Hi Paul,

I wrote a long and thoughtful reply to some of your points, but
unfortunately, my firewall timed out and had disconnected me from the
internet traffic (though modem still connected), for security
reasons. Usually this is no big deal. When I "send" and it gets
blocked, I just click my firewall icon to unlock and resend.

But I hit "preview" to read my post before sending (I'm borderline
type A and actually check for spelling errors :-), and it came up
with a screen: "page unavailable, server not found," or something
like that. Well thanks to Yahoo!, when I unlocked my firewall and
tried to go back to my screen with the post, my whole post had gotten
dropped and apparently lost forever! It was just dumped, forever
gone in cyber-nothingness!

Anyway, I'm of no mind to try to rewrite the whole thing, just let me
finish as I did before by saying that the G11 is a good choice, be
sure to get the adjustable legs, I think they're the way to go, and
welcome to the group! If you can afford (or want) 2 or 3 different
scopes, the C14 makes an excellent choice in that happy triumvirate!
I consider it the largest aperture, one-man transportable, fully-
mounted (read: non-dobsonian) telescope out there.

Happy Viewing!

WayneG

Wow. That was quite a welcome Wayne. In any event, although I can
appreciate you view I don't neccessarily agree. I tend to look at
things a little differently. There is plenty of banter in the user
groups of who stole what, and who copied who. Bottom line, in my
honest opinion, is that the astronomers have reaped the rewards of
this competition. Certainly there are good products and bad. Can you
imagine where we would be if Meade and Celestron had merged. Ah, but
the government in their wisdom claimed a monopoly would result and
forbid it. But I digress. Anyway, the choices and quality, if you
are willing to pay the price, far surpasses what was available just
10 years ago. My choice for Celestron was that I am progressing up
to a larger scope, it was in my price range, and it is an excellent
product. I have owned a Meade 8, 10, 12 LX200 and they were all
first rate and Meade service was outstanding. My 12" had great
optics and fantastic goto. I did not have a single problem. Now I
am moving up, and in my opinion, the C14 provides the best value for
the money for the OTA. However, Celestron is SERIOUSLY lacking in
the mount and tripod arena and is definately playing catch up in a
lot of others. As such I am going with a G11 with goto until I can
get my hands on an AP900 or 1200. There can be no denying they make
probably the finest SCT optics (accept Questar) that you can buy.
However, their accessories are far lacking. Poor ep's, less than
stellar diagonals and barlows, etc. That is the beauty of our
hobby. Where one company might lack in one area another picks up the
slack. I owned Meades but had all Televue ep's and barlows, Lumicon
filters, JMI and Losmandy accessories. I could combine the best of
everything. I am not interested in all the politics. To me Wayne,
it boils down to this. I am not interested in all the deliberations
of what company did what, or who has the better marketing team.
Astronomy is my hobby and my relaxation. As such, I am interested in
getting the best for my money and enjoying the product, whoever
happens to make it.

Looking forward to the Celestron family.

Paul

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

I must say this is really the funniest post I've read anywhere in a

long

time. OUCH! Still can't stop laughing! :-) I really hate to

sully it by

bringing out these sobering comments though:

1). Paul, what makes you think you haven't switched to the

*Bright* side?

2). You only had Meades for the past 12 years? Hell! What took

you so

long? I say that because after more than 30 years in this hobby,

I've NEVER

owned a Meade, save for a 90mm (chinese made I'm sure) refractor

f/10 which

came mail order dirt cheap, threw away the mount, rebuilt it head

to toe and

put a 2" focuser on it to make a decent little guide scope. While

many

praise Meade for "popularizing" astronomy, all I see in them, IMHO,

is a

company built on (mostly) other people's ideas and successes (the C-

8, the

suspiciously similar to Nagler UWF eyepieces (which have not

changed since

their inception), the oh so Questar-like ETX, and so on). They

have forced

many other companies to lower their standards, IMHO, producing

cheaper and

less well built telescopes in order to remain competitive with

Meade. Their

customer service sucks, they claim to have either done everything

first or

best, and, IMO, control, manipulate and dictate the market with big

money

and controlling ties to the major sources of astronomy media and

marketing.

I know there are many which would disagree with me, or even like

Meade for

what they do and have done, but this is my opinion, based on 33

years

experience and information sources high in the industry. The only

good

thing I can say about Meade is that they have a very aggressive and
effective marketing team, and have thus built their sales and

revenue to the

point to finance and develop some damn good amateur products for

the money,

mostly their goto and electronics. They epitimize everything I

don't like

in a company, successful or not, good product or not.

The worst thing Celestron seems to be guilty of is consistently bad
marketing, playing catch-up too often, and some poor starts and

unpolished

edges to some of their new products. But like Avis, they keep

trying

(despite Tasco). I hearken back to the glory days when the 'little'
Celestron was the 10" on steel pier, the intermediate C-16, and the

vast

C-22, professional, research-grade scope (about $19,000 if I

remember

right!) with on-site instruction.

3). On a high note, the C14 handily outperforms the 12" LX on

deepsky. The

two best things you can do for it is to get yourself the best and

largest

mount you can stand and put an insulated dew shield on it, not one

of those

kydex things. The f/7 corrector/flattener is also a great idea.

Oh, as a

side note--- don't worry guys: you won't suffer too much under

pressure to

perform, just take the lens cap off and point it at something and

focus with

a good eyepiece. Even my buddy with a 24" StarMaster drools over

my C14 and

the views within. And frankly, I'll take the C14 anyday. :-)

Controversial as always,
WayneG

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:15:02 -0000
From: "garynburk" <garyburk@h...>
Subject: Re: It's official. I have switched to the Dark Side!

Hi Paul,
You've made all of the others on the C14 group very happy. Now

we

can drop this facade. The truth is that this entire C14 group has
just been a ruse perpetrated by the evil Celestron kingdom to sow
chaos and dischord amongst Meade owners. In fact, LX-200 12" (now
just a fond memory to you)is at the pinnicle of all amatuer
telescopes, whereas the C14 you've just bought at an exhorbitant
price is little more than a 14" diameter wastebasket with half of

a

mirrored lawn ornament ball wedged into the bottom. AH HA HA HA -

we

got another one!!!!

Mazeltov! I am also a new owner, lured by the praise of other
owners and the fact that it is the largest SCT I can afford. I

just

got mine mounted on an AP900 and, although no serious testing has
been done, I think it's going to be great. The biggest problem I'm
aware of is that my astro-buddies have frequently observed that I

now

have no excuses. In a world where users of 8" SCTs and even 4"
refractors deliver great images, the burden is on to perform. I

had

thought that perhaps the AP900 was on the small side and could be
blamed for problems, but having tried it out that is certainly not
the case - it seems to be a rock and hauls that beast around

without

half trying. I've been perusing the group archives for excuses

to

no avail so far. Perhaps we can exchange war stories as the C14
experiance develops.

Good Luck and welcome to the Fastar side.

Regards,
Gary




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

Well I sold my 12" LX200 and purchased a C14 today. Should be

here

in a week. Having only owned Meade's for the past 12 years it

seems

kind of weird, like I am leaving my wife. However, I hope to

spend

a

lot more time here and meet lots of new people. I have heard

nothing

but excellent things about the C14 optically and can't wait to

get

my

hands on this beast. By the way can somebody tell me what the

three

little knobs on the back of the OTA are. Are they for

collimation

or

something?

Paul Atkinson

______________________________________________________________________
__

______________________________________________________________________
__

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

I must say this is really the funniest post I've read anywhere in a long
time. OUCH! Still can't stop laughing! :-) I really hate to sully it by
bringing out these sobering comments though:

1). Paul, what makes you think you haven't switched to the *Bright* side?
2). You only had Meades for the past 12 years? Hell! What took you so
long? I say that because after more than 30 years in this hobby, I've NEVER
owned a Meade, save for a 90mm (chinese made I'm sure) refractor f/10 which
came mail order dirt cheap, threw away the mount, rebuilt it head to toe and
put a 2" focuser on it to make a decent little guide scope. While many
praise Meade for "popularizing" astronomy, all I see in them, IMHO, is a
company built on (mostly) other people's ideas and successes (the C-8, the
suspiciously similar to Nagler UWF eyepieces (which have not changed since
their inception), the oh so Questar-like ETX, and so on). They have forced
many other companies to lower their standards, IMHO, producing cheaper and
less well built telescopes in order to remain competitive with Meade. Their
customer service sucks, they claim to have either done everything first or
best, and, IMO, control, manipulate and dictate the market with big money
and controlling ties to the major sources of astronomy media and marketing.
I know there are many which would disagree with me, or even like Meade for
what they do and have done, but this is my opinion, based on 33 years
experience and information sources high in the industry. The only good
thing I can say about Meade is that they have a very aggressive and
effective marketing team, and have thus built their sales and revenue to the
point to finance and develop some damn good amateur products for the money,
mostly their goto and electronics. They epitimize everything I don't like
in a company, successful or not, good product or not.

The worst thing Celestron seems to be guilty of is consistently bad
marketing, playing catch-up too often, and some poor starts and unpolished
edges to some of their new products. But like Avis, they keep trying
(despite Tasco). I hearken back to the glory days when the 'little'
Celestron was the 10" on steel pier, the intermediate C-16, and the vast
C-22, professional, research-grade scope (about $19,000 if I remember
right!) with on-site instruction.

3). On a high note, the C14 handily outperforms the 12" LX on deepsky. The
two best things you can do for it is to get yourself the best and largest
mount you can stand and put an insulated dew shield on it, not one of those
kydex things. The f/7 corrector/flattener is also a great idea. Oh, as a
side note--- don't worry guys: you won't suffer too much under pressure to
perform, just take the lens cap off and point it at something and focus with
a good eyepiece. Even my buddy with a 24" StarMaster drools over my C14 and
the views within. And frankly, I'll take the C14 anyday. :-)

Controversial as always,
WayneG

Hi Paul,
You've made all of the others on the C14 group very happy. Now we
can drop this facade. The truth is that this entire C14 group has
just been a ruse perpetrated by the evil Celestron kingdom to sow
chaos and dischord amongst Meade owners. In fact, LX-200 12" (now
just a fond memory to you)is at the pinnicle of all amatuer
telescopes, whereas the C14 you've just bought at an exhorbitant
price is little more than a 14" diameter wastebasket with half of a
mirrored lawn ornament ball wedged into the bottom. AH HA HA HA - we
got another one!!!!

Mazeltov! I am also a new owner, lured by the praise of other
owners and the fact that it is the largest SCT I can afford. I just
got mine mounted on an AP900 and, although no serious testing has
been done, I think it's going to be great. The biggest problem I'm
aware of is that my astro-buddies have frequently observed that I now
have no excuses. In a world where users of 8" SCTs and even 4"
refractors deliver great images, the burden is on to perform. I had
thought that perhaps the AP900 was on the small side and could be
blamed for problems, but having tried it out that is certainly not
the case - it seems to be a rock and hauls that beast around without
half trying. I've been perusing the group archives for excuses to
no avail so far. Perhaps we can exchange war stories as the C14
experiance develops.

Good Luck and welcome to the Fastar side.

Regards,
Gary




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

Well I sold my 12" LX200 and purchased a C14 today. Should be here
in a week. Having only owned Meade's for the past 12 years it

seems

kind of weird, like I am leaving my wife. However, I hope to spend

a

lot more time here and meet lots of new people. I have heard

nothing

but excellent things about the C14 optically and can't wait to get

my

hands on this beast. By the way can somebody tell me what the

three

little knobs on the back of the OTA are. Are they for collimation

or

something?

Paul Atkinson

开云体育

Well I sold my 12" LX200 and purchased a C14 today. Should be here
in a week. Having only owned Meade's for the past 12 years it seems
kind of weird, like I am leaving my wife. However, I hope to spend a
lot more time here and meet lots of new people. I have heard nothing
but excellent things about the C14 optically and can't wait to get my
hands on this beast. By the way can somebody tell me what the three
little knobs on the back of the OTA are. Are they for collimation or
something?

Paul Atkinson

Hi Group,

would those members that receive a Digest of the list please
replace "Digest Nr..." with the discussed topic in the subject line,
this makes it somewhat easier for us all...

Tks,

Geert Vandenbulcke
Belgium.

From: "W. Gondella" <gondella@s...>
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 7:01 pm
Subject: Re: [C14] Digest Number 61

Dear Paul and group:

I would have to mirror (no pun intended!) Ken's remarks as far as
the C14
goes. My former scope was an $11,000 Questar Seven OTA with a strehl
ratio
of .95 at the eyepiece. Though this was an extraordinary optical
instrument
to be sure, I am happier with the C14.

Hi Group,

This remark by Wayne just about reflects my experience. I had a
custom made 10" f/15 excellent optical quality Opticon SCT. I owned
both my (second hand) C-14 and this Opticon for about 6 months at the
same time, comparing both instruments under similar conditions.
While the Opticon was better corrected overall than the C-14, the
quality of my C-14 and it's bigger aperture also makes that I am
happier with the C-14 (a scope I have been wanting for many years...).

Best regards,

Geert Vandenbulcke
Belgium

Dear Paul and group:

I would have to mirror (no pun intended!) Ken's remarks as far as the C14
goes. My former scope was an $11,000 Questar Seven OTA with a strehl ratio
of .95 at the eyepiece. Though this was an extraordinary optical instrument
to be sure, I am happier with the C14. The image quality has far surpassed
my expectations, considering the size/price ratio. It does very, very well
on the planets, and is nothing short of breathtaking on deep-sky. I haven't
found cool-down to be an issue either. I find the scope cruises along at
300X (13mm Nagler), and far higher powers are possible. Visually, DS
objects look like photos (no averted vision needed), and with one of my
Collins I3Pieces in place, it rivals a 40 inch scope on many objects!
Globulars are stupendous!

As far as mounts are concerned, the CI-700 is entirely maxed out with the
14. This mount is barely sufficient for casual visual use, nothing more.
To try for more will only lead to futility and frustration. The G-11 is
slightly better. I use a Losmandy HGM-200, which I consider just adequate.
This takes the instrument to a 350 pound package. I would think a permanent
site with the C14 on a Parallax HD-300 (solid 3" shaft) would be ideal.
Mind you, my criteria is stringent--- I expect no vibration or blur in
focusing on a planet at 300X with my fingers on the focuser. The HGM-200
proved a superb mount for the 22 pound Q7; you could thump the tube with no
visible movement in the image. I have a CI-700 (bought seperate as a
back-up/auxillary mount), and it is exemplary with my 127mm Apex Makutov.
To its credit, the 700 has also been used (and proved servicable) with a 60
pound newtonian tube assembly on it, albeit, with considerable shakes! But
I pulled it off, and didn't feel like the tube was in jeopardy. Just watch
that the dovetail remains really tightened down and you have perfect balance
and good clutch tension (all difficult to achieve with the 700).

It is my opinion that mounts such as the AP1200 or HGM-200 are ideal. A
mount such as the CI-700 is a budget mount, which will get you up and
running, but has a limited lifetime (premature wear-out) under the strain of
handling the 45+ pound weight of the C14.

As far as my bearings, Mark, this is something I will investigate. It is my
impression that the bearings appear pressed correct, and that the bore for
both was done in a single operation. If necessary, I'll take the assembly
to a friend who has a huge industrial machine shop for evaluation. The dec
shaft seems to slide on/off pretty easily until it gets back to about an
inch from the fully seated position. I have not looked at it for a long
time and will reserve judgement until further analysis.

The tube stiffeners in the C14 come flat black, but mine have developed a
white edge, which spreads across the surface and develops into little lumpy
crystally white nodules. The first time it happened, the entire stiffener
turned white, and the white powder shed and spread all over the inside
before it was detected.

WayneG

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:20:08 -0000
From: "apoman60612" <markdambrosio@...>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 60

Hi Wayne, To me, It sounds that maybe the Bearings themselves were

distorted somehow when they were pressed in, and this altered their inside
diameter spec?

Or they weren't seated properly, and are perhaps slightly cocked?

The only other thing that I can think of is that the Bearing Bores are

not in line with one another, but I don't see how this could happen, as I
would assume both bores were drilled/machined at the same time? (Correct me
if I'm wrong on this?)

Not having my mount anymore to examine it, I cannot recall exactly how

they manufactured this part. Unless one "Halve" of the Dec assembly is
bolted to another?, then yes, I could possibly see then that an improper
bore alignment could be a possible culprit between the two mount halves, and
the two bearings within the Dec Assembly?

I really think that there should not be any binding, or improper

fit/resistance when dropping the Dec Assembly onto the polar Shaft.

Perhaps Scott himself could enlighten us/you further on this?

On this C-14 Tube Stiffener Block issue (I've heard about this before, was

it you?)

Sounds to me that Celestron should have powder coated these parts, or

perhaps some other method of plating/finishing them, before installing them
(I assume these are supposed to be flat black finish, correct?) Mark

Hi Kevin. I am curently using a Losmandy G11. That mount is not
solid enough with the C14 at f2 to do CCD in any but the calmest wind
conditions It is very difficult to get any acceptable images at
longer focal ratios. I am taking delivery of an AP1200 in February
which should solve any vibration, tracking or other instability
problems.

Ken


--- In C14@y..., "starmaster08083" <ksbtk@h...> wrote:

Good afternoon Ken:

Can you please tell me what mount you have the C-14 on? I have not
had real good luck with the C-14 in Fastar mode on the CI-700.

Clear skies,
Kevin Dixon
ksbtk@h...

--- In C14@y..., "kberna1376" <kberna1376@a...> wrote:

Hi Paul. I graduated from a 1979 C8 (with outstanding optics) to

the

C14 in March 2000.

The fit and finish is excellent. I have used it 30-40 times and

it

shows on signs of ware. Mechanically it is very good. There is

very

little focus shift at f11 with the ST237 CCD. Also, the scope

can

be

easily set up by one person in the field. I don't have a

permanent

location for the scope, and my set up and take down time is only

10-

15 minutes!

The optics seem quite good. The Ronche test with 4-5 lines shows
very streight and smooth. The star tests are very good and show
excellent, to my eye, identical, in and out of focus images.

I also used the SBIG Hartman Mask Analysis software with a 24

hole

mask. Results show all angles at .24 waves or less. I am not
totally aware of all that this software measures. Since the test
uses real stars, and also measures all the variables such as tube
currents, seeing, etc, I guess it really looks at the entire

optical

environment for measurement. I guess all this means is that the
scope is probably difraction limited as advertised.

The scope has a very narrow field of view. For DSO's I usually

use

a

f7 focal reducer and Meade UltraWide eyepieces. This combo gives
breath taking views under a dark sky.

With good seeing, planets are wonderful. I frequently use a

8.8mm

Meade UW at f11 to give around 440 magnification. Gives really
outstanding views. The scope does seem to be very sensitive to
collimation so I usually tweak it a little before viewing Saturn

and

Jupiter.

I also image at f2 with the Fastar configuration. This gives

very

wide fields, and very short exposure times. Celestron does not

seem

to promote this much, but it is a powerful and unique feature

that

is

not available anywhere else.

I have some images posted to "files" as "Ken's Images" if you

want

to

look. They are really my first efforts, so there is lots of room

for

improvement in technique!

Hi Wayne, To me, It sounds that maybe the Bearings themselves were distorted somehow when they were pressed in, and this altered their inside diameter spec?

Or they weren't seated properly, and are perhaps slightly cocked?

The only other thing that I can think of is that the Bearing Bores are not in line with one another, but I don't see how this could happen, as I would assume both bores were drilled/machined at the same time? (Correct me if I'm wrong on this?)
Not having my mount anymore to examine it, I cannot recall exactly how they manufactured this part. Unless one "Halve" of the Dec assembly is bolted to another?, then yes, I could possibly see then that an improper bore alignment could be a possible culprit between the two mount halves, and the two bearings within the Dec Assembly?

I really think that there should not be any binding, or improper fit/resistance when dropping the Dec Assembly onto the polar Shaft.

Perhaps Scott himself could enlighten us/you further on this?

On this C-14 Tube Stiffener Block issue (I've heard about this before, was it you?)

Sounds to me that Celestron should have powder coated these parts, or perhaps some other method of plating/finishing them, before installing them (I assume these are supposed to be flat black finish, correct?) Mark

Good afternoon Ken:

Can you please tell me what mount you have the C-14 on? I have not
had real good luck with the C-14 in Fastar mode on the CI-700.

Clear skies,
Kevin Dixon
ksbtk@...

--- In C14@y..., "kberna1376" <kberna1376@a...> wrote:

Hi Paul. I graduated from a 1979 C8 (with outstanding optics) to

the

C14 in March 2000.

The fit and finish is excellent. I have used it 30-40 times and it
shows on signs of ware. Mechanically it is very good. There is

very

little focus shift at f11 with the ST237 CCD. Also, the scope can

be

easily set up by one person in the field. I don't have a permanent
location for the scope, and my set up and take down time is only 10-
15 minutes!

The optics seem quite good. The Ronche test with 4-5 lines shows
very streight and smooth. The star tests are very good and show
excellent, to my eye, identical, in and out of focus images.

I also used the SBIG Hartman Mask Analysis software with a 24 hole
mask. Results show all angles at .24 waves or less. I am not
totally aware of all that this software measures. Since the test
uses real stars, and also measures all the variables such as tube
currents, seeing, etc, I guess it really looks at the entire

optical

environment for measurement. I guess all this means is that the
scope is probably difraction limited as advertised.

The scope has a very narrow field of view. For DSO's I usually use

a

f7 focal reducer and Meade UltraWide eyepieces. This combo gives
breath taking views under a dark sky.

With good seeing, planets are wonderful. I frequently use a 8.8mm
Meade UW at f11 to give around 440 magnification. Gives really
outstanding views. The scope does seem to be very sensitive to
collimation so I usually tweak it a little before viewing Saturn

and

Jupiter.

I also image at f2 with the Fastar configuration. This gives very
wide fields, and very short exposure times. Celestron does not

seem

to promote this much, but it is a powerful and unique feature that

is

not available anywhere else.

I have some images posted to "files" as "Ken's Images" if you want

to

look. They are really my first efforts, so there is lots of room

for

improvement in technique!

Hi Paul. I graduated from a 1979 C8 (with outstanding optics) to the
C14 in March 2000.

The fit and finish is excellent. I have used it 30-40 times and it
shows on signs of ware. Mechanically it is very good. There is very
little focus shift at f11 with the ST237 CCD. Also, the scope can be
easily set up by one person in the field. I don't have a permanent
location for the scope, and my set up and take down time is only 10-
15 minutes!

The optics seem quite good. The Ronche test with 4-5 lines shows
very streight and smooth. The star tests are very good and show
excellent, to my eye, identical, in and out of focus images.

I also used the SBIG Hartman Mask Analysis software with a 24 hole
mask. Results show all angles at .24 waves or less. I am not
totally aware of all that this software measures. Since the test
uses real stars, and also measures all the variables such as tube
currents, seeing, etc, I guess it really looks at the entire optical
environment for measurement. I guess all this means is that the
scope is probably difraction limited as advertised.

The scope has a very narrow field of view. For DSO's I usually use a
f7 focal reducer and Meade UltraWide eyepieces. This combo gives
breath taking views under a dark sky.

With good seeing, planets are wonderful. I frequently use a 8.8mm
Meade UW at f11 to give around 440 magnification. Gives really
outstanding views. The scope does seem to be very sensitive to
collimation so I usually tweak it a little before viewing Saturn and
Jupiter.

I also image at f2 with the Fastar configuration. This gives very
wide fields, and very short exposure times. Celestron does not seem
to promote this much, but it is a powerful and unique feature that is
not available anywhere else.

I have some images posted to "files" as "Ken's Images" if you want to
look. They are really my first efforts, so there is lots of room for
improvement in technique!

Ken

Hello Mark,

This tells me that I indeed do have a slight tolerance problem despite my
mic-ing my polar shaft (and finding it exactly the dia. it should be).
Perhaps the bearing(s) are off spec? I will soon find out and fix it. As
for your injury--- OUCH! What a way to ruin an observing run! There is no
doubt that the AP1200 is exemplary in its convenient assembly/disassembly,
and in its reliable, smooth, and extremely accurate operation. All reasons
that if I were to ever sell my 200, it would most likely be for a 1200. The
nice thing about the situation is that if I ever wanted to order a 1200,
what better way to kill the 2 year wait than to "suffer through" with my
HGM200? The nice thing about it though is that if anything, people see less
of, know less of the HGM200 than the 1200. Like I said, not even the
dealers mention them. Must not be many out there. Even on Losmandy Users
Group they are rarely discussed.

As far as my C14 goes, I again have some "corrosion" of my tube stiffeners.
Little white crusty-looking balls (crystals?) growing on them. They start
at the edge of the metal and spread, though not seen anywhere else. It
seems I must take the OTA apart myself and fix it. Curiously, I cannot find
anyone else with this problem, and Celestron has not responded to my e-mail
requests for info. I guess I will flock the inside of the tube while doing
this--- I am torn between adhesive backed flocking right onto the metal
wall, and gluing the flocking to some intermediate surface, paper or plastic
based, then sliding it into place (thus removable). The latter would be
safer and easier, but I wonder about the thermal effects this might have on
cool down. I am leaning towards sourcing the flocking from Edmund
Scientific. I also wonder about possible shedding of the flock fibers.

WayneG

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:50:58 -0000
From: "apoman60612" <markdambrosio@...>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 59

Hi Wayne. I myself never did have any problems with the fit of the Polar

bearings to the Polar shaft concerning assembly-disassemly other than the
fact that you had a hell of a lot of weight to handle once you were free of
the shaft. I did occasionally have a problem having the DSC encoder gear
mesh properly, and would have to slightly live the Dec Assembly, and then
drop it on again. One thing for sure, is you have to firmly "Hold the Dec
Assembly before loosening that Clutch! Otherwise, it could be a trip to the
Hospital! I banged my head directly on the end of the Counterweight Shaft
once when getting up from a kneeling position.

Yep, I was bleeding, and all the cussing in the world didn't help ease the

immense pain! Had quite a lump too!

I also never noticed any ill effects of vibration with the stepper motors,

regardless of magnifications used.

In regards to the AP1200, the ease in which these assemble/disassemble is

remarkable. I was permitted 2 years ago to personally disassemble Roland
Christen's own 1200GTO at an Astrofest Meet. What a joy vs the HGM-200.
Also, to watch one in virtual silent operation go from one object to
another, slew across the sky effortlessly with large OTA's and see CCD
images come up on a screen with pin-point accuracy is remarkable!

None the less, the HGM-200 is indeed a fine, solid mount, and IMO worth

the asking price.

I also have high hopes of one day having my own C-14 OTA on my 1200GTO. I

even already have bought a brand new, still in the box Feathertouch focuser
ready to go, that has the large 3-1/16" Back specifically for the C-14. Now
all I need is the OTA! Mark

I am giving serious consideration to this scope. I would like some
feedback on peoples opinions of the mechanics, finish, and most
importantantly the optics. Please email me direct at
paulatkinson22@...

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Wayne. I myself never did have any problems with the fit of the Polar bearings to the Polar shaft concerning assembly-disassemly other than the fact that you had a hell of a lot of weight to handle once you were free of the shaft. I did occasionally have a problem having the DSC encoder gear mesh properly, and would have to slightly live the Dec Assembly, and then drop it on again. One thing for sure, is you have to firmly "Hold the Dec Assembly before loosening that Clutch! Otherwise, it could be a trip to the Hospital! I banged my head directly on the end of the Counterweight Shaft once when getting up from a kneeling position.
Yep, I was bleeding, and all the cussing in the world didn't help ease the immense pain! Had quite a lump too!

I also never noticed any ill effects of vibration with the stepper motors, regardless of magnifications used.

In regards to the AP1200, the ease in which these assemble/disassemble is remarkable. I was permitted 2 years ago to personally disassemble Roland Christen's own 1200GTO at an Astrofest Meet. What a joy vs the HGM-200. Also, to watch one in virtual silent operation go from one object to another, slew across the sky effortlessly with large OTA's and see CCD images come up on a screen with pin-point accuracy is remarkable!

None the less, the HGM-200 is indeed a fine, solid mount, and IMO worth the asking price.

I also have high hopes of one day having my own C-14 OTA on my 1200GTO. I even already have bought a brand new, still in the box Feathertouch focuser ready to go, that has the large 3-1/16" Back specifically for the C-14. Now all I need is the OTA! Mark

Hi Wayne. I myself never did have any problems with the fit of the Polar bearings to the Polar shaft concerning assembly-disassemly other than the fact that you had a hell of a lot of weight to handle once you were free of the shaft. I did occasionally have a problem having the DSC encoder gear mesh properly, and would have to slightly live the Dec Assembly, and then drop it on again. One thing for sure, is you have to firmly "Hold the Dec Assembly before loosening that Clutch! Otherwise, it could be a trip to the Hospital! I banged my head directly on the end of the Counterweight Shaft once when getting up from a kneeling position.
Yep, I was bleeding, and all the cussing in the world didn't help ease the immense pain! Had quite a lump too!

I also never noticed any ill effects of vibration with the stepper motors, regardless of magnifications used.

In regards to the AP1200, the ease in which these assemble/disassemble is remarkable. I was permitted 2 years ago to personally disassemble Roland Christen's own 1200GTO at an Astrofest Meet. What a joy vs the HGM-200. Also, to watch one in virtual silent operation go from one object to another, slew across the sky effortlessly with large OTA's and see CCD images come up on a screen with pin-point accuracy is remarkable!

None the less, the HGM-200 is indeed a fine, solid mount, and IMO worth the asking price.

I also have high hopes of one day having my own C-14 OTA on my 1200GTO. I even already have bought a brand new, still in the box Feathertouch focuser ready to go, that has the large 3-1/16" Back specifically for the C-14. Now all I need is the OTA! Mark

Dear Ken and Mark,

Thank you for your replies. Let me try to address each salient point
individually.
* First, the "tool" I spoke of is something I designed and created
for myself, though I suppose I could make more if I thought there was a
market for them (I am self-employed and envision droves of HGM-200 owners
standing in lines waiting for them! :-) Simply put, I usually observe in
my backyard where I can gauge North pretty close from sheer experience, but
when going out to a remote field, etc., it's anybodies guess from the
position of the Sun, etc. Now I like to get there hours before dark, set up
in broad daylight, get everything assembled and balanced, then kick back and
relax. I find this much nicer than getting there after dark and trying to
work by flashlight, etc. This is especially true since my dark site
locations are about one to four hours drive, so I plan to get there early
and make a night (or weekend) of it. It became quickly apparent that
setting up a C14 on the HGM-200, then discovering that when dark arrived, I
could not achieve exact polar alignment because I was too far from the
limits of azimuth or latitude adjustment travel, could be a REAL PROBLEM
necessitating partial disassembly, repositioning and reassembly! So I
designed a tool which attaches to the mount and is calibrated to attach to
the pier-pod (can be used at any time, but I generally use it just after
assembling the legs to the pod, to minimize the handling weight), then
guides me to perfect polar alignment positioning. I know that once
assembled, my polar alignment will be close enough that no further efforts
will be required, and I will certainly be well within the range of
adjustments if any are needed. I generally find that polar alignment made
this way in daylight is excellent and is close enough that the object will
stay in the eyepiece for about an hour (depending on magnification). Which
is fine for visual use. For imaging, I know the mount will be at the
centers of the adjustment ranges for altaz and will be no problem in
precision (drift) alignment, etc. I wish I could say more about it, but I
might choose to develop it for sale one day on a variety of mounts, you see!

To jump ahead to some of Marks comments, I use the adjustable legs. First,
this is one caveat with the AP mount, the very limited range of adjustment.
Other than my backyard, most places I obvserve are too unlevel or untamed to
set up the AP mount without stacks of blocks, etc, which would be unstable.
The HGM-200 is generally used with the legs fully retracted, and I extend
the legs in whatever fashion to achieve level (via bubbles). This is
actually easier during daylight, too (seeing the bubbles).

I generally choose to place pieces of wood or stone under each leg,
initially just for cleanliness (dirt, grass, sometimes cowchips!), but it
also stabilizes the feet from sinking in soft earth, as you said.

* My one travail with the HGM-200 is that it is described as being
seperable (declination from polar assemblies) without tools. I find this
impossible (I am 6' 1", 245 pounds). I must beat on the dec shaft with a
rubber mallet to work it loose, while supporting the top heavy shaft with my
body. Further, the saddle plate has sharp corners that hurt after digging
into you for a while. I told Scott once he should radius these corners a
bit, taking the sharp points away from them. I'll do mine myself. This is
where I think the AP mount really excels, in coming apart. I will soon do
some careful machining to correct this problem, making the dec shaft
removable with normal human strength (and no tools), without loosing the fit
in the bearingss or adding play. This is an "art" and must be done by
"hand" and by "feel" and is therefore very time consuming and would raise
the price of the mount and be impractical from a sales perspective. Of
course, the AP negates this with a design which avoids this problem.

* On the subject of GOTO, I am no big fan of it, but I understand
its lure. The voice recognition software AP has would be like an ultimate
dream come true. I have not met anyone who actually uses it, so I do not
know how it works. As an EE, I understand the immense potential
difficulties with it. With the digital circles, I merely provide the drive
myself for slewing. My observing technique is to spend considerable time
viewing, etc., any one object. If I were trying to image 100 galaxies per
night for supernovae, I would concur. Further, the HGM-200 has excellent
setting circles and it is a waste not to use them. I prefer to have a
laptop with me, running Sky Map Pro, where it is simple to get the
coordinates of any object and read them out on the circles. I find this
personally a healthy form of discipline and patience. However, this year I
will make the computer interface where the scopes position is read out on
the screen, and when you put the "X" on the object (by moving the scope by
hand), the object is centered in the eyepiece. This is all I can imagine
needing for myself. I tried the Gemini, but did not care for it. I was
really after the DC servo motors as an upgrade to the steppers, even though
the steppers have not caused me problems. I did not care for the way the
motors mounted, coupled and stuck out. Nor did I like the cabling and
connections. Plastic does not sit well with me, and the cables were prone
to interference and the motors further restricted polar motion. One must
set the worm and gear up right for reliable operation. Many people seem to
not have the mechanical aptitude for this. The Gemini was well made and
designed, otherwise, and operated nicely with a full feature package. I
actually wish it had worked out better for me. It was real nice to punch in
an object and watch the mount take off after it! Soft-Tec makes a very
servicable system that I have looked into and may seriously consider
someday, but it requires an outboard computer (486, old laptop, etc.) which
is no problem for me (I'll be in my little observatory by then! :-).

Hope this was of some help.
Best Regards,

WayneG

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:35:24 -0000
From: "kberna1376" <kberna1376@...>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 58

You really did hit it right! I was dealing with Scott direct, but
had no luck!

What is the "tool" you use for daylight polar alignment? Sounds
really good!

Ken


Message: 3
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:43:08 -0000
From: "apoman60612" <markdambrosio@...>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 58

Yes, I'll agree, the assembly of the two halves used to leave me soaked

with sweat, and wanting for a cold glass of lemonade, or Soda! Also the
fact that it did need 1-21lb weight just to balance without OTA on board.

I had the 60" solid legs (A mistake, should have got the adjustable ones)
They were also not a match cosmetically (Many scuffs, and minor scratches)

with the rest of the mount, and Scott evidently could not do nothing with
this gripe.

I had intially ordered this mount with the hopes of a future GOTO. I

waited years with no success of IMO, a properly made GOTO. Rumor had it
that once AP, and Scott were going to collaborate, but it never occured.

I have not really kept up with the evolution of the HGM-200, but from what

I gather from your post, there is still no GOTO for this Mount? (Gemini?)

Everyone I spoke with about this always kept saying ("Oh, we could

probably do it, but we'll need your mount for the custom retrofit".)

One thing I did notice with my HGM, was that after awhile, during the

evening due to the immense weight of the mount/OTA, the mount would
literally sink into the ground! (Affecting critical Polar Alignment) Yes,
the 200 I had is missed, but I'm very happy with the AP1200GTO. Mark

Hi Wayne, Nope, I never had one single problem with my HGM-200, which was bought from Spectra Astro-Systems-Dan Gordon (Now defunct)

(With only the very wierd initial occurence noticing that the controller was set-up for S-Hemisphere. Flipping the 2 dip-switches cured this pronto.

Yes, I'll agree, the assembly of the two halves used to leave me soaked with sweat, and wanting for a cold glass of lemonade, or Soda! Also the fact that it did need 1-21lb weight just to balance without OTA on board.

I had the 60" solid legs (A mistake, should have got the adjustable ones)
They were also not a match cosmetically (Many scuffs, and minor scratches) with the rest of the mount, and Scott evidently could not do nothing with this gripe.

There were other minor cosmetic issues with mine (Dented Saddle Plate in one corner, Poor Anodizing on Dec Ring Gear Cover that was coming off on a towel when wiped, and a cracked bubble level housing. Scott quickly, and cheerfully addressed these issues for me, and made me happy.

I had intially ordered this mount with the hopes of a future GOTO. I waited years with no success of IMO, a properly made GOTO. Rumor had it that once AP, and Scott were going to collaborate, but it never occured.

I have not really kept up with the evolution of the HGM-200, but from what I gather from your post, there is still no GOTO for this Mount? (Gemini?)
Everyone I spoke with about this always kept saying ("Oh, we could probably do it, but we'll need your mount for the custom retrofit".)

One thing I did notice with my HGM, was that after awhile, during the evening due to the immense weight of the mount/OTA, the mount would literally sink into the ground! (Affecting critical Polar Alignment) Yes, the 200 I had is missed, but I'm very happy with the AP1200GTO. Mark

You really did hit it right! I was dealing with Scott direct, but
had no luck!

What is the "tool" you use for daylight polar alignment? Sounds
really good!

Ken


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

Hi Mark,

No I never deal with the dealers. I've done all of my business

directly

through Scott. I've found Scott to be extremely helpful and

excellent to

deal with. Frankly, none of the dealers even mention the 200. If

you

didn't know it existed, you would think Los only make the 8 and

11. I

called Scott and ordered the 200 off of him and was apparently

extremely

lucky in getting it so fast. I have been very satisfied with it.

I've used

it with a Q7, C14 and 10" f/6.5 Parallax. Soon, I will add a TMB

6" APO.

The AP1200 seems easier to detach the dec shaft from the polar

shaft, but I

am soon going to machine my 200 to modify it and address that

issue. The

200 has a superb clutch and dovetail system, however the dec axis IS
top-heavy in that regard and that can be a little trouble (requires
additional counterweight). Also, the AP1200 uses the much better

Amphenol

connectors and the wire routing is generally a better scheme.

However, I

like the black anodized machined surface and adjustable pier-pod

legs (I'm

seldom on the level) of the 200 over the cabled legs with

tensioners that AP

uses and the white painted cast surfaces, plus the lack of a

dovetail

(though this probably has advantages to the orthogonality of the

OTA). And

the 200 is less expensive. The steppers have not been a real

issue, but I

can replace them with a system from Sof-Tec if I should choose.

All in all,

the AP is probably the ultimate mount for some people and I confess

a deep

admiration for it. But it is also significantly at a higher cost

and

waiting time as well. Since you previously had the 200 and then

bought the

AP1200, I assume there was some issue with the 200 that you found
problematic? I know the 200 is much more "tweeky" and requires

much more

fiddling around with the gears, etc., to get the best from it.

I'll say

that I think the HGM-200 is the best "under $7,000" mount I know of.
Correct me if I'm wrong! :-)

I have also made a tool which attaches to the mount and allows one

to polar

align while in daylight, which is an aid in places where you are not
familiar with the settings and directions, and allows one to get

polar

alignment close enough that no additional adjustments are needed

after dark

for visual use, and only minor tweeks for photography. Thereby, I

do not

have to wait for dark to align on polaris and waste time, nor do I

ever have

to re-setup because I wasn't close enough to north to reach

alignment

through the range of adjustment in the mount (necessitating picking

up and

moving the entire mount). Once dark arrives, I'm totally ready to

go!

WayneG

----- Original Message -----
From: <C14@y...>
To: <C14@y...>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 3:38 PM
Subject: [C14] Digest Number 58

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:33:26 -0000
From: "apoman60612" <markdambrosio@w...>
Subject: Re: Images Posted to "Files"

Hi, In speaking of ordering the Losmandy Mounts, it used to be

that you

had to go through the dealer network for a complete mount from

Losmandy.

Is this what you did, or did you try to go "Direct through

Scott"? I'm

sure nothing has changed in this regard.

I had previously owned an HGM-200,(1997) and total wait time was

one year.

I now own an AP1200GTO Total wait time was 23-1/2 months. Mark