开云体育

I am new to this group and find the discussion on component
alignment interesting. My C14 is a little unusual. When I collimate
I start with touching up the secondary alignment by centering the
secondary shadow. When I bring a star into center field there is a
slight but noticeable color fringe. Finally I make a very slight
correction to eliminate the fringe. This gives the sharpest image
and smallest stars. It is intereting when I defocus because the
secondary shadow is then very slightly but noticeably eccentric. It
would seem that one of the elements is tilted. Has anyone noticed a
slight red to blue fringe at star edges or anything like this? Check
the next time you are observing. It would be interesting to know
what you find. Any ideas on where the misalignment is? I would guess
you could shim the corrector to make it parallel to the primary but
would have to offset the center to keep the optical axis aligned.
Doesn't sound easy. Any ideas? Ed

Hi Wayne,
Have you had any experiance with putting mirror locks on C14s?
Needs to permit the primary to focus smoothly and with little free
play, and then lock it in place without moving it and tightly enough
to resist its own weight and low levels of vibration. This would
address what I consider to be the great deficiency in the C14s
functionality.

Regards, Gary




--- In C14@y..., "W. Gondella" <gondella@s...> wrote:

Funny you say that Mark, because there IS! Me. The "AFA"

in my

moniker stands for "Astronomy For Amateurs." I had set out to be an
astronomer as a kid, but in high school changed my interest to

electrical /

mechanical engineering. However, astronomy remains my

other "interest."

Sadly, I've always been disappointed by the poor quality and half-

baked

engineering of nearly all commercial telescopes. There have been

VERY FEW

astronomy products that have thrilled me 'out-of-the-box'.

Compared to

professional equipment, the commercial stuff seldom works as well

as it

could or should, or is built to perform / hold-up under a range of
conditions or over a lengthy lifespan.

I see many products in astronomy which barely meet the mechanical
requirements needed, and after a short time suffer wear and

deterioration,

or just never give good service. As a kid, every telescope I

bought, I

found I could improve or make better. As I grew up I got deeper

and deeper

into designing, repairing, and modifying just about everything with
telescopes. My motto has been: "I've never found a telescope I

couldn't

improve," and that has held true to this day.

Back in the early Eighties I formed a small business on the side

where I do

this for other people's telescopes. It is mainly custom, one-of-a-

kind work

on an individual basis. I named it AFA Engineering because it was

my goal

to bring professional quality work within the reach of the average

amateur.

I solve problems and make things work; anything from a department

store

refractor to a university class instrument. Anything from little

tweeks,

custom cases, knobs, and special adapter plates to making an entire
telescope. My goal was to provide a telescope service which had a

level of

quality unmet by anyone else I've found. I do this by staying on a

limited,

one-at-a-time, personal basis. I do it out of a passion for

telescopes and

a sense of pride in my work and to see the look on my customer's

face when

they see the finished product.

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 01:48:11 -0000
From: "apoman60612" <markdambrosio@w...>
Subject: Re: C14 mods (was: focuser grease)

A shame that there isn't somebody out there with a business of

optimizing

these SCTs for amateurs. (Kind of like a Telescope speed shop!)

Mark

Hi, Here's the link to the SPIREX Telescope, pics of the 2-C-11's it uses, and pics of it's maker Fred Mrozek of Apomax fame.
Mark

wow
who is using c11's as guidescopes?
isnt it quite expensive?
can someone update me please?
thanks!

=====

=lijie=
e117
[2002]
7540832
[2 Cor. 5:7] We live by faith and not by sight.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!

C-14 or whatever. . . no problem. If interested, you know how to contact
me. ;-)

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:05:38 -0000
From: "apoman60612" <markdambrosio@...>
Subject: Re: C14 mods (was: focuser grease)

Hi Wayne, Very interesting! Hey, perhaps one day, I'll have you go

through a C-14 for me?!

Hi Wayne, Very interesting! Hey, perhaps one day, I'll have you go through a C-14 for me?!

I have heard mention of another party who does major overhauling, and even refiguring of C-14's Optics, but surely, this is a very lengthy, and costly upgrade. (This person's name slips me at the moment)

Some years back, I was out at Fred Mrozek's Observatory. (The maker of my Apomax refractor) Just by chance, I see Fred had an old orange tube C-5 disassembled on a work bench, and he stated he was rebuilding it for a freind. I recall him mentioning one weak area of these SCT's were their focuser, and that an addition of about $5 worth of parts/materials and a bit of machining help rectify this OEM shotcoming. A shame Celestron cannot make these small minor improvements for a meager increase in price.

Fred himself is a degreed Engineer too, and had designed, and built (With help) SPIREX, an IR Telescope that is used at CARA (Center for Astrophysical Research in Antartica).

I understand SPIREX had 2 C-11's mounted to it as Guidescopes.
I guess the old Celestrons ain't all that bad after all, seeing they can withstand the rigors/extremes of Antartica! Mark

Funny you say that Mark, because there IS! Me. The "AFA" in my
moniker stands for "Astronomy For Amateurs." I had set out to be an
astronomer as a kid, but in high school changed my interest to electrical /
mechanical engineering. However, astronomy remains my other "interest."
Sadly, I've always been disappointed by the poor quality and half-baked
engineering of nearly all commercial telescopes. There have been VERY FEW
astronomy products that have thrilled me 'out-of-the-box'. Compared to
professional equipment, the commercial stuff seldom works as well as it
could or should, or is built to perform / hold-up under a range of
conditions or over a lengthy lifespan.

I see many products in astronomy which barely meet the mechanical
requirements needed, and after a short time suffer wear and deterioration,
or just never give good service. As a kid, every telescope I bought, I
found I could improve or make better. As I grew up I got deeper and deeper
into designing, repairing, and modifying just about everything with
telescopes. My motto has been: "I've never found a telescope I couldn't
improve," and that has held true to this day.

Back in the early Eighties I formed a small business on the side where I do
this for other people's telescopes. It is mainly custom, one-of-a-kind work
on an individual basis. I named it AFA Engineering because it was my goal
to bring professional quality work within the reach of the average amateur.
I solve problems and make things work; anything from a department store
refractor to a university class instrument. Anything from little tweeks,
custom cases, knobs, and special adapter plates to making an entire
telescope. My goal was to provide a telescope service which had a level of
quality unmet by anyone else I've found. I do this by staying on a limited,
one-at-a-time, personal basis. I do it out of a passion for telescopes and
a sense of pride in my work and to see the look on my customer's face when
they see the finished product.

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 01:48:11 -0000
From: "apoman60612" <markdambrosio@...>
Subject: Re: C14 mods (was: focuser grease)

A shame that there isn't somebody out there with a business of optimizing

these SCTs for amateurs. (Kind of like a Telescope speed shop!)

Mark

I absolutely agree, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just meant that
if they're minor, I wouldn't let them bother me too much, it can happen with
even the most expensive of scopes. If the blems are serious though, then
I'd consider an exchange.

My C14 came with some light scuffs in the finish of the paint. No one but
me has either seen or commented on them. I think if I wax and buff the tube
real good, it will minimize them. After I looked through the scope though,
I was so pleased with the views, I suspected that I might have a superior
set of optics or whatever and didn't want to send it back for fear that a
replacement might not image as well!

Manufactures like Celestron, etc., all factor a certain percentage of
returns into their pricing. So, the scratches you saw were a matter of the
company saying, "send it out, it will probably be accepted. If it gets
returned, it gets returned." They expect that. Quality Assurance is
expensive. And better QA means a more expensive telescope, since ALL costs
are passed on to the customer. But I agree, some cosmetics (and even optics
sets) going out the door, just shouldn't be tolerated by the customer, and
if those scratches are serious enough to bother you, then by all means, send
it back, otherwise the message to C is that "we can sell that--- it's OK!",
and obviously it's not. No one wants that on their $4,000 scope!

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Hi Wayne, I enjoyed your last post. Very informative, and it sounds like the mods you are doing will be a great benefit for performance, and user enjoyment.

A shame that there isn't somebody out there with a business of optimizing these SCTs for amateurs. (Kind of like a Telescope speed shop!)

All the techniques you mention have worked well on other designs. The Protostar paper should give a dramatic increase in constrast.

Surely want to hear the follow up when your project is complete, and since you know how your scope performed-behaved before these mods, it will be interesting to hear how your improvements have worked under actual field use.
Mark

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

Hi Paul, I understand how you feel about a cash outlay such as this, and then can find minor defects with cosmetics. I myself am an extremely fussy bugger too. Typically, I could spot a mosquito 100ft away on your C-14! :-)

What makes the purchase hard, is that people mostly buy these things sight unseen, and it's like "Take it, or leave it". We all prefer the item that has no issues, period.

I believe the newer C-14 OTAs have two handles on the Rear Cell, correct? How do you like these? Do they feel solid, ans well attached? Or do you think this is something that these may just come loose down the road? Mark

Wayne,

I appreciate the comments and agree the optics are what count in the
end. I don't know that I was complaining, just stating my personal
impression of the scope. In addition, had I bought a $20,000 scope
in the condition you are stating your Questar was delivered, I would
have been up in arms. Lastly, maybe you think $4k is nothing as you
can afford more (obviously), but to some of us that is a lot of
money. Would you buy a new car, or television with scratches all over
it, or that appreared to be painted over? Probably not. Just
because a scope has good optics doesn't mean a consumer should settle
for poor workmanship elsewhere.

Paul

--- In C14@y..., "W. Gondella" <gondella@s...> wrote:

Also consider that I bought a $20,000+ Questar Seven in 1999 and it

had a

ding on the control box, flecks in the anodizing of the tube finish

and a

considerable seam and adhesive showing on the tube skin! You're

complaining

about $4K on a 14" Schmidt! I'll take the good optics anyday.

Seems Meade

has the "fit and finish" department down pat. Their ads are slick

and

impressive, their scopes look slick and impressive. But from what

you are

telling me, there *is* a difference between the Meades and

Celestrons under

the hood where it really counts!

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

----- Original Message -----
From: "W. Gondella" <gondella@s...>
To: <C14@y...>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [C14] First Impressions of my new C14

The black tube does look better than the newer charcoal gray.

However the

gray looks killer on the C9.25. Anyone with reasonable

mechanical skill

can

take the C14 apart (after warranty?) and paint the tube any color

they

want.

The tube is aluminum. The marks you saw on the rear casting are

atypical

I

believe, and you should not lump all C14s as having poor

cosmetics for

that

issue. I have no such marks on mine.

Wayne E. Gondella

Also consider that I bought a $20,000+ Questar Seven in 1999 and it had a
ding on the control box, flecks in the anodizing of the tube finish and a
considerable seam and adhesive showing on the tube skin! You're complaining
about $4K on a 14" Schmidt! I'll take the good optics anyday. Seems Meade
has the "fit and finish" department down pat. Their ads are slick and
impressive, their scopes look slick and impressive. But from what you are
telling me, there *is* a difference between the Meades and Celestrons under
the hood where it really counts!

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The black tube does look better than the newer charcoal gray. However the
gray looks killer on the C9.25. Anyone with reasonable mechanical skill can
take the C14 apart (after warranty?) and paint the tube any color they want.
The tube is aluminum. The marks you saw on the rear casting are atypical I
believe, and you should not lump all C14s as having poor cosmetics for that
issue. I have no such marks on mine.

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

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

I just received 2 tubes of the Super Lube. After thoroughly
investigating their website, I am convinced that this is a state of
the art synthetic PTFE lubricant suitable for telescopes or just
about anything else one might imagine.

I called the company at 1.800.253.LUBE and spoke with a chemical
engineer, expressing my concerns and application. He reiterated that
the grease has no appreciable outgassing (conventional greases with
outgassing evaportate at a rate 750% greater) and will not fog or
damage optics. In fact, one of the largest and biggest names in
optics regularly uses it in their products (I know the name but will
leave you guessing).

Therefore, I have no reservation in going ahead and regreasing the
thimble on my C14 with it.

www.super-lube.com

WayneG

Thanks Mark. I will investigate your Nyogel. Yes, this is the Super Lube I
referred to. Someone else has used it and says it worked fine for him,
causing no problems, outgassing, etc., that other greases have. However, I
will not use anything until I am certain--- I can leave the focuser intact
as it is for now and run tests.

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Could you talk a little more on what this carbon tube looks like? Is
this the next generation carbon fiber tube i read about that is also
available on the GPS11?
What color is the tube and whats its finish like.
Does it look plastic?

thanks for any info....Ralph






--- In C14@y..., "paulatkinson22" <paulatkinson22@a...> wrote:

Well I got my brand new C14 from Celestron and thought I would share
my initial impressions. I had a chance to use it for a week on a

G11

at the Winter Star Party so I am somewhat familar with it now. I am
reviewing the OTA only here and not the mount.

FIT AND FINISH - I was a little diappointed here. In several

places

the the black crackle paint looks carelessly done. There are areas
that look like they are heavier with what appears to be some very
minor running or build up. In addition, there are some knicks and
dings to the back of the OTA that look like they were there prior to
painting and then just painted over. I could go on. You would have
to see the areas to understand. I may seem picky but the bottom

line

is that for $4000+ I expected a little more. I also do not like the
new Carbon color tube as much as the old black tube. However, this
is purely a personal preference and really not an indication of
overall quality.

MECHANICS - I guess the only real mechanics is the focuser. Right
now it is very smooth and easy to operate. I love the knob. Much
better than my Meade 12".

OPTICS - It was slightly out of alignment when I recieved it.
However, after a little collimation it was dead on. The optics are
superb to say the least. I have a friend with a Takahashi Mewlon

300

and he was very impressed (side by side at WSP) with my star images
and clarity. Contrast was also excellent. Mewlon (in my opinion)
was slightly better overall. However, I paid 4k and the Mewlon goes
for 12k. I'll take the C14 over the Mewlon all day for that kind of
savings.

BOTTOM LINE - Excellent scope. Side by side with one of the worlds
best in this size range, the C14 more than held up. I'd say it is a
winner and a bargain to boot, if you call $4000 a bargain. Given

the

choice between the superb optics or fixing the blemishes I would

take

the optics. Now if Celestron could bring OTA up to match it would

be

a solid 10.

Paul Atkinson

Paul,

Care to elaborate further on the differences with your Meade? I'm a
10" LX200 owner who watches this page because I know a C14 is in my
future. Probably not for another couple of years, but there is a
definite union awaiting.

Jeff Koontz

Well I got my brand new C14 from Celestron and thought I would share
my initial impressions. I had a chance to use it for a week on a G11
at the Winter Star Party so I am somewhat familar with it now. I am
reviewing the OTA only here and not the mount.

FIT AND FINISH - I was a little diappointed here. In several places
the the black crackle paint looks carelessly done. There are areas
that look like they are heavier with what appears to be some very
minor running or build up. In addition, there are some knicks and
dings to the back of the OTA that look like they were there prior to
painting and then just painted over. I could go on. You would have
to see the areas to understand. I may seem picky but the bottom line
is that for $4000+ I expected a little more. I also do not like the
new Carbon color tube as much as the old black tube. However, this
is purely a personal preference and really not an indication of
overall quality.

MECHANICS - I guess the only real mechanics is the focuser. Right
now it is very smooth and easy to operate. I love the knob. Much
better than my Meade 12".

OPTICS - It was slightly out of alignment when I recieved it.
However, after a little collimation it was dead on. The optics are
superb to say the least. I have a friend with a Takahashi Mewlon 300
and he was very impressed (side by side at WSP) with my star images
and clarity. Contrast was also excellent. Mewlon (in my opinion)
was slightly better overall. However, I paid 4k and the Mewlon goes
for 12k. I'll take the C14 over the Mewlon all day for that kind of
savings.

BOTTOM LINE - Excellent scope. Side by side with one of the worlds
best in this size range, the C14 more than held up. I'd say it is a
winner and a bargain to boot, if you call $4000 a bargain. Given the
choice between the superb optics or fixing the blemishes I would take
the optics. Now if Celestron could bring OTA up to match it would be
a solid 10.

Paul Atkinson