Posts Made By: Joe Conway

My astronomy purchasing and subsequent returns with defective new accessories, mount or scope is still 100% intact. Seems everything I buy new has issues.

So the latest is a finderscope I just purchased. I took it out of the box and mounted on a tripod to test it and set focus.

First thing I noticed is every star was a + plus sign. The brighter the object the bigger the plus sign. When looking at Jupiter, it appeared as a big blob of a plus sign and the brightness threw a bright line across the entire field of view.

The finder has a helical focuser. I put a TAK illuminator on the supplied cross hair ep and when moving the finder around the focuser would flop out of focus from the weight. If you know TAK illuminators they are a little smaller and lighter than the standard illuminators sold by Celestron and others. There is no way of tightening the tension of the helical focuser.

I called the company and they gave me a RMA number and we're very nice to me. I'm sure they'll take care of it and I think it was a fluke, but I always get the flukes, probably the reason I can't win the Lotto.

The site I bought the finder from has emailed me a "you can review this item" form. I'm sure I can only review this item once and don't know if I can go back and update it after the RMA process and hopefully a finder that works.

So what would you folks do? Would you review it like I did above or would you be patient, return it and wait to see if the next one actually does better. I like to be nice if I can.

So your vote, do I be nice and wait or do I review it as received? Joe

The Intes 603 has a primary mirror and secondary mirror collimation adjustment. To keep this short the primary mirror adjustment was changed. Also, the secondary mirror was also moved from perfect alignment.

So we're starting over. I'm new to this scope and know how to adjust the secondary, but am uncertain how to get the primary mirror set.

I assume you laser collimate the secondary first, then set the primary to that.

What do you informed folks say? Thanks, Joe

I recently had the pleasure to help a couple fellow Amarters through a problem with their Meade 4000 8.8mm UW eps. I won't go into details but if you do some sleuthing through the threads you can probably figure it out. One ep was the eyecup version and the other a smooth side (flat top) version.

I have one observation as to why Meade (Japanese) maybe changed the design of the smooth side version to the eyecup version. First, optically they are the same. The lenses are the same and the spacing of the elements is the same. So to those thinking one is better than the other this perception is only aesthetics. From an assemblers point of view however, one is definitely better than the other.

Keeping optics clean during assembly is time consuming. Even in the best conditions with the right tools an assembler has to fight with cue tip lint, micro specks from hell, solvent residue, etc. Maybe you don't see a speck on the lens before placing it in the housing, but add the next lens to the stack and the magnification of that element makes the contaminate visible. Let's not forget the micron sized coating specks that become visible during the stacking process. Is it a contaminate or is it a coating speck? Do you lift the lens back out to find out?

This is where the assemblers probably helped with the second design of the above eps and the others of the same series.

With the smooth side version you have to drop the lenses into the housing. With the eyecup version, you can stack the lenses and then place the housing over the stack. I can appreciate this second design for making the build easier. There's way less risk of edge chipping of the optical elements in the second design.

Amongst the lens elements in the stack the 8.8 has a singlet with really sharp edges. Cant or tip this element slightly in the housing and you risk chipping it. Also, removing the elements from the smooth side version is difficult. You either have to push them out with your FINGER COT covered finger from the eye side of the housing, or use pretty good vacuum and a probe to lift the heavy doublets out.

Now I understand why no one in their right mind would want to clean or repair eps for a living/hobby. One, the lenses aren't available to replace those that are scratched or damaged. Second, the ep up for cleaning may have been attempted by the user. Finger oils and such are a nightmare to remove. Also the lens stack may be altered and who knows how it went together without a drawing or sample?

So if you see specks inside your ep, it's probably coating specks as many manufacturers will disclaim with their supplied documentation. I've seen this disclaimer with some of my new eps.

So unless you see a big goober inside your ep or it's contaminated inside by liquid, then please stick to cleaning the two outside surfaces and call it good.

I made a hand sketch of the lens stack. I plan on drawing it up in CAD. When I get to that I'll make it available here. Joe

Wow, I actually get to post on this. Ok, I'm new and have the same scope as you. I listened to Ivan's comments to my posts on a question on EPs and what do you use most. So with suggestions, I bought a used Pentax 14mm XL and also a "BRAND NEW" (saying this because I'm probably going to sell/trade) 14mm Meade 4000 UW ep.

The Meade is in fact new, probably last on the shelf anywhere. Ok, I put it in my scope and went WoW. Then I put the Pentax in the scope and went "shoot", now what do I do with the Meade.

The Pentax XL and I'm assuming XW the same, has more contrast and is simply more comfortable to use to the eye. Quite frankly, I was not amused and now am on a quest for more Pentax's. Also, the Pentax was simply amazing in my friend's 8" Dob, which he wrote about earlier in this forum.

Which brings up another question I've been choking back; should I keep the Meade or get rid of it? I know it's kind of a collectors item, but maybe not worth keeping? This is really hard decision to make. Please chime in on this.

My bad, 9.25 SCT, 2 inch stuff. I have one lesson taken from this site, always think about the next scope. Another thing, money is no object. I always like saying that because it doesn't make sense.

If I ever had one lesson in life it is this, just buy it. I'm not saying live beyond your means though.

How many of us have talked ourselves out of a purchase only to regret it for years? I talked myself out of buying a stupid little incense burner for $45 from a pretty well known sculptor. Now they are history and I've spent more time on this "quest of stupidity" and why do I want one anyway while still looking for one.

So with this lesson in mind, I will spend more than I should on this ep, but with all of your suggestions, I can take the mean of all the suggestions and hopefully make this choice once.

See you all at the center of the meridian. No, not that one, next to crossing light with my little sign, "tired old astronomer needs ep".

I feel I may have started this. Believe me, the home user does not need this level of purity. "Technical grade" is somewhat better than off the shelf stuff from a hardware store that leaves a film. "Spectral grade" is way over kill for the home user. It is used in only high purity situations like aerospace sensors where control of water between elements is important.

Dmitri, technical grade is the best you'll need as an end user and visual observer. I'm sorry I got folks confused when I mentioned using spectral grade acetone in my vacuum cleaning of eps thread. We use that at work for very specialized optical assemblies way beyond the scope of the telescope industry. My fault there for too much info.

While you're at it buy some of these cotton swabs. They are Puritan brand, non-sterile. Always use non-sterile. Here is a good cheap source: http://www.americancleanstat.com/ and buy the 112A1-806WCL ones for about $5.40 a box. I use these in my class 100 clean room. I take a very clean, flat needle nose pliers and squish the cotton end flat and then gently pull out on the cotton tip so the end is kind of floppy. This avoids the possibility that you'll use the tip as a scrubber and more like a brush. This also makes it more absorbent. Also, by squishing it flat, it makes the tip easier to get into the area where the lens meets the metal housing lip. Think of it as an ep mop. Don't loosen the weave of the fibers though or you'll get lint on the lenses.


For wipes, from this same company, get the clean room laundered polyester wipes, 4X4 inch size. This is a good size with less waste. They don't absorb water very well, but are designed for working with acetone and alcohol. The part number is 102D2-NR44LS and they are about $16 a package. Remember, don't scrub and don't go in circles while wiping. Start from the center and work in straight lines toward the edge. This is awkward for most people, but please do it this way.

By the way, this company also sells technical grade acetone. It's not where I get the stuff we use, but probably a good source.

I can't recommend commercial grade acetone. We use that to clean dirty metal parts in the machine shop.

You may get more response if you move this to the eps section. I remember someone posting in one of my threads about a guy who cleans eps.

You may want to mention brands other than tele vue, where I believe tele vue will do this refurb. for you. Keep us informed. I know you must be sick about this.

Ok, got the scope back yesterday. They scared the creep out me by sending it back in the foot locker we hand carried it in to them. I'm amazed it wasn't broken. Bad Meade for that one. I asked them to put it in a shipping box and throw out the foot locker.

Anyway, although the scope hasn't been tested yet, it really looks great. The optics were 20 years old and they gutted the whole scope. I think the only thing original is the skin. Unless they cleaned up the cast parts on the front and back real well, they look new too. They also put in UHC coated optics that when looking into the front, appear to have a blue hue. Just looking into the front everything is very bright and noticeably different from before. Since this is our work scope we don't get it out very often. But we'll have to work it in to a special evening to test it out soon. I'll get an interferometric analysis done on it as well. Proofs in the pudding there. What's proof pudding taste like?