the end of the shaft it can get some vibrations and

>>> longer settle down times than with more weight up closer to the saddle

>>> plate. Actually I like to use a big counterweight up close and then a

>>> small one out on the end for fine tuning the balance.

>>>

>>> I also just started using a G-8 visually with this same set up and it

>>> works great too (so far anyway no wind yet).

>>>

>>>

>

>

>

>

---------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







----------------------------

#46523 Jul 23, 2010

Jim,



I can only tell you my experience. My GM-8 had some difficulty handling a Celestron 9.25 inch SCT. It was ok visually but it was clear the scope was a bit much for the mount. It only weighed 20lbs but the length plus being heavy at the ends made it a bit unsteady. I have imaged very successfully with a setup weighting 20 lbs at a focal length of 660 mm. My current set up weights about 18 lbs and the focal length is 735 mm, and I am very happy with it. I get a few frames with bad tracking, but I think that might be due to a misalignment between the gearbox and worm. Because of the misalignment I am going to add the one piece worm block for the GM-8 when it becomes available about mid August.



Here is my opinion of the bottom line on the weight issue. The mount can probably do over 30 lbs visually even with a big scope, but for astrophotography, I believe the limiting factors are both weight and focal length. Here is my best guess. The GM-8 can handle more weigh than 20 lbs at focal lengths of less than 700 mm, or it can go to longer focal lengths if you keep the weight down to 20 lbs or less. Of course bigger scopes with longer focal lengths are going to weigh more. My original scope was a 110 mm refractor that weighed 11 lbs. My current scope is a Stellervue 105 mm carbon fiber Raptor that weighs less than 10 lbs. My guess is that a 115 mm refractor might be pushing things a bit and almost certainly 120 mm is too much for astrophotography. It would be good to hear from someone who has some experience with that size scope on the GM-8.



Later this year I am going to sell my Meade 8 inch SCT and buy a Celestron 8 inch Edge SCT. I suspect that the total weight will be about 22 lbs with everything on the mount. I suspect that with out a focal reducer the mount would be over its limit, more because of the 2000 mm focal length than the weight. However, reduced to 1000 mm and at 22 lbs I suspect the mount will do fine, especially after adding the one piece worm block.



One further consideration is the tripod that comes with the GM-8. In order to have a stiffer setup I ordered the Losmandy 12 inch pillar for the tripod. With the pillar, I only have to extend the legs far enough to level the mount. This arrangement is plenty stiff, and I would recommend it to any one with the GM-8 tripod, especially if they are considering a heaver setup.



Steve

----- Original Message -----

From: jwaters125

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:53 PM

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Photographic Load Capacity for G8 Mount







What's the upper limit on the photographic weight capacity for a G8 mount? I have been told not to go past 20 pounds. I have also been told that scopes past 28" are problematic due to oscillations. Is this true?



Jim











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#46524 Jul 23, 2010

I have an 8 inch vixen RSS and visually it is okay but not photographically. It does not weigh that much either and is short. Around 10 pounds. I have a Takahashi FS 102, and it is marginal photographically. I am going to try a maxim motor on the declamation due to the long telescope. The G. 11 is much more robust. ----- Original Message -----

From: Steve

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 5:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Photographic Load Capacity for G8 Mount







Jim,



I can only tell you my experience. My GM-8 had some difficulty handling a Celestron 9.25 inch SCT. It was ok visually but it was clear the scope was a bit much for the mount. It only weighed 20lbs but the length plus being heavy at the ends made it a bit unsteady. I have imaged very successfully with a setup weighting 20 lbs at a focal length of 660 mm. My current set up weights about 18 lbs and the focal length is 735 mm, and I am very happy with it. I get a few frames with bad tracking, but I think that might be due to a misalignment between the gearbox and worm. Because of the misalignment I am going to add the one piece worm block for the GM-8 when it becomes available about mid August.



Here is my opinion of the bottom line on the weight issue. The mount can probably do over 30 lbs visually even with a big scope, but for astrophotography, I believe the limiting factors are both weight and focal length. Here is my best guess. The GM-8 can handle more weigh than 20 lbs at focal lengths of less than 700 mm, or it can go to longer focal lengths if you keep the weight down to 20 lbs or less. Of course bigger scopes with longer focal lengths are going to weigh more. My original scope was a 110 mm refractor that weighed 11 lbs. My current scope is a Stellervue 105 mm carbon fiber Raptor that weighs less than 10 lbs. My guess is that a 115 mm refractor might be pushing things a bit and almost certainly 120 mm is too much for astrophotography. It would be good to hear from someone who has some experience with that size scope on the GM-8.



Later this year I am going to sell my Meade 8 inch SCT and buy a Celestron 8 inch Edge SCT. I suspect that the total weight will be about 22 lbs with everything on the mount. I suspect that with out a focal reducer the mount would be over its limit, more because of the 2000 mm focal length than the weight. However, reduced to 1000 mm and at 22 lbs I suspect the mount will do fine, especially after adding the one piece worm block.



One further consideration is the tripod that comes with the GM-8. In order to have a stiffer setup I ordered the Losmandy 12 inch pillar for the tripod. With the pillar, I only have to extend the legs far enough to level the mount. This arrangement is plenty stiff, and I would recommend it to any one with the GM-8 tripod, especially if they are considering a heaver setup.



Steve



----- Original Message -----

From: jwaters125

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:53 PM

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Photographic Load Capacity for G8 Mount



What's the upper limit on the photographic weight capacity for a G8 mount? I have been told not to go past 20 pounds. I have also been told that scopes past 28" are problematic due to oscillations. Is this true?



Jim



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







----------------------------

#46525 Jul 23, 2010

I mount my Intest Micro Alter M603 on a Losmandy GM8 and use it for

astrophotography. This scope is an F10 at 1500mm focal length and

weighs about 13lb including scope, camera and guidescope. If I don't

guide I can reach 2 minute exposures before trailing is too much of a

problem. If I autoguide I can expose to 20 minutes without a problem

but I think I'm about at the limit at this focal length. Balancing is

absolutely crucial to prevent guiding problems and I generally find

that the use of a focal reducer to bring the f-ratio down to about 6.3

makes things much easier. While some people say you can go to 20lb

photographically I think it would have to be a fairly fast scope to

make it worthwhile. I think it's best not to go above 15lb. When

calculating your payload you don't need to include the counterweights.



Regards



Simon



On 24 Jul 2010, at 01:08, " Scott Mefferd" smff@...> wrote:



> I have an 8 inch vixen RSS and visually it is okay but not

> photographically. It does not weigh that much either and is short.

> Around 10 pounds. I have a Takahashi FS 102, and it is marginal

> photographically. I am going to try a maxim motor on the declamation

> due to the long telescope. The G. 11 is much more robust.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Steve

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 5:39 PM

> Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Photographic Load Capacity for G8 Mount

>

> Jim,

>

> I can only tell you my experience. My GM-8 had some difficulty

> handling a Celestron 9.25 inch SCT. It was ok visually but it was

> clear the scope was a bit much for the mount. It only weighed 20lbs

> but the length plus being heavy at the ends made it a bit unsteady.

> I have imaged very successfully with a setup weighting 20 lbs at a

> focal length of 660 mm. My current set up weights about 18 lbs and

> the focal length is 735 mm, and I am very happy with it. I get a few

> frames with bad tracking, but I think that might be due to a

> misalignment between the gearbox and worm. Because of the

> misalignment I am going to add the one piece worm block for the GM-8

> when it becomes available about mid August.

>

> Here is my opinion of the bottom line on the weight issue. The mount

> can probably do over 30 lbs visually even with a big scope, but for

> astrophotography, I believe the limiting factors are both weight and

> focal length. Here is my best guess. The GM-8 can handle more weigh

> than 20 lbs at focal lengths of less than 700 mm, or it can go to

> longer focal lengths if you keep the weight down to 20 lbs or less.

> Of course bigger scopes with longer focal lengths are going to weigh

> more. My original scope was a 110 mm refractor that weighed 11 lbs.

> My current scope is a Stellervue 105 mm carbon fiber Raptor that

> weighs less than 10 lbs. My guess is that a 115 mm refractor might

> be pushing things a bit and almost certainly 120 mm is too much for

> astrophotography. It would be good to hear from someone who has some

> experience with that size scope on the GM-8.

>

> Later this year I am going to sell my Meade 8 inch SCT and buy a

> Celestron 8 inch Edge SCT. I suspect that the total weight will be

> about 22 lbs with everything on the mount. I suspect that with out a

> focal reducer the mount would be over its limit, more because of the

> 2000 mm focal length than the weight. However, reduced to 1000 mm

> and at 22 lbs I suspect the mount will do fine, especially after

> adding the one piece worm block.

>

> One further consideration is the tripod that comes with the GM-8. In

> order to have a stiffer setup I ordered the Losmandy 12 inch pillar

> for the tripod. With the pillar, I only have to extend the legs far

> enough to level the mount. This arrangement is plenty stiff, and I

> would recommend it to any one with the GM-8 tripod, especially if

> they are considering a heaver setup.

>

> Steve

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: jwaters125

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:53 PM

> Subject: [Losmandy_users] Photographic Load Capacity for G8 Mount

>

> What's the upper limit on the photographic weight capacity for a G8

> mount? I have been told not to go past 20 pounds. I have also been

> told that scopes past 28" are problematic due to oscillations. Is

> this true?

>

> Jim

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#46528 Jul 26, 2010

Did you try the HD tripod with your g8/9.25? That's a recommended intermediate measure to get more stability.



I've always thought that the price increase for the G11 was such that people with any doubts at all should go for the G11.



regards

Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" bullfox@...> wrote:

>

> Jim,

>

> I can only tell you my experience. My GM-8 had some difficulty handling a Celestron 9.25 inch SCT. It was ok visually but it was clear the scope was a bit much for the mount. It only weighed 20lbs but the length plus being heavy at the ends made it a bit unsteady. I have imaged very successfully with a setup weighting 20 lbs at a focal length of 660 mm. My current set up weights about 18 lbs and the focal length is 735 mm, and I am very happy with it. I get a few frames with bad tracking, but I think that might be due to a misalignment between the gearbox and worm. Because of the misalignment I am going to add the one piece worm block for the GM-8 when it becomes available about mid August.

>

> Here is my opinion of the bottom line on the weight issue. The mount can probably do over 30 lbs visually even with a big scope, but for astrophotography, I believe the limiting factors are both weight and focal length. Here is my best guess. The GM-8 can handle more weigh than 20 lbs at focal lengths of less than 700 mm, or it can go to longer focal lengths if you keep the weight down to 20 lbs or less. Of course bigger scopes with longer focal lengths are going to weigh more. My original scope was a 110 mm refractor that weighed 11 lbs. My current scope is a Stellervue 105 mm carbon fiber Raptor that weighs less than 10 lbs. My guess is that a 115 mm refractor might be pushing things a bit and almost certainly 120 mm is too much for astrophotography. It would be good to hear from someone who has some experience with that size scope on the GM-8.

>

> Later this year I am going to sell my Meade 8 inch SCT and buy a Celestron 8 inch Edge SCT. I suspect that the total weight will be about 22 lbs with everything on the mount. I suspect that with out a focal reducer the mount would be over its limit, more because of the 2000 mm focal length than the weight. However, reduced to 1000 mm and at 22 lbs I suspect the mount will do fine, especially after adding the one piece worm block.

>

> One further consideration is the tripod that comes with the GM-8. In order to have a stiffer setup I ordered the Losmandy 12 inch pillar for the tripod. With the pillar, I only have to extend the legs far enough to level the mount. This arrangement is plenty stiff, and I would recommend it to any one with the GM-8 tripod, especially if they are considering a heaver setup.

>

> Steve

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: jwaters125

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:53 PM

> Subject: [Losmandy_users] Photographic Load Capacity for G8 Mount

>

>

>

> What's the upper limit on the photographic weight capacity for a G8 mount? I have been told not to go past 20 pounds. I have also been told that scopes past 28" are problematic due to oscillations. Is this true?

>

> Jim

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>







----------------------------

#46529 Jul 26, 2010

Greg,



My main reason for sticking with the GM-8 is portability. I rarely observe in my back yard and almost always go out to a dark sky site. I am retired and I want to go along time before the equipment gets too heavy for me to deal with. The problem with the 9.25 is that the extra inertia of the scope made go to's unreliable. The tripod, the way I have it set up, is not a problem, as far as I can tell. I tend to go with what looks right, and the 9.25 just looked too big for the mount. The other reason is that the GM-8 does the job adequately at the weights and focal lengths I am using. However, I do loose a small percentage of subs due to bad tracking, and I am hoping the one piece worm block will help with that problem.



Steve ----- Original Message -----

From: gnowellsct

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:39 PM

Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: Photographic Load Capacity for G8 Mount







Did you try the HD tripod with your g8/9.25? That's a recommended intermediate measure to get more stability.



I've always thought that the price increase for the G11 was such that people with any doubts at all should go for the G11.



regards

Greg N



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" bullfox@...> wrote:

>

> Jim,

>

> I can only tell you my experience. My GM-8 had some difficulty handling a Celestron 9.25 inch SCT. It was ok visually but it was clear the scope was a bit much for the mount. It only weighed 20lbs but the length plus being heavy at the ends made it a bit unsteady. I have imaged very successfully with a setup weighting 20 lbs at a focal length of 660 mm. My current set up weights about 18 lbs and the focal length is 735 mm, and I am very happy with it. I get a few frames with bad tracking, but I think that might be due to a misalignment between the gearbox and worm. Because of the misalignment I am going to add the one piece worm block for the GM-8 when it becomes available about mid August.

>

> Here is my opinion of the bottom line on the weight issue. The mount can probably do over 30 lbs visually even with a big scope, but for astrophotography, I believe the limiting factors are both weight and focal length. Here is my best guess. The GM-8 can handle more weigh than 20 lbs at focal lengths of less than 700 mm, or it can go to longer focal lengths if you keep the weight down to 20 lbs or less. Of course bigger scopes with longer focal lengths are going to weigh more. My original scope was a 110 mm refractor that weighed 11 lbs. My current scope is a Stellervue 105 mm carbon fiber Raptor that weighs less than 10 lbs. My guess is that a 115 mm refractor might be pushing things a bit and almost certainly 120 mm is too much for astrophotography. It would be good to hear from someone who has some experience with that size scope on the GM-8.

>

> Later this year I am going to sell my Meade 8 inch SCT and buy a Celestron 8 inch Edge SCT. I suspect that the total weight will be about 22 lbs with everything on the mount. I suspect that with out a focal reducer the mount would be over its limit, more because of the 2000 mm focal length than the weight. However, reduced to 1000 mm and at 22 lbs I suspect the mount will do fine, especially after adding the one piece worm block.

>

> One further consideration is the tripod that comes with the GM-8. In order to have a stiffer setup I ordered the Losmandy 12 inch pillar for the tripod. With the pillar, I only have to extend the legs far enough to level the mount. This arrangement is plenty stiff, and I would recommend it to any one with the GM-8 tripod, especially if they are considering a heaver setup.

>

> Steve

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: jwaters125

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:53 PM

> Subject: [Losmandy_users] Photographic Load Capacity for G8 Mount

>

>

>

> What's the upper limit on the photographic weight capacity for a G8 mount? I have been told not to go past 20 pounds. I have also been told that scopes past 28" are problematic due to oscillations. Is this true?

>

> Jim

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#46552 Jul 29, 2010

My results have been mixed using Orion 8" RC (1630 fl) with Stellarvue F60 as guidescope , heavy SBIG ST-6B , and G11 tripod. Careful attention must be applied to balancing, even then, pointing toward nadir results in slightly elongated stars. Photometry is primary use.



The selling point of the GM-8 is its accuracy for the price range and portability. No regrets since it is so portable. I must set-up each session. Being able to move the mount/tripod (with counter weights removed) as one item from inside my shed to outside is quite a convenience.



Bottom-line: Concur with others that 20 lbs is about the max for photographic capacity. Less photographic capacity if looking toward nadir. Attention required for adequate balancing.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#48588 Apr 20, 2011

Hey there,



I'm Sharif from Wuppertal, Germany and I'm happy to join this group!

I'm the owner of an old but well conditioned G11 mount, that was once manufactured for Celestron. It was bought by my uncle almost 20 years ago. Last week, I have disassembled and cleaned the mount. Really really nice quality. Although the parts are so old, they looked like new, when I finished.

Now my question ... Inside the RA-Block the smaller aluminum ring is missing, and the four big washers are much smaller than in newer G11 mounts. I've read that this is why the very old mounts have a reduced payload of 15 kgs as compared to 25 kgs. Is this right? If yes ... I would be very unhappy, because I want to load a dual sattle (10" SC & 4" ED) on it for taking pictures. Is there a possibility to change these parts to increase the load capacity?



Thank you very much in advance for any comments



Best regards

Sharif







----------------------------

#48590 Apr 20, 2011

Hi Sharif,



I also bought a Celestron G11 about 4 years ago and the age that time of this mount was 11 years.



Same as you I clenaed it and now it is qworking since 4 years with a payload of 30kg equipment and 30 kg counterweights and no problem at all.



regards Rainer (Mexico)

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "los_mandy" shreevy@...> wrote:

>

> Hey there,

>

> I'm Sharif from Wuppertal, Germany and I'm happy to join this group!

> I'm the owner of an old but well conditioned G11 mount, that was once manufactured for Celestron. It was bought by my uncle almost 20 years ago. Last week, I have disassembled and cleaned the mount. Really really nice quality. Although the parts are so old, they looked like new, when I finished.

> Now my question ... Inside the RA-Block the smaller aluminum ring is missing, and the four big washers are much smaller than in newer G11 mounts. I've read that this is why the very old mounts have a reduced payload of 15 kgs as compared to 25 kgs. Is this right? If yes ... I would be very unhappy, because I want to load a dual sattle (10" SC & 4" ED) on it for taking pictures. Is there a possibility to change these parts to increase the load capacity?

>

> Thank you very much in advance for any comments

>

> Best regards

> Sharif

>



----------------------------

#48592 Apr 20, 2011

Hello to mexico!



Thx for your response!

Your mount seems to be old, but not that old as mine. :-)

Someone told me, that they stopped producing the 15kg model in early 90s. Maybe you've already got the 30 kg model?! Lucky devil ...



Regards

Sharif





--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Sharif,

>

> I also bought a Celestron G11 about 4 years ago and the age that time of this mount was 11 years.

>

> Same as you I clenaed it and now it is qworking since 4 years with a payload of 30kg equipment and 30 kg counterweights and no problem at all.

>

> regards Rainer (Mexico)

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "los_mandy" shreevy@> wrote:

> >

> > Hey there,

> >

> > I'm Sharif from Wuppertal, Germany and I'm happy to join this group!

> > I'm the owner of an old but well conditioned G11 mount, that was once manufactured for Celestron. It was bought by my uncle almost 20 years ago. Last week, I have disassembled and cleaned the mount. Really really nice quality. Although the parts are so old, they looked like new, when I finished.

> > Now my question ... Inside the RA-Block the smaller aluminum ring is missing, and the four big washers are much smaller than in newer G11 mounts. I've read that this is why the very old mounts have a reduced payload of 15 kgs as compared to 25 kgs. Is this right? If yes ... I would be very unhappy, because I want to load a dual sattle (10" SC & 4" ED) on it for taking pictures. Is there a possibility to change these parts to increase the load capacity?

> >

> > Thank you very much in advance for any comments

> >

> > Best regards

> > Sharif

> >

>



----------------------------

#53634 Dec 13, 2013

I have been a happy owner of a G11 for many years. Slowly but surely I having been adding more instruments and I have now reached the rated payload limit of 60lbs. Even at 60lbs I have no trouble with long exposure (30min) astrophotography. I have some new equipment that I would like to add that could add another 10lbs and so I am wonder which component(s) on the G11 create the payload limit? And can those components be upgraded. I really like my G11 and would much rather modify it than pay big bucks for a next generation mount. Any thoughts?ThxJim Roberts



----------------------------

#53635 Dec 14, 2013

Wow JIm

60 Lbs is great on a G11 and getting those kind of results. Is this pier mounted? Frankly, I feel I am at or very near the limit with mine carrying approx 40 lbs. 2000mm F/L.��

Dave



----------------------------

#53636 Dec 14, 2013

No it isn't pier mounted, but it does sit on a thick concrete pad. I am surprised myself with how well it performs



----------------------------

#53637 Dec 14, 2013

Jim,��I slapped a C14 on my G11 and, visually, it tracked fine.�� I didn.t doany astrophotography with it though.�� One issue I had with that much weightis that�� I found it next to impossible to accurately balance the systemwhich is essential for AP.�� I think the load on the bearings was such thatthere was too much friction.�� I re-lubed the mount but that didn.t changeanything.�� Also, the clutches have a tough time preventing slippage.����Since I do plan on doing AP with the C14, I picked up a Titan 50 for thatpurpose.��Hope this helps,��Jeff��From: jimroberts614@...Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 4:44 PMTo: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Losmandy_users] can the payload capacity of the G11 beincreased?



----------------------------

#53639 Dec 14, 2013

Other than placing a mount on a better base (i.e., better tripod, pier, etc.) for greater overall stability (if that is a problem)��you cannot increase the rated payload of a mount.�� The rated payload of a mount is the payload that the manufacturer presumably designed the mount to hold and, were it possible to rate it higher they would have done so.�� You can increase the practical payload of a mount (i.e., the payload that the mount handles well, within the rated payload) by improving the mount's performance and occasionally changing some components (depending on the mount).�� But if you are already at the limit, then you cannot increase that limit.�� You may be able to go over the limit as some people do, but you essentially assume the risk that, at best, the mount will perform poorly or, at worst, some type of failure will occur.��When you want to increase you payload over that for which a mount is rated, then it is time to change mounts.��Ed ThomasDeep Space Productswww.deepspaceproducts.com������������������������������������������







----------------------------

#53640 Dec 14, 2013

I'm not



----------------------------

#53641 Dec 15, 2013

This is a better way to think of it. The ratings of a mount have��NOTHING to do with how much weight they can carry before they fail! ie collapse or break. It has to do with vibration! A lot more vibration can be tolerated visually- the main one being touching the focuser to focus the scope, and next wind, than when imaging- in particular deep sky (for solar system where we use many fast exposures it doesn't matter much especially if u have an electric focuser). Even for slewing there is no problem if the mount is balanced. The most stressed thing on an equatorial mount is the base yoke and elevation screw that supports the polar axis��(on mounts that have this adjustment). To actually cause the mount to��catastrophically fail- ie collapse-one could probably load them with 4 or 5 times the rated weight.��



From: "dsproducts@..." dsproducts@...>To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 11:20 AMSubject: [Losmandy_users] RE: can the payload capacity of the G11 be increased?

��Other than placing a mount on a better base (i.e., better tripod, pier, etc.) for greater overall stability (if that is a problem)��you cannot increase the rated payload of a mount.�� The rated payload of a mount is the payload that the manufacturer presumably designed the mount to hold and, were it possible to rate it higher they would have done so.�� You can increase the practical payload of a mount (i.e., the payload that the mount handles well, within the rated payload) by improving the mount's performance and occasionally changing some components (depending on the mount).�� But if you are already at the limit, then you cannot increase that limit.�� You may be able to go over the limit as some people do, but you essentially assume the risk that, at best, the mount will perform poorly or, at worst, some type of failure will occur.��When you want to increase you payload over that for which a mount is rated, then it is time to change mounts.��Ed ThomasDeep Space Productswww.deepspaceproducts.com/������������������������������������������



----------------------------

#53642 Dec 15, 2013

the limits are about vibration only. The mount will not fail(collapse). The tripod on many mounts is the part that oscillates under load and yours is obviously on a pier. Add what ever you want and try to keep it as close to the rotational axis (rather than putting more stuff on top of the scope) Even better attach it to the mounting rail underneath or�� better still attach it to the counterweight shaft!��



From: "jimroberts614@..." jimroberts614@...>To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 3:44 PMSubject: [Losmandy_users] can the payload capacity of the G11 be increased?

��I have been a happy owner of a G11 for many years. Slowly but surely I having been adding more instruments and I have now reached the rated payload limit of 60lbs. Even at 60lbs I have no trouble with long exposure (30min) astrophotography. I have some new equipment that I would like to add that could add another 10lbs and so I am wonder which component(s) on the G11 create the payload limit? And can those components be upgraded. I really like my G11 and would much rather modify it than pay big bucks for a next generation mount. Any thoughts?ThxJim Roberts



----------------------------

#53643 Dec 15, 2013

I should also point out that I don't use the extension leg tubes, which perhaps makes the mount more rigid.



----------------------------

#53644 Dec 15, 2013

Thank you Charles for this insight.



----------------------------

#56718 Feb 3 9:39 PM

I am thinking about buying a g11 and putting a AT10" Truss tube on it for OAG. I estimate total payload at about 43 lbs.

I would like to hear experiences from others that have the G11 loaded to about that amount. Most notably what kind of RMS guide error are you experiencing with that load?

Thank you

Ray



----------------------------

#56719 Feb 4 1:38 AM

�� Ray,

No direct experience but my 12 inch f/5 Newt (total package nearly 60) is pushing it - with flexure in the system being the biggest limitation (200 sec exposures or so).So the weight isn't a problem by itself.

But your focal length is longer so your rig will be more sensitive.

And I assume you'll be shooting much longer exposures since your f/-ratio is��8 or 9. Plus you'll probably be shooting through filters, which will make for better pictures but will require yet longer exposures. So remember all that when evaluating responses.

The carbon-based unit hefting the beast into place (portable operation only) is the real limitation, together with the awful winter in the upper Midwest (one good night since November 6).

Have fun.

Mark C.



----------------------------

#56722 Feb 4 5:21 AM

On 2/4/2016 12:39 AM,raygilman58@... [Losmandy_users] wrote:

.I am thinking about buying a g11 and putting aAT10" Truss tube on it for OAG. I estimate total payloadat about 43 lbs.



I would like to hear experiences from others thathave the G11 loaded to about that amount. Most notablywhat kind of RMS guide error are you experiencing withthat load?



Thank you



Ray



Ray,



I had a C14 on my G11 for awhile.. The tracking was OK.. I hadproblems with slewing because the clutches wouldn't hold.. I wentwith a Titan.



Jeff



----------------------------

#56723 Feb 4 5:29 AM

Anybody has or had issues with a TAK FSQ-106N and a Sky90 with a G11

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 4, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Jeff Cymmer jcymm@... [Losmandy_users] Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



��On 2/4/2016 12:39 AM,raygilman58@... [Losmandy_users] wrote:

��I am thinking about buying a g11 and putting aAT10" Truss tube on it for OAG. I estimate total payloadat about 43 lbs.



I would like to hear experiences from others thathave the G11 loaded to about that amount. Most notablywhat kind of RMS guide error are you experiencing withthat load?



Thank you



Ray



Ray,



I had a C14 on my G11 for awhile.�� The tracking was OK.�� I hadproblems with slewing because the clutches wouldn't hold.�� I wentwith a Titan.



Jeff







----------------------------

#56724 Feb 5 12:51 AM

Sam,

Those scopes are well within the capacity of a G11 for imaging.

Regards

PaulOn 5 Feb 2016, at 12:29 AM, Sam Medina omedinaw@... [Losmandy_users] Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Anybody has or had issues with a TAK FSQ-106N and a Sky90 with a G11

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 4, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Jeff Cymmer��jcymm@...��[Losmandy_users] Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

��

On 2/4/2016 12:39 AM,��raygilman58@...��[Losmandy_users] wrote:

��

I am thinking about buying a g11 and putting a AT10" Truss tube on it for OAG. I estimate total payload at about 43 lbs.

I would like to hear experiences from others that have the G11 loaded to about that amount. Most notably what kind of RMS guide error are you experiencing with that load?

Thank you

Ray

Ray,

I had a C14 on my G11 for awhile.�� The tracking was OK.�� I had problems with slewing because the clutches wouldn't hold.�� I went with a Titan.

Jeff



----------------------------

#56725 Feb 5 6:24 AM

Ray,I have a 5 year old G11, have been imaging with AT10"RC with carbon tube, guide with OAG and Starlight Express, image with Canon 450D modified.�� Focal reducer set at 0.73X (that is a focal length of about 1460mm).�� I get total RMS of 1 arc second on guide camera and 1.3 arc seconds on the imager camera as calculated by PHDLab.�� (Guide camera has 8.3 micron pixels, image camera 5.4 microns).�� This well within local seeing which is about 2 to 3 arc seconds.

I use a homemade peltier cooler on the camera so it is a little heavier than a bare Canon 450D.

A Stellarvue 50mm finder is mounted on the top of the AT.��

I had to add clutch knobs with handles (part no. CKS) to get enough pressure on the clutches so the mount would not slip during long exposures.�� (Sometimes I shoot 20 minute frames).�� I also sanded the nylon clutch plates to increase friction and cleaned them carefully to be sure there was no grease on the plates.��

I use a 22 lb and an 11 lb counter weights which are set about 2/3s of the way out on the counter weight arm.

I do not use PEC, but do have the typical 4 min error, running at about 1 arc second.�� Images are usually pretty sharp but I will get slightly elongated stars on very long exposures (about two pixels longer on the major axis of mag 6 stars).�� Probably due to slightly off polar alignment, last imaging session it was 5 minutes off.

hope this helps, the challenge never ceases, always trying to get better pictures!

John

��



----------------------------

#56728 Feb 5 8:43 AM

Ray

I am so glad that you have posted your success with your G11 carrying something like a 10" carbon fiber and all the gear and still end up below local seeing. I am having a lot of grief with my mount and it get VERY frustrating at times. Thanks for the positive insight.

��Hamza



----------------------------

#56730 Feb 5 9:43 AM

Thank you John��That was the most detailed report I have had a privilege�� toread.��I understand why you don.t use PEC, not with 1., that is RMS error right?What did you do to get that kind of PE out of that mount?��That.s good to know about the weights. I would have been stuck right out ofthe box waiting for a new weight to be delivered.��Ditto on the clutches.��Thanks again��Ray��From: mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.comSent: Friday, February 5, 2016 6:24 AMTo: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 payload capacity



----------------------------

#56731 Feb 5 9:44 AM

Thanks for the post Hamza��I am very interested in the kind of problems that you are having.��Ray��From: mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.comSent: Friday, February 5, 2016 8:43 AMTo: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 payload capacity



----------------------------

#56732 Feb 5 9:56 AM

My CG11 is loaded with an Orion 10" f3.9 reflector on a pier with heavy

duty parallax rings and SBIG camera, piggyback Short tube 80 with guide

scope and ST4 guider. total in the neighborhood on 45 lbs. I

counterweigh with a pair of 11 lbs and a 20 lbs weight on the bottom of

the shaft. I routinely image with no problem. Exquisite balance is

critical for good tracking. Not using PEC. Very slight bias to the east.



Tom

On 2/5/2016 12:43 PM, ray.gilman@... [Losmandy_users] wrote:

>

>

> Thank you John

> That was the most detailed report I have had a privilege to read.

> I understand why you don.t use PEC, not with 1., that is RMS error

> right? What did you do to get that kind of PE out of that mount?

> That.s good to know about the weights. I would have been stuck right out

> of the box waiting for a new weight to be delivered.

> Ditto on the clutches.

> Thanks again

> Ray

> *From:* mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> *Sent:* Friday, February 5, 2016 6:24 AM

> *To:* Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

> *Subject:* [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 payload capacity

>

> Ray,

> I have a 5 year old G11, have been imaging with AT10"RC with carbon

> tube, guide with OAG and Starlight Express, image with Canon 450D

> modified. Focal reducer set at 0.73X (that is a focal length of about

> 1460mm). I get total RMS of 1 arc second on guide camera and 1.3 arc

> seconds on the imager camera as calculated by PHDLab. (Guide camera has

> 8.3 micron pixels, image camera 5.4 microns). This well within local

> seeing which is about 2 to 3 arc seconds.

>

> I use a homemade peltier cooler on the camera so it is a little heavier

> than a bare Canon 450D.

>

> A Stellarvue 50mm finder is mounted on the top of the AT.

>

> I had to add clutch knobs with handles (part no. CKS) to get enough

> pressure on the clutches so the mount would not slip during long

> exposures. (Sometimes I shoot 20 minute frames). I also sanded the

> nylon clutch plates to increase friction and cleaned them carefully to

> be sure there was no grease on the plates.

>

> I use a 22 lb and an 11 lb counter weights which are set about 2/3s of

> the way out on the counter weight arm.

>

> I do not use PEC, but do have the typical 4 min error, running at about

> 1 arc second. Images are usually pretty sharp but I will get slightly

> elongated stars on very long exposures (about two pixels longer on the

> major axis of mag 6 stars). Probably due to slightly off polar

> alignment, last imaging session it was 5 minutes off.

>

> hope this helps, the challenge never ceases, always trying to get better

> pictures!

>

> John

>

>

>

>

>







----------------------------

#56733 Feb 5 10:05 AM

I have also had a problem with loading the Gll Gemini up with my 8"f6 51" OTA newtonion=26lbs, and another scope 80mm f7.5 refractor =12lbs which is mounted on a dual "side by side" D style plate. I find the clutches do not hold well with this setup compared to just using the 8" scope with no problems unless there is a wind gust. Guiding is done with a slim oag and autoguider, and adaptive optics AO.����Is there a way that another disc added to the clutches with more grab to it can be used.....I'm sure you could not have this in at the time you are balancing the telescope because it would not move freely.��John

---------- Original Message ----------From: "ray.gilman@... [Losmandy_users]" Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 payload capacityDate: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:44:47 -0800

��Thanks for the post Hamza��I am very interested in the kind of problems that you are having.��Ray��From: mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.comSent: Friday, February 5, 2016 8:43 AMTo: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 payload capacity



----------------------------

#56736 Feb 5 2:54 PM

I used the DSBS plate a while ago. I found it added lots of weight to

the mount and generated more torque in the wind so I sold it and got a

set of Parallax rings and mounted a Losmandy plate on its top and

mounted the ST80 with a set of rings. The center of mass is closer to

the RA axis this way and my tracking improved and the mount is much

easier to balance. The reflector can now also handle a bit of a breeze

with no tracking issues..



Tom



On 2/5/2016 1:05 PM, 'J.Bo' bad4connection@... [Losmandy_users] wrote:

>

>

> I have also had a problem with loading the Gll Gemini up with my 8"f6

> 51" OTA newtonion=26lbs, and another scope 80mm f7.5 refractor =12lbs

> which is mounted on a dual "side by side" D style plate. I find the

> clutches do not hold well with this setup compared to just using the 8"

> scope with no problems unless there is a wind gust. Guiding is done with

> a slim oag and autoguider, and adaptive optics AO.

> Is there a way that another disc added to the clutches with more grab to

> it can be used.....I'm sure you could not have this in at the time you

> are balancing the telescope because it would not move freely.

> John

>

> ---------- Original Message ----------

> From: "ray.gilman@... [Losmandy_users]" Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

> To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

> Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 payload capacity

> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:44:47 -0800

>

> Thanks for the post Hamza

> I am very interested in the kind of problems that you are having.

> Ray

> *From:* mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

> *Sent:* Friday, February 5, 2016 8:43 AM

> *To:* Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com>

> *Subject:* [Losmandy_users] Re: G11 payload capacity

> Ray

> I am so glad that you have posted your success with your G11 carrying

> something like a 10" carbon fiber and all the gear and still end up

> below local seeing. I am having a lot of grief with my mount and it get

> VERY frustrating at times. Thanks for the positive insight.

> Hamza

>

>

>

>

>

>

---------------

> *Travel Guard.. Insurance*

> Get Travel Insurance Coverage for Your Vacation!

> thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/56b4e4af89d9964af19b6st01duc>ad.doubleclick.net/clk;271002789;110021277;s;pc=TPAS_ID

> thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/56b4e4af89d9964af19b6st01duc>



----------------------------

#56980 Mar 3, 2016

Has anyone loaded the G11 up with 60 lbs of imaging equipment. How well did the mount perform at that load?

Ray



----------------------------

#56981 Mar 3, 2016

Possibly for visual but marginal...under 50 lbs is practical limit in my

opinion.



Tom

On 3/3/2016 4:43 PM, ray.gilman@... [Losmandy_users] wrote:

>

>

> Has anyone loaded the G11 up with 60 lbs of imaging equipment. How well

> did the mount perform at that load?

>

>

> Ray

>

>

>

>



----------------------------

#56982 Mar 3, 2016

I agree with�� Tom.���� 50 is the limit.������Leroy��From: mailto:Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.comSent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 3:01 PMTo: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Payload Capacity ofG11



----------------------------

#56983 Mar 3, 2016

There are quite a few Mi250s for sale. The 'drive train' is essentially losmandy and the carrying capacity is very high. I had no problems imaging with nearly 70 lbs on my mount.



Cost isn't much higher than a G11 either.



Chris



----------------------------

#56984 Mar 4, 2016

My 12 inch f/5 Newt weighs in, with guider and camera, a just under 60 lb (maybe 59).Once hoisted up the��limiting factor��is the sail effect and flex of the longish tube and the mounting rings and how they are attached to the D-series plate, not the mount itself.Since it is fast (f/5) and operated with only a light pollution filter and a single shot color (so there is minimal filter loss) I can get away with 2-5 minute exposures after adding buttresses to the tube and some lightweight internal structure to the area around the focuser.

I would guess (but I do not know) that a longer focal length, higher focal ratio,��compound instrument might have problems since the guiding is more sensitive in those case and the exposures must be longer. But that is just a guess.

The��weight limit is the 68 year old operator having to hoist it up onto the mount each time as I no observatory. And so it is being parted out to be replaced by a 10 inch f/4 to f/5 for the sake of my��gut and back, not becuase of guiding. If that were my problem I'd try a low-profile off-axis guider.

Mark C.







----------------------------

#56995 Mar 5, 2016

I have a 12" Meade LX200 on my G-11. Piggyback on that is a Stellarvue 80mm ED. Mounted on the side of the 12" is a 50mm Orion guide scope with a Meade DSI-II color CCD and a 2x Barlow. I also use both a Canon 60Da and a ZWO AS174MC camera that I interchange between the 12" and the 80mm. I'm using 3 20lb counterweights spread across the RA arm. I think I'm at the limit for weight. I typically guide for up to 5 minute exposures with no problems. I will be replacing the 12" with an 11" EdgeHD someday soon I hope.

John CPrescott Valley, AZ

---In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, mjcw500@...> wrote :

My 12 inch f/5 Newt weighs in, with guider and camera, a just under 60 lb (maybe 59).Once hoisted up the��limiting factor��is the sail effect and flex of the longish tube and the mounting rings and how they are attached to the D-series plate, not the mount itself.Since it is fast (f/5) and operated with only a light pollution filter and a single shot color (so there is minimal filter loss) I can get away with 2-5 minute exposures after adding buttresses to the tube and some lightweight internal structure to the area around the focuser.

I would guess (but I do not know) that a longer focal length, higher focal ratio,��compound instrument might have problems since the guiding is more sensitive in those case and the exposures must be longer. But that is just a guess.

The��weight limit is the 68 year old operator having to hoist it up onto the mount each time as I no observatory. And so it is being parted out to be replaced by a 10 inch f/4 to f/5 for the sake of my��gut and back, not becuase of guiding. If that were my problem I'd try a low-profile off-axis guider.

Mark C.



----------------------------

#57001 Mar 7, 2016

I had to calculate kg to lbs, but my (older) C14 weights a bit more than 50 lbs and runs fine on teh (young) G11. I hope it also carries 60 lbs because a few extra's wait to be mounted...



----------------------------

#57119 Mar 15, 2016

I had a Meade 14 inch LX200 on my G11. The scope is 65 pounds. I had three of the weights on the bar and it worked fine. I use the Meade 14 with Hyperstar, so long exposures were not needed. I downsized to a 12 inch Meade and run it side by side with a TEC 140 APO scope. Both worked fine on the mount.





Dwight

--------------- On Thu, 3/3/16, ray.gilman@... [Losmandy_users] Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Subject: [Losmandy_users] Payload Capacity of G11

To: Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com

Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016, 3:43 PM





.



















Has anyone loaded the G11 up with 60

lbs of imaging equipment. How well did the mount perform at

that load?

Ray



















#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005 --

#yiv0264090005ygrp-mkp {

border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px

0;padding:0 10px;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mkp hr {

border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mkp #yiv0264090005hd {

color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px

0;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mkp #yiv0264090005ads {

margin-bottom:10px;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mkp .yiv0264090005ad {

padding:0 0;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mkp .yiv0264090005ad p {

margin:0;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mkp .yiv0264090005ad a {

color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-sponsor

#yiv0264090005ygrp-lc {

font-family:Arial;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-sponsor

#yiv0264090005ygrp-lc #yiv0264090005hd {

margin:10px

0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-sponsor

#yiv0264090005ygrp-lc .yiv0264090005ad {

margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005actions {

font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005activity {

background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005activity span {

font-weight:700;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005activity span:first-child {

text-transform:uppercase;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005activity span a {

color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005activity span span {

color:#ff7900;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005activity span

.yiv0264090005underline {

text-decoration:underline;}



#yiv0264090005 .yiv0264090005attach {

clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px

0;width:400px;}



#yiv0264090005 .yiv0264090005attach div a {

text-decoration:none;}



#yiv0264090005 .yiv0264090005attach img {

border:none;padding-right:5px;}



#yiv0264090005 .yiv0264090005attach label {

display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}



#yiv0264090005 .yiv0264090005attach label a {

text-decoration:none;}



#yiv0264090005 blockquote {

margin:0 0 0 4px;}



#yiv0264090005 .yiv0264090005bold {

font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}



#yiv0264090005 .yiv0264090005bold a {

text-decoration:none;}



#yiv0264090005 dd.yiv0264090005last p a {

font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}



#yiv0264090005 dd.yiv0264090005last p span {

margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}



#yiv0264090005 dd.yiv0264090005last p

span.yiv0264090005yshortcuts {

margin-right:0;}



#yiv0264090005 div.yiv0264090005attach-table div div a {

text-decoration:none;}



#yiv0264090005 div.yiv0264090005attach-table {

width:400px;}



#yiv0264090005 div.yiv0264090005file-title a, #yiv0264090005

div.yiv0264090005file-title a:active, #yiv0264090005

div.yiv0264090005file-title a:hover, #yiv0264090005

div.yiv0264090005file-title a:visited {

text-decoration:none;}



#yiv0264090005 div.yiv0264090005photo-title a,

#yiv0264090005 div.yiv0264090005photo-title a:active,

#yiv0264090005 div.yiv0264090005photo-title a:hover,

#yiv0264090005 div.yiv0264090005photo-title a:visited {

text-decoration:none;}



#yiv0264090005 div#yiv0264090005ygrp-mlmsg

#yiv0264090005ygrp-msg p a span.yiv0264090005yshortcuts {

font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}



#yiv0264090005 .yiv0264090005green {

color:#628c2a;}



#yiv0264090005 .yiv0264090005MsoNormal {

margin:0 0 0 0;}



#yiv0264090005 o {

font-size:0;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005photos div {

float:left;width:72px;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005photos div div {

border:1px solid

#666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005photos div label {

color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005reco-category {

font-size:77%;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005reco-desc {

font-size:77%;}



#yiv0264090005 .yiv0264090005replbq {

margin:4px;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {

margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mlmsg {

font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean,

sans-serif;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mlmsg table {

font-size:inherit;font:100%;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mlmsg select,

#yiv0264090005 input, #yiv0264090005 textarea {

font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv0264090005

code {

font:115% monospace;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mlmsg * {

line-height:1.22em;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-mlmsg #yiv0264090005logo {

padding-bottom:10px;}





#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-msg p a {

font-family:Verdana;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-msg

p#yiv0264090005attach-count span {

color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-reco

#yiv0264090005reco-head {

color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-reco {

margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-sponsor #yiv0264090005ov

li a {

font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-sponsor #yiv0264090005ov

li {

font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-sponsor #yiv0264090005ov

ul {

margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-text {

font-family:Georgia;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-text p {

margin:0 0 1em 0;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-text tt {

font-size:120%;}



#yiv0264090005 #yiv0264090005ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {

border-right:none !important;

}

#yiv0264090005







----------------------------

#57188 Mar 31, 2016

Personally it wasn't a matter of IF my G11 could do it, more of a matter of is it worth my frustration. ��On a perfect night, with perfect balance, and numerous other favorable conditions, the g11 could image with 70lbs of equip, however the margins for error just get smaller and smaller. ��Any sort of wind, you got issues, flexure is magnified in all aspects. ��I was imaging with a full load feeling pretty proud of myself, getting mediocre photos at best, but after awhile I became obsessed with shedding weight. ��With a 40lb tpo 12" RC it was quite difficult. ��

Long story short, I purchased an onag xm, and shed about 25lbs from my setup. ��Guide scopes are fun but a significant source of many of my problems. ��Now, the motors sound less taxed, slews are smoother, goto's more accurate and the varying conditions on which I setup have increased. ��Bottom line, I can take pretty awesome photos with my mount above max weight. ��But I can take more, higher quality photos, with much less frustration with a scaled down rig. �� ��

It's a lot like drunk driving, sure you COULD do it and get away with it, but really SHOULD.. you do such a risky thing? ��lol.��



----------------------------

#57189 Mar 31, 2016

Cool story. It could be that you were getting differential flexure from your guidescope arrangement and it wasn't the weight but the flexure causing you grief. Don't know. Anyway, your solution is elegant and working which is all that matters.

Stuart



Contact Us
This Site's Privacy Policy
Google's privacy policies

S
e
n
i
o
r
T
u
b
e
.
o
r
g