Jump to content


Photo

The ultimate CGEM topic ...

  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#101 AntarcticDave

AntarcticDave

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:43 PM

Ok guys, I got the additional 11 lb. weight today. Here's a picture on the scope. It appears to be cast, where the 17 lb. that came with the scope appears to be machined. Other than that, it's the same shape, diameter, same knob, etc.

Attached Files



#102 AntarcticDave

AntarcticDave

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:44 PM

Here's a second shot.

Attached Files



#103 coopfore1

coopfore1

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 127
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2005
  • Loc: il

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:57 PM

Thanks Dave

#104 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3591
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 08 April 2009 - 12:11 AM

I am also considering getting one. My current scopes both have vixen style dovetail bars. Would it be better to replace them with the Losmandy style plates, or get the replacement saddle that ADM offers? I am mostly just trying to figure out costs. To put a Losmandy style plate on my SV 102ED, I would probably need to get rings for it to replace the clam shell. Though it looks like SV may have a plate that fits the clam shell. Either way, it seems easier to just replace the saddle, though that is not cheap.


Just got my ADM dual saddle for the CGEM and I have to say Anthony really came through on this. Way nicer than the stock saddle. The only thing that kind of annoyed me was that he moved the knobs to the opposite side. I had just gotten use to mounting the scope with them the way they were. But I think the way Anthony made them is probably the best way to go.

#105 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • ****-
  • Posts: 10879
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:34 AM

Since the mount doesn't care about the orientation of the dec axis and the new saddle appears to be symmetrical what is stopping you from simply rotating the saddle 180°?

#106 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3591
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 08 April 2009 - 02:00 PM

Since the mount doesn't care about the orientation of the dec axis and the new saddle appears to be symmetrical what is stopping you from simply rotating the saddle 180°?


I am not sure that would work but I have not tried it yet to see. There are marks you are suppose to line up and if rotated they would be 180 degrees apart. If you do that then during the allignment process I think the scope would slew to the opposite side of the sky when looking for your 1st allignment star. The Hand Controller lets you tell it you have a side by side plate attached but I did not see anything about reversing the direction completely.

#107 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • ****-
  • Posts: 10879
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 08 April 2009 - 02:55 PM

The scope's electronics have no idea where those index marks are ... they are there just to give you an appropriate starting point. The CGEM works just like the CG-5 when it comes to dec orientation ... it doesn't have any idea and assumes you are starting with the counterweight down and the RA axis and scope roughly pointed at Polaris. If you started with the scope pointed downwards (180°) then the mount would indeed point the scope at the wrong side of the sky for the alignment stars.

Being 90° off is something different since you can just as easily be 90° off in either east or west directions. You use the OTA orientation function on the Celestron gems so that the mount slews the right distance and direction from the assumed starting point when using a side by side (90° offset) saddle configuration.

#108 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3591
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 08 April 2009 - 03:35 PM

Ok, that makes sense, because the hand controller does tell you to line everthing up and then press enter. So I guess pressing enter is telling the mount that you aimed roughly at polaris, so you are correct it should work either with the knobs on the left or right.

#109 t.r.

t.r.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4439
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 13 April 2009 - 12:00 PM

How many screws, bolts or hex-bolts attach the new ADM replacement saddle to the mount? What I'm geting at is how solid are the two mated? Thanks...

#110 donsinger1

donsinger1

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 307
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2007

Posted 13 April 2009 - 12:19 PM

"OTA orientation function on the Celestron gems..."

What function is this?

Don

#111 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • ****-
  • Posts: 10879
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 13 April 2009 - 02:08 PM

Don,

Under Scope Setup ... the OTA Orientation function allows you to tell the mount that you're using a side by side saddle configuration and therefore the OTAs will be turned 90° left or right from the default position. Then your gem can properly figure out where and how far to slew to the alignment stars when you're setting it up.

#112 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 12896
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Cloud-chester,NY

Posted 13 April 2009 - 02:13 PM

Page 27 of the manual.

#113 Lane

Lane

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3591
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Frisco, Texas

Posted 13 April 2009 - 03:24 PM

How many screws, bolts or hex-bolts attach the new ADM replacement saddle to the mount? What I'm geting at is how solid are the two mated? Thanks...


It is a very snug but perfect fit. You just remove the 3 hex bolts that hold the old saddle in place and discard them with the old saddle. New hex bolts come with the adm saddle plate.

Attached Files



#114 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 20270
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 14 April 2009 - 07:22 PM

Dave:

Neither of those weights look to be machined. Perhaps simply different textures on the finish? The smaller weight looks like it uses a slightly cruder casting though.

Regards,

Jim

#115 AntarcticDave

AntarcticDave

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 15 April 2009 - 08:55 AM

The stock weight has much sharper edges and a flat surface along the circumference. The edges are more rounded, and you can see some curvature to the circumference on the small additional weight. Perhaps Celestron outsourced the 11 lb weight to someone else. Anyway, it works.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics