New product - 1 arc-second tracking ability without using conventional auto-guider

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Another very dubious claim. Very few telescope owners have the foggiest idea what order of magnitude their PE is, and even fewer have the ability to measure it accurately.

Many here need to be reminded that the US does not have any laws about misleading advertising and manufacturers can and will say anything.

As for the CN "review" that could have been posted by the designer of the device, for all we know.

You are of course right, all these are possible. But, from looking at the TDM website and the results from the CN poster, as well as reading the technical information posted by Fred and Bojan on encoder technology and costs, I am still feeling charitable to the TDM dudes and personally, have chosen to give them the benefit of the doubt, or at least a fair go.

I think that Hungary is in Europe though.

I wonder if I re-visited the old forums of good old fashioned film astrophotography, would I be able to see the baby being thrown out with the bath water when the first Cookbook CCD camera appeared on the scene! Now I am just being naughty!

Cheers

Dennis

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Many here need to be reminded that the US does not have any laws about misleading advertising and manufacturers can and will say anything.

uh? Absolutely not! Where did you get that gem from? LOL! THe USA is incredibly tough on false and misleading advertising - because manufacturers have an avenue to sue each other over it via the Lanham Act.

Living in the USA for a number of years, and being involved in developing new software and workflows for the publishing industry, I constantly came across people warning our new Australian company to be very careful about making claims that could even be slightly construed as being false.

Wests Law Encyclopedia:

"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities" (LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)).
Proof Requirement

To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's...

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

USA is incredibly tough on false and misleading advertising - because manufacturers have an avenue to sue each other over it via the Lanham Act.

Yeah right.. if they manage to get their hands on them :-)

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Yeah right.. if they manage to get their hands on them :-)

Manufacturers always seem to have armies of lawyers at the ready Bojan... and I reckon that they'd be keeping pretty close checks on one another.

[bojan]

That is probably true for the big companies (like NEC I work for.. it is definitely one of them).
However, for the small guys, I doubt it. Lawyers are very expensive...

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

OK - we're coming down to semantics.

Sorry to divert the thread Dennis.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

Sorry to divert the thread Dennis.

No worries Chris – I suspected that the US must have some quite strong consumer protection laws, given the work of people like Ralph Nader, so it was quite reassuring to hear of your experiences.

Cheers

Dennis

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

I suppose that a fraudelent advertising claim must be proven beyond doubt before action can even be considered. While a great deal of protection exists, it's up to the courts to find whether a case is justifed, and this is always the point of contention.

If the manufacturer of this device was to claim that it enabled a user to experience perfect siderial motion at the sensor under all circumstances then maybe that could be challenged. I don't think that they are trying that though.

[bojan]

It seems they do not. However, less careful (or un-experienced) reader may jump to a conclusions, as it already happened (IMHO).

But even if they do claim impossible things, what anybody can really do? Remember, this particular manufacturer is located in Hungary or who knows where.... way out of the hands of US laws

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Yes
I believe that they have stopped putting tasting notes on their wines in case somebody complains that they couldn't pick up the "hint of peaches"

Originally Posted by Dennis

No worries Chris – I suspected that the US must have some quite strong consumer protection laws, given the work of people like Ralph Nader, so it was quite reassuring to hear of your experiences.

Cheers

Dennis

[Dennis]

It seems that Meade Europe are now the exclusive, world wide dealer and one would assume that they have gone through the machinations of a business case proposal and due diligence before purchasing distribution rights?

And yes, I do read that Meade USA are in dire financial straits and others have questioned their business model and competence, but maybe, just maybe, the TDM product could be a ridgy didge fair dinkum product and it might just deliver what it claims:

Quote:
“Telescope Drive Master (TDM in short form) has been developed for compensation of periodic and non-periodic tracking errors of mass produced equatorial telescope mounts which errors occurred on account of mechanical manufacturing and assembling inaccuracies”.

Cheers

Dennis

[Zuts]

Originally Posted by Dennis

It seems that Meade Europe are now the exclusive, world wide dealer and one would assume that they have gone through the machinations of a business case proposal and due diligence before purchasing distribution rights?

And yes, I do read that Meade USA are in dire financial straits and others have questioned their business model and competence, but maybe, just maybe, the TDM product could be a ridgy didge fair dinkum product and it might just deliver what it claims:

Quote:
“Telescope Drive Master (TDM in short form) has been developed for compensation of periodic and non-periodic tracking errors of mass produced equatorial telescope mounts which errors occurred on account of mechanical manufacturing and assembling inaccuracies”.

Cheers

Dennis

Looking at Peter Wards list, nearly everything he mentions has nothing to do with the mount but to do with other things, i.e polar alignment, differential flexure, refraction and so on. So I reckon if you can add something to a 1600 AUD mount that gives you better PE than a Losmandy or even a far more expensive mount at a far lower price point then go for it. Having souped up the mount in this way there is nothing to stop you using a guide scope a well.

Cheers
Paul

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by Dennis

It seems that Meade Europe are now the exclusive, world wide dealer and one would assume that they have gone through the machinations of a business case proposal and due diligence before purchasing distribution rights?

And yes, I do read that Meade USA are in dire financial straits and others have questioned their business model and competence, but maybe, just maybe, the TDM product could be a ridgy didge fair dinkum product and it might just deliver what it claims:

Quote:
“Telescope Drive Master (TDM in short form) has been developed for compensation of periodic and non-periodic tracking errors of mass produced equatorial telescope mounts which errors occurred on account of mechanical manufacturing and assembling inaccuracies”.

Cheers

Dennis

You make a couple of very good points there Dennis. Meade must have done some serious research, and when you think about it, the one single thing that stops the higher end all-in-one Meades from becoming a default imaging platform is PE, its their achilies heal.

And before I get trashed for that, Ive done pretty well with my Meade tube, and If the TDM really does what it says, I would be happy with their mounts too. Again, if the TDM works, it would be the perfect match for Meade mounts.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Zuts

... nothing to stop you using a guide scope a well.

l

You will have to use it anyway... So why bother?

[Zuts]

Originally Posted by bojan

You will have to use it anyway... So why bother?

This is very hard to say. Still when people talk about the 'supposed' problems with the EQ6 it is mainly about the PE, certainly with the addition of a few aftermarket knobs, pillars and other bits and pieces it is a great mount IMHO. My EQ6 is certainly stable enough for decent astrophotography so what else makes a 6,000 AUD losmandy a better mount. And before everyone jumps in and flames me IMHO if you get round stars on a 30 minute exposure it's a good mount; and a PE of 1 arcsecond would go a long way to acheiving this.

An EQ6 with 1 arcsecond PE would be a very tasty mount indeed, and if it only added 1000 AUD to the price then i would be very tempted and the fitting of said device would probably be very straightforward and easy to accomplish.

Cheers
Paul

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Zuts

......... so what else makes a 6,000 AUD losmandy a better mount. And before everyone jumps in and flames me IMHO if you get round stars on a 30 minute exposure it's a good mount; and a PE of 1 arcsecond would go a long way to acheiving this.
Paul

Ok. I'll bite. Current G-11's running at around +/- 3-4 arc sec -uncorrected.

They are fully machined, made of brush finished anodized T6 & ground stainless, and have high precision shaft bearings and phosphor bronze worms plus a tripod built like the proverbial brick dunny. Then there is the Gemini system.....and T-Point like modeling in a box.

BTW a Benz also costs more than a Hyundai. Sucks doesn't it?

I digress.

This old chestnut has surfaced before...but I figure I'll say it again: with a common garden rock I can get round stars with a 2 minute exposure and 8mm fisheye.

But, at a FL of 2900mm, and one heck of nice mount, I've found some serious guiding is mandatory.

I suppose the point I am making is: even if there was such a thing as a "perfect" mount, unless you are imaging in a vacuum, the earth's atmosphere will happily make your deep sky stars look egg shaped.

IMHO if you want to get tighter stars, feeding back what the tracking and atmosphere is doing to the image is *way more* important than fussing over a super accurate RA rate.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

IMHO if you want to get tighter stars, feeding back what the tracking and atmosphere is doing to the image is *way more* important than fussing over a super accurate RA rate.

Exactly my opinion also.
And $1600 remains to be used for something far more useful, however not necessarily fancy.. Toyota has exactly the same number of wheels (4), just like Ferrari...
A-->B.. same trip and result, but much cheaper vehicle.

[Zuts]

Originally Posted by bojan

Exactly my opinion also.
And $1600 remains to be used for something far more useful, however not necessarily fancy.. Toyota has exactly the same number of wheels (4), just like Ferrari...
A-->B.. same trip and result, but much cheaper vehicle.

Yes, ferrari holden and so on. The point is new technology surfaces from time to time which may level the playing field. The current commodore with airbags, abs brakes, traction control and so on is a mighty fine car. For 30,000 AUD it is definately a much better and safer car than most mercs more than 10 years old which 10 years ago may have set you back over 100,000 AUD.

Maybe we are on a cusp, who knows, but I know this; aint good new tech at an affordable price a mighty fine thing

Cheers
Paul

[Zuts]

And to Peter, yes some serious guiding is mandatory. However if i can start to guide with a PE of only 1 arc second i think i am better off than with the usual 30 to 50 arcseconds of the average EQ6.

And to Dennis, i agree with you, if the price is right and IF it works as advertised it is probably a good thing.

[AlexN]

Yeah I'd love to agree with Paul about the EQ6 only being less than the G-11 in terms of PE... but Man... I sure wish my EQ6 would grow up to be a G11..

Dont get me wrong, for the money the EQ6 is great, and with a couple of refractors on it it chugs along nicely for imaging.. However once loaded up with the C11 and trying to image at 2800mm F/L I really do wish I had something a bit more sturdy underneath it.. I've already spent nearly $700 just adding stability to the EQ6 (ADM D-plate saddle and D-Plates for my scopes) , with another $1500 odd to be spent (new counter weight shaft + counterweights im having made + Losmandy HD tripod) but stability only goes so far... the internals are its let down compared to the G11 which is truely a work of art, and definitely cheap for what its is... G11 + Gemini is a stunning combination

im not taking anything away from the EQ6, I love mine, but once you start getting some weight on it, or using an extreme focal lenght, its shortcomings become rather apparent. (as do my own!!)

Yes, Reducing its PE would make a difference, and would make it perhaps better, however its still not going to do the job that a self guiding CCD would do, in conjunction with Adaptive Optics...

As Peter said, even seriously over mounted scopes (say, a 140mm F/8 APO on a Paramount ME) still require/benefit from guiding, and adaptive optics help to minimize the the negative affects of the atmosphere..

Perfecting RA tracking is not going to help you if the seeing is poor, its not going to help you if you're not as well polar aligned as is possible, its not going to help you if your mount is slightly imbalanced.... What will help you in these situations. Guiding..

As the website for the TDM states, it will work concurrently with SBIG guiding systems, but it does not mention other autoguiding setups... so its hard to say if it will or it wont.. but this is for sure. If it only works with SBIG guiders and you have a self guided SBIG, you'd be better off buying an AO unit than getting 1arcsec PE I think..

Correct me if I'm wrong..