malc-c

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

If the Synscan kit is new you have a couple of options.  The first is to check the version of firmware the handset is running and then download and flash the firmware from Skywatchers website here

Or simply contact the retailer from where it was purchased and request a  repair / replacement 

If you do want to make and use an EQDIR cable, then personally I would used the 5v TTL level 232 cables from FTDI.  The confusion you mention is probably do to the fact that TX out from the cable will be RX in on the micro controller, and vice versa

No need to make an EQDIR cable with any Skywatcher mount that has a USB -B type socket.  Just use a normal (or active if over 5m) USB A-B cable between the computer and mount.  You will need to install the Prolific 2303 driver for the chipset from Skywatvchers website if running windows on the PC.  Plugging in the USB cable with the mount powered up will produce a new com port available on the computer, which needs its speed set to 115200 baud (via the properties in device manager)

17 hours ago, mirandaehh said:

Hi,

I was hoping I could get some advice for what to buy for a first telescope. My price limit is about £200, and like the rest of us, I would like the best viewing oppitunities! I am not interested in using the telescope in the day. I am also not scared of a challenge in terms of learning to use equipment. So far, the best sounding option I have found online is the Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ. However, the Orion StarBlast 4.5 seems good too. 

Thank you in advance!!

Google "Local Astronomical Society" and contact them to locate when the next public star party is and pop along.  You'll get to view a variety of astronomical targets through various telescopes.  It will help you get a true perspective on what results you get with various levels of equipment.  £200 is quite a limited budget, and at that price point you may do better getting a decent set of binoculars rather than a cheaper telescope.

David gives some excellent and often overlooked advice, I would ad Argos to the list of retailers that should be avoided.

I would also suggest following Louis's instructions as the forum is full of posts like yours where people join to get advice on purchasing at various price points.  The only thing is you are likely to become confused and likely to spend more than your intended budget as we all have different opinions as to what we feel is ideal...   It's like asking what car to get on a motoring forum... we all have our own preferences.

It would be just as cost effective (and safer) to purchase an FTDI 5V cable and make a dedicated EQDIR cable.  

Can you not look inside the battery holder and see which wire is connected to the positive terminal ? - the only other way is to use a cheap test meter.  Either place it into continuity setting and test between the positive terminal and the exposed end of the wire or put batteries in and set the meter to DC volts and stick the probes across the two wires.  

My guess is that the white wire is positive and the black negative, but don't quote me !

Starlink satellites ?? -  

Welcome to the forum,

There is no "one scope fits all"  option.  Also it's really hard for anyone to make recommendations as most of us don't know how good (or bad) your skies are, or what your expectations are.  If you are looking for something portable so you can access good quality skies then that will rule out a huge Dobsonian.  If you want to image then ideally you'll need an EQ mount...  If imaging, you may not want a scope at all, and a decent DSLR camera and lens on a tracer mount would be a better option.  Then once you've worked that out then you have the fun of finding something that fits your budget, and is also in stock.

If you have a local astronomical society near you, then well worth joining it just to pick their brains and see at first hand some of the equipment they use under the same conditions.  Also read through previous posts on this forum.  The question or posts seeking the same advice crop up regularly so you may get a lot of useful info from previous discusions.

Love the gate... and like the idea of marking the fact that there was rail infrastructure at the foot of the garden in days gone by

Alex, you're welcome.

I'm not an expert on these boards, there are people who have done a lot to reverse engineer them and work out the ways to convert the firmware into formats that can be programmed into new replacement microcontrollers.  But most of the motor boards of the same generation all have the same PIC micro controllers, the same stepper / servo motor drivers, and thus in theory could be programmed with any firmware listed on the SW website.  I've never tried it, mainly for the inconvenience of having to then replace the PICs should the board become bricked.

The OP of this long running thread was is a similar position, in that the physical size and characteristic of the new current motor board would not fit his dobsonian, so he would really need to buy a complete new housing in addition to the board, which was more than half the cost of a new complete scope.  As mentioned there are some physical differences between the MC001 and MC003, namely the lack of RJ45 sockets, and the interlink between the two boards.  My guess is that the scope that the MC001 is used with has a separate board with the handset and ST4 port on,  which then connects to the large header pin on the MC001, much like the HEQ5. 

If it were me I would see if the MC001 can be updated with the MC003 firmware, after all at the moment you have nothing really to loose as the scope doesn't work.  If it works then you (we) just need to work out how to interface a handset to the MC001 board and then that should resolve the issue.  The alternative would be to go the Arduino route

Which ever option you choose you need to weigh up the time and cost against replacing your old scope with a new one (or for a complete new mount/base)   

Alex, the two boards are physically different with the MC003 having what has now become standard RJ45 socket for a synscan handset which might make them impossible to swap out directly.  The similarities in component layout between the two boards would suggest that you could replace one with the other.  They both have the same PIC microcontrollers, both have similar connectors for the motors and similar motor drive chips.  However you would need to flash the MC001 board with the MC003 firmware as they are currently programmed with the mount parameters that they are designed to be used in, namely Skymax-127 SynScan AZ GOTO, Explorer-130P, which is not the same as your dobsonian.  Now in theory you should be able to re-program the MC001 with the MC003 firmware used for Dobsonians via the Skywatcher software,  however having never tried this I can't confirm if it works or if it ends up bricking the board.  The alternative would be to reprogram two PICs with the MC003 firmware and physically replace them.

The problem is, as you will have gathered by reading through this thread the new revision of the MC003 and MC004 boards are not backwardly compatible with older dobsonian mounts, so even if you find a supplier of the new revision the chances are it won't fit.  You could contact Skywatcher's Italian distributor to see if they can help.  Their address is 

AURIGA SRL

Via Quintiliano, 30, 20138 Milan, Italy

phone: +39 02-5097-780

fax: +39 02-5097-324

website: www.auriga.it

email: auriga@auriga.it

I would follow Geoff's advice.  Unless the mount is exhibiting a strange behaviour then leave well alone.  "If it isn't broke don't fix it" being the case here. 

Is the mount under warranty ? if so contact the retailer from where it was purchased and obtain the procedure to return it for repair or replacement.

If its out of warranty then the only way to confirm if its the motor or the mother board is to open it up and swap the connections.  If the fault follows the motor then that would be the cause.  Equally if having swapped the motors the same axis fails to work then a replacement mother board is required

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-mount-accessories/skywatcher-replacement-motherboard-for-az-gti-mounting.html

£87 with a two / three day lead time

22 hours ago, han59 said:

Malcom,

I got feedback that EQASCOM had a timing problem in the very beginning of the development. I can imagine that the VB compiler could play a role.

A faster serial connection could theoretically help. My HEQ5 is about 10 years old and as far I remember you can't change serial communication speed. You could also evaluate using the ST4 autoguider port instead of the serial port.  But I assume the lag in both the serial and ST4 is normally small and there is not so much to gain. The Bluetooth connection is probably an outlier.

It would be nice if they would allow to transmit the number of steps for the step motor. That would take communication delay out of the control loop. Now the serial connection is doing more or less the same as manual guiding with four buttons or the ST4 interface. This proposal would probably also require an ASCOM extension.

I have experimented with "slew to" position commands for guiding but that works miserable for guiding.

Han

Yes older HEQ5's (in fact all SW mounts that are based on PIC micos in the synscan controller have serial ports (TTL) that run at fixed 9600 baud.  My comment was really aimed at newer mounts that have ARM controllers and operate at 115200 baud, so any lag in data packets whilst guiding would be minimal 

21 hours ago, AstroMuni said:

I have the same mount and noticed that too 🙂

Thats a great idea to build a simulator for ASCOM. Ekos comes with its own Simulator for all the standard devices and this has helped me a lot in learning the tool as well as plan & try out things during daytime.

Just want to clarify something.  If by ASCOM you mean EQASCOM (EQMOD) then you can run it in simulation mode from the Toolbox option contained within the EQASCOM folder.    I know ASCOM as the platform that runs in the background to handle communications between software packages.

I don't own the mount in question, and as it works fine in other applications this does seem to be a Stellarium issue rather than a hardware issue, be that the mount or the cable.  It also means that communications settings such as com port speed are not the issue as the other apps connect and function correctly.  Maybe try a different planetarium application such as Cartes du Ciel which may resolve the issue for now whilst the issue with Stallerium is worked out.

Its all perfectly normal.  In the days prior to dotNet it used to be C++ extensions that needed to be installed.  All that is happening is making sure you have the correct supporting files for the main application to function, and as pointed out a reboot is often required to register these supporting files thus enabling the main application (ASCOM in this case) to function correctly.  It would be nice if the programmers used better error trapping so the 3010 error is converted into a meaningful instruction to perform a reboot !

1 hour ago, han59 said:

For the internal guider development for the CCDCiel program, I did an extensive test of the accuracy of guide pulses. So how accurate does the mount move after a sending a guide pulse.

The measuring principle was simple. Send guide pulses of different length to my HEQ5 mount and measured the indicated position change. For this I wrote a test program to send ASCOM pulses to the mount and read the resulting change in RA axis expressed in "arc seconds axis rotation" and write the results to a .csv file for analysing in a spreadsheet.

After the test I came to the following conclusions:

1. GS server pulse accuracy is better then EQASCOM.

 

Han,  I think the core of EQMOD was originally written in VB some ten or twelve years back and probably hasn't changed which May play a part in its accuracy ???

What I like about this post is whilst the guiding was simulated rather than real using a guide star where other factors such as seeing quality and such play a part, it does provide documented evidence in the form of graphs to back up the findings which make interesting reading.  You mention lag between bluetooth and hard wired, I wonder if having a faster serial port speed seen on newer mounts of 115200 baud compared to the 9600 that talk direct to the 16F886's in the HEQ5 makes any difference when guiding.  As you say, normally the command to move is set to the mount and its the firmware in the mount that does all the work, hence why 9600 is adequate.

13 minutes ago, IDM said:

I tried to work out how to make the changes you suggested so opened the Ascom settings. I could see the section on pulse guiding but could not see a slider labelled to change the a-s/s. I will have to work out how to change this. Likewise with the multi-star guiding, I had a look through the PHD2 settings but couldn't see an obvious way to change the setting. I will have to look into this. Any guidance on how to make the changes is gratefully received.

Thanks,

Ian

Ian, these are the two sliders in EQMod that need changing

Tick to enable and drag both to the right to give x0.9 rate.  You can leave the other to sliders as default.

Hope that helps

Councils these days are strapped so if your observatory did breach the regs due to being a couple of inches too tall I can't see them wasting resources when there are bigger fish to catch.  The requirement is really there to prevent people building unregulated extensions or operating a commercial business from a dedicated building that covers most of your garden etc.

My observatory is more permeant than yours, with a deep foundation, dwarf wall and is 4.8m x 2m.  Its on a slope so with the roof closed the apex at the high point is 2.54m - I didn't bother seeking permission and its been standing for 10 years now and never had an issue.  With yours being a commercial product you don't have any means to reduce the height (other than the base which has already been poured), so you could claim ignorance if it did get reported.  Just get on and build it  ! 

14 hours ago, amateur-astro said:

The main thing I would like to know is, what's the difference between the eq5, heq5 and the eq6r? 

Is it payload mainly? I understand the rowan belt mod on the eq5 but would that apply to all 3 mounts or is it solely the eq5. I don't want to buy a mount only to find out I've got to shell out more on mod that are really a must. I don't mind spending money along as I'm fully aware what I'm spending it on and can justify it, could anyone suggest a alternative mount ideally a goto mount? 

Thanks astro

Payload, precision and price are the three main differences.  Options for fitting a commercially (Rowan) produced belt drive exist for HEQ5 and EQ6 mounts.  EQ5 has no such option, although people have done DIY conversions.  The advantages of belt driven mount are only really applicable if you intend to use the scope for imaging where backlash / vibration makes a real difference.

You don't mention the scope you are considering, which could impacted how good the mount will perform, and really makes your questions difficult to answer.  An eq5 pro goto mount is a very capable mount providing you match it to a payload that remains within its specifications, which is the same for any mount on the market