Dear Doug.
Thank you for your reply which made sense and I am greatful for points
you raised which I did not consider.
Regards
PETER BRUCE.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: [M]: Re: LX200 accessory attachment holes


> Peter,
>
> > My concern is that as it is on a wedge, the whole weight issue
> > is distorted over to one side of the RA bearings. This together
> > with the extra work the RA motor has to do has made me
> > reconsider doing this.
>
> I think that you need to look at this from two aspects. The first is the
> load to the drive motors. As has been noted elsewhere in the Archives and
> member's Websites, the motors and gearboxes of the LX200's seem flimsy and
> weak until you look at the final gear ratio output - that little assembly
> actually generates a fair amount of torque for its size! But you have to
> work within limits of not overstressing it, so you must balance the load
> they have to move. If the load is properly balanced, there is no effectual
> change to the amount of load that the motors are required to move; i.e.
the
> amount of mass can increase, but balanced mass is effectively naught when
it
> comes to stress on the drives.
>
> The other aspect is the amount of increased mass the mount must carry, and
> that's where I think that you'll start hitting some walls. The 22lb. load
> limit that David mentioned as being the Meade recommended maximum load
> centers more around this aspect. While it may be mechanically possible to
> put more mass load on the drives, the bearings (both Dec and RA) and the
> forks have to bear that mass. The newer models with roller bearings in the
> Dec axis can negate some (even most, to a limit) of that load with their
> better load/friction surfaces than other types of sleeve bearings. But on
a
> wedge, the upper and lower RA bearings are really going to be taking some
> lateral torque stresses that roller bearings aren't designed to take.
There
> also may be some flexure problems with the forks if the load gets
excessive.
>
> So it may be possible to put a total additional mass of 30-35lbs. on an LX
> 200 *if it is properly balanced* without undue stress on the drive motors.
> More than that may begin to overload the mount itself, though, to the
point
> where it will eventually begin to cause problems with the bearings.
>
> Best,
> -Doug
>
>

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Re: LX200 accessory attachment holes, Doug Groesbeck
Next message: Re: [M]: Re: LX200 accessory attachment holes, Keith Graham
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: Re: LX200 accessory attachment holes, Keith Graham
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: Re: LX200 accessory attachment holes, Doug Groesbeck