Here are my blunt pros/cons so far.
I will mail this to some vendors.
Please chime in.
Thanks, Mark
Scope: 4"-ish refractor
Fully-loaded weight: About 17 lbs. (7.71 kg)
Observing Length: 30 inches (76.2 cm)
Tripod: WILL BE Bogen 3058 (half of rated capacity = 22lbs. Okay for scope +
5 lb. mount)
Goals: 1. Visual observing to 150x. Higher mag than that UNNECESSARY.
2. Mount must be small enough to go in a suitcase for airline
travel.
DSC: WILL almost certainly be Argo Navis, so encoders required.
Vibration suppression pads: WILL be used.
PROS/CONS:
-----------------
Giro-2
-------
bigger scopes supported via counterweights
(requiring a counterweight is no problem for me, if scope is better
supported)
DM-4
-----
almost guaranteed orthogonal
"factory-installed" encoders
double the price
counterweights to be added to this system? (doesn't this point towards the
Giro concept as preferable?)
"cleaner" appearance (less wires showing)
much larger bearing size than Giro
UA Macrostar
-------------
bearing size?
no counterweights supported
price < DM-4
has tray for holding AN and good AN support
basically a cheaper version of the DM-4?
>From: Mark Brada <mpbrada@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: Mark Brada <mpbrada@yahoo.com>,The Astronomy Connection
><sf-bay-tac@seds.org>
>To: The Astronomy Connection <sf-bay-tac@seds.org>
>Subject: Re: [TAC] Re: kind of a cool mount
>Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:57:44 -0800 (PST)
>
>I've not owned a Giro, but I've heard many good things about those mounts
>as well. I just chose the DM because 1) stability, 2) integrated encoders
>(yes, I'm lazy when it comes to star hopping) and 3) did I mention
>stability yet? :-) My mount happens to be reasonably close to orthogonal
>(no, this is not quantitative), but I agree that that has nothing to do
>with the design and everything to do with the machining. Another potential
>advantage of the DM is that you don't have to rebalance the scope once
>you've done the preliminiary setup (unless you change the scope you are
>putting on the mount).
>
>Cheers!
>
>Mark
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Charlie Wicks <cwicks1@earthlink.net>
>To: The Astronomy Connection <sf-bay-tac@seds.org>
>Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 12:59:07 PM
>Subject: Re: [TAC] Re: kind of a cool mount
>
>Don't assume that this mount will absolutely orthogonal. That's totally
>dependent on the quality of the machining. I don't see any advantages
>to this design which would make it inherently easier to machine it
>orthogonal, and in reality, it's precision is probably no better than a
>Giro-2. However, attaching encoders to the Giro, might be a bit
>difficult.
>
>Charlie
>
>On Mar 31, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Mark Buxbaum wrote:
>
> > I am pondering a DM-4 versus a Giro-2 for a 4.5" refractor.
> > The DM-4 with encoders will absolutely be orthogonal for DSC's.
> > OTOH the Giro-2 allows adding counterweights, allowing for a larger
> > scope down the line.
> > (I've heard a rumor that the DM may be looking at adding counterweight
> > support.)
> > The Giro is 1/2 the cost.
> > Decisions, decisions.
> > Mark
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 31 14:10:43 2006