malc-c

3 hours ago, Richard Wesson said:

Yes of course. As stated before - it is not an issue with the previous mini pc. 

Hook up a mouse, keyboard and monitor to your old mini computer, confirm it all works in the same manor before you replaced it for the new NUC PC.  Then launch a command prompt and type IPCONFIG /all at the prompt and note down the settings reported.  Then repeat this with the NUC - are there any differences other than the last set of digits of the IP4 address ?  If the subnet mask and gateway IP's are the same then try setting the network properties for the NUC to manual and enter the IP, subnet and gateway that the old PC used and see if that works when you connect the laptop to the same router's wifi.  

Whilst setting this up I think having a screen, keyboard and mouse connected to to the NUC could be handy to verify what settings its using 

42 minutes ago, Richard Wesson said:

The reason I did nt want to connect via my home (wifi) router is because I want to set this up so I can access the nuc headless at a remote site. 

I assume that both the NUC / mini-router and the laptop will be within range of the wi-fi provided by the mini-router ?

26 minutes ago, Richard Wesson said:

the NUC is connected to the mini-router via a network cable. The mini router should create a wireless network that I can connect to via my laptop, thus accessing the NUC via the laptop.

Right, so basically you want the NUC and the Laptop to be on the same network, which in theory should work as the mini-router will be using its inbuilt DCHP.   If your mini-router uses 192.168.0.1 as its address, are you able to connect to it from the Laptop once you have created the new network on the laptop if you select a manual  set the IP address with the default gateway to that of the mini-router.  This would then force the laptop to be on the same LAN as the NUC and thus allow you to use RDC to remote into the NUC

3 hours ago, Richard Wesson said:

Malc, I am not trying to get the 2 routers to communicate with each other, but rather use the mini router (TPlink) to create a network not connected to the inetrnet but accessible via my laptop. As stated in the OP, I can do this weith my old mini-pc, but not with the NUC.

So If I follow that correctly, you have a NUC PC connected to a TPLInk router which is wireless enabled and a laptop connected to your main router that has normal internet access via its fibre / ADSL connection.  The NUC PC has connected to the TPLink  and as it has DCHP enabled has been issued with its own IP.  As the TPLink router is not on the same network as your home network the  NUC can not be accessed from the laptop, but as it has wi-fi you will see the SSID being broadcast.  You should be able to create a new network on the laptop to connect to the TPLink, but this will then drop the connection to the internet as the TPLink router is not physically connected to the fibre / ADSL. Windows RDC needs to have both the Laptop and the NUC on the same network, it can't RD into a PC on a different VLan.

What is the reason you don't want the NUC to have internet access?  It would be far simpler to remove the TP link router and just connect the NUC to the existing home network and thus have everything singing from the same hymn sheet

16 hours ago, Richard Wesson said:

 

Ethernet adapter Ethernet:

   Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : AstroLAN
   Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::16a:8604:d8a7:2554%7
   IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.2
   Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
   Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1

Wireless LAN adapter WiFi 2:

   Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : home
   Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::b8e0:8b5d:ca2c:8340%16
   IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.157
   Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
   Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.254

I've not fully read the thread, and I'm a but rusty on my IT skills, but the two devices above are on different Vlans  (networks).  The "AstroLAN" is on what most routers default to, 192.168.0.xxx  but the "Home" network is on 192.168.1.xxx  with its's default gateway being port 254 of that LAN.  Now I could be wrong  but for both routers / hubs to communicate together I would have thought that they either need to be on the same network (ie 192.168.0.xxx) or possibly you need to set up some sort of port forwarding to allow the two devices to communicate.  You may need to turn off DHCP on one device and allocate IP addresses manually on anything connected to that router

15 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

I am amazed that we still allow excuses for failures these days, its not rocket science anymore its developing nearly 100 year old technology that we ought to have nailed by now. 

Alan

To be honest I think SpaceX have.  They launched around 60 rockets in 2022, and are aiming for 100 launches in 2023, whilst it's not as regular as the ATC post DaveS mentioned above, two a week is still very impressive.  Globally (according to Google) last year there were 176 successful rocket launches globally, with 8 failures.  SpaceX's Falcon rocket seems to be very reliable and with some boosters now being reused 10 or more times has made getting a satellite into space more affordable.

But getting back on topic, since January 2021 Virgin orbit have only succeeded four times in getting payloads to orbit.... and you would have thought taking it up to 40K feet under the wing of a 747 would make things easier than a ground based launch. 

Rother Valley Optics have a second hand HEQ5 listed for £849 here's a link

The WideScreen Centre have new in stock for £989 link  As do Harrisons - for same price  link

1 hour ago, AndrewG48 said:

Hello all. I made contact with the company that hosts houk website and advised them of the situation. They have taken the site down pending any contact with Gareth

Well that will at least prevent any new deposits being taken.  I wonder if the hosing company has an address for Graham (assuming he's the owner of the domain) which could be passed on to the courts or their representatives 

Well done Andrew

20 hours ago, Skipper Billy said:

I had the same dilemma a while ago and built the following machine - it screams through Pixi and PS etc etc.

 

With 16 cores and 32 threads running around 5Ghz, with 64 GB Ram and a couple of Samsung Pro Nvme drives I wouldn't have expected anything else....  Nice machine 👍

Very early HEQ5's were not GoTo mounts.  They had a basic two gear worm drive and used a four button directional handset that tracked in siderial.  I've been trawling the net to find images, as these are now quite rare, but here is an example 

Ignore the DIY electronics.  You can see that there are two large gears, one on the axis worm the other on the drive motor.   

IF the OP's HEQ5 has the same gearing then they will have to purchase and install a full GoTo upgrade kit to make the mount compatible with computer control via a PC.  Additional hardware such as an EQDIR cable would be required to make that connection.

However given the cost of this upgrade is likely to cost £430 (plus the EQDIR cable) it would be wise to consider putting that money towards a new HEQ5 mount which IMO would be the better option.

There is very little protection on the HEQ5 motor board so heed Steve's advice on checking the polarity of whatever power supply you use.  Same goes for any interlink cable between a computer and mount should you go down that road.  There have been may boards blown by using the wrong adapters.

There is two ways to power the mount.  Use an indoor PSU and run low voltage out to the mount.  Or run an external mains extension cable to the mount and plug everything in to it at the scope.  Each has it issues.  I would suggest for safety you look into using a decent bench power supply in the house and running low voltage to the mount, which is a lot safer.  The main issue with this is voltage drop if the cable run is long, but with a bench power supply you can increase the output to around 14-16v so that you get around 13v at the socket.  (HEQ5's are rated at 12-16v and actually do better on around 13v rather than 12).  Make sure the supply is rated for at least 3amps.  The mount will draw around 2amps with both motors slewing and having a little headroom helps.

The thing with alarms is that we're all accustomed to hearing them.  How often do people react to a car alarm these days.. 9/10 times its always a false alarm so no one pays much attention.

The suggestions about changing quick releasing wing nuts etc for headless allen bolts is a good one as most opportunistic thieves will walk away if it's not an easy and quick snatch. 

I don't think it's an easy post to answer as it depends on the low life breaking in.  If they are kids or opportunist then yes having bright lights and an alarm going off may deter them, but if they are seasoned criminals then they may be carrying a weapon and not afraid to use it if confronted, so even if you are not leaving the rig unattended you could find yourself in a really sticky situation.  In such a situation it's better to let them take the rig than get involved, your rig is replaceable, you are not.

It may well be you are becoming a little paranoid and the odds of them breaking in whilst the home is occupied are very slim...  

2 hours ago, carastro said:

....and these are just the people we know about.

Carole 

Yeah...  who knows how many people outside this thread have been stung as well

If you google "Photoshop GPU or CPU" you'll see that depending on filters or processes used dictate the demand on either.  If you also google "Photoshop CPU cores or threads" you get more of a conflict with some sites suggesting it's more a single threaded application than multi, but further investigation suggested that some processes are multi-threaded and will use multiple cores.  So basically, get a processor with as many cores and threads that fit your budget.  Photoshop also uses a scratch disk, which can apparently be configured to use RAM or hard drives, so an Nvme drive and decent RAM should be included.  Googling "best GPU" it seems that an RX560 or 1050 ti, which are somewhat older cards can give decent performance, so a modern Nvidia 30xx or 40xx or equivalent AMD card should be able to handle what you do.

Having said that, for basic work, I've used an old version of Photoshop (CS2 !!) with soem astronomy tools on a first gen Ryzen 5 1500X (4 core 8 threads), 16GB Corsair Vengeance  DDR 4 RAM, and a Radion RX550 2GB GPU all running on an ASUS Prime X570-A mother board with a fast Samsung EVO 960 250gb Nvme System disk, and a Toshiba 7200 rpm 3TB hard drive for file storage.  - I can also edit 4K video using DaVinci on this machine which is more demanding on a system than stretching and tweaking a still image, so even a modern modest system should be fine

6 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Speaking as a moderator, as long as people aren't saying things which could paint SGL in a bad light, recounting experiences of losing money to a trader is ok as long as it remains factual and objective. 

Ultimately it's Admin's call as it is their site but I see nothing wrong here at the moment.

Whilst this thread does seem to be painting HOUK in bad light, it would be IMO a bad thing if the admin choose to lock it or edit it in some way.  Those who have received their observatories have gone on record praising the products and the service, but equally it provides a platform for those who have been stung by what on the face of it seems to be a fraudulent practice as deposits have still been taken even though HOUK have no ability or means to produce the goods.  By keeping the thread alive it allows those who have done their own investigations such as that detailed in Steve's post to keep other affected parties informed.

I can appreciate that it can be a delicate balance for the Admin / Owners of a forum to allow reporting of facts which are negative from affected members, but in this case there is IMO good reason.  Reading through this thread it would seem that tens of thousands of pounds have been taken under false pretences so this is more serious than "bashing" a retailer due to a delay in sending an eyepiece or something similar.  It also may help future people who google HOUK as part of researching the company prior to departing with a couple of grand deposit, because as of this minute HOUK's website is still up and running and ready to take orders from unsuspecting customers. 

Not sure if this is any good, but it seems to have a lot of cross platform support, including linux and even a pi variant  Winstars - Don't shoot me if it's not suitable.... I use windows and have never ventured to the dark side of linux 🙂 

@jmdl101 Yes it was quite a learning curve as I had never had that issue with the MC004's before.  Thanks for documenting your experience, and I'm sure it will give others who stumble across the thread the confidence to give this a go if they are in the same situation with a handset reporting the dreaded "No response..." message.  You have also contributed an extra bit of useful information, by testing the OSC pins (9 and 10) with a DVM we can now confirm if the PIC is running with the external crystal rather then the internal 4Mhz one.

No worries, it's been fun searching.  Synta being the parent company of Skywatcher and Celestron then it makes sense to try and standardise components.

Sounds as if you have all the gear to remove and replace one if you have one on a doner board

An hour or so trawling through the net I came across this image 

The package is just marked ACD, so not a lot to go on really.... It's also seems to be a BGA package, so unless you have the tools and skill to work with such a package then I think you'll be stuck even if you can identify and source a replacement

Could anyone with a V4 handset take the covers off and have a look under the hood to identify this component please...  If you can post a nice sharp close up it would be much appreciated.  The more we can document the better 

U6 blowing seems a common issue 

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/316724-repairing-synscan-hand-controller/

Sadly the component wasn't identifiable in that thread too 

Paul, are you sure its the handset and not the motorboard in the mount?  - Normally the "No response both axis" / "No response XX or YY axis" is a result of an over voltage being fed into the serial port of the microcontrollers which needs new reprogrammed controllers to be fitted.  Have a read of this thread  which may help.  Can you circle the component you are trying to identify.... I can see U9 but not U6.  If you can just google the part number on the package, If you mean U9 the fact its close to four diodes and two large caps would suggest a voltage regulator of some kind, but normally the tab would connect to a large ground fill, which isn't the case with U9.

Can you provide details which lead up to the no response message 

EDIT - found it (need to go to Specsavers) !  - Not a clue.  My guess would be some form of signal invertor as there are 4 pins individually connected on one side with corresponding 4 pins on the other side.

21 hours ago, Mal22 said:

Thanks both, I’ve just contacted the shop and they’ve said it’s really unusual and they’re going to contact Skywatcher. 

just to remind you that your contract is with the retailer NOT the manufacture.  It's the retailer that you purchased the kit from responsibility to replace / repair the handset, even if they state its out of warranty as there are consumer laws that protect you the customer.

If the kit is within its warranty period then there should be no reason why the retailer can't simply replace the handset for you and then they would seek a credit from the SW Distributor, who would seek redress directly from Synta.

Hope you get it sorted soon