Why always a column but not a tripod?

[OJ87]

Hi everyone, 

I’m thinking of building my first garden observatory with role off roof. There are a lot of good ideas in internet, but most of them includes building a column (or buying a one),  fixing it with cement, then buying a mount adapter and fix to the top of this column... etc. 

I was wondering, why just not fixing the tripod legs in cement after leveling it, to save money and time?

Best regards,

 

[MarsG76]

You could, but a peir takes less space and is out of the way... negating the tripping hazard when moving around the scope in darkness.

 

[tooth_dr]

38 minutes ago, OJ87 said:

Hi everyone, 

I’m thinking of building my first garden observatory with role off roof. There are a lot of good ideas in internet, but most of them includes building a column (or buying a one),  fixing it with cement, then buying a mount adapter and fix to the top of this column... etc. 

I was wondering, why just not fixing the tripod legs in cement after leveling it, to save money and time?

Best regards,

 

For one it means your tripod is no longer any use if decide to use your telescope away from home.

But honestly it’s a terrible idea from every perceivable angle.

My pier is an off-cut of plastic sewer pipe, filled with concrete. That didn’t cost anything apart from the cost of concrete. To save yourself money remove the legs from your tripod and use the top piece as your adapter on top of the concrete pier.

You don’t have to spend a lot but don’t scrimp on perhaps the most fundamental part of your setup  

 

 

[NGC 1502]

 

The observatory column is usually concreted deep into a large volume of concrete.   If you did that with a tripod you’d have either 3 large concrete blocks or one enormous block.   Tripod legs tend to get in the way, a column much less so, also depending on how long the optical tube is, at some positions the lower end of the tube contacts the legs necessitating the “meridian flip” that interrupts imaging or visual.

As already mentioned, the column can be inexpensively done.  The column is a tried and tested solution.

Ed.

[OJ87]

Thanks everyone,

 

6 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

 To save yourself money remove the legs from your tripod and use the top piece as your adapter on top of the concrete pier.

  

 

 

That's actually a good idea, the concrete costs isn't the biggest problem, but the adapter cost (Around 140€ for eq6), my budget is on limits, so any save if possible are always welcome. I may fix the adapter on the top and make it removable, if I want to upgrade out in future or if I want to go out of town. Thanks Tooth_dr

 

6 hours ago, NGC 1502 said:

 

The observatory column is usually concreted deep into a large volume of concrete.   If you did that with a tripod you’d have either 3 large concrete blocks or one enormous block.   Tripod legs tend to get in the way, a column much less so, also depending on how long the optical tube is, at some positions the lower end of the tube contacts the legs necessitating the “meridian flip” that interrupts imaging or visual.

 

I have to say this mention has changed my mind to making a column, my 1000mm tube comes in contact with legs at some point and making meridian flip cause me a lot of pain. I don't know how I missed that. Thank you Ed.

[Astro Buer]

I hope this is not hijacking the thread, but I literally came online to ask a question in a similar vein, which is:

I have a Berlebach Planet tripod and am looking to build an observatory in the not too distant future. I'm purely an imager and it would be a permanent setup, so +1 for a pier... but I only image at short to medium focal lengths (400-900mm) with CMOS cameras, so exposure times much shorter than for me than with a CCD.  Basically my setup does not demand too much...  but apart from the overall footprint and obvious increase in stability, given my setup is not likely to change that much because I'm most interested in large nebulae, would I benefit from installing a pier over keeping the Berlebach Planet?

Please feel free to remove this if it's not appropriate. 

Thanks,

[Anthonyexmouth]

8 minutes ago, Astro Buer said:

I hope this is not hijacking the thread, but I literally came online to ask a question in a similar vein, which is:

I have a Berlebach Planet tripod and am looking to build an observatory in the not too distant future. I'm purely an imager and it would be a permanent setup, so +1 for a pier... but I only image at short to medium focal lengths (400-900mm) with CMOS cameras, so exposure times much shorter than for me than with a CCD.  Basically my setup does not demand too much...  but apart from the overall footprint and obvious increase in stability, given my setup is not likely to change that much because I'm most interested in large nebulae, would I benefit from installing a pier over keeping the Berlebach Planet?

Please feel free to remove this if it's not appropriate. 

Thanks,

just think how many times it'll take to nudge/kick the tripod before you decide a pier is the better option, just think. with a pier you setup once, polar align once, may check alignment once or twice a year..