Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_6_banner_jupiter_2021.jpg.eacb9f0c2f90fdaafda890646b3fc199.jpg

 

 

FYI: Max Weight for EQ5,HEQ5,EQ6 & NEQ6 Mounts


SniffTheGlove
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have spoken to Optical Vision, the UK importers of Sky-Watcher gear about the maximum weight the Sky-Watcher mounts can handle as I could not find this information on the Sky-Watcher sites or other Astro sites and thought it would be good to post these here in case any other SGL user is searching for this information.

EQ5 = 9Kg

HEQ5 = 18Kg

EQ6 = 25Kg

NEQ6 = 25Kg

These are them maximum limits and Optical Vision recommend the mounts actually carry less than the specified weights for optimal usage.

HTH

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also worth mentioning that the general rule of thumb for mounts payloads and imaging is to halve it.

Tony..

Tony, miread your post on first glance, I thought you said

the general rule of thumb for mounts payloads and imaging is to HAVE it.
:hello2:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i am running well over the specs for a NEQ6 as I have 3 counter weights at the extremes of the bar with MN190, ED80, WO66 and ADM bar on the other end with QHY9, filter wheel and QHY5 camera's

Happily guiding 20mins so I would take that all with a pinch of salt.

It is all about perfect balance in all 3 axis... Yes 3 axis as most people only do one, the horizontal.

Hope that helps a bit.

Edited by Catanonia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i am running well over the specs for a NEQ6 as I have 3 counter weights at the extremes of the bar with MN190, ED80, WO66 and ADM bar on the other end with QHY9, filter wheel and QHY5 camera's

Happily guiding 20mins so I would take that all with a pinch of salt.

It is all about perfect balance in all 3 axis... Yes 3 axis as most people only do one, the horizontal.

Hope that helps a bit.

Well pointed out Steve.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is all about perfect balance in all 3 axis... Yes 3 axis as most people only do one, the horizontal.

Hope that helps a bit.

Would be interested to hear how you go about balancing in 3 axis and if my method is sufficient.

I'll try to describe what I do and would appreciate any thoughts...(this is ignoring any slight east heavy considerations for backlash compensation)

Starting from the home position I rotate mount 90 in DEC and position Optical tubes etc so that they are balanced.

I then rotate the scope 90 in RA and adjust DEC so that scope is horizontal. I then position counter weights until they are balanced.

Each time I am rotating the scope through 360(or as close to without hitting tripod/pier) in both directions looking for where it balances.

Because these are rotational I would have thought that would cover the three Cartesian axis.

But if I'm missing something do let me know......cheers.

Also just to clarify. I am assuming the stated loads do not include counterweights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm....If i'm reading you right their MG I think thats wrong?

The way I do it...(unless i'm wrong) is from the home position rotate the RA and Dec axis so the scope is paralel with the ground then lock the RA and carefully let go of the scope and see what way she will fall. Then adjust it in the tube rings/dovetail to compensate.

Then again from that paralel position but with the Dec locked this time and the RA not..let go and see again, and adjust the weights.

Then the 3rd axis I would imagine is the tube rotation, as obviously guide scopes, finders etc are going to mess things up a bit.

Hope thats right?! lol

Michael

Edited by msinclairinork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone got experience in eq mounting a 12" newt?

I have a 12" 5.3 OO dob that I would now like to mount on a tripod or pier. Although it is within the maximum weight that an EQ6 can carry, I'm concerned that the length of the tube will affect it, or does proper balancing cancel this out??

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i am running well over the specs for a NEQ6 as I have 3 counter weights at the extremes of the bar with MN190, ED80, WO66 and ADM bar on the other end with QHY9, filter wheel and QHY5 camera's

Happily guiding 20mins so I would take that all with a pinch of salt.

Hm, not sure you're 'well over' but for imaging you're pushing it, certainly outside of an observatory with a bit of wind you'll struggle with that lot.

It is all about perfect balance in all 3 axis... Yes 3 axis as most people only do one, the horizontal.

Indeed it is but I think it's worth pointing out that a lot of people actually deliberately 'off' balance their imaging kit to counteract backlash in the mount. Having a small amount of weight loaded onto the gears makes for smoother guiding. If you're piggybacking or using an OAG it's only 2 axes you'll be balancing, only a SBS bar has 3.

Tony..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, not sure you're 'well over' but for imaging you're pushing it, certainly outside of an observatory with a bit of wind you'll struggle with that lot.

Indeed it is but I think it's worth pointing out that a lot of people actually deliberately 'off' balance their imaging kit to counteract backlash in the mount. Having a small amount of weight loaded onto the gears makes for smoother guiding. If you're piggybacking or using an OAG it's only 2 axes you'll be balancing, only a SBS bar has 3.

Tony..

Certainly in the early days of the EQ6 and HEQ5, it was highly recommended that you set the balance of the setup to work against the RA drive. It did make quite difference. A perfect balance resulted in jitters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahh that's the 3rd axis!

Not an issue for me then...few! :hello2:

Thanks,

Michael

Ahhh! Gotcha now!

Michael, I think we're doing the same thing...I'm just including the inital step of placing the tubes on rotating only the dec axis. Then I know I'm approximately balanced and not going to get any nasty suprises whilst I'm adjusting the weight position.

I think I must have just been very lucky as when I balance the scope (assembly...I'm using side by side too!) in the horizontal position it also balances vertically. And it just happend that the rings nestle against the focuser step down attachment and so for that given setup it is easy to position.

But that link does make it alot clearer....and certain seems what I do, even if I don't explain myself very well! :hello2:

One think I would like clrification on is the East heavy concept.

Is this dependant on the direction the scope is pointing?

My thinking (probably wrong is as follows)

Scope is on East side of mount pointing North(or south) - scope should be heavy

Scope on West side pointing North or South - weights heavy

Scope on North side (RA in home position) pointing East - objective heavy

Scope on North side pointing West - Camera heavy

Scope on south side....not sure I've ever been there as I think that's when big clangs happen :hello2:

Does that seem right?

I'm thinking it's a good case for maybe balancing perfectly and then having a velcro beanbag of 250-500g to tip in the required direction?

PS sorry to OP for the mini hijack! Posting the weight limits is very very useful info...thanks for that!

Michael (II)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
....

EQ5 = 9Kg

HEQ5 = 18Kg

EQ6 = 25Kg

NEQ6 = 25Kg

These are them maximum limits and Optical Vision recommend the mounts actually carry less than the specified weights for optimal usage.

HTH

Does anyone know if these limits include the counterweights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

@Cornelius Varley - I presume that needs an exception of: "unless you’ve added more counterweights than it came with” ??

Genuine questions as a new NEQ6 owner myself: Are the weights supplied as standard (eg: 2x 5.2Kgs on stock counterweight bar with NEQ6) alone enough to balance the rated max payload of 25Kg? Does using the counterweight extension bar optional extra affect things?

 

ie: when do any counterweights need to be factored for as part of payload weight, and when don’t they... surely there comes a point when they have to be factored in?

Edited by Marci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2017 at 11:46, Cornelius Varley said:

The payload consists of the telescope plus anything attached to it. The counterweights are there to counterbalance the payload and as long as the payload doesn't exceed the quoted permitted the number of counterweights used doesn't matter.

Does this mean that, say on the HEQ5 that supports up to 18KG, i can attach an 18KG scope, in addition to 18KG counterweights instead of the original 10 (yes, i know there's more to it, but just to make it simple)?

And, would there be any difference in adding more counterweights then to simply move the counterweights further out by using an extension? I would imagine that more weights close to the mount would lead to a more solid construction and balance then to have fewer weights far out on an extended shaft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jannis said:

Does this mean that, say on the HEQ5 that supports up to 18KG, i can attach an 18KG scope, in addition to 18KG counterweights instead of the original 10 (yes, i know there's more to it, but just to make it simple)?

And, would there be any difference in adding more counterweights then to simply move the counterweights further out by using an extension? I would imagine that more weights close to the mount would lead to a more solid construction and balance then to have fewer weights far out on an extended shaft?

it would preferable to use the minimum number of counterweights required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the rigidity / flex in the counterweight shaft and how it's mounted to the head...

Personally I'd aim for whatever the minimum of total counterweight mass distributed equally along whatever length shaft whilst remaining practical (I know the stock NEQ6 shaft has a tendency to shift with the mass slightly as it rotates thru both axis hence existence of aftermarket upgrade kits for it. Effect amplified with extension shaft OR with more mass without extension - hence going for the minimum mass helps negate mechanical imperfection).

 

if there was no mechanical imperfection and no unknowns (e.g.: max mass supportable by the fulcrum itself) it'd be as straight forward as http://physics.about.com/od/simplemachines/f/HowLeverWorks.htm

 

 

 

Edited by Marci
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • 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.