Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Mounts

Pages: 1
gustavo_sanchez
sage


Reged: 12/30/10

Loc: Puerto Rico, US
Max Load on CG-4 (latest version)
      #4360123 - 02/03/11 09:08 AM

Hello,

I have read a lot about the Omni 120 refractor being undermounted on the CG-4. If the CG-4 load capacity is 20lbs. and the 120 OTA is about 12 lbs. and then the accesories are about 3 lbs., then why it is undermounted? Just a curiosity.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dandabson
super member


Reged: 10/15/08

Loc: Dover, DE
Re: Max Load on CG-4 (latest version) new [Re: gustavo_sanchez]
      #4360230 - 02/03/11 10:25 AM

I have mounted a 120/F8.3 on the same class of mount, an older Orion EQ3. I found it to be usable. The mount you are using is an excellent no frills mount. If it works for you go for it. Whatever gets you out under the sky is good for me.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mcoren
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 01/11/06

Loc: Virginia, USA
Re: Max Load on CG-4 (latest version) new [Re: dandabson]
      #4360369 - 02/03/11 11:23 AM

"Undermounted" or "properly mounted" is subjective. To paraphrase what Dan said, if it works for you and you enjoy using it, don't let other peoples' opinions take away from that.

Weight rating alone only gives half the picture. A short OTA like an SCT or a fast refractor or newt will be more stable on the same mount than a long focus refractor or newt with the same weight. The reason is because most of the weight is in the lenses or mirror, and if they are farther away from the pivot point of the mount, they will generate a longer moment arm. In other words, they will act as a longer lever and exert more force on the mount due to vibrations, wind, etc.

Again, it's subjective. What you might be perfectly happy with in terms of vibration damping and wind pickup, someone else might find completely unacceptable. Whether you're doing just visual observing or photography with the mount also has an effect. Most astrophotographers seem to prefer higher capacity, sturdier mounts for the same payload.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Trev
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/18/05

Loc: Fort McMurray, AB
Re: Max Load on CG-4 (latest version) new [Re: mcoren]
      #4360446 - 02/03/11 11:58 AM

The biggest problem with refractors is the moment arm.
Newt's and Cat's are more compact and sit closer to the pivot points for the mount, wheras a refractor sticks out much further creating more torque to start moving it and to slow it down. When dealing with refractors on EQ's think of it more of a question of torque than mount capacity.
If you think of a figure skater spining in a circle the closr their arms are to the body the faster they spin, putting the arms out slows them down


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1


Extra information
11 registered and 35 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Dave M, richard7, bilgebay 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 507

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics