Jump to content


Photo

CW's hitting my balcony railing, solutions?

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Zoeff

Zoeff

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 899
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Haarlem, Netherlands

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:08 AM

Hello everyone,

I've got a bit of a nagging issue. In order to clear the railing on my balcony the mount/telescope needs to be quite high up. However this means that when pointing the telescope at an object high up all it'll see is the balcony above mine. Anything above roughly 55 degrees in elevation is not visible for me. This means that only a quarter or so of the sky is visible at any time.

Here's a picture for reference:
http://i.imgur.com/R7Qos.jpg
(Picture shows an SLR mounted on the telescope, normally I use the Atik 838 that's in my signature)

I'd quite like to find a solution to this. I was thinking of retracting the counterweight shaft and having more weights butted right up to the mount but is this at all safe, and is the mount at all capable of handling the extra weight? If that isn't an option then the only other way I can think of is find an equatorial mount that won't swing a counterweight around but does that even exist?

Currently I control everything from inside my apartment using EQMOD, I'm willing to let go of EQMOD if that is so required.

Thanks in advance for any help.
-- Zoeff

#2 Raginar

Raginar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6138
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Rapid CIty, SD

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:18 AM

Taller pier seems the easiest option. A shorter CW shaft is also an option with more weight.

Looks like you're on the right track :).

#3 Zoeff

Zoeff

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 899
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Haarlem, Netherlands

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:21 AM

Taller pier seems the easiest option. A shorter CW shaft is also an option with more weight.

Looks like you're on the right track :).

But that's the problem, I want to have the telescope as low as possible to give me a wider field of view.

#4 mmalik

mmalik

    DSLR camera modifications

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5404
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:55 AM

Improvising/bending the weight shaft a bit in such a way so it swings clear of the top edge yet allows some weight adjustment could be a possibility.

I presume more extreme measures of balcony railing adjustments may not be possible.

#5 Bowmoreman

Bowmoreman

    Clear enough skies

  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Bolton, MA

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:05 AM

Shorter CW shaft, with heavier (bigger diameter?) weights up closer to the axis of rotation is the only alternative to higher pier... IMHO...

Vixes Sphinx might be useful here, it's body is part of its CW system, thus needing less weight and shorter shaft...

#6 zawijava

zawijava

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 920
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2007
  • Loc: West Paris, Maine 04289

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:11 AM

I would suggest a shorter cwt shaft with additional cwt. The shorter cwt shaft may solve the bumping problem plus you get the benefit of a shorter "Moment-arm" on your mount, so it may be a bit steadier as well :grin:

#7 Zoeff

Zoeff

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 899
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Haarlem, Netherlands

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:20 AM

Improvising/bending the weight shaft a bit in such a way so it swings clear of the top edge yet allows some weight adjustment could be a possibility.

I presume more extreme measures of balcony railing adjustments may not be possible.


Yep, modifying the railing is strictly prohibited. :(

Shorter CW shaft, with heavier (bigger diameter?) weights up closer to the axis of rotation is the only alternative to higher pier... IMHO...

Vixes Sphinx might be useful here, it's body is part of its CW system, thus needing less weight and shorter shaft...


Hmm, how exactly does the sphinx work? The description in a webshop don't explain anything regarding this... >_<

I would suggest a shorter cwt shaft with additional cwt. The shorter cwt shaft may solve the bumping problem plus you get the benefit of a shorter "Moment-arm" on your mount, so it may be a bit steadier as well :grin:


Sounds like nobody is against this idea, so I guess it's safe. :)

#8 johnnyha

johnnyha

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Sherman Oaks, CA

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:58 PM

Yes it's better to have a shorter shaft and more weight...

#9 Lorence

Lorence

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 853
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:08 PM

I've got a bit of a nagging issue. In order to clear the railing on my balcony the mount/telescope needs to be quite high up. However this means that when pointing the telescope at an object high up all it'll see is the balcony above mine. Anything above roughly 55 degrees in elevation is not visible for me. This means that only a quarter or so of the sky is visible at any time.


Build and adapter plate for your pier that will extend the mount beyond the balcony. That will give you a clear view of half the sky.

#10 Zoeff

Zoeff

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 899
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Haarlem, Netherlands

Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:52 PM

I've got a bit of a nagging issue. In order to clear the railing on my balcony the mount/telescope needs to be quite high up. However this means that when pointing the telescope at an object high up all it'll see is the balcony above mine. Anything above roughly 55 degrees in elevation is not visible for me. This means that only a quarter or so of the sky is visible at any time.


Build and adapter plate for your pier that will extend the mount beyond the balcony. That will give you a clear view of half the sky.


Unfortunately that isn't allowed either. :(

#11 korborh

korborh

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 867
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Arizona

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:08 PM

Does your mount allow counter-weight up (scope down) when tracking?

#12 Zoeff

Zoeff

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 899
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Haarlem, Netherlands

Posted 05 January 2013 - 03:34 AM

Does your mount allow counter-weight up (scope down) when tracking?


Hmm. I have actually done this a few times in the past when wanting to image a planet just after it passed the meridian (My balcony faces west). I remember there being very narrow margins...

#13 Gary BEAL

Gary BEAL

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Joined: 10 May 2003
  • Loc: New Zealand

Posted 05 January 2013 - 04:20 AM

Yikes, I'll never complain about my site being cramped any more!!!
Shorter shaft with more weight.
Gary

#14 orion61

orion61

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4752
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:31 AM

Simple resolution.... Move to the top floor!

#15 punk35

punk35

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005
  • Loc: lower michigan

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:55 PM

Another vote for a shorter shaft and more weight. Probably the cheapest option also. Let us know what you decide.

#16 groz

groz

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2007
  • Loc: Campbell River, BC

Posted 06 January 2013 - 11:30 AM

Shorten the shaft, add weight, the mount will handle it without a problem. The load on our EQ6 is FAR heavier than yours, we use 4 of the stock counterweights to reach balance, and it handles that load just fine.

Do you leave the mount set up under a cover, or take it down when it's not in use ?

#17 Zoeff

Zoeff

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 899
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Haarlem, Netherlands

Posted 06 January 2013 - 02:41 PM

Shorten the shaft, add weight, the mount will handle it without a problem. The load on our EQ6 is FAR heavier than yours, we use 4 of the stock counterweights to reach balance, and it handles that load just fine.

Do you leave the mount set up under a cover, or take it down when it's not in use ?

4? Jebus... I guess I don't have to worry about adding weight then! :)
How is the tracking with such a heavy scope and CW setup? Or do you use it for visual only?

Currently I keep the mount (without scope) under a cover. No protection against moisture but it hasn't been a problem for me.... at least not for the mount. I at one point left the planetary imager with C8 on thinking I'd have another chance the following night. That chance never came and a month or so later the camera end (that had the cover bound around it) had quite a bit of water inside... >_<

That said, I am in the process of making a more permanent box around it, a pseudo observatory where the scope can stay inside and be at ambient temperature all the time. :)

#18 neptun2

neptun2

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2007
  • Loc: Bulgaria

Posted 06 January 2013 - 03:47 PM

I also recommend to shorten the shaft and add more counterweights. I have heq5 pro mount and the counterweight shaft is retractable in mount's body. I think that eq6 is the same so you can just not extend the shaft all the way and this will shorten it. Do not worry about the additional counterweights. The shaft of my mount is even shorter than eq6 so in the past i have used up to 4 counterweights (3x5kg + 1x3.5kg) to balance my scope and that did not cause any problem.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics