What do I think?

1). A C14 goes for 4K. This one is 6K plus shipping from Germany.
2). Since other C14s come not with zygos, we have no basis of comparison as
to how much better this one is testing over the "average" C14.
3). A strehl ratio of .97 is extraordinary for ANY optic. My TMB barely
surpasses that (6" APO)!
4). Unless you have fantastic seeing, you can't capitalize on that
wavefront (the atmosphere has to be at least as good!
5). Markus does not qualify the "interferometric" test result. . . this
can mean many things. How was it done, using what method, what instrument
(Mark II?), and at what frequency (wavelength)? How accurate was the
reference sphere? Was it done with the optics assembled in the tube, or
seperate?
6). I hate to buy anything from Europe. What if it arrives cracked or not
as promised?
7). If I didn't already have a custom moded C14 I love, I'd be very tempted
to jump on it.
8). You are paying a PREMIUM price because it is a known GOODIE for sure!
9). My $12,000 Questar Seven OTA had a strehl ratio of .95; an engineer
from Raytheon drooled over THAT number!
10). If you got the bux and demand only the very best (and can appreciate
and use it), what are you waiting for?

Wayne E. Gondella, CGA
South Hills Coordinator, AAAP
Amateur Astronomers Association of Pittsburgh
AFA Telescope and Machine Services, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
gondella@...

开云体育

Paul Atkinson,

I tried to send you a private communicae twice, but both times it came back
that your address was no good! What gives? I sent it to you via the yahoo
address on your recent posts.

Wayne E. Gondella, CGA
South Hills Coordinator, AAAP
Amateur Astronomers Association of Pittsburgh
AFA Telescope and Machine Services, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Thanks for the responses. This is a real quiet group!

Anyway, looks like I'll be dismantling the C14, flocking the main OTA,
relubing the primary, adding a couple of cooling fans and making a dew
shield! First time I've done this kind of work but I'm actually looking
forward to trying to make this old scope better than it was when it first
left Celestron!! Must be a sucker for punishment ;-)

Regards,

Paul

Dear Rigel,

If you will run a search through back-postings on this group, I think you
will find the info you desire.

Cheers,

Wayne E. Gondella, CGA
South Hills Coordinator, AAAP
Amateur Astronomers Association of Pittsburgh
AFA Telescope and Machine Services, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:11:01 +0100
From: "Rigel" <rigel@...>
Subject: Modification Websites?

Hi all,

I've recently bought an oldish C14 and wonder if there are some standard
modifications that I can make to improve it's performance? I searched
through Google and couldn't find the kind of support sites I've been able

to

find for my Meade equipment (e.g., MAPUG). I can't believe there aren't
any!

I'm interested in a few specific solutions if anyone has tackled them
before...

* OTA flocking (OTA interior is quite shiny!).
* Dew shields and dew prevention (are they available commercially or has
anyone some decent designs other than simple foam mats rolled up!).
* Mirror flop - is it usually a problem and are there any simple fixes
(scope will be used primarily for imaging so best method of mirror
locking?).
* Balancing systems (what and where to buy balancing weights and best
methods of using existing balance rails).
* Recommended accessory rail systems (do accessory rails replace these?).

Also, how do I identify if this particular scope is Faststar compatible?

It

is a black tube model and has a sticker on the OTA saying that it has the
"Starbright Coatings".

Thanks in anticipation.

Rigel,
The fastar equiped OTA has a locking ring around the secondary housing.
When removed the secondary can be slid out. There have been some recent
posts on flocking and I am tempted to try it. Of course you have to remove
the corrector and that involves some handling risk. I also have some
concerns that the flocking will dry out - fall off - and stick to my optics.
The only practical way of dealing with mirror flop is to add a zero shift
focus system like JMI or OPTEC and use the mirror locking screws that pass
through the mirror cell. I use the Losmandy balance weights. They slide
onto the dovetail rail and are well made. There is also a camera adapter
available. It's a great scope - enjoy. Ed

Hi all,

I've recently bought an oldish C14 and wonder if there are some standard
modifications that I can make to improve it's performance? I searched
through Google and couldn't find the kind of support sites I've been able to
find for my Meade equipment (e.g., MAPUG). I can't believe there aren't
any!

I'm interested in a few specific solutions if anyone has tackled them
before...

* OTA flocking (OTA interior is quite shiny!).
* Dew shields and dew prevention (are they available commercially or has
anyone some decent designs other than simple foam mats rolled up!).
* Mirror flop - is it usually a problem and are there any simple fixes
(scope will be used primarily for imaging so best method of mirror
locking?).
* Balancing systems (what and where to buy balancing weights and best
methods of using existing balance rails).
* Recommended accessory rail systems (do accessory rails replace these?).

Also, how do I identify if this particular scope is Faststar compatible? It
is a black tube model and has a sticker on the OTA saying that it has the
"Starbright Coatings".

Thanks in anticipation.

I have used the 14mm UWA. It is a good eyepiece, but it is also a clone, to
my understanding. All of the UWAs were copies of the (series 1) Naglers, I
am told. You will note that Meade has not developed or expounded on the
line for many years since first coming out with them. The original design
is a matter of public record: you can make your own type 1 Nagler if you
have the lens-making skill. The focal lengths are off by a couple tenths of
a mm, and the field is 84 instead of 82. None of this matters. Meade uses
more aluminum, whereas the Nags are heavier brass (brass is a thermally
stable material, hence why the old, good camera bodies were made of it), but
more expensive.

The 14 is to be recommended, and it is probably the best in the line. I
still have the original 4.8, 9 and 13mm Naglers and have not seen anything
come by to surpass them. Newer iterations have addressed a minor
abberation, SA of the exit pupil (kidney-beaning), but at the expense of eye
relief. I have tried the newer types, but in every case, I have not seen
any significant improvement in performance, just a reduced size and weight,
and in many cases, the newer types also give up a little. The new 5mm might
have a slight edge over the old 4.8 in contrast.

The original (type 1) Nags didn't have the rubber eyecups, rubber grips, or
"safety" groove on the barrel, which is what I prefer. I care for none of
the above and the eyepiece looks better without them. There were also made
in Japan, not made in China.

Paul, you are right about the type 4 12mm Nag, all of the TVs, except the
plossls, have serious geometric distortion (pincusion). This is usually not
a big problem in astronomy though, but noticeable on the moon, particularly.
The new 13mm Nag, (type 5?) suffers, as they all do, from too little eye
relief. If you look at the original 13mm Nag, and the latest one, the eye
lens is drastically smaller to accommodate the much smaller body. There is
only one way to retain the same apparent FOV through a smaller hole--- get
closer to it (less eye relief).

The net effect is a loss of that "spacewalk" quality found in other types.
I have found the eye relief too little to effectively use the type 5 and 6's
in a binoviewer. A friend has two type 5 16mm Nags and two 19mm Panoptics.
The 19's are better. You cannot see the "82 degree" field in the 16's, it
is too uncomfortable, and end up only getting the 60-some degree view of the
19s, but with much less comfort.

I am surprised Paul that you use a 31 Nagler 75% of the time! I bought one
when they came out and returned it. Aside from the $600 price and poor
lettering on my particular lens, the eyepiece is VERY heavy, and always
causes balance issues. It did not justify my keeping when I already have a
32mm 2" Wide-Field, a 30mm 2" military plossl with 80 degree field, plus a
32mm 1.25" Questar Brandon and Vernon-Brandon, not to mention the 40mm
Wide-Field, which gives the same true field as the 31 Nag, but with a larger
exit pupil (brighter view) and puts everything closer to my direct vision,
where I can take most of it in at once.

As the 31 Nagler only gives 122X in a C14 (80X at f/7), I find the eyepiece
better as a finder lens. Other than things like the Orion Nebula, or larger
OC's, I would think 122X too low for most views. Even the Sombraro Galaxy
benefits from a 20-22mm eyepiece. I find myself usually starting out with a
48mm Brandon, 40 or 32mm, but sometimes even a 75mm Rini 2" Plossl, then
going up to a 13mm or 9mm (300 and 430X respectively). I get more contrast
and detail this way (due to oversampling of my rods and cones) on galaxies,
planetaries and globulars, at those powers.

But this is just my milage and biased opinion. :-)

Wayne E. Gondella, CGA
South Hills Coordinator, AAAP
Amateur Astronomers Association of Pittsburgh
AFA Telescope and Machine Services Inc.
Observer for 32 years
Owner of 47 eyepieces (currently)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 13:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ismael Cuellar <starastroclub@...>
Subject: CM 1400 Celestron


Has anybody used the ultra wide angle meade series 4000 14mm with the CM

1400 telescope.

is this eyepiece is better than a nagler eyepiece. Which eyepiece you all

recommend !

thank you

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:20:57 EDT
From: paulatkinson22@...
Subject: Re: CM 1400 Celestron

I have both the 14mm UWA Meade and the 12mm Nagler T4. I personally like

the

14 mm Meade better. To me the FOV is flatter where the 12 Nagler seems

to

fishbowl a little bit to my eye. I have not tried the new 13mm Nagler in

my

scope so I can't comment on it. One of my favorite moderate power ep's is
the 17mm Nagler Type 4. Also, the older Nagler 20 mm is a great ep as is

the

31mm Nagler. Of all my 15 ep's I find myself using the 31mm Nagler the

most.

Probably 75% of the time. It just offers a great field of view and

amount

of power for so many objects from galaxies to clusters to nebula.

Paul


[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Has anybody used the ultra wide angle meade series 4000 14mm with the CM 1400 telescope.

is this eyepiece is better than a nagler eyepiece.? Which eyepiece you all recommend !

thank you

---

Do You Yahoo!?
of 2002 FIFA World Cup

开云体育

I cannot disagree with anything said about the 700. I primarily use an
HGM-200 mount, but bought a CI-700 last year because I couldn't pass it up
for $885! I purchased it as a light duty mount for those times when I
either have not the time or energy to lug out the big mount. I also use
smaller scopes on it for which it is great. I have since modified the HGM
and simplified its usage, so the 700 now is a backup mount or for a second
scope used simultaneously.

I have found the two main problems with the 700 are not in the tripod, which
mostly suffers only from a lack of height adjustment, but rather the R.A.
clutch, and the too small knobs, as mentioned below. The clutch is either
too loose or too tight, and if you set it up (with the 4 set screws) so that
the scope can be locked down and not drift when making eyepiece changes
which significantly alter weight and balance, the clutch is too stiff even
with both knobs loosened, making pointing stiff and jerky. Conversely, if
it is made to operate smooth, then even a light bump or change in weight
lets the scope move or drift, loosing the object, even when I cram the knobs
tight. The RA clutch has too narrow a range of adjustment, especially if
you are always changing scopes, like me.

The other problem is the dovetail lock-knobs. I often have to apply pliers
to them to be sure they will not loosen up. To even get a decent grip on
them takes fingers from both hands. I will eventually design a set of much
better replacement knobs for the mount, and if the interest is there, offer
them for sale to others.

The 700 is a joy when a lighter mount is needed: the head can be carried in
one piece, and the base and legs are unitized like a camera tripod. It gets
by on the C14 for casual use, and even with a 10" f/6.5 Parallax that
weights 60lbs, though fine focusing is tough due to shakiness on both
telescopes. It's not bad with a 6" TMB. But I most enjoy it with smaller
scopes. I regularly us it with an Apex 127, a 90mm f/10 refractor and a
Q700 for solar observing. With loads like these, it is a dream mount,
providing center of the earth stability and operation, much like a
professional instrument, though I understand this is not what the mount is
marketed for, or what most people buy it for.

One jewel of the mount, seldom mentioned is the polar alignment: while the
latitude and azimuth adjustments require a hex key, they are exceedingly
simple and easy to operate and align.

Wayne E. Gondella

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:32:52 -0400
From: "Angel" <aagomez@...>
Subject: RE: Re: CM 1400 GT

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.

Regards,

Angel

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:55:04 EDT
From: paulatkinson22@...
Subject: Re: 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

Hi,

I've only just joined this group as we've aquired an old C14 so
apologies if this reply is out of date!

Try for flocking paper that
is definitely "black"! One of the first things I noticed on the C14
was how reflective the inside of the tube was.

Regards,

Paul
--- In C14@y..., "ckellynetgatenet" <tygg@e...> wrote:

Greetings, all.

In really drak skies the scope does very well. But I have a friend
with an Astrophysics refractor and we argue about contrast.

I cannot fix the central obstruction, and I keep the optics pretty
clean. But when I look down the tube towards the primary, I get

the

idea there is light bouncing off the tube wall (flat black paint),
and
possibly into the rest of the system.

Some refractors use velvet interiors to provide superior baffling,
and
I am looking for opinions on whether lining the tube interior with
flat velvet or felt would be worth the trouble to increase my
contrast. Thanks in advance.

Clear skies!

Hi all,

We have been very fortunate in receiving an old Celestron 14 for use in our
educational activities. We could do with some advice though......

1. The corrector has many tiny "cleaning" scratches. How bad does this
have to be to noticeably effect performance? Is it possible to have a
corrector recoated, if so how much?
2. The front electronics control panel and hand controller are missing.
Are these available for such an old model? (Estimate early 1980s - it's on a
fork mount with holes in the fork to lighten it, an enormous diagonal and
wedge, it's black but we reckon it may be the orange model sprayed black).
3. Does anyone have the manual for this - we have the front cover only
which just says "Celestron 11/14", "Operating Manual $1.00"!

Any assistance or further guidance would be welcomed!

Regards,

Paul

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
C14 group:

How many people use a G11 with thier
C14?

o Yes
o No


To vote, please visit the following web page:



Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Getting objects on the chip was really easy since I was using
Tpoint. I did M51 at f3.5 then slewed to M13 and M57. Put them
right in the center of the chip! Switched to f11 for M57 and just
had to re-focus.

Tpoint with the AP1200 really works well for tweaking polar alignment
and for moving from object to object with the CCD camera in place. I
was getting about about 3 arc min pointing after mapping around 15
stars.

Ken





--- In C14@y..., "brian" <brian@l...> wrote:

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

Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: kberna1376
To: C14@y...
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" <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


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.