开云体育

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

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

Hi Ken,

That's very interesting. I had purchased a Q7 with a proprietary german
mount from Questar. The mount never worked and was finally returned in the
fall of 2000. I just plain liked the Losmandy for a number of reasons and
called Scott and ordered the 200. I had it about 6 weeks later in November
2000. Talk about luck! A month or two later talking to him, he said that I
hit him just right on the production run--- there were no more. I think he
said a run took about 3 years to complete. With the full mount, digital
circles, polar scope, ie., loaded, I think it set me back about $7G. But
I'll tell you, I saw the AP1200 at BFSP, and if there was any other mount I
would want, that would be it (and maybe the Paramount GT)! :-)

PS: Looked at your pix; pretty nice. If you did that on a G-11, you'll be
in 7th heaven with the AP1200!!

WayneG

Hi Wayne;
I tried to order the HGM-200 from Scott Losmandy 3 years ago. Waited
a year and he didn't seem interested in taking my order! I got on
the AP waiting list about that time, which was around January 2000.
I was notified in October 2001 of a February 2002 delivery on the
AP1200. The mount, weights, polar scope, and a portable pier from
Advanced Telescope Systems will run about $9,000!

Ken


--- In C14@y..., "missyy9" <gondella@s...> wrote:

Ken,
I use a Losmandy HGM-200 with my C14. It is very robust. Both it
and the AP1200 have their strong points, but I am curious:
1). Did you consider the HGM-200?
2). How long did you wait for the AP1200?
5). What was your final cost?
Thanks,
WayneG

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

Doesn't seem like much activity in the "Files" area so I posted a

few

of my first attempts with the C14-G11 and ST237 Fastar

combination.

I will be replacing the G11 next month with an AP1200. The G11

is

just not robust enough to handle focal lengths longer than f3.3
because I usually set up in fairly exposed areas. Comments are
welcome. Also, where are the rest of your images? I know you

have

them!

Ken

Ken,
I use a Losmandy HGM-200 with my C14. It is very robust. Both it
and the AP1200 have their strong points, but I am curious:
1). Did you consider the HGM-200?
2). How long did you wait for the AP1200?
5). What was your final cost?
Thanks,
WayneG

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

Doesn't seem like much activity in the "Files" area so I posted a

few

of my first attempts with the C14-G11 and ST237 Fastar

combination.

I will be replacing the G11 next month with an AP1200. The G11 is
just not robust enough to handle focal lengths longer than f3.3
because I usually set up in fairly exposed areas. Comments are
welcome. Also, where are the rest of your images? I know you have
them!

Ken

Doesn't seem like much activity in the "Files" area so I posted a few
of my first attempts with the C14-G11 and ST237 Fastar combination.
I will be replacing the G11 next month with an AP1200. The G11 is
just not robust enough to handle focal lengths longer than f3.3
because I usually set up in fairly exposed areas. Comments are
welcome. Also, where are the rest of your images? I know you have
them!

Ken

Hi Geert,

Thanks for C14 document. I can take apart and fix myself with this
info. Yes, it appears to be corrosion of stiffeners. I'm baffled
(no pun intended), I keep the scope in the case, in my house, in a
controlled environment.
I spent $185.00 last year to return to Celestron for warranty. They
replaced stiffeners and cleaned things up, but sent back badly
collimated and now problem has returned. Though scope still under
warranty, as I always say, if you want it done right, you must do it
yourself!

Best Regards
WayneG

--- In C14@y..., "geert_vdbulcke" <geert.vdbulcke@s...> wrote:

Hello,

I don't exactly recall where I got it, but I uploaded an Adobe
Acrobat document to the file section containing instructions for
dissassembly of a C-14.

About the tube stiffeners you have an aluminum corosion problem I
think, it does not happen on my scope which is always at near

outside

temp and humidity in the observatory.

Best regards,

Geert Vandenbulcke

Hello,

I don't exactly recall where I got it, but I uploaded an Adobe
Acrobat document to the file section containing instructions for
dissassembly of a C-14.

About the tube stiffeners you have an aluminum corosion problem I
think, it does not happen on my scope which is always at near outside
temp and humidity in the observatory.

Best regards,

Geert Vandenbulcke

Hello Group,

I purchased a new C14 about a year ago and the tube stiffeners turned
white within a short time and dropped white powder all over the
inside of the tube. I had them replaced and now the new ones are
starting to do the same thing. If you look into the corrector, these
are the short curved pieces of metal at 12 and 6 o'clock just behind
the corrector and at the back of the tube. This is where the
dovetail connects to the OTA.

I am interested if others have had this problem? It looks like the
metal is corroding, (the white is actually little balls of matter on
the otherwise black (painted) surface) yet the scope is very well
maintained and stored. Couldn't have better care. I want to take
the corrector and back assymbly off to clean and fix myself. Is
there a source which gives detailed instructions on how to
disassemble a C14?

Thanks in advance,

WayneG

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

Hello,

The focuser on my C14 is slightly stiff in turning. I see there
are 3 screws holding the focus knob bracket against the base of the
OTA. Are there any adjustments possible on the feel of the

focuser,

perhaps using the 3 screws?

Hello Chip,

The three screws hold a thin cup (focus knob bracket) to the rear
casting. The thin cup holds a set of duplexed BB races which a brass
or bronze nut is captured. The focus adjustment knob is fixed to this
nut. As one turns the adjustment knob and thus the nut, a lead screw
moves that is attached to the primary slider assembly. Loosening the
three screws allows the duplexed BB races to have some radial
movement. Sometimes the nut or part of this assembly can bind against
the rear casting or the nut is not concentric with the lead screw. By
slightly loosening the screws and moving the focus knob, then
retightening, binding may be eliminated or the nut can become
concentric with the lead screw.

Don Clement
Running Springs, California
mailto:clement.focuser@...

Hello,

The focuser on my C14 is slightly stiff in turning. I see there
are 3 screws holding the focus knob bracket against the base of the
OTA. Are there any adjustments possible on the feel of the focuser,
perhaps using the 3 screws?

I have found that if I grasp the focus knob at its base and apply a
slight amount of pressure on the focus knob away from the OTA base,
the turning feel is improved.

Thanks,
Chip

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

By not communicating with me directly, using a public forum to
discuss this....

Well Don, in my own personal opinion, I think you're over reacting.
To me, your post almost reads like an implied personal threat from
you to me. However, I'm going to ignore that.

Someone asked me (for the first time that I recall) what I thought,
and I answered honestly right off the top of my head. That is all.
Please don't attempt to deny me my own thoughts or my freedom to
answer a simple question simply and honestly without my having to
either write a book on the subject (which I'm not inclined to do in
public or in private with anyone) or clear it with you first. I
certainly didn't and won't ever reveal any proprietary secrets. I
would indeed rather have my scope back in it's original condition. I
see nothing wrong with that. Please refer to our written agreement.

Everyone should absolutely positively take note that I have NOT said
anything bad about about Don, his focuser, or the quality of his work
in either my immediately prior post or this one. If you wish to know
more about Don, his focuser, or the quality of his work, the correct
porson to ask is Don, not me. I have complete trust that Don is
forthcomming, honest and humble. If he wants to write a book on the
subject, he probably can.

Nothing whatsoever should be implied from amything that I have
written other than the fact that it's represents my own peculiar,
personal and until now, rather terse opinion.

- Dan

No. In fact, I'm going to ask Don to remove it and restore the >>

OTA

to its original configuration.

--- In C14@y..., "garynburk" <garyburk@h...> wrote:

Hi Richard,
A Crayford focuser certainly seems like a good idea, and I'll
probably get one if my wallet ever recovers. However, I don't
understand how this stops "mirror flop". Won't the mirror still

move

as the scope tracks across the zenith?

Well yes and no. You can lock the mirror down, some have come up with
mods to do this. Mostly I am speaking from the perspective of just
not using the primary focuser: get it close with the primary focuser
and then use the secondary focuser from there. That's what I was
talking about.
rdc

Dan,

By not communicating with me directly, using a public forum to
discuss this, not even stating what the specific performance problems
are and how you tested the performance, it appears that your only
intention has been to damage my reputation and the reputation of my
focuser. I await your private communication with me concerning this
matter so that we can resolve any outstanding issues.

This is the first time since the beginning of October that I have had
any communication about the performance of the scope after the
installation of my focuser and correction of an initial BFL spacing
problem. Even still, you have not communicated directly with me.
Specifically, you have not communicated what those problems are. It
seems inappropriate to discuss this in a public forum without having
first allowed me to address the problems you are having. I have never
had the opportunity to test the installation of my focuser in your
scope, since I was never given the complete scope with mount to
evaluate the performance of the scope after installation or even
evaluate the scope before installation of my focuser. From the
beginning, you were aware that this was a prototype with all of the
ramifications that building a prototype involves. There are always
some corrections, tweaking, and fixes when dealing with new
inventions and building prototypes. This was an adaptation of my
invention to your specific scope and your failure to communicate
those problems to me has not allowed me to address those issues.

I have been in the middle of selling my home in San Diego,
dissembling my shop, and moving back to Running Springs; but you have
always had my email address and phone numbers. I have always been
available.

Without question, as per our agreement, I will restore your scope to
its original configuration. However, I would like the opportunity to
test the focuser's performance in your scope and determine what
the problems are, which was also part of our original agreement.


Donald Clement
Running Springs, California
mailto:clement.focuser@...

--- In C14@y..., "garynburk" <garyburk@h...> wrote:

Hi Dan,
about 6 months ago you wrote that you had Don Clement install

his

CCF on your C14.

Having had some time to use it, are you pleased with its

performance?

No. In fact, I'm going to ask Don to remove it and restore the OTA
to its original configuration.

- Dan

Hi,

Wanted to say Hi. I own a C14, C11, C5... I now have my C14 on a
Paramount instead of my G11. The G11 worked good for optical work but
for CCD it was too small and I wanted goto. I have built a backyard
observatory to house my C14, Paramount with a Apogee AP7p.

Jon
Centennial Observatory #447
www.kiowaobservatory.org

Hi,

Wanted to say Hi. I own a C14, C11, C5... I now have my C14 on a
Paramount instead of my G11. The G11 worked good for optical work but
for CCD it was too small and I wanted goto. I have built a backyard
observatory to house my C14, Paramount with a Apogee AP7p.

Jon
Centennial Observatory #447
www.kiowaobservatory.org

Hi Dan,
about 6 months ago you wrote that you had Don Clement install his
CCF on your C14.

Having had some time to use it, are you pleased with its performance?

Regards,
Gary

Dan wrote:

Don Clement (donald_clement@y...) recently disassembled my C-14
in preparation to retrofit it with his patented Clement Compliant
Focuser (CCF), a zero-image shift focuser and mirror mount. Don

has

also created a computer model of the C-14 OTA.

BTW, the benefits of the CCF are:

1. Zero image shift focusing.
2. Elimination of mirror flop.
3. Primary mirror collimation screws.

I'd suggest you contact Don for everything you could want to know
about disassembly of a C-14.

- Dan

Hi Richard,
A Crayford focuser certainly seems like a good idea, and I'll
probably get one if my wallet ever recovers. However, I don't
understand how this stops "mirror flop". Won't the mirror still move
as the scope tracks across the zenith?

(Richard Crisp wrote:)

You can buy a crayford focuser and that will solve the problem. I

have

gotten used to my flop and find it actually useful when imaging

because it

indicates I have reversed directions of the focuser motor just as

another

reminder....

--- In C14@y..., "garynburk" <garyburk@h...> wrote:

Hi Richard,
Thanks for the info. You brought up some interesting points. I
have a Celestron 6.3 f/r and an Optec 3.3 and am curious if they

will

perform OK on the C14. They are both made for 1.25 eyepieces, I
wonder if there's a 2" equivelent? My CCD camera is an ST-237A

Hmm, I have not used the Optec focal reducers, but the Meade and
Celestron ones are really designed for ccd imaging. This is
particularly so for the f/3.3.

The 3.3ones are notorious for the criticality of their placement
relative to the imaging chip. If they get too far away expect
generous amounts of off-axis coma. I have nearly given up on my 3.3
reducer. I have one more experiment to try, and if that fails, I will
give up on it.

with color filter wheel, purchased for Fastar imaging on my C8, it
should perform well on the C14 as a Fastar setup. I also have an

STV

that I'll use for autoguiding. I suppose I'll eventually get an ST-

8

with a filter wheel also, although there are now many fine amatuer
CCD cameras available. The rollong roof building I use has three

of

us setup, my partners use an FLI back-illuminated CCD and a

Appogee,

so I can try those out easily. I've purchased an AP900 GoTo mount
for the C14, having been warned by many that the CI-700 and

Losmandy


The CI700, as a friend said in a private email, sucks for use with
the C14 for imaging. Celestron is in major denial on this. You will
like your AP900, but I'd have found a way to dig up the extra $1500
and get the 1200....