Scopes: 190mm SW Mak-Newt @ f/5.3 & 90mm SV Raptor Triplet @ f/7Cameras: Atik 383L+ mono w/ EFW2 FW with Astrodon filters & Canon XSi 450D (Modded)Mount: Astro-Physics Mach1GTO mount guided with QHY5 KWIQ guiderSoftware: Sequence Generator Pro; PixInsight; Photoshop CS5Best investment: Stone Garden Observatory - Bortle 4 (Green)
Deep Space Products
Cliff Hipsher ICC USN (Ret.) '03 883 XLH Meade 2080/LXD75 (Big Blue) Meade DSI Color Meade DSI Pro TEC Cooled Celestron Neximage Celestron Radial Guider Star Guider Filter Wheel Vixen Flip Mirror Some Eyepieces Swift 7x50's Empty Wallet I.A.M.B.K. I ride. There fore I am...
Quote:Abetter tripod/pier must make some difference is certain situations. The motors/gears/bearings/castings are all the same between the CGEM and DX. The capacity is different. The only changes related to capacity would be the tripod and controller chip allows more current draw for imbalance situations with a heavy load.
http://txstars.org/ "It's not a 12 Step Program it is a 12 shot Roll" Equipment: Yes
Dark Arts Observatory - Brockport, NY - Skyshed POD XL5 with iOptron iEQ45 Mount
Scopes: C8, C5, SV110 ED, EON-72 ED, ST 80, ATRC6, Megrez 90
My PixInsight Tutorial
Pointer to Other Useful Threads of Mine
Quote:First let me say that I'm no expert on mounts. But I am an engineer and find it interesting to evaluate and compare these things. Seems to me that the mount's maximum capacity can be limited by 3 things:1) Breaking capacity - the point at which too much weight will cause a structural failure2) Dynamic capacity - the load that the bearings and moving parts were designed to handle without damage.3) Stable capacity- how much load the mount can handle and still maintain a stable view for long exposure AP.In most cases, I think you'll never get near the breaking capacity of the mount which is likely to be MUCH higher than the rated load. The dynamic capacity is probably of more concern, but still likely to be somewhat higher than the rated capacity to allow some margin of safety.The stable capacity is the one we're most concerned with, and will often be considerably LESS than the rated capacity, depending on things like focal length and the length of the scope's moment arm. It will also be dependent on the individual astrophotographer and how fanatical he or she is about getting perfectly round stars.In view of how many threads there are regarding people moving to heavier tripods or to piers, it's clear that the stable capacity of mounts increase by going to a more solid underpinning. Since the stable capacity is nearly always the limiting factor in AP, my opinion is that yes, a pier will increase the maximum load that you can use on a mount and still get acceptable photographs. If you're talking about breaking or dynamic capacity, then no, a pier will not increase the maximum load capacity.-Dan
Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes living with misery a lot easier!