| |
Main
Date: 20 Nov 2006 18:53:09
From:
Subject: Mount compatibility
|
If there is anyone out there with experience in using a tripod with an
alt-az assembly(ie gibralter style mount) I would appreciate some
advise. I currently have a cheap equatorial mount.The EQ was
interesting to learn how to use but is very cumbersome without a
drive.I would like an alt-az mount for my new 5" refractor but would
like to save on money rather than buy a whole new tripod/mount
I have had an EQ2 mount from Orion for years and was wondering if the
top of the tripod was compatible with a yolk and cradle assembly for a
5" refractor(~16 lbs). Yolk and cradle parts will save me over half the
cost of a new complete mount.
The base of the mount(with rings and dual axis) was unscrewed from the
top of the tripod revealing a cylindrical depression and a hole where
the screw came through. I wish I could post a photo :-(
I do have plans for a much sturdier EQ mount and drive a year or two
down the road for imaging purposes(ie GM-8 or sphinx)
Thanks,
LowLantern
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 15:26:07
From:
Subject: Re: Mount compatibility
|
>
> This mount from William Optics would be my choice:
>
Thanks for the advice. That mount seems like a real nifty invention and
I' m hopeful that it will be able to handle 16#, 5", f/7.5 refractor
and maybe an 80mmf5 on the other side. The review seems to think it can
hold up to 20# on one side.
Thanks again
Always appreciated your input Rod over the many years of thread on SAA.
May you have transparent skies down there in the deep south.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 08:00:37
From: Alan Charlesworth
Subject: Re: Mount compatibility
|
In article <1164151567.837466.102620@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
hitchcot@musc.edu wrote:
> >
> > This mount from William Optics would be my choice:
> >
>
> Thanks for the advice. That mount seems like a real nifty invention and
> I' m hopeful that it will be able to handle 16#, 5", f/7.5 refractor
> and maybe an 80mmf5 on the other side. The review seems to think it can
> hold up to 20# on one side.
> Thanks again
> Always appreciated your input Rod over the many years of thread on SAA.
>
> May you have transparent skies down there in the deep south.
I have been using a Vixen Porta Alt Az as a grab and go mount for the
moon and planets at home in Portland, OR. Lots of trees and buildings,
so I have to dodge them to get views.
I am partial to slow motion controls, and as far as I know, the Porta is
the only single fork (balanced) alt az with them. I have used it with an
Orion 80 ED (overkill), and Orion Mak 150 (about the limit) at up 250x.
Even with Nagler EPs, it is very nice to use the slow motion to track
objects.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 08:02:02
From: Alan Charlesworth
Subject: Re: Mount compatibility
|
In article
<no.email.address-8CDAFA.08003722112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com >,
Alan Charlesworth <no.email.address@nowhere.com > wrote:
> In article <1164151567.837466.102620@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> hitchcot@musc.edu wrote:
>
> > >
> > > This mount from William Optics would be my choice:
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the advice. That mount seems like a real nifty invention and
> > I' m hopeful that it will be able to handle 16#, 5", f/7.5 refractor
> > and maybe an 80mmf5 on the other side. The review seems to think it can
> > hold up to 20# on one side.
> > Thanks again
> > Always appreciated your input Rod over the many years of thread on SAA.
> >
> > May you have transparent skies down there in the deep south.
>
> I have been using a Vixen Porta Alt Az as a grab and go mount for the
> moon and planets at home in Portland, OR. Lots of trees and buildings,
> so I have to dodge them to get views.
>
> I am partial to slow motion controls, and as far as I know, the Porta is
> the only single fork (balanced) alt az with them. I have used it with an
> Orion 80 ED (overkill), and Orion Mak 150 (about the limit) at up 250x.
> Even with Nagler EPs, it is very nice to use the slow motion to track
> objects.
Forgot to include a URL:
http://www.vixenamerica.com/Products/Default.asp?TopCatCode=MT&Fam_or_Cat
=MT-AZ&Short_Verbose=ALT%2DAZ
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 14:22:02
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Mount compatibility
|
hitchcot@musc.edu wrote:
> If there is anyone out there with experience in using a tripod with an
> alt-az assembly(ie gibralter style mount) I
Hi:
This mount from William Optics would be my choice:
<http://www.buytelescopes.com/product.asp?t=&pid=10370&m=49 >
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 15:54:41
From:
Subject: Re: Mount compatibility
|
Wow,
Slow motion controls - How cool!
I like the price too.
Is it stable with your Mak 150 at 250X?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 08:14:50
From: Alan Charlesworth
Subject: Re: Mount compatibility (alt az)
|
In article <1164239681.513617.324770@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
hitchcot@musc.edu wrote:
> Wow,
>
> Slow motion controls - How cool!
> I like the price too.
> Is it stable with your Mak 150 at 250X?
It would settle down quickly enough after focusing or tracking with the
slow motion to let Jupiter or Saturn drift through the field of a 7 mm
Nagler (257x on the Orion 150 Mak). This was last summer under pretty
steady seeing.
The Porta mount balances scopes great, unlike the Orion AZ-3 (which I
had used with a 127 Mak). The AZ-3 (a clone of the Vixen Icarus) gets
progressively more unbalanced toward the zenith. I do believe a better
tripod might be useful with the Porta -- wind made things shaky.
For me, the limit for grab and go is what will carry outside in one
piece over my shoulder, and the 150 Mak seems about at that limit.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 11:02:51
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: Mount compatibility (alt az)
|
"Alan Charlesworth" wrote
> The Porta mount balances scopes great, unlike the Orion AZ-3 (which I
> had used with a 127 Mak). The AZ-3 (a clone of the Vixen Icarus) gets
> progressively more unbalanced toward the zenith. I do believe a better
> tripod might be useful with the Porta -- wind made things shaky.
The $149 Orion AZ-3 is NOT a clone of the Vixen Icarus, unless the one you
refer to is different from the Icarus-D. I have the $279 Icarus-D, which has
a "pan head" clamp, wood legs, and has NO problem holding even an 11 lb 36"
long 6" reflector up to high altitudes. Yes, the scope must be slid forward
in the rings to balance.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 08:42:18
From: Alan Charlesworth
Subject: Re: Vixen Porta and Icarus slo-mo alt az mounts
|
In article <12mboio6ohhkqfb@corp.supernews.com >,
"Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net > wrote:
> "Alan Charlesworth" wrote
>
> > The Porta mount balances scopes great, unlike the Orion AZ-3 (which I
> > had used with a 127 Mak). The AZ-3 (a clone of the Vixen Icarus) gets
> > progressively more unbalanced toward the zenith. I do believe a better
> > tripod might be useful with the Porta -- wind made things shaky.
>
> The $149 Orion AZ-3 is NOT a clone of the Vixen Icarus, unless the one you
> refer to is different from the Icarus-D. I have the $279 Icarus-D, which has
> a "pan head" clamp, wood legs, and has NO problem holding even an 11 lb 36"
> long 6" reflector up to high altitudes. Yes, the scope must be slid forward
> in the rings to balance.
My apologies for the error. The Icarus-D and Porta (both by Vixen) seem
to be the only slow-motion alt az mounts.
The Porta mount arm is bent back at 45 degrees to allow pointing
straight up. The Vixen mounting plate is perpendicular to the altitude
axis, so the scope stays balanced.
The Icarus holds the scope above the altitude axis screwed into a plate,
like the Orion AZ-3. Since the scope is above the altitude axis, I
assume it gets progressively out of balance when pointed up (like the
AZ-3 did).
The Porta comes on a light-weight aluminum tripod, while the Icarus
comes on wood. The Porta is pricy at $400 from Astronomics, and while
the Icarus is $280 from Anacortes.
The other high-end alt-ax mounts all requite nudging to track planets
(like Dobs). I personally find turning a know more predictable.
|
|
