#1  
Old 13-04-2008, 07:54 AM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,235
EQ6 maximum load

I'm interested in peoples experience with the EQ6 and in particular how much load it can take. I'm planning to use my ED80 to guide while imaging through my 10" f5 Newt in a side by side config. I've got all the parts and set it up (without guiding) and it seemed to cope with the load ok (4x5 kg counterweights were required to balance it up). I'm getting the mount upgraded to the goto version next week so new motors.

Does anyone have the EQ6 pro or EQ6 goto version with this type of load?

Cheers

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 13-04-2008, 08:10 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,713
My EQ6 carries my 12" newt (21kg OTA) with DMK+filterwheel, with 25kg of counterweights.

I don't slew all over the sky with it though, just slew to the planet and track.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13-04-2008, 03:59 PM
skwinty's Avatar
skwinty (Steve)
E pur si muove

skwinty is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 494
Hi Pete
My EQ6 Pro carrries the same load as Mike's and I slew all over the place visually observing.
I find the mount handles the weight very well although when windy there is a fair amount of wobble in the eyepiece. A hargreaves srut helps a lot to quieten it down.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13-04-2008, 04:12 PM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,235
Thanks Mike and Steve for the info. That will be a similar load to what I'm contemplating - good to hear the mount can take it without the motors melting.

Steve - are you using 25kgs of counterweights like Mike and where did the Hargreaves strut come from - did you make one?

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 13-04-2008, 04:19 PM
skwinty's Avatar
skwinty (Steve)
E pur si muove

skwinty is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 494
Hi Pete
Yes, I am using 25kg of CW. I made a strut by flattenning the ends of a curtain rod and drilling holes in the flat ends. I then attach to the bottom CW screw using some spacer washers and to the scope via one of the screws that hold the top ring in place. I used a longer screw. I also marked the scope once balanced etc so that I always put the ota in the same place.
I also made sure that when in home position the eyepiece points down in the same direction as the CW shaft so that 90% of the time I dont have to stand on a chair when viewing. When using the camera it is not important as I remote the camera with the laptop.
I will post a pic later today.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 13-04-2008, 06:13 PM
Alchemy (Clive)
Quietly watching

Alchemy is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Yarra Junction
Posts: 2,949
The setup you are looking to use would be pretty similar to that the late great ezystyles ( now ceased imaging ) used, he produced pretty good images with his setup.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 13-04-2008, 06:57 PM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,235
Alchemy,

I've seen pictures of Eric's setup and althought he has similar gear he has the guidescope mounted on top of the Newt. I'm planning to have them side by side so the centre of gravity should be closer to the mount however the weight won't be distributed uniformly. Not sure if this is going to be a big problem but I've seen a lot of poeple (including you) who have them mounted side by side so just interested to know if the EQ6 is up to it.

Steve,

I would love to see some pics. I wonder if SWMBO would miss the curtains from the spare bedroom?

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 13-04-2008, 07:38 PM
anthony2302749's Avatar
anthony2302749
Registered User

anthony2302749 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 406
Hi

Like Mike I will be using my EQ6 GOTO mainly for planetary imaging and just visual work. I have heavily modifided the mount so that it can carry the weight of the 14" LX200R (27kg). With 22.5kg's of Gym weights to balance the system it fuction very well as a planetary imaging platform. So how much weight can an EQ6 carry, so far the max is 27kg as long as you only plan to use it as a planetary imaging and visual platfrom.

Before anyone ask the question when will I post the first imaging they will come in due course, I am still in the shake down stage e.g refineing polar alignment, collimation, setting up the power and computer system etc.

Anthony
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (IMG_1177.jpg)
92.9 KB196 views
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 13-04-2008, 07:46 PM
skwinty's Avatar
skwinty (Steve)
E pur si muove

skwinty is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 494
Hi Pete
Herewith a pic of scope and strut.
Bit heath robinson but it works.
will endeavor to make a decent one some time when time allows.
Check sidewalk astronomy post for some more pics
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (strut.JPG)
128.0 KB259 views
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 13-04-2008, 08:32 PM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,235
Thanks for posting the pics Anthony and Steve. I'm now feeling a whole lot more confident in the mount with my gear having seen the load you guys have.

Pete.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 14-04-2008, 12:02 AM
EzyStyles's Avatar
EzyStyles (Eric)
I HATE COMA!

EzyStyles is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 3,208
Hi Pete,

Planetary imaging and deep sky imaging guiding/trackign accuracy are completely different. Anthony and Mike uses the EQ6 for planetary imaging and Anthony's EQ6 is heavily modified.

Personally, the 10" F5 + ED80 scope "JUST" do it for the deep space stuff. Anything more you won't be able to do long subs and will probably kill the gears .
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 14-04-2008, 10:45 AM
matt's Avatar
matt
6000 post club member

matt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Annan, Australia
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthony2302749 View Post
I have heavily modifided the mount so that it can carry the weight of the 14" LX200R (27kg). With 22.5kg's of Gym weights to balance the system it fuction very well as a planetary imaging platform.
So, wouldn't that mean the mount is carrying a total of 49.5kgs (LX + gym weights) ???

Or do you only count the heavier load on one side of the mount?

I have an EQ6 and use it only for planetary/visual and have often wondered about its max carrying capacity. Good thread
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 14-04-2008, 12:57 PM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,235
Eric,

That's an interesting point you make about planetary vs deep sky - I would have guessed the very long focal length required for planetary to get a reasonable image scale would demand good tracking but I guess this is compensated for by the shorter exposure time.

How much weight do you have on the EQ6? Do you have a view of the merits of stacking the guide scope on top of the Newt vs side by side? I can balance it up with 4 standard EQ6 counterweights in the SBS configuration as the weight of the OTA's is kept close to the mount.

Matt,

I had always interpreted the load capacity as that of the optical gear - not including the counterweights - if you are meant to include the counter weights then we are going a long way past the published capacity of the EQ6 in these examples.

Anthony - what mods have you made to the EQ6 - it looks like the counterweight bar is heavier than the standard on in your pic. I'm assuming the bearings and gears were as supplied or have you beefed these up some how?

Peter.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 14-04-2008, 10:56 PM
Ian Robinson
Registered User

Ian Robinson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gateshead
Posts: 2,205
I was curious too , so checked the manufacturers website , they make no mention of tracking precision or max load for the mount ....

http://www.skywatchertelescope.net/s...1=3&class2=304

Maybe at the prices their mounts are flogged at , they don't see such things as terribly important..... wrong.



Bintel say 20kg max load whch is certainly less than a CG5.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 17-04-2008, 06:16 PM
EzyStyles's Avatar
EzyStyles (Eric)
I HATE COMA!

EzyStyles is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 3,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter_4059 View Post
Eric,

That's an interesting point you make about planetary vs deep sky - I would have guessed the very long focal length required for planetary to get a reasonable image scale would demand good tracking but I guess this is compensated for by the shorter exposure time.

How much weight do you have on the EQ6? Do you have a view of the merits of stacking the guide scope on top of the Newt vs side by side? I can balance it up with 4 standard EQ6 counterweights in the SBS configuration as the weight of the OTA's is kept close to the mount.
.
Sorry for the late reply. Yes your totally correct. Planetary imaging not required for accurate tracking. You can even do planetary imaging with a dob from short expo time.

I havent tested the EQ6 with the ED80 side by side. works well with the ED80 ontop of the EQ6 as it is. Havent properly weighted everything on the EQ6 yet so i wouldnt know. Im guessing with my 10" F4.7 + ED80 with correct balance weights and DSLR cam, thats pretty much the limit for the EQ6 for the deepskystuff... how do i know this? without autoguiding, i can't even do 1 minute without star trails
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 17-04-2008, 06:19 PM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,235
Thanks Eric - how many counterweights do you use? Are they standard skywatcher ones?

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 17-04-2008, 10:14 PM
EzyStyles's Avatar
EzyStyles (Eric)
I HATE COMA!

EzyStyles is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 3,208
Hi Peter, i use 3 standard skywatcher counterweights and 2 small ones. See my setup here:

http://www.ezystyles.com.au/gallery2..._itemId=234025


not a big backyard i know
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 18-04-2008, 12:19 PM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,235
Eric,

I think the standard CW's are about 5 kg - not sure about the small ones but you must have between 20 and 25 kgs worth there.

If you want to see small back yards come to Brisbane.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:31 PM
graham.hobart's Avatar
graham.hobart (Graham stevens)
DeepSkySlacker

graham.hobart is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: hobart, tasmania
Posts: 2,102
Cool

http://www.cloudenemy.com.au
I would like to add something here as a relative newbie, I intend to try (at least) my 8" LX 90 (8.5kg), on a dovetail once deforked, to join my Skywatcher 100mm apo and Meade 80mm apo triplet (approx 3kg,2.7kg) plus an Orion short tube guide scope (1.1kg) plus sundry imaging stuff so I can have a rig all set up for both DSO and planetary on an EQ6 pro with 10kgs of CW. The heaviest thing attached I think would be an SLR, or the drag from a Gstar-ex with cables, (my atik & DFk being reasonably light). I estimate about 19.5kg. Do the jury think this is too much for accurate guiding? Haven't set it up yet so all ears as far as doing either one set up (planetary) Vs another.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-11-2010, 06:57 AM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,235
Graham,

I have been using the above mentioned setup for a couple of years now and there is no problem with this load on the mount so far. The bigger issue is flexure between the guide and main imaging scope which in my case has nothing to do with the mount. I have also had the mount in pieces and the bearings that are carrying the load are wheel bearings off a car - obviously these are good for a lot more than 40 kgs.

The one weak point in my opinion is the way the counteweight shaft is attached to the DEC axis. If you end up with a lot of counterweights and the shaft is horizontal you are putting a fair amount of stress on the aluminium DEC locking nut that is holding the counterweight shaft to the axis. I've seen another post where someone has modified this arrangement to transfer the load to the steel dec shaft rather then have the aluminium part carry it.

Peter
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 05:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement