![]() ![]() But the MP-50 is not solvent containing and appears to stay softer and more pliable over time to me. Whether this causes lesser performance over time I can't say. I know it is a bit harder to clean off than the MP-50 during the next maintenance cycle. So, you might expect that compound to thicken as it ages and gets worked around. The CRC has quite a bit of slow evaporative solvent which will go away over time. But MoS2 is the key extreme pressure lube additive. It depends on the regulations in the country involved. ![]() If you don't need to give away the formula, the manufacturer will not post the fine details. But in that MSDS sheet I can't seem to find the MoS2 content or other active ingredients or their percentages. The LM-47 is also a molybdenum disulfide containing lubricant in a squeeze tube and the specs looks promising and it looks softer so as to push it out of its plastic tube. The MP-50 is 50% oil and 50% MoS2, and is a paste dispersion the components were easy to pull off of the MSDS sheet. The LM-47 and the MP-50 are different formulations, so not clones of each other. Since LM-47 is a German product, it is difficult to find in stock in the US. Just wondering if LM-47 would be expected to be measurably better than MP-50 long term. A while ago I actually bought a tin of MP-50 and have been thinking of removing the CRC and going back to MP-50. I do know that SOMETHING evaporated because I could smell the CRC in the garage for a week or two and now I can't. it is just an un-scientific observation at this point. However, the friction under pressure seems to have increased with time and now the worm is very difficult to turn under stock spring pressure. With the stock Losmandy spring pressure, I could back the backoff screw completely out and the worm was still fairly easy to turn. Compared to the stock 3 year old application of MP-50, the worm seemed to turn more smoothly and with noticeably lower friction under pressure when first applied. On Wed, at 08:00 AM, Paul Goelz wrote: Is LM-47 expected to be superior to MP-50 or merely a lower cost replacement? I ask because I re-lubed my DEC with CRC about 6 months ago. I do know that SOMETHING evaporated because I could smell the CRC in the garage for a week or two and now I can't.Ī while ago I actually bought a tin of MP-50 and have been thinking of removing the CRC and going back to MP-50. John Is LM-47 expected to be superior to MP-50 or merely a lower cost replacement? I ask because I re-lubed my DEC with CRC about 6 months ago. Quiet, well performing slews and smooth sidereal tracking should result from a good lubricant, which also stays in place and does not contaminate the clutch pads. Bad performance would be indicated by issues like axis motor stalling, choppy or noisy slews, and below par tracking/guiding performance. If someone can share their results after running after 4-6 months, that would be proof of efficacy. ![]() The Liqui-Moly LM47 appears to have the right properties and would be worth a test run in my opinion. Regards, John _ Losmandy G11G2 on pier SkyShed design roll-off observatory ZWO ASI2600MM-P ZWO ASI071MC Sky-Watcher Esprit 100 ED Celestron C925 Edge HD with 0.7XFR, William Optics Zenithstar 61 APO PHD2, Sequence Generator Pro and PixInsight user I'd be happy to ship you some MP-50 if there was a way to get past UK customs. So, in other words, you'll eventually have to give one a try to see. But with each of these greases, Losmandy users like Michael Herman or myself gave each of them a test run before recommending to others. If you find something I could try to give you an opinion on effectiveness. Properties of interest are molybdenum disulfide content, non-corroding to copper, 4 ball weld test, and NLGI (viscosity) ~2. Perhaps you can compare to other lubricants available to you for something similar. Hi David, The TD sheets for the lubricants are attached. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |