malc-c

LOL - you guys take thing too seriously.... Thank to the moderators for tidying up the thread, the responses I got were amusing.....and to a degree shoes how thing get lost in translation between the keyboard and the gestural meaning. Steve, hopefully the kit you can cobble together gets you back up and running soon.

I doubt that it could be a warranty repair given that under normal use there would be no reason for the USB port on each device to be damaged in such a way. Whether or not you could guilt trip the manufactures of the PPBA in fitting the same connector for both 5v and 12v, and apportion some or most of the blame on their design that may be an option. But you will probably find something in the small print about not being responsible for damage to 3rd party equipment through improper connection..... Good luck, and keep us posted on how this pans out

Personally I don't think it's going out of favour... just that a lot of those getting into imaging for the first time see all the images with secondary scopes added and assume that is the "standard" way to guide. Sometimes it can be budgetary. I started with the good old tried and tested ST80 as a guidescope, but wanted to reduce the weight of the rig. I looked at an OAG for my canon D400 and 200P combo, and needed to get one of the very slim offerings form Germany...The cost was three figures, so I kept putting that off, and then found a small cheap (sub £30) conversion ring that would allow the camera I have to attach to standard SW 9 x 50 finder, and that works for me equally as well. I would like to try OAG, but when money is tight its a lot to shell out, especially if there would be little gained.

Any update... have you managed to get it working ?

Steve, I stand corrected. My experience, especially between 5v wall plugs for things like old routers or phones etc, they have small yellow tipped barrels, making them impossible to fit a 12v alternative. But I agree there are no real standards between the voltages, and thus a safe guard that prevent this sort of thing happening.

Without getting into the math of binary, when it comes to cameras etc the greater the bit value the higher the resolution for the end result. For example in imaging cameras a higher bit rate for the CCD means you will see more detail as there are more "steps" between black and white so you get graduation and detail. As Steve stated 16 bits can represent 65,536 levels (steps) to make up the image compared to a 12 bit level that will make the same image up form 4096 levels between black and white.

Sorry to hear what's happened, but it does suggest a flaw in the design of either the hub, or the PPBA as normally the plugs between 12v and 5v are different, having either a larger centre pin, or different diameter barrels to prevent such a mishap. If 12v has been applied to a 5v USB power line then this will have fried the internal devices that handle the USB communications, be that something like an FTDI chip in the case of an EQDIR cable for the mount, to any processor with a built in USB port if there is a direct connection to it. A lot of devices do have over current protection, but sadly not always over voltage. Making a claim on your insurance policy if it has accidental damage could be a possible way to have the components replaced, but I would try and seek advice on the impact doing so has on future premiums. I can understand how disheartening this can be, and sharing the experience on the forum can at least help make others aware of this possible issue.

Rob, that's the nub. Most people except that delays happen, and businesses can have operational issues if they are kept in the loop. The single issue that came to light in the previous discussion about HOUK was the lack of communication. It's that experience of not receiving a reply to an email, or having a telephone ring and ring without being picked up, or answered by an answer phone and receiving no follow up to a left message that raises suspicions and speculations that things have turned for the worse, especially where people have parted with thousands of pounds. Its sad that despite highlighting the original thread to HOUK and suggesting they contact their customers (I'm guessing that the number of customers is such that order books are in the 10's of units rather than 100's so it would only take an couple of hours over a few nights), that they are now getting a poor reputation when it could be so easily resolved. Graham, I hope the promises of you being next on the list is fulfilled, and you will soon have your observatory up and running.

If you are just a visual observer then an EQ mount is not much of an advantage over an ALT/AZ. The only issue is that when following a target you have to push the tube up or down a little as well as in a westerly direction, which in reality isn't an issue, even if the mount is not motorised. If on the other hand you are using the scope for serious imaging then an EQ is a must. To be honest, IMO using an EQ for visual isn't really that complicated. So long as you nave the RA axis pointing to the North Celestial pole (only need to be an good approximation for visual needs), then it's just a case of releasing all the locks and moving the scope around unto the target is found, lock the scope in position, and then all that is needed is manual adjustment of one axis to keep the target in place.

Just to confirm you have downloaded the FTDI drivers from here ? and run the setup exe to pre install the driver ready for when the cable is plugged in ? - If so then try the following; Boot the PC up and open up device manager. When you plug the Lynx cable in, can you confirm windows reacts and adds the device under the port section ? If your laptop / PC isn't detecting new hardware then first try a manual scan by highlighting "user-PC" and then click on Action > Scan for hardware changes. If that fails there is an option to manually install as a legacy device. Browse to the installation folder for the FTDI driver and confirm that the ftdiport.inf file is present. If there is then open Device manager and highlight "user PC and from the Action option select "add legacy hardware" then Next > change option to "install manually" > Next > Scroll down to PORTS > Next > Then click "Have disk" > in the pop up navigate to the folder containing the driver that was downloaded and select the ftdiport.inf file, and hit open... you may get another window confirming the device to be installed, click Next and all being well it should install the driver and add the com port to windows. However if you have access to a second PC, before you try the legacy route, try plugging in the cable into the other PC - If that too fails to detect the hardware then there could be a possibility that the supplied cable is faulty and contacting FLO to obtain a replacement is advisable

Just a few words of advice, especially when parting with anything over £100... pay all or some of it on a credit card. Your consumer rights then mean that the credit card company is equally responsible should you run into issues (the can't deliver etc and won't refund you the money etc...) In the event that you may be scammed it would give you an added layer of protection. Don't use debit cards for anything more than you are willing to lose. It's no different to giving someone cash, and in the event of seeking redress through your bank, a charge back is not easy to obtain.

When I built the observatory ten years back I naturally kept all the drivers and software as I have an old adaptor that uses the same chipset (even 64 bit) - Try this, hopefully it will resolve the issue PL2303_64bit_Installer.zip

I went through the same process when I was researching options for my observatory back in 2011. Some of the commercial piers were £700 for a few sections of 6mm steel welded and powder coated, which seemed rather over priced for what it was. There are two basic approached to piers. At one end of the scale you have the fabricated pier made form steel that is then bolted to a foundation, which are typically a steel tube with a hole at the top to aid securing the mount, and a square plate at the bottom to bolt to the foundation. These were examples I found at the time of some DIY bolt down piers At the other end of the scale you have a length of pipe, typically 6" plastic drain pipe, or AC ducting, that can be filled with rebar and concrete, which itself is sunk into a foundation, typically 1m cube concrete. An adapter from two plates (have seen this done with car disk brakes) is then set into the top of the concrete filled tube and everything is left to cure. This was how I made my pier when building the observatory some 10 years back. I had a local company machine the aluminium adapter for around £50. This method is well within the DIY capabilities of the average person as other than digging a hole and mixing concrete you don't need to have any other DIY skills.

To connect the mount to the laptop you need an EQDIR cable - https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/EQMOD1.html Then connect the camera to the laptop via a suitable USB cable. On your laptop install ASCOM platform, EQMOD and PHD2 plus the planetarium application of your choice, along with whatever imaging software that suits your main camera.

I have to agree that it's too frequent to be on the main gear, but it could be worm, but more likely the motor pulley. However the Rowan doesn't use a custom 4:1 ratio, it uses the stock 47:9 ratio. The RA gear ratio of an HEQ5 is 705:1, so if I've got the math right, and bear with me here, 24 hours is 86,400 seconds (24*60*60). 86,400 divided by 705 to get the period for a single revolution of the RA motor results in 122.5 seconds (rounded). This is very close to the 120s frequency of the spikes in the tracking graph. So either the pulley has a fault or there is something going on with the stepper motor

Given the thickness of the pointer, and the markings it can only be taken as a guide. Set close to what your latitude is, pointing the mount as close to North as can be determined the mount will give adequate performance for visual observing. If you want more precision then polar alignment using one of many tools is required.

Based on what's been said, if the period correlated to one revolution of the motor pulley, then it can't be an issue with the belt as any defect in the belt would present a longer period. One thing to consider is when a belt drive is fitted you are placing tension (compression) between the motor pulley and worm, whereas the natural tendency when the stock gears are fitted is the opposite, as the gears are pushing out against each other. This could mean that there is stiction between the worm and main gear. It might be worth adjusting the mesh and backlash of the RA axis to see if that resolves the issue. With the belt removed, does the motor pulley run true, or is there any wobble, or eccentricity ? The issue is very regular as you say, at 120 seconds

The subject of connection speed has been discussed on the EQMOD user group recently, and to be honest 9600 is ample for the short data transmission that gets sent to the mount from EQMOD, so using a PC - Mount connection that runs at 115k is really overkill, and actually may result in issues with data loss as EQMOD hasn't been "designed" to operate that fast. When pulse guiding it's typical that the pulses are sent between 1 and 3 seconds, so again, no real need to have uber fast transmission speed.

New version has a different motor board fitted, based on an ARM processor rather than a pair of 16F886 PIC microcontrollers. They have the USB to 5vTTL serial convertor internal on the new board, allowing a standard A to B USB cable to be used to hook the mount up to a PC, so there is no need to use an EQDIR cable. The connection is still via a COM port on the PC, but at 115,000 baud rather than 9600 when using an EQDIR cable on the older mounts. However the firmware, protocol etc is still the same. The functionality of the mount is no different. If the mount comes with a handset that also has USB (V5?) then you can use the same USB cable to connect the handset to the mount and update any firmware as required. You could also place the handset into PC-DIRECT mode and operate the mount via the pass through on the handset, although there is little point with a direct USB connection on the mount. Hope that helps

Hard to say what could be the cause. When you say 90 seconds, I presume that is when tracking? - do you hear any "tick" form the mount when this happens? - If you do does the ticking speed up when the mount is slewing ? You could remove the belt kit and check both pulleys and the belt for any defects, and if you have concerns return it for a replacement, but these are CNC machined and I've never heard of any complaints before. Another thing to check is the free-play of the worm, both end play and tightness against the main gear. If you have the guiding logs, try uploading them so we can see what's going on

This time 10 years ago I was in the middle of building my observatory. There are a few things I would do differently, but on the whole I'm happy with how its lasted. Based on my experience I would offer the following comments based on the original drawing above. Framework. - Depending on your location, you need to take into account snow. I've had occasions where a good 9-12" of standing snow settled on the roof, so the structure needs to be sound. I built the framework of my observatory to standard 16" centres. It's a solid construction and takes the weight of the roof, even when covered in snow with ease. Runners - I used rubber castor wheels, around 5 each side, with only one side set into an aluminium U channel track. These have shown no signs of perishing and still function fine to this day. They also run quiet compared to metal wheels on metal track... something worth considering when you are closing up at 3 or 4 am. Material - Don't use OSB - use ply, and exterior grade if possible. I used OSB on the warm room, and due to a lack of fall on roof water creeped up under the felt and it soon needed replacing. Screws - Don't use nails to make the framework. Use decent length screws. It makes for a sound and sturdy structure. When joining two walls together I used sunken coach bolts. Over the years the observatory has been exposed to 60 mph winds, torrential rain, heat waves and foot or two of snow, and its still standing

The problem when asking for advice on recommended kit for a particular purpose is that everyone will have different requirements, budgets, expectations, and needs. I guess the first thing the OP needs to do is decide on whether he wants a reflector or refractor, given that he's commented on "ugly" diffraction spikes on stars. He mentioned that he wants to image galaxies, again this is quite wide ranging. On one end we have Andromeda that doesn't need demanding equipment to get a result, but then we have so many other attractive but fainter galaxies that need aperture and short focal lengths to capture them. Now a fast 6" refractor won't be cheap, and if you enter the budget end you are back with a large OTA that requires a heavy mount like an EQ6. With expectations, often people see the wonderful images in books and websites and expect to see the same thing the first time they attach their mobile phone to a £300 telescope, and then are really disappointed when the results are a small grey smudge (OK maybe I over exaggerated, but you get the idea). It's been mentioned that there is no "one scope fits all" and to give the OP proof of that here are a few images taken with a 200PDS on and HEQ5 from a town location with the setup in a DIY observatory. This one is the Flame nebula in Orion, taken with a modified Dslr Canon D400. I can't recall the number of subs etc as it was several years back and I've lost the notes. Several years ago Jupiter was well positioned and close so I used an old Phillips SPC900 CCD webcam and two 2x barlows (to give an equivalent of f20 focal length) and after processing the resulting frames from the capture this was the best I got. Now considering the equipment I used I'm quite happy with this result. Attempts to sharpen the image of Jupiter resulted in a fake looking images with banding. Now If I had used a dedicated planetary camera costing 10x the cost of the webcam then the results might have been a lot better. A few nights later the seeing was better and this was the result after processing....still grainy and some artefacts caused by the cheap Barlow's but again, for the effort involved I'm quite happy with the result. But I'm sure someone with a 120 Esprit, or better still an 8" SCT would get better, and I'm sure there are a lot of other SGL members who have produced better images. The point I'm trying to make is that whilst it was fairly easy to get the image of the flame nebula, it took a lot of messing about and additional equipment to do planetary work with the same scope, and the results weren't as stunning. That's not to say someone with the same set up, but in a nice secluded dark sky would get the same. They my find the slightest breeze ruins the results, especially when you consider the magnification involved here. We mentioned budget. The above images were taken with what I would class as basic entry level cameras. Canon have been associated with astrophotograpy for years as their sensors are less noisy and more sensitive than other brands ( the hot pixels of my Olympus dslr looks like a section of the milky way after 30 second exposures!! ). 400D - 450D's are quite light and small bodied. Larger cameras with full frame sensors will be considerably larger and heavier, and all this extra weight should be taken into account when considering the mount. At the other end of the scale, there are fast and sensitive CCD cameras designed for imaging. These cooled CCDs have sensors designed for this purpose and as such don't come cheap. With the mounts, at the bottom level we have the HEQ5 and EQ6 mounts. These have the best resolution in skywatchers range around the £1000 mark. Moving up you'll be spending three or four times that for the EQ8 and alternatives. It's typically been muted that for imaging the load should be 2/3 of the published max payload weight. So people will typically move an OTA up to the mount above the one that the OTA is normally bundled with. Fore example the 150p is often bundled with an EQ3, so using one on an EQ5 will give a better option and more stable platform when used as an imaging platform. Same for the 200p, which typically gets sold on an EQ5. Stick it on an HEQ5 and it copes better under the same conditions. Stick it on an EQ6 and you can bolt on larger guide scopes and heavier cameras. You mentioned guiding. OAG means it's using the main scope so its like having (in the case of the 200P) a 1000mm focal length guide scope which will give more precision. However, it also places an additional obstruction in the light path, and some people get hung up on this. Alternatives are to convert the 9 x 50 finder scope and used a cheap camera, through to a dedicated guide scope piggy backed on the main scope. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The OAG suitable for use with my Dslr so that I could still get back focus was around £130 so for me I opted to convert the finder using a £30 adapter. I think you have gathered by now that there is no "one fits all" with any of this. I've included images taken with budget equipment to try and illustrate what can be achieved with basic low end equipment, but I would suggest joining or visiting a local astronomy society (possibly at an observing evening) and look at what's on offer. Speak to the owners, especially those who also image. I have a friend who started off with the same equipment as me... he now has a dedicated two scope rig set up on a tuned EQ8 with imaging cameras costing more than I paid for my second hand Volvo V70. He's has several images win awards and featured on the cover of Astronomy Now.... I now place him at the semi-pro armature end of the spectrum. But then he knows how to get the results. There are those who have all the gear and no idea...... I hope this somewhat rambling post has been helpful. Good luck with your research and hopefully we'll see your first images very soon

Stefan, It was a long time ago, but something like this t-adapter was used. The problem you may have in 3d printing such a ring is the resolution of your printer. The threads on the inside of the finder are incredibly fine. Personally for £29 it's probably better to juts buy one.

From Personal Experience: The HEQ5 / 200PDS (you can use a standard P, but the PDS is more suited to imaging) has been a default "standard" entry to "serious" imaging. However, if you are exposed the 200P acts like a sail and the mount can struggle. Place it in an observatory, or sheltered spot and that will make all the difference. A 150 PDS will be more stable on an HEQ5, and gives you the option of using a larger guide scope. My original setup in the observatory was an HEQ5 / 200P (modified secondary) / ST80 as a guidescope / QHY5 / modified 400D Dslr. I found this was right on the limit for the HEQ5. I since sold the ST80 and converted the stock 9 x 50 finder into a guidescope using a ring adapter, and this works surprisingly well. Unless you are going to mess about with CCD cameras and barlow lenses, forget about using the 200 / 150 PDS for planetary work. f5 reflectors just don't have the magnification for planetary work. You will get decent luna images, but Jupiter will still just look like a large star... There is no "one size fits all". Serious planetary imaging needs not only long focal lengths such as F10 / F12, but also large aperture, which is why large refractors or SCT are favoured. But these scopes need focal reducers etc to make them suitable for DSO's and then the results may not be as good as a 150 / 200 P.... Bad analogy is that you wouldn't use an F1 race car for rally racing.

You're stepping into the dark side now.... Other than the really bright nebula like Orion, you need a fast scope, ideally f5, The 150PL is designed more for magnification with an f8 ratio, making more suited to luna and planetary work. That's not to say imaging with a 6" f8 scope is impossible, it will just be harder. Exposures will need to be longer, that means the mount needs to be very stable, PA, and track well. The EQ5 isn't a bad mount... and you have the choice of getting the enhanced drive kit, and then messing about with DIY goto options, or buy the pro goto upgrade and use the handset. The main difference is that the pro-goto uses stepper motors which offer more precision than the DC motors used in the basic / enhanced drive kits. The handset is a great means of finding targets and tracking them. With perfect polar alignment and no wind, you should be able to get a good couple of minutes unguided exposures. The pro-goto also has the option of being connected to a PC via a suitable EQ DIR cable, and if you add a guide scope (a simple finder guider for around £200) then with software you can have a system that will be self correcting and be able to take as long an exposure as you need. Your last sentence made me laugh.... getting into imaging isn't cheap... Yes you can use basic equipment, and there have been many threads on SGL of people imaging with EQ3's and 150Ps, with DIY hacked handsets etc... and their results are quite outstanding. But it's hard work... an analogy (and probably not a good one) is comparing an old vintage car with a modern one. Both will get you form A-B but the old one may need tinkering more and at times just won't play ball. The same goes for imaging. An HEQ5, 200P, guidescope housed permanently set up in an observatory is often out of reach of a lot of people, but for convenience, reliability, and ease of use it's worth the investment. Personally, if I was in your shoes, I would consider the pro-goto upgrade. You can add a guidescope later and connect it to the ST4 port on the synscan unit. So you can guide without the need for a PC. But then if you decide in future that you want to dabble with computer control you can as you already have a mount that supports that with the additional cost of around £35 for an EQDIR cable, as most of the software is free.