Re: [M]: 7" Refractor woes
| Subject: | Re: [M]: 7" Refractor woes |
| From: | Email address hidden |
| Date: | Tue Dec 30 07:49:10 1997 |
You are really forgetting, that 800 or so Mapugers makes up a trivial
amount of LX-200s sold. This type of forum will always generate more of
the folks having problems because thats the type of forum it is. If I
use the cross-section of LX-200 in our group we have an excellent
longivity for the scopes. I would say about 2% of LX-200s in our group
belong to Mapug.
****************************************************
ric ecker
san marcos, ca.
curator of the Willard Observatory
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 07:58:37 -0500 Paul Goelz
writes:
>
>>Andy,
>> Believe me when I tell you "it aint that bad". If you have
>problems,
>>Meade has made repair kits that are very simply to make the repair,
>>taking only a few minutes. If you can operate the LX-200, you can
>make
>>all the necessary repairs as far as replacements, dont worry. The
>>Refactor woes always brings this type of post and it like the Chicken
>>Little symdrone, or the Domino effect (take your pick). Everyone is
>now
>>going to worry about every little (big) sound the scope makes when
>its
>>slewing. Our club has 250 members with 25% owning LX-200s with very
>>little repair problems.
>>
>>
>>ric
>
>I really dont want to start a flame war here, but I simply cant
>agree
>with you Ric.
>
>I have been on this list for maybe two years now, and for all that
>time I
>have owned a 100% perfectly functioning LX200. No complaints
>whatsoever.
>
>HOWEVER
>
>In that time I have seen enough posts about real optical and
>electronic
>problems with the LX200 to convince me that I am seeing more than a
>random
>cross section of "expected" failures. To compound the issue, Meade
>will
>not provide any service information to allow me or anyone else to
>determine
>for ourselves whether there is a design problem and come up with a
>solution. Our only recourse is to return the scope or its electronics
>to
>Meade for repair. Which hides forever the true cause of the failure.
>Only
>Meade knows for sure. We are left to speculate.
>
>Plus, for an out of warranty scope, that repair kit is not a trivial
>cost,
>especially if the faiure was minor and could have been easily fixed
>with a
>little service info. Like a schematic.
>
>So lets be real here. Without more input from someone on the outside
>that
>has looked into the design and the failure rate, what I have seen here
>says
>to me that the failure rate for this lovely complicated piece of
>electro-mechanical equipment is significantly higher than the failure
>rate
>for other well engineered electro-mechanical devices. Like, say, your
>VCR.
>
>And we havent even mentioned the deplorable 416XT situation. If I
>had
>bought one of those, I would have been really mad!
>
>So Ric, I know you are trying to provide balance here, but you cant
>do it
>by sweeping under the rug all the real problems that folks have had.
>Now
>if you had a pipeline to Meade and could tell us what was really
>failing on
>the board sets that were returned to Meade for repair, that would be
>of big
>help and if they were indeed random, could allay some fears.......
>
>My opinion only. Take it for what it is worth.
>
>
>Paul Goelz
>Rochester Hills, MI
>pgoelz@eaglequest.com
>
>
amount of LX-200s sold. This type of forum will always generate more of
the folks having problems because thats the type of forum it is. If I
use the cross-section of LX-200 in our group we have an excellent
longivity for the scopes. I would say about 2% of LX-200s in our group
belong to Mapug.
****************************************************
ric ecker
san marcos, ca.
curator of the Willard Observatory
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 07:58:37 -0500 Paul Goelz
writes:
>
>>Andy,
>> Believe me when I tell you "it aint that bad". If you have
>problems,
>>Meade has made repair kits that are very simply to make the repair,
>>taking only a few minutes. If you can operate the LX-200, you can
>make
>>all the necessary repairs as far as replacements, dont worry. The
>>Refactor woes always brings this type of post and it like the Chicken
>>Little symdrone, or the Domino effect (take your pick). Everyone is
>now
>>going to worry about every little (big) sound the scope makes when
>its
>>slewing. Our club has 250 members with 25% owning LX-200s with very
>>little repair problems.
>>
>>
>>ric
>
>I really dont want to start a flame war here, but I simply cant
>agree
>with you Ric.
>
>I have been on this list for maybe two years now, and for all that
>time I
>have owned a 100% perfectly functioning LX200. No complaints
>whatsoever.
>
>HOWEVER
>
>In that time I have seen enough posts about real optical and
>electronic
>problems with the LX200 to convince me that I am seeing more than a
>random
>cross section of "expected" failures. To compound the issue, Meade
>will
>not provide any service information to allow me or anyone else to
>determine
>for ourselves whether there is a design problem and come up with a
>solution. Our only recourse is to return the scope or its electronics
>to
>Meade for repair. Which hides forever the true cause of the failure.
>Only
>Meade knows for sure. We are left to speculate.
>
>Plus, for an out of warranty scope, that repair kit is not a trivial
>cost,
>especially if the faiure was minor and could have been easily fixed
>with a
>little service info. Like a schematic.
>
>So lets be real here. Without more input from someone on the outside
>that
>has looked into the design and the failure rate, what I have seen here
>says
>to me that the failure rate for this lovely complicated piece of
>electro-mechanical equipment is significantly higher than the failure
>rate
>for other well engineered electro-mechanical devices. Like, say, your
>VCR.
>
>And we havent even mentioned the deplorable 416XT situation. If I
>had
>bought one of those, I would have been really mad!
>
>So Ric, I know you are trying to provide balance here, but you cant
>do it
>by sweeping under the rug all the real problems that folks have had.
>Now
>if you had a pipeline to Meade and could tell us what was really
>failing on
>the board sets that were returned to Meade for repair, that would be
>of big
>help and if they were indeed random, could allay some fears.......
>
>My opinion only. Take it for what it is worth.
>
>
>Paul Goelz
>Rochester Hills, MI
>pgoelz@eaglequest.com
>
>
