“Maximum load capacity”

[Wiu-Wiu]

I just bought an Ioptron IEQ45 pro mount for imaging, and yesterday it opened up enough to go and play outside.

Not to do some imaging this close to full moon, but to get the hang of setting up, aligning,...

I have a Meade 10” acf for visual use at home so I used that one. 

I immediately found that I couldn’t balance the thing, although I have 3 counterweights, it wasn’t enough. 

To not damage the mount, I changed to my photographic setup. That one is a bit lighter and balancing worked fine.

 

but now I wonder.. would it be wise to get the extension rod for my counterweights, so I can get the visual scope on it? It only weighs about 15kg (eyepieces and finderscope included) and the mount is rated to bear 20, or should I include the counterweights in that calculation?

I still have my old EQ6 to use it with; but I might sell that one if the 45pro is up to the task, and save some room. 

[vlaiv]

According to specs (mount 20kg capacity, Meade 10" 13kg) you should be fine for visual. If you can't reach balance with supplied counterweights - get more massive ones.

Yes you can use extension, but it is better to have a bit more weight close to mount head then less further away - due to momentum arm. For imaging at least you should go with more weights, for visual, extension will be ok I guess.

By the way - general rule is to put about 1/2 - 2/3 of mount stated capacity if imaging, and most (if not all) mount specify their carry capacity in gear only (you should not need to factor in counterweights, so it is in fact "double", but only half - usable part is quoted).

[Craney]

I have read in a few places that for the  Skywatcher EQ mounts that the counterweights are not included in the 'load capacity' calculations..... 

Maybe different for Ioptron, but surely it would be a marketing 'own-goal'  to claim a performance that was  ~100% greater than actual.

The extension bar should do the trick, I use one for my EQ6.  I think it is best to have the weights evenly distributed and not have a significant mass at the end of the 'lever'.

( I think I saw somebody on SGL who had a total of 6 counterweights hanging on the bar of an EQ6.... and reported it was OK)

 

[Wiu-Wiu]

Thanks for the fast responses! I was hoping the load rating was for the telescope only and not a sale trick, so I'm glad it does stand for the scope  

 

I did order an extra weight immediately so I have a total of 15 kg - yet I can't reach balance (just barely short of it). I Think that just adding the extension bar itself would be sufficient to do the trick. The counterweights would still be quite close to center that way.

The apo is 9 kg - adding the camera and guidescope would take it to 11, maybe 12, so that will be ok - and I can get balance with what I already have. 

 

I'll go ahead and get the extension then, it's less of a hassle to pack than bigger or extra counterweights.

thx!

[Stub Mandrel]

3 hours ago, vlaiv said:

By the way - general rule is to put about 1/2 - 2/3 of mount stated capacity if imaging, and most (if not all) mount specify their carry capacity in gear only (you should not need to factor in counterweights, so it is in fact "double", but only half - usable part is quoted).

Which reminds me of a cunning invention of mine I have yet to make...  a clamp for fitting a DSLR to the counterweight extension for taking simultaneous widefield images where a bit of guidescope/camera flexure won't be a problem. Twice as many images for no extra load, as it can replace a counterweight.

[Wiu-Wiu]

2 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Which reminds me of a cunning invention of mine I have yet to make...  a clamp for fitting a DSLR to the counterweight extension for taking simultaneous widefield images where a bit of guidescope/camera flexure won't be a problem. Twice as many images for no extra load, as it can replace a counterweight.

Done that! Those clamps already exist  

[Jkulin]

The iOptrons are very very sensitive to balance, I was shocked that my RC with a guide scope needed nearly 20kgs of counterweights.

The problem is that SW fill up with rubbish grease that sticks, iOptrons use a magnetic system of a frictionless gearing, so when you release the clutches they just float.

You need to take your time to critically balance the mount, this video shows just how critical it needs to be balanced, I was lucky when I switched over to OAG I could balance really well with just one 9.5Kg weigh and a single SW 5Kg weight under the front of the OTA

 

[Stu]

On 23/10/2018 at 13:31, Stub Mandrel said:

Which reminds me of a cunning invention of mine I have yet to make...  a clamp for fitting a DSLR to the counterweight extension for taking simultaneous widefield images where a bit of guidescope/camera flexure won't be a problem. Twice as many images for no extra load, as it can replace a counterweight.

As said, already invented I'm afraid, a very handy gadget

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p229_TS-Optics-Piggyback-Camera-Holder-for-D-20-mm-Counterweight-Shafts.html

[Stub Mandrel]

3 hours ago, Stu said:

As said, already invented I'm afraid, a very handy gadget

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p229_TS-Optics-Piggyback-Camera-Holder-for-D-20-mm-Counterweight-Shafts.html

Useful hint for how to approach the idea, thanks.