The grease Celestron uses is a dark green. I know the type--- I saw it
described by a manufacturer who sells just about anything, but I'll have to
consult their site again. What I'm using probably EXCEEDS the grease
Celestron uses. Not to belittle them, but, as a manufacturer building TO a
cost, rather than AT a cost, they are compelled to use materials which prove
ADEQUATE, not superior. We have companies like Questar, TMB and Takahashi,
etc., for that. The SuperLube will be used only on the mirror thimble. I
will use a pure moly paste on the threads of the focus rod.
The telescope is generally nicely built, and I have no real complaints.
Indeed, many aspects exceed my expectations. I am replacing all internal /
external hardware with stainless steel, painted plack with an epoxy paint.
The interior jam nuts are being replaced with stainless nylon insert
locknuts. Why? Many of the screws were exceedingly tight upon disassymbly.
This might have fatigued some of the metal. I do not want to trust them not
to break later after rebuilt. A screw which snapped later while observing
could launch a nut with screw fragment into the interior cavity where it
could land on the primary. Also, the original nuts had no provision for not
loosening up. This way, I am assured of exceedingly strong, fresh,
corrosion proof fasteners that will never fail, deteriorate or come apart.
The tube stiffeners (which started this entire charade) will be new. While
the new (and improved) stiffeners are zinc dichromate plated, I am going to
dip and seal them in a plastic dip, so that what happened before can never
happen again. I will seal the threads with loctite which will stop any
chemical process from starting on the bare metal surface inside the threaded
holes. I do not contact Celestron for info on grease, etc., because I trust
myself to know better, do better than they, judging by the way they handled
my scope during service. Also, they have not been entirely truthful about
my deteriorating tube stiffeners, I believe. Otherwise, why did the new
ones they sent have an improved coating?
While apart I will address the issue of stray light. Though the C14 has
pretty good contrast, it comes no where close to the Questar Seven. The Q7
had no flocking at all, but very tight baffling. I cannot change the
baffling in the C14, but I can address it with flocking paper. I am taking
a comprehensive flocking strategy which should trap nearly all stray light
by the time it gets to the eyepiece port. I believe no other SCT has ever
been flocked to this degree; if someone has gone to this extent, please
voice in!
The tube will be flocked with Protostar flocking. It is a synthetic which
cannot shed and is very black. Tests show that it increases absorbtion
along the interior wall by up to 900% However, the scope will also be
flocked along the lip outside the corrector plate (after assembly), the
interior wall, both the inside and outside of the secondary baffle, the
surface of the interior lip of the front cell, facing the primary, which
supports the back of the corrector, and both the outside and inside of the
rear baffle. Some of these areas are exceedingly tricky to access, properly
cover and make adhesion, not to mention, some must be done during assembly
(and would have to be removed to take the scope back apart), plus could
potentially damage the optics during application if not careful working very
close to the mirror, or if adhesion failed and it came off. I do not
recommend this entire procedure to anyone unless they are *very* confident
in their skill and methods.
While some might scoff at some of these steps, my tests show that each
surface contributes something to the final scattered light which could make
its way to the image. The collective effect of all of these (even if any
particular one contributes exceedingly little to the final effect) should be
quite dramatic. Since it is my own personal telescope, I choose to optimize
it to the very limit of what is possible!
Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:30:04 -0000
From: "apoman60612" <markdambrosio@...>
Subject: Re: Focuser Grease Update
Hi Wayne, If this is indeed the same lubricant we are both speaking of,
then I will say yes, the specs did seem apropriate for the application.
I'm sure Celestron will neither mention, not recommend a lubricant.
Rather probably tell you something goofy like "Oh, ship us the scope, and
we'll take care of it", or"Yes, we use a very special lube, and anything you
may find will not be up to our high specs, and you may damage your scope".
I's sure one of the most important criteria will be the amount of lube
used. Too much, or too little will no doubt create their own problems.
Please keep us posted Wayne with your findings, and results, and how it
all went with the rebuild. I'm particularly interested in the C-14's
innards, and any mods/improvements that can enhance this scope.
Mark
