开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
Date

Re: [C14] Re: CM 1400 GT

Angel
 

开云体育

Paul,
?
Could not agreed with you more. I will eventually move to a larger mount... someday!
?
Angel
?

-----Original Message-----
From: paulatkinson22@... [mailto:paulatkinson22@...]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 9:55 AM
To: C14@...
Subject: Re: [C14] Re: CM 1400 GT

Angel,

Thanks for you input on both mounts. ?My earlier comments on the CM 1400 GT were not intended to bash the CI-700. ?However, I agree with you on many of the points you made. ?I feel having seen the CI in action that it isn't a great combination with the C14. ?It seemed way to flimsy, especially the tripod/leg issue. ?In fact, I used one prior to buying my C14 and that is why I made the decision to go with another mount. ?As such, I was indicating my view that in the long run they would probably be much more happy with at least a G11 or larger. ?In my opinion, the G11 is about the smallest mount I would consider. ?It is my humble opinion that Celestron mounts are seriously lacking. ?Look at the June 2002 issue of Astronomy and read the Celestron 9.25 review (if you haven't already). ?That review is perfect example of Celestron as a whole. ?GREAT optics on seriously inadequate mounts. ?Celestron is trying to keep cost down ?as much as possible. ?I can appreciate that fact. ?However, I think that it also hurts them in the long run. ?The C14 is their Cadillac. ?However, they are putting their Cadillac on cheap tires. ?

In a dream world, if money were no object, the AP900/1200 or the GM200, or many other larger mounts are probably the best choices for this optically superior instrument. ?

Paul Atkinson

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
C14-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .


Re: [C14] Re: CM 1400 GT

Angel
 

开云体育

Paul,
?
It a matter of personal preference, but one must see them side by side to get a feel for what I'm talking about. Take for example the anodizing on my G11 looks new after almost 6 years. On the other hand the CI700,?purchased January 2001 and already?the finish is?much less lustrous than the G11 with less significantly less use. The counterweight bar on the CI700 is showing some minor rust spots. Not only fit and finish but little things like the encoder mounting and the clutch knobs which are way too SMALL, specially the dovetail plate clutches. Once in a while I tighten them too much and it makes it a pain at the end of the night to?remove the C14.
?
I can go on and on, as you have to "live" with both mounts to appreciate the G11. So you might ask, why did I keep both mount? Well, I sold the CI700 tripod and have it mounted on a Losmandy GM8 tripod which makes it a very heavy duty and portable alternative to my G11. I briefly owned a GM8 and sold the head just because of the ability of the CI700 to carry a larger payload. It handles my C9.25, AP155 for visual use without any fuzz.
?
Regards,
?
Angel
?
?
?

?-----Original Message-----
From: paulatkinson22@... [mailto:paulatkinson22@...]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:50 AM
To: C14@...
Subject: Re: [C14] Re: CM 1400 GT

Angel,

Tell us your opinion of fit and finish on the CI-700? ?I'd like to hear what you think.

Paul Atkinson
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
C14-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .


Re: [C14] Re: CM 1400 GT

 

Angel,

Thanks for you input on both mounts. ?My earlier comments on the CM 1400 GT were not intended to bash the CI-700. ?However, I agree with you on many of the points you made. ?I feel having seen the CI in action that it isn't a great combination with the C14. ?It seemed way to flimsy, especially the tripod/leg issue. ?In fact, I used one prior to buying my C14 and that is why I made the decision to go with another mount. ?As such, I was indicating my view that in the long run they would probably be much more happy with at least a G11 or larger. ?In my opinion, the G11 is about the smallest mount I would consider. ?It is my humble opinion that Celestron mounts are seriously lacking. ?Look at the June 2002 issue of Astronomy and read the Celestron 9.25 review (if you haven't already). ?That review is perfect example of Celestron as a whole. ?GREAT optics on seriously inadequate mounts. ?Celestron is trying to keep cost down ?as much as possible. ?I can appreciate that fact. ?However, I think that it also hurts them in the long run. ?The C14 is their Cadillac. ?However, they are putting their Cadillac on cheap tires. ?

In a dream world, if money were no object, the AP900/1200 or the GM200, or many other larger mounts are probably the best choices for this optically superior instrument. ?

Paul Atkinson


Re: [C14] Re: CM 1400 GT

 

Angel,

Tell us your opinion of fit and finish on the CI-700? ?I'd like to hear what you think.

Paul Atkinson


Re: [C14] Re: CM 1400 GT

Angel
 

开云体育

In my opinion a C14 is no less stable atop a CI700 than a G11. I own then both and have not been able to tell any difference stability wise. Fit and finish, that's another story.
?
Angel
?

-----Original Message-----
From: cgentryz [mailto:cgentry339@...]
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 7:10 PM
To: C14@...
Subject: [C14] Re: CM 1400 GT

--- In C14@y..., paulatkinson22@a... wrote:
> Yes,? don't get it.? The mount is the main reason.? ... You will be
>unhappy with the
>mount...

Well, not necessarily.? I am quite happy with my CI-700 with C14.?
Check out the CI-700 group before you decide.

Chip G.



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
C14-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .


Re: CM 1400 GT

cgentryz
 

--- In C14@y..., paulatkinson22@a... wrote:
Yes, don't get it. The mount is the main reason. ... You will be
unhappy with the
mount...
Well, not necessarily. I am quite happy with my CI-700 with C14.
Check out the CI-700 group before you decide.

Chip G.


CM 1400 GT

 

Hello ! everybody

Do you know anything about the CM 1400 GT Celestron



Do You Yahoo!?
- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup


Re: [C14] CM 1400 GT

 

Yes,? don't get it.? The mount is the main reason.? Get the C14 OTA and then at a minimum the G11 or AP900/1200.? You will be unhappy with the mount, trust me.

Paul Atkinson


Re: [C14] Carbon Fiber

W. Gondella
 

To reiterate, aluminum expands and contracts, carbon fiber does not. The
more aluminum the more the difference. Therefore the possibility exists
that the carbon tube might reduce or mostly eliminate one of the major
causes of the need to refocus. However, there are many sources of focus
shift, and you cannot detect them visually as the camera is more sensitive.
What looks sharp to the eye, may not cut it for the camera. When observing,
one refocuses with every eyepiece, person and new object. In imaging, tube
material aside, one is always recommended to check focus repeatedly
throughout the night. Why would go through all the expense and effort for
astrophotos (expecial good ones) and not do a simple focus check every so
often? Cheap insurance.

Sure, carbon fiber might help with focus drift, but it is an expensive
option, it cracks rather than dents, is essentially unrepairable if it does
crack, and is not available on many scopes. Nor is it usually needed. Look
at Ed Graftons pictures. CCD exposures are relatively short, and the
software provides for focus recalibration.

Also, depth of field is greatest at the prime focus (f/11) where the scope
was designed to operate best.

All a moot point, unless you want to custom make your own C14 tube.

Wayne E. Gondella, CGA
South Hills Coordinator
Amateur Astronomers Association of Pittsburgh
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


Re: [C14] Re: New Images

brian
 

开云体育

They are even more impressive now!
How hard was it to get m57 on the ccd chip?
?
Brian

----- Original Message -----
From: kberna1376
To: C14@...
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 4:23 AM
Subject: [C14] Re: New Images

Hi Brian.? These images were all done with an SBIG ST237.? Way
oversampled!? The M57 is f11, L 400sec,R 200sec, G 180sec, B 180sec.?
The exposures are way too short, un-binned, and just plain wrong to
get the correct color balance!? I was just fooling around to see what
the AP1200-C14 was capable of doing, and I am impressed.? Next time
out I will try to be a bit more systematic about it!

Ken

--- In C14@y..., "be01753" wrote:
> Nice images Ken, thanks for posting. Interesting to see how crowded
> the core of M13 is.
> How long was the M57 exposure?
> Like the colours, especially the m27 shot. What sort of camera have
> you got?
>
> Brian
>
> --- In C14@y..., "kberna1376" wrote:
> > I posted some new images to "Ken Images" in the Files area.? The
new
> > ones are M13, M51, and M57.? These were some quick exposures I
made
> > with my new AP1200 mount.? Really improved performance.? The M57
shot
> > is at f11.? Did it just to see how well the mount would track.?
M51
> > and M13 are with a 3.3 reducer that gives about f4 with the C14.
> >
> > Comments welcome.
> >
> > Ken


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
C14-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .


Re: New Images

 

Hi Brian. These images were all done with an SBIG ST237. Way
oversampled! The M57 is f11, L 400sec,R 200sec, G 180sec, B 180sec.
The exposures are way too short, un-binned, and just plain wrong to
get the correct color balance! I was just fooling around to see what
the AP1200-C14 was capable of doing, and I am impressed. Next time
out I will try to be a bit more systematic about it!

Ken

--- In C14@y..., "be01753" <brian@l...> wrote:
Nice images Ken, thanks for posting. Interesting to see how crowded
the core of M13 is.
How long was the M57 exposure?
Like the colours, especially the m27 shot. What sort of camera have
you got?

Brian

--- In C14@y..., "kberna1376" <kberna1376@a...> wrote:
I posted some new images to "Ken Images" in the Files area. The
new
ones are M13, M51, and M57. These were some quick exposures I
made
with my new AP1200 mount. Really improved performance. The M57
shot
is at f11. Did it just to see how well the mount would track.
M51
and M13 are with a 3.3 reducer that gives about f4 with the C14.

Comments welcome.

Ken


Re: New Images

be01753
 

Nice images Ken, thanks for posting. Interesting to see how crowded
the core of M13 is.
How long was the M57 exposure?
Like the colours, especially the m27 shot. What sort of camera have
you got?

Brian

--- In C14@y..., "kberna1376" <kberna1376@a...> wrote:
I posted some new images to "Ken Images" in the Files area. The new
ones are M13, M51, and M57. These were some quick exposures I made
with my new AP1200 mount. Really improved performance. The M57 shot
is at f11. Did it just to see how well the mount would track. M51
and M13 are with a 3.3 reducer that gives about f4 with the C14.

Comments welcome.

Ken


Re: New Images

be01753
 

Nice images Ken, thanks for posting. Interesting to see how crowded
the core of M13 is.
How long was the M57 exposure?
Like the colours, especially the m27 shot. What sort of camera have
you got?

Brian

--- In C14@y..., "kberna1376" <kberna1376@a...> wrote:
I posted some new images to "Ken Images" in the Files area. The new
ones are M13, M51, and M57. These were some quick exposures I made
with my new AP1200 mount. Really improved performance. The M57 shot
is at f11. Did it just to see how well the mount would track. M51
and M13 are with a 3.3 reducer that gives about f4 with the C14.

Comments welcome.

Ken


Re: [C14] Digest Number 128

 

Good evening Wayne:

My experience with the carbon fiber tube of the NexStar 11 GPS indicates
otherwise. I was able to go through entire nights of CCD imaging without
refocusing with the carbon fiber OTA. With my C-8 Deluxe, hourly focusing
is a must, especially with the blue-filtered images.

I guess that's not "critical" but it certainly is a demonstrated advantage.

Clear skies,
Kevin Dixon
ksbtk@...

From: "W. Gondella" <gondella@...>


Carbon fiber is a mixture of carbon fibers and epoxy resin. It is used in
airplanes, spacecraft and some bicycles like Treks. It is lighter than
metal, but a poor conductor. It does not hold heat, and reradiates it
back
in the direction it came. It cools quickly itself, but does not let heat
on
one side transfer through to the other. It is expensive. It has a very
low
coefficient of expansion. Its only advantage or need in telescopes are in
very high end optical units where tolerances are very critical, like
Ritchey-Chretiens, which often used micrometer-controlled secondary focus
and INVAR spacing bars. Other than that, save your money for an eyepiece.


Re: [C14] Digest Number 128

 

your the best !

Thank you for your information !

? "W. Gondella" wrote:

Ok, I will try to address several issues here. As far as locking down the
primary for use with an external focuser, the supplied screws are too short.
One might try taking a piece of all-thread about an inch or so longer, and
grinding it down to remove all but the first 6 threads on one end, and about
an inch or so on the other end. After reaching focus at infinity, try
threading the "screws" in through the back and into the holes in the primary
where the normal lock screws go. Be careful. After you are successful, you
might find the other end tried to thread into the rear casting. You
probably need to take more thread off so that it doesn't do this. Once you
can screw it into the mirror and the back is free, try screwing a thumb-nut
down on the protruding end. You might need a washer or two. Tightening
these nuts will lock the mirror. Do not get carried away. Light pressure
is all you need.

Carbon fiber is a mixture of carbon fibers and epoxy resin. It is used in
airplanes, spacecraft and some bicycles like Treks. It is lighter than
metal, but a poor conductor. It does not hold heat, and reradiates it back
in the direction it came. It cools quickly itself, but does not let heat on
one side transfer through to the other. It is expensive. It has a very low
coefficient of expansion. Its only advantage or need in telescopes are in
very high end optical units where tolerances are very critical, like
Ritchey-Chretiens, which often used micrometer-controlled secondary focus
and INVAR spacing bars. Other than that, save your money for an eyepiece.

As far as this TASCO thing is concerned, we can only expect Meade will be as
sleezy as usual, and only hope that Celestron turns out for the better!


Wayne E. Gondella, CGA
South Hills Coordinator
Amateur Astronomers Association of Pittsburgh
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/o_XolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
C14-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Do You Yahoo!?
- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup


Re: [C14] Digest Number 128

W. Gondella
 

Ok, I will try to address several issues here. As far as locking down the
primary for use with an external focuser, the supplied screws are too short.
One might try taking a piece of all-thread about an inch or so longer, and
grinding it down to remove all but the first 6 threads on one end, and about
an inch or so on the other end. After reaching focus at infinity, try
threading the "screws" in through the back and into the holes in the primary
where the normal lock screws go. Be careful. After you are successful, you
might find the other end tried to thread into the rear casting. You
probably need to take more thread off so that it doesn't do this. Once you
can screw it into the mirror and the back is free, try screwing a thumb-nut
down on the protruding end. You might need a washer or two. Tightening
these nuts will lock the mirror. Do not get carried away. Light pressure
is all you need.

Carbon fiber is a mixture of carbon fibers and epoxy resin. It is used in
airplanes, spacecraft and some bicycles like Treks. It is lighter than
metal, but a poor conductor. It does not hold heat, and reradiates it back
in the direction it came. It cools quickly itself, but does not let heat on
one side transfer through to the other. It is expensive. It has a very low
coefficient of expansion. Its only advantage or need in telescopes are in
very high end optical units where tolerances are very critical, like
Ritchey-Chretiens, which often used micrometer-controlled secondary focus
and INVAR spacing bars. Other than that, save your money for an eyepiece.

As far as this TASCO thing is concerned, we can only expect Meade will be as
sleezy as usual, and only hope that Celestron turns out for the better!


Wayne E. Gondella, CGA
South Hills Coordinator
Amateur Astronomers Association of Pittsburgh
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


Re: [C14] Carbin Fiber tube

brian
 

开云体育

Both would go below air temperature for same reason that scopes dew up? (unbalanced radiation loss on the sky-side of the scope).
?
I am no expert but I think the carbon fibre is supposed to be optically more stable because it has a low coefficient of thermal expansion - so the temperature drops, just like aluminium, but the tube does not shrink nearly so much which means?the focus does not need adjustment.
?
Brian
?

----- Original Message -----
To: C14@...
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [C14] Carbin Fiber tube

Kevin,

Perhaps that is it. ?I am no expert so I am speculating with my thoughts. ?However, I do not understand how the aluminum would continue to cool and the carbon fiber not? ?Won't each type of material cool to the ambient temperature of the air? ?That means both scopes should equalize at the same temp, shouldn't they? ?I don't think one (the aluminum) could become cooler than the actual temp of the air, could it? ??

Paul Atkinson
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
C14-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .


Re: [C14] wheeley bar

 

I dont know,? I am going to get one with CM 1400 GT

? paulatkinson22@... wrote:

Does the CI-700 not allow you to level each leg individually?

Paul Atkinson
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
C14-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .



Do You Yahoo!?
- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup


Re: [C14] Carbin Fiber tube

 

开云体育

Good afternoon Paul:
?
I don't pretend to understand this very well either.? I am just going by what some folks who are experts in composite materials tell me.? I don't understand the mechanism behind it but one of the properties of carbon fibers (besides being lightweight and very strong) is the ability to achieve and maintain thermal equilibrium.? Aluminum apparently does not share this characteristic.?
?
I do have empirical experience to back this up.? When imaging with a NexStar 11 GPS, it was not necessary for me to refocus throughout the night.? With both my C-14 and my C-8, refocusing must be done every hour or so.
?
That's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.
?
Clear skies,
Kevin Dixon
ksbtk@...


Kevin,

Perhaps that is it. ?I am no expert so I am speculating with my thoughts. ?However, I do not understand how the aluminum would continue to cool and the carbon fiber not? ?Won't each type of material cool to the ambient temperature of the air? ?That means both scopes should equalize at the same temp, shouldn't they? ?I don't think one (the aluminum) could become cooler than the actual temp of the air, could it????


Re: [C14] Locking down mirror for Optec TCF-S

Mark Lancaster
 

开云体育

The only reason to lock the mirror down is for long exposure photography. The mirror can "rock" over the course of time, particularly when crossing the meridian during?an exposure. Otherwise, don't worry about it. BTW, improper locking of the mirror can bring its own headaches if not done properly!
?
Mark
?

----- Original Message -----
To: C14@...
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [C14] Locking down mirror for Optec TCF-S

I would not see the need to lock the mirror down. ?Why do you think you need to lock the mirror down? ?You should only have to do a rough focus with the manual knob and then fine focus with the TCF. ?By the time you get to this point mirror shift (if there is any at all) should be a mute issue as the scope is pointed at object, focused, and everything should be settled.

Paul Atkinson