Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Recommended Posts

Hi , i use my AZ-GTi in EQ mode but i really prefer the simplicity of Alt AZ ... the question is , Is it common  to use a counterweight even in Alt Az mode? ... my scope with the usual Diagonal and 2" EPs , possibly also a barlow comes in at 4kg ( approx) so its within the weight limit , but would using a counterweight help distribute the weight on both sides . Or is it not necessary ?

Stu

Edited by Stu1smartcookie
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the scope needs to be balanced in the saddle clamp for sure, and for me the weight should be offset on the other axis too. That's in the belief this would put less stress on one side or the other. Also, somewhere to keep the weights 😀

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As above. With the Skymax 102 I tend not to bother with a counter weight unless the dslr is attached.  When observing with the 150i I did and do so with the 102/714mm refractor. Then jury's out as to whether it really matters, but as Steve wrote, it's an attempt to spread the load.

I've been tempted by one of these in the past:

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p10777_TS-Optics-Adapter-Plate-for-alt-azimuth-Mounts-with-perfect-Weight-Compensation.html

However, I've not read any 100% positive reports concerning the device's real effectiveness and can't afford to splash out on stuff just to see.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wondering this too. Was trying to image M51 the other night and was getting slight star trailing so am looking at any anything I can do to improve things. Was using batteries so maybe that was the problem. I have since ordered a rechargeable power pack so will see if that makes a difference. The main problem with the counterweight is that, like most gear, I can't find any in stock anywhere. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

As above. With the Skymax 102 I tend not to bother with a counter weight unless the dslr is attached.  When observing with the 150i I did and do so with the 102/714mm refractor. Then jury's out as to whether it really matters, but as Steve wrote, it's an attempt to spread the load.

I've been tempted by one of these in the past:

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p10777_TS-Optics-Adapter-Plate-for-alt-azimuth-Mounts-with-perfect-Weight-Compensation.html

However, I've not read any 100% positive reports concerning the device's real effectiveness and can't afford to splash out on stuff just to see.

There is one in the sales section.

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/375638-ts-optics-adapter-plate-l-holder-for-alt-azimuth-mounts-and-counterweight/

I had one and it worked really well with a 127 mak. Got perfect balance which greatly reduced the strain on the motors.

BC89BC67-5ACA-4C38-838B-202416671A82.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, breakstuff said:

I've been wondering this too. Was trying to image M51 the other night and was getting slight star trailing so am looking at any anything I can do to improve things. Was using batteries so maybe that was the problem. I have since ordered a rechargeable power pack so will see if that makes a difference. The main problem with the counterweight is that, like most gear, I can't find any in stock anywhere. 

 

i use a counterweight from an EQ 1 ( i think or is it an EQ2 ?) .. with an M12 threaded bolt ... seems to work . If anything the weight is a bit heavy but i do like the stability .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johninderby said:

There is one in the sales section.

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/375638-ts-optics-adapter-plate-l-holder-for-alt-azimuth-mounts-and-counterweight/

I had one and it worked really well with a 127 mak. Got perfect balance which greatly reduced the strain on the motors

Nice One , John ... I am glad my question wasn't a wasted one . It seems that its a relevant point to make . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

i use a counterweight from an EQ 1 ( i think or is it an EQ2 ?) .. with an M12 threaded bolt ... seems to work . If anything the weight is a bit heavy but i do like the stability .

Thanks for that, I might give that a go. Out of interest, how long is the bolt that you use? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, johninderby said:

There is one in the sales section.

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/375638-ts-optics-adapter-plate-l-holder-for-alt-azimuth-mounts-and-counterweight/

I had one and it worked really well with a 127 mak. Got perfect balance which greatly reduced the strain on the motors.

BC89BC67-5ACA-4C38-838B-202416671A82.jpeg

 

Just a Q

Is that not putting even more weight and stress on one side?   You've just doubled the weight on the horizontal axis?

Surely it needs to balance on the other side where the M12 screw thread is like this pic? 

For the vertical either balance with a weight or fix on the midsection of the dovetail so the scope balances evenly. 

If it works that's great.  Just looking at that image though it looks an awful lot of extra weight on one side for the horizontal gear system to cope with. :)  

 

post-297378-0-78854200-1535673539.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine a playground see-saw.

With nobody on, the load on the pivot is the weight of the plank.

With two children on it, the load on the pivot is the weight of the plank plus two children.

Scope balance is good, but weight on the bearings has increased.

A necessary evil, as balance is more important.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the pictures on the TS site it shows the balance a little clearer. The scope is now mounted more centrally, so the full weight of the scope is over the centre and not to one side anymore. Though the weights are, but not the weights and scope which it looks a little like in the uploaded pictures.

You may want to think about changing the saddle plate clamps around and have the adm clamp on to where you connect your scope, it seems a little wasted having it as a joint.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

John , DIY and me do not mix well . So there will be no making lol . 
Steve , the clamp is a good idea  .. when I receive the bar and weights , I will look at this option .

Thank you to all that have replied . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Ok so I have bought this bar and the weights .. what’s the final verdict because I can honestly see both viewpoints here ! 

Hi Stu, i think you'll be pleasantly surprised when you use it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dean Hale said:

Hi Stu, i think you'll be pleasantly surprised when you use it.

Yes , I was a bit worried when I read the initial comments but I went onto the Amazon site and it explains how it works . Looking forward to receiving it Dean :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/04/2021 at 10:43, StevieDvd said:

You may want to think about changing the saddle plate clamps around and have the adm clamp on to where you connect your scope, it seems a little wasted having it as a joint.  

Good Point , Steve ... i've ordered another clamp... cant stand getting my dovetail "pitted" lol  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.