Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

EdgeHD Corrector Plate Removal reveals Poor Celestron Tooling ?

Celestron Equipment Optics SCT
  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#26 Old Speckled Hen

Old Speckled Hen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 531
  • Joined: 18 May 2020
  • Loc: 56.4451° N, 3.1670° W

Posted 13 May 2021 - 10:24 AM

Sounds all too fimiliar with my queries around my chipped edges on a new secondary mirror. Perhaps Celestron QC isn't as high quality as we would be led to believe. Further to this the follow up support in rectifying these issues seems somewhat lacking.

We may have stumbled upon a trend here, is it a Halley's comet type production episode, this time under the disguise of a covid recovery programme?



#27 Jpurknz

Jpurknz

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 09 May 2021

Posted 14 May 2021 - 12:40 AM

Sounds like it. I heard back from Celestron. It's within current tolerances. So basically live with it. Good on ya Celestron and TASCO Australia

#28 Old Speckled Hen

Old Speckled Hen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 531
  • Joined: 18 May 2020
  • Loc: 56.4451° N, 3.1670° W

Posted 24 May 2021 - 01:03 PM

https://uncle-rods.b...-poor-emma.html

 

sealant again



#29 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4,050
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 24 May 2021 - 06:17 PM

You don’t get what you pay for anymore

Nooo… he didn’t get what he didn’t pay for…

 

You won’t get Mercedes quality when you buy a Ford.


Edited by luxo II, 24 May 2021 - 07:09 PM.

  • teashea likes this

#30 charlesgeiger

charlesgeiger

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2011

Posted 25 May 2021 - 02:25 AM

My 1977 C14 has a rather rough cut edge to the corrector.  I didn't find this out until I first cleaned the corrector on both sides about 20 years ago.  It works fine so it is OK.  My later C5 has a nice bevel all around its corrector and it also works well.  But no chips like what Jpurknz has to deal with on his new C14 Edge fastar secondary mirror.  I believe that unit should be replaced even if the optics are perfection.  He has several chips around the periphery of his fastar secondary but nothing on the optical surface but it seems very poor customer service to me with a new scope not to replace it especially in this era.

Charlie


  • Old Speckled Hen and teashea like this

#31 rmollise

rmollise

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23,464
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 25 May 2021 - 02:29 PM

So... after summoning up the courage, I finally got around to removing the corrector plate on my 8” EdgeHD, cleaning necessary, really bad water stains on the interior of the corrector (made the mistake of leaving it outside under a supposedly breathable cover) .  I had been forewarned of the silicon sealing compound that Celestron for some reason believed was a necessary finishing touch to their ‘flag ship’ range of SCTs and dealt with it with my trusty Stanley knife.  However, on removing the corrector plate and cleaning away the excess silicon I was surprised to find very poor finishing along one edge of the corrector.  It looks for all the world like grip marks from tooling, I have no knowledge of the manufacturing process so this is just me adding 2+2.  I realise that regardless of the implied quality of the EdgeHD range, these are commercially manufactured optics, however it still struck me as poor quality control from Celestron.  Easy to disguise in this case, as they say ‘out of sight out of mind’.  Has anybody else found this with Celestron optics?

 

Kind Regards

Paul.

 

The optics of the Edge are good. And you get the mirror locks and the vents. But...IMHO...definite step down in build quality from pre Synta Celestron. :(


  • Old Speckled Hen and teashea like this

#32 Old Speckled Hen

Old Speckled Hen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 531
  • Joined: 18 May 2020
  • Loc: 56.4451° N, 3.1670° W

Posted 16 June 2021 - 04:25 PM

Nooo… he didn’t get what he didn’t pay for…

 

You won’t get Mercedes quality when you buy a Ford.

I do believe SKODA outshines Mercedes in the annual quality survey though..

 

https://www.whatcar....ive-cars/n20054


  • teashea likes this

#33 gjanke

gjanke

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2016

Posted 25 June 2021 - 05:32 AM

Actually the Edge was bought second hand, however the the use of the silicon compound is genuine.  Every post about EdgeHD corrector removal I have read relates the same story.  The compound does not cover the entire circumference of the corrector, just 4 points loosely aligned it would appear (at least in my case) with the nylon tipped grub screws which hold the corrector in place.  In 3 of the points the compound is only about 2cm long, however in the case of the section shown in the photo as you can see the compound covered the entire section affected by the ‘teeth marks’.

 

Kind Regards

Paul.

In my 20 plus years of using SCT. I have bought new exactly one time and from that point forward it has always been used. So understand this statement comes from that sample group. I have taken more than ten different corrector plates off of the scopes for cleaning and flocking the tube and I have never seen any sort of adhesive securing any of the the corrector plates. Never saw never but it just doesn't make any sense to do so, why run the risk of having any of the material fall onto the primary mirror.

 

However as you probably found out all of the fear of removing the corrector plate was unfounded. More over you probably found it to be relatively easy and would have no issues doing it again. The rough edges you have is not that uncommon but one of the poster makes a good point that you might see this kind of pattern if the corrector has been replaced with glass. Hence their question on the views.

 

Glad it all worked out.


  • Old Speckled Hen likes this

#34 charlieb123

charlieb123

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 260
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2020
  • Loc: New York

Posted 25 June 2021 - 02:02 PM

If the corrector isn't sealed wouldn't condensation be less likely? If there is condensation wouldn't it evaporate faster?

I'm surprised Celestron wouldn't use a gasket or o-ring rather than sealant.



#35 KTAZ

KTAZ

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,932
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2020
  • Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Posted 25 June 2021 - 02:10 PM

A friend of mine (ahem) removed the corrector from a brand new EdgeHD 800 last week and there was no silicone. Just the normal gaskets and grubs.


  • teashea likes this

#36 teashea

teashea

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,140
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Posted 25 June 2021 - 08:07 PM

You don’t get what you pay for anymore

Sometimes you do.  I have purchased twelve Takahashi telescopes and twelve Vixen mounts in the last seven months all have been excellent and well worth the price.  There are quality companies out there.  Just do not del with the the bottom feeders.


  • gjanke likes this

#37 teashea

teashea

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,140
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Posted 25 June 2021 - 08:09 PM

Read the Whitepaper on the EdgeHD and perhaps it will all become crystal or perhaps HD clear. Quality does come at a price and Absolute Perfect Quality, well like the difference between a Lincoln Continental and a Rolls Royce or perhaps a Corvette and a Koenigsegg. Yes, you could spend more for a higher quality Catadioptric!

Koenigsegg may not be the right example/



#38 teashea

teashea

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,140
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Posted 25 June 2021 - 08:10 PM

Sounds all too fimiliar with my queries around my chipped edges on a new secondary mirror. Perhaps Celestron QC isn't as high quality as we would be led to believe. Further to this the follow up support in rectifying these issues seems somewhat lacking.

I have never been led to believe that.  



#39 teashea

teashea

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,140
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Posted 25 June 2021 - 08:12 PM

Nooo… he didn’t get what he didn’t pay for…

 

You won’t get Mercedes quality when you buy a Ford.

True.  There is no magic.  Companies that have the highest quality must charge more for their products.


  • gjanke likes this

#40 teashea

teashea

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,140
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Posted 25 June 2021 - 08:13 PM

I do believe SKODA outshines Mercedes in the annual quality survey though..

 

https://www.whatcar....ive-cars/n20054

The expectations of the buyers may be a factor.  


  • gjanke likes this

#41 KTAZ

KTAZ

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,932
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2020
  • Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Posted 25 June 2021 - 08:16 PM

We may have stumbled upon a trend here, is it a Halley's comet type production episode, this time under the disguise of a covid recovery programme?

In contrast to several comments regarding Celestron QC, I have to say that my experience thus far with the folks in Torrence has always been very good.

 

I think that there might be some truth in the possibility that the equipment being QC'd and shipped directly from China through retailers may be suffering.

 

I worked for a company that was an OEM of several stainless steel and other product assemblies that were being outsourced to China for manufacture. If we didn't have folks right on their backs all the time, the quality coming over dropped fast.

 

It would be nice to see all those products come through a stateside QC division. Might make a difference.



#42 Old Speckled Hen

Old Speckled Hen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 531
  • Joined: 18 May 2020
  • Loc: 56.4451° N, 3.1670° W

Posted 26 June 2021 - 01:25 PM

The expectations of the buyers may be a factor.  

OK you run with it then LOL.


  • gjanke likes this

#43 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,582
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 29 June 2021 - 11:03 AM

These are scopes manufactured to a price point so not everything can be perfect. In my opinion Celestron is very good at making the right trade offs to get to those price points. It is not easy.

 

The edge of the corrector is probably as irrelevant as it gets to the image quality and functioning of the scope hence is likely excluded from the QA process. If so, you cannot call it poor QA. It is just not within the manufacturing specifications to begin with.


Edited by Astrojedi, 29 June 2021 - 11:03 AM.

  • wrvond, ETX2112 and teashea like this

#44 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,582
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 29 June 2021 - 11:09 AM

Having used SCTs for over 20 years I can say that the EdgeHD is the best incarnation of the commercial SCT yet. The quality is also much more consistent these days. Much better than pre synta ownership. The EdgeHDs are just incredible for that price point in terms of what they offer. I see no reason to complain.



#45 Paul J

Paul J

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Lanarkshire Scotland

Posted 29 June 2021 - 12:22 PM

Astrojedi. Regardless of the impact on the end product (already made the point that the shoddy workmanship does not materially affect the performance of the optics), but it is still shoddy workmanship. They even go to the extent of plastering silicon over the entire length of the affected section of the corrector edge. I realise that for most the ‘financial bottom line’ is uppermost in people’s minds, but does no one take simple pride in what they produce these days…?
  • Old Speckled Hen and teashea like this

#46 Mike G.

Mike G.

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,416
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Oberlin, Ohio

Posted 29 June 2021 - 12:54 PM

the company I work for buys custom ground glass and within that cost is a built in charge for breakage.  you are always going to have breakage with glass whether it is a completely unusable part or one that is still usable but cosmetically challenged.  obviously, as a manufacturer, if some of your cost is tied up in throwing away parts that are usable but have minor cosmetic issues (that do not affect function and are not typically visible), you want to reduce the costs associated with throwing away usable parts.  keep in mind that for the past year, new telescopes have been very hard to come by; supply chains interrupted, raw materials unavailable and skilled workers scarce.  I would say as long as the performance criteria is met for the figure, some tool marks or small chips inside the covered retention area are acceptable.  if I had just purchased a new Edge, and removed the corrector and discovered some small cosmetic defects in an area that doesn't see light, I would be a bit disappointed but I would not expect a replacement.  Manufacturing consumer products is a tough business and you have to make compromises every day or you don't stay in business long.


  • teashea likes this

#47 Paul J

Paul J

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Lanarkshire Scotland

Posted 29 June 2021 - 05:20 PM

@Mike G - Some background to the original post this was a second hand OTA bought back in 2014 :-)

#48 Old Speckled Hen

Old Speckled Hen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 531
  • Joined: 18 May 2020
  • Loc: 56.4451° N, 3.1670° W

Posted 30 June 2021 - 08:55 PM

the company I work for buys custom ground glass and within that cost is a built in charge for breakage.  you are always going to have breakage with glass whether it is a completely unusable part or one that is still usable but cosmetically challenged.  obviously, as a manufacturer, if some of your cost is tied up in throwing away parts that are usable but have minor cosmetic issues (that do not affect function and are not typically visible), you want to reduce the costs associated with throwing away usable parts.  keep in mind that for the past year, new telescopes have been very hard to come by; supply chains interrupted, raw materials unavailable and skilled workers scarce.  I would say as long as the performance criteria is met for the figure, some tool marks or small chips inside the covered retention area are acceptable.  if I had just purchased a new Edge, and removed the corrector and discovered some small cosmetic defects in an area that doesn't see light, I would be a bit disappointed but I would not expect a replacement.  Manufacturing consumer products is a tough business and you have to make compromises every day or you don't stay in business long.

How does selling chipped optics affect the long term business plan once the word gets out?


  • teashea likes this

#49 Mike G.

Mike G.

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,416
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Oberlin, Ohio

Posted 01 July 2021 - 08:41 AM

None of our optical filters are ‘chipped’. They may display some rough edges or tooling marks along the edges but as these are always held in a frame, they never protrude into the light path and the customer never even sees them as cleaning is done with the filter in the frame. As an actual fact, we have many customers who buy our products specifically because of our lower prices than our competitors and the effect on long term business has been very positive with increased business year after year. 



#50 Old Speckled Hen

Old Speckled Hen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 531
  • Joined: 18 May 2020
  • Loc: 56.4451° N, 3.1670° W

Posted 02 July 2021 - 05:47 AM

None of our optical filters are ‘chipped’. They may display some rough edges or tooling marks along the edges but as these are always held in a frame, they never protrude into the light path and the customer never even sees them as cleaning is done with the filter in the frame. As an actual fact, we have many customers who buy our products specifically because of our lower prices than our competitors and the effect on long term business has been very positive with increased business year after year. 

No one is talking about your incredibly fortuitus business. 

 

 

Rather expensive, but increasingly, mediocre manufacturing quality, mass produced sct's.

 

What next, new lightweight models with recycled varnish sealed cardboard tubes, highly environmentally compliant ? Only at a slight premium naturally.

 

Some would STILL buy them ..


  • teashea likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Celestron, Equipment, Optics, SCT



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics