Ritchey Chretiens and collimation

[rat156]

I think I have to agree with Peter Ward here.

To compare the GSO RCs with RCOS type instruments is like comparing Hyundais to Ferraris. Both are functional cars, but there is a reason people pay $250k for a Ferrari.

Now the GSO RC that I have needs collimation, but this is generally true of all mirror design telescopes that have been shipped half way round the world.

I have found the baffling to be adequate, bright stars to flare when slightly out of the FOV of my SBig. The focuser is really the only thing I'd quibble about, but I have a really heavy imaging rig. They are pretty good value for the price.

Some of the first series of these scopes had some problems, the distributor should have done something to help along the early adopters who have paid a premium for something that's now been superceded.

I don't know where the negativity towards these scopes comes from, they're cheap allright, but they're good too. It'd be interesting to review the posts about the ED80, to see if they follow a similar thread?

Cheers
Stuart

[renormalised (Carl)]

Well, there's one way to see what's happening here...everyone that owns a GSO RC scope, post here when they bought it, so we know if it's an early or later one. Then we can see what's what, and determine the problem(s).

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by rat156

... but there is a reason people pay $250k for a Ferrari.....

...trying to make me feel glum ..finally picking up my twin plate clutch this week!

[pmrid (Peter)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Well, there's one way to see what's happening here...everyone that owns a GSO RC scope, post here when they bought it, so we know if it's an early or later one. Then we can see what's what, and determine the problem(s).

Mine was the first one sold by the Sydney dealer whose name is forever stricken from my lips and credit card. It was sold to another iiS member from whom I bought it. So mine is definitely an 'early' model. Early Adopters of the world unite!!
Peter

[marki]

Wow, usually threads like this are based around Meade or MS bashing . From the little experience I have had with these scopes (helping Trevor W with his early version on occassion) they appear to be good value for money bar the issue with reflections on SOME OBJECTS. They are not overly difficult to collimate (on par with my ACF) and deliver good views although to my eye the ACF images are brighter (Probably more to do with my scope having an extra 2" of aperture and using 2 " rather then 1.25"diagonals). If I had any gripe with this scope it would pertain to the hassle of fluffing around with all those extension tubes to get different setups to focus, very annoying. Although I do not envy your position Peter you knew the risks before taking the scope apart and you have paid the price (which is simply uncertainty as to what you must do next). You cannot blame GSO for this. The optics have been aligned before so they certainly can be done again, you just have to find out how. As for the focuser, Trevor replaced his with a Moonlite and it's as solid as a house brick.

Mark

[TrevorW]

In defence of the scope whether it needs it or not:

Paul and myself as far as I'm aware have both taken the scope apart without any problem I followed Pauls instructions

The baffle tube easily unscrewed from the primary no movement whatsoever of the primary



A Ronchi test conducted by MArki showed a nicely formed mirror

Once collimated they produce exceptional images

For the price at the moment they are the cheapest RC on the market

Make sure everything is square and then is shouldn't be too difficult for someone experienced to collimate. Collimating with two heads didn't take long

PS: like the rest of us you've blown your warranty by taking it apart.

All the best

[coldspace]

People need to start coming up with some sujestions for Peter to go down to get his scope back together and colimated instead of all the comments like you have blown your warranty, and this and that.

Is there someone in OZ that he could send his scope to for a small fee to get re-aligned?
If not, then what is he able to do or is it just a piece of rubbish now, surley not.
Its a pity the dealer involved can't be named and shamed in the treatment of this customer in the first place.

If i were you Peter, go to the cloudy nights site and do some searching and ask some questions there as you may find out a positive outcome. I have always had excellent responses to my many questions regarding things over the last few years, so I am sure you will.
I know your frustrations that you are going through as I have been down this path but not on astro gear yet.

Who are the other GSO dealers here in OZ, In buisiness myself I have helped out a few customers here and there with problems that was caused by the opposition and I tell you what it brings in at least 10% of our buisiness from good word ,if they are smart they will try and help you out either getting your scope fixed or sent back to GSO via them ( you pay shipping) to get it re-aligned and then you can tell all of us about this dealers wonderfull service and we will all possibly spend money with them instead of the other mobs.
If no luck on this then PM me and I will talk to a friend who works in the industry and has ties with GSO and maybe can get some help that way, don't stress yet something surley can be done.

Good luck with it mate.

Regards Matt.

[marki]

I forgot about the ronchi test. Trevor's mirror was as smooth as showing no signs of the predicted roughness. There was very slight (and I mean very slight) over correction on the outer edge. I would be happy to have this mirror in my scope.

Mark

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by pmrid

Mine was the first one sold by the Sydney dealer whose name is forever stricken from my lips and credit card. It was sold to another iiS member from whom I bought it. So mine is definitely an 'early' model. Early Adopters of the world unite!!
Peter

And this is exactly why I feel it's fair game to bash these retailers. Let's look at it this way - newbies who do some pre sales research will not get realistic and honest feedback on retailers when forums are censoring truthful posts about retailers and their lack of support to customers. Said newbie sees nothing but good reviews, because the bad reviews have been removed from forums due to forum owners being worried about legal action, and makes a mistake and buys from said retailers. Newbie is not happy when something goes wrong, wonders why he can't find any reports of crap support from said retailer when he researches etc. It's a disservice to us - the customer. Retailer 1, customer 0. Not very good imho. Any retailer who threatens legal action against a forum should have their IP address banned from viewing the forum site - it isn't that hard to do.

Dave

[marki]

Originally Posted by coldspace

People need to start coming up with some sujestions for Peter to go down to get his scope back together and colimated instead of all the comments like you have blown your warranty, and this and that.

Matt I agree with you that anyone who can help Peter with his dilema should jump in as soon as possible. Comments about user folly are also valid as threads like this can build a bad reputation for a product when it is not deserved.

Peter good luck hope you find a solution very soon.

Mark

[Peter Ward]

Peter....while it's not my problem, you might want to e-mail me directly.

I'll see what I can find out directly from GSO to get a bit of local support/knowledge, which will not doubt help others in time as well.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

PS: like the rest of us you've blown your warranty by taking it apart.

All the best

Well, let's look at the facts. Said retailer wouldn't touch the problem, despite numerous attempts to contact them by the OP. That's in breach of the trade practices act right there. GSO has no official footing in Australia, so they're out of the window. Other retailers are not obliged to support the product, since it wasn't bought from them.

Now - the NSW department of fair trading usually goes to problem resolution first - this is not *legally* binding, and from my experience, is usually biased towards the manufacturer/retailer. If you don't like that outcome, you can take it to the tribunal - there's $100+, non refundable I might add for that right. That decision is legally binding, and generally doesn't side with the consumer either (numbers wise). That leaves legal action, which is costly and no guarantee of winning, even if you have a decent case. Again, the courts tend to side with the biggest lawyers, and they're usually owned by businesses, not the consumers. The whole system stinks.

Dave

[marki]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Peter....while it's not my problem, you might want to e-mail me directly.

I'll see what I can find out directly from GSO to get a bit of local support/knowledge, which will not doubt help others in time as well.

Onya Mr Ward .

Mark

[DavidU (Dave)]

Pete Pmrid, where are the photo's you speak of. I would like to see them.

[coldspace]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Peter....while it's not my problem, you might want to e-mail me directly.

I'll see what I can find out directly from GSO to get a bit of local support/knowledge, which will not doubt help others in time as well.

This is what we are looking for, a possible solution to a big problem,
and helping a fellow astro mate out as well.
Good on you, for even if you can't help directly a little direction for Peter can go along way.

Let us all know Peter how you go and who helps you out.

Matt.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Yeah, good on you Peter for offering to try and help Peter. That's very kind of you, and other retailers should take note of the customer service being offered.

Dave

[JethroB76 (Jeff)]

What warranty can you expect on a secondhand telescope?

[pmrid (Peter)]

Originally Posted by coldspace

This is what we are looking for, a possible solution to a big problem,
and helping a fellow astro mate out as well.
Good on you, for even if you can't help directly a little direction for Peter can go along way.

Let us all know Peter how you go and who helps you out.

Matt.

Thank you Matt and Peter in particular. I will email Peter off-site as he has suggested but in case there is someone else out there who now, or later has a similar problem and needs to recollimate the primary and secondary on a GSO RC, I note that I did find a discussion in CN where the technique of collimation was discussed. It was in the context of Astro-Tech scopes which are, effectively, GSO. The suggestion that was offerd there was to use a Cheshire without crosshairs or a pinhole in a film canister to do a visual alignment of the reflection of the baffle tube in the secondary by adjusting the push-pull screws on the back of the scope and then, using a laser collimator tha projects a hologram to cast the shadow of the secondary onto a flat surface against a grid pattern so that the mechanical alignment of the secondary can be confirmed - i.e. making sure it is algned with the optical axis; then, using a dot-point laser collimator into the eyepiece holder, move the secondary mirror until the return dot was centrally placed on it - the laser folded back on itself.
An interesting phenomenon discussed there without a solution and that I also encountered was that although there is no physical connection between the secondary and the primary, when you adjust the secondary, the initial line-up of the baffle tube has shifted and you have to loop back to step 1 again. Not sure why this is so, but after half a dozen attempts at this today I had to pronounce myself knackered and ready for something else.
I will revisit this thread with a more detailed description if a successful technique emerges out of this unfortunate experience.

Peter

[pmrid (Peter)]

Originally Posted by DavidU

Pete Pmrid, where are the photo's you speak of. I would like to see them.

David, the photos referred to were taken from a short piece written by Paul Haese illustrating the technique for flocking the baffle tube on an RC. When I drafted that posting, I incorporated a couple of Pauls photos but they did not carry across to the posting when I did a cut-and-past from my draft which was done in Word. I should have edited references to them out of my posting. However, if you would like, Paul's article was well written and descriptive. You'll probably pick it up on a google search or I can email a copy to you. At the moment I don't remember where I actually got it from.
Peter

[erick (Eric)]

Originally Posted by pmrid

....... Paul's article was well written and descriptive. You'll probably pick it up on a google search or I can email a copy to you. At the moment I don't remember where I actually got it from.....

I think this is it:- http://paulhaese.net/gsobaffleflocking.html