Say no to refractors (10th anniversary posting)
barney
Remember this? 10 years ago today...
From: "Shawn Grant"
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Sent: Sunday 04 July 1999
Subject: Say no to refractors
There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over
any other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is
the refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and
foremost they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then
any other telescope. They are big and bulky. They take a lot of space
to store and are hard to transport. Because of the high price and
their long length they generally have a small aperture. Remember the
larger the aperture the more light collected and better resolution.
What other alternatives are there? There are plenty and all better at
the task and better value for your money. For Planetary observing a
long f/ratio 6" to 10" Newtonian on an equatorial mount with top
quality optics is hard to beat. The images of the planets are
comparable to a refractor of equal or smaller in size. They cost a
quite a bit less then the same size or even a much smaller refractor.
The same scope is great for astrophotography and CCD imaging as well.
For deep Sky observing a large aperture dobsonian can't be beat. There
are many dobsonians with very high quality optics. StarMaster and
Obsession make great dobs. Compare the price of a high quality dob
with that of a quality refractor. Which is a better value. You can get
a 12" or even a 16" dob for less then some 6" refractors. When it
comes to deep sky observing it is aperture aperture aperture coupled
with optical quality. That can easily be achieved with a dob at a
better value.
Some people are casual observers. They enjoy planets, deep sky and
perhaps CCD imaging or astrophotography but not to serious at it. They
want a portable scope to take with them anywhere. The 8" to 10" SCT is
an excellent choice. The larger SCTs make excellent scopes in your
observatory and are portable to the hardy few. An SCT is a better
general purpose scope then a refractor and a much better value. Given
that a refractor is a poor choice for everything then why do people
buy them? Some are simply ignorant. They don't understand there are
much better alternatives. Purchasing a Newtonian or SCT that best fits
your interest easily remedies this.
Others are not happy unless they spend the most money possible on a
telescope. They have to spend as much possible per aperture. It makes
them feel better. They enjoy going around bragging that they spent
lots of money. It gives them the illusion of power and happiness. This
is a serious mental illness that needs to be addressed immediately.
Please correct this by seeking psychiatric help. After much medication
and therapy you will be cured of this. You can enjoy astronomy better
with your new Newtonian or SCT.
In closing Newtonians and SCT are much more rewarding for all types of
astronomy and lots kinder on your bank account. I hope you learn from
this and do not fall into the refractor trap. There are only two
reasons to buy a refractor and those are ignorance or a serious mental
illness.
Sam Wormley
Oh the irony--Shawn is a photographer and used refractor lenses
to do photography.
:-)
Curtis Croulet
> any other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is
> the refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and
> foremost they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then
> any other telescope. They are big and bulky. They take a lot of space
> to store and are hard to transport. Because of the high price and
> their long length they generally have a small aperture. Remember the
> larger the aperture the more light collected and better resolution.
I've only owned one quality refractor in my entire life (TV-85, which I
still have). My other scopes have been (and still are) Newts, SCT,
Mak-Cass. But I often wonder about comments like the one quoted. I've read
similar comments within the past year in this forum. Who do these guys
think they are -- my mom, trying to control her kids' expenditures? Why
does Shawn or anyone else feel compelled to give gratuitous, finger-wagging
advice on how we should spend our money? If he (they) hate refractors and
want something else, that's fine. My own choice should be of no importance
to them. Aside from that, aperture isn't the only reason for selecting a
telescope. Just this past weekend, several of us took time out from our
usual CCD and planetary imaging to look for Antares' companion. The only
scope that showed it, and quite clearly, was a 6-inch APO refractor -- not
mine, unfortunately. It defeated various Newts and SCTs, including my own
10-inch SCT.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
Davoud
> Remember this? 10 years ago today...
Not that specific post, but I remember what a pathetic character he
was. I also pitied him for having to go through life advertising the
fact that his parents didn't know how to spell Sean.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Quadibloc
> There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over
> any other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is
> the refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and
> foremost they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then
> any other telescope.
If, however, your observing interests are such that a telescope with
an aperture of 50mm or 2 inches is suitable, the central obstruction
of a Newtonian of that aperture with an eyepiece of reasonable size
would be excessive.
For apertures of 6 inches or above, there is no question that it would
be very difficult to find a reason to recommend the refractor
telescope. Even at a four-inch aperture, refractors indeed are very
expensive compared to the other alternatives. But by the time you get
down to 3 inches or so, the picture changes.
John Savard
L.A.T.
"barney" <bar...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:013af618-89f6-4bbb...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Remember this? 10 years ago today...
>
>
> From: "Shawn Grant"
> Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
> Sent: Sunday 04 July 1999
> Subject: Say no to refractors
>
Chris.Bee
Newt.
Those who enjoy fuzzy views and hours of cooling down should look no
further than a Mak or Schmidt Cass,
Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and
knees should look no further than a refractor.
Which of these represents a true image of the average instrument or
the typical observer?
Does any instrument avoid refraction in its make-up?
Does any instrument completely avoid reflection?
'Nuff said.
Shawn of the Dead. RIP.
Thomas Womack
Curtis Croulet <calypte@**NO**SPAM**verizon.net> wrote:
> Aside from that, aperture isn't the only reason for selecting a
> telescope. Just this past weekend, several of us took time out from our
> usual CCD and planetary imaging to look for Antares' companion. The only
> scope that showed it, and quite clearly, was a 6-inch APO refractor -- not
> mine, unfortunately. It defeated various Newts and SCTs, including my own
> 10-inch SCT.
Did anyone try to look for the companion by lucky-imaging with a
webcam in planetary mode? Perhaps at three arc-seconds distance and
six magnitudes brightness difference you'd have to do some kind of
PSF fitting on Antares, which would start to feel much more like hard
work.
(what's the sensible unambiguously-single star to use as a PSF
reference in that part of the sky?)
Tom
Curtis Croulet
> webcam in planetary mode? Perhaps at three arc-seconds distance and
> six magnitudes brightness difference you'd have to do some kind of
> PSF fitting on Antares, which would start to feel much more like hard
> work.
No. The point of the effort was to see the star visually.
Curtis Croulet
> further than a Mak or Schmidt Cass,
I haven't found cooldown to be much of an issue, and I observe and image
from places where at least a 30 deg F drop is typical after sunset. By the
time I've done a drift alignment and the camera is cooled and I've shot a
few darks, the scope is close to its operating temperature for the night.
This is with (usually) an MK-66 Mak-Cass. And it doesn't give "fuzzy
views." I didn't use it the particular night we were looking at Antares
mentioned in my earlier post. The 10-inch SCT's stars were, however,
significantly inferior to the 6-inch APO.
> Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and
> knees should look no further than a refractor.
Huh? Maybe your scope and mount.
Marty
> into the refractor trap. There are only
> two reasons to buy a refractor and those
> are ignorance or a serious mental
> illness.
Y'know, with the way this group has deteriorated, I actually miss
creative trolls like Shawn with his Andy Kaufmanesque sense of humor.
Marty
Chris.Bee
wrote:
>
> > Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and
> > knees should look no further than a refractor.
>
> Huh? Maybe your scope and mount.
> --
> Curtis Croulet
> Temecula, California
Au contrair, mon ami:
http://fullerscopes.blogspot.com/
My comment was a dig at re-labelled Chinese refractors.
oriel36
How can people who believe in the astronomical equivalent of a flat
Earth deteriorate further.
You are into constellation observing yet cannot explain why Orion has
disappeared from view and astrologers insist that seasonal difference
are due to 'axial tilt' and can't interpret imaging which shows that
it is the specific way that the Earth orbits the Sun.
What about twilight variations at different latitudes where the person
at the Equator,moving at 69.17 miles every 4 minutes rockets into the
orbital shadow and day goes to night like a switch whereas Northern
latitudes due to the slower rotation,the twilight is a long drawn out
affair.
In two sentences you learn something new which has never been
explained properly due to the fact that you are just another
complaining astrologer who uses a 'sidereal time' value for daily
rotation which uses daily rotation to explain constellational motion
and takes no account of planetary shape and rotation.
Trolls?,you are all mindless trolls with a severe dislike for
astronomy,that is not a personal insult but something has must be true
given the level at which the most basic fact is disputed.
John Henderson
Me too. Shawn changed my life. I used to be an APO owner who would
turn up at star parties just to brag about how much money I had. Shawn
showed me the light. I also used to have an overpriced Macintosh, and
thanks to Shawn's guidance, I switched to Windows the best OS in the
world period. Windows is freedom.
Marty
etc, etc,) was saying
>Me too. Shawn changed my life.
Hey, Shawn! How y'doin'?
Marty
Sam Wormley
Rick
"Chris.Bee" <chr...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:5cc2305b-27d2-4958...@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and
> knees should look no further than a refractor.
That's what telescoping legs and a lightweight folding stool are for.
Rick
Chris.Bee
>
> > "Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and
> > knees should look no further than a refractor."
>
> That's what telescoping legs and a lightweight folding stool are for.
>
> Rick
Really? I thought that was why most Americans had empty swimming
pools.
(to give them somewhere to stand so they could reach the eyepiece of
their Meade refractors with some remaining dignity) :-)
Quadibloc
> Really? I thought that was why most Americans had empty swimming
> pools.
> (to give them somewhere to stand so they could reach the eyepiece of
> their Meade refractors with some remaining dignity) :-)
And here I thought that this was because the United States was running
out of fresh water, which is why it has laws that force new toilets to
have such small tanks that they're hard to flush properly.
All because some Communist agents poisoned the Canadian political
climate so that it has become impossible to get the people to accept
NAWAPA, which would have brought much-needed money to Canada, and also
benefited Canada by making a more prosperous, and therefore a bigger
and stronger United States, so we could be even safer against being
invaded by Russia, China, or the terrorists. Canadians need to cast
off Communist brainwashing!
John Savard
wsne...@hotmail.com
> barney wrote:
> > Remember this? 10 years ago today...
>
> Not that specific post, but I remember what a pathetic character he
> was. I also pitied him for having to go through life advertising the
> fact that his parents didn't know how to spell Sean.
>
> Davoud
???
> --
> usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
They probably knew how to spell Sean, but chose to name him Shawn,
instead of Sean, Jean, John, Ivan, Juan, Giovanni, Johannes, etc., or
Sue.
wsne...@hotmail.com
You have to remember that his rants were posted at a time when
refractor-bigotry was at an all-time high.
Dave Typinski
>
>On Jul 6, 12:27�am, "Chris.Bee" <chri...@mail.dk> wrote:
>
>> Really? I thought that was why most Americans had empty swimming
>> pools.
>> (to give them somewhere to stand so they could reach the eyepiece of
>> their Meade refractors with some remaining dignity) :-)
>
>And here I thought that this was because the United States was running
>out of fresh water,
That's a fact. Many pools in the Southeast have gone unfilled not
from the economy being poor, but due to water use restrictions. That's
eased up this year with all the rain, but in 2007 and 2008, it was a
serious issue.
We do, of course, have the Great Lakes, the largest body of fresh
water outside of the polar glaciers and Lake Baikal. We don't have
the infrastructure to use them to supply the nation's potable water.
But we will, gradually, as demand exceeds the capacity of the aquifers
by an ever greater amount.
Unfortunately, the price of water will increase dramatically.
>which is why it has laws that force new toilets to
>have such small tanks that they're hard to flush properly.
Yep. I've always wondered why, if you have to flush two or three
times to get the job done, that's reducing comsumption how? Same for
those stupid low-flow shower heads. They're fine if you take them
apart and drill a 3/8" hole in the flow restrictor orfice.
--
Dave
Andrew Smallshaw
I agree: it seems a curious accusation to me. It is Dobs where
you have the perennial problem of the eyepiece being in the wrong
place. On no other scope type do you need to kneel on the ground
(or sit on a tiny stool) for one observation and climb a ladder
for the next.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
Rick Evans
On Jul 5, 10:45 pm, "Rick" <r...@nospammers.not> wrote:
>>
>> > "Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and
>> > knees should look no further than a refractor."
>>
> That's what telescoping legs and a lightweight folding stool are for.
>Really? I thought that was why most Americans had empty swimming
>pools.
You need to get away from Google Earth.
--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71� 05'
Lat +42� 11'
Brian Tung
> Remember this? 10 years ago today...
>
> From: "Shawn Grant"
Wow. I never would have thought it, but this guy is just
as effective a troll now (when he hasn't been active in
years) as he was way back when.
I wish the marine layer would just go away. This has been
the worst year in Santa Monica since 2000.
--
Brian Tung <br...@lunabase.org> (posting from Google Groups)
The Astronomy Corner at http://www.astronomycorner.net/
Unofficial C5+ Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
My PleiadAtlas Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ at http://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html
jerry warner
barney wrote:
> Remember this? 10 years ago today...
>
> From: "Shawn Grant"
> Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
> Sent: Sunday 04 July 1999
> Subject: Say no to refractors
>
> There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over
> any other type of telescope.
Funny. You go on Letterman.