Vixen Polaris load capacity
Posted 24 November 2012 - 04:18 PM
I think the ETX125 will be not a problem at all. It is short physically and presents a small moment arm.
I have not tried a C8 on the Polaris. The C9.25 was way too much, a 100ED is ok-ish, still not optimal, but can be lived with. The 100ED has a 1-meter long tube, so the ETX125 should not pose a challenge at all.
Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:03 PM
Used mine last night - extremely lightweight and reasonable stable. I added a simple Celestron motor drive for tracking.
A four year old thread and finaly a picture! Carved out of a solid block of aluminum this one may have a higher payload but I still would not stick a C-8 on it.
Hey! You have the early "New Polaris". What 'scope came on that? I have 3 Polaris mounts but only one of them is like the one pictured.No lat scale but it is so much nicer than the later two. So it is milled and not cast? I need one of those original drives. Have you ever measured the PE? I have suspicions the early ones are whole different animals.
Posted 25 November 2012 - 08:09 AM
I had a Celestron C-80 on mine, it was fine for that scope.
Posted 25 November 2012 - 01:44 PM
An 11-13 pound C8 is a bit too much I'm afraid. A C4 or 6 would be fine.
I think you'll find that the Polaris is machined from aluminum alloy castings not from billet. As mentioned the RA worm wheel is 130 teeth, think Dec is 70.
The Polaris was sold under Celestron and Tasco scopes. Think the C6 was sold on it. Tasco sold a Synta made drive for it. It was very similar to the EQ-3, CG-4 drive.
I don't understand the comments about early models. There has only been one Polaris configuration. Although, I've seen them in three colors.
Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:14 PM
Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:04 PM
Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:01 PM
Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:51 PM
Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:33 PM
Posted 29 November 2012 - 02:01 AM
i guess celestron's penchant for overstating mount capacity (35lb on the CG-5 anyone?) didn't start recently.
Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:36 PM
Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:20 PM
On a different note, a few people have thrown drive comments in their posts -- I modded an eq-3 drive with an uprated crystal to compensate for the 144 teeth on the polaris versus 130 on the EQ-3. It was a $1 fix, and it tracks great.
I'm pretty sure that makes it the only cheap thing I've ever done with a telescope ...
Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:46 PM
I modded an eq-3 drive with an uprated crystal to compensate for the 144 teeth on the polaris versus 130 on the EQ-3. It was a $1 fix, and it tracks great.
Can I ask what the frequency of the crystals were and are? Thanks.
Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:24 PM
I did the same procedure with with the EQ-3 dual-axis (and made a declination bracket as well). I think the original crystals are the same 3.56 MHZ. By my calculation, I needed a 3.96 MHz chip, but to custom make one was like $50, and a 4.0 MHz was $1. The tracking difference is a few arc-minutes per hour, more than adequate for visual or (probably) guided AP, though it'd have to be an awfully light guide rig to go on the mount.
Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:02 PM
Posted 16 December 2012 - 08:23 AM
Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:07 AM
although finding the exact right crystal was pretty hard..
Posted 16 December 2012 - 12:00 PM
Thanks for putting up that web page -- great results with my Polaris! Great pictures, too. A great guide, for sure.
Edited to add: the 4mhz was much easier to find! A shop down the street had one in stock.
Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:21 PM