Wavefront Web Pages Updated with Review of AP Mak
Fred & Julie Burger
the time to write up and send in a truly superb review of the
Astro-Physics prototype Maksutov-Cassegrain.
I have added Thomas Back's outstanding review along with a few
other items. Massive thanks to everyone who has been so kind as to
send me information and pictures to post and share with everyone,
please keep it coming, thanks!
Best Wishes,
Julie :-)
f...@sos.net
Wavefront Web Pages - A web site for Maksutov users
http://www.sos.net/~fjb/Q1.htm
TMBack
>In the review Thomas says "The dream of an affordable
>(relative to Questar), large aperture Mak-Cassegrain,
>with the highest levels of performance, without all the
>pitfalls of previous Mak-Cassegrains, makes this
>telescope irresistible." This leads one to conclude that
>an asking price has been established for the scope. If
>so what is the price?
Brian,
No price has been set, however it would be safe to
say that the price should be somewhere around 1/2
the cost of a new Questar 7. That's not a price quote,
just a general price estimate. You, I, and everyone
else will just have to wait to find out the actual price.
I would like to add something to my review. It has
come to my attention that someone has disputed some
of what I wrote, in particular, the statement about coma
correction in spherical Mak-Cassegrains. I was speaking
of the classic Mak-Cass: The Gregory spot Mak. Now an
optical designer can always add additional degrees of
freedom in any design, and control coma. And I have
designs with conics, higher order aspherics, R2 and R4
with different radii, and secondary spacings that do just
that. But they all come with a price of greater complexity
and cost. The key is to find a design that has greater
aberration control than the Gregory Mak, but is a
makeable production product. Both Roland and Valery
D. of ARIES have designed and manufactured Mak-
Cassegrains that meet this goal.
Thomas Back
AndersonRM
> This leads one to conclude that an asking
>price has been established for the scope. If so what is the price?
>
>
You mean it wasn't in the ad?
-Rich
"Clinton's behaviour or politics shouldn't suprise
anyone familiar with Southern-American
"backwater" politics." Clinton-The "Huey Long"
of the Whitehouse.
WHALEN44
What ad? You mean the review by Thomas? I would not call that a ad by any
means. When someone reviews a Meade and gives it a great review, do you call
that a ad? I think your anti AP bias is showing again. And if you are refering
to some actual advertisement in a magazine etc. which one?
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan
Fred & Julie Burger
would provide information just as soon as he had something definite.
Please forgive my positive attitude. What's with you guys, you throw a
fit if someone says something negative and then throw twice the fit
when they post something positive. You can really tell when someone is
addicted to flaming when they have to put someone down for saying
something nice. :-)
AndersonRM
In article <19981028120052...@ng100.aol.com>, whal...@aol.com
(WHALEN44) writes:
>What ad? You mean the review by Thomas? I would not call that a ad by any
>means. When someone reviews a Meade and gives it a great review, do you call
>that a ad?
No, i'm just joking. But, isn't it funny how an endorsement can be construed
as "advertising" when there is no tangible reason to believe that? However,
giving a known telescope expert first look at a new design is hardly likely
to have been done just for fun on Roland's part. If Mr. Bach comes out and
basically says the scope is top-notch, you can bet his word alone is going
to sell alot of those Maks.
samw...@my-dejanews.com
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
> If Mr. Bach comes out and
> basically says the scope is top-notch, you can bet his word alone is going
> to sell alot of those Maks.
Johann Sebastian?? Was he into astronomy too? Don't think he had the chance
to play with one of Roland's scope before passing.
Stew
> -Rich
> "Clinton's behaviour or politics shouldn't suprise
> anyone familiar with Southern-American
> "backwater" politics." Clinton-The "Huey Long"
> of the Whitehouse.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
WHALEN44
as "advertising" when there is no tangible reason to believe that?>>
Only by you (joking)
However, giving a known telescope expert first look at a new design is hardly
likely to have been done just for fun on Roland's part.>>
I believe Thomas Back evaluated it at astrofest along with several dozen
otheres who had a chance to view through it. I could be wrong about the when
part, though I heard it was there. I think you must watch X-files to much,
always trying to find hidden agendas & motives.
<< If Mr. Bach comes out and basically says the scope is top-notch, you can
bet his word alone is going to sell alot of those Maks. >>>-Rich>>
And by the same token, what if he came out and found them lacking in some way?
Showing your prototype to several well know and knowledgable observers can be a
double edge sword. Roland obviously has enough confidence in his product to do
this and get feedback from others before going into full scale production.
Would'nt it be nice if Meade and Celestron did this instead of dumping poorly
designed scopes on the market, and only fixing them after a year or two?
And your right, Mr. Backs word and opinion does carry some weight, though I
don't think Roland "needs" it to sell his products. I for one asked Roland to
put me on the list for one (as soon as there is a list) before the review came
out.
Brian Murphy
People on this newsgroup often venture an opinion as to the quality of an
equipment review. Most of the equipment reviews published in Sky &
Telescope and Astronomy garner a few opines here on SAA as to their
merit. My comments were nothing more or less. I don't consider that a
"flame" at all.
Brian
Jeff Morgan
(WHALEN44) wrote:
>
> I believe Thomas Back evaluated it at astrofest along with several dozen
> otheres who had a chance to view through it. I could be wrong about the when
> part, though I heard it was there. I think you must watch X-files to much,
> always trying to find hidden agendas & motives.
>
Richard,
The AP Mak-Newt (or an AP Mak-Newt) was at Astrofest. I'm sure a hundred
people looked thru it, including myself.
Hard to do critical comparisons when the lines are long, but my looks at
M13 and Jupiter were very impressive. The Mak was clearly better on M13,
and I thought every bit as good as the refractors on Jupiter. (There were
s.a.a. posts from half a dozen others at Astrofest who disagreed with me
on the planetary performance.)
--
Jeff Morgan
email: substitute mindspring for nospam
WHALEN44
I think we are talking about a Maksutov Cassegrain. Did you see one their?
AndersonRM
>And by the same token, what if he came out and found them lacking in some
>way? Showing your prototype to several well know and knowledgable observers
>can be a double edge sword. Roland obviously has enough confidence in his
>product to do this and get feedback from others before going into full scale
>production.
A "Double edged sword" when he has enough confidence to be sure the
review will be positive? I think that's a contradiction or at most, a remote
possibility.
>Would'nt it be nice if Meade and Celestron did this instead of dumping poorly
>designed scopes on the market, and only fixing them after a year or two?
You mean instead of selling 8 inch SCT's for $999 to $2700, they should
up the price to $8000 in order to be sure noted telescope reviewers
give good reviews? That would certainly cut alot of people off from a
decent (if not the highest quality) supply of telescopes, wouldn't it? I'd
venture that despite optical excellence at the $8000 price point, the 8 inch
SCT would cease to be the most bought amateur telescope in the world.
-Rich
Since when did "no problem"
replace "you're welcome" in
restaurants?
AndersonRM
In article <jeffmorgan-29...@207.205.143.124>, jeffm...@nospam.com
(Jeff Morgan) writes:
> (There were
>s.a.a. posts from half a dozen others at Astrofest who disagreed with me
>on the planetary performance.)
And this really amazes me. Whenever i've observed with people,
their has always been unanimity on which scope performed
the best on planets. There is never any question as most people
have decent eyesight or eyesight made decent by correction.
Why would there be any question as to which scope (refractor
or mak) performed the best on planets? This is where I see biases
creep in that should not be there.
For instance; Say Roland comes out with his big Mak at $6000 to
$10000 for the OTA. Then, say the Russians start bringing in similar
Maks at $3000 to $5000. I can almost 100% guarantee you that if the
Russian Mak performed as well or better, there would STILL be AP fans
or owners who would steadfastly insist the AP was superior. That is the
type of non-objectivity we can all do without since we might very well
base our next purchases on the words of some of these people.
The situation could well be reversed. All I can say is that if I look through
an AP Mak, TEC Mak, Russian Mak or Meade Mak, the one that produces
the BEST image is the one i'll want and if the others fall short, i'd mention
that they had. Then, i'll BUY the best one I can based on
performance, price and availability to differing extents.
lude...@my-dejanews.com
Hi Rich,
nice report, which I must fully underline. Not the company who make the best
scope or accessories sells the best, the company with the more famous
reputation sells anyway better.
Sample: We can find ultrahigh offers for zeiss ABBE eyepieces, but only
standart offers for higher quality pentax orthos.
Markus
>
> Since when did "no problem"
> replace "you're welcome" in
> restaurants?
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Todd Gross
>The AP Mak-Newt (or an AP Mak-Newt) was at Astrofest. I'm sure a hundred
>people looked thru it, including myself.
>Hard to do critical comparisons when the lines are long, but my looks at
>M13 and Jupiter were very impressive. The Mak was clearly better on M13,
>and I thought every bit as good as the refractors on Jupiter. (There were
>s.a.a. posts from half a dozen others at Astrofest who disagreed with me
>on the planetary performance.)
thanks for the post Jeff
DBogan3220
>And this really amazes me. Whenever i've observed with people,
>their has always been unanimity on which scope performed
>the best on planets. There is never any question as most people
>have decent eyesight or eyesight made decent by correction.
>Why would there be any question as to which scope (refractor
>or mak) performed the best on planets? This is where I see biases
>creep in that should not be there.
>For instance; Say Roland comes out with his big Mak at $6000 to
>$10000 for the OTA. Then, say the Russians start bringing in similar
>Maks at $3000 to $5000. I can almost 100% guarantee you that if the
>Russian Mak performed as well or better, there would STILL be AP fans
>or owners who would steadfastly insist the AP was superior. That is the
>type of non-objectivity we can all do without since we might very well
>base our next purchases on the words of some of these people.
>The situation could well be reversed. All I can say is that if I look
>through
>an AP Mak, TEC Mak, Russian Mak or Meade Mak, the one that produces
>the BEST image is the one i'll want and if the others fall short, i'd mention
>that they had. Then, i'll BUY the best one I can based on
>performance, price and availability to differing extents.
>-Rich
>
So what are you trying to imply Rich that the AP scope is not going to
deliver a decent image just because the Russian scopes are cheaper they have to
be better:-) Oh a BTW how do you know what the price of the proposed AP Maks
are going to be? You of course have been corresponding with Roland on the
matter.
Lets see. . .from what I understand Rolands Maks use a Quartz primary
and the Russian scopes use Sital. Ive been considering a Russian 9 inch Mak so
I've been looking into this, BTW TEC uses Sital as well. From what I understand
about Sital vs Quartz, Quartz would be the better material to use because of
its ability to give up heat better. Since I have not seen Rolands Mak I don't
know if the tube assembly is vented to the outside. The Russiam Maks are sealed
systems and are not vented so you well need to open the back of the scope
tipping the eyepiece end up to the sky and let the warm air in the tube leak
out to help speed the thermal equalization process along. After about an hour
of this you should have a usable scope. I do this right now with my Quantum 6
Mak everytime I take it out, this process takes about forty-five minutes for
my scope, BTW the mirror on my Mak is pyrex. After my Q-6 is thermally
stabilized, the optics perform very well comparable to my AP130 edf and at a
recent Star Party that I attended a Takahashi eight inch Cass and a 6inch F9
planetary Newt both owners admitted that my Quantum six had the advantage at
least for this night :-) This was observing Jupiter and Saturn several weekends
ago. Since I know that Pyex takes longer than Quartz but less time than Sital
to become thermally stable I would say that quartz would be the better choice.
Lets continue. . .
Now from what I have been able to infer from the Newsgroups and Thomas
Backs review of Roland's Mak his scope giving excellent images early on without
having to go through this silly tipping the back end of the scope to let the
warm air out routine as I currenty do with my Mak, hmmmm maybe I should wait
for the the AP Mak to become available. :-)
You know Rich since by reputation alone you are against AP scopes in
general. The AP scopes got to be good :-)
Well I've got to get ready for work now we can continue this latter
Clear Skies
Dwight L Bogan
Glenmore F. Wong
This is where I see biases
> creep in that should not be there.
That is the
> type of non-objectivity we can all do without since we might very well
> base our next purchases on the words of some of these people.
> -Rich
>
This, from the guy with the infamous "Meade testimonial".
glenmore
tri...@my-dejanews.com
Intes/Intes-Micro. All of them have ventillation fans.
--
Jim McSheehy
> DBogan3220 wrote:
> Since I have not seen Rolands Mak I don't
> know if the tube assembly is vented to the outside. The Russiam Maks are sealed
> systems and are not vented so you well need to open the back of the scope
> tipping the eyepiece end up to the sky and let the warm air in the tube leak
> out to help speed the thermal equalization process along. After about an hour
> of this you should have a usable scope.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
WHALEN44
possibility.>>
If you were there I'm sure you would have slammed his new scope first chance
you got. Remember, Thomas wasn't the only person to look through it. And are
you implying that Thomas would not report what he saw, whether good or bad?
>You mean instead of selling 8 inch SCT's for $999 to $2700, they should up the
price to $8000 in order to be sure noted telescope reviewers give good
reviews?>>
This is getting really stupid Rich, of coarse they can keep the price the same,
as they have done. My beef with Meade is that they often release new scopes or
equipment that still has a lot of bugs to be worked out, and they know it. They
don't care that the poor slob who is buying his first scope (that has been
saving for 5 years to get it) is getting a bad scope, because more often than
not they will not know the difference. Only after being frustrated to no end
and a couple of years of learning will he find out his optics are really bad
etc. and by then it's to late to return the scope.
And what makes you think it would cost $8,000 for Meade or Celestron to produce
a decent SCT? Could it be because for $ 2,700 they can't? Are you saying that
Meades SCT are poor scopes with poor optics? Takahashi produced a 9" SCT
several years ago that was a excellent scope for less than 8 grand. And whats
the difference between that $999 SCT and the $2,700 SCT? If the tube assemblies
are the same (which they claim to be) do you really think it cost them $1,700
more for the better mount or electronics? More like $200. It's a marketing
ripoff. They could easily spend a extra $500 on the upper end scopes to insure
proper mechanics and optical performance, and still sell them for $2,700.
bro...@my-dejanews.com
I am sure Rich "Legend In His Own Mind" Anderson was not referring to his own
biases, just his faulty perception of everyone else's. It's the old "Do as I
say, not as I do".
--
Kevin Brown
Burke, VA
AndersonRM
In article <19981030110856...@ng82.aol.com>, whal...@aol.com
(WHALEN44) writes:
>>A "Double edged sword" when he has enough confidence to be sure the review
>will be positive? I think that's a ontradiction or at most, a remote
>possibility.>>
>
>If you were there I'm sure you would have slammed his new scope first chance
>you got. Remember, Thomas wasn't the only person to look through it. And are
>you implying that Thomas would not report what he saw, whether good or bad?
That's where you are dead wrong. I don't care who makes the scope,
as long as it's demonstrably good. I've already said AP's top of the line
(no longer in production as a regular item) 7 inch was the best
refractor i'd ever seen. My beef is with people who buy and defend AP
because they want to impress their friends and keep up with them in
the amateur astronomy "Joneses" race.
>>You mean instead of selling 8 inch SCT's for $999 to $2700, they should up
>the
>price to $8000 in order to be sure noted telescope reviewers give good
>reviews?>>
>
>This is getting really stupid Rich, of coarse they can keep the price the
>same, as they have done.
You are living in complete dreamland. You might get a top notch SCT
once in awhile at their current price point, but you will not be
guaranteed of it. I've said this before. This is the same as people
who think $1000 6inch Intes Mak OTA's will be a consistently good
as 7 inch Questars. Even with the starvation wages in Russian,
it isn't going to happen.
> Only after being frustrated to no end
>and a couple of years of learning will he find out his optics are really bad
>etc. and by then it's to late to return the scope.
Wasn't I the one who said, "you've got to work to get a top notch SCT
from either Celestron or Meade? What's your point??
Two years to find out optics aren't any good?? Does this person even
CARE whether they are good or not??
>a decent SCT? Could it be because for $ 2,700 they can't? Are you saying that
>Meades SCT are poor scopes with poor optics? Takahashi produced a 9" SCT
>several years ago that was a excellent scope for less than 8 grand. And whats
>the difference between that $999 SCT and the $2,700 SCT? If the tube
>assemblies
>are the same (which they claim to be) do you really think it cost them $1,700
>more for the better mount or electronics? More like $200.
You obviously do not understand the cost of electronics development. But
hey, if you can program a 20,000 gate ASIC, Motorola microprocessors and
about 500 support components to track 64,000 objects, go ahead and beat Meade
at the price game. Good luck! It took Celestron over FIVE YEARS!
Your arguments are completely unrealistic.
-Rich
AndersonRM
>Sample: We can find ultrahigh offers for zeiss ABBE eyepieces, but only
>standart offers for higher quality pentax orthos.
Sad but true.
AndersonRM
>I am sure Rich "Legend In His Own Mind" Anderson was not referring to his own
>biases, just his faulty perception of everyone else's. It's the old "Do as I
>say, not as I do".
Like I said, i've criticized or praised almost EVERY telescope maker in
business and i'll go with whoever does the best job-period. I have nothing
but contempt for people who buy scopes based on "status," especially
those who know NOTHING about amateur astronomy.
Please note I don't consider you in that group.
lude...@my-dejanews.com
> Lets see. . .from what I understand Rolands Maks use a Quartz primary
> and the Russian scopes use Sital. Ive been considering a Russian 9 inch Mak so
> I've been looking into this, BTW TEC uses Sital as well. From what I
understand
> about Sital vs Quartz, Quartz would be the better material to use because of
> its ability to give up heat better.
All here like to understand why an Quarz Mak is better than an Sital Mak, did
you all ever compared it side by side ? No! So how you can be shure, that all
this discussed theory, which is not physicaly confirmed, works ? I know
individual reports where the mak from AP performs perfect , but on other side
i know of same reports from Russian maks with Sital. My 10" Mak-Newt. on
Stellafane had had zero problems with cooldown and it used an Sital mirror.
Allen Chans 8" Sital Mak-Newt. have had no problem anymore after 1 hour cool
down, I am personly using an 16" Sital and I have zero problem with cooling
effects. Maybe Quarz is mostly used as an sales argument ? From our
experience in observing under sky, Sital has no unadvantage and no problems
with cooling after the main tube itself is cooled after short time.
Since I have not seen Rolands Mak I don't
> know if the tube assembly is vented to the outside. The Russiam Maks are
sealed
> systems and are not vented
All the Russian maksutovs , made in 1998 until now with an aperature 8" and
larger from INTES MICRO are ventilated with filters and special airspaced
internal baffle system. Here you tell to the newsgroup something wrong, but
because most never saw such Russian Maks, they believe you and tell same to
here friends. Please dont spread informations about russian scopes which are
wrong.
so you well need to open the back of the scope
> tipping the eyepiece end up to the sky and let the warm air in the tube leak
> out to help speed the thermal equalization process along.
I never heard something like this from an Russian scope user !
After about an hour
> of this you should have a usable scope. I do this right now with my Quantum 6
> Mak everytime I take it out, this process takes about forty-five minutes for
> my scope, BTW the mirror on my Mak is pyrex. After my Q-6 is thermally
> stabilized, the optics perform very well comparable to my AP130 edf and at a
> recent Star Party that I attended a Takahashi eight inch Cass and a 6inch F9
> planetary Newt both owners admitted that my Quantum six had the advantage at
> least for this night :-) This was observing Jupiter and Saturn several
weekends
> ago. Since I know that Pyex takes longer than Quartz but less time than Sital
> to become thermally stable I would say that quartz would be the better choice.
> Lets continue. . .
Its only theorie.
Please make an side by side test, before you make such an decision .
>
> Now from what I have been able to infer from the Newsgroups and Thomas
> Backs review of Roland's Mak his scope giving excellent images early on
without
> having to go through this silly tipping the back end of the scope to let the
> warm air out routine as I currenty do with my Mak, hmmmm maybe I should wait
> for the the AP Mak to become available. :-)
How many AP maks has been reported ? 1 pc custommade demo 8.2" Mak-Cass. and 1
pc 9" Mak-Newt.
Please think: this are custommade scopes to test and show on starpartys.Do you
think, that each sold scope will have the same optical quality as the
demoscopes?
How difficult is it to keep an high quality in mak-telescopes? It is of the
same difficulty as in Apos.What do we know about this famous Apos? We have
heard a few reports from friends of such manufactors , here we can be nearly
very shure , that they have gotten an selected high quality scope , but how
about the quality of the serial production ? All i can say about the quality
of serial production of Russians: We sold in past 7 years thousands of them ,
each , one by one retested in germany , by us and optic centers and the
result was that even the opticcenters say, that they never before tested
serial production scopes from any other manufactors, who have had so close
quality from one to the next scope. What sense does it make to use " maybe "
the better rawmaterial, if the quality range is maybe to wide ? Because of
such reasons, Rich wrote here his impression , which i can fully underline.
Serious astronomers are not interested who make here telescopes, they are
interested to get for what they paid. Markus
>
> You know Rich since by reputation alone you are against AP scopes in
> general. The AP scopes got to be good :-)
>
> Well I've got to get ready for work now we can continue this latter
>
> Clear Skies
> Dwight L Bogan
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
lude...@my-dejanews.com
> This is the same as people
> who think $1000 6inch Intes Mak OTA's will be a consistently good
> as 7 inch Questars. Even with the starvation wages in Russian,
> it isn't going to happen.
Rich,
all i can tell you, is that the standart quality of an 6" INTES Mak-Cass will
be the same level in each scope , around 1/6 wave p.t.v. and 1/35~1/40 RMS,
even if you buy hundrets of them and give them all for testing you will be in
that level. I dont know about Questar Quality claims and consistently , but I
know it for shure about INTES.
Markus
> -Rich
>
> Since when did "no problem"
> replace "you're welcome" in
> restaurants?
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Stewart Squires
> all i can tell you, is that the standart quality of an 6" INTES Mak-Cass will
> be the same level in each scope , around 1/6 wave p.t.v. and 1/35~1/40 RMS,
> even if you buy hundrets of them and give them all for testing you will be in
> that level. I dont know about Questar Quality claims and consistently , but I
> know it for shure about INTES.
Questar guarantees 1/8th wave PV system performance and has since at
least 1991 according to my records. And they also offer 1/15th wave or
better on the 3.5.
Stew
Starstuff
>How many AP maks has been reported ? 1 pc custommade demo 8.2" Mak-Cass. and 1
>pc 9" Mak-Newt.
Over a year ago I saw Mak-Cass. The owner said it was made by Roland
Christen and I have no reason to doubt that claim. The scope had an
aperture of around 8" and a two element (air spaced) miniscus
corrector (I saw the reflections off each air-glass surface). The
owner (who's eye surgery has resulted in color sensitivity beyond the
norm) stated that the color correction was better than any APO he has
looked thru. I had only a brief look at the moon, under poor seeing,
at low power with a bino viewer so cannot say anything worthwhile
concerning optical quality.
IIRC, this 'RC made' Mak may have had a fairly fast f-ratio.
I believe Roland, unlike many, learns valuable lessons from each Mak
he has built. I have no doubt that when he releases his Maks for
public consumption that performance will be at a consistently high
level.
>Please think: this are custommade scopes to test and show on starpartys.Do you
>think, that each sold scope will have the same optical quality as the
>demoscopes?
Once he starts selling the Maks, yes, I'm sure the optical quality
will be at a high enough level (consistently) to make them worthy of
ownership. His APOs have consistently high optical quality (I own
one), why wouldn't his Maks?
David A. Silva
>All here like to understand why an Quarz Mak is better than an Sital Mak, did
>you all ever compared it side by side ? No! So how you can be shure,
I believe Roland posted that *in his results* quartz was preferable for
cooldown and polish reasons. He has used other primary substrates. In this
aspect at least - primary mirror substrate - the two of you have opposite
opinions.
-David
Please remove nothereat from the return address to reply.
Sue and Alan French
>How many AP maks has been reported ? 1 pc custommade demo 8.2" Mak-Cass.
>and 1 pc 9" Mak-Newt.
>Please think: this are custommade scopes to test and show on starpartys. Do
>you think, that each sold scope will have the same optical quality as the
>demoscopes?
Markus,
In a word, yes. I don't think Roland would have it any other way.
Why would you think otherwise? And why would you post such speculations?
Clear skies, Alan
Sue and Alan French
>How many AP maks has been reported ? 1 pc custommade demo 8.2" Mak-Cass.
>and 1 pc 9" Mak-Newt.
>Please think: this are custommade scopes to test and show on starpartys. Do
>you think, that each sold scope will have the same optical quality as the
>demoscopes?
Markus,
I forgot to ask, but are you speculating because this is how APM does
things? Are your demo scopes better than your production scopes?
Clear skies, Alan
JG
Rich was simply "blue skying" the AP price. See, when someones
uses the word "Say", it can be a clear sign of conjecture. Simply
that. No conspiracy against AP or anything like that.
Sure AP wil probably get booked up on their Maks just like their
refractors, but does that mean they are better than the competition?
I have heard people say their Taks equaled APs they were compared
to, and Taks are available from stock. As are Vixens, etc.
There is definitely a 'cult-like' following of AP, which has only recently
been rewarded with color-free performance. Before that, I think the
Taks, Zeiss, and some others probably gave less color. But folks
still flocked to get AP scopes. Now all we hear is how great AP
scopes are, how color free, etc.
Actually, it is the AP owners on this NG that make the most noise about
their scopes, not Rich. AP can stand a little devil's advocacy, I think.
Rich making some observations like this may help us all to think about
price versus performance.
So, for Rich to do some conjecture and hypothesizing is within his
right to free speech. Let's have more of that.
J. Goss
DBogan3220 wrote:
> >And this really amazes me. Whenever i've observed with people,
> >their has always been unanimity on which scope performed
> >the best on planets. There is never any question as most people
> >have decent eyesight or eyesight made decent by correction.
> >Why would there be any question as to which scope (refractor
> >or mak) performed the best on planets? This is where I see biases
> >creep in that should not be there.
> >For instance; Say Roland comes out with his big Mak at $6000 to
> >$10000 for the OTA. Then, say the Russians start bringing in similar
> >Maks at $3000 to $5000. I can almost 100% guarantee you that if the
> >Russian Mak performed as well or better, there would STILL be AP fans
> >or owners who would steadfastly insist the AP was superior. That is the
> >type of non-objectivity we can all do without since we might very well
> >base our next purchases on the words of some of these people.
> >The situation could well be reversed. All I can say is that if I look
> >through
> >an AP Mak, TEC Mak, Russian Mak or Meade Mak, the one that produces
> >the BEST image is the one i'll want and if the others fall short, i'd mention
> >that they had. Then, i'll BUY the best one I can based on
> >performance, price and availability to differing extents.
> >-Rich
> >
>
> So what are you trying to imply Rich that the AP scope is not going to
> deliver a decent image just because the Russian scopes are cheaper they have to
> be better:-) Oh a BTW how do you know what the price of the proposed AP Maks
> are going to be? You of course have been corresponding with Roland on the
> matter.
>
> Lets see. . .from what I understand Rolands Maks use a Quartz primary
> and the Russian scopes use Sital. Ive been considering a Russian 9 inch Mak so
> I've been looking into this, BTW TEC uses Sital as well. From what I understand
> about Sital vs Quartz, Quartz would be the better material to use because of
> its ability to give up heat better. Since I have not seen Rolands Mak I don't
> know if the tube assembly is vented to the outside. The Russiam Maks are sealed
> systems and are not vented so you well need to open the back of the scope
> tipping the eyepiece end up to the sky and let the warm air in the tube leak
> out to help speed the thermal equalization process along. After about an hour
> of this you should have a usable scope. I do this right now with my Quantum 6
> Mak everytime I take it out, this process takes about forty-five minutes for
> my scope, BTW the mirror on my Mak is pyrex. After my Q-6 is thermally
> stabilized, the optics perform very well comparable to my AP130 edf and at a
> recent Star Party that I attended a Takahashi eight inch Cass and a 6inch F9
> planetary Newt both owners admitted that my Quantum six had the advantage at
> least for this night :-) This was observing Jupiter and Saturn several weekends
> ago. Since I know that Pyex takes longer than Quartz but less time than Sital
> to become thermally stable I would say that quartz would be the better choice.
> Lets continue. . .
>
> Now from what I have been able to infer from the Newsgroups and Thomas
> Backs review of Roland's Mak his scope giving excellent images early on without
> having to go through this silly tipping the back end of the scope to let the
> warm air out routine as I currenty do with my Mak, hmmmm maybe I should wait
> for the the AP Mak to become available. :-)
>
JG
AP, Celestron, etc. etc. etc.
What's your point?
J. Goss
Glenmore F. Wong wrote:
> AndersonRM wrote:
>
> This is where I see biases
> > creep in that should not be there.
>
> That is the
> > type of non-objectivity we can all do without since we might very well
> > base our next purchases on the words of some of these people.
>
JG
DBogan3220 wrote:
>
>
> This why we have this newsgroup so we can have a forum and dig out this
> information and try not to flame each other in the process, except for Rich
> Anderson and J Goss I do have to admit I enjoy flaming those two :-)
>
But that is only because you are such a complete idiot!!! Most of those doing
all the flaming have shown themselves to be less than knowledgable but plenty
opinionated.
Believe me, I wouldn't share any optical design information with this newsgroup
since there are so many who don't deserve to learn anything new.
It is for sure that Roland is not going to hand out much of his design knowledge,
but let's see him build some scopes that just devastate the competition. So
far, he hasn't, but many of you still complain and whenever someone like
Rich speaks out, you have to try to slap him down.
Go ahead, say whatever you like on this meaningless newsgroup full of egos and
braggards. In the meantime, some of the rest of us will be off building better
scopes than we can get from Roland Christen or Markus Ludes. (unless Markus
can have his Russian friends custom build something for us...) And that is not
a wildass claim, it can be done and we will do it. Just for ourselves, just for
our own satisfaction. And your opinions and flames will be left in the dust...
J. Goss
DBogan3220
>All here like to understand why an Quarz Mak is better than an Sital Mak, did
>you all ever compared it side by side ? No! So how you can be shure, that all
Not yet! However I have observed with a TEC 8 inch Mak with a Sital pirimary at
RTMC three years ago that was when I first encountered Sital. But a definative
side by side comparison was not done. I'm still learning about this material
since I have seen it advertised, From what I understand it is a ceramic similar
to Cer-vit.
>My 10" Mak-Newt. on
>Stellafane had had zero problems with cooldown and it used an Sital mirror.
>Allen Chans 8" Sital Mak-Newt. have had no problem anymore after 1 hour cool
>down
This is certainly nice to know.
>. Maybe Quarz is mostly used as an sales argument
A few people have used Quartz before done well it is an excellent material to
make mirrors out of and oh yeah Questar had made some quartz Maks but that was
probably over twenty years ago, they also used Cer-vit and currently use
zerodur
>From our
>experience in observing under sky, Sital has no unadvantage and no problems
>with cooling after the main tube itself is cooled after short time.
This is the kind of information most of use on this newsgroup are looking for,
pratical " field experience and not some esoteric testing done in an obscure
Lab
>All the Russian maksutovs , made in 1998 until now with an aperature 8" and
>larger from INTES MICRO are ventilated with filters and special airspaced
>internal baffle system. Here you tell to the newsgroup something wrong, but
My information that I have access to is dated so I now stand corrected this
again is nice to know.
>but
>because most never saw such Russian Maks, they believe you and tell same to
>here friends. Please dont spread informations about russian scopes which are
>wrong.
This why we have this newsgroup so we can have a forum and dig out this
information and try not to flame each other in the process, except for Rich
Anderson and J Goss I do have to admit I enjoy flaming those two :-)
>Please think: this are custommade scopes to test and show on starpartys.Do
>you
>think, that each sold scope will have the same optical quality as the
>demoscopes?
So far Roland has done very well with his refractors I would say it would be a
very safe bet that he will be able to do the same with his Mak's
>Serious astronomers are not interested who make here telescopes, they are
>interested to get for what they paid. Markus
>
Yes they are!
AndersonRM
>all i can tell you, is that the standart quality of an 6" INTES Mak-Cass will
>be the same level in each scope , around 1/6 wave p.t.v. and 1/35~1/40 RMS,
>even if you buy hundrets of them and give them all for testing you will be in
>that level. I dont know about Questar Quality claims and consistently , but I
>know it for shure about INTES.
I saw the ad in Sky And Tel that said "best telescope for under $7000"
in regard to the mak-newt and I hoped it wasn't an exaggeration.
AndersonRM
In article <363B5B...@tar-palantir.com>, Stewart Squires
<squi...@tar-palantir.com> writes:
>Questar guarantees 1/8th wave PV system performance and has since at
>least 1991 according to my records. And they also offer 1/15th wave or
>better on the 3.5.
According to one source, they released a few "lemons" that didn't even
make 1/4" wave. However, I believe they were all sent back for
re-figuring.
AndersonRM
In article <363b6b6f.17150331@news>, life...@stars.end (Starstuff) writes:
>Over a year ago I saw Mak-Cass. The owner said it was made by Roland
>Christen and I have no reason to doubt that claim. The scope had an
>aperture of around 8" and a two element (air spaced) miniscus
>corrector (I saw the reflections off each air-glass surface).
An achromatic corrector?? I've only seen that on one 4 inch
Russian mak. I wonder what an 8 inch like that would cost?
AndersonRM
In article <uWlommSB#GA.150@upnetnews03>, "Sue and Alan French"
<sue_and_a...@msn.com> writes:
>In a word, yes. I don't think Roland would have it any other way.
>
>Why would you think otherwise? And why would you post such speculations?
>
>
Well, I compared older 6 inch F12 sold as a regular customer item
and a same vintage 6 inch F8 that was Roland's own scope and the
6 inch F8 beat the F12 on the planets. Since these scopes
were built before complete colour correction was possible, the F12
"should" have beaten the F8. I'm hoping the fellow who has the 6
inch F8 will be willing to sell it in the next little while. But, Roland
has also stated he won't provide interferomegrams because he
doesn't want someone with a 1/10th wave scope from feeling bad
because his friend bought the same scope which measured out at
1/12th wave. I suspect that just like Meade and Celestron, AP's scopes
vary from one another by a certain amount, these differences being
visible to some, but not to others.
For those who seem to have trouble reading correctly, I am NOT saying
the variance is as WIDE as scopes from Meade or Celestron!
lude...@my-dejanews.com
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
>
> In article <363b6b6f.17150331@news>, life...@stars.end (Starstuff) writes:
>
> >Over a year ago I saw Mak-Cass. The owner said it was made by Roland
> >Christen and I have no reason to doubt that claim. The scope had an
> >aperture of around 8" and a two element (air spaced) miniscus
> >corrector (I saw the reflections off each air-glass surface).
>
> An achromatic corrector?? I've only seen that on one 4 inch
> Russian mak. I wonder what an 8 inch like that would cost?
> -Rich
The 4" Mak is called " Rubinar 100/1000. A few years I tried to start
business with an small russian company. The shipped me such an 6"F/8 Maksutov
with douple-airspaced meniscuscorrector. Most called them Houghton Maksutov,
but the real name is " Houghton-Cassegrain". The price was very similar to
the other 6" Mak-Casse. The both lenses has been close to flat and the big
adavantage of the scope was an extra large photographic field and the
possibility to compensated the spherical aberation close to zero due changing
the space of both corrector elements. This 1 sampe , was until today the
opticly best 6" Mak I ever saw and tested. The problem: it was much heavier
than the other 6" maks and the company was an crime company, so we stopped in
the beginning that business. Markus
>
> Since when did "no problem"
> replace "you're welcome" in
> restaurants?
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
lude...@my-dejanews.com
"David A. Silva" <das...@nothereatscsconsult.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 15:33:05 GMT, lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >you all ever compared it side by side ? No! So how you can be shure,
>
> cooldown and polish reasons. He has used other primary substrates. In this
> aspect at least - primary mirror substrate - the two of you have opposite
> opinions.
Still , I cannot confirm . I know too, that quarz cool more quickly down than
zerodur or Sital. So Quarz would be of course the better substrate. The only
thing I am saying, is that the mirrorsubstrate is not the main problem in the
maksutov-Telescope-problems and therefore we cannot see an real adavantage of
using quarz instead of pyrex or Sital.
Markus
>
> -David
>
> Please remove nothereat from the return address to reply.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
lude...@my-dejanews.com
"Sue and Alan French" <sue_and_a...@msn.com> wrote:
> lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote >
>
> >How many AP maks has been reported ? 1 pc custommade demo 8.2" Mak-Cass.
> >and 1 pc 9" Mak-Newt.
> >Please think: this are custommade scopes to test and show on starpartys. Do
> >you think, that each sold scope will have the same optical quality as the
> >demoscopes?
>
>
> I forgot to ask, but are you speculating because this is how APM does
> things? Are your demo scopes better than your production scopes?
My 10" saw first light at Stellafane, because I received it only 1 day before
flying to USA.I have had no second one in stock to choose.I not believe to
any manufactors claim, even not the russian claims. Only after we made the
controll, we are shure about the quality. If you see my webside anybody can
order an individual made in germany interferometrical testreport for " his "
scope. For demo on starpartys, i take what i have. About Apos I must ask
mostly my customers , can I have it for Starpartys, because Aries have even
longer delay than AP. I would be happy, if I could have the possibility to
keep an extra high quality scope of size for ever , but my customers crying"
when i get my scope". Is that answere good enough for you Alan ? best wishes
Markus
>
> Clear skies, Alan
Todd Gross
>>How many AP maks has been reported ? 1 pc custommade demo 8.2" Mak-Cass.
>>and 1 pc 9" Mak-Newt.
>>Please think: this are custommade scopes to test and show on starpartys. Do
>>you think, that each sold scope will have the same optical quality as the
>>demoscopes?
>Markus,
>In a word, yes. I don't think Roland would have it any other way.
>Why would you think otherwise? And why would you post such speculations?
>Clear skies, Alan
Todd Gross
it's the consistency that I am so impressed with in recent years. More-so
than the Takahashis. And having this done in the US where the manufacturer
is known to be responsive and easily reachable should any problems arise is
very alluring.
It's just supply and demand.. the price is set right compared to the Taks,
and the no. of scopes are few. Devil's advocacy can't hurt, but there is no
reason I can see NOT to show allegiance to such a fine product.
ToddG
No A/P scope >I
>J. Goss
>DBogan3220 wrote:
>> >or mak) performed the best on planets? This is where I see biases
>> >creep in that should not be there.
>> >For instance; Say Roland comes out with his big Mak at $6000 to
>> >$10000 for the OTA. Then, say the Russians start bringing in similar
>> >Maks at $3000 to $5000. I can almost 100% guarantee you that if the
>> >Russian Mak performed as well or better, there would STILL be AP fans
>> >or owners who would steadfastly insist the AP was superior. That is the
>> >type of non-objectivity we can all do without since we might very well
>> >base our next purchases on the words of some of these people.
Sue and Alan French
Certainly there is some variation in AP lenses, which is why Roland doesn't
want to provide interferograms and start people whining they don't have
there scope is only 1/12 wave while their friends is 1/14th wave. People
like numbers to brag about, even if the differences are not significant in
the real world of observing.
However, I believe if you are talking about a 6" f/12 and a 6" f/8 of the
same vintage, you are talking about scopes made before AstroPhysics had an
interferometer. The interferometer allows AP to make lenses are much more
consistant. I suspect the differences between individual lenses today would
be difficult to detect and would mean essentially no difference in
performance.
Clear skies, Alan
BTW,
I once heard that Questar briefly provided optical documentation for
each scope and ran into problems when customers compared results. Does
anyone know if this is true, or is it just a story?
AndersonRM wrote in message
<19981101023449...@ngol05.aol.com>...
>
>In article <uWlommSB#GA.150@upnetnews03>, "Sue and Alan French"
><sue_and_a...@msn.com> writes:
>
>>In a word, yes. I don't think Roland would have it any other way.
>>
>>Why would you think otherwise? And why would you post such speculations?
>>
Sue and Alan French
I guess that is good enough for me, but you still haven't explained why you
believe that AP demo scopes would be better than the production scopes.
Too bad we won't get to see your scopes at WSP this year.
Clear skies, Alan
lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<71hig9$tp6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <#mwZstSB#GA.158@upnetnews03>,
> "Sue and Alan French" <sue_and_a...@msn.com> wrote:
>> lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote >
>>
>> >How many AP maks has been reported ? 1 pc custommade demo 8.2" Mak-Cass.
>> >and 1 pc 9" Mak-Newt.
>> >Please think: this are custommade scopes to test and show on starpartys.
Do
>> >you think, that each sold scope will have the same optical quality as
the
>> >demoscopes?
>>