|
I'd just like to make one last post here about these piers. Been having some PM discussions with another member here about the sizing of these things, and more about the variety of different gear going on them. I feel that I need to qualify some more of the assumptions behind my comments just so we're all on the same page.
If you've read this far in the thread, you can tell there are many different factors to consider when designing these piers. If you've read my posts in this thread, you should understand that I've been making certain assumptions on the gear being analysed. I usually try to state what all of the assumptions are, but sometimes they get missed.
So what I've been assuming is that the mount and scopes being supported by the pier are completely balanced about all axes. Think I did mention that a few times, but it's important to reiterate. I'm talking about mounts like EQ6 type scale or smaller. Ones that won't take huge eccentric loads, and won't support bigger and heavier scopes like, I dunno, 12" or bigger?
It has been pointed out to me that some of the larger arrangements may have big eccentric loads - whether it's due to the mount, scope, or cameras supported. These will induce bending moments in the piers as the mount/scope moves, and the pier size will need to be bigger to limit that.
Bottom line... it is very, very, very difficult to accurately analyse all different load cases and combinations on these there. You only need to forget one little thing, or make one assumption, and the detailed analysis is useless. It's not worth skimping on the pier size trying to get the absolute minimum size you think you need.
|