First Impressions of GSO 12" R/C Truss

[loc46south]

I have had a number of PM's regarding the 12" GSO TRuss I purchased a few weeks ago - a few members were considering purchasing one in the near future. Here is my experience so far :-

The telescope has been set up on a Losmandy G-11 mount - I understand that the OTA is nearing the max load specs for the G-11 but providing that it is carefully balanced it performs without any hiccups - as a precaution I reduced the slew speed to 500 otherwise no changes were made.

Last friday night the skies cleared enough for me to attempt to collimate the unit, a preliminary check with a Takahashi Collimation scope had shown it to be out of alignment. The stock focuser was removed and replaced with a Moonlite CSL 2.5in Motorised Crayford and the camera used was a SBIG ST10XME.

Preliminary images showed the unmistakable sign of badly pinched optics - subsequent investigations over the weekend show that this is a common fault with 12" GSO R/C's and the matter has now been refered back to the Retailer. I would caution anone considering a similar purchase to think carefully before buying. It is now a matter of watch this space.

Cheers
Geof Wingham

[multiweb]

Might want to check your primary retaining clips. Easily fixed.

[loc46south]

Wish it was that easy - that is only part of the problem. Spent the last 3 days doing a fair bit of research on the subject. Pricipal problem is the design and construction of the mirror retaining cell.

Cheers

[multiweb]

This thread (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=113291&highlight=clips)might give you some ideas to start with.

[DaveNZ]

Sorry to here about your issues Geof.

As 'just down the road' I was hoping you would have better luck as I was interested in one of the truss tube GSO RCs.

There are many threads of people having issues with the 12" tube GSO RCs. However the good news is many get there in the end.

With my 10" GSO newtonian. I had pinched optics(retaining clip issue)primary centre spot was out by 6mm. Secondary was too close to primary by a large amount and collimation isn't holding well.However I'm slowly working through the issues.

[loc46south]

Thanks for the link Marc - the problem is caused by the focuser tube being attached to the Primary mirror cell - The weight of the focuser, camera etc acts as a lever and deforms the cell at the 3 collimation points on the outer rim. The 8in and 10 in R/C does not have this problem as the collimation screws are located closer to the mirror centre.

There are a number of fixes out there that work with differing results and if you don't mind the expense a conversion kit is available to replace the existing 3 point suspension cell with an 18 point suspension cell - cost 1350 euros.

My biggest ***** is that this is a new design telescope produced with a known documented problem. I didn't know about it at time of purchase but I am well aware of it now -

Cheers
Geof Wingham

[Paul Haese]

The rear assembly has been redesigned and I am sure I will be receiving the new rear assembly in the near future. It will prevent movement. However the problem you have is not caused by the rear mirror assembly. I currently have the heaviest imaging rig hanging off the back of one of those scope at 11Kg and I don't get that at all.

You need to check the primary and secondary mirror assemblies. The mirror cell issue produces elongated stars are certain angles, not pinched optics.

I have read all the threads about this and nearly every one has come to the wrong conclusions.

Once the rear cell is available you need only ring and ask for it. The scope has a two year warrantee in Australia. It might be another month or so yet before the assembly will be freely available.

Best of luck.

[LewisM]

Nothing at all constructive to add, but it is for these reasons I am a staunch refractor nut.

Collimation drives me nuts, and I want a scope to work right, out of the box, and not need to recollimate it every time I used it.

Aperture fever has never bitten. Glad about that too.

Good luck with it. Seems even the high end OS's have collimation issues too.

[clive milne]

Paul... I am struggling to understand what you are saying here?
Could you please elaborate.

[loc46south]

Paul - Thanks for the info. I have been in contact with the retailer I bought the scope off and he is consulting with GSO - I am waiting for an outcome. I am aware of the optical issues and have checked the optics with laser, Tak Collimation Scope, visually and with software analysis - all give similar results - that the scope is near collimation but one thing I did notice was that with change in elevation the mirror appeared to shift within its cell.

I am relieved to hear you comment concerning the weight you have on your scope, as I intend using it with a MOAG,AO-8 and ST10XME Camera

At this point I have not cracked open the telescope body and will not do so untill I hear back from the Retailer.

[loc46south]

Hi Lewis - depends on the scope - I own a mixed bag but in there I have a Tak Mewlon 250S - That scope arrived in perfect collimation after a trip from Japan to America to NZ and I have carted it around to various dark sites over the last 5 years on the back of a 4 x 4 vehicle and the collimation has never moved - in all that time I have never had to touch it or even had to realign the finderscope.

[Paul Haese]

The mirror cell directly screws into the rear adapters. So any heavy weight on the back end acts like a lever to the entire mirror cell. It cannot create pinched optics as the cell is very rigid and does not twist. I have tried to do that and had to exert a lot of force with a two foot lever on a spare cell I had just to test if this was the problem. The only thing that is holding the mirror cell in place is three screws and the lock screws that go with it. The screws are quite good but are sprung loaded and it is the springs that are moving a little to create the elongation of the stars. In all the tests I did I never saw triangular shaped stars. This problem only seems to come up with heavy loads. I had not such trouble when I tested the scope with the QSI or when I had the STL and focusor on the back. However, once I started putting things on like a rotator and STXL and its heavy filter wheel things changed.

GSO are working on the problem and I am awaiting the modified rear cell assembly. It will have an adapter which bolts directly onto the rear face and then the imaging train screws onto that. There will be a centring adjustment to sort out optical alignment too.

[loc46south]

Hi Paul - there was no heavy load on mine at the time - the stock focuser had been swapped out for a CR/2 motorised Moonlite and a ST10XME camera - that was all so either something is very loose inside or something else ie wrong.

[Satchmo]

Theres a number of waves of distortion there - it would take a pretty decent force on the primary or secondary to do that -

How many points is the float cell and how many edge clips are there ? That info could help rule some things in or out. A non rotationally symmetric error in a component is obviously another possibility which hasn't been mentioned , I have seen it in larger optics.

[Paul Haese]

Mark, there are three edge clips and really only three points. The whole mirror which is flat and it sits on the mirror cell which has lots of support but the whole assembly is sitting on three screw points. So really it is three points.

[Paul Haese]

My guess is that the edge clips are too tight and need to be loosened off. That weight is nothing and should not produce any distortion from my experience with these scopes.

[Paul Haese]

Mark see the link below for the images of the mirror cell

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=117425

That will give you an idea of what I am talking about.

[loc46south]

Hi - here is a link that may explain the problem from another perspective and the solutions used. http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/187671-gso-12-rc-dissambly/

Cheers
Geof Wingham

[Satchmo]

Paul ,I can see there are three massive clips but I can't see whats behind the primary - is it a 9 point or 3 point cell? If the weight of the camera is bending the back plate it should only cause a change in collimation - not twist the mirror- unless it is bonded hard to the cell in which case its not really a flotation cell.

[Paul Haese]

Mark in that thread, you can see a photo of the mirror cell without the mirror in it. The fans on the back plate can be seen from behind. It is the fourth photo in the first post of my thread. There are little metal tabs that the mirror sits on and there are six in all. That is what the mirror sits on and it is held in place by the baffle assembly. Now if the baffle is too tight and the clips on the edge are too tight it might cause pitch optics.

[Paul Haese]

Geof, that thread is full of misconceptions. I have read through that many times and the assumptions are not correct. Yes putting in an 18 point cell would give better support but if you look through my images with the same scope I don't get that problem at all. You have pitched optics and nothing more than that. You need to check the edge clips and the central baffle tightness and ensure the secondary is not warped by too much pressure from the collimation screws. The weight you have on the back of the scope will not cause that problem. It is not possible mechanically from this system to cause pitched optics with the weight of the camera on the back.

[loc46south]

I Hope you are right, the scope is up at the observatory and I will give it another run once we get clear skies again - you may be right - after reading that thread and a couple of others I backed off the secondary screws a full turn and did the same to the primary screws - then I did a collimation with a Tak Collimating scope. The screws were tight and by tight I mean tight - you would think that they had been put in with an impact wrench. I had to use a fair bit of force to get them started with a T-Bar hex key. Depending on what the outcome is I may crack the back and check the clips. Just to confuse the issue I will attach a 10 sec Bin 1 x 1 image take further outside focus - the triangular shap is still evident even though the interior of the donut is round.

[Paul Haese]

The primary collimation screws have to be tight. The secondary is just finger tight only. You will need to back off the mirror clips to remedy this problem, that means taking the back of the scope. The rear screws will not affect the pinching. I recommend you get Suiters book on Star Testing Telescopes. It will help you identify what the problem is here.

[loc46south]

Done

[torana68]

as in fixed?

[Paul Haese]

If you google images of pinched optics, you will see lots of images like yours both at focus and out of focus too. It will be comforting to know that you at least know what the problem is and how to fix it.

[loc46south]

Nope as in ordered book

[torana68]

LOL , its a good read that book, heavy reading but good

[loc46south]

If you go back to my first post you will see that I quoted the problem as pinched optics - as to its cause and cure I still have no real answer - was it bad QC from GSO or is there some other force at work here.

This link that may provide some real clues http://www.loptics.com/articles/starshape/starshape.html -

Cheers
Geof Wingham

[Paul Haese]

Sorry Geof yes you did say that but pinched optics are not caused by any other method than exerted force being placed on actual optics. The force being applied by the mirror clips for instance but not by the anything hanging out the back of the scope.

[loc46south]

Paul - I think the focus of this thread had drifted a little - over the last few days I have recieved numerous PM's detailing instructions of fixes or band-aids for the problem - this was not my intent. My intent was to understand the possible causes - any fixes for those causes remain the responsibility of the manufacturer. The number of threads encountered on the internet detailing this or similar encounters points to an obvious problem with the mirror cell on the GSO 12" R/C telescopes that causes mechanical astigmatism. The matter is now in the hands of GSO - their response will decide my future actions.

Whether it is a case of bad Quality Control, bad design or a combination of both matters not, what matters is until it is rectified it is a matter of buyer beware.

Cheers
Geof Wingham

[clive milne]

Hi Geoff,
Did you buy it from Bintel or Andrews'?

[loc46south]

I bought it from neither - it was purchased from a retailer in New Zealand. But in saying that I must add that this is not the retailers fault and I believe he is doing everything in his power to clear the situation up. The fault lies with the maufacturer.

[Paul Haese]

I take your point here Geof but the perceived cause is not astigmatism via the mirror cell. It is via the mirror clips and possibly the secondary screws warping the secondary. The mirror clips should just barely touch the mirror if at all. The secondary screws need to be similarly tightened. Nothing should be hard up excepting the primary collimation screws.

Yes GSO are at fault here for producing the product with pinched optics. I don't defend that at all. The product should have come to you as such.

Something to bear in mind is that all things being equal had you received the scope in good condition; you would have had to clean the primary after 5 or so years. You would need to pull the scope apart to wash the mirror, re-install it into the cell and then re-collimate it.

It is a factor of these cheaper RC scopes that some tinkering is a necessity. I have had one of these scopes since they first starting coming into the country. Each scope I have bought I have had to fix issues which I have passed onto GSO and that has led to the improvements in each edition. I am sure I am not the only one doing this and nor will I be the last. In spite of all the minor dramas, these scopes still represent value for money. The optics are good and the new truss design is very strong and once the rear cell adaption is sorted these scopes will be even better value for money. With any reflector though, you need to manage pinching and collimation and sorting this out yourself will not void your warrantee. Though you could ask for a replacement as under section 51 and 52 of the Trade Practices Act, the product is not of merchantable quality and requires a replacement.

Yes Caveat emptor is at play here but the retailers and GSO are keen to see buyers happy. I know that Bintel are great at customer service in this regard, so if you bought it from them you will be satisfied in the fullness of time.

[noxidc]

Hey my GSO 12" had this same problem when i got it! Triangles, i just pulled the mirror cell out and loosened the clip holders so they BARELY touched the mirror surface and put the mirror cell back in, as Paul keeps describing. Problem was gone.

[loc46south]

If you went out and bought your wife a new washing machine or yourself a new LED widescreen TV and then once you got it home you had to dismantle it, then repair/modify it to get it to work you would be quite happy - somehow I don't think so - and yet these items are far more complex and half the price of the telescope. You expect them to work perfectly, out of the box. every time. What makes a R/C Telescope different :confused2:

What I have discovered over the last week or so is that there is a wealth of information out there about R/C design and optics from both telescope builders and opticians - all are in agreement that R/C's are sensitive to mirror issues and that for mirrors over 10" in diameter that 3 edge support systems are not recommended and they will cause astigmatism issues.

[Logieberra]

Question. These scopes travel such great distances from factory to overseas customers. Are the clips perhaps over-tightened, in factory, as a safety measure? The RCs do travel on their side to us, scope fully built, unlike the bigger GSO dobs (16" for example) which of course travel mirror down, as they require building.

Cheers.

[loc46south]

Don't know - suspect not. It was packed in a sealed double cardboard box - there was no documentation at all with the telescope apart from the packing slip from the retailer on the outside. No instruction manual - nothing

[gregbradley]

A common trend with many products these days (not just telescopes) is the early adopter customer tends to be the beta tester for the product.

It looks very promising and the cost for a 12 RC is unheard of anywhere else. Obviously some patience is required.

Greg.

[dpastern]

I rarely post on IIS, and my thoughts are generally not well received, but I wholly agree with your post. I find it amusing that so many people are defending such poor quality.

Dave

[Bassnut]

What makes a R/C telescope different to a TV?, really!, you must have your head in the sand !!!!!!!.

TV development is in the 100s of millions, and sales can get in the billions of units. Vast money is spent making them work perfectly out of the box.

How many RC telescopes are sold, 1000s?. Its a low volume niche market aimed at knowlegable users. The GSO 12" RC is just insane value for money. An RC perfect out of the box can cost more (of the same AP can be far more!) than 10 times the GSO!!! (eg RCOS).

So, you, being a chap of some nous, knows the market, is aware of what costs what and what you get for a given stack of bucks, would surely have realised the GSO might require a bit of tweaking. What did you expect, really, for a 10th of the price!!!.

As always, due diligence and buyer beware. With a bit of work, you have an excellent product (for the PRICE) which will serve you well, you complain too much, considering.

[dpastern]

That's your opinion Fred, others have different, and valid viewpoints. To each their own. By the way, The Trade Practices Act will agree with my stance 100%. That sort of invalidates your viewpoint I might add. The unit would be deemed unfit for sale.

Yes, the GSO RC's seem great value. But - when nearly 100% of purchases of the 12" unit have had issues, that tells me that it's a major QC and design issue. If it was only a few percent having issues, I could understand your point of view. But not when it's nearly the entire production run with issues.

Dave

[Bassnut]

OK then. Your in the market for a very specialsed low volume niche product, just released , you do due diligence of course, its not a trivial amount of money, and you notice I suppose if what you say is correct, that 100% of users have issues. You decide that despite these issues, its an insane deal and you take a RISK (thats what buying something with 100% user feedback with "issues" is) expecting to have a bit of trouble that you may have to sort yourself.

If you dont do due diligence, dont see a red flag on something seemingly too cheap to be true (with a 100% "issue" rating), have expectations of perfect out of the box at a 10th of the price, then sir, you most definitely will be disappointed.

[gregbradley]

Yes good point David, these guys are doing illegal things in selling units not fit for purpose.

Sometimes it takes pressure to get compliance and make them try harder and get over their slackness.

A classic example recently was Nikon in the USA. They put out the defective D600 which was plagued with dust and oil spots on the sensor requiring constant cleans. They did nothing about it. They eventually released a D610 with a redesigned mirror box/shutter to handle it.

They were threatened with a class action suit. They suddenly offered a free replacement for D600 owners even if out of warranty. They never acknowledged the problem officially. Slack as. Cost them a lot of goodwill.

Greg.

[Bassnut]

Oh please Greg, millions of D600s are make for the generic plug and play consumer market, not remotely similar.

If every defect in a cutting edge specialised niche (especially low cost) product was threatened with a class action, their would be no inovation at all !!!.

If you were willing to pay say $20k, im sure GSO would be capable of making a fault free product.

Again, you get what you pay for. These days ppl want everything with no risk, liability or responsibility for their decisions for always the cheapest price and sue if dissappointed.

Id rather have the choice and evaluate the risk myself in an open buyer beware market.

[dpastern]

I did my research and no, I wouldn't personally buy the 12" (if I could afford it!). Yes, it's good value compared to the competition, but that's cos the competition is vastly overpriced. But either way, our trade practices act does not allow for companies knowingly selling products with faulty issues that are beyond being reasonable.

[dpastern]

strictly speaking, yes, it is illegal, although I think that's a bit harsh of a term to use for GSO. They've generally offered quality products for a great price and have listened to the community in many instances.

I hadn't heard about the D600 issues - thank you for the heads up. It reminds me of Canon's 1D Mark III that had the dud AF...it surprisingly never got to a class lawsuit as far as I'm aware of (but it should have).

I remember having a 4GB Apple iPod mini years ago. It failed about 3 weeks out of the 12 month warranty with a known hard drive issue. This had happened en masse in the US, and a class lawsuit had forced Apple to fix units with the issue at their cost, whether they were in or out of warranty as it was classified as a known manufacturing defect. I queried Apple Australia and was very bluntly told tough $hit - and rather cheekily that "that court decision was for the US and doesn't apply to the Australian market". This wasn't from tier 1 support or customer service either I might add. Nor was it from tier 2 support. That came from higher up in Apple Australia. The moral of the story is that not all manufacturers are honest, nor look after the customer, unless forcibly legally compelled to do so. it should never have to come to that.

Dave

[dpastern]

Oh well Fred. Life experience has taught me that manufacturers and large companies cannot be trusted. LIKE EVER. They will screw the customer over in every instance. That is what life experience has taught me. Open buyer markets treat the consumer with contempt.

[Logieberra]

OK. All Trade Practices Act talk aside (it's not even called that anymore?) - triangular stars showing on GSO 12 " RC Truss scopes. I think I noticed 'hints' of that on a mate's new 12" last night. Paul, is this just a simple mirror clip pressure thing? I saw the three clips in place, but it's hard to eyeball how far off surface. Otherwise, this fix that GSO is coming out with - how does an owner register for those free parts? Thanks.

[Bassnut]

I should clarify. I think consumer protection for mass market generic product is a good thing, absolutely. An open buyers market works for innovative niche product for aware users that appreciate the opportunity despite the (measured) risk, thats what I meant . A GSO 12" RC is NOT a generic consumer product, its is very difficult to figure RC mirrors, it stuns me how they do that for the price.

I dont think GSO is trying to screw you at every instance, they are offering you a product at a price that implies obvious risk on your part, as an aware purchaser.

[dpastern]

Paul said that's what he believes it is. But, the OP tried that and it made no difference.

[Rac]

Can we just release the mirror clips and get a star test photo done.

Please please pretty please.

[Logieberra]

Ray. I missed this. Further test data provided by user:

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=120976

[Astro_Bot]

Sigh. Another topic where I can't help but post something ... meanwhile, the conversation has moved on a bit and this may sound a bit too adversarial, which is not intended ... but FWIW ...


While the TPA (or more likely the equivalent state Fair Trading act, though these are now harmonised through national Australian Consumer Law) could be relevant in that it deals with 'misleading and deceptive conduct', it mostly deals with issues like safety, uncompleted work, non-delivery, pyramid schemes, unfair contracts, substitution of materials, hidden charges, warranties. etc., and not so much with hard-to-define concepts like quality. Where quality is mentioned it's pretty vague. For example, ACL states:

All products must be safe, durable, free from defects, fit for purpose, acceptable in appearance, match its description and match any sample or demonstration model.

When a 12" RC or similar-sized astrograph can sell for $20K+, then something selling for one-fifth the price can't be expected to match that more expensive product's standard of performance.



But ...



Well, you can't have it both ways. If it's contrary to an Act, it's illegal - not necessarily criminal, but illegal. If you think that's too harsh a term, then how should GSO's product quality be rated really?



Seriously? Every instance? Every company? Are you sure you're not overstating the issue by an order of magnitude or two? ;)

Whether the problems with the GSO 12" RC are a "defect" or just something you expect in a scope at this price point, I can't say for sure, but given the number of optics manufacturers losing money and going out of business, I find it hard to believe that a budget manufacturer like GSO is overcharging for the level of quality it's producing.

IMHO, it's up to each purchaser to make up his/her own mind, but I'd say you get what you pay for.

[dpastern]

I think it'd be very reasonable to expect stars to focus down to a point, and not to a triangle. I mean, that's the genre of kiddie scopes *wink wink*. And $3800 is a hellavu lot of money. Maybe to some of the rich kids on these forums it isn't, but to the average Aussie, it's a lot of money. If anyone wants to disagree with that, feel free to donate that sum to me!

[Astro_Bot]

That's precisely the point: for some products, it isn't.

[dpastern]

You must have too much money to spend! Trust me, the vast majority of Australians would say that $3800 was a LOT of money, no matter what the item.

edit: just couldn't resist, here's a list of BMW recalls:

https://www.recalls.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/952885

these are pretty damn pricey cars. Of course, if you drive a 1 million dollar ferrari, they're cheap. That still doesn't excuse sloppy QA.

[Astro_Bot]

Actually, I don't have too much money to spend. None at all, in fact. I'm just surviving for now. That doesn't mean I expect premium quality for a budget price.


I'm beginning to see why. ;)

[dpastern]

That's an exceptionally poor attitude Fred, and no wonder why few people are getting into this hobby. I mean, Dobsonians are just as big (12") and far cheaper than this RC from GSO and they tend to lack these optical issues. From reading many people's threads about this on a variety of forums around the world, many are saying it's simply down to a bad design for the mirror and mirror cell from GSO. And whilst I lack your extreme technical knowledge, I'd tend to agree with them.

[dpastern]

$3800 is not a budget price. If you had bought a 80K bmw that had issues, and I told you "tough luck, it's cheap, you should have bought a Ferrari, just suck it up" you'd be pissed. This is very elementary, I find it amusing that some users are so staunch in their support of bad QA and design, no matter what the price.

I state things as I see them, I'm not a 'yes' man who agrees with the rest of the crowd to look cool. I have a brain and I use it. If people have a problem with that, tough luck.

[Astro_Bot]

Production costs are amortised across the number of units sold. Dobs are sold in vastly larger numbers than RCs and it stands to reason that the cost is much lower. Whether GSO chooses to take a loss on the RC in order to compensate for low numbers is its commercial decision. My guess is that it's not doing that.

[Astro_Bot]

Again, it depends on the production cost and quantity of manufacture. If there's any hand finishing involved, expect the costs to sky rocket. Small numbers alone seem enough to justify the price at the moment. If larger numbers are produced in future, the price may come down (though we don't know if this is a loss phase for GSO with the hope that they will turn a profit later).


A better example would be if I'd bought a $20K Proton and expected the same quality and performance as a $100K BMW, I'd be an idiot.

-----------------------

To get it slightly back on topic, I do hope the issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the owners, whatever the cause is finally identified to be.

[pmrid]

One of the major auto manufacturers just got whacked with a $35 Million fine for selling vehicles they knew to have a defective ignition which they did not tell their customers about. The moral of that story is that it doesn't pay to use your customers as beta testers.
Peter

[Astro_Bot]

Of course, just as the 12" RC runs on all 12 inches .... ;)

These comparisons are getting silly and we're not helping the OP. The common polarising effect of politics seems to be in full force here - whilst starting out on different sides of an entirely arbitrary line, by a small margin, the argument drifts towards ever more polarised positions. Is it just because everyone wants the last say (including me)? I don't know. But enough.

[Bassnut]

Many of the products for astro we buy are issued initially as "beta" for user testing (especially software), or we implicitly understand that just released product is bound to have frequent upgrades shortly after release.

Using customers as beta testers is a successfull tried and tested way to get unique product to market fast and efficiently.

[RobF]

I'll just stick my head up out of the trenches and between bullets to note this is our hobby, and there's no denying its a major spoiler when our latest gadget doesn't work first time as expected. This is a pretty expensive gadget for most of us, so hope you get it sorted soon Geoffrey with minimal fuss, and still get lots of satisfaction from it.

[Paul Haese]

It looks like the silicon tabs are the cause here of the pinched optics.

Yes you could argue that this is a QA problem and it meets the current criteria to return the scope. That is up to any purchaser. The mirror cell itself is not the problem, it is the way the mirror is being held in place. Either the clips are the problem (apparently not in this case) or this silicon problem.

Fred it right though. I have been reporting minor issues with these scopes since 2008. GSO have been making adjustments to design and working to make an affordable telescope. Not an easy task in the very small market place. I bought this scope because I was after the optics. The optics are the important part. If you don't mind doing some tweaking to get the scope performing then you will have a great scope. If not send it back GSO will honour their warrantee, they are good guys and not out to screw anyone. They are a small firm in Taiwan and are very approachable, not some evil empire that is out to rip someone off. Knowing these guys as I do I find the insinuation of them being out to rip someone off insulting.

My recommendation is tinker if you are happy to do that, or send it back if you are not.

[KenGee]

dpastern you should start building RC's telescope, it will be great to see a low cost high quality telescope.
Or maybe operating system for microsoft, an error free OS would be an industry first, but apparently you have the skill to learning how to do something without making any mistakes .

[dpastern]

gee, I've kept pretty much away from personal attacks, but it's good to see some of the regulars on IIS are still at it. I find it amusing when someone poses a different viewpoint on a forum, the regulars come out and play bully. And even better, the mods do jack **** about it. I mean, it's the regulars. Gotta let them have their fun *wink wink*.

PS Microsoft sucks. Anyone who works in the industry knows this and that there are far better alternatives if one desires stability or reliability, or dare I say it, security!