Will this work...... Large load on A NEQ6 Pro

[Catanonia]

On a NEQ6 Pro mount.

Side by side mount with

a. SW ED 120Pro Diamond Black with a ED 80 Pro III piggy

b. On other side a SW Explorer 300 Reflector

Now if i balance these babies perfectly (both axis) so no strain on the motors, then it should work....

The load for the NEQ6 is 25kg.

The SW 300 Explorer is 16kg and the 2 refrectors are close to that as well.

Ok a bit over the top, but for 30 min or so exposures with PHD guiding it should work if BALANCED right.

I have heard the rule, always go 1/2 of the load spec of the mount for imaging, but no one gives reasons.

Thoughts... ???

[Psychobilly]

You may be pushing it a bit... Says the man who has a mass of kit on his poor old CPC800...

You dont want "perfect" balance you want to be slightly out of balance to keep positive mesh with the drive gears...

[GazOC]

I'd say its possible for visual but not really practical for imaging. Is there any particualr reason you need it set up like this?

The 1/2 load for imaging is a well known rule of thumb because the requirements for tracking/ stability etc are a lot more exacting when you are imaging.

[Doc]

Sounds a bit OTT to me.

By the time you add your cameras, finders, eyepieces, dew prevention I think you are a little over

[Catanonia]

Reasons are a pernament setup in an observatory without the need for 2 mounts.

I spent £900 on the NEQ6 Pro and only have room for 1 mount. I would also like a large reflector, so only real way I can do it without stripping down each time.

[GazOC]

I think an SCT side by side with a refractor might be worth looking at. A 12" Newt and 2 other scopes is going to need a pretty big observatory and is going to pretty awkward to use.

If you only want to image then you don't really need massive aperture, if you want to do visual then getting a seperate big Dob would be the better bet IMHO.

[FLO]

Catatonia, are you sure you have an NEQ6 mount?

The NEQ6 has a Losmandy-type saddle (both your scopes have Vixen-type dovetails) a longer counterweight bar and is normally only supplied with an Explorer 300p.

[Catanonia]

Catatonia, are you sure you have an NEQ6 mount?

The NEQ6 has a Losmandy-type saddle (both your scopes have Vixen-type dovetails) a longer counterweight bar and is normally only supplied with an Explorer 300p.

Yes the mount has a big large picture plate on the pivot saying NEQ6 Pro. It is in white

Picture here

I am using vixen dovetails, but they fit ok when tightened up well.

[FLO]

Thanks, yes, that is an NEQ6.

I am using vixen dovetails, but they fit ok when tightened up well.

Be careful, that isn't the best way to mount them. Perhaps you should consider a Losmandy-type dovetail or a Vixen-Losmandy adapter plate. It'd be much more secure. Have a chat with your supplier.

HTH

[Catanonia]

Thanks, yes, that is an NEQ6.

Be careful, that isn't the best way to mount them. Perhaps you should consider a Losmandy-type dovetail or a Vixen-Losmandy adapter plate. It'd be much more secure. Have a chat with your supplier.

HTH

Back to topic, would it be possible with probably extra counter weights to mount the Explorer 300mm side by side with these two ED Refractors on this mount ?

Prob using proper Losmandy side by side mount plates.

[GazOC]

Its possible but, and please don't take this the wrong way, you've mentioned this potential set up in 2 or 3 threads now and a few people who know they are talking about have tried to gently disuade you from it. They arn't doing going it just to be killjoys, there are imaging issues over the payload, the Newt has too long a focal length to image with in this country on the majority of nights, the whole set up is VERY unwieldy and will need a large Obs, to get the eyepeice height reasonable on the Newt the eyepeice height on the ED120 will be too near the floor....I could go on but you get my drift, there are better , more practical options for what you want to do or changes/compromises you should consider that would make for a much easier to use set up.

Sorry if this sounds negative and/ or unduly harsh but I really think you need to take a step back and look into this a bit more before you make any decisions and spend the cash.

Just my 2p...

[Milamber]

The set up you mention will not work on a vixen-type dual mount bar (I know - I designed it) but may with Losmandy fittings. That takes care of flexure (almost - you'll still get some since that's a lot of weight) but does not consider the mount - which will be straining and on the limit at that workload. Several people who know what they are talking about have said it's not a good idea and for good reason - for imaging with that load on the mount you would be wasting your time... eventually you would be burning out drives, wearing out other components, and constantly chasing drive corrections.

Yes, the capacity is 25Kg but consider - how often do you drive your car flat out... how often do you have the volume, brightness and contrast on your TV full on, how often is your food gets burned because the cooker is full on? Not that often I'll wager - it is the same with mounts. Yes, they can take the weight but you wouldn't want to do it all the time.

Arthur

[themos]

I think the verdict is yes you probably can mount them but they'd only be good for taking pictures "of" and not "with"· Besides, hardly anyone has first-hand experience of the NEQ6. I certainly don't.

[FLO]

Back to topic....

We never left

[Catanonia]

Cheers guys.

I didn't realise the 300mm would be practically useless in the UK due to seeing conditions. If this is the case, then we can forget about this setup.

Closer to Christmas, I will start the hunt for a reflector. The wifey now has something she can buy me for Christmas instead of the standard "what do you want for christmas"

[themos]

Big reflectors (in the Dobsonian configuration) are the favourite instrument for very-deep-sky observers. They usually take them to dark sites (very few of those in the UK).

[FLO]

I didn't realise the 300mm would be practically useless in the UK due to seeing conditions...

There are a heck of a lot of Skyliner 300p users here who will beg to differ, myself included.

Anyhow, I think you have your answer to the mounting setup question

[themos]

It's not useless but it's sub-optimal for planets, where seeing matters and not suited to imaging. Its forte is faint extended objects, atmospheric transparency and dark skies permitting.

[Milamber]

You are, I think, mistaken there. The 300 is a good all-round scope which has the resolution, apperture and speed to make planets workable and wide enough to make DSO's a joy.

Arthur

[themos]

An experienced observer told me that 12" aperture means you are always sampling more than one atmospheric cell so your chances of getting a good seeing window are reduced. 10" seems to be optimal for planets, at least in the UK.

[Milamber]

I tend to work from personal experience - but you seem to be saying that anything over 10" aperture is pointless?

Arthur

[themos]

Not pointless exactly but only able to produce better pictures in very few instances (this is strictly seeing-related so we're only talking planetary here).

[Milamber]

Then the introduction of high speed planetary cameras is merely a marketing ploy after all. A shame, I have one and it seems to work - perhaps I am deluding myself.

As with all things, there is a time and place. Large aperture will always give better images than small, but the usable times will diminish as that aperture increases. I agree to this - but to blandly state that anything above 10" (or indeed below) is pointless is reckless - especially since you are talking not from personal experience but something you heard?

Whatever, maybe this subject should be left and allowed to return to the original topic.

Arthur

[themos]

Then the introduction of high speed planetary cameras is merely a marketing ploy after all.

Not at all. They help us sample the seeing conditions and filter the best. Imagine you're trying to take a blur-free picture of someone on a see-saw. You can take lots of frames and hope that some will correspond to the top (or bottom) position when the subject is momentarily at rest. Now imagine the see-saw itself is on another see-saw which swings in a different direction, frequency and phase. The subject is virtually never at rest so you'll have to take a lot more frames. That's how I understand it, anyway.

to blandly state that anything above 10" (or indeed below) is pointless

I'm pretty sure I didn't do that.

[Milamber]

... and I don't suppose you have the url of a website that will show me how to suck eggs?

You stated anything other than 10" was sub-optimal... sounds like how a lawyer would say "pointless".

Enough already.