Intes Micro M603/M703 vs Intes MK66/MK72 vs G-8 vs G-9?
us00...@mindspring.com
having trouble deciding what scope to buy.
I am considering one of the following setups:
- Intes MK66 (standard, 6" Mak-Cass) on a CG-5 mount (or similar)
- Intes Micro M603 (standard, 6" Mak-Cass) on a CG-5 mount (or similar)
- Intes MK72 (standard, 7" Mak-Cass) on a CG-5 mount (or similar)
- Intes Micro M703 (standard, 7" Mak-Cass) on a CG-5 mount (or similar)
- Celestron G-8
- Celestron G-9
I will do general observing with this scope (lots of planetary viewing
with a goodly dose of deep sky & double stars, some daytime sun &
terestrial observing). Portability is important but not paramount. Most
of my observing will be done in the suburbs 8 miles from nearest large
city (I'll drive somewhere to do deep sky stuff). No astrophotography
(...I think). I appreciate the difference between fine equipment and
not so fine equipment. I want to be able to remain happy with the scope
for a long time. My budget will cover any of these scopes.
My quandry:
- Either the MK66 or the M603 Mak-Cass seem to be essentially a wash
cost-wise when compared to the Celestron packages but 2-3" seems like a
lot of aperture to give up to go with one of the Russian units. I'm
still considering these two Russian scopes though because the many good
things I've read about their construction and their optics make me
wonder if they'd be more satisfying to me over the long term that either
of the Celestron units. The 6" Russian units are also less expensive
than their larger Russian comrades. Any thoughful words here would be
appreciated.
- I think I'd like to get something bigger than 6" (probably for purely
ego-related reasons), but the 8" Russian Mak-Newts are too large and the
8" Russian Mak-Cass are too expensive, which brings the 7" MK 72 and the
M703 Mak-Cass into the running, however, these two 7" scopes will
require that I cough up an additional $800-$1300 over either of the
Celestron packages depending on the comparison. It's hard to determine
what practical benefit I would receive for the extra money. I don't know
anyone who has an MK72 or an M703 so I can't get a feel for this for
myself. I need some help here.
- The MK72 costs about $300 less than the M703, but I've heard that the
quality of the Intes Micro units (i.e. the M703) is a little better than
the Intes units (i.e. the MK72). If the quality is notably higher or
there are other benefits that the Intes Micro unit has over the Intes
unit, I'd consider the $300 difference a wash. However, I currently have
no objective way of making such a determination between these sorts of
quality/feature differences. Trust me, I've looked at all the Russian
Scope web sites. If you can expound with wisdom on the practical
differences between these 2 scopes, I'd appreciated it.
- I am assuming that the Russian scopes will exceed my expectations,
they won't wear out or fail, that I'll be able to adjust anything that
needs adjusting, and that I therefore won't have much reason to worry
about warranty problems and the problems/neck-pain associated with
shipping things to/from Russia for repairs. Are these assumptions valid
in a practical sense?
- Apparently, the Russian scopes can take anywhere from 4-8 weeks to
arrive. Celestron takes 2 weeks. This isn't too big a deal for me, but
it could be a tie-breaker.
- The Celestron scopes are so much less expensive for the aperture than
the 7" russian scopes, it's hard to make a strong case for spending the
extra money for an MK72 or an M703, and the 6" aperture makes it hard to
select one of the smaller Russian scopes. Am I missing anything
significant that would swing the balance?
- My only decision criteria between the G-8 and the G-9 at this point is
portability. I have no doubt about the portabilty of the G-8, but I
wonder about the G-9. Unfortunately, I have no real basis on which to
compare these two units. If you can compare these two unit from personal
experience, please pipe up.
- I've heard that the quality of Celestron optics is a hit-or-miss
affair and that occasionally quite a bit of effort is required in order
to obtain top quality optics. I've heard that "mirror-shift" is an
unpleasant operational issue with these units when they are used at
higher magnifications. I'm not eager to engage in extended games of
phone tag and multiple trips to the UPS counter to fix what's wrong.
These sorts of reports make me lean toward the Russian units, but are
concerns of this sort warranted (no pun ;-)?
- I'm not interested in the fork mounted Celestron units because I've
heard they aren't rigid enough and the fork assemblies seem like they'd
be less easily portable or storable than would be the G-8 or G-9 OTAs.
Also I think I'd like to swap scopes on the same mount on occasion and I
can't do that with a fork-mounted scope.
- Also, I am assuming CG-5 a suitable mount for any of the russian
scopes. Is my understanding correct?
Bottom line is I think I want to get one of the Russian 7-inchers
(...call it "infatuation" at this point), but I'm having a one heck of a
time getting any sort of a grip on how to justify the additional expense
of these units when compared to either of the Celestron offerings.
Please help me resolve this vexing problem, if you can.
Cheers,
John Coffey
Allister
I've owned a IM703 and it really doesn't work on a CG5. The 703 is
around 14lbs and the CG5 shakes and shudders when you use the focuser.
The C8 on the other hand works just fine on the CG5.
The 6" Mak-cass are nice little scopes but when you subtract out the
secondary you are more or less at the performance of a 4" refractor.
This is fine if all you are doing is planetary/lunar but if you wish
to do some deep sky then I would recommend something larger.
While I have yet to use the G-9, it has come highly recommended to me
as the best that Celestron produces. In your case it would give you
sufficient aperture for deep sky yet (reportedly) great planetary
performance.
I'm a little confused on your 4-8 week estimates for obtaining a
Russian mak. This has not been my experience and I have always found
one of the many dealers to have several in stock.
Good luck in your decision.
Allister
a...@ais.net
Mike McIsaac
> This is probably a strikingly unusual problem around here, but.... I'm
> having trouble deciding what scope to buy.
>
Wow, I think this is the first time anyone has asked this question on
the s.a.a. newsgroup... ;-)
I have lots of experience with an Intes-Micro M703 Deluxe having owned
one for over 2 years. Optically, its very good. Mechanically, I've had
some problems with the collimation screws breaking and stripping out of
the secondary housing so unless you are willing to do the repairs
yourself (as I have), I could not recommend this scope. With fasteners
like this its a wonder Mir stayed up as long as it has!
Allister is correct when he states that the CG-5 / GP mount is
inadequate for the M703. Once you hang a finderscope, 2" diagonal, and
eyepiece on the OTA you're pushing 16 lbs. and the GP that I had got
pretty jiggly with that load. Now I have a Losmandy GM-8 that works
just fine.
With a compound telescope you must remember to subtract the diameter of
the secondary and baffle to calculate the unobstructed aperture. The
M703 is 180mm diameter with a 59mm obstruction for 121mm (or a little
less than 5") unobstructed aperture.
Last year I picked up a good deal on a Celestron C-9.25 OTA but I've
yet to achieve first light. I had some "plumbing" problems to overcome
to connect the OTA to the GM-8 which have now been solved. I'm ready to
go except for the weather. Anybody know where I can get a good cloud
filter?
The problem with the G-9 is that the mount is inadequate for the OTA.
My recommendation: go for aperture and "Made (and serviced) in USA" and
get a C-9.25" OTA. AstroPTX will sell you one for about $995 or Don
Rothman at TeleTrade (see the Astromart Homepage) has a good one with a
micrometer focuser for $1100. Then get either a Vixen GP-DX or a
Losmandy GM-8 (you'll need the GM-11 saddle plate to connect the C-
9.25" OTA) for the mount. Portability? Not bad. The C-9.25" OTA weighs
about 20 lbs. and is slightly larger than the M703. Your mount will
determine portability more than the OTA and you'll need the same mount
for either OTA so again: go for aperture.
If you really need portability, get the 6" Intes F12 Mak and mount it
on a HD Bogen camera tripod with the 410 geared head. THAT would be a
portable outfit and if you are not going to do astrophotography, you
don't really need a GEM for an OTA of that size.
So these are my thoughts. Hope they are useful to you. Good luck and
clear skies!
Mike McIsaac
60*N 150*W
--
*********************************************
186,000 miles per second: its not just a good
idea, its the law!
*********************************************
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Fcathell
Frank
Doug Culbertson
>
>
>Frank
Hi,
Does this still hold true even wikth the 9.25" OTA being on the CG5 mount
rather than the Losmandy mount? If so, this WOULD be a serious contender! A
friend of mine has the older CG9.25 scope on the Losmandy mount, and it is a
very nice one.
Thanks!
Doug Culbertson
Midway, FL
JMc
The practical benefit of the Russian Maks versus the stuff from Meade or
Celestron is that you will get a much better set of optics. They stay in
collimation, have no image shift, and when seeing permits, you can
actually use 60-70X per inch magnification.
The mount may be a bigger decision for you than the OTA. It makes no
sense at all to get a high-quality OTA and put it on a cheap, wobbly
mount. Remember that a 9" SCT is considerably heavier and bulkier than a
6" Mak. The M703 OTA weighs 17 pounds, so I would not put it on a CG-5
mount. That mount is really adequate only for visual use on the 6" Maks.
With an 8" or 9.25" SCT, using it would be torture at high magnifications.
You can probably get a C-9.25 and mount for less than an M703 with a
GP-DX mount, and it will certainly outperform the Mak on deep-sky stuff.
But if most of your observing is the moon, planets, or the brighter
Messiers, I would recommend the Mak. It is more portable, has sturdier
overall mechanical design, and the optics will not disappoint you.
As far as warranties go, The ten-year warranty offered by ITE (
http://www.burnettweb.com/ite/about.htm ) is hard to beat. Good luck in
your choice.
Jim McSheehy
WHALEN44
In your situation, I would go for the G9. The Russian manufacturers you
mentioned can have quality control problems with optics, coatings, and
mechanics at times. This is especially true with Intes Micro. Though it seems
to happen more often in the larger scopes, It is something to worry about.
Also delivery times are not always what them seem, unless you find what you
want in stock from a US dealer. If you were to get a MCT from Russia, go with
an Intes. They seem to deliver the most reliable quality of the two
manufacturers mentioned.
Still a 9" SCT is going to outperform a 6" or 7" MCT most of the time. What I
would do is try and find a older Losmandy/Celestron setup used, and with the
money saved get a few premium eyepieces.
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
IDEAS of florida
Innovative Design & Engineering Associated Services
"Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan"
JMc
>
> Hi John,
>
> In your situation, I would go for the G9. The Russian manufacturers you
> mentioned can have quality control problems with optics, coatings, and
> mechanics at times.
LOL! And Meade and Celestron don't have Q/A problems?
The G9 is twice as bulky as a 7" Mak not even counting the GM-8 mount
you need to adequately support it. It is simply not as portable. IMO,
selling a 9" SCT with the CG-5 mount should be a felony ;-)
> Still a 9" SCT is going to outperform a 6" or 7" MCT most of the time. What I
> would do is try and find a older Losmandy/Celestron setup used, and with the
> money saved get a few premium eyepieces.
>
Yes, the 9.25" will outperform a 6" or 7" on faint fuzzies. On the moon
or planets, the difference would be less pronounced because, in most
locations, seeing starts to limit performance above 8" aperture.
Jim McSheehy
lude...@my-deja.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> In your situation, I would go for the G9. The Russian manufacturers
you
> mentioned can have quality control problems with optics, coatings,
and
it seems
> to happen more often in the larger scopes, It is something to worry
about.
Hi Richard,
can you give us more than 1 or 2 sample for problems with larger INTES
MICRO Maks problems , since your info sounds it happens more often ?
Can you give us minimum 1 sample, when such scope have been slept
throught the salesperson quality controll and was sold to the customer
? Or do you talk only about 1 or 2 sample, where deffects was found and
which have not been sold , but repaired ?
> >
thanks for your informations
Markus
>
> Richard Whalen
> whal...@aol.com
> IDEAS of florida
> Innovative Design & Engineering Associated Services
>
> "Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan"
>
Gregg Carter
Mike McIsaac wrote in message <81jt6t$u8s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>snipped<
>With a compound telescope you must remember to subtract the diameter of
>the secondary and baffle to calculate the unobstructed aperture. The
>M703 is 180mm diameter with a 59mm obstruction for 121mm (or a little
>less than 5") unobstructed aperture.
>snipped<
The light collection capability of a telescope is a function of the aperture
area, which in turn is a function of the square of the radius of the
aperture. So:
Aperture Area for 180mm Diameter = pi x (180/2) x (180/2) = pi x
(8,100)
The central obscuration of 59mm has an area of:
Area of 59mm Obscuration = pi x (59/2) x (59/2) = pi x (870.25)
So the total clear aperature area is:
Clear Aperture Area = [pi x (8,100)] - [pi x (870.25)] = pi x
(7,229.75)
This clear aperture corresponds to an aperture radius of:
Clear Aperture Radius = sqrt(7,229.75) = 85mm
Or in terms of diameter
Clear Aperture Diameter = 2 x 85mm = 170mm = 6.7inches
The central obscuration reduces the effective clear aperture diameter very
little. Please note, that the impact on contrast is another issue entirely.
Clear skies,
Gregg
WHALEN44
Yes I could give examples of problems with Intes Micro & Intes scopes &
accessories.
1. Julie is selling a Intes rotating eyepiece turret/ diagonal due to defective
coatings.
2. The 8" Mn at Astrofest had a secondary with defective coatings.
3. The 8" f 15 MCT you brought to Astrofest had optical problems, mechanical
problems (focuser) etc. Last I heard, this unit still has not been "fixed" just
sitting in a basement. For sure was not fixed when you first started running ad
on your website stating it was.
4. A Intes 9" MCT that required an interferometer to collimate properly (the
one you took apart and screwed up!)
5. The custom quartz Intes Micro 8" f 10 MCT I waited 9 months for and never
got due to defective meniscus etc. It's not like they did not have time to make
it right in the first place since I was supposed to get it in less than 5
months. Plenty of time for them to test it and correct any problems before
shipment. And was it not interesting that both Intes Micro MCT's Interfeometer
reports stated optical quality almost twice what you tested it to be?
Do you really want me to continue? I could go on and on...... For the small
amount of products they sell here, they sure seem to have a lot of problems.
Of the scopes I have seen, every one had a problem of some sort except a Intes
MN61. Makes one wonder.... Though I guess a few without problems slip by :-)
Richard Whalen
Mike McIsaac
about the contrast. Wish I had a 7" refractor instead :-)
MM
--
*********************************************
186,000 miles per second: its not just a good
idea, its the law!
*********************************************
lude...@my-deja.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
> Yes I could give examples of problems with Intes Micro & Intes scopes
&
> accessories.
>
> 1. Julie is selling a Intes rotating eyepiece turret/ diagonal due to
defective
> coatings.
even 1 word as an claim, why ?
>
> 2. The 8" Mn at Astrofest had a secondary with defective coatings.
visible by eyes, onbly by looking through, a $ 50 exchange for the
owner, sicne he did not asked his supplier
>
> 3. The 8" f 15 MCT you brought to Astrofest had optical problems,
mechanical
> problems (focuser) etc. Last I heard, this unit still has not been
"fixed" just
> sitting in a basement. For sure was not fixed when you first started
running ad
> on your website stating it was.
>
> 4. A Intes 9" MCT that required an interferometer to collimate
properly (the
> one you took apart and screwed up!)
must use an interferometer. Doens't speak for the seller or the owner
and an misscollimation is not any deffect
>
> 5. The custom quartz Intes Micro 8" f 10 MCT I waited 9 months for
and never
> got due to defective meniscus etc. It's not like they did not have
time to make
> it right in the first place since I was supposed to get it in less
than 5
> months. Plenty of time for them to test it and correct any problems
before
> shipment. And was it not interesting that both Intes Micro MCT's
Interfeometer
> reports stated optical quality almost twice what you tested it to
be?
>
> Do you really want me to continue?
yes please, since all aboe was no real claim
I could go on and on...... For the small
> amount of products they sell here, they sure seem to have a lot of
problems.
Do you know how many they sell in the mean time in USA ? Last year it
was over 1000 telescopes and you talking about 2 scopes which have not
been sold, about 1 diagonal which was not claimed, a 9" Mak which was
misscollimated and 1 small secondary mirror coating problem. Is that
all you know as claims ? It is not as much as I thought to hear from
you.
>
> Of the scopes I have seen, every one had a problem of some sort
except a Intes
> MN61. Makes one wonder.... Though I guess a few without problems slip
by :-)
Please list excactly how many and which telescopes you saw which have
been sold and which have had problems of them, than we can go on in
this disccusion.
best wishes
Markus
> Richard Whalen
lude...@my-deja.com
>
> Of the scopes I have seen, every one had a problem of some sort
except a Intes
> MN61. Makes one wonder.... Though I guess a few without problems slip
by :-)
>
>
>
BTW: Maybe you want to tell us why you not bought the 8" MAK at
Astrofest, american made, what was wrong, why you didnt't bought it ?
Be honest, since you told me why you not liked it so much that you
bought it.
If every company would have in percent such small claims as INTES and
INTES MICRO, well than 99.9% of all customers would be happy.
I bought 2 pc Questars 72 with bad optics,I bought many Zeiss Maks with
bad optics,I saw 90% SC with deffects, I bought some Apos with deffects
and so on.
If a company have in 1 of 100 an problem, than I call his quality
controll excellent, if 90 of 100 telescopes have problems, than i call
quality controll bad.
best wishes
Markus
Gregg Carter
Gregg
Mike McIsaac wrote in message <81mr69$rt3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Chuck Lane
(good one Paul :-) ), but, my Intes-Micro MN-76 is certainly a keeper. The
build quality is excellent and most importantly, the optics are excellent.
I'm sorry that Mr. Whalen had a bad experience, but that doesn't mean that
all Intes and Intes-Micro scopes are crap.
Regards,
Chuck Lane
"Paul Hyndman" <pghy...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:81n9qj$5qf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <81n0bi$vfh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > If a company have in 1 of 100 an problem, than I call his quality
> > controll excellent, if 90 of 100 telescopes have problems, than i call
> > quality controll bad.
>
> As to my own experiences regarding my Intes Micro MN86 Mak-Newt, I can
> sum up the performance, quality, and technical merits in three brief
> statements: Woooo-hoooo woooo-hoooo, wowie-zowie, and hot-damn that's-a-
> some-a-scope!
>
> Could be 99.9% bad, could be 99.9% good... all I know is that mine is
> great (as are the other Intes/Intes Micros I'm personally aware of)!
>
> Clear Skies!
>
> Paul
>
> --
> Paul Hyndman pghy...@yahoo.com Madison, CT
Paul Hyndman
WHALEN44
>BTW: Maybe you want to tell us why you not bought the 8" MAK at Astrofest,
american made, what was wrong, why you didnt't bought it ?>
Wrong again Markus, you really need to get your facts straight. I did not buy
it because it was not for sale, thats why. It belonged to a TEC customer.
And I liked it enough to order a custom f 15.5 scope from TEC, which I will be
getting next week. And guess what, they are delievering almost a full month
earler than promised, in only 9 weeks. Not the 5 months that turned into 9
months that turned into never (just a bunch of excuses) when dealing with Intes
Micro and APM (you).
>If every company would have in percent such small claims as INTES and INTES
MICRO, well than 99.9% of all customers would be happy.>
I don't know what percent you are talking about. Of the dozen or so Intes Micro
and Intes products I have seen, used, or know personally about through friends
who own them, all had problems except one. That's not very good or encouraging.
I find it very interesting how so many of these products are put up for resale
so quickly by their owners. Very few amatuers I have talked to have kept them
very long with but a few exceptions.
>I bought 2 pc Questars 72 with bad optics,I bought many Zeiss Maks with bad
optics,I saw 90% SC with deffects, I bought some Apos with deffects
and so on.>
Why do you buy defective products? Could it be that everyone dumps their
defective products on APM? Can you not tell the difference? Did you ever resell
any of these defective products? I bet you have! And did you tell the new
buyers they were defective?
Really Markus, you don't want to get me going......
Richard Whalen
WHALEN44
>Julie bought it from me brandnew original packed and di not told me even 1
word as an claim, why ?>
You will have to ask her. This is how she is advertising it.
>> 2. The 8" Mn at Astrofest had a secondary with defective coatings.>>
>This was not sold from me and it was an little coating deffect, not visible by
eyes, only by looking through, a $ 50 exchange for the owner, sicne he did not
asked his supplier>
I did not specify only sold by you, we are talking about the manufacturers. But
you really don't get it, do you? You find it acceptable to have coating defects
that are visible when looking through the scope? It's not a problem with you if
a new owner of a new scope has to have a mirror recoated at his expense? Or
that he is without a scope until it's fixed? Are you serious?
>It was not sold, so it falls out of your story.>
No it does not. It was another defective Intes Micro product shipped out by the
factory. And if anyone had wanted it at Astrofest, you would have sold it to
them, right? Come on, be honest now. Since you have been advertising it on your
web site, it's not for lack of trying it's not been sold.
>dont know about it, but must smile, if such easy to collimate scope, must use
an interferometer. Doens't speak for the seller or the owner and an
misscollimation is not any defect.>
I beg to differ. If it requires a interferometer to collimate properly, it's
defective in design. You were not able to collimate iti properly, so whats that
say about you? Even the 8" f15 you had at Astrofest for two nights was out of
collimation a bit. If it was so easy, why did you not collimate it? You had
plenty of time.
<<concerning 8" f10 quartz intes micro>>
>It was not sold , so it falls out of your storry.>
Again, it was shipped out by the factory as OK. That you stopped it from coming
here is fine, you know I would never had accepted it. But how many scopes from
these companies are sold in the US or world wide that you havn't personally
checked out?
Thats the point.
You of coarse tend to ignore this and just say "all above was no real
claim". That's the difference between us I guess. I think when someone spends
several hundred dollars on an accessory or a few thousand or more on a new
scope, it should not have defective coatings, poor optics, or mechanical
problems. Just because it happens does not make it right or acceptable in my
opinion. But like you tell your dealers "you just need grow thicker skin". Well
I am not a dealer, just a customer, so I don't.
Best wishes,
Richard Whalen
Paul Hyndman
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> And I liked it enough to order a custom f 15.5 scope from TEC,
> which I will be getting next week
Hi Richard,
What scope are you getting from TEC?
I'm looking to eventually increase my "family" with something in about
the 10" to 12" Mak-Cas range, and would be very interested in your
findings!
I'm considering Intes/Intes Micro Alter, TEC, and am on the AP list for
whatever Roland builds. (Like Tim Allen says "Hrghh, Hrghhh! More
Power! More Power!)
Please give us the details when it arrives.
Thanks, and Clear Skies!
WHALEN44
Ed and Yuri are building me a custom 8" f 15.5 with a 26.5% obstruction. I will
be posting a full review of the scope after it comes and I get some quality
time with it.
I tried the Intes Micro route with no success. I have not used the 10" TEC
scopes, but have recieved several "glowing" reports about them from owners.
I have used the AP 8" and 10" a little bit at this years Astrofest. The 8" was
extremley impressive, and the 10" was nice also. I believe Roland has made some
changes to the 10" since then to improve it even further.
I also believe TEC will build a 12" on a custom basis, and have heard rumors
that AP is planning on a 12" MCT in the future. I really perfered the mechanics
of the AP & TEC over the Intes Micro by a long shot. Fit and finish was much
better also. Optically, the AP and Tec were also better than the Russian scope.
The AP had the quickest cooldown time by 1/2. The TEC had the nicest focuser
feel in my opinion, and also had outstanding contrast. What was amazing was how
small the AP scopes look. The 8" looks like a 7", and the 10" looks like a 9".
They are very compact and light weight for their aperture.
Zeus194340
>Astrofest, american made, what was wrong, why you didnt't bought it ?
>bought it.
>INTES MICRO, well than 99.9% of all customers would be happy.
>bad optics,I saw 90% SC with deffects, I bought some Apos with deffects
>and so on.
>controll excellent, if 90 of 100 telescopes have problems, than i call
>quality controll bad.
>
WHALEN44
LOL
Nathan356
I'll have to second that opinion about my MK-67. I don't know which
models Richard tested, but I have yet to hear a lemon report on this
model scope. In fact, all of the reports have been strikingly
consistant. It is reliable by design (very robust construction, no
complex moving parts, etc). Highly recommended based on my personal
experience. -Nathan356
Paul Hyndman
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> I tried the Intes Micro route with no success. I have not used the
> 10" TEC scopes, but have recieved several "glowing" reports about
them from owners.
> I have used the AP 8" and 10" a little bit at this years Astrofest.
> The 8" was extremley impressive, and the 10" was nice also. I
> believe Roland has made some changes to the 10" since then to
> improve it even further.
Hi Richard,
You must be very excited! I remember well how much (and how long) you
were looking forward to receiving your Intes Micro scope, and can
appreciate the negative experience that created. That's a shame but,
from what I've heard, Ed and Yuri are turning out some fantastic
instruments out at TEC so when all the dust has settled, you'll
probably have that "dream scope" after all!
I didn't want to risk missing the opportunity to try one of Roland's
MCTs, so got on his notification lists for anything he decides to make.
I'll look forward to your reports, and wish you success with your
new "baby"!
CHASLX200
>From: whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44)
>Date: Sat, 27 November 1999 12:10 AM EST
>Message-id: <19991127001004...@ng-ff1.aol.com>
Richared wrote, <SNIP>
>
>Hi Paul,
>
>Ed and Yuri are building me a custom 8" f 15.5 with a 26.5% obstruction. I
>will
>be posting a full review of the scope after it comes and I get some quality
>time with it.
Hey Richard, call me over when you get the scope, i wanna look thru that 8"
MAK!!!
Chas P.
Ongarj Phichitsurakij
I am sorry to hear about your experiences with Intes and
Intes Micro scopes. Honestly, I don't own any Intes or Intes
Micro products yet but I am plannning to buy a MN56 or
MK67 when I am financially able to do it. I believe your
claims but so far I have heard more good reports than bad
ones. I think it may be possible that your standard of what
should be considered a good QC is higher than what Markus
feels is acceptable and both of you are not talking on the same
terms. And is it possible that you are more of a discerning
perfectionist than most and demand on a higher standard for
the scopes?
Just my .02 worth
Ongarj Phichitsurakij
In article <19991126194852...@ng-da1.aol.com>,
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
> >BTW: Maybe you want to tell us why you not bought the 8" MAK at Astrofest,
> american made, what was wrong, why you didnt't bought it ?>
>
> Wrong again Markus, you really need to get your facts straight. I did not buy
> it because it was not for sale, thats why. It belonged to a TEC customer.
>
> And I liked it enough to order a custom f 15.5 scope from TEC, which I will be
> getting next week. And guess what, they are delievering almost a full month
> earler than promised, in only 9 weeks. Not the 5 months that turned into 9
> months that turned into never (just a bunch of excuses) when dealing with Intes
> Micro and APM (you).
>
> >If every company would have in percent such small claims as INTES and INTES
> MICRO, well than 99.9% of all customers would be happy.>
>
> I don't know what percent you are talking about. Of the dozen or so Intes Micro
> and Intes products I have seen, used, or know personally about through friends
> who own them, all had problems except one. That's not very good or encouraging.
>
> I find it very interesting how so many of these products are put up for resale
> so quickly by their owners. Very few amatuers I have talked to have kept them
> very long with but a few exceptions.
>
> >I bought 2 pc Questars 72 with bad optics,I bought many Zeiss Maks with bad
> optics,I saw 90% SC with deffects, I bought some Apos with deffects
> and so on.>
>
> Why do you buy defective products? Could it be that everyone dumps their
> defective products on APM? Can you not tell the difference? Did you ever resell
> any of these defective products? I bet you have! And did you tell the new
> buyers they were defective?
>
> Really Markus, you don't want to get me going......
>
> Richard Whalen
>
>
JMc
only used them a "little bit"? I too was impressed by the mechanics of
the AP Maks, but optically, IMO they were not dramatically better (or
worse) than The TEC or Intes-Micro scopes. There were a few Newts on the
field that outperformed all the Maks on Saturn and Jupiter.
The big difference between the AP Maks and those from TEC, Intes, and
Intes-Micro is that you can actually buy one of the TEC/Russian scopes ;-)
Jim McSheehy
> WHALEN44 wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Ed and Yuri are building me a custom 8" f 15.5 with a 26.5% obstruction. I will
> be posting a full review of the scope after it comes and I get some quality
> time with it.
>
> I tried the Intes Micro route with no success. I have not used the 10" TEC
> scopes, but have recieved several "glowing" reports about them from owners.
> I have used the AP 8" and 10" a little bit at this years Astrofest. The 8" was
> extremley impressive, and the 10" was nice also. I believe Roland has made some
> changes to the 10" since then to improve it even further.
>
Vahe Sahakian
> Ed and Yuri are building me a custom 8" f 15.5 with a 26.5% obstruction. I will
> be posting a full review of the scope after it comes and I get some quality
> time with it.
Looking forward to your review of the 8" f15.5 TEC, at around half the
weight of their 10" I wouldn't mind having one.
> I also believe TEC will build a 12" on a custom basis, and have heard rumors
> that AP is planning on a 12" MCT in the future. I really perfered the mechanics
> of the AP & TEC over the Intes Micro by a long shot. Fit and finish was much
> better also. Optically, the AP and Tec were also better than the Russian scope.
I once asked Yuri about the 12" size, I do remember his estimated weight
was in the range of around 60 to 65 lbs, to me that is no longer a
portable instrument, also anyone hoping to take the full advantage of a
12" Mak should be residing in the southern states.
>
> The AP had the quickest cooldown time by 1/2. The TEC had the nicest focuser
> feel in my opinion, and also had outstanding contrast. What was amazing was how
> small the AP scopes look. The 8" looks like a 7", and the 10" looks like a 9".
> They are very compact and light weight for their aperture.
I have finally learned the trick for reasonably rapid cooldown of my
10". I wonder how is Roland taking care of this issue on his Maks.
Take care,
Vahe
WHALEN44
By a little bit I mean I would check them out every 10 minutes or so (I was set
up right next to them) and compare images. Once the seeing settled down a
little bit Saturday night around midnight, the difference in optical quality
was easy to see between the three scopes. Actually the best view of the planets
I got at Astrofest were not with the newtonians, (which a few indeed gave nice
images) but with the larger APO'sand the Clark. The seeing conditions never
were all that great, even at the best moments. In fact, I thought the smaller
8" AP outperformed the 10" AP most of the time.
I think I spent more time using the 8" TEC and Intes Micro by far than anyone
else, since they were on my mount (Intes Micro friday, TEC Saturday). I think
perhaps you were wandering around to much to make much of a call between scopes
on optical quality, as the seeing was changing fairly quickly at times. I
pretty much concentrated on these 4 scopes, with some quick views through the
Clark, a 8" AP APO, a 7.1" AP APO, and the TMBack APO's and a few larger Dobs.
>Just curious, how did you judge the cool-down time of the AP Maks if you
>only used them a "little bit"? I too was impressed by the mechanics of
>the AP Maks, but optically, IMO they were not dramatically better (or
>worse) than The TEC or Intes-Micro scopes. There were a few Newts on the
>field that outperformed all the Maks on Saturn and Jupiter.
>
>The big difference between the AP Maks and those from TEC, Intes, and
>Intes-Micro is that you can actually buy one of the TEC/Russian scopes ;-)
>
>Jim McSheehy
Richard Whalen
WHALEN44
We are discussing larger Intes and Intesmicro scopes, 7" and larger.
WHALEN44
I think you will have good luck with the smaller 5" and 6" scopes. My comments
are mostly aimed at the larger 8"+ scopes. The MN56 and MN61 are both fine
scopes, where these companies get in trouble seems to be when they try
something new, or something that will have a somewhat limited production.
The scopes they do build that have been around a while and refined are just
fine, but it seems Intes Micro is coming out with new products every few months
instead of refining exisiting models in many cases.
Alot of this is probably due to market presures, and from their dealers. They
seem to be searching for their own niche, with Markus at the wheel :-).
My standards are about normal for an experienced amatuer I believe, and
Markus's standards for optical quality are high also for himself. Where I think
a difference comes in is in the mechanical end, and fit & finish.
Richard
lude...@my-deja.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
> >BTW: Maybe you want to tell us why you not bought the 8" MAK at
Astrofest,
> american made, what was wrong, why you didnt't bought it ?>
>
> Wrong again Markus, you really need to get your facts straight. I did
not buy
> it because it was not for sale, thats why. It belonged to a TEC
customer.
Maybe you like to tell us how you liked what you saw ?
>
> And I liked it enough
On Astrofest I heard anything else from you but never i like it.
to order a custom f 15.5 scope from TEC, which I will be
> getting next week. And guess what, they are delievering almost a
full month
> earler than promised, in only 9 weeks. Not the 5 months that turned
into 9
> months that turned into never (just a bunch of excuses) when dealing
with Intes
> Micro and APM (you).
INTES MICRO cannot call an company and tell them please supply me next
week Quarz. Russia is not USA, you can ask for request and delivery
time of materials, than give honest informatuions at that time and than
you will be delayed from supsuppliers. This very seldoms happens in USA
and Germany, but it is nothing special in Russia.
> >
> I don't know what percent you are talking about.
I talk about percent only from my sales: 200 telescopes per year
Of the dozen or so Intes Micro
> and Intes products I have seen, used, or know personally about
through friends
> who own them, all had problems except one. That's not very good or
encouraging.
I asked you not to speak in gerneral, I asked you to tell us hard facts
with Modell and excact problem, please.
>
> I find it very interesting how so many of these products are put up
for resale
> so quickly by their owners.
Please go to Astromart and see how many Takahashis you find there. In
percent against takahashi , INTES is not worser.Do you want to tell me
now Takahashi is bad ?
>
> Why do you buy defective products?
Because the sellers have been not so honest as I am , they told me,
they are perfect, I told you, it is not perfect and cannot be sold to
you.
Could it be that everyone dumps their
> defective products on APM? Can you not tell the difference? Did you
ever resell
> any of these defective products?
No, or if i did, than with giving informations to customer and big
discount price
I bet you have! And did you tell the new
> buyers they were defective?
I am honest and my customers know what they get anytime
It seems to me your new friend di make you now an Russian hater, could
that be ?
Good luck with your new scope and I hope it is better than the one you
did like ( or did you not liked it ? )
Markus
lude...@my-deja.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
Hi Richard,
Maybe you want to inform all this guys, that you did not even 1 look
through " your " telescope and therefore you dont know how well it
performed and how much better the focuser in your scope than in the
Protoype 8"F/15.
Of course I did not bring it over due an very small spike deffect,
invisible for 98% of all guys on this newsgroup, but visible for me and
reason enough for me to sell it to you.
Play fair please
Markus
Paul Hyndman
Ongarj Phichitsurakij <ong...@usa.net> wrote:
> I am sorry to hear about your experiences with Intes and
> Intes Micro scopes. Honestly, I don't own any Intes or Intes
> Micro products yet but I am plannning to buy a MN56 or
> MK67 when I am financially able to do it. I believe your
> claims but so far I have heard more good reports than bad
> ones. I think it may be possible that your standard of what
> should be considered a good QC is higher than what Markus
> feels is acceptable and both of you are not talking on the same
> terms. And is it possible that you are more of a discerning
> perfectionist than most and demand on a higher standard for
> the scopes?
I apologize for jumping in on this (I know Richard will want to
respond), but he was extremely patient in waiting for what was to be a
a superb instrument. After the ordeal he went through, I would be
somewhat jaded as well (and I LOVE my Intes Micro!).
It was an unfortunate chain of events that led to that point, but the
fact does remain that when you are talking about (and expecting) "world
class" instruments, you righfully expect the pinnacle of perfection,
the "cream of the crop" in optics, mechanicals, and overall
implementation.
Usually Intes/Intes Micro delivers on this, but certainly (as with most
manufacturers) they are susceptible to not getting it right sometimes,
and they blew it big time on that one!
Perhaps the best assurances you can have of being pleased with your
purchase is to have realistic expectations and a dealer who can
facilitate the transaction.
My $0.02...
Clear Skies!
Paul
--
Paul Hyndman pghy...@yahoo.com Madison, CT
WHALEN44
I don't think I'm any more discerning than the next experienced amatuer. I'm
talking about glaring problems like:
1. Bad coatings
2. Defective materials (meniscus)
3. Poor mechanics ie: very stiff focusers etc.
4. Industrial looking mechanics
5. OPtical quality only 60% of what was specified
and warrentied.
I don't think it's to much to ask for to get what you ordered, a quality
working telescope, when you pay several thousand of dollars for just a OTA.
WHALEN44
I don't think I talked to you at all on Sunday before I left, and very little
if at all once the TEC was set up Saturday night. Obviously I liked the scope
enough to give Yuri a couple of thousand dollars on the spot to place an order,
and for sure much better than the Intes Micro you brought (which I could have
bought much cheaper than the TEC). I thought the mechanics were superb, and the
optics of that particular scope OK though I wanted even better for myself.
<On Astrofest I heard anything else from you but never i like it.>
INTES MICRO cannot call an company and tell them please supply me next week
Quarz. Russia is not USA, you can ask for request and delivery
time of materials, than give honest informatuions at that time and than you
will be delayed from supsuppliers. This very seldoms happens in USA
and Germany, but it is nothing special in Russia.
> >
Then you should tell customers this up front, not lead them to believe it will
be done in 1/2 the time to get the order.
<I talk about percent only from my sales: 200 telescopes per year>
But what percent do you send back to the factory because they are not to your
standards?
<I asked you not to speak in gerneral, I asked you to tell us hard facts with
Modell and excact problem, please.>
I have listed some models, what good does it do with you?
<It seems to me your new friend di make you now an Russian hater, could that be
?>
What new friend? I don't hate Russian scopes at all. Many are fine products. I
think however ones has to be more careful when buying one for several reasons.
WHALEN44
You are the one who told me that it was the same focuser, and worked the same.
Also you told me how it performed, that it was not what was ordered etc.
Remember you first told me you were
going to bring it to astrofest, to let me look at it and evaluate it myself
since I waited so long for it, and if I still wanted it I would get a further
discount. Then you changed your mind while you were at a German star party
before Astrofest. Did you sell it there? What ever did happen to that scope?
Does Intes Micro still have it?
You are absolutley right, I ordered a scope, put money down to finance the
building of it, waited 9 + months, never got to see it, got my money back.
Canceled the order after your inspection on your word I would not be happy with
it, that it was at best 1/5 wave tested inside, and maybe 1/7 wave tested
outside. Never saw it for sale on your website like the f 15, (repaired with
new meniscus and refigured) seems it just disappeared. Very curious.....
Richard
lude...@my-deja.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
> You are the one who told me that it was the same focuser, and worked
the same.
Go through the emails I send you and you will see clearly , that i told
you that your scope have the old very well focusing system and that the
F/15 Protoype is using an new experimental focusing system. If you
cannot find it, i can search it again for you.
> Also you told me how it performed, that it was not what was ordered
etc.
Yes I told you it performs not like the 1/10 wavefront , but still like
an 1/7 wavefront and 1/7 wavefront is by the way still very good. Also
i confirmed you that the optics are extremly smooth, you remember ?
> Remember you first told me you were
> going to bring it to astrofest, to let me look at it and evaluate it
myself
> since I waited so long for it, and if I still wanted it I would get a
further
> discount.
Is your memory realy so bad ? Please go again to our emails and you
will see where i told you, shipping to USA and back to germany will be
very expensive and since it have an small deffect it makes no sense to
pay $ 600 for both way shipping to show it to you. Again i can help you
to find this email information.
Then you changed your mind while you were at a German star party
> before Astrofest. Did you sell it there? What ever did happen to
that scope?
As I told you, INTES offered an discount price or exchange the optics
free of charge. My personal friend visited me 2 month later, he was
interested , I showed him the little deffect at stars and he liked the
performance so much, he agreed to buy it for the big discount price,
which is in German DM of course more than in US $, since our retail is
higher than in USA. So he got an 30% discount on german retail for an
small deffect, which is visible for critical people like you and me ,
but still without infocus influence ( only out of focus visible, as i
told you before). he told me he is not interested to observe out of
focus, only in-focus. He liked the super image of Jupiter and saturn
and bought it. If you remember my first observing report, i told you,
with 400 powe rit showed 5 divisions on Saturn rings and it showed
slightly color and circulations in Jupiters red great spot during my
very good september nights.Knowing the little deffects which are not
interested for him, he is an happy owner of this scope.
Customers like you and me would never be fully happy with such optics ,
showing an deffect inside-outsidefocus, even if the image in-focus
would be same perfect as an nondeffective scope.
As you know I did try to do anything to make you happy and I have been
very honest to you, I was not shure, that you would see the defect, but
since I saw it with my critical eyes, I informed you. The thank from
you now is only, that you try to make all russian Telescopes poor.
I hope you new scope will be a little better than the one with which
you worked 1 day at Astrofest, otherwise you may start troubling the
next manufactor ?
best wishes
Markus
> Richard
lude...@my-deja.com
Paul,
be shure, I was not less unhappy than Richard about the result. All I
could do is talking many time to INTES MICRO and doing my own test and
be responser for Richard. I have done all this work and after we did
not reached success in this first customordered modell I gave him back
his money. We must understand one thing bvery clear: This was an
Protoype telescope, first time made. Richard didn't want an standart
Deluxe, from which have been many made and which have been coming out
all the time as ordered with high quality. No i agreed to accept the
customorder for Quarz and extra high quality of 1/10 wavefront instead
of 1/8 wavefront and the first experience was failed.
Please go around the world and search manufactors who will have any
time success on the first prototype. Due very experience I was maybe a
little to optimistic, is it an mistake to be to optimistic ?
Next time I will refuse from such custommade prototypes to protect me
and INTES MICRO from such trouble shoots as Richard is now doing
best wishes
Markus
>
> I apologize for jumping in on this (I know Richard will want to
> respond), but he was extremely patient in waiting for what was to be a
> a superb instrument. After the ordeal he went through, I would be
> somewhat jaded as well (and I LOVE my Intes Micro!).
>
> It was an unfortunate chain of events that led to that point, but the
> fact does remain that when you are talking about (and expecting)
"world
> class" instruments, you righfully expect the pinnacle of perfection,
> the "cream of the crop" in optics, mechanicals, and overall
> implementation.
>
> Usually Intes/Intes Micro delivers on this, but certainly (as with
most
> manufacturers) they are susceptible to not getting it right sometimes,
> and they blew it big time on that one!
>
> Perhaps the best assurances you can have of being pleased with your
> purchase is to have realistic expectations and a dealer who can
> facilitate the transaction.
>
> My $0.02...
>
> Clear Skies!
>
> Paul
>
> --
> Paul Hyndman pghy...@yahoo.com Madison, CT
>
lude...@my-deja.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Hi Ongarj,
>
> I don't think I'm any more discerning than the next experienced
amatuer. I'm
> talking about glaring problems like:
Richard, come on , you talking about 1 Telescope , not about about the
production. With your words it sounds that all or many telescopes are
deffective.
>
> 1. Bad coatings
1 Diagonal from hundrets and you start talking , the manufactor is
using bad coatings, dont start nme smiling. A coating problem could
happens sometimes to every manufactor in the world.
> 2. Defective materials (meniscus)
It is an thought, which is not yet confirmed, speculation nothing else.
> 3. Poor mechanics ie: very stiff focusers etc.
In 1 newstyled prototype, not in serial production
> 4. Industrial looking mechanics
What you have against industrial looking mechanics ? Go over to Russia
and try to make it difrent and you will see the problem. Hundrets of
customers like it as it comes, only 1 guy not , you.
> 5. OPtical quality only 60% of what was specified
> and warrentied.
In 2 prototypes only, not in serial production. Maybe you want to ask
other companys, does they have 100% success in here first prototype, i
am shure the answere from anyone will be : Not all the time.
>
> I don't think it's to much to ask for to get what you ordered, a
quality
> working telescope, when you pay several thousand of dollars for just
a OTA.
Fully agreed in this point. Since the Prototpye failed, and you didn't
want to give them an chance to fix it, you asked your money back and
you got your money back. So all worked fully as it should work, is
there anything wrong, how the deal with me was handled ? You was
optimistic, I was optimistic, manufactor was optimistic
Markus
>
> Richard Whalen
> whal...@aol.com
> IDEAS of florida
> Innovative Design & Engineering Associated Services
>
> "Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan"
>
lude...@my-deja.com
>
> Then you should tell customers this up front, not lead them to
believe it will
> be done in 1/2 the time to get the order.
Only 1 sample: I ordered in Germany some tubematerial. Delivery time
from manufactor was told to me 3 weeks, but really I waited 2 month,
same could happens to you in USA and with much more possibilitys in
Russia. When we asked front up for offer, INTEWS MIVCRO checked
anything and gots delivery times for quarz. That it needet much longer
, not INTES MICRO was responser.
>
> <I talk about percent only from my sales: 200 telescopes per year>
>
> But what percent do you send back to the factory because they are not
to your
> standards?
Non. 4 Times totaly in 6 years I asked for replacement optics, not 1
more, which is in percent maybe 0.1 % or less.
> >
> I have listed some models, what good does it do with you?
It tells me , do you think so or do you really saw such samples.
> >
> What new friend? I don't hate Russian scopes at all. Many are fine
products.
In your prepostings it sounds much more, that you think all russian
scopes aere chunk except the MN61, please go back 2 days and read your
own posting again.
I
> think however ones has to be more careful when buying one for several
reasons.
Yes , that the best idea and I have to think more carefull in future
before I accept custommade orders.
best wishes
WHALEN44
You very clearly told me it was a "new" and improved focusing system since
there was some concern about the old system. I have every email you ever sent,
all of our conversations.
>Go through the emails I send you and you will see clearly , that i told you
that your scope have the old very well focusing system and that the
>F/15 Protoype is using an new experimental focusing system. If you cannot find
it, i can search it again for you.>
Markus, my memory is just fine, I have the emails to prove it. You only
complained about the shipping cost after you got back from that Star Party. You
first said you would bring it. Check your records.
>Is your memory realy so bad ? Please go again to our emails and you will see
where i told you, shipping to USA and back to germany will be
>very expensive and since it have an small deffect it makes no sense to pay $
600 for both way shipping to show it to you. Again i can help you
>to find this email information.>
<The thank from you now is only, that you try to make all russian Telescopes
poor.>
Not at all Markus, just that it is smart to check them carefully on arrival,
and to buy them with a good return policy. Go back and reread my first post on
this topic. I know not all Russian Telescopes are poor, some like I have
already said are just fine.
My point is there is some quality control issues with these to manufacturers on
their larger scopes and some of their accessories and it is prudent to be very
careful when purchasing them.
>I hope you new scope will be a little better than the one with which>you
worked 1 day at Astrofest, otherwise you may start troubling the next
manufactor ?>
If it is not what was ordered it will be sent back. Plan and simple. TEC knows
this as did you. So far things are looking good, interferometer of primary came
in at 1/11 wave P-V on the wavefront and 1/63 wave P-V RMS. Mechanics look very
good, (I inspected them in Colorado a few weeks ago).
How it will work when assembled remains to be seen. I'm keeping my fingers
crossed.
Richard
Jan Owen
In the time since you discovered the discrepancy between the actual results
and the specifications for Richard's scope and notified Intes Micro (and
Richard), have they yet demonstrated that they can, in fact, deliver a
special order exceptionally high quality scope of this nature? Certainly
there's been time to do so, if they were interested in demonstrating they
could do so... In short, have they built another prototype? And if not,
why not?
I hear you that Richard's scope, as delivered, was a good one at 1/7 wave.
But he didn't order a 1/7 wave front scope...
It's that undemonstrated capability of Intes Micro to build an exceptional
scope that kept me from ordering one, and that has me anxiously awaiting the
results of Richard's TEC scope...
Many folks are quite satisfied with scopes they have bought from you because
at 1/6 or 1/7 ptv they are, on average, better optically than many other
scopes on the market today, and are reasonably priced. Simply said, they
offer very good optics at good prices.
What Richard and I were looking for, however, was not simply a scope that
was, on average, better than most other scopes on the market. We are
looking for something much closer to perfection. Since that level of
quality is not generally available, Richard took you at your word that you
could obtain, via special order, such a scope. And as you know, I had
planned to place an order with you for the same scope with an even tighter
specification. If Intes Micro had demonstrated this capability, not only
would Richard be a happy owner today; so would I. Since TEC seems close to
delivering against a high order specification, we will soon see who can make
what... If TEC can, we'll soon know it. If they can't either, it's back to
the drawing board...
Clear skies!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
lude...@my-deja.com wrote in message <81qt1v$fgc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
WHALEN44
Don't get in such a fuss, you put more meaning into my words than I do :-)
What I am saying is that for the amount of product I see over here from Intes
Micro and Intes in the larger sizes (8" or larger), seems like a lot have had
problems of one kind or another. I doubt there is that much product here in the
larger sizes, is there?
What kind of track record do these manufacturers have with you for these larger
scopes? How many have you had to send back? You have told me many times of you
returning their scopes due to problems or low quality.
Remember, not eveyone is buying these scopes from you.
Richard
WHALEN44
Sounds like we agree to me....
Richard
I wrote:
>I think however ones has to be more careful when buying one for several
reasons.
Markus wrote>Yes , that the best idea and I have to think more carefull in
lude...@my-deja.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
> You very clearly told me it was a "new" and improved focusing system
since
> there was some concern about the old system. I have every email you
ever sent,
> all of our conversations.
So please go back to this emails and read them carefull and than we
talk again.
> > > >
> Not at all Markus
so why you wrote before only the MN61 is troublefree ? You remember
answeres from other owners who answered you to this statement ?
> >
> this as did you. So far things are looking good, interferometer of
primary came
> in at 1/11 wave P-V on the wavefront and 1/63 wave P-V RMS.
I remember words from Zeiss Opticians about the meniscas, saying even
1/40 wave on primary not guarrantees even 1/6 wavefront as final result.
Mechanics look very
> good, (I inspected them in Colorado a few weeks ago).
I believe you, since I know that TEC mechanics are very good.
>
Markus
>
> Richard
lude...@my-deja.com
"Jan Owen" <Jan....@gte.net> wrote:
> Markus,
>
> In the time since you discovered the discrepancy between the actual
results
> and the specifications for Richard's scope and notified Intes Micro
(and
> Richard), have they yet demonstrated that they can, in fact, deliver a
> special order exceptionally high quality scope of this nature?
Yes they have delivered before and later. I showed Richard before
german retestings in Zygo of 8" and after Richards scope i received
last month another 8" Deluxe, which was retested and of that very high
quality, even in retesting.
Certainly
> there's been time to do so, if they were interested in demonstrating
they
> could do so... In short, have they built another prototype?
Not for me
And if not,
> why not?
Not prototype Telescope , but complete optical sets which I received 2
weeks ago and which have been retested in germany, optical sets for my
180 mm caddilac versions.
>
> I hear you that Richard's scope, as delivered, was a good one at 1/7
wave.
> But he didn't order a 1/7 wave front scope...
Correct, since my own retesting showed the diffrence, I informed
Richard about my impression and offered him the INTES MICRO opticions ,
exchange of optics, or discount price or money back, Richard took his
money back.
> > >
> What Richard and I were looking for, however, was not simply a scope
that
> was, on average, better than most other scopes on the market. We are
> looking for something much closer to perfection. Since that level of
> quality is not generally available, Richard took you at your word
that you
> could obtain, via special order, such a scope.
Still I am able to get this special quality, which not means, that it
is impossible, that the first time could go something wrong. Jan, here
working people , people like you and me and all this people can make
sometimes a mistake on here job like you and me too. They are not
roboters (even Roboters doing mistakes)
best wishes
Markus
>
> Clear skies!!!
Jan Owen
I fully understand that these folks are not robots. They are merely some
very good human makers of generally very good optics. Like all human
beings, they aren't perfect, and will make a mistake now and then. I accept
that. I'm a manager for a very large global corporation, and a large part
of what I do is ensure that human errors do not go out the door. So I do
have some understanding of what is involved here.
On the other hand, the telescope in question, Richard's 8" was built to
custom order. And we could say the same thing about your 8" "super
planetary" Mak, too. There were a very specific specifications drawn up in
advance that clearly set the acceptance criteria. It would, no doubt, have
been perfectly acceptable to Richard if these optical workers had made a
human mistake while grinding the mirrors, or the meniscus, provided that
they recognized the mistake and corrected it prior to shipment. The issue
here is not whether or not it is acceptable to make a mistake. It is. But
with clear acceptance criteria established specifying the acceptable
wavefront accuracy of the system, such a mistake should absolutely have been
identified during testing, and the mistake corrected prior to shipment.
That's what's the problem here. It wasn't. YOU discovered the problem.
Great work on your part, but it doesn't change the fact that Intes Micro
should never have let this get out the door. Mass produced scopes of
questionable quality sometimes seem to slip past inspectors. This should
not happen with mass produced scopes, but sadly, it does. Regardless, a
custom ordered scope should ABSOLUTELY NEVER go out the door if it doesn't
meet the acceptability criteria. Period.
You may indeed receive an OTA from Intes Micro now and again that meets
these criteria, but that would appear to be more a matter of chance than a
deliberately choreographed, repeatable process. If Richard orders a nearly
perfect scope, and someone else orders just a scope, and Intes Micro
delivers a good scope to Richard, against his specification, and delivers a
PERFECT scope to the other customer, that is not a demonstration of their
ability to build a quality scope to order. That is a demonstration that,
given a little luck they can make a perfect scope accidentally from time to
time... And it may or may not be an indication that they can build very good
ones most of the time.
So far, I have not seen them demonstrate that they can take an order for a
superlative scope and reliably turn that order into reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
lude...@my-deja.com wrote in message <81uivh$v2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
WHALEN44
I went back through the emails and confirmed it was to have "new style"
focuser.
>so why you wrote before only the MN61 is troublefree ? You remember answeres
from other owners who answered you to this statement ?>
Sure I do. I also have recieved many emails from owners of other models with
problems. Most problems listed were mechanical (not reaching focus with many
eyepieces) or (mushy focusers)etc. I also have recieved emails from very
satisfied owners. I'm just relaying my personal knowledge, that of the Intes
and Intes Micro scopes I am familar with and have used myself, or been involved
with like the one I ordered, all but a MN61 had problems. I have not used any
of the 7" scopes, though I have report of mushy focuser in that "old" model
that promted me to question you in the first place about the focuser in the
scope I had ordered.
>I remember words from Zeiss Opticians about the meniscas, saying even 1/40
wave on primary not guarrantees even 1/6 wavefront as final result.>
Absolutley right, that is why I am taking a wait and see attitude. The
secondary can screw things up also!
Latest report is that the scope is assembled and will be tested Tuesday or
Wednesday.
lude...@my-deja.com
manager for a very large global corporation, and a large part
> of what I do is ensure that human errors do not go out the door.
Thats what i am trying to do as good as possible too, therefore I
informed Richard and di not ship the scope out, which would been
shipped out from most or any other dealer, I am shure.
>
> On the other hand, the telescope in question, Richard's 8" was built
to
> custom order. And we could say the same thing about your 8" "super
> planetary" Mak, too. There were a very specific specifications drawn
up in
> advance that clearly set the acceptance criteria. It would, no
doubt, have
> been perfectly acceptable to Richard if these optical workers had
made a
> human mistake while grinding the mirrors, or the meniscus, provided
that
> they recognized the mistake and corrected it prior to shipment. The
issue
> here is not whether or not it is acceptable to make a mistake. It
is. But
> with clear acceptance criteria established specifying the acceptable
> wavefront accuracy of the system, such a mistake should absolutely
have been
> identified during testing, and the mistake corrected prior to
shipment.
> That's what's the problem here.
Be shure, I tried long time to find out how such mistake could happens.
I talked to many times with INTES Chied and his optician and they
warranteed to me 100% that the scope have had the quality of the
Testreport. After that i talked with german opticians and Zygo tester
and came to follow result, why this error happened:
1, If the telescope have an quality of 1/10 wavefront and the deffect
(spike )I found have 1/12 wavefront, than this deffect will be clearly
visible for my eyes , but not decrease the testresult, since it is an
less error
2, I am not a expert in Zygo Testing, but if the 5. and 6. order
spherical aberration which we saw is to far away from Zygo testing
wavelength , it could be undectable.
3, INTES MICRO did make this optics with controll during polishing by
the Interferometer. This interferometer work was relative new to them
and therefore they maybe oversaw something important. Before the optics
have been tested with old classic methods and only than Zygo tested.
After this problem, i told to INTES MICRO to go back for my optics and
telescope to the old claissic testing methods during polishing, since
the know to use it correctly and the latest optics come out again as
the old, very good. Thats means as an result, here experience with
interferometer controlling during polishing wa snot good enough. They
just believed to much this maschine.
Regardless, a
> custom ordered scope should ABSOLUTELY NEVER go out the door if it
doesn't
> meet the acceptability criteria. Period.
The Hubble scope was a custommade Telescope, made by most proffeseionel
Telescope, you remember the result ? Why this poor Russians have not
the same right to make an mistake than NASA ?
I know very well, under which terrible conditions this both companys
produce mostly extremly fine telescopes. Give them modern euqipment,
like TEC, AP , Takahashi or Zeiss is using and I am shure we will get
same or even better quality.
No you, not Richard and not I am would agree to produce anything under
such conditions, we should never forget that.
If they give optics for coating and they get damaged ,nobody pay them,
if an subcontractor goes bankkrott, which happens many times, nobody
give them here mone yback and many more.
This are all no excuses for mistakes of course, but please dont ask
more from them, than you can ask from manuafactors who doing mistakes
in customordered NASA projects.
best wishes
Markus
> >,
BTW: I did never read an bad report about Takahahsi, where you buy
Mewlon Telescopes, for which most customers have big problems to repair
the collimation, but it is Takahashi and not an poor Russian Company to
whom everybody will start immediatly attacks.
JMc
> Jan Owen wrote:
>
> Markus,
>
snip
> This should
> not happen with mass produced scopes, but sadly, it does. Regardless, a
> custom ordered scope should ABSOLUTELY NEVER go out the door if it doesn't
> meet the acceptability criteria. Period.
Yea, like the Hubble Space Telescope? Perkin-Elmer operates every Q/A
program known to man, and they flat-out screwed up. It eventually
happens to every company, big or small, and what they do about their
mistakes is what's crucial. BTW, in the end Perkin-Elmer didn't pay a
red cent for their $1B mistake, you and I did!
>
> You may indeed receive an OTA from Intes Micro now and again that meets
> these criteria, but that would appear to be more a matter of chance than a
> deliberately choreographed, repeatable process. If Richard orders a nearly
> perfect scope, and someone else orders just a scope, and Intes Micro
> delivers a good scope to Richard, against his specification, and delivers a
> PERFECT scope to the other customer, that is not a demonstration of their
> ability to build a quality scope to order. That is a demonstration that,
> given a little luck they can make a perfect scope accidentally from time to
> time... And it may or may not be an indication that they can build very good
> ones most of the time.
>
> So far, I have not seen them demonstrate that they can take an order for a
> superlative scope and reliably turn that order into reality.
I think you're being a little too harsh here Jan. There are no perfect
telescopes (the AP 180 EDF is pretty close though!), and anyone who will
accept only perfection is going to be disappointed. Look at the average
quality of the offerings from Meade or Celestron, versus what comes out
of Intes or Intes-Micro. In the scopes I've seen, there is a difference,
and if anyone's Q/A program needs tweaking, I think it's at the
factories in California.
Jim McSheehy
WHALEN44
So the excuse now is "since the Hubble was screwed up it's ok to produce
screwed up telescopes?
Please, the hubble was a bit more complicated than any 8" MCT.
And as far as picking on TAK, perhaps we don't because we never see any reports
on problems with the Mewlon. What are you basing this statement " for which
most customers have big problems to repair" on? What goes wrong with this
series of scopes that most owners need to get repaired?
And as far as Intes Micro being a "poor Russian Company", they charge as much
if not more for a 8" custom MCT as I can get one for here in the US.
So if they are working under horrible conditions etc.
sound like poor management/ownership.
If they are building as many scopes per year as you say for the US market
alone, and being paid in US dollars, they should be doing very well indeed.
Someone there is making some money. If not, they need to move the shop to a
different location.
It's beginning to sounds like the Russian version of a Chinese sweatshop to
me.........
Richard
gkigera...@my-deja.com
saying that it is OK to produce and sell sub-standard telescopes
because they can be repaired with less effort than was required
for Hubble. Additionally, this is not the case with Takahashi
where repairs are actually more difficult than the Hubble fix.
Reread all the posts on this thread - I think you will then
agree with my interpretation.
In article <19991130123543...@ng-cc1.aol.com>,
John Cantrell
It seems to me that Markus is saying that it is never acceptable to let a
substandard product out the door, even if it pisses off the customer to
withhold the product (which it apparently did). But the customer would have
been pissed the other way too (ie, in taking possession of a delayed,
substandard product), so Markus made a decision to protect the reputation of
his product by refusing to release it, and chose to risk losing the
customer, instead.
Seems like the right decision (in a no-win situation) to me. He just picked
the wrong customer, I guess.
Bet his supplier got an ear full, though.
John
Jan Owen
You're right! There are no perfect telescopes. But Takahashi comes close.
So does Astro-Physics.
Because no one is perfect doesn't mean we should be complacent and accept
the status quo.
I think competition in the telescope manufacturing business is healthy, and
would like very much to see another name or two step up to the plate here.
So I've been trying to get someone to raise the bar to another level. I
think that's exactly where Richard's coming from too.
We're not trying to punish Markus. Or at least I can assure you I'm not.
The fact that Markus caught the error in Richard's scope and blew the
whistle on it speaks well for Markus.
But if we don't push back against missed expectations on the part of the
manufacturers, the state of the art will never move upward, and we'll all be
accepting less than superb telescopes forever for fear of being too harsh.
I'm not out to punish anyone, but I believe we have every right to hold the
manufacturer accountable for meeting clearly stated specifications. Nothing
more. But nothing less, either.
I merely want to see if we can move Intes, or Intes Micro, or TEC (if
they're not there already) onto a level playing field with TAK & AP.
On another level, I'd much rather see Meade & Celestron producing on par
with Carl Zambuto/Rick Singmaster, and Peter Ceravalo than the other way
around. Wouldn't you???
I think Perkin Elmer is a perfect example of our failing to hold a
manufacturer accountable. And you're right. Because no one did, look who
paid the bill!!! Twice!!! First for a defective mirror, then for the
optical fixes and shuttle repair mission. The principle is the same.
So are you saying because no one held Perkin Elmer responsible, that no one
should hold other mirror makers responsible either???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
JMc wrote in message <3843DCCE...@my-deja.com>...
Paul Hyndman
"Jan Owen" <Jan....@gte.net> wrote:
> I merely want to see if we can move Intes, or Intes Micro, or TEC
> (if they're not there already) onto a level playing field with TAK
> & AP.
>
> On another level, I'd much rather see Meade & Celestron producing
> on par with Carl Zambuto/Rick Singmaster, and Peter Ceravalo than
> the other way around. Wouldn't you???
> >anyone who will accept only perfection is going to be disappointed.
> > Look at the average quality of the offerings from Meade or
> > Celestron, versus what comes out of Intes or Intes-Micro. In the
> > scopes I've seen, there is a difference, and if anyone's Q/A
> > program needs tweaking, I think it's at the factories in California.
The big problem of course is that quality takes time, and time takes
$$$.
When Roland starts producing the AP Mak-Casses, you can be assured of
several things:
A) The optical and mechanical quality will be outstanding.
B) The quality of delivered instruments will be consistent.
C) They will be very fairly priced, but don't look to compare prices
with the mass-produced units of Meade or Celestron.
D) If you have to ask "what is the difference?" you probably should buy
the Meade or Celestron... however, if you do KNOW what the differences
are, you'll be satisfied with nothing less!
Can the big companies do better? Of course, and the most important area
is probably in having a comprehensive QC program before the cra... er,
uh... equipment leaves the factory, but be prepared to pay more if
this occurs!
My $0.02
Paul
--
Paul Hyndman pghy...@yahoo.com Madison, CT
lude...@my-deja.com
> If they are building as many scopes per year as you say for the US
market
> alone, and being paid in US dollars, they should be doing very well
indeed.
> Someone there is making some money. If not, they need to move the
shop to a
> different location.
Please fell free to make only 1 week holiday in Moscow, but be
prepaired to pay 2 time the money you pay in New York or Tokyo. Be
prepaired to pay for an Cheeseburger $ 5 and for a cup of coffeee $ 3,
for an holte with quality of simple US motel ($ 30) to pay $ 100~$200.
It is so easy to talk, but I am shure you would change dramaticle your
mind, after 1 week visit in Moscow.
Rawmaterial ( glas and metall) cost today in Moscow 2~3 times more than
in USA, you not believe ? Go over and check.
best wishes
Markus
>
> It's beginning to sounds like the Russian version of a Chinese
sweatshop to
> me.........
>
> Richard
>
> >BTW: I did never read an bad report about Takahahsi, where you buy
Mewlon
> Telescopes, for which most customers have big problems to repair
> >the collimation, but it is Takahashi and not an poor Russian Company
to whom
> everybody will start immediatly attacks. >
>
>
Andy Wallace
mirror figure--in 1 G--it lost the figure in 0 G. The military, which
had already put up similar size mirrors in spy satellites, declined to
share this rather important bit of info and 0 G test capability with
PE--national security, you know. Same thing with the Hubbell solar array
flex problem.
Andy Wallace
be??--some folks don't want to wait a year to get a scope after ordering
it. Different strokes, etc :)
JMc
I'm not implying that at all. Every company should be fully responsible
for the quality of the products it ships. I just think it's a little
naive on our part to assume perfection because of the price we paid, the
name on the scope, or the uniqueness of the order. In fact, the chances
of a screw up are probably greater for a custom-design than for one that
is regularly produced.
Jim McSheehy
Paul Hyndman
Andy Wallace <andyw...@home.com> wrote:
> Anyone care to guess when this might be and how long the
> wait list will be??--some folks don't want to wait a year
> to get a scope after ordering
> it. Different strokes, etc :)
Ahhh Andy...
Some things are worth the wait!!! :o)
Clear Skies!
Paul
--
Paul Hyndman pghy...@yahoo.com Madison, CT
nightowl
<andyw...@home.com> wrote:
> Need to blame the US military not PE. The Hubbell had a good
> initial
> mirror figure--in 1 G--it lost the figure in 0 G. The military,
> which
Sorry Andy, but check you facts again.
The Hubble mirror was ground to the wrong figure, and not because of
flexing due to the earth's gravity.
The flaw has to do with the unspecified insertion of a cheap 10 cent
washer in a super precise and critical piece of machinery that was
accidentally bumped.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
WHALEN44
You make my point exactly. They need to move to a different location.
How are the 80/480 coming? What is the holdup?
Richard
Andy Wallace
statement.
WHALEN44
Never heard this one. Where did you hear it? I always heard the optics had
excellent figures, they just didn't match up due to using the wrong test plate
or something.
Richard
Richard H. Jarnagin
the placement of a lens used for testing that resulted in the appearance of the
correct figure when in reality it was not.
Richard
Jan Owen
OK! We agree that a manufacturer should be responsible for the quality of
their product.
And we agree that on a custom order, it's more likely that an error may
occur during the manufacturing process.
Where we're apparently not together here is that on a custom ordered
telescope where there is a stated specification and clearly outlined
acceptance criteria agreed to in advance, anything that does not live up to
that agreed to in advance acceptance criteria is simply unacceptable (though
the purchasing party may accept lesser than specified quality if they so
desire...). Since testing is part of the acceptance process, the supplier
clearly knows in advance whether the product meets it's agreed to
specification. If it does not meet specifications, and the supplier ships
it anyway, then the supplier has, at minimum not lived up to the agreement.
This is a standard purchasing practice in industry, and there is no reason
for any exception to this process on a purchase made by you or me. This
process is independent of the price we paid, the name on the scope, or the
uniqueness of the order.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
JMc wrote in message <38454FED...@my-deja.com>...
Jan Owen
I've never had any doubt that Roland can consistently produce a MCT at the
level we're discussing, any more than I have any doubt that he can
consistently produce an APO at this level. Roland has a long and proven
track record showing clearly his ability in this regard. Just as surely as
I'm certain that Meade or Celestron won't (note I didn't say can't) produce
consistently at this level. But my challenge here is not to Roland or Meade
or Celestron, or Takahashi.
So let me try once again to make myself clear. I'd like to see more
companies that can and will consistently produce at this level.
I don't care if those companies are Meade and Celestron. But given their
targeted niche in the business, I'm not holding my breath. Since Meade &
Celestron are going to continue to go for the mass market, I believe there
is room for a TEC or an Intes Micro or an Intes at that upper level. And I
want to encourage them to try to achieve that position. They won't ever get
there if they are not challenged to deliver the highest possible quality.
So I'm not ready to allow them to produce a good product if I can help drive
them to build an exceptional one by holding them accountable for their work.
And...oh...incidentally, I wouldn't mind buying a truly superb telescope
from one of them in the process...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Paul Hyndman wrote in message <822vs1$4hg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <XC%04.803$aQ.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "Jan Owen" <Jan....@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> I merely want to see if we can move Intes, or Intes Micro, or TEC
>> (if they're not there already) onto a level playing field with TAK
>> & AP.
>>
>> On another level, I'd much rather see Meade & Celestron producing
>> on par with Carl Zambuto/Rick Singmaster, and Peter Ceravalo than
>> the other way around. Wouldn't you???
>
>> >anyone who will accept only perfection is going to be disappointed.
>> > Look at the average quality of the offerings from Meade or
>> > Celestron, versus what comes out of Intes or Intes-Micro. In the
>> > scopes I've seen, there is a difference, and if anyone's Q/A
>> > program needs tweaking, I think it's at the factories in California.
>
>
>The big problem of course is that quality takes time, and time takes
>$$$.
>
>When Roland starts producing the AP Mak-Casses, you can be assured of
>several things:
>
>A) The optical and mechanical quality will be outstanding.
>
>B) The quality of delivered instruments will be consistent.
>
>C) They will be very fairly priced, but don't look to compare prices
>with the mass-produced units of Meade or Celestron.
>
>D) If you have to ask "what is the difference?" you probably should buy
>the Meade or Celestron... however, if you do KNOW what the differences
>are, you'll be satisfied with nothing less!
>
>Can the big companies do better? Of course, and the most important area
>is probably in having a comprehensive QC program before the cra... er,
>uh... equipment leaves the factory, but be prepared to pay more if
>this occurs!
>
>My $0.02
>
Herm
Meade/Celestron business model, there is probably more money to be made in that
than making custom "perfect" scopes.
Herm
lude...@my-deja.com
> Where we're apparently not together here is that on a custom ordered
> telescope where there is a stated specification and clearly outlined
> acceptance criteria agreed to in advance, anything that does not live
up to
> that agreed to in advance acceptance criteria is simply unacceptable
(though
> the purchasing party may accept lesser than specified quality if they
so
> desire...). Since testing is part of the acceptance process, the
supplier
> clearly knows in advance whether the product meets it's agreed to
> specification. If it does not meet specifications, and the supplier
ships
> it anyway, then the supplier has, at minimum not lived up to the
agreement.
> This is a standard purchasing practice in industry, and there is no
reason
> for any exception to this process on a purchase made by you or me.
This
> process is independent of the price we paid, the name on the scope,
or the
> uniqueness of the order.
>
Hi Jan,
I fully agree with above, but still following is possible:
1, a simple mistake in measurements show ordered results
2, a mistake , smaller than the ordered quality, will not show up in
final test as an mistake, since it is withhion the specifications, but
it will show up the more sentitive eyes.
1,Result: The manufactor have made an 100% quality controll and
fullfilled the specfications correspondance to the order.Due an simple
mistake he oversaw an error.
2, Result: retesting not confirm ordered quality. The manufactor will
be informed about this. The manufactor agree for retesting and free of
charge repairing.
Can you ask more from an manufactor ? No.
So was something wrong ? No.
When I bought this summer my new BMW Roadstar, a much better quality
controlled product, I drove excactly 65 km , the car stopped themself
on our highway and needet an 3 hour service due an small but effective
mistake.
The manufactor agreed to repair and service free of charge, I accepted
this offer and now after 12,000 km I am still happy. Did this product
passed a 100% controll ? correspondance to the manufactor , yes. Was it
delivered without deffect ? No.
I don't know not even 1 company worldwide who have an quality controll
such perfect, that never an deffective product leaved the factory.
best wishes
Markus
Joachim Engel
> When I bought this summer my new BMW Roadstar, ...
Now I understand, that's the golden nose ...
your customers talking about! ;-))
No, just kiddin',
hope you have much fun with it ... without troubles!
Clear skies and open minds,
Joachim Engel
mailto:jengel-...@engel-edv.de
Joachim Engel
> When I bought this summer my new BMW Roadstar, a much better quality
> controlled product, I drove excactly 65 km , the car stopped themself
> on our highway and needet an 3 hour service due an small but effective
> mistake.
Makes me no wonder!
I heard a lot about such problems with BMW cars right from the start.
:-(
Never understand why Germans are so proud of BMW.
IMHO, the cars are much to expensive for that quality.
Jan Owen
Valid point!!!
However, Markus has been offering Intes Micro up as a maker of high quality
custom optics as discussed at length here. I can't tell you whether Markus
is volunteering them to make better optics than they would prefer, or are
capable of.
Only Markus can answer that one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Herm wrote in message <384bee8e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
Jan Owen
I'm not quite certain that I'm following you on this, but let's see if I'm
understanding you correctly.
1. A hypothetical supplier makes a telescope to a custom specification,
where specific acceptance requirements have been established as part of the
order. The supplier tests the optics at equal to or better than the
specifications, and then ships it. Upon receipt by a dealer, the telescope
is inspected again. The scope is found to be outside the specifications.
The philosophical question is, did the supplier make a mistake during
testing, and ship in good faith? Or did the supplier really know the scope
was out of specifications when they tested it, but believed that it was good
enough that no one would notice the flaw?
From the customer's perspective, regardless of the verdict in the
philosophical question above, the scope is out of specification, and outside
the acceptance requirements. There are three alternatives, one of which
must be chosen by the customer. Refuse the telescope and demand a refund of
any paid portion of the agreed upon price. Or, agree to allow the dealer to
return the telescope to the supplier to be reworked until it DOES meet the
acceptance criteria, at no additional cost beyond the original agreed to
price. Or, accept the telescope, even though it is out of specification,
and doesn't pass the acceptance criteria. None of these alternatives were
what the customer had in mind when they ordered the telescope!
Can I ask more of a manufacturer?
Well, of course!!! I'd prefer it if they got it right the first time! But
I'd probably be willing to go the extra mile once, and allow them the
opportunity to make good on their warranty. You can bet I wouldn't accept
an out of specification scope. And if I'd already had another bad
experience with the same maker on another telescope, you can bet the option
I'd select is the refund.
So was something wrong?
Of COURSE something was wrong!!! The telescope wasn't built to
specifications, and the supplier either didn't find the error when they
tested it, or they found it and hoped no one else would find it. So they
shipped an out of specification telescope that they certified met the
specification, and it didn't. At best, their credibility is damaged. At
worst, their honesty is in question...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
lude...@my-deja.com wrote in message <826auc$in9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
SNIP!
>Hi Jan,
>
>I fully agree with above, but still following is possible:
>
>1, a simple mistake in measurements show ordered results
>2, a mistake , smaller than the ordered quality, will not show up in
>final test as an mistake, since it is withhion the specifications, but
>it will show up the more sentitive eyes.
>
>1,Result: The manufactor have made an 100% quality controll and
>fullfilled the specfications correspondance to the order.Due an simple
>mistake he oversaw an error.
>2, Result: retesting not confirm ordered quality. The manufactor will
>be informed about this. The manufactor agree for retesting and free of
>charge repairing.
>Can you ask more from an manufactor ? No.
>So was something wrong ? No.
>
>When I bought this summer my new BMW Roadstar, a much better quality
>controlled product, I drove excactly 65 km , the car stopped themself
>on our highway and needet an 3 hour service due an small but effective
>mistake.
>The manufactor agreed to repair and service free of charge, I accepted
>this offer and now after 12,000 km I am still happy. Did this product
>passed a 100% controll ? correspondance to the manufactor , yes. Was it
>delivered without deffect ? No.
>
>I don't know not even 1 company worldwide who have an quality controll
>such perfect, that never an deffective product leaved the factory.
>
>best wishes
>
>Markus
>
>
lude...@my-deja.com
"Jan Owen" <Jan....@gte.net> wrote:
> Herm,
>
> Valid point!!!
>
> However, Markus has been offering Intes Micro up as a maker of high
quality
> custom optics as discussed at length here. I can't tell you whether
Markus
> is volunteering them to make better optics than they would prefer, or
are
> capable of.
>
> Only Markus can answer that one.
>
>
you can be shure, that I am able to force them to improve and improve
and if you see the telescopes from starting point , many years ago,
they made more improvements than any other manufactor, which not means
that they not sometimes ship out an monday product.
lude...@my-deja.com
"Jan Owen" <Jan....@gte.net> wrote:
> Hi, Markus!
>
> I'm not quite certain that I'm following you on this, but let's see
if I'm
> understanding you correctly.
okay let's see.
>
> 1. A hypothetical supplier makes a telescope to a custom
specification,
> where specific acceptance requirements have been established as part
of the
> order. The supplier tests the optics at equal to or better than the
> specifications, and then ships it. Upon receipt by a dealer, the
telescope
> is inspected again. The scope is found to be outside the
specifications.
correct.
>
> The philosophical question is, did the supplier make a mistake during
> testing, and ship in good faith? Or did the supplier really know the
scope
> was out of specifications when they tested it, but believed that it
was good
> enough that no one would notice the flaw?
This is for me no question, since the supplier nknow me long enough to
be shure, that i find deffects and that i will claim them for here
pocket. So all they have to win , is to loss money.
Result: makes no sense to ship out something about which they know,
there is an deffect, agreed ?
>
> From the customer's perspective, regardless of the verdict in the
> philosophical question above, the scope is out of specification, and
outside
> the acceptance requirements.
correct
There are three alternatives, one of which
> must be chosen by the customer. Refuse the telescope and demand a
refund of
> any paid portion of the agreed upon price. Or, agree to allow the
dealer to
> return the telescope to the supplier to be reworked until it DOES
meet the
> acceptance criteria, at no additional cost beyond the original agreed
to
> price. Or, accept the telescope, even though it is out of
specification,
> and doesn't pass the acceptance criteria. None of these alternatives
were
> what the customer had in mind when they ordered the telescope!
correct.
>
> Can I ask more of a manufacturer?
go ahead.
>
> Well, of course!!! I'd prefer it if they got it right the first
time!
Everybody , manufactor, dealer, customer would prefer it.
But
> I'd probably be willing to go the extra mile once, and allow them the
> opportunity to make good on their warranty. You can bet I wouldn't
accept
> an out of specification scope. And if I'd already had another bad
> experience with the same maker on another telescope, you can bet the
option
> I'd select is the refund.
nothing is wrong with that, since it is one of 3 choices.
>
> So was something wrong?
not yet.
>
> Of COURSE something was wrong!!! The telescope wasn't built to
> specifications, and the supplier either didn't find the error when
they
> tested it, or they found it and hoped no one else would find it. So
they
> shipped an out of specification telescope that they certified met the
> specification, and it didn't. At best, their credibility is
damaged. At
> worst, their honesty is in question...
Tell me one manufactor of Telescopes in the big world who did never
shipped out an telescope with an deffect (known or unknown to him makes
no diffrence). Tell me one manufactor who did never shipped out more
than only 1 deffective telescopes.
Do you want to tell me, that all manufactors in the world did lost your
credibility ? In this case, you must buy something else, but not a
telescope.
I am wrong ?
Paul Hyndman
jen...@engel-edv.de wrote:
> Never understand why Germans are so proud of BMW.
> IMHO, the cars are much to expensive for that quality.
Ahhhh... But the BMW roadsters are made in the good old USofA!
To some of us though it's like comparing an AP or Tak' to a (Brand name
deleted so as not to offend!). If you truly think the (Brand X) are
great scopes and can't see the difference, but think the AP and Tak are
over-rated and over-priced, then get (Brand X) and think what dummies
the rest of us must be! It's discretionary spending of (hopefully!)
expendable income.
Of course if Markus had gotten the "Three Pointed Star" instead of
the "Spinning Propeller".... :o)
Seriously though, the best we can hope for is a quality and value
conscious manufacturer who, through a supportive dealer network, can
and will stand behind his products. A few Uh-ohs can slip out of even
the best of facilities... how they handle it is what ultimately what
determines our level of satisfacion.
Enjoy the car Markus... hard work deserves hard play!
Clear Skies!
Paul
--
Paul Hyndman pghy...@yahoo.com Madison, CT
Jan Owen
I think we're almost there at last! We've reached some semblance of
agreement on everything except the part between the rows of asterisks below.
****************************************************************************
***************
>Tell me one manufactor of Telescopes in the big world who did never
>shipped out an telescope with an deffect (known or unknown to him makes
>no diffrence). Tell me one manufactor who did never shipped out more
>than only 1 deffective telescopes.
>Do you want to tell me, that all manufactors in the world did lost your
>credibility ? In this case, you must buy something else, but not a
>telescope.
>
>I am wrong ?
>
>Markus
****************************************************************************
***********
Now!!! If you'll recall, we're talking about one customer here, and one
telescope, and one dealer, and one telescope maker.
So forget about all the people reading this for a moment. And forget that
it's me who's writing this. And forget Richard Whalen for a minute. Take a
deep breath, then exhale slowly.
Now, think about just what I'm going to say now, not anything you think I've
said so far.
If you were the person who had ordered a telescope for which you had
established the specifications & acceptability criteria, and you paid your
money and waited and then your dealer calls you and tells you that your
scope has arrived from the manufacturer, complete with it's interferometry
results which say it's nearly perfect, but the dealer tells you that he's
inspected the scope and it's flawed. How would you feel about that? Would
your faith in the manufacturer be shaken, considering they've just shipped
you a scope along with test results that certify the superb quality of a
scope that's good, but not superb? That's the question here. And if you
said that you, as the customer, wouldn't wouldn't bat an eye, I'm not sure I
could believe that.
You see, for all the readers out there, this incident may not really have
any real impact. They may not care about what happened. Chances are, this
incident won't change their minds about ANY telescope manufacturer. NO!
I'm not implying that other manufacturers haven't shipped bad scopes. I
think there's strong evidence that there are some very big names out there
who may have shipped more good (but certainly not superb) scopes than Intes
Micro has ever built. But that's not the point either.
The whole point is that you're trying to build your and Intes Micro's
credibility as suppliers of superb telescopes. You certainly are aware of
that. I'm not sure how you've positioned this with Intes Micro... But at a
time when they were building a fairly high profile telescope (one that
certainly would be discussed in this newsgroup), I would have expected that
even more care than usual would have been taken to make this a good example
that would generate more sales, instead of endless threads discussing how
the whole thing was managed... Certainly they are human and can make
mistakes, but I'd expect they'd be looking extra hard to ensure that any
mistakes were taken care of BEFORE this scope was shipped.
This doesn't make Intes Micro a poor manufacturer, or a dishonest one. But
it does at least make them naive. At this stage in their growth from
military supplier to supplier of fine amateur telescopes, let's hope that
this is seen as a golden opportunity, rather than a catastrophe. As a
chance to grow, instead of a time to be defensive. It's in all our best
interests for them to make another prototype and ship it to SOMEONE!
lude...@my-deja.com wrote in message <828v28$enh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
lude...@my-deja.com
>
> Now!!! If you'll recall, we're talking about one customer here, and
one
> telescope, and one dealer, and one telescope maker.
okay
> So forget about all the people reading this for a moment. And forget
that
> it's me who's writing this. And forget Richard Whalen for a minute.
Take a
> deep breath, then exhale slowly.
okay
>
> Now, think about just what I'm going to say now, not anything you
think I've
> said so far.
oky will do
>
> If you were the person who had ordered a telescope for which you had
> established the specifications & acceptability criteria, and you paid
your
> money and waited and then your dealer calls you and tells you that
your
> scope has arrived from the manufacturer, complete with it's
interferometry
> results which say it's nearly perfect, but the dealer tells you that
he's
> inspected the scope and it's flawed. How would you feel about that?
I would be unhappy to hear the result, but I would be extremly happy to
found an extremly honest dealer who take care on his customer over his
partner(manufactor) and over his profit.
> >
> The whole point is that you're trying to build your and Intes Micro's
> credibility as suppliers of superb telescopes. You certainly are
aware of
> that. I'm not sure how you've positioned this with Intes Micro...
do you really think, I am sitting in my chair and accepting anything
wrong I am getting and forget about it ? if you think so and if I would
work in such manner, than you could be shure, my business would be
stopped, before it really begans.
> the whole thing was managed... Certainly they are human and can make
> mistakes, but I'd expect they'd be looking extra hard to ensure that
any
> mistakes were taken care of BEFORE this scope was shipped.
agreed.
>
> This doesn't make Intes Micro a poor manufacturer, or a dishonest
one. But
> it does at least make them naive.
Since I know them now 9 years as honest fair partners, who pay returns
(which is extremly expensive espacialy in Russia, where they must pay
even for repairing returns 50% taxes) and since they offered me a, a
good discount, b, a free of charge exchange of optics and c, a free of
charge for ching and repairing, I just must believe them , that they
shipped it out with thinking it works as ordered. A Manufactor who
working with me 9 years and knows me as an special ciritical dealer,
would be crazy to send something out, when he is 100% shure, I would
found the the mistake and which service would cost them a lot of money,
do you not think so too ? I know them enough, to be shure, that they
are not such crazy.
At this stage in their growth from
> military supplier to supplier of fine amateur telescopes, let's hope
that
> this is seen as a golden opportunity, rather than a catastrophe. As a
> chance to grow, instead of a time to be defensive. It's in all our
best
> interests for them to make another prototype and ship it to SOMEONE!
Do you want to know the real problem here ? Maybe more telescopes with
small deffects are shipped out to other dealers, but It seems, I am
they only one who check the scopes and give them any time a hard run.
All other dealers never made an claim to them, why ? I dont know, maybe
not enough critical customers. So I am now in bad face of my customer
and I am the only 1 dealer who critice the manufactor and so they dont
like me so much than dealers who never claim something so never cost
them reapiring money.
What they have to think about me ?
But since I know, that I selling for them the most telescopes, they
must agree with my claims , otherwise they would lost me as an dealer.
Jan Owen
right away!!! Good!!!
I'm sure you'll take care of any such problem. Clearly you DID!
I think everyone who's read this thread knows you were up front and took
care of the customer. I didn't say otherwise...
Based on what you've said below about your long association with these
folks, I don't even doubt that they thought they were shipping you a scope
that met the specification.
The unanswered question is why, despite a well-defined specification and
acceptance criteria, did they miss this flaw? This is a very important
question, because if they missed this time (I'm even going to accept this
mistake here...), what's been done since to ensure it won't happen the next
time. That's the question I've been trying to get to the bottom of since I
poked my nose into this thread. As you know, two weeks prior to AstroFest I
was ready to order a very similar scope (with slightly TIGHTER
specifications) through you. We were down to the point of my ordering a
focuser to send you to install on it... I put those plans on hold pending
two outcomes. Resolution of what happened at Intes Micro that let this
scope slip through, including an understanding of what systems have been put
in place to ensure against recurrence. And the quality of the TEC Mak that
Richard ordered in it's place. When those two questions are answered, I'll
make a choice.
In the final analysis, if Intes Micro, working through you, hopes to
deliver custom scopes that can compete successfully with the Astro-Physics
and Takahashis of the telescope world, they will have to deliver that level
of quality consistently. If they can't, Roland's new line of Maks will
doubtless just gobble them up. Great for Astro-Physics, but not so great
for the rest of us...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
lude...@my-deja.com wrote in message <82dtsc$la9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>>
>> Now!!! If you'll recall, we're talking about one customer here, and
>one
>> telescope, and one dealer, and one telescope maker.
>
>okay
>
>> So forget about all the people reading this for a moment. And forget
>that
>> it's me who's writing this. And forget Richard Whalen for a minute.
>Take a
>> deep breath, then exhale slowly.
>
>okay
>
>>
>> Now, think about just what I'm going to say now, not anything you
>think I've
>> said so far.
>
>oky will do
>
>>
>> If you were the person who had ordered a telescope for which you had
>> established the specifications & acceptability criteria, and you paid
>your
>> money and waited and then your dealer calls you and tells you that
>your
>> scope has arrived from the manufacturer, complete with it's
>interferometry
>> results which say it's nearly perfect, but the dealer tells you that
>he's
>> inspected the scope and it's flawed. How would you feel about that?
>
>I would be unhappy to hear the result, but I would be extremly happy to
>found an extremly honest dealer who take care on his customer over his
>partner(manufactor) and over his profit.
>> >
>> The whole point is that you're trying to build your and Intes Micro's
>> credibility as suppliers of superb telescopes. You certainly are
>aware of
>> that. I'm not sure how you've positioned this with Intes Micro...
>
>do you really think, I am sitting in my chair and accepting anything
>wrong I am getting and forget about it ? if you think so and if I would
>work in such manner, than you could be shure, my business would be
>stopped, before it really begans.
>
>> the whole thing was managed... Certainly they are human and can make
>> mistakes, but I'd expect they'd be looking extra hard to ensure that
>any
>> mistakes were taken care of BEFORE this scope was shipped.
>
>agreed.
>
>>
>> This doesn't make Intes Micro a poor manufacturer, or a dishonest
>one. But
>> it does at least make them naive.
>
>Since I know them now 9 years as honest fair partners, who pay returns
>(which is extremly expensive espacialy in Russia, where they must pay
>even for repairing returns 50% taxes) and since they offered me a, a
>good discount, b, a free of charge exchange of optics and c, a free of
>charge for ching and repairing, I just must believe them , that they
>shipped it out with thinking it works as ordered. A Manufactor who
>working with me 9 years and knows me as an special ciritical dealer,
>would be crazy to send something out, when he is 100% shure, I would
>found the the mistake and which service would cost them a lot of money,
>do you not think so too ? I know them enough, to be shure, that they
>are not such crazy.
>
>
> At this stage in their growth from
>> military supplier to supplier of fine amateur telescopes, let's hope
>that
>> this is seen as a golden opportunity, rather than a catastrophe. As a
>> chance to grow, instead of a time to be defensive. It's in all our
>best
>> interests for them to make another prototype and ship it to SOMEONE!
>
>Do you want to know the real problem here ? Maybe more telescopes with
>small deffects are shipped out to other dealers, but It seems, I am
>they only one who check the scopes and give them any time a hard run.
>All other dealers never made an claim to them, why ? I dont know, maybe
>not enough critical customers. So I am now in bad face of my customer
>and I am the only 1 dealer who critice the manufactor and so they dont
>like me so much than dealers who never claim something so never cost
>them reapiring money.
>What they have to think about me ?
>
>But since I know, that I selling for them the most telescopes, they
>must agree with my claims , otherwise they would lost me as an dealer.
>>
lude...@my-deja.com
specification.
Hi Jan,
I fully understand your below text. I am living in germany, the factory
is in Russia, so I cannot make for each order an trip to Russia to
check before packing and shipping, agreed ?
What I can do ?
I can inform them about errors and deffects
I can tell them to take more care and do it better next time
I can take care of my customers over the manufactors
I can inshure you, that you not get what you not ordered
Due the experience, I cannot warrantee to you, that the first shipment
pass my inspection.
Be shure, I informed them about all bad results of this discussion and
that it is very bad for reputation, they know already about it , all I
can hope is, that they do what they promissed, taking more care.
I will not die , if they die, so it is here own final problem. If they
deliver me good stuff, all is okay, if they deliver me bad stuff, they
will feel my troubling.
If they delivery very seldom an product with an deffect, I have no big
problem as long they accept my claim (and they accept it anytime in
past), if they deliver only bad products, they wil be removed from my
webside.
I am the the big mother of INTES MICRO
I will go ahead with my work, doing controll and decite, is it good or
not. Thats all I can do
best wishes
Markus
Jan Owen
I'm not asking what YOU could do better... You & I are basically at their
mercy.
You don't need to GO there. You don't need to tell them anything. And you
don't have to yell at them, or cajole them. I'm not asking you to do
anything different than you have done all along.
All I want to know is what THEY are doing to ensure against recurrence...
lude...@my-deja.com wrote in message <82jlru$mve$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
lude...@my-deja.com
> All I want to know is what THEY are doing to ensure against
recurrence...
>
They thinking they doing the best they can do with the limitations they
have. You have an diffrent opinion, I have a diffrent opinion, but as
long as all other dealers are happy , they doing not fully believing my
results, even If I show them prooved diffrent results, they thinking
they are right. It is an diffrent mentality, which I not fully
understand and you not fully understand.
best wishes
Jan Owen
OK. I'm willing to leave it at that... There may be no better answer than
you just gave. Thanks for bearing with me on this!
lude...@my-deja.com wrote in message <82m8ii$ims$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <Iok34.1249$2y6....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,>
>> All I want to know is what THEY are doing to ensure against
>recurrence...
>>
>Hi Jan,
>
>They thinking they doing the best they can do with the limitations they
>have. You have an diffrent opinion, I have a diffrent opinion, but as
>long as all other dealers are happy , they doing not fully believing my
>results, even If I show them prooved diffrent results, they thinking
>they are right. It is an diffrent mentality, which I not fully
>understand and you not fully understand.
>
>best wishes
>