Jump to content


Photo

WEird clutch issue?

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#26 maugi88

maugi88

    Postasaurusrex

  • *****
  • Posts: 4017
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013
  • Loc: SE MN

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:05 PM

PROBABLY

#27 maugi88

maugi88

    Postasaurusrex

  • *****
  • Posts: 4017
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013
  • Loc: SE MN

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:16 PM

Do you tell them the truth and say that you only opened it because you thought you did damage that would not be covered under the warranty only to find the problem should be?

Your call.

#28 maugi88

maugi88

    Postasaurusrex

  • *****
  • Posts: 4017
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013
  • Loc: SE MN

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:29 PM

You ok?

I am sorry. Maybe you can buy the gear and replace it yourself. Turn this into a "you can fix anything moment".

All the best. I feel for yah.

#29 Tyranthrax

Tyranthrax

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Tampa, FL

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:32 PM

I could, but the thing is its their fault the set screw came out.

#30 Greyhaven

Greyhaven

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Joined: 11 May 2004
  • Loc: 16 miles south of the Buckfield Mall

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:41 PM

:nonono: Sorry
Grey

#31 Tyranthrax

Tyranthrax

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Tampa, FL

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:54 PM

Thanks for the help you guys. . anyone deal with celestron warranty? On the upside I didn't push the screws up into the gear. .

#32 maugi88

maugi88

    Postasaurusrex

  • *****
  • Posts: 4017
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013
  • Loc: SE MN

Posted 14 December 2013 - 09:58 AM

No, I am new to Celestron. I would hope they would back their product. The opening will be an issue. Not sure if you should tell them. On the other hand, honesty has its rewards. They may be reading this thread.

Best of luck to you. Please post your results.

#33 Midnight Dan

Midnight Dan

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11519
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortle 4.5)

Posted 14 December 2013 - 12:45 PM

Hi Tyranthrax:

I've dealt with Celestron warranty issues a couple of times before and they seem pretty good about it. Opening the scope should not be a problem. The thing about Celestron's warranty service is that it is s-l-o-w.

First thing - did you order directly from Celestron? If not, you may want to contact the retailer and work through them. They may be able to provide a replacement for you. Otherwise, you'll have to pack and ship it, wait for the Celestron service to be complete, and get it shipped back. It can take several months.

-Dan

#34 Tyranthrax

Tyranthrax

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Tampa, FL

Posted 14 December 2013 - 03:41 PM

I was able to fix the issue. . .the thing I did was when I used the blots to the base from the wedge, they were too long. thank god I didn't run it that way. the drive gear, the one that is on the motor shaft is directly over a bolt hole and their bolt holes are directly below gear teeth. I'm not sure why you would design it this way, I've just worked in maintenance long enough to see it and say "what kind of moron designed this part?"

To fix it I had to loosen drive gear set screw, pull teh drive gear down and clean off the sharp points on the slave gear. It got reassembled and worked just fine. . Was a bit weird getting my first polar alignment, I'm able to do it a little faster. cord pulled out once and power wire movement killed power twice. . once AI got the new camera software installed and got the camera running the cold started to frost over all my optics. . .so I said screw it it's 1 am and I'm packing it in. . .wasn't the best seeing conditions any way. moon + slight freezing fog = bad views.

You guys nailed it on what went wrong (the long bolts) I'm gonna grab some shorter ones so I don't have to use so many washers. Anyone know the weight capacity of this mount? I guess I could get a larger scope, maybe just a this wedge is sturdy as can be. (I know there are weight restrictions on how much load the drive gears can handle)

#35 Greyhaven

Greyhaven

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Joined: 11 May 2004
  • Loc: 16 miles south of the Buckfield Mall

Posted 14 December 2013 - 04:16 PM

I'm glad I could be of some help. When I saw how thin your wedge material was the problem seemed quite clear to me based on my tinkering with the older nexstar base. I have never had occasion to handle any SE scopes so could only offer an educated guess. Sure looks like you've sorted the problem out and you're right things would have been a lot worse if you had tried to run the mount on the wedge. :grin:
Be Well
Grey

#36 Tyranthrax

Tyranthrax

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Tampa, FL

Posted 14 December 2013 - 06:40 PM

I just don't understand why they put the exposed teeth where the bolt hole is. . .that is stupid design

#37 Gary Z

Gary Z

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 125
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2012
  • Loc: New Mexico

Posted 14 December 2013 - 07:23 PM

I have dealt with Celestron on two occasions. First, soon after I purchased the 8 SE, the finderscope would not work at all....Celestron quickly replaced and sent to me. Second, and more recently, I had a speck on the mirror so I contacted and after a few emails, they sent me an RMA with instructions. Takes approx 30 days for a cleaning\collimation. Now, I like the idea of using email as it shows the full conversation rather than over the phone and you can't remember who you spoke with this and that....Hope this help.....Best Wishes,

Gary

#38 sonny.barile

sonny.barile

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: In the glow.....somewhere between the city and the stadiums.

Posted 14 December 2013 - 08:23 PM

All designs have compromises. Take it from me, I design products for a living.

#39 maugi88

maugi88

    Postasaurusrex

  • *****
  • Posts: 4017
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013
  • Loc: SE MN

Posted 14 December 2013 - 10:31 PM

I am glad you got it fixed. Its a good thing greyhaven was involved.

#40 UncleMossy

UncleMossy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Downtown Toronto

Posted 16 December 2013 - 01:47 PM

I actually cut bolts down to size with a rotary tool when I ran into the same issue and the bolt hit the drive gear.
With the mount off the tripod, slew until the drive gear is over one of the holes and use that to test for depth.
I made sure that the bolts didn't bottom out with no washers, then I put a washer in.
Bad design IMO.

Cheers
Jim

#41 Greyhaven

Greyhaven

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Joined: 11 May 2004
  • Loc: 16 miles south of the Buckfield Mall

Posted 16 December 2013 - 02:33 PM

I don't think there was a design problem on celestrons base configuration. The original bolts work fine in the mount that came with the scope. The homemade wedge changed the bolt requirements and the new design required bolt length be modified to accommodate the new base thickness. If the new base were 3 inches thick instead of 1/4 inch thick I doubt if anyone would have called the shorter than needed bolts a design issue. I think one of the issues uncovered here is how quickly we try use a guarantee to cover a self inflicted loss. It is things like this that cause companies to try to protect themselves by not covering all claims. We as responsible equipment owners and modifiers should not expect the equipment manufactures to build in safe guards for all the possible combinations we may choose to use it in.
Be Well
Grey

#42 Tel

Tel

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Wallingford England

Posted 16 December 2013 - 04:45 PM

While from what I have personally read over the years of Celestron's approach to customer service, such appears to leave room for significant improvement, I would agree entirely with Greyhaven that it would be unfair to this supplying company to attempt to hold it responsible for any mechanical/electrical/electronic variations made to its original design, by us, the end user, undertaken to further our own particular requirements.

If therefore, we choose to deviate from the original 'scope's specified intended use, of which, as result of our decision, requires known or unknown elements of re-construction, surely we, initially and ultimately, become responsible for any such variant project we alone design and thus all and any consequences associated with it ? :question:

Just one guy's opinion,

Best regards,
Tel

#43 hamdul

hamdul

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 705
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Litchfield NH, USA

Posted 16 December 2013 - 08:27 PM

I believe that greyhaven hit the nail on the head as opposed to the bolt engaging the gears. I don't believe that its Celestron's responsibility to design a product knowing full well that that someone will modify it God knows how. The product worked fine as designed and constructed. They should not have to worry about your longer bolt especially since the bolt length warning has been discussed here on this forum. :tonofbricks:

Fred

#44 sonny.barile

sonny.barile

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: In the glow.....somewhere between the city and the stadiums.

Posted 16 December 2013 - 08:54 PM

The logical path would have been to measure the actual engagement of the original fastener and try to reproduce that.

#45 Tyranthrax

Tyranthrax

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Tampa, FL

Posted 17 December 2013 - 02:51 PM

I was able to take the burs of the gears. . adjusted the drive sprocket for clearance of the drive gear so the set screw would clear. Out of principle that this was self inflicted and I have it working I'm not going to try to get free stuf ebcuase I didn't check the bolt holes. . .not to self On that one. I just figured it wouldn't have been designed that way. . .I made the mistake of assuming. Mayeb I should do an instruction on how to make one so no one messes it up.

You guys rocked on the trouble shooting, and after opening it up if this ever becomes an issue, I can always see if I can buy the gears.

#46 Greyhaven

Greyhaven

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Joined: 11 May 2004
  • Loc: 16 miles south of the Buckfield Mall

Posted 17 December 2013 - 03:29 PM

I'm glad you decided to take this speed bump on the road of life as a learning experience. I did not want to discourage you or anyone from attempting modifications on their own equipment, there is nothing that can get the astronomy juices flowing quicker than some hands on tinkering. With your positive attitude and open mind I'm sure there will be many successes in your journey through our hobby.
Be Well
Grey

#47 Doug Michel

Doug Michel

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Lincoln, NE

Posted 19 December 2013 - 12:23 PM

Glad you have decided to not try to obtain a free replacement for your own adjustments. I read a post a month or two back on one of the AP forums about a guy that fried a CCD camera because he had not put the solar filter on for a few seconds and it melted the camera. He returned it to Amazon for a free replacement because it didn't work. That is very unmoral seeing as how it was "user error" that destroyed the equipment. He learns nothing from this, and the rest of us pick up the costs in higher prices when people do that. Cloudynights has since deleted that post as he was getting irate at people chastizing him for what he did.

#48 Tyranthrax

Tyranthrax

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Tampa, FL

Posted 20 December 2013 - 02:03 AM

true, I saw the set screw marks on the large gear, looked like it had backed out, its rather far out instead of a normal gear being recessed. that's why I initially thought it might be their fault. but I couldn't move the gear and had to back it out. me hitting it with the bolt is the only logical concussion. And hat just isn't right to take advantage of them. Now their tracking is something else 3 nights in a row I can't get it to track

#49 Midnight Dan

Midnight Dan

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11519
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortle 4.5)

Posted 20 December 2013 - 10:06 AM

I dunno. I can see this "who's fault" issue from both sides.

On the one hand, Celestron sells the SE line of scopes as a turn key system, and it works as designed. It really isn't sold as a general purpose mount to placed on a variety of bases such as tripods, piers, wedges, etc. So when a user does so, he's on his own to make sure he doesn't damage anything in the process.

On the other hand, this reminds me of something that I learned in user-interface design for software. Often times a user interface provides a message or indication that user has done something wrong so he can correct it. But a far better design is one that makes it difficult or impossible for the user to do the wrong thing in the first place.

In this case, it would have been a fairly simple thing to design the base of the mount to make it impossible for this kind of error to occur in the first place. The fact that this kind of serious damage can occur simply by screwing a bolt into an existing hole is not at all obvious to the user. If you use the mount in any way other than in the original system, it is extraordinarily easy for this kind of error to occur.

Bottom line, Celestron is not technically liable for the damage that occurred. But they do share the responsibility by creating a poor design that allows this kind of damage to occur far too easily.

Just my 2 cents.

-Dan

#50 rmarolla33

rmarolla33

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Newark, Delaware

Posted 09 January 2014 - 05:36 PM

2 yr warranty on the NexStar mount, but I don't know if that cover damage caused by the consumer.

Good Luck






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics