Jump to content


Photo

CGE Pro 'portability', repeated dis assembly, etc.

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#26 WadeH237

WadeH237

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:23 AM

Thanks for the video reference. I generally don't bother to watch the videos.

In this case, I would take the 45/30 comment with a grain of salt. I would trust End's 57/18 estimates more. The RA/Dec assembly is where the weight is. I doubt that the "wedge" part that is underneath the RA axis could possibly be 35lb.

For what it's worth, the engineer in the video makes a number of other technical errors in his statements. For example, he says that the capacity of the original CGE is 45lb. This is not true. Celestron has always rated the original CGE at 65lb payload. Here is a written reference to the correct number from Celestron.

He also states that the dec worm block is spring loaded, but the RA is not. I believe that this was once true, but the current shipping CGE Pro mounts have both worm blocks spring loaded.

Anyway, my suggestion is to trust the printed materials more than comments in a video. Also, this thread has been a great source of information.

Clear skies,
-Wade

#27 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2550
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:17 PM

You can separate the DEC from the RA axis on the CGE Pro. However, you are disassembling the mount to do this. It requires the removal of four allen head bolts. These bolts are usually thread locked in place. In addition, the DEC can sometimes be difficult to remove. The mount was not designed for this type of disassembly for transport and that is obvious. If it had been, then they would have made it easier to do and would not be threadlocking things together. In addition, the bolts used to hold the axes together on the CGE Pro are much smaller than those used on the original CGE.

The base of the mount is quite heavy, but I would probably put it at more like 25 pounds. I will have to wiegh one sometime. That would leave about 65 pounds for the axes with the DEC being a bit lighter than the RA.

I conclusion, yes you can disassemble the mount for transport but it was not specifically designed for that. It is merely the result of the manufacturing requirements. I don't particularly recommend doing this, but I guess there isn't really a problem as long as you don't strip out the bolt holes or lose the bolts.

#28 spongebob@55

spongebob@55

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2011
  • Loc: Bergen Co. New Jersey

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:30 PM

Thanks for the video reference. I generally don't bother to watch the videos.

In this case, I would take the 45/30 comment with a grain of salt. I would trust End's 57/18 estimates more. The RA/Dec assembly is where the weight is. I doubt that the "wedge" part that is underneath the RA axis could possibly be 35lb.

For what it's worth, the engineer in the video makes a number of other technical errors in his statements. For example, he says that the capacity of the original CGE is 45lb. This is not true. Celestron has always rated the original CGE at 65lb payload. Here is a written reference to the correct number from Celestron.

He also states that the dec worm block is spring loaded, but the RA is not. I believe that this was once true, but the current shipping CGE Pro mounts have both worm blocks spring loaded.

Anyway, my suggestion is to trust the printed materials more than comments in a video. Also, this thread has been a great source of information.

Clear skies,
-Wade


Hey Wade,
Interesting though, if you add End's GEM top half @57 lbs, and GEM bottom half @18.5 lbs, you get 75.5 lbs, which is what Celestron quoted. The individual weights are just quite off from each others component weights. Well, we'll just have to wait for End, when he has time and wants to weigh them again.
For me, I'm trying to get components down under my CPC1100 weight of 69.5 lbs (2 ADM rails and a moonlight focuser only) weird carrying pounds.
Also, if the original CGE had a capacity of 65lbs, and the DX is now rated at 50lbs, something is a bit off. Perhaps marketing has or was in the way of reality, either back in the day or now.
Well, also lets keep one of my original questions in mind, as to how easy (or not)/ or careful one must be) the Pro would be to assemble, disassemble all the time for moving it. Of course this weight issue is really the 1st step in determining that... A great thread!

#29 spongebob@55

spongebob@55

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2011
  • Loc: Bergen Co. New Jersey

Posted 02 January 2013 - 12:38 PM

You can separate the DEC from the RA axis on the CGE Pro. However, you are disassembling the mount to do this. It requires the removal of four allen head bolts. These bolts are usually thread locked in place. In addition, the DEC can sometimes be difficult to remove. The mount was not designed for this type of disassembly for transport and that is obvious. If it had been, then they would have made it easier to do and would not be threadlocking things together. In addition, the bolts used to hold the axes together on the CGE Pro are much smaller than those used on the original CGE.

The base of the mount is quite heavy, but I would probably put it at more like 25 pounds. I will have to wiegh one sometime. That would leave about 65 pounds for the axes with the DEC being a bit lighter than the RA.

I conclusion, yes you can disassemble the mount for transport but it was not specifically designed for that. It is merely the result of the manufacturing requirements. I don't particularly recommend doing this, but I guess there isn't really a problem as long as you don't strip out the bolt holes or lose the bolts.


Great insight Ed. Interesting though that Celestron makes it a big point in their marketing. Threadlock is to keep things where they are, or when the threads are as tight as they should be, which is bad....

#30 DaveJ

DaveJ

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1759
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2005
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:41 PM

...Also, if the original CGE had a capacity of 65lbs, and the DX is now rated at 50lbs, something is a bit off. Perhaps marketing has or was in the way of reality, either back in the day or now.


You're comparing apples and oranges. The 65lb weight limit was for the CGE (now discontinued) and the DX you mention refers to the CGEM DX - a completely different animal than the CGE. I have both and those limits both seem within reason to me. One would think that somebody at Celestron would be able to think up a less confusing naming convention, wouldn't one?
CGE (now discontinued, but a stated capacity of 65lbs)
CGE Pro (subject of this thread. Stated capacity of 90lbs)
CGEM (stated capacity of 40lbs)
CGEM DX (same tripod & counterweights as the CGE Pro, stated capacity of 50lbs)

#31 spongebob@55

spongebob@55

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2011
  • Loc: Bergen Co. New Jersey

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:12 PM

...Also, if the original CGE had a capacity of 65lbs, and the DX is now rated at 50lbs, something is a bit off. Perhaps marketing has or was in the way of reality, either back in the day or now.




You're comparing apples and oranges. The 65lb weight limit was for the CGE (now discontinued) and the DX you mention refers to the CGEM DX - a completely different animal than the CGE. I have both and those limits both seem within reason to me. One would think that somebody at Celestron would be able to think up a less confusing naming convention, wouldn't one?
CGE (now discontinued, but a stated capacity of 65lbs)
CGE Pro (subject of this thread. Stated capacity of 90lbs)
CGEM (stated capacity of 40lbs)
CGEM DX (same tripod & counterweights as the CGE Pro, stated capacity of 50lbs)


DAG! Thanks, it is confusing, but I know better. DUH :foreheadslap::foreheadslap:

#32 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33885
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:02 PM

One would think that somebody at Celestron would be able to think up a less confusing naming convention, wouldn't one?


Yes. And don't forget the ORIGINAL CGE Pro; that one had a capacity of maybe 250 pounds. Prototypes were displayed but that model never made it into production.

#33 spongebob@55

spongebob@55

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2011
  • Loc: Bergen Co. New Jersey

Posted 14 March 2013 - 09:08 PM

I've purchased and have put some time on my CGE Pro mount. I've lowered it based on the info/link above. Its 4" lower now. One thing to remember is that the angle on the legs change, so the angle on the eyepiece tray/stiffener doesn't line up anymore. Just the top of the tray leg slots makes contact with the legs. But the mount is fine with this.
In addition, I've replaced the bolts in the electronics pier with thumbscrews and collars so this piece can also be separated from the tripod, making it just a bit lighter, but of course giving you one more thing to carry. The thumbscrews make it go together fast and strong.
I take the mount apart. Its easy, but when assembling it, you have to watch your finger when inserting the polar axis housing inside the side plate frame. You just have to take 2 large thumbscrews out, along with two very small thumbscrews for the latitude indicator. I can do this all by myself and I use my chair to sit the C14 upon and then just mate it to the dovetail. But I'm not that comfortable with the size of the seat on the chair in relationship to the C14's cover, so I'm making a bigger platform for it in order to be larger than the diameter of the cover of the C14. The Go To is super accurate, and I use 5 total stars for alignment. I like how the mount brings the scope to a 'home' position and then aligns from there. You can use that position to get Polaris in a finder eyepiece by adjusting the latitude bolt and azimuth bolts, but that's not necessary according to the instructions, but I do it anyway.
The whole thing is easier than my CPC1100 was, but has more pieces to move.
Clear skies to you all.
bob

#34 Starblazer999

Starblazer999

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 15 March 2013 - 01:26 AM

:oI Take mine out with a sack truck then ad scope and counter weights after just use the wife to help






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics