Thanks for you all for you replies/discussion.
IF (and it does still sound likes a big IF given the advertising) the
14" base is beefed up somehow, it would incline me more to eventually
upgrade to the 14" scope (sometime over the next 10 years).

Doc, you say you wouldn't get a GPS scope, is that because it's too soon
after initial launch (bugs haven't been worked out?) or is there some
feature/quality that doesn't cut it with you or are you just happy (like
me) with the old design ??


----------------------
Dave Lillis.
Shannonside Astronomy club.





-----Original Message-----
R. A. Greiner
Sent: 27 November 2003 12:39
Subject: Re: [M]: RE: Re: 14" question


All I know is what the specifications and photographs say. The gears
are
the same and the bearings are the same for all of the scopes. The base
is
so tightly packed that I cannot see making the case walls thicker. That
would require a new and different casting. If a new casting is made,
it
would be cost effective to use it for the 12" as well. This is all
too
second hand and messy to figure out right now. I simply do not believe
this
stuff about the base being different. I will try to check with Pete
Peterson. He is a very good person and will know if anyone does. I
would
really like to know the "true facts." It is a shame that such
information
is so hard to get. On the other hand, I will not be getting a GPS so it
does not matter much to me.

Doc G


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: [M]: RE: Re: 14" question


> The pictures in the ads are likely from an early test model. I heard
that
> it was originally basically the same base, but in testing they quickly
> realized what you've been pointing out- that this is a weak point
> mechanically for such a large scope. I don't know the details, but it
> sounds like they just used thicker metal in everything, especially
around
> the cone. There was just a thread on this on the sct-user yahoo
group. To
> quote Pete Peterson (of Peterson Engineering, maker of the Eyeopener,
Buck's
> gears, etc),
>
> "The LX200GPS 14" is a very major redesign of the GPS line, with many
> improvements and great strength. There seems to be a consensus that
> it's the best SCT that Meade ever made.
>
> "The forks have been redesigned, the base is almost solid steel now,
> the focuser has bearings, the drives are loaded with bearings, etc.
>
> There is a yahoo group for the 14", and from what I've heard, they are
very
> happy with it.
>
> -John
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Re the 14" base. Is the base really larger for the 14". I have not
seen
> >one. How is it beefed up? There is not much room to make the
inside
> >components larger or beefier from the looks of it. It looks to me,
from
> >the photos in the catalog, like the base of the 12" and the 14" are
> >identical.
> >It appears to be the same width and height and it has the same
sockets
and
> >everything. Have you actually measured one on the outside? Have you
taken
> >one apart and measured anything inside? How can the base be beefier
on
> >the
> >inside and the same size on the outside? The catalog says that the
12"
and
> >the 14" have exactly the same worm gear, 5.75 inches. This is the
same
as
> >the old LX classic.
> >
> >I think speculation that the 14" has a different base, a beefier one,
from
> >the 12" is not correct.
> >
> >In fact, I believe that the bases of the 8, 10, 12, and 14 inch
scopes
are
> >all identical. Just read the specifications in the catalog.
> >
> >
> >Doc G
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 8:52 PM
> >Subject: Re: [M]: RE: Re: 14" question
> >
> >
> > > The issue isn't the extension blocks, but that fact that the arms
are
> >the
> > > same for the 12" as they are for the 10". Although I think Doc's
right
> >that
> > > the real problem with the 12" is that the RA bearing/drive base is
too
> > > light.
> > > On the 14", the base looks the same from the outside, but it has
been
> >beefed
> > > up quite a bit on the inside. And the forks are much heavier.
There
> >are
> >no
> > > extension blocks- that was only done to allow the 12" to fit
between
the
> >10"
> > > forks. The 14" uses completely different forks.
> > > -John
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >A number of quick questions,
> > > >Do these "extension blocks" in the 12" fork really handicap the
scope,
> > > >Do they cause excess/flexing movement in the fork or is it only
under
> > > >certain loads/conditions that this is an issue.
> > > >If so, is the scope compromised, and are you better off getting a
> >german
> > > >EQ mount (like a Celestron CGE).
> > > >If the 14" uses extension blocks also, might it suffer even more
> >greatly
> > > >then the 12".
> > > >Sorry for all the Qs, but I need to pin this down in my mind
before I
> > > >think about doing demanding imaging with it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Dave Lillis.
> > > >Shannonside Astronomy Club.
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups! Get downloads,
> >videos,
> > > and more here.
http://special.msn.com/entertainment/wiredformusic.armx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share holiday photos without swamping your Inbox. Get MSN Extra
Storage
> now! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
>
>

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [M]: Re: Degree worry, Randy Marsden
Next message: [M]: RE: RE: RA Drive Grease, Dave Lillis
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: RE: Re: 14" question, R. A. Greiner
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: RE: Re: 14" question, R. A. Greiner