TL Systems equatorial platform kit - follow up
Stargate96
kit offered by T L Systems. It was not surprising to find that everyone came
to the same conclusion as me - it's a waste of money. To make matters worse,
the owner has a "no return policy", under any circumstances.
It is advertised as a one hour tracking platform that will handle up to a 200
pound scope. I could not make it work with half that weight for even thirty
minutes. The owner claimed that he has had no complaints from anyone else, so
evidently I was doing something wrong. I have found out otherwise from several
people on SAA.
This is the first time in my 30 years of stargazing that anything like this has
happened to me. Sure I have had disagreements over the years with a few
vendors, but in the end I was always treated fairly. I believe 99% of
astro-businesses are reputable and fair. It's too bad there's at least one out
there with questionable ethics.
So in retrospect, let me suggest that if you are contemplating the purchase of
this kit you re-think it. If you are a mechanical engineer, you might perhaps
be able to redesign it and make it work. Then again if you were an engineer,
you wouldn't need the kit in the first place. Instead, you may want to save
until you have enough money to purchase a legitimate platform by someone like
Tom Osypowski. I should have. Might still.
Mike Fleenor
For a complete description of a do it yourself eq platform that really works see
Chuck Shaw's page http://www.ghg.net/cshaw/platform.htm
Mike
Mike Fleenor
Knoxville,TN
Mike's Home Planet http://user.icx.net/~mfleenor/
Brian Murphy
Brian
Chuck Gulker
December. His Coulter 13 (refigured mirror, new hardware) tracks
great.....even up to 780x. It makes observing a true joy. Chuck
Stargate96 wrote in message <19990111230711...@ng114.aol.com>...
>Hi Brian,
>
>Tom's company is called Equatorial Platforms. The website is:
>www.rahul.net/resource/regular/products/eq_platforms/.
>
>I have seen his work and have heard nothing but good things about him. I
just
>can't afford one at the moment, thus the cause of my current predicament!
>
>Pat Rochford
>Fairhope,AL
Del Johnson
it works very well.
Del Johnson
Brian Murphy wrote in message <369AB2FD...@tcon.net>...
Stargate96
Greg
reply from the owner of TL Systems?? In the meantime....nudge, nudge,
nudge...................
Greg
Chuck Gulker <cgu...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in article
<c5Am2.2932$hE2.18...@storm.twcol.com>...
Ted
>
> My thanks to everyone who replied to my question about the equatorial platform
> kit offered by T L Systems. It was not surprising to find that everyone came
> to the same conclusion as me - it's a waste of money. To make matters worse,
> the owner has a "no return policy", under any circumstances.
>
> It is advertised as a one hour tracking platform that will handle up to a 200
> pound scope. I could not make it work with half that weight for even thirty
> minutes. The owner claimed that he has had no complaints from anyone else, so
> evidently I was doing something wrong. I have found out otherwise from several
> people on SAA.
>
> This is the first time in my 30 years of stargazing that anything like this has
> happened to me. Sure I have had disagreements over the years with a few
> vendors, but in the end I was always treated fairly. I believe 99% of
> astro-businesses are reputable and fair. It's too bad there's at least one out
> there with questionable ethics.
>
> So in retrospect, let me suggest that if you are contemplating the purchase of
> this kit you re-think it. If you are a mechanical engineer, you might perhaps
> be able to redesign it and make it work. Then again if you were an engineer,
> you wouldn't need the kit in the first place. Instead, you may want to save
> until you have enough money to purchase a legitimate platform by someone like
> Tom Osypowski. I should have. Might still.
Why don't you tell everyone about how we tested your platform and found
the reason it didn't work properly was because you modified the design.
We tested it with a 95 pound scope(the same as yours) and it tracked
flawlessly for two days and then shipped it back to you at our expense.
You then sent us a message that it didn't track properly until you found
that it needed another modification. You would have it working fine if
you had read the instructions carefully instead of making up your mind
that it was not going to work.
By the way, where is your name?
Sincerely,
Ted LaFleur
Chris Heapy
here. To simply condemn a product as 'a waste of money' without
providing precise details of *why* said product is faulty is both
unfair and potentially damaging to the firm involved. Now everyone
reading this will go away with the impression that T L Systems
platforms are rubbish so you'd better be damned sure you can defend
that statement. You should realise that you are making a serious
allegation here, and it only takes one or two posts like this to
entirely ruin a product's reputation.
If there are design flaws tell us what they are. If some components
are faulty say what it was that failed. If it doesn't perform as
advertised then describe the deficiencies in your experience and the
conditions that applied. You may be right - but no evidence has been
provided to support the statements made.
I have absolutely no axe to grind on this one, having never heard of
TL Systems, but it does seem to me that the manufacturer's only
response is to get drawn into an acrimonious public exchange here on
SAA (or perhaps a law suit).
Chris Heapy
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:34:01 -0800, Ted <tlsy...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Stargate96 wrote:
>>
>> My thanks to everyone who replied to my question about the equatorial platform
>> kit offered by T L Systems. It was not surprising to find that everyone came
>> to the same conclusion as me - it's a waste of money. To make matters worse,
>> the owner has a "no return policy", under any circumstances.
>>
>> It is advertised as a one hour tracking platform that will handle up to a 200
>> pound scope. I could not make it work with half that weight for even thirty
>> minutes. The owner claimed that he has had no complaints from anyone else, so
>> evidently I was doing something wrong. I have found out otherwise from several
>> people on SAA.
>>
>> This is the first time in my 30 years of stargazing that anything like this has
>> happened to me. Sure I have had disagreements over the years with a few
>> vendors, but in the end I was always treated fairly. I believe 99% of
>> astro-businesses are reputable and fair. It's too bad there's at least one out
>> there with questionable ethics.
>>
>> So in retrospect, let me suggest that if you are contemplating the purchase of
>> this kit you re-think it. If you are a mechanical engineer, you might perhaps
>> be able to redesign it and make it work. Then again if you were an engineer,
>> you wouldn't need the kit in the first place. Instead, you may want to save
>> until you have enough money to purchase a legitimate platform by someone like
>> Tom Osypowski. I should have. Might still.
Astro Ads: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrish/aa-ads.htm Free Astro Advertising!
Astro Stuff: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrish/lx200.htm
Greg
review I have seen yet. And bad is an understatement! I did try the TL
systems web site got an error. Does someone have the correct address? If I
remember right, the TL price seemed reasonable, but I want another look.
Well said Chris. Anonimity can be a dangerous thing!
Thanks,
Greg
Chris Heapy <Chr...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
<36a04f50...@news.easynet.co.uk>...
RMOLLISE
>I did a deja news search for TL systems and this has been the only bad
>review I have seen yet. And bad is an understatement! I did try the TL
>systems web site got an error. Does someone have the correct address?
Hi there:
I have nothing against Ted, nevertheless, _my experience_ has not borne out the
claims he makes for his product on his web site. While I helped a very good
friend with this unit, and am very upset at his experience, I have nothing at
stake as far as money goes, and no personal axe to grind. I did find that Ted
attempted to be helpful as far as getting the unit to work right, but that his
assistance did no good, as you can read below. The major criticism I have of
TL, beyond advertising claims on their web page that are _I feel_ unrealistic,
is the fact that TL APPARENTLY_refuses_ to refund its customers' money _under
any circumstances_!
Make up your own mind, but the following was my experience. I'm actually sad
about the whole affair! I WANTED THIS KIT TO WORK! After all, if it had lived
up to its press, the kit would've produced a platform comparable to Tom
Osypowsky's wonderful units for almost a thousand dollars less! Seemed too good
to be true! Unfortunately, like many things in this life, it WAS! :-)
My experience with Ted's kit follows:
A good friend and observing companion of mine bought one of these last Summer.
Since the TL Systems advertisements state that this platform will support a
telescope weighing up to 200 pounds, we felt that it would easily handle his 85
pound (or less) 12.5" f6 (truss tube) Dob. After a not too long interval, he
received the parts for the kit. Together with an
instruction 'manual' which was one of the poorest I've ever seen (essentially
looked like somebody had printed a web page out on a cheap color inkjet
printer) was a collection of, I'm sorry to say, very pathetic-looking parts. An
undersized little motor, a homebrew contol box (which looked it) and an
assortment of brackets, etc, from Home Depot or wherever.
You can't always judge a book by its cover, though, so my buddy went ahead and
assembled the platform. He did a fine job (he is an advanced ATM, whose 24" f4
is indeed a thing of beauty). Right off the bat, we noticed a couple of
things which looked like they'd be problems. Rather than using a curved
bearing and 'skateboard wheels,' etc., like most designs, this platform uses
two boards whose faces are in contact with each other as the bearing. Looked
workable, but the designer had used a couple of Magic Sliders furniture glides
on one board and fairly slick formica rather than Ebony Star on the face of the
other board. The combination he used exhibits stiction when used with
telescopes, and did the same thing here. Also, the south end of the platform
includes the platform's pivot, which is merely a _pin resting in a socket_. Can
work, and is a pretty clever idea, I guess, but what happens (as it inevitably
did with this platform) when the pin jumps out of this socket with a 75 or 80
pound scope on it?! You get to remove the scope from the platform to get the
pin back in the socket!!
The first night we tried the assembled platform, we couldn't get it to track
at all. We also noted that the platform was VERY springy with the scope on it.
My colleague fiddled around with the platform for a week or two, and then
brought it over to my house for me to try. I found, after tinkering with it for
a while,
that I could get it tracking with my old 8"f7 Coulter on it. Didn't work too
badly at first...oh, the motion wasn't smooth, the scope tending to jerk
along, largely because of the above mentioned bearing surfaces, but I did have
it tracking. At first, that is...as Jupiter reached the meridian, and was in
the south, tracking became a problem, apparently due to the orientation of the
scope (something we found very critical with this unit). After rewinding the
platform, I found it would not start tracking again with the scope pointed
south until a large amount of its travel was exhausted. When the 'slack' was
finally taken up, it _would_ track, but for no more than about 10-12 minutes.
This, is in part. because the weight of even the Coulter 'compresses' the
platform, limiting travel. In attempting to improve this, I postioned the
scope in various parts of the platform. Doing this, I discovered that if the
scope is placed too far east, the platform becomes incredibly unstable. Got my
Coulter just a LITTLE too far toward the edge, and over she went! Luckily I
caught the scope before it hit the ground! Would that I had remembered this!
I did also notice that when the platform was tracking, the periodic error
varied depending on the attitude of the scope. It could be as 'small' as a
couple of minutes, or large enough to take the disk of the planet comletely
out of the field of a 7mm eyepiece. It is possible that the periodic error
might be improved by fine tuning the positioning of platform components, etc.,
but as you'll see below, we've never gotten the platform working well enough to
worry about little 'details' like this!
We took the scope and platform to the Deep South Regional Stargaze in
October, where we were lucky enough to find a gentleman who'd also assembled
one. After working on his for a year, he said, he had been able to get it
working to some extent with his 13.1" Coulter...as far as tracking, but he was
still, after this much time and work, not able to get it to rewind
consistently (stalled). We didn't find this encouraging!
_I_ basically threw up _my_ hands at this point. I had been over the
instructions many times, and had checked and double checked the work. Still
couldn't get it to work better than stated above. And remember, this was with a
scope which only weighted about 45-50 pounds. We contacted 'TL Systems'
(actually, I guess, just one guy, doing this out of his 'garage'), and he
offered us a few suggestions. We tried these to no effect. the my friend then
asked for a refund, and volunteered to send back the entire platform, eating
the cost of the wood, etc. TL (Ted) declined, but offered to check the platform
out if it was shipped it to him (at customer's expense).
We were informed after the platform was received of a couple of changes that
it had needed. These involved the orientation of the drive bolt, and the
positioning of a couple of components. Let me state that _nowhere were any of
these things mentioned in the instructions_, which had been followed to the
letter. Part of the problem with this unit is that the instructions leave a lot
to be desired! We were further told that the motor had been replaced.
When we received the 'reworked' platform we had high hopes. We had been told
that it was tested and found to be 'tracking flawlessly' with a 95 pound
scope. We took the platform out to the observatory and set the 12.5" on it.
After starting the motor, we noticed that it would _stall_ with the weight of
the scope on it. We adjusted the motor and cured this. Rewind was still a
problem, though. The platform often stalls if the rewind speed is not just
right. You
can adjust the speed via the motor controller, but this is another aspect of
the platform...things are fussy...just what you don't want out in the dark! We
got the scope centered on the Moon and started it tracking. It was admittedly
much better. We were able to get about 20-25 minutes of tracking out of the
platform now with the 12" on it. BUT.... The spinginess of the platform was as
bad as
ever. If you're used to the rock solidity of a well made dob, this is a real
downer! It also STILL took some time to 'take up the slack' and start
tracking, and the tracking was still very jerky. The moon would move 5 or 10
minutes toward the edge of the field and the platform would the suddenly jerk
it back 5 or 10 minutes. In an effort to improve how the platform worked--how
long it took to start tracking--we adjusted its position on the platform
slightly. We then started rewinding the platform (at a slow speed, I might
add). Crash!! Over went the scope! While we were able to grab the 12" before it
hit the ground, we were not so lucky with the TeleVue binoviewer which had been
in the focuser. Due to its weight, it went crashing to the ground! It is a
testament to how well the unit (the binoviewer) is made that it was not
severely damaged! It was thrown out of alignment and one barrel was loosened,
however, necessitating a return to TeleVue for repair.
So, after months of fiddling, my friend is left without a working platform
(and
we're now _afraid_ to put a 12" scope on it), he's out over 200 bucks, the
price of the kit, and he has a bill for $85.00 for repairs of the $1000.00
binoviewer the platform sent to the ground. If you're really good at
tinkering, I guess you could get this thing going, especially with a VERY
light telescope (a six inch dob, maybe). And being at a higher latitude than
we are (31 degrees) might help. But support a 200 pound scope, much less
track with one? I doubt it! I just don't see how! We are very, very
disappointed in this. We did not expect perfection...not arc second tracking
for sure. Just something which could be used visually or with a video camera
mounted on the scope. Despite our best efforts, it SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK!
Be further warned that once you've bought the kit _it's yours_, no matter
what. We were informed that because it is a kit, TL Systems 'does not have a
refund policy'!
Caveat Emptor!
And so it is! As I said above, if you're good at tinkering, and have a small,
light scope--a 6" dob, maybe--you might have better luck with this unit than we
did. DON'T EXPECT PLUG AND PLAY, however! As I said, though, make up your own
mind on this product
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Mobile Astronomical Society
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html
The Home of _From City Lights to Deep Space_:
The Urban Observer's Guide to the Deep Sky
*********************************************************
Del Johnson
enlarged photo of M-13 is a sight to behold! I would challenge others to
offer similar proof of their platform devices.
Del Johnson
RMOLLISE wrote in message <19990114172751...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
Del Johnson
pointing. In my case I have four degrees of freedom: RA and dec (well, an
approximation of dec) in the platform, plus altitude and azimuth in the
telescope. The only load parameters affecting the platform is the total
load and the center of gravity of the telescope load, which remains fairly
constant. It is important that the platform design is compatible with the
cg of the telescope. Tom Osypowsky builds platform drives per the
customer's latitude and center of gravity height. For this reason, the bias
in the platform movement is close to neutral for all orientations of the
telescope.
Del Johnson
reply to: delnmer at adnc dot com
Stargate96
>here. To simply condemn a product as 'a waste of money' without
>providing precise details of *why* said product is faulty is both
>unfair and potentially damaging to the firm involved
Well Chris, if you want evidence, read Rod Mollise' impression of the TL
platform in his reply. If you want more of the same, try the following:
pol...@sprintmail.com or read
www.seds.org/TAC/tac.mailing.list/October/index.html#178 or
www.seds.org/TAC/tac.mailing.list/November/0050.html
>To simply condemn a product as 'a waste of money' without
>providing precise details of *why* said product is faulty is both
>unfair and potentially damaging to the firm involved. Now everyone
>reading this will go away with the impression that T L Systems
>platforms are rubbish so you'd better be damned sure you can defend
>that statement.
I assure you I can defend my statement. What is * unfair* is to sell a product
to the public that does not perform as promised. I am not alone.
What T L Systems needs to do is recognize that the present version of its
equatorial platform needs revision. The concept might work with some changes
and the use of better quality components. I hope a working version will come
out of this. Meanwhile, I'm still upset with having wasted $250 plus shipping,
and wood. I am even more upset that T L Systems will not refund my money under
any circumstances, something any reputable firm will do.
>I have absolutely no axe to grind on this one, having never heard of
>TL Systems, but it does seem to me that the manufacturer's only
>response is to get drawn into an acrimonious public exchange here on
>SAA (or perhaps a law suit).
The manufacturer doesn't have to get drawn into any public exchange, only right
a wrong.
Pat Rochford
Fairhope AL
Stargate96
Okay Ted, let's tell everyone how you tested this platform. By the way, how
did you test it? Did you track on any celestial object like maybe Saturn near
the meridian? or Jupiter lower in the west where the weight of the telescope at
that angle changes the balance of the platform? Did you notice how the object
in view drifted out of the field until the bearing pads finally unstuck (from
the poor choice of bearing surface material you use) and then jumped back into
view, repeating this pattern the entire 23 minute tracking time?
>and found
>the reason it didn't work properly was because you modified the design.
What modification? All the parts you sent to me were exactly the way they came
back to you, on a platform built to your specifications.
>shipped it back to you at our expense.
Yes you shipped it to me at your expense, just like I shipped it to you at my
expense. There ought not to have been any shipping back and forth if the
platform worked properly to begin with.
>You then sent us a message that it didn't track properly until you found
>that it needed another modification. You would have it working fine if
>you had read the instructions carefully instead of making up your mind
>that it was not going to work.
The "other modification" you refer to was a stand off bolt on the hinge to keep
the drive shaft from continually drawing in toward the bearing boards and
binding up the motor (which in turn caused the motor to stall). My mind was
made up after several months of trying to make something do what it was
advertised to do, that would not.
>By the way, where is your name?
>
Pat Rochford
Fairhope AL
Chris Heapy
Chris Heapy
rmol...@aol.com (RMOLLISE) wrote:
>>
>>I did a deja news search for TL systems and this has been the only bad
>>review I have seen yet. And bad is an understatement! I did try the TL
>>systems web site got an error. Does someone have the correct address?
>
>Hi there:
>
>I have nothing against Ted, nevertheless, _my experience_ has not borne out the
>claims he makes for his product on his web site. While I helped a very good
>friend with this unit, and am very upset at his experience, I have nothing at
>stake as far as money goes, and no personal axe to grind. I did find that Ted
>attempted to be helpful as far as getting the unit to work right, but that his
>assistance did no good, as you can read below. The major criticism I have of
>TL, beyond advertising claims on their web page that are _I feel_ unrealistic,
>is the fact that TL APPARENTLY_refuses_ to refund its customers' money _under
>any circumstances_!
>
<snip...>
>
>Peace,
>Rod Mollise
>Mobile Astronomical Society
>http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html
>The Home of _From City Lights to Deep Space_:
>The Urban Observer's Guide to the Deep Sky
>*********************************************************
Chris Heapy
UK AstroAds: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrish/aa-ads.htm
Astro Stuff: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrish/lx200.htm
Chris Heapy
your judgement, I was simply trying to establish exactly what the
problems were before making any judgement on the product. I think now,
together with Rod's description, it's clear that there are some design
problems the manufacturer needs to address. I hope Ted responds by
improving the product in response to the feedback he gets.
Chris Heapy
starg...@aol.com (Stargate96) wrote:
Chris Heapy
RMOLLISE
>pointing. In my case I have four degrees of freedom: RA and dec (well, an
>approximation of dec) in the platform, plus altitude and azimuth in the
Hi Del:
Shouldn't be, maybe, but is. In my experience, the platform would track
reasonably well when the telescope was pointed low and to the east. But as
Jupiter neared the meridian and was at higher altitude and in the south, the
platform would take at least 10 minutes to 'take up the slack' and start
tracking. It was not that it tracked badly, just that nothing happened for a
long time! Also, when the scope was in this attitude, I found that the periodic
error exhibited by the platform (when it finally started doing something)
climbed substantially, becoming large enough to take the object out of the
field of a 7mm eyepiece. Remember too, that this was not with a 200lb
telescope, but with my old 45 pound or so Coulter Odyssey 8"f7....
bro...@my-dejanews.com
Rod: Thanks for the detailed post on the shortcomings of the TL Systems
platform. I had been contemplating getting one for my 12.5" StarMaster, but
after reading your post I won't waste my money. As a mechanical engineer, I
was skeptical about some of their claims but your experience has confirmed it.
I guess I will have to save my pennies for one of Tom Osypowski's platforms
even though it costs 1/2 - 3/4 as much as the scope itself. As is usually the
case, you get what you pay for.
Kevin Brown
Burke, VA
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Phil Harrington
Thanks for the first-hand info on the TL Systems platform! Hope you
don't mind if I save your decsription for future reference.
Phil
--
***********************
Phil Harrington
Telescopes, eclipses, deep sky...you'll find them all at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pharrington
RMOLLISE
>
>Thanks for the first-hand info on the TL Systems platform! Hope you
>don't mind if I save your decsription for future reference.
>
>Phil
Hi Phil:
No, please do. And let me restate that I really _wanted_ this project to be a
success, and contributed all I could (considering my somewhat limited
engineering and construction skills :-))....but it was not to be. The prices
Tom Osypowsky charges for his beautiful platforms USED to seem high to
me....but now I consider them a bargain! :-)
Mike Stebbins
balance, when you point east it pre-loads the tangent arm so it tracks, OK, when you point
south the load is neutral, so it gets sloppy, when pointing west, it loads in the opposite
direction, which it appears the tangent arm or motor cannot handle well, did you try
placing a small weight on the east side of the table to keep that side heaver and insure
the tangent arm was pre-loaded? Of course this is all conjecture, once the scope passes
the center point it may just have the same problems due to a high center of gravity. My
two cents, maybe you have already tried this?
Mike Stebbins
RMOLLISE wrote:
>
> >The equatorial platform should not be affected by where the telescope is
> >pointing. In my case I have four degrees of freedom: RA and dec (well, an
> >approximation of dec) in the platform, plus altitude and azimuth in the
>
> Hi Del:
>
> Shouldn't be, maybe, but is. In my experience, the platform would track
> reasonably well when the telescope was pointed low and to the east. But as
> Jupiter neared the meridian and was at higher altitude and in the south, the
> platform would take at least 10 minutes to 'take up the slack' and start
> tracking. <snip>
Del Johnson
platform while guiding at 250x. This is because the effective RA gear is
several feet in diameter. In fact, I have found the platform to be superior
to other conventional drives that I have used in the past.
Del Johnson
>Hi Del:
>
>Shouldn't be, maybe, but is. In my experience, the platform would track
>reasonably well when the telescope was pointed low and to the east. But as
>Jupiter neared the meridian and was at higher altitude and in the south,
the
>platform would take at least 10 minutes to 'take up the slack' and start
>tracking. It was not that it tracked badly, just that nothing happened for
a
>long time! Also, when the scope was in this attitude, I found that the
periodic
>error exhibited by the platform (when it finally started doing something)
>climbed substantially, becoming large enough to take the object out of the
>field of a 7mm eyepiece. Remember too, that this was not with a 200lb
>telescope, but with my old 45 pound or so Coulter Odyssey 8"f7....
>
>
Ted
>
> As I remember this design uses a tangent arm? It sounds a lot like the scope is out of
> balance, when you point east it pre-loads the tangent arm so it tracks, OK, when you point
> south the load is neutral, so it gets sloppy, when pointing west, it loads in the opposite
> direction, which it appears the tangent arm or motor cannot handle well, did you try
> placing a small weight on the east side of the table to keep that side heaver and insure
> the tangent arm was pre-loaded? Of course this is all conjecture, once the scope passes
> the center point it may just have the same problems due to a high center of gravity. My
> two cents, maybe you have already tried this?
>
> Mike Stebbins
Hi Mike,
You have it exactly, and my instructions to Pat and Rod were to place
the scope slightly to the east to take up the slack. The instructions
also state this. This also eliminates the motor coupler backlash, since
its pushing against it constantly as it tracks.
I admit that I am biased but I believe that Rod in helping his "very
good friend", Pat, is also biased. Rods description of tracking jupiter
was before Pat sent it to me to readjust the motor position (which was
not installed straight and caused binding) and fix the coupler, which he
had modified.
After I sent it back they may have placed it too far to the east from
their description of its behavior. The statement of it almost falling
leads me to believe that the scope was not balanced and I asked them if
that was so but got no answer. I will give technical assistance to any
customer and am available by e-mail or telephone any time.
I realize that by saying this I will be attacked again by both of them
and I won't get the last word so this is all I will say on this matter.
The platform design is a simple Poncet and is described in Jean
Texereau's "How to Make a Telescope".
I am an engineer (formerly w/Hughes Aircraft) and have been in business
as TL Systems for over 20 years and so, enough said.
Thanks for your comments, Mike.
Ted
>
> RMOLLISE wrote:
> >
> > >The equatorial platform should not be affected by where the telescope is
> > >pointing. In my case I have four degrees of freedom: RA and dec (well, an
> > >approximation of dec) in the platform, plus altitude and azimuth in the
> >
> > Hi Del:
> >
> > Shouldn't be, maybe, but is. In my experience, the platform would track
> > reasonably well when the telescope was pointed low and to the east. But as
> > Jupiter neared the meridian and was at higher altitude and in the south, the
> > platform would take at least 10 minutes to 'take up the slack' and start
> > tracking. <snip>
RMOLLISE
>good friend", Pat, is also biased. Rods description of tracking jupiter
>was before Pat sent it to me to readjust the motor position (which was
>not installed straight and caused binding) and fix the coupler, which he
>had modified.
>After I sent it back they may have placed it too far to the east from
>their description of its behavior. The statement of it almost falling
>leads me to believe that the scope was not balanced and I asked them if
>that was so but got no answer. I will give technical assistance to any
>customer and am available by e-mail or telephone any time.
>I realize that by saying this I will be attacked again by both of them
>and I won't get the last word so this is all I will say on this matter.
Ted:
I am _not_ biased against _you_ and am NOT interested in personally attacking
you. I as, I stated _several times_, wanted the platform to work. It did not
work despite anything we could do for it. OR DESPITE ANYTHING YOU COULD DO,
APPARENTLY. I won't go over the story again. You are well aware of the
limitations of your platform from the feedback you've gotten from OTHER users.
This we know. It is nice that you have an engineering background, but I wish
you'd use your talents to improve your product. You have some good ideas,
that's clear. But this unit, in my humble opinion, needs more work. A lot more
work. As is, this platform is incredibly ill suited for use with anything
other than the smallest telescope in my opinion.
And also, Ted, I don't appreciate your questioning MY PERSONAL HONOR in this
regard. Most of the people here know and will tell you that I try to be a
'straight shooter.' I don't believe in attacking and 'flame wars' under any
circumstances. I am very serious about amateur astronomy, and will always do
my best to see that I only pass on information here which is as accurate as I
can possibly make it. I WOULD NOT attack your product if it did work even semi
acceptably. The review I posted of your little platform IS AN ACCURATE
REFLECTION of _my experiences_ with it AND I STAND BEHIND MY REVIEW 100%!
People in my part of the country historically place a high premium on personal
honor, and this is very important to me, sir!
The problem, Ted, is that your product doesn't work for us as advertised. Not
AT ALL. And while I appreciate your help, it also didn't resolve the problem.
This being the case, the HONORABLE thing for _you_ to do is what any good
vendor will do, and offer at least a partial refund to your customer. But this
is, according to your communications with Pat, not your 'policy,' you say.
This surprises me. Sure, yours' is a small operation, but MANY SMALL VENDORS
PUT THE CUSTOMER FIRST! The ONLY way you'll get anywhere is to MAKE LEAVING
YOUR CUSTOMERS HAPPY AND SATISFIED YOUR NUMBER ONE GOAL. EVEN IF _IT COSTS YOU
AT TIMES_! EVEN IF IT HURTS SOMETIMES If your product is a good one and your
instructions are clear, it should be easy for your customers to turn out a
platform which will work for them as advertised. You wouldn't have anybody
asking for their money back if they had a working platform--a platform working
as advertised--to show for their efforts. Why, if your platform worked like it
is purported to, I'd be telling everybody in sight to order one, and you'd
certainly have my money and my accolades!! If your customers _ARE_ HAVING
TROUBLE producing a platform which works as it was advertised to, then I feel
that it's obvious that the problem is YOURS. Something is wrong with your kit,
your design or your instructions.
Ted, I _urge_ you to do the right thing by your customers. By responding to
your advertisement, _we put our faith in you_. So far, I feel you've really let
us down.
Finally, just to set the record straight, the Dob placed on this platform WAS
perfectly balanced. It didn't 'almost fall.' it DID fall (resulting in COSTLY
damage to a $1000.00 TeleVue Binoviewer), and the platform did not work
appreciably better after your modifications than before. If placement of the
scope on the platform is so critical that it being even slightly in the wrong
position will cause it to fall, don't you think you have a problem? I certainly
would be hesitant to place a 200 pound scope, which your web page states is the
load capacity of this platform, on this rig! As it is, our results were Pat
having to pay for repairs to his binoviewer and me suffering back pain for over
a week after I tried to catch a 12" scope which had been launched into space!
As far as this matter goes, I consider it CLOSED! But you've left us unhappy
and unsatisfied after a _considerable_ investment of time and money in this
project. I want you to think about that....
shn...@netcom.com
"Del Johnson" <a...@adnac.com> wrote:
> The equatorial platform should not be affected by where the telescope is
> pointing. In my case I have four degrees of freedom: RA and dec (well, an
> approximation of dec) in the platform, plus altitude and azimuth in the
> load and the center of gravity of the telescope load, which remains fairly
> constant. It is important that the platform design is compatible with the
> cg of the telescope. Tom Osypowsky builds platform drives per the
> customer's latitude and center of gravity height. For this reason, the bias
> in the platform movement is close to neutral for all orientations of the
> telescope.
>
> Del Johnson
>
> reply to: delnmer at adnc dot com
reasonable limits...
Shneor
Skylook123
TL Systems thread but here goes.
Mine works. And works well. I am absolutely pleased with how it functions. I
will admit it took me some time to tweek it, but it required no extra pieces;
just what was in the kit. The major limitation I found is in the laminate; it
does indeed cause sticktion in some off-perfect conditions on one of my scopes.
I have two dobs to use it with; a 10" Starfinder and a 14" Starhopper. The
only thing preventing me from using it with the 14" is the large groundboard
diameter (27") exceeds the boundary of the standard size 24" plywood platform
pieces I used, and the center of gravity of the Starhopper is so high that the
stability on the 24" standard plywood is unsteady when combined with the
sticktion. BUT...I have gotten the platform to operate with the 145 pound
Starhopper as a test; it's just extremely unstable without a big enough
footprint to support the range of motion. Based on the performance with the
10" scope, however, when I get time from a killer work schedule I'll upgrade it
to 30" plywood.
The only troubles I had during assembly were my goofs. I am an absolute klutz
with handiwork, but I was able to build the kit in less than three hours. I
drilled the pivot block hole off vertical and it caused the pivot to jump out
under load. I redrilled another block more carefully, and no problem since.
Also, I cut the block to the wrong length and Ted helped me adjust the rest of
the geometry to allow for the height. The only alteration I did on my own was
to place the top latitude board about a quarter of an inch closer to the bottom
board. This way, with the platform fully loaded the "sag" came out level.
Also I loaded the platform and then noted the orientation of the mechanicals
and adjusted the motor mounts to make sure the drive shaft was horizontal under
load.
About using it. No fuss or bother with the 10" scope; just level it and point
it North and start tracking. When I levelled the base board with a bulls-eye
level and got fairly close to North, it held Jupiter in the field at over 200X
for about 25 minutes. This was with a pretty coarse guess at lattitude angle
and North alignment. Using the polar drift assumptions, I was probably about 5
degrees or so off east-west. Not bad for eyeballing North. And when I've used
it I have had to wax the laminate. I've used both Pledge and Kleen Guard, with
no real difference between them. Yes, it's sensitive to the gain setting on
the control box. Oh well. Mine works.
As far as the instability reported based on where the tube is oriented, my
guess is that it relates to two concepts; the support footprint and the
sticktion. The weight is borne by a triangle from the pivot bolt back to the
two sliders. No matter how big the plywood, if your cg exceeds the triangular
footprint you are going over. I discovered this with the 14"; luckily it was
in a garage and my wife's pickup truck stopped the disaster. The sticktion
fools you; it resists the tip until the breakforce is exceeded, then crash.
Moving to a bigger plywood size helps in two ways; you can move the scope
closer to the pivot bolt to unload the sliders, and you can widen the distance
between the sliders and thus make a fatter triangle under the load. I did a
load analysis (I'm an anal retentive structural engineer) and found that a 30"
plywood dimension is necessary to allow for the Starhopper's fat ground board
and tall cg. This will be worse with the 12.5" Orion DSE like my observing
buddy has. His cg is actually about 4 inches taller than mine, so although his
groundboard is 24" in diameter he'd need to go to a 30" minimum base geometry
as well.
At this time, the only change I'd make is using Ebony Star; as the weight goes
up, the sticktion versus location of the scope toward the pivot block really
does become a nuisance but I only noticed that with the 145 pound load, not the
85 pound
.
Jim
"A Bad Night With A Telescope
Beats a Good Night Doing Anything Else"
Raycash
Thanks Jim, for some honest, "balanced" feedback on this thread. As you know,
I do not have any firsthand experience with TLSystems, but I am a great fan of
equatorial platforms (I've built one myself with Tom O's help)... and have
links to TL, Tom O, Chuck Shaw and Warren Peters' Webpages (the latter two
offer online plans for platforms).
I dunno; maybe TLSystems' over-rate the capacity for their simple version of a
Poncet platform--but I salute them for offering a low cost tracking platform...
If it works, no reason to mislead the weight capacity, Ted.
Regardless: Caveat Emptor. Any "advanced amateur" (especially one with"search
engine" capability) who has "built a 20" thing of beauty" should know the
limitations of a 70's style Poncet platform and the significant advantages of
more evolved designs: The Gee (which Tom Osypowski uses); the d'Autumne, Chuck
Shaw's Dual-cylindrical... not to mention superior computer-chip driven drives
that are available...
Phil Harrington can amend his books all he wants, but for me: I don't think I
will delete TLSystems from my links pages anytime soon; disgruntled customers,
or not.
--Ray Cash
How to Build a Dobsonian Telescope:
http://members.aol.com/sfsidewalk/dobplans.htm
My Deep-Sky Page:
http://members.aol.com/anonglxy/deepsky.htm
How to Build a 13" "Travel Scope"
http://members.aol.com/radcash/travelscope.htm
RMOLLISE
>with"search
>engine" capability) who has "built a 20" thing of beauty" should know the
>limitations of a 70's style Poncet platform and the significant advantages of
>more evolved designs: The Gee (which Tom Osypowski uses); the d'Autumne,
>Chuck
>Shaw's Dual-cylindrical... not to mention superior computer-chip driven
>drives
>that are available...
>
>Phil Harrington can amend his books all he wants, but for me: I don't think I
>will delete TLSystems from my links pages anytime soon; disgruntled
>customers,
>or not.
>
Hi Ray:
Please try to read more carefully. It was a 24" not a 20...and it _is_ a thing
of beauty, for sure.
Neither one of us had ever gone the platform route, though, and admittedly did
know little about them. We were _ignorant_ about these units, forty lashes for
us. We've since had a real education, rest assured!
Be that as it may...TL advertises the platform on their page as being able to
support a 200 pound load and track so well that it can be used with CCD
autoguiders (!)...(read the man's page if you don't believe me). I guess _our_
mistake, then, was taking this at face value in our ignorance about equatorial
platforms. SORRY!!
As I stated earlier, _I stand behind my review of this unit 100%_. We've since
modified this platform with a cylindrical bearing, new motor-coupling, etc.,
etc., etc., and it's now working well. But in retrospect, we could have built
one from scratch one hell of a lot easier and saved both of us (and Ted, too, I
guess) a lot of STRESS! As for me, I'll just forget about Ted and his silly
little kit. However, all this rancor could have been avoided if Ted had simply
done what he should've when it became evident that Pat's platform, which TED
admitted Pat had done a fine job assembling, did not work as advertised--give
us a refund.
If you have further questions about this or doubts about my or Pat's ability to
evaluate this kit, let's take it to email. I'd be glad to chat about our
experience with this kit at length. But I believe 'nuff said in public on
s.a.a. on this subject.
Raycash
>thing
>of beauty, for sure.
>
Oops, sorry 'bout that! Forty lashes for ME!
>We've since had a real education, rest assured!
Sometimes it works that way.
>Be that as it may...TL advertises the platform on their page as being able to
>support a 200 pound load and track so well that it can be used with CCD
>autoguiders (!)..
That's pretty inflated boasts from TL, to say the least.
>If you have further questions about this or doubts about my or Pat's ability
>to
>evaluate this kit...
No, I don't mean to doubt your ability, but for the price of a decent eyepiece,
whadya expect? S&T and Astronomy are full of inflated ads, as are our Tee-Vees,
and every other place we look in this culture of ours...
When folks ask me about Celestron/Orion/Meade Dobs, for example, I tell them
they are okay, as long as you consider them a kit--that even though you THINK
you are buying a complete telescope, in reality, you will have to do some
simple modifications to acheive smooth movements and to assure yourself the
thing won't fall apart after a few uses.
> let's take it to email. I'd be glad to chat about our
>experience with this kit at length.
Sorry, Rod: "I am here today but gone to Maui" quite literally tomorrow. My
wife won't let me take the modem along (just as well, IMO)--luckily, it's okay
with her if a drag my 13" over there... Wait til I drag her up to chilly
Haleakala for observing! <g>.
Bill McNamee
think the issue here should be who is right and who is wrong...or if the
platform works or not. The problem seems to be that TL Systems, as a
business, isn't willing to refund the cost its product when it clearly isn't
functioning correctly for one or more customers.
Now before I start getting all kinds of e-mail, let me just say that I don't
own a dob and I'm not in the market for an equatorial platform. I am,
however, a small business owner (computer consulting, web design, and web
hosting). And...the only way that I can be a successful business owner is by
making sure my clients are satisfied with the products and services my
company offers. 100% customer satisfaction is the only way to run a small
business and the only way to become a large business.
In my opinion, all parties in this debate have done everything in their
power to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, all this work and effort has
not resolved the problem...which for this customer results in loss of money
and an nonworking platform. At this point, TL Systems should step in and
refund the clients money...regardless of it's return policy.
Believe me...I understand policies and why companies have them. In some
cases, however, policies need to be waived. Just look at all the negative
advertising (justified or unjustified) that TL Systems has received. If TL
Systems had allowed the customer to return the product after exhausting all
possible tech support avenues, I'm sure this thread wouldn't be here.
Or...this thread might even read as a favorable review of TL Systems and
it's customer support.
Just my two cents....
Sincerely,
Bill McNamee
w...@webids.com
Raycash wrote in message <19990117024753...@ng93.aol.com>...
>Mine works. And works well. I am absolutely pleased with how it
functions.
Thanks Jim, for some honest, "balanced" feedback on this thread. As you
know,
I do not have any firsthand experience with TLSystems, but I am a great fan
of
equatorial platforms (I've built one myself with Tom O's help)... and have
links to TL, Tom O, Chuck Shaw and Warren Peters' Webpages (the latter two
offer online plans for platforms).
I dunno; maybe TLSystems' over-rate the capacity for their simple version of
a
Poncet platform--but I salute them for offering a low cost tracking
platform...
If it works, no reason to mislead the weight capacity, Ted.
Regardless: Caveat Emptor. Any "advanced amateur" (especially one
with"search
engine" capability) who has "built a 20" thing of beauty" should know the
limitations of a 70's style Poncet platform and the significant advantages
of
more evolved designs: The Gee (which Tom Osypowski uses); the d'Autumne,
Chuck
Shaw's Dual-cylindrical... not to mention superior computer-chip driven
drives
that are available...
Phil Harrington can amend his books all he wants, but for me: I don't think
I
will delete TLSystems from my links pages anytime soon; disgruntled
customers,
or not.
--Ray Cash
shn...@netcom.com
to fall off the base using it. I have one of Tom Osypowski's compact
equatorial platforms, that I use with my 18" dob. I can't imagine it tipping
over under any circumstances, even when using several pounds of
eyepiece/barlow/paracorr, even if it's pointed at the horizon in any
direction at all. It's hardly bigger than my rocker box. I've kept objects in
the field at 400x seemingly forever (at least half an hour, anyway). It
sounds as though TL Systems design needs to be refined so that it's reliable.
OTOH it's a kit, with all the potential pitfalls of a kit, and a lot
depending on user headspace. Shneor In article
<19990116103049...@ng-ca1.aol.com>, skylo...@aol.com
(Skylook123) wrote:
> Well, I haven't been around SAA for several weeks, so I'm late wading into the
> TL Systems thread but here goes.
>
> Mine works. And works well. I am absolutely pleased with how it functions.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
J van Gastel
>
> Sorry to hear the bad news...
>
> For a complete description of a do it yourself eq platform that really works see
> Chuck Shaw's page http://www.ghg.net/cshaw/platform.htm
>
> Mike
For the Dutch and Belgian readers: I wrote an article for the Dutch
magazine Zenit about building such a platform. It will appear in one of
the next issues of the magazine. The difference with Chuck Shaws
platform is that I built a roller drive instead of a tangent arm drive.
Jan.
p...@juno.com
ray...@aol.com (Raycash) wrote:
> Phil Harrington can amend his books all he wants, but for me: I don't think I
> will delete TLSystems from my links pages anytime soon; disgruntled customers,
> or not.
Thanks, Ray, for the permission, but I'm not necessarily amending anything.
I am merely going to keep ALL comments for further investigation at a later
time.
Phil Harrington
Ted
>
> How to Build a Dobsonian Telescope:
> http://members.aol.com/sfsidewalk/dobplans.htm
>
> My Deep-Sky Page:
> http://members.aol.com/anonglxy/deepsky.htm
>
> How to Build a 13" "Travel Scope"
> http://members.aol.com/radcash/travelscope.htm
Hi Ray,
Many thanks for your comments and I want to let you and others know that
to avoid any misunderstanding, I have added a statement to my web site
to indicate the dob used with the equatorial platform should have a low
center of gravity "(generally 13.1" - 14.5)" type dobs, and have been
recommending that they get the AltAzimuth platform if it is a
large-heavy scope with high CG. There are images taken with Cookbook and
Quickcam CCD cameras on my website with the platform. I certainly don't
wish to trick anyone into buying my kits by use of false advertising.
Ted