malc-c

Replacement handset cable RVO have replacement handset cables. However, have a read of this thread - Is your HEQ5 one of the newer Pro systems or one of the older type

The handset is not model specific. When connected it sends two command to the motor board in the mount which prompts a response from each PIC micro controller which is sent back to the handset along with the motor boards firmware. If you are able to connect the HEQ5 to a PC via an EQDIR cable and control the mount with the same power source then there is no issue with the motor board in the mount as it is responding to the same commands that the handset sends only through the EKOS platform. This would suggest that the issue is either the handset itself, the interface port on the handset or the cable between the handset and mount is not working as the handset isn't receiving the response it is expecting. The easiest thing to try is a new cable (you don't provide a link to the one Cornelius suggested, so can't comment if that is the right one or not). If that fails then you would have to see if the handset with a new cable works on someone else's goto mount in order to confirm or deny the handset as being faulty. Also the firmware version in the handset is old - there have been two later revisions since - to 03.39.15 - There is also a fix so that the handset displays the correct voltage - Both, plus the windows PC application to upload the patch and firmware can be found on the skywatcher website here - It might be worth updating the handset and trying again.

Right, I was getting confused as you mentioned the use as a guide scope and I didn't pick up on the visual aspect. As others have said, I suspect that as this scope was primary designed as a guide scope you may find what you are hoping to do is beyond its purpose and given the money you are throwing at this might be better off looking for an alternative, and one that is primary designed as a spotting scope rather than a guide scope ?

Excellent report, and love the reference to Jazz - Yes collimation is like tuning an precision instrument... or an F1 race car 🙄

I'm missing something here... why do you need to correct (erect) the star image when used as a guide scope ? - By nature astronomical scopes produce an inverted image, so if the guide scope has a corrected image then any software used to handle the guiding will provide incorrect movements as it will see the guide star moves in the opposite direction to what the main imaging camera see's through the mains scope. The SVBony website shows how it needs to be used as a guide scope, with no diagonal fitted... so why are you so fixated on using a diagonal with a guide camera, which would also make the rig harder to balance as your shifting the CofG away form the centre axis of the guidescope.

Personally I don't know the grease supplied with the kit, but if its the same gunk that Synta use in the HEQ5 gearing then most tend to clean the grease off the cogs and use a good quality white lithium grease to lubricate the gears. I don't think the gears spin fast enough to throw grease, unless the greasing was excessive.

If I follow your post correctly, you can use the directional buttons on the handset in speed 8 to move the mount via the motors, but any other speed setting or goto instruction has no affect and the mount fails to move ? It could be a power issue as the other poster mentioned, and using a mains powered DC adapter that can provide 12v DC and around 2.5amps should rule the battery pack as being the cause. The strange part is that it responds to a manual command, but not a goto. When you say given is the mount second hand, or was it new as a gift? If new then it may be worth contacting the supplier (and the person who gave you the scope) to see if there is a fault with the synscan unit and it can be replaced under warranty

I can't see any diagonal in the images of the scope. Maybe you need to remove the diagonal and connect the camera directly to the focuser tube as per the image shown under "guide scope" There is no requirement to use diagonals when using as a guide scope. In fact where astronomy is concerned it doesn't matter about correcting an inverted image.

I'm no expert coder, but as mentioned above using a pause as a delay is not recommended as it's not accurate. Most board computers have interrupts which are timers based on the processors clock frequency and thus provide a means of precision timing. The advantage is that the timing "loops" can continue to run whilst your code jumps to other routines, such as displaying menus or updating a display with the mounts position. The EQMOD pre-requisites web page has some useful information on the gear ratios and steps per complete revolution for most Skywatcher / Orion mounts that may help with the calculations used in your code. Good luck with your project, and feel free to post up some pictures as it progresses

Not sure why you tagged this on a old thread, but yes, I would be contacting the retailer the mount was purchased from and have them inspect it if the backlash is that high.

It's difficult to advise as we don't know the plane of the optical axis from these images, as the camera may be at an angle to it and thus is making the collimation look off. Using a clock face as a reference, looking at the shadow the axis is running through 10 O'Clock position. If so then it would seem you have sorted out the secondary rotation mentioned above, but something is still not quire right as the reflection is still bunched up in that direction. If the optical axis is through the 3 to 9 O'Clock (ie horizontal) in the image then there is still rotation. Have you checked that the focuser is square to the tube, and that the laser is hitting the centre line form the spider ? It's been a while since I set up the optics on my scope and I used a length of threaded bar securely bolted through the spider (having removed the secondary) and then once the focuser housing is square adjust the spiders so that the secondary mount is such that the laser hits the centre of the bar. It is often a case that you can get the optical axis collimated, but out of alignment if you follow - Best image I could find and modify below (focuser misalignment grossly exaggerated!) Having said that, I'm not the best person to comment on collimation, although when I had an issue with the scope years back I must have recollimated well over twenty times even stripping the scope right down on one occasion. I even purchased a self centring eyepiece adapter to ensure the Hotech laser was centred as using the traditional holder with thumb screws can cause the collimation to be out of alignment. Final test is the start test, which hopefully gives you nice concentric airy rings

To my eye that is still out of collimation. It looks like you are near step 1 in this guide This is what you are after

I've (and others) have tried to point you in a direction, but all you seem to do is link to lots of different scopes and asking for peoples opinions between them. Part of this problem is that most people don't own two or three scopes, let alone owning the two specific brands or models you are asking for comparison on, especially when its not one of the more common brands such as Skywatcher. Also as mentioned, peoples opinions are subjective. You would really need to compare different brands or size aperture size under like for like skies, as a 130p under really dark skies could quiet easily out perform a 200P in a more light polluted area... As you have gathered ask for a recommendation and you will get 100 differing suggestions and a thread that runs into pages and pages. We can only give you our opinions or suggestions based on our own experiences, which will be limited as most of us only have used one or two scopes, hence the suggestion to go and speak to someone in a showroom and compare what they have to offer. People have recommended PDS versions so that if you find viewing faint grey fuzzy blobs disappointing you can easily switch to imaging with basic cameras, even those found on mobile phones. Again, what you will see will be dependent on the quality of the skies where you live or intend to observe from, and how good your eyesight is. I wish you well in your continued search, for an extra ten quid you can get the same scope only F5 focal length brand new from FLO. As for how they perform, someone who does have a large selection of scopes have placed a review on how the TS scope performs

Well I was inspired by a few guys who were converting EQ6's to belt drive, and to me the HEQ5 was a much simpler option, so I purchased a set of pulleys, had them machined down and bored out to fit and with Chris working out the maths for using 4:1 , 5:1 and even 6:1 ratios in EQMOD I ended up with a viable prototype. Around a dozen SGL members asked for kits so I had a batch of pulleys machined and sourced someone to make the spacers and sold a few kits. The full thread is here although some images may be missing given the age of the thread. My reward for my efforts and claim to fame was the conversion was featured in Astronomy Now some ten years ago now ! Seeing a gap in the market Dave from Rowan stepped in and produced the now standard HEQ5 and EQ6 belt conversion kits with CNC motor pulleys that maintain the stock ratio and thus could be used with the handset rather than having to be hooked up to a computer and use EQMOD and software to control the mount. It was fun and exciting at the time, but I lacked the funds to patent the concept and at the time none of us ever thought that belt drive would be so popular... and to this day no one at Rowan have offered to buy me a beer

I started all this belt modding of the HEQ5 over a decade ago, and the first thing I found was that the sound had changed. No matter how much I adjusted the gearing to reduce the backlash between the central gear and both the worm and motor gears, or how much lithium grease I used, there would still be that graunching sound as the motors spooled up and down at the start and end of a slew. As soon as the belt was fitted the sound changed and all I could hear was the spooling of the motors. Here is a video I made in 2012 demonstrating the testing and experiments using off the shelf parts. This was before Dave form Rowan engineering developed the kit idea and used CNC components that suited the stock gear ratios so the handset could be used The mount isn't a great deal quieter, but it sounds a lot sweeter just hearing the steppers spooling rather than the gears meshing / graunching!

Bottom line is that you can go round and round comparing scopes and trying to come up with something that might get close to that all rounder you seek. The task was a lot easier a decade or so ago as there tended to be just one or two scopes in any given class, or price bracket. These days there are so many paths to go down at any stage, often with lots of choices in any given price range. Problem is none of us can say what's right for you. We can all suggest makes and models of scopes that fit in to your budget, but we can't say if you will be pleased with what you get out of it. When I got my scope I had a budget of £1000. Originally I was looking at the Celstron C6 on an GQ5 mount. It looked the part, and on paper would give me decent images of the planets, and brighter DSOs. I made arrangements to visit a showroom and had the C6 demonstrated. The sound the celestron made when slewing was horrendous, and I could see why it had the nick name of coffee grinder ! Behind that was a 200P on a EQ5 goto mount, and whilst impressive thought it was a little too large for my needs. However after a lot of thought I placed my order with RVO as the original local(ish) retailer had none in stock and I was impatient. For me it was a great investment, even though I later got a second hand HEQ5, st80, and a guide camera when I ventured into imaging and sold the EQ5 with a 127 MAK to recover some of the cost. As I mentioned, you can add barlows to increase the focal length and get reasonable planetary images, well ones I'm happy with and that's what matters to me. The 150 is a decent scope. The only issue with the PL version is people say it really needs a higher class mount than the EQ5 as it does move in a breeze. If you can, try and find a stockist in reasonable travelling distance and go see some scopes in action. Talk to the sales guys about what you want to use it for, what you are hoping to get out of the scope, and what future plans may be so that by increasing your budget slightly now may save you loosing some money later on.

It's not designed to improve the sound quality..... What you won't get is the graunch of the gears as they take up the backlash between them. The motors still sing and you still hear the stepping of the motors through the drive train. Often it depends on the individual mount and is subjective to ones own hearing, but on most occasions a difference was noted. What you should notice is better accuracy in goto and tracking.

Fantastic customer service from both companies. Afraid to say that I started all this when I modified my HEQ5 to belt drive in 2011.... Only I had to use off the shelf pulleys, and using a 4:1 ratio it was only suitable for computer control using EQMOD. Dave at Rowan Engineering then took the concept of the kit I made up a step further and CNC's a one piece motor pulley that maintained the factory ratio so it could be used with a handset. The main advantage of a 4:1 ratio is a more regular PEC, but other than that having a belt driven mount is so much more smother and quieter than the geared system. It also takes out one more item that causes backlash. It's really humbling to hear that they have agreed to make a part to fit the motor you have, and at no cost. Keep us posted how things go on

The shafts on both motors on my HEQ5 are 5mm so the pulley would seem to be machined correctly. So either early machines had different motor fitted to the RA drive, or someone in the past changed the motor and got one with a 4mm shaft. My advice would be to drop Dave at Rowan engineering a line, link or include the video and ask how much they will charge to machine a new RA pulley with a 4mm bore rather than the normal 5mm

Also, looking at the guide log, the focal length stated is 200mm. If you are using the stock 9 x 50 SW finder as a guidescope its focal length of the SW 9 x 50 straight finder I believe is 184mm and you are binning 2 x 2. giving 7.73 arc seconds per pixel. Exposure is also short at 500ms - set this to at least 1s or 1.5s. I also noticed the guide log gave a full resolution of 640 x 480 where as the spec for the QHY5LII mono gives a resolution of 1280 x 960 so the binning has effectively reduced that to 640 x 480. Now I'm no PHD expert, but that may be a factor. Maybe @vlaiv can decipher the log a little more. As I said, I'm not the expert in this field

You don't mention how the mount is connected to the computer or what application you are using to control it. Are you using an EQDIR cable between the computer and the mount, or does your mount have the USB port option, or are you using the handset as a pass through, with a USB cable between the computer and handset and the handset connected to the handset port on the mount? If you are using a computer with either EQMOD or GSServer to control the mount then there should be no inputs from the handset. You need to make any corrections to get a target in the field of view using the on screen NSEW buttons. If you have EQMOD installed and are using that as the "driver" then you need to set the pulse guiding setting (assuming you are connecting the guide camera to the computer via USB and not using the ST4 option) in EQMOD to between x0.5 and x0.9. In PHD2 select EQMOD HEQ5/6 (ASCOM) for the mount in the dropdown options for mounts (you seem to have the right camera selected already). The scope needs to be set up in the default home position - Point North with the weights down. Once the mount has been powered up and the PC booted and all the connections selected in the various applications, chose a star that is currently due south and on the celestial equator in the planetarium software. With the scope unparked, instruct the mount to slew from the planetarium software. Once the slew is complete, use the NSEW onscreen buttons in EQMOD to centre the star in the main camera's field of view and then sync the target in the planetarium application (this is typically done by right clicking on the star in the planetarium software and selecting sync form the options) This then allows EQMOD to workout the polar alignment error or any other offsets ). Now perform a calibration run in PHD2, followed by a run of the Guiding Assistant to measure the backlash. Hopefully after that PHD2 will start guiding. Once complete then select the target you want to image via the planetarium application, again, making any alterations to frame the target via the onscreen NSEW buttons. Then let PHD2 select the guide star and start guiding. I normally wait a few minutes for it to settle down before doing an imaging run. Hope that helps

The C5 is a SCT not an MAK - (I'll let you google the difference) As some members have already mentioned some accessories are more suitable with some scopes and not others. Generally I would expect a focal reducer when used with an SCT to have no degradation of the image, in fact it will seem brighter but smaller as the effective magnification will be reduced. The opposite happens when using Barlow lenses to double, triple or quadruple the focal lengths. In addition to my recommendation to visit a local society I would suggest you spend some time on the phone talking to the guys at Rother Valley optics, or First Light Optics as they are more likely to have had the opportunity to compare scopes within certain budget levels than most of us and can possibly steer you down the right road. Personally with a budget of £500 I would look at the SW 150P-DS / EQ3 as an all rounder. It has the upgraded focuser compared to the stock 150P, and whilst aimed at being used with a camera, also makes for a decent visual platform. As shown, using barlows to extend the f5 focal length you can still get decent planetary images when the planets are well placed. It can be upgraded, with three motor drive options, from basic through to full on synscan goto, so you don't have a large initial outlay. The combo is light enough to make it portable, easily fitting in the boot or back seat of most cars. If you want a computer driven scope for the same amount, the SW 150i Star Discovery could be an alternative, but it lacks the equatorial mount which means field rotation comes into play when imaging. However I personally prefer the 150P-DS being on an EQ mount that can be expanded to a system that can offer an automated imaging system at a later date if required. Get your post count up and have a look in the classified section, where you money will go further... As mentioned, we are all different and have different viewpoints. It's very difficult to find a one scope fits all, as there basically isn't one. There are also so many pro's and con's for each type of scope and the mounts they sit on, so there will always be a compromise, especially on small budgets. But take your time, do your research and resist that impulse to impulse buy.

👍 - Cheers Mark. Yes I forgot to mention the field of view decreased with longer focal lengths.

Focal ratio is the focal length divided by the diameter of the objective lens or mirror. So for argument sake a 1000m focal length 200mm reflector will be f5, where as a 2000mm focal length MAK with the same 200mm mirror will be f10. The larger the focal ratio the higher the magnification is achieved for any given eyepiece. The down side is that in this example the 2000mm MAK will have a darker image, with less contrast. In theory, assuming the same ISO and other settings remain unchanged, you need to expose for twice the duration with the f10 scope than for the f5. Now with longer exposures that then means all other factors such as tight polar alignment and guiding come into play. This is the main reason MAKs are more suited to planetary work and bright DSO's. Obviously for visual observing tight polar alignment and guiding don't really matter. This example would be based on comparing these scopes under the same conditions, and everyone's eyes being the same. In reality the quality of seeing and the observers eyesight can make a big difference. If you have some nice dark skies, then you will see fainter targets than someone close to a town. My advice would be to contact a local astro society and pop along to their next observing session. OK you may not find the same two scopes as per my example, but you should still be able to look through different types of scopes and get a hands on idea of how each type performs. We used to a 150mm f5 reflector and a 127 MAK pointed to the Moon, and swap the same eyepiece between the two scopes so people could see the difference. Then we would move to a bright DSO such as M42 or M31 so they got a feel and understanding that there is no such thing as a one scope fits all. Yes you can use focal reducers in a MAK or Barlow lenses in the Reflector to compensate so to speak, but the more glass you put between the target and your eye, the less photons get through... The bottom line is that no one here can really advise you what suits your needs. We all have subjective opinions based on the equipment we use, often based under our own skies. I had a 127 MAK on an EQ5 mount It made for a great portable rig, and was taken to one of the SGL star parties around a decade ago (struth don't time fly !) But just to through a spanner into the works... here are some images taken from a fairly light polluted Stevenage. I used two 2x barlows, stacked and a Philips SPC900 web cam in the 8" 200P, which gave an effective focal ratio of f20 A week or so later I repeated the experiment with an MS Lifecam (720p) webcam, which gave a larger image, but not as sharp (I'm sure someone will chime in with the reason being pixel size or something ). The final image taken in 2011 is Jupiter, taken with stacked barlows and the Phillips webcam. I've included them to show that with a little messing about you can use a fast scope to get some decent planetary images (I'm happy with the results so that's the main thing), and I dare say there will be those with long focal length refractors or MAKs that have used reducers and taken stunning images of DSO's.... I'll be honest, I have a stack of 30 or so images that ended up on the cutting room floor before I got an image I was happy with, and didn't have too much aberration or some other artefact caused by using cheap barlows, something a 8" MAK or CAT wouldn't have, but that was all part of the fun in experimenting.....

OK just for clarification: The USB port on a handset can be used for two processes. The first is to update the firmware in either the handset or the motor control board in the mount. The second is to allow control of the mount via a computer. When used as a means of control from a computer the handset may or may not need to be set into PC-DIRECT mode in order to allow the commands to pass through and be relayed to the mount. Now newer designs of some mounts (the EQ5 for example) a USB port has been added to the synscan unit, or the mount itself. The HEQ5, despite the newer models having the ARM based motorboards does not yet have a USB port because it has its connections handled through a separate fitting that houses the power, handset, and ST4 ports, and there is no physical space to add a USB port to this fitting. So basically options for hard wired connections are (dependent on the ports fitted to the mount) USB A-B type cable connected between computer and handset. Handset connected to the handset port on the mount. Handset may need to be placed in PC-DIRECT mode to pass through commands to the mount USB to serial adapter, with the Skywatcher serial to RJ11 cable connected to the serial port on older handsets without USB ports. Handset then connects to the handset port on the mount, and possibly placed into PC-DIRECT mode EQDIR cable connected between the computer (USB) and the handset port on the mount. The handset is thus removed and no longer needed USB A-B cable connected between the computer (USB) and the USB port on the mount (if fitted). The handset is thus removed and no longer needed Now there are Bluetooth and WiFi dongles etc that replace the EQDIR cable, but work in the same way, but that is really outside the scope of this post, which was to answer the question what the USB port was for