Hi Frank,

I have monitored this site on this subject and although I haven't built
my pier yet I recall that on the mapug archive there is a mounting plate
where they used 1/2" aluminum with good results. I downloaded the prints
for these plates and can email them to you if you want me to.

Steve Brown


Frank Schwartz wrote:
>
> By the way, after thinking some more about this, and seing this web site:
> http://www.geocities.com/g130160/tech/pier/pier.htm, I've decided to make
> the two plates. If I use aluminum, I may actually be able to drill the
> holes myself. For the afore mentioned weight (see below), what would be a
> recommended thickness for the two plates?
>
> My main reasoning:
> 1) better leveling
> 2) I can thread the plates, rather than sink bolts.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 10:52 PM
> Subject: [M]: Pier differences between LX50 and LX200
>
> > Well, that sucks!!!
> >
> > I just took my new Meade LX200 SuperWedge up to my observatory to replace
> > the original LX50 wedge, and I just discovered a little problem. The 3
> > holes made for the LX50 are exactly 180 degrees out of phase from the ones
> > for the LX200. That is, the triangle made by the 3 bolts that hold the
> > wedge onto the pier or tripod is backwards between the two.
> >
> > I concreted the bolts into the pier for the LX-50 wedge! Now, I have a
> > choice. I can either drill holes into my new Super Wedge (don't want to
> do
> > this), or I can get a local machinist to make me a set of adapter plates.
> > The adapter plates don't appeal to me for two reasons- 1) I am not 100%
> > certain that the 3 bolts I have concreted into the pier are as stable as
> I'd
> > like them to be, and 2) I got a quote once before and it would be over
> $150
> > to get the holes custom laser cut into two 1/4" steel plates.
> >
> > Or, I can cut the bolts off the way they are, and drill new ones into the
> > pier. Being as the pier is 12" in diameter, do you think this will be a
> > problem, weakening the pier at all? I guess I'd have to go pretty far
> down.
> > Any idea how deep into concrete I should anchor a threaded rod to hold the
> > weight of a super wedge, a 10" LX200, counterweights, cameras, guider,
> > etc...?
> >
> > On most photos I see of other people's observatories, they do have these
> > coupler plates. Is there a reason for this?
> >
> > One good thing- the center hole is the same! Yippie. I'm so lucky!
> >
> >
> >

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [M]: Re: [M] RE: daytime observing, Doug Groesbeck
Next message: [M]: 616 Color Wheel Noise, Geoff Todd
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: Re: Pier differences between LX50 and LX200, John Oliver
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: Pier differences between LX50 and LX200, Steve Brown