2" Diagonal Shootout: AP Verses Intes
WHALEN44
follows:
Both use brass locking rings to keep eyepiece barrels un-marred. However the AP
tends to push the eyepiece off center more than the Intes, which keeps better
alignment.
Fit & Finish: AP
Alignment : Intes
Image Sharpness: Intes
Image Brightness: AP
Contrast: AP
Weight: Intes
Cost: Intes
For planetary viewing, I tended to prefer the Intes, though it was very close.
For deepsky I prefered the AP, which gave very slightly brighter images and
contrast. I will keep my AP for deepsky observing, and will be getting a Intes
which I will use for planetary.In truth, the differences were slight at best as
far as optical performance though some differences were noted.
However perhaps Roland could improve the locking ring by adding a second screw
to keep perfect alignment. I can remember seeing a custom made diagonal years
ago that used a brass locking ring that clamped evenly around the entire
eyepiece barrel, keeping perfect alignment. This would be the way to go if
possible to mass produce.
For someone looking for the ultimate 2" diagonal for planetary viewing only, at
this point I would recommend the Intes. For deepsky the AP. I also noticed that
the Intes tended to "catch" eyepieces once in a while, making them harder to
remove. The AP never did this. Perhaps Intes could bevel the locking ring
female lip to fix this. Both held the eyepieces in place very securely.
Overall they are both very fine diagonals, each with their strong points.
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan
Robert
A great review. I had a little different experience than yours.
I've had both the Intes, and the AP, and even the TeleVue.
In my opinion, the AP crushes the Intes, and the TV.
The optics are similar at best. The mechanics tell the story. The reason the AP
is heavier is because it's made to hold the heaviest eyepieces and accessories with
stability. I never had the guts to put a Binoviewer in the Intes, I feared it
wouldn't hold.
The Intes set screw was *hollow*, I've never seen a hollow set screw before. The
machining and finish were amateurish. I experienced the catching of eyepieces in
the Intes too. I attributed it to poor design and execution.
The AP is a machining work of art. Holding it in your hand is a harbinger of it's
perfection. In the scope, it continues to impress.
I didn't feel there was any difference in centering of the eyepieces.
To me it comes down to economics. The AP is clearly better, but costs a bit more.
To me, it's worth the peace of mind knowing my eyepieces and accessories are secure
in the scope.
Thanks,
Rob
mark dambrosio
Diagonal. All my eyepieces fit with a NASA like precision with
absolutely no side to side slop at all. (2in. and 1-1/4). I can't
honestly comment on the optical findings in your test, as i have
personally never compared the two. I sure like it a heck of a lot
better than my Televue. I like the idea of the Dielectric coatings
being much more durable, and not deteriorating as rapidly over time as
my Televue might have done. I'm very pleased with the MAXbright. IMO
worth the money. Mark
Robert Berta
reflectivity in percent? Would be interested in comparing them to Lumicon which
is 1/10 wave and 96% reflectivity. In the 1 1/4" Lumicon I have it also has
perfect colimation which can be a problem in some star diagonals I have seen.
Bob
Sue and Alan
I think it is important to keep in mind that it takes two to tango, and how
an eyepiece fits into a focuser or star diagonal depends on both the
eyepiece and the focuser. As far as I know there are no standards that the
various companies have agreed to when it comes to eyepiece barrel diameters
or focuser/diagonal openings.
If an eyepiece was exactly 2.0" o.d., and a focuser or diagonal opening was
exactly 2.0" i.d. you would need a press to get the eyepiece into the
focuser, and you'd never get them apart. How well the two fit depends on
what actual o.d.s and i.d.s the makers have decided to use (and the
tolerances on the sizing). Without some standards there are likely to be
combinations that are too loose and combinations that are too tight.
I suspect most eyepieces are a bit smaller than the "standard" size, but
this is not always the case. In Richard Berry's review of the first TV
Plossls (Astronomy, August 1981) he commented that they were exactly 1.25"
o.d. The Questar 1.25" slip fit eyepiece holder we bought must have been
exactly 1.25" i.d. - we could not get any of our TV Plossls into it. We
sent it back. Now if Questar had made the opening a few thousands larger,
eyepieces that were less than 1.25" might have seemed rather loose.
Clear skies, Alan
WHALEN44 wrote in message <19990223163035...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
>I recently tested both diagonals using a 4" F6.37 APO. The results are as
>follows:
>
>Both use brass locking rings to keep eyepiece barrels un-marred. However
the AP
>tends to push the eyepiece off center more than the Intes, which keeps
better
>alignment.
[SNIP]
Sue and Alan
Out of curiousity I dug out my wife's AP Maxbright Diagonal and our five 2"
eyepieces (all TV). All the eyepieces fit very nicely into the Maxbright -
any less clearance and I suspect it would be hard to get them into the
diagonal. The eyepiece moves very, very slightly when the locking ring is
tightened, and I find it very hard to believe that the motion is enough to
have any detectable effect on performance (and I'm certainly not going to
worry about it).
Gerh3150
think 1/20 wave
some did a comparison agaoinst the old Tv at 96% it was veru hard to tell the
diff they said..
Chris Gerh...@aol.com
Jeff DeTray
>
>Richard,
>
>I think it is important to keep in mind that it takes two to tango, and how
>an eyepiece fits into a focuser or star diagonal depends on both the
>eyepiece and the focuser. As far as I know there are no standards that the
>various companies have agreed to when it comes to eyepiece barrel diameters
>or focuser/diagonal openings.
The ATM Page lists dimensions and tolerances for eyepiece barrels and drawtubes
at:
http://www.atmpage.com/thread.html
I have no idea which manufacturers, if any, make their products to these
specifications.
--
Jeff DeTray
je...@detray.com
http://www.detray.com/jeff
Wide-field Astrophotos & Barn-door Camera Mount
WHALEN44
I miked the two diagonals. The Intes was exactly 2" and the AP 2.01". I tended
to have the most problems with the Televue naglers, Panoptics and both
Leica's. All others worked fine. Perhaps this is more due to the recess in the
eyepiece barrel? I don't know why they put them there, I dont think they are
need with decent diagonals to keep eyepiece in place.
>I think it is important to keep in mind that it takes two to tango, and how
>an eyepiece fits into a focuser or star diagonal depends on both the
>eyepiece and the focuser. As far as I know there are no standards that the
>various companies have agreed to when it comes to eyepiece barrel diameters
>or focuser/diagonal openings.
>
>If an eyepiece was exactly 2.0" o.d., and a focuser or diagonal opening was
>exactly 2.0" i.d. you would need a press to get the eyepiece into the
>focuser, and you'd never get them apart. How well the two fit depends on
>what actual o.d.s and i.d.s the makers have decided to use (and the
>tolerances on the sizing). Without some standards there are likely to be
>combinations that are too loose and combinations that are too tight.
>
>I suspect most eyepieces are a bit smaller than the "standard" size, but
>this is not always the case. In Richard Berry's review of the first TV
>Plossls (Astronomy, August 1981) he commented that they were exactly 1.25"
>o.d. The Questar 1.25" slip fit eyepiece holder we bought must have been
>exactly 1.25" i.d. - we could not get any of our TV Plossls into it. We
>sent it back. Now if Questar had made the opening a few thousands larger,
>eyepieces that were less than 1.25" might have seemed rather loose.
>
>Clear skies, Alan
>
WHALEN44
I also think the maxbright is a great diagonal. However if you use any
eyepieces with recess in the barrel (Panoptics and Naglers etc.) you may find
the recess lines up exactly with the brass locking ring when all the way in.
This causes the eyepiece to be pushed a small amount over to one side when
tightened.
This is a very small amount, but still there. There has to be some extra space
(I would not go so far to call it slop), or the eyepiece would not fit in.
tomd...@my-dejanews.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Alan,
>
> I miked the two diagonals. The Intes was exactly 2" and the AP 2.01". I tended
> to have the most problems with the Televue naglers, Panoptics and both
> Leica's. All others worked fine. Perhaps this is more due to the recess in the
> eyepiece barrel? I don't know why they put them there, I dont think they are
> need with decent diagonals to keep eyepiece in place.
The manufacturers don't know what kind of diagonal their eyepieces will be
used in, so some designs have a "safety" recess, which may or may not
be engaged properly by the diagonal.
> I also think the maxbright is a great diagonal. However if you use any
> eyepieces with recess in the barrel (Panoptics and Naglers etc.) you may
> find the recess lines up exactly with the brass locking ring when all the
> way in. This causes the eyepiece to be pushed a small amount over to one
> side when tightened.
The eyepiece position is not changed because a set screw or locking ring
engages the recess. The eyepiece position will be fixed by the o.d.
of the e.p. barrel (not the recess) and the i.d. of the drawtube.
Tom DeMary
tomd...@my-dejanews.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
lude...@my-dejanews.com
Hi Chris, to cliam an 1/20 in an dielectric coated 99% diagonal is against
any law of industry. 99% dielectric coating fully destroy the mirro quality
due its ultrastrong coating. If you coate an 1/20 wave diagonal with such 99%
dielectric, the mirror will come out in the range between 1/4 to 1/8 wave
surface only. To claim is one thing, to show prooved result anóther one. This
was the biggest reason why i told to INTES to make on here Zygo tested
diagonals Ag+Sio 2 coating, such coating not destroy and stress the
substrate. At moment we are prepairing with INTES follow test:
Sitaldiagonals, polished up to ~ 1/20 wave , than coate it dielectric and
test in germany in zygo again. if the result is better than 1/8 wave surface,
we will also go this way in future, our reason to go this way: all do it and
people like it. I personla prefer the high quality AG+SiO2 coated, but I must
not buy all the diagonals so we do what customers want, not what is in any
case the better way.
Markus
lude...@my-dejanews.com
"Sue and Alan" <sue_and_a...@msn.com> wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I think it is important to keep in mind that it takes two to tango, and how
> an eyepiece fits into a focuser or star diagonal depends on both the
> eyepiece and the focuser. As far as I know there are no standards that the
> various companies have agreed to when it comes to eyepiece barrel diameters
> or focuser/diagonal openings.
>
> If an eyepiece was exactly 2.0" o.d., and a focuser or diagonal opening was
> exactly 2.0" i.d. you would need a press to get the eyepiece into the
> focuser, and you'd never get them apart. How well the two fit depends on
> what actual o.d.s and i.d.s the makers have decided to use (and the
> tolerances on the sizing). Without some standards there are likely to be
> combinations that are too loose and combinations that are too tight.
>
> I suspect most eyepieces are a bit smaller than the "standard" size, but
> this is not always the case. In Richard Berry's review of the first TV
> Plossls (Astronomy, August 1981) he commented that they were exactly 1.25"
> o.d. The Questar 1.25" slip fit eyepiece holder we bought must have been
> exactly 1.25" i.d. - we could not get any of our TV Plossls into it. We
> sent it back. Now if Questar had made the opening a few thousands larger,
> eyepieces that were less than 1.25" might have seemed rather loose.
>
> Clear skies, Alan
Hi Alan ,
you are so right. I told to INTES when we started this diagonals to use the
diamension 50,85 mm, because most eyepieces and adapters ranges from 50,70 to
50,80 mm in diameter.
Markus
>
> WHALEN44 wrote in message <19990223163035...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
> >I recently tested both diagonals using a 4" F6.37 APO. The results are as
> >follows:
> >
> >Both use brass locking rings to keep eyepiece barrels un-marred. However
> the AP
> >tends to push the eyepiece off center more than the Intes, which keeps
> better
> >alignment.
> [SNIP]
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
lude...@my-dejanews.com
in this Deluxe Versions ( this was the range of totaly 40 pc Zygo tested).
About the AP , I know it, but I agreed never to talk about AP products.
Markus
Edward
>
> In article <19990223195456...@ng07.aol.com>,
> gerh...@aol.com (Gerh3150) wrote:
> > the new Televue diagonal is 99% and so is the A/P (maxbright finish) and I
> > think 1/20 wave
> >
> > some did a comparison agaoinst the old Tv at 96% it was veru hard to tell the
> > diff they said..
> > Chris Gerh...@aol.com
> >
>
> Hi Chris, to cliam an 1/20 in an dielectric coated 99% diagonal is against
> any law of industry. 99% dielectric coating fully destroy the mirro quality
> due its ultrastrong coating. If you coate an 1/20 wave diagonal with such 99%
> dielectric, the mirror will come out in the range between 1/4 to 1/8 wave
> surface only. To claim is one thing, to show prooved result anóther one. This
> was the biggest reason why i told to INTES to make on here Zygo tested
> diagonals Ag+Sio 2 coating, such coating not destroy and stress the
> substrate. At moment we are prepairing with INTES follow test:
> Sitaldiagonals, polished up to ~ 1/20 wave , than coate it dielectric and
> test in germany in zygo again. if the result is better than 1/8 wave surface,
> we will also go this way in future, our reason to go this way: all do it and
> people like it. I personla prefer the high quality AG+SiO2 coated, but I must
> not buy all the diagonals so we do what customers want, not what is in any
> case the better way.
>
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
diagonal .
lude...@my-dejanews.com
tele...@email.com wrote:
> Rich,
>
> A great review. I had a little different experience than yours.
>
> I've had both the Intes, and the AP, and even the TeleVue.
>
> In my opinion, the AP crushes the Intes, and the TV.
>
> The optics are similar at best.
wrong point Nr.1, total wrong , did eyou ever measure all them or do you just
say so, because you see no diffrent? I measured al them and I know very wel
the diffrence.
The mechanics tell the story. The reason the AP
> is heavier is because it's made to hold the heaviest eyepieces and
accessories with
> stability. I never had the guts to put a Binoviewer in the Intes, I feared it
> wouldn't hold.
wrong point Nr.2, why you think so ? The INTES is made from aluminium too and
have the brassclampring too, so please explain us, why you think so .
>
> The Intes set screw was *hollow*, I've never seen a hollow set screw before.
my translation book, say that hollow means bad , not usefull. If this is
correct translation , please explain why you think so ?
The
> machining and finish were amateurish. I experienced the catching of
eyepieces in
> the Intes too. I attributed it to poor design and execution.
Its your opinion only. The INTES looks same and have absolute sdame finish as
the Tele Vue and Vernonscope, excapt the coloring.So you are saying the
Vernonscope and Tele Vue are also amateurish made ?
Of course INTES have no CNC maschine, where they must just push an goto knob
and the final housing comes out of maschine, but this is no explanation for
amateurish. You should use acceptable arguments and not just empty words.
>
> The AP is a machining work of art. Holding it in your hand is a harbinger of
it's
> perfection. In the scope, it continues to impress.
Sorry, but customers buying an Stardiagonal to use on here telescope and not
to lay it down in an Art-Gallerie. So the outsidefinish have nothing to do
with the working of such Item, only with the price you can ask for it.
>
> I didn't feel there was any difference in centering of the eyepieces.
Here I believe you.
>
> To me it comes down to economics. The AP is clearly better,
what is better ? , I must ask you again this question, please explain from
technical points and not just from your mouth.
but costs a bit more.
> To me, it's worth the peace of mind knowing my eyepieces and accessories are
secure
> in the scope.
You are the typical guy who buy the scope , when you stay in front of it and
say : Wow how nice. My customers buying scopes when they are looking through
and saying wow, about what they see.
Guys like you are the Top customer to buy an art of Questar or maybe an Meade,
you are not interested in the usefull quality only in the finish.
just my 2 cents about your opinion
best wishes
Markus
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
> WHALEN44 wrote:
>
> > I recently tested both diagonals using a 4" F6.37 APO. The results are as
> > follows:
> >
> > Both use brass locking rings to keep eyepiece barrels un-marred. However
the AP
> > tends to push the eyepiece off center more than the Intes, which keeps
better
> > alignment.
> >
> > Richard Whalen
> > whal...@aol.com
> >
> > Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
jjgoss
do with quality inside? Geez, don't make every machinist on the web
come looking to sell you some 'great' eyepieces - they'll look great but
perform like crap....
J.Goss
Robert wrote in message <36D32253...@email.com>...
>Rich,
>
>A great review. I had a little different experience than yours.
>
>I've had both the Intes, and the AP, and even the TeleVue.
>
>In my opinion, the AP crushes the Intes, and the TV.
>
>The optics are similar at best. The mechanics tell the story. The reason
the AP
>is heavier is because it's made to hold the heaviest eyepieces and
accessories with
>stability. I never had the guts to put a Binoviewer in the Intes, I feared
it
>wouldn't hold.
>
>The Intes set screw was *hollow*, I've never seen a hollow set screw
before. The
>machining and finish were amateurish. I experienced the catching of
eyepieces in
>the Intes too. I attributed it to poor design and execution.
>
>The AP is a machining work of art. Holding it in your hand is a harbinger
of it's
>perfection. In the scope, it continues to impress.
>
>I didn't feel there was any difference in centering of the eyepieces.
>
>To me it comes down to economics. The AP is clearly better, but costs a
bit more.
>To me, it's worth the peace of mind knowing my eyepieces and accessories
are secure
>in the scope.
>
RichardN22
say so, because you see no diffrent? I measured al them and I know very wel
the diffrence.>>
I thought we'd been through 'the specs don't tell the whole story' business
before. This guy was giving a real world review and sharing his opinions and
feelings. Why jump on the guy?
Richard
Richard Navarrete
Richa...@aol.com
Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22
HC
>
> the new Televue diagonal is 99% and so is the A/P (maxbright finish) and I
> think 1/20 wave
>
> some did a comparison agaoinst the old Tv at 96% it was veru hard to tell the
> diff they said..
> Chris Gerh...@aol.com
Where did people get this 1/20 wave number?
I can't seem to find this information on Company7's website.
I know Televue is claiming 1/10 wave.
jjgoss
I think Markus is safe to question such posts.
J.Goss
RichardN22 wrote in message
<19990224181417...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
mark dambrosio
are the differences between a 1/10 wave, and 1/20 wave mirror in this
part of the optical chain? Would the trained human eye honestly
be able to tell a difference? Mark
Bob Luffel
Before anyone gets too concerned about different manufacturer's claims
about star diagonal mirror flatness, consider that in an f/8 scope the
light cone only intercepts a relatively small area of the mirror, in the
neighborhood of 18mm along its long axis. (a newtonian diagonal has tougher
requirements of course)
I have measured a number of diagonals (zygo) and found that even the
poorest had more than acceptable flatness (RMS) over such a small area. As
a matter of fact, one of the current high end diagonals (won't mention
names) measured at 1/2 half wave p-v over the full surface and had a slight
curvature (which introduces astigmatism due to the 45 degree mirror angle).
Also, the center of most diagonal mirrors is usually the flattest portion
of the mirror (most roll off at the edges or toe/heel), so the best
quality is towards the center, on-axis, where you most care (planetary
viewing?).
I compared this diagonal to several others, including a superb Zeiss
prism diagonal. Results? Image quality was quite similar in terms of
sharpness. The 1/2 wave diagonal showed no detectable astigmatism. The
area used is just too small. I did see some slight differences in contrast,
with the prism diagonal offering up the highest contrast (but use only in
slower scopes due to increased color and spherical overcorrection).
The dielectric coated diagonal offered the brightest view. All in all,
the differences amongst the high end diagonals were small.
Perhaps the most important attributes of a good star diagonal are the
surface smoothness, the quality of the coatings (scatter), and
the internal stray light control (baffling).
Also, decent collimation is important. I like the durability of the dielectric
coatings on some diagonals, though my aluminum coated ones seem to hold
up just fine (I do baby my stuff, though).
Bob Luffel
RichardN22
I think Markus is safe to question such posts.
J.Goss>>
It didn't sound that way to me. Maybe you were reading more into the review
than was intended. In any case, questioning is fine, but just to flat out deny
and denigrate someone for their opinion is uneccessary. Of course, that's only
my opinion, and we get a LOT of those around here! :-)
RAnder3127
>The INTES comes out with the measured quality between 1/18 wave and 1/26 wave
>in this Deluxe Versions ( this was the range of totaly 40 pc Zygo tested).
>About the AP , I know it, but I agreed never to talk about AP products.
Why would you agree not to talk about AP products and with whom
did you have such an agreement?
-Rich
RAnder3127
>The eyepiece position is not changed because a set screw or locking ring
>engages the recess.
If the set screw happens to intersect the recess right on the recess
edge (which i've seen happen with not only eyepieces but diagonals
used in some 2" drawtubes) then you can induce a tilt.
-Rich
Byron Matthews
I have one of those TV brass 2"-to-1 1/4" adapters, and the set screws
on my NGF focusser hit right at the recess edge and causes the eyepiece
to tilt. To fix it, I filed flats at four points around the adapter
shoulder; as long as I hit one of those, no tilt. Not that a component
like this should require fixing...
Byron
lude...@my-dejanews.com
I made the agreement With Allan French , please accept it.
One more word about the diameter of such diagonals: There excist many diffrent
eyepieces from diffrent companys with diffrent barreldiameters. For which
eyepiece such diameter should be optimized ? Only if eyepiecemanufactors will
keep strongly excact dimensions, than Diagonal manufactors can do perfect job
too, to make all happy.
thanks
Markus
lude...@my-dejanews.com
richa...@aol.com (RichardN22) wrote:
> <<wrong point Nr.1, total wrong , did eyou ever measure all them or do you
just
> say so, because you see no diffrent? I measured al them and I know very wel
> the diffrence.>>
>
> I thought we'd been through 'the specs don't tell the whole story' business
> before. This guy was giving a real world review and sharing his opinions and
> feelings. Why jump on the guy?
Okay, you are right, my apology
Markus
>
> Richard
> Richard Navarrete
> Richa...@aol.com
> Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
lude...@my-dejanews.com
Ratboy99
Aren't you talking about them there?
rat
~( );>
Robert
I was away for one day, and the responses!
My point is this:
It seems most people agree that the optical differences *in the field* are minimal
when used for planetary observing. My original post said "The optics are similar
at best."
My concern is the mechanics. I have recently come to the conclusion that great
optics can be useless if the mechanical structure that holds them is under
engineered. This is true of scopes, diagonals, and eyepieces.
First I had the older TV unit, I have not seen or used the new TeleVue unit. I
bought the Intes unit based on the numbers for the PV alone. It was excellent
optically. I wanted to keep it forever.
I couldn't. I used the AP diagonal a friend had, and I saw the difference.
Markus, this was outside, not in an art gallery! In the field, switching eyepieces
and accessories, the AP was more stable, and solid. The design and thought put
into the AP is evident. The Intes *seemed* like an excellent optic housed in an
average housing.
Why did I buy the AP diagonal, after owning the TeleVue, and the Intes? For me,
the answer is the AP was worth the extra cost. I respect and understand why some
folks enjoy the (older) TeleVue, and the Intes. They are great values.
I would be surprised to see anyone choose the (older style) TeleVue or the Intes
over the AP diagonal if they were offered their choice free of charge.
I ask the question:
Who would choose the TV or Intes unit over the AP, if all were offered free?
Thanks,
Rob
lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <19990224181417...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> richa...@aol.com (RichardN22) wrote:
> > <<wrong point Nr.1, total wrong , did eyou ever measure all them or do you
> just
> > say so, because you see no diffrent? I measured al them and I know very wel
> > the diffrence.>>
> >
> > I thought we'd been through 'the specs don't tell the whole story' business
> > before. This guy was giving a real world review and sharing his opinions and
> > feelings. Why jump on the guy?
>
> Okay, you are right, my apology
> Markus
> >
> > Richard
> > Richard Navarrete
> > Richa...@aol.com
> > Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22
> >
>
Robert
I've read through a few of your posts, and it seems you like to attack opinions,
then offer a half hearted "apology".
I'm afraid I'll have to answer each of your points, I find your attack unwarranted,
and your apology insincere.
Markus Ludes' Point Number 1)
I have not tested the diagonals myself on a Zygo. I have spoken to someone who has
tested many of them, and I have read your (Markus') posts on the subject.
I don't care about the numbers! Heresy you say? I've lived and died by numbers
only to find the use in the field, in the dark, is the true measure of astronomy
equipment! In this case, my point was I could see no difference optically between
the TV, AP, and Intes in my skies, under my observing conditions. I stand by my
point, and in fact would guess that few people could tell a difference under these
conditions (light pollution, and unstable skies).
I checked out the diagonals the way I'd guess 99.9% of astronomers do, under the
skies. Not a perfect method, but time tested to be certain.
Markus Ludes' Point Number 2)
The AP unit was more stable than the Intes unit (you sold me). They *are* both
made of Aluminum and brass, but the AP unit had *more* Aluminum. Thus, it seemed,
and my guess is, really is stronger than the Intes unit.
Markus Ludes' Point Number ?)
The set screw on the unit you sold me was hollow. This means it was not actually
solid, instead it was filled with air. Perhaps they have changed this, but I only
know the unit you sent me.
About machining: I don't care about CNC or hand machining if it's done well. The
*finish* on the Intes unit was inferior to the AP. This means the smoothness of
the edges, the way it was polished and anodized.
The term "work of art" can also mean state of the art, perfection, extreme beauty.
All of these are accurate for the AP unit.
Markus, we have never met, or spoken, yet you seem to make judgments about the way
I understand an use equipment. I find this unbelievable.
Those of you on SAA that do know me, have a sense of what I value in equipment. I
have never, not once ever, regretted a purchase from Astro-Physics. They are
simply the nicest, most patient group of people I've ever encountered. I guess I
am biased.
I have no affiliation with Astro-Physics other than waiting a long time to give
them money in exchange for the finest telescopes I've ever used. I do so
willingly!
I feel lucky to be able to buy such fine equipment at what I think is a reasonable
price for the quality. In a brief stint at Brookhaven National Labs, I saw how
expensive it was to make sturdy, high quality scientific equipment. I find it a
small miracle AP can make it's products to such a level for such a price.
I hope this answers your points Markus. If not, I'll answer them by email, I don't
want to bother the SAA folks with your petty criticisms anymore.
Thanks,
Rob
lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> The optics are similar at best.
>wrong point Nr.1, total wrong , did eyou ever measure all them or do you just
>say so, because you see no diffrent? I measured al them and I know very well
>the diffrence.
> The mechanics tell the story. The reason the AP
>> is heavier is because it's made to hold the heaviest eyepieces and
>accessories with
>> stability. I never had the guts to put a Binoviewer in the Intes, I feared it
> >wouldn't hold.
>wrong point Nr.2, why you think so ? The INTES is made from aluminium too and
>have the brassclampring too, so please explain us, why you think so .
>>
>> The Intes set screw was *hollow*, I've never seen a hollow set screw before.
>my translation book, say that hollow means bad , not usefull. If this is
>correct translation , please explain why you think so ?
The
> machining and finish were amateurish. I experienced the catching of
eyepieces in
> the Intes too. I attributed it to poor design and execution.
Its your opinion only. The INTES looks same and have absolute sdame finish as
the Tele Vue and Vernonscope, excapt the coloring.So you are saying the
Vernonscope and Tele Vue are also amateurish made ?
Of course INTES have no CNC maschine, where they must just push an goto knob
and the final housing comes out of maschine, but this is no explanation for
amateurish. You should use acceptable arguments and not just empty words.
>
> The AP is a machining work of art. Holding it in your hand is a harbinger of
it's
> perfection. In the scope, it continues to impress.
Sorry, but customers buying an Stardiagonal to use on here telescope and not
to lay it down in an Art-Gallerie. So the outsidefinish have nothing to do
with the working of such Item, only with the price you can ask for it.
>
> I didn't feel there was any difference in centering of the eyepieces.
Here I believe you.
>
> To me it comes down to economics. The AP is clearly better,
what is better ? , I must ask you again this question, please explain from
technical points and not just from your mouth.
but costs a bit more.
> To me, it's worth the peace of mind knowing my eyepieces and accessories are
secure
> in the scope.
lude...@my-dejanews.com
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
Hi Rob,
I understand all your words, but you have to accept my impression as I have
to accept your impressions. The AP of course nicer maschined and have thicker
aluminium, no word about it. But the INTES is such strong made, that it is
strong enough for any kind of work and anykind of heaviest eyepieces.
Therefore I cannot accept your big attach against the INTES. Your
explanations made the INTES Stardiagonals looking like an bad piece of metal
and thats wrong and thats what i cannot accept. Thanks Markus
David A. Silva
>Therefore I cannot accept your big attach against the INTES. Your
>explanations made the INTES Stardiagonals looking like an bad piece of metal
>and thats wrong and thats what i cannot accept.
Marcus
Why do you take every opinion praising a competitor's product over yours as
an attack? I don't perceive any of the comments you have reacted strongly to
as attacks on APM products, just users' opinions of what they prefer. You
will not be able to argue someone out of his opinion. Let your product speak
for itself.
-David
Please remove nothereat from the return address to reply.
Robert
Is the set screw for the Intes diagonal now sold still hollow (not solid metal)?
I felt uncertain tightening this screw to hold heavy equipment. It seemed like
either the screw, or the tapped wall of the diagonal was going to strip. I
removed the screw, and discovered it was hollow (to my surprise). I also noted
how thin the tapped wall of the Intes was. I had deep concerns about the
mechanical design.
Has the tapped wall of the diagonal been thickened?
Has the set screw been changed?
Thanks,
Rob
lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I
> Hi Rob,
>
> I understand all your words, but you have to accept my impression as I have
> to accept your impressions. The AP of course nicer maschined and have thicker
> aluminium, no word about it. But the INTES is such strong made, that it is
> strong enough for any kind of work and anykind of heaviest eyepieces.
> Therefore I cannot accept your big attach against the INTES. Your
> explanations made the INTES Stardiagonals looking like an bad piece of metal
RAnder3127
>shoulder; as long as I hit one of those, no tilt. Not that a component
>like this should require fixing...
The problem is, Tele Vue or whoever makes
the diagonal in question can't make
allowances for every possible telescope
interface out there.
-Rich
mark dambrosio
shouldn't sufficiently hold any 2in. eyepiece. (Unless your using your
telescope upside down! ;-) ). Putting too much pressure on those screws
will no doubt really mar the barrels on eyepieces. This is one reason
why i really like the brass clamping ring on diagonals, and reducers.
Probably the weakest link in using a 2in. diagonal,(and large eyepieces)
is the focuser, or adapter that it is attached to. Many run of the mill
focusers are just not up to handling heavy 2in accesories without some
give. Mark
jjgoss
built as AP. However, AP uses more metal sometimes which people
get confused about, I fear. Some folks just get all worked up over a
piece of CNC machined equipment...in other words, the machine did
all the work while the operator "supervised"...I really prefer handmade,
it has more intrinsic worth.
In fact, there are many points about AP's machining that I don't like,
and there are many good things about TV's machining - not that one
is better than the other.
This is very much a judgement call....but at least I know a little something
about metalworking - not just the 'coveting my wonderful scope' stuff
that goes on here.
J.Goss
RAnder3127 wrote in message <19990226175647...@ng141.aol.com>...
mark dambrosio
personal choice of products. Owning both the Televue 2in., and the AP
MAXbright, i just do not IMO see a comparison. The
Televue has served me well over the years, and is a very good product.
The one shortcoming of the Televue, and others like it, that i
personally do not like is the metal set screws. As my eyepiece
collection exceeds $7,000 in value, i'm just not too crazy about seeing
my $300, and $500 Claves, TV Naglers, and various others getting their
barrels chewed up. (Maybe someone could come up with a new type of
screw,something like graphite, or nylon that won't do this?) Iv'e
heard pro, and con on the Dielectric coatings, and notice that Televue
now offers an upgrade for their unit. I'd like to hear Uncle Al's
opinion on the new mirror, and how he feels it improves on the old one.
Mark
tomd...@my-dejanews.com
> Owning both the Televue 2in., and the AP
> MAXbright, i just do not IMO see a comparison. The
> Televue has served me well over the years, and is a very good product.
> The one shortcoming of the Televue, and others like it, that i
> personally do not like is the metal set screws. As my eyepiece
> collection exceeds $7,000 in value, i'm just not too crazy about seeing
> my $300, and $500 Claves, TV Naglers, and various others getting their
> barrels chewed up. (Maybe someone could come up with a new type of
> screw,something like graphite, or nylon that won't do this?) Iv'e
> heard pro, and con on the Dielectric coatings, and notice that Televue
> now offers an upgrade for their unit. I'd like to hear Uncle Al's
> opinion on the new mirror, and how he feels it improves on the old one.
The 2" to 1 1/4" adapter that came with my old Lumicon 2" diagonal has
a nylon (I think) setscrew to hold the 1 1/4" eyepieces. I only use
necessary force to clamp the eyepiece and fine focus by sliding and
twisting the eyepiece, which is preferable to trying the turn the
focussing ring on my ancient C-8.
When I am really concerned about the finish or alignment of an eyepiece,
I buy a new diagonal especially for the eyepiece. I make two rows of
holes spaced about an inch apart in the diagonal's eyepiece holder. In
each row I tap 3 holes spaced 120 degrees apart. I thread nylon setscrews
into the holes. This way, I can tilt and offset each eyepiece/diagonal
combination permanently so that the eyepiece optics are always perfectly
aligned with the optical axis of my C-8. Then, except for mirror shift, my
offset secondary and other gravity induced collimation errors, I have
perfect alignment for critical observing. Seriously, folks, if the
fasteners mar, or the fit of the parts is loose, fix the problem or send
it back, and give this litany of nothing-is-perfect complaints a rest. :-)
Tom DeMary
tomd...@my-dejanews.com
RAnder3127
>Anyone try out the lumicron enhanced aliminum star diagonals? They
>claim 5-10% greater transmission of light from a magazine article I
>read.
Lumicon must be thinking about diagonals from many years
ago. Most 2" diagonals now come with enhanced coatings,
varying from about 96% to 99% reflectivity. So, theirs would
fall somewhere in that range, and wouldn't be that much
more light efficient (if at all) than any other diagonal.
-Rich
lude...@my-dejanews.com
tele...@email.com wrote:
> Markus,
>
> Is the set screw for the Intes diagonal now sold still hollow (not solid
metal)?
No it is full material stainless steel. I not remember, that it was ever
hollow.
>
> I felt uncertain tightening this screw to hold heavy equipment. It seemed
like
> either the screw, or the tapped wall of the diagonal was going to strip. I
> removed the screw, and discovered it was hollow (to my surprise). I also
noted
> how thin the tapped wall of the Intes was. I had deep concerns about the
> mechanical design.
The waÂŽll in the INTES have been from beginning on 4 mm thick, absolute same
as in maxbright. So you should be concerned about maxbright too. From more
than 1000 sold such diagonals I never received an reply, that the screw was
damaged nor, that thread was damaged due to thinn wall. In the iNTES the
brassclampring holds the eyepiece in an circle area of around 90°to 120°, in
the other you noticed (where the brassclampring lays more inside) the
eyepiece is hold only in an circlearea of around 10°. The iNTES use enough
materialthickness that an damage is impossible with normal methods of using
equipment. So whats your real concern about mechanical design ? The Maxbright
have the best inside antireflectionthreads of course, but INTES improved this
now dramaticle too in here last shipments. For me and my customers it is not
so much important how it looks like (and it looks not to bad) , for us it is
much more important , how well the mechanics works and well are the optics
and here we get only best response. Thanks Markus
>
> Has the tapped wall of the diagonal been thickened?
>
> Has the set screw been changed?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
> lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > I
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > I understand all your words, but you have to accept my impression as I have
> > to accept your impressions. The AP of course nicer maschined and have
thicker
> > aluminium, no word about it. But the INTES is such strong made, that it is
> > strong enough for any kind of work and anykind of heaviest eyepieces.
> > Therefore I cannot accept your big attach against the INTES. Your
> > explanations made the INTES Stardiagonals looking like an bad piece of metal
> > and thats wrong and thats what i cannot accept. Thanks Markus
> >
Blandp1
>No it is full material stainless steel. I not remember, that it was ever
>hollow.
Markus - since a customer reported that the screw was hollow and perhaps
understrength for his comfort and you insist that they never were made that
way, I can only conclude that one of the following statements is true:
1) The customer is lying.
2) You (Markus) are lying.
3) The customer has a solid screw but thinks it's hollow.
4) Your memory about the screw is mistaken and it's supposed to be hollow.
5) Intes told you that the screw would be solid but now (or did) substitutes
hollow ones.
-Philip J. Blanda III
PGP Public key available
Robert
I sold my Intes a long time ago.
I'll contact the current owner, and see if he'll sell it back to me.
The screw in this case was a hollow black screw.
I don't recall the wall being as thick as the AP.
A simple test would be to check the torque at which the metal strips. If the other
fellow will sell me back the Intes, I will volunteer to have it *TORQUED TO
FAILURE*! I am *CONFIDENT* the AP will not fail at the same torque.
It seems that you acknowledge below that the AP is superior. How is this different
that the opinion I gave in my original post?
Thanks,
Rob
lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36D713C9...@email.com>,
> tele...@email.com wrote:
> > Markus,
> >
> > Is the set screw for the Intes diagonal now sold still hollow (not solid
> metal)?
>
> No it is full material stainless steel. I not remember, that it was ever
> hollow.
>
> >
Robert
I emailed the current owner of the diagonal. He may help us put these issues to
rest.
RAnder3127
(Blandp1) writes:
>1) The customer is lying.
>2) You (Markus) are lying.
>3) The customer has a solid screw but thinks it's hollow.
>4) Your memory about the screw is mistaken and it's supposed to be hollow.
>5) Intes told you that the screw would be solid but now (or did) substitutes
>hollow ones.
6) That it's a waste of time arguing over something so insignificant.
-Rich
jjgoss
on this newsgroup. In fact, it is just plain stupid. Markus gives you
a statistically based answer, and you want to call him a liar because
of a possibly singular exception. Utter stupididty.
J.Goss
Blandp1 wrote in message <19990228122031...@ngol07.aol.com>...
>In article <7bbs7u$lsg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, lude...@my-dejanews.com
writes:
>
>>No it is full material stainless steel. I not remember, that it was ever
>>hollow.
>
>Markus - since a customer reported that the screw was hollow and perhaps
>understrength for his comfort and you insist that they never were made that
>way, I can only conclude that one of the following statements is true:
>
>1) The customer is lying.
>2) You (Markus) are lying.
>3) The customer has a solid screw but thinks it's hollow.
>4) Your memory about the screw is mistaken and it's supposed to be hollow.
>5) Intes told you that the screw would be solid but now (or did)
substitutes
>hollow ones.
>
jjgoss
two issues. First, Markus states he has never heard of a problem
with the set screw, then he mentions that he has a customer base
of 1000 using the same (in his opinion) diagonal - all of which
must be using similar set screws since that's they way manufacturing
is done.
Now, it seems beyond ridiculous to make any assertions about
lying based on the above. Period.
What's more, if the set screw doesn't look right, it can be easily
replaced at the local hardware store - using brass or whatever.
Total cost: about 25 cents max.
Only on S.A.A., I'd say.... ;-(
J.Goss
Blandp1 wrote in message <19990228214702...@ngol01.aol.com>...
>"jjgoss" <jjg...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>Markus gives you a statistically based answer, and you want
>>to call him a liar because of a possibly singular exception.
>
>Your statement is incorrect. I reproduce the relevant portion from Markus'
>post on the dread hollow set screw. His words are between the -------
>dividers:
>
>Begin posting from lude...@my-dejanews.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In article <36D713C9...@email.com>,
> tele...@email.com wrote:
>> Markus,
>>
>> Is the set screw for the Intes diagonal now sold still hollow (not solid
>metal)?
>
>No it is full material stainless steel. I not remember, that it was ever
>hollow.
>
>>
>> I felt uncertain tightening this screw to hold heavy equipment. It
seemed
>like
>> either the screw, or the tapped wall of the diagonal was going to strip.
I
>> removed the screw, and discovered it was hollow (to my surprise). I also
>noted
>> how thin the tapped wall of the Intes was. I had deep concerns about the
>> mechanical design.
>
>The waÂŽll in the INTES have been from beginning on 4 mm thick, absolute
same
>as in maxbright. So you should be concerned about maxbright too. From more
>than 1000 sold such diagonals I never received an reply, that the screw was
>damaged nor, that thread was damaged due to thinn wall.
>
>-------------------------------------
>
>Markus made a statistical comment on the reliability of the diagonal, he
made a
>hard statement that to the best of his memory the screw was not hollow. I
gave
>my list of possible explainations in reference to the assertion by Markus
that
>there never was a hollow set screw. "Never" is not a statistical comment,
at
>least as ordinarily interpreted.
zena...@my-dejanews.com
claim 5-10% greater transmission of light from a magazine article I
Blandp1
lude...@my-dejanews.com
bla...@aol.com (Blandp1) wrote:
> In article <7bbs7u$lsg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, lude...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >hollow.
>
> understrength for his comfort and you insist that they never were made that
> way, I can only conclude that one of the following statements is true:
>
> 1) The customer is lying.
> 2) You (Markus) are lying.
> 3) The customer has a solid screw but thinks it's hollow.
> 4) Your memory about the screw is mistaken and it's supposed to be hollow.
> 5) Intes told you that the screw would be solid but now (or did) substitutes
> hollow ones.
Best wishes
Markus
>
> -Philip J. Blanda III
>
> PGP Public key available
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
lude...@my-dejanews.com
> Your statement is incorrect. I reproduce the relevant portion from Markus'
> post on the dread hollow set screw. His words are between the -------
> dividers:
yes ,you are right,with this commentar.>
> No it is full material stainless steel. I not remember, that it was ever
> hollow.
>
> >> > Markus made a statistical comment on the reliability of the diagonal, he
made a
> hard statement that to the best of his memory the screw was not hollow.
agreed. Nothing is impossible, I only never saw an hollow screws.
I gave
> my list of possible explainations in reference to the assertion by Markus that
> there never was a hollow set screw. "Never" is not a statistical comment, at
> least as ordinarily interpreted.
right
best wishes
lude...@my-dejanews.com
tele...@email.com wrote:
> Markus,
>
> I emailed the current owner of the diagonal. He may help us put these issues
to
> rest.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
Of course and we can remove any problem. I never told to somebody he must die
with an problem he gets from me.
thanks
Markus
>
> lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <36D713C9...@email.com>,
> > tele...@email.com wrote:
> > > Markus,
> > >
> > > Is the set screw for the Intes diagonal now sold still hollow (not solid
> > metal)?
> >
> > No it is full material stainless steel. I not remember, that it was ever
> > hollow.
> >
> > >
> > > I felt uncertain tightening this screw to hold heavy equipment. It seemed
> > like
> > > either the screw, or the tapped wall of the diagonal was going to strip.
I
> > > removed the screw, and discovered it was hollow (to my surprise). I also
> > noted
> > > how thin the tapped wall of the Intes was. I had deep concerns about the
> > > mechanical design.
> >
> > The waÂŽll in the INTES have been from beginning on 4 mm thick, absolute same
> > as in maxbright. So you should be concerned about maxbright too. From more
> > than 1000 sold such diagonals I never received an reply, that the screw was
lude...@my-dejanews.com
tele...@email.com wrote:
> Markus,
>
> I sold my Intes a long time ago.
>
> I'll contact the current owner, and see if he'll sell it back to me.
>
> The screw in this case was a hollow black screw.
was this screw damaged that you see it was hollowed ? This stainless screws
using on the wallside an plastic and nobody can see inside this screw excapt
he cut the screw. I removed today such plastic and found it is full stainless
steel. So , how you saw it was hollowed ?
>
> I don't recall the wall being as thick as the AP.
I have in stock an AP Maxbright and I measured both diagonals before i
answered you to be shure what i say.
>
> A simple test would be to check the torque at which the metal strips. If the
other
> fellow will sell me back the Intes, I will volunteer to have it *TORQUED TO
> FAILURE*! I am *CONFIDENT* the AP will not fail at the same torque.
I think you need to work with several hundret pounds and special testing
mashine to damage the wall, will this be done during observing ?
I never heard that someone made an materialtest on an Stardiagonal. The
astronomical community gets more and more critical I see. Should we use in
future 5 mm thick stainless steel or brass for the diagonal walls ? Zeiss
made it long time ago .
>
> It seems that you acknowledge below that the AP is superior. How is this
different
> that the opinion I gave in my original post?
I say only that the INTES is pretty well working and never an customer
reported to me about an damage on the wall or the screw, nothing else
thanks too
Markus
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
mark dambrosio
was "Hollow". You stated that the screws that come with the Intes
diagonal have a little plastic tip on them to prevent marring i beleive.
This diagonal that Robert had probably had the little plastic tip fall
out, giving the appearance that the screw was hollow. Mark
WHALEN44
Now I'm confused, and I am sitting here staring at a Intes 2" diagonal. You
don't have to worry about plastic tip screws etc. because the screw never
touches the eyepiece, just a brass locking ring. Perhaps they are talking about
an older model without the locking ring? What I reviewed has it.
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan
RichardN22
replaced at the local hardware store - using brass or whatever.
Total cost: about 25 cents max.
Only on S.A.A., I'd say.... ;-(>>
Only on S.A.A. would someone take this matter so seriously. ;-)
Richard
Richard Navarrete
Richa...@aol.com
Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22
mark dambrosio
a little confused also. I'm sure all the diagonals that have been
mentioned here are all fine units, and should compliment any good
telescope. Mark
Robert
I gave up on hardware store scouring for screws after I spent 3 hours looking for
a Tak screw replacement in various places. When I called Texas Nautical, I found
out it was a *custom* thread. Now I just call the manufacturer, and ask.
When buying high quality equipment, I expect the proper hardware to be in place.
If it's not, why would I want the item?
If a manufacturer is foolish enough to try to save a couple of cents on the parts
you can see, what will they do on parts you don't have access to?
Rob
RichardN22 wrote:
> >No, only someone on SAA would be so linear a thinker
> >as to let the hardware store solution elude them.
> >I replaced all the cheapo steel (read-rustable) screws
> >in a Meade Mak with stainless.
> >-Rich
> >
>
> I've spent plenty of time scouring hardware stores for just the right screw,
> bolt, nut or replacement part. However, if you pay for what you believe to be
> a premium product you shouldn't have to expect to start buying upgrade parts.
jjgoss
say so, I guess we *better* believe 'em, right....or else they won't
ever,ever sell us any Tak stuff ever again.
J.Goss
Robert wrote in message <36DB6D94...@email.com>...
RAnder3127
(RichardN22) writes:
>Only on S.A.A. would someone take this matter so seriously. ;-)
No, only someone on SAA would be so linear a thinker
RichardN22
>as to let the hardware store solution elude them.
>I replaced all the cheapo steel (read-rustable) screws
>in a Meade Mak with stainless.
>-Rich
>
I've spent plenty of time scouring hardware stores for just the right screw,
RAnder3127
writes:
>A "custom" thread? That is difficult to believe, but if Texas Nautical
>say so, I guess we *better* believe 'em, right....or else they won't
>ever,ever sell us any Tak stuff ever again.
Probably metric, and an American company is simply "lost in the
widerness."
-Rich
RAnder3127
> Now I just call the manufacturer, and ask.
>When buying high quality equipment, I expect the proper hardware to be in
>place.
>If it's not, why would I want the item?
I'd say you're right Personally, I always look at an item and think,
"It would be better if...." Even if it's a top-notch product.
When the mainstream telescope companies were supplying finderscopes
with screws that chewed up the finder, I replaced them with nylon, years
ago.
>If a manufacturer is foolish enough to try to save a couple of cents on the
>parts you can see, what will they do on parts you don't have access to?
I wouldn't worry about anything that might effect the optical performance.
Any company (Intes, whoever) trying to compete in the top end of scopes
pulls something stupid, they will get their head handed to them.
-Rich
RAnder3127
(RichardN22) writes:
>>I replaced all the cheapo steel (read-rustable) screws
>>in a Meade Mak with stainless.
>>-Rich
>>
>
>I've spent plenty of time scouring hardware stores for just the right screw,
>bolt, nut or replacement part. However, if you pay for what you believe to
>be a premium product you shouldn't have to expect to start buying upgrade
>parts.
I agree with you on that. But, things can always be improved, even
if they are top quality to begin with. When I see a single set-screw
holding in a chunky 2" diagonal and 2lb eyepiece, I start to worry.
-Rich
Leonard Bottleman
> When I see a single set-screw
> holding in a chunky 2" diagonal and 2lb eyepiece, I start to worry.
I had heard that Naglers were heavy, but I had no idea they were
this heavy!
Leonard Bottleman leo...@teleport.com
lude...@my-dejanews.com
Hi Mark,
to find an end of this thread, I called today INTES and asked them about that
point. INTES cinfirmed that all the used screws are never have been hollow. If
someone got such hollowed screw, that it was one wrong manufactored screw.
Also I took just a few minutes time and cutted some screws in every diffrent
INTES Stardiagonal (2" standart, 2" Deluxe, 1.25" Standart, 1.25" Deluxe, M44
standart, M44 Deluxe, MN61 helicalfcouser, MN61 Crayforfocuser, MK67
Crayfordfocuser, all using same screws) Not one of all this screws used in
diffrent have been hollow, they have been all full material.
Whats now ? Now i have 9 damaged screws and still they are not hollow.
best wishes
Markus.
BTW: Richard Whalen have an 2" Stardiagonal, i allow him to cu this screw too.
lets him report what he find , hollow or not hollow.
Robert
The screws that hold the tube clamshell at the hinge are neither metric or standard.
Rob
ddd wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 23:48:21 -0500, Robert <tele...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Rich,
> >
> >I gave up on hardware store scouring for screws after I spent 3 hours looking for
> >a Tak screw replacement in various places. When I called Texas Nautical, I found
> >out it was a *custom* thread. Now I just call the manufacturer, and ask.
>
> For what?!?!?!?!?! I've owned a couple of Taks over the years and
> everything was standard metric threads.
>
> Gene Horr
> genehorr at swbell dot net
Robert
I emailed the current owner of the Intes Diagonal you sold me.
His response is quoted below:
"Hi Rob,
On the intes 2" diagonal the set screw is hollow and the diameter
where
it goes through is 1/8 inch. Hope this helps."
Now what? That's two of us that noted the hollow set screw.
Rob
lude...@my-dejanews.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Now I'm confused, and I am sitting here staring at a Intes 2" diagonal. You
> don't have to worry about plastic tip screws etc. because the screw never
> touches the eyepiece, just a brass locking ring. Perhaps they are talking
about
> an older model without the locking ring? What I reviewed has it.
>
> Richard Whalen
> whal...@aol.com
Richard ,
maybe we are not talking about an INTES Stardiagonal in general, because from
the beginning on the INTES Stardiagonals have had the brassclampring. Maybe
it is an INTES MICRO 2" Stardiagonal, which I not checked now is it hollow or
not, but maybe Robert can tell us is it now an INTES who must looks like an
tele Vue or is it an older INTES MICRO which looks similar to an cube ?
Rober please answere us this quaestion. Maybe I must email you an picture of
the INTES and INTES MICRO , than you tell us about which you are talking ?
Markus
>
> Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
lude...@my-dejanews.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Now I'm confused, and I am sitting here staring at a Intes 2" diagonal. You
> don't have to worry about plastic tip screws etc. because the screw never
> touches the eyepiece, just a brass locking ring. Perhaps they are talking
about
> an older model without the locking ring? What I reviewed has it.
Hi Richard,
just the moment I e-mailed to Robert an picture of the 2" INTES , will see ,
does he really means the 2" INTES or not.
Markus
>
> Richard Whalen
> whal...@aol.com
lude...@my-dejanews.com
tele...@email.com wrote:
> Markus,
>
> I emailed the current owner of the Intes Diagonal you sold me.
>
> His response is quoted below:
>
> "Hi Rob,
> On the intes 2" diagonal the set screw is hollow and the diameter
> where
> it goes through is 1/8 inch. Hope this helps."
>
> Now what? That's two of us that noted the hollow set screw.
>
> Rob
Hi Rob,
I send you yesterday via email 2 pictures , one from INTES Stardiagonal 2" and
one from INTES MICRO 2" Stardiagonal. About which one we are here talking
really?
1/8 inch is 3.2 mm wallthickness , i meashured 4 mm wallthickness, not big
diffrence. But still 1/8 inch is more thickness than in most stardiagonals
where screws are fitted. As said before , never an customer claimed that the
thread was damaged, never an customer claimed that this screw was damaged. So
where we have now the problem ?
In another post yesterday i explained that i cutted a lot of that screws about
which you are maybe !!! talking and not one was hollowed.
Maybe in your diagonals was used an not original screw ? Maybe you diagonal is
not an Intes diagonal.
Anyway , do we have to discuss nothing else that which screws must be used in
an diagonal ?
If you have an 2" INTES diagonal and if you have on this INTES diagonal and
original INTES screw , than maybe here was used an wrong screw, but still i
cannot understand the problem , because even if your one screw is hollowed, it
still cannot be damaged due any normal handling.
So again my question where is now the problem ?
best wishes
Markus
>
> Leonard Bottleman wrote:
>
> > RAnder3127 wrote:
> > > When I see a single set-screw
> > > holding in a chunky 2" diagonal and 2lb eyepiece, I start to worry.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > I had heard that Naglers were heavy, but I had no idea they were
> > this heavy!
> >
> > Leonard Bottleman leo...@teleport.com
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Robert
Have you considered that 2 people, myself and the current owner, have confirmed
that this diagonal has a hollow screw?
All Markus had to do was ask me if he could replace or repair the diagonal, instead
he attacked my opinions.
This is no troll, I wanted the Intes to be better, it just isn't.
BTW, did you check the Tak tube holder hinge screws? They are custom threads.
Before accusing me of trolling, check your facts.
Rob
ddd wrote:
> Markus:
>
> I think that you are being trolled. You mentioned the small drill-out
> in the tip for a nylon pad. I think that they are looking at this
> small indentation and calling this a "hollow" screw, a highly
> dishonest act.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about it. Most of the members
> of this newsgroup see through lies of the "AP Mafia".
> As long as you have pointed out to newcomers how
> they are being lied to you have done your duty.
>
> I have a hard time understanding why they are so insecure
> that they feel that they have to bash any product that is as
> good or better. AP makes some very products that stand
> up for themselves. And I've never seen Roland ever
> advocate this type of stance (although he does continue
> to deal with Co. 7, which does....)
>
> But also keep in mind, Markus, that I've caught you
> occasionally doing the same thing.
>
> Gene Horr
> trarubee ng fjoryy qbg arg
Robert
On 6/20/98 I sent you a check for the Intes diagonal I won in a Scibid auction.
It arrived on 8/1/98.
You keep asking me what diagonal it was, you are the Intes dealer, what did you
send me?
Now, me and the current owner have confirmed the set screw is hollow on that
diagonal.
What difference you ask?
I commented that I felt the mechanics were inferior to the AP. You attacked me,
and in a fit of insanity started to cut screws. All you had to do was send a new
diagonal to the current owner, and have him return the apparently defective
diagonal to you.
This would have been the logical and sane way to solve the issue.
Instead you call me names, and deny the facts.
The people that know mw personally on the news group know I deal in facts when I
say it's a fact. I deal in opinion when I say it's my opinion. Those of you who
don't know me, I invite you to email privately, and we can speak on the phone.
It is my opinion that Markus has denied the facts, and pursued an illogical method
to settle this issue.
Rob
Robert
Again.
The screw is hollow. As stated numerous times. This doesn't mean solid with a nylon
tip. It means straw-like.
Is that clear enough?
My suggestion that Markus replace it does me no personal good, I have sold the
diagonal. It was an effort to give this issue a final resolution.
As far as the Tak screws: I had no desire to find out they were a custom thread, the
screw broke in transport, and I needed a replacement. I had to wait for one to be
shipped from Japan.
I guess a few people have implied that I'm lying. I don't know what basis they have to
say this. It seems quite nasty.
Rob
ddd wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 12:56:12 -0500, Robert <tele...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Gene,
> >
> >Have you considered that 2 people, myself and the current owner, have confirmed
> >that this diagonal has a hollow screw?
>
> Are you referring to the padding cut out that Markus mentions or are
> you saying that the screw is hollow to the head?
>
> When Markus mentioned this you appeared to skip right past the
> question when he asked it.
>
> If it is the former, you are lying. If the latter you are not. But
> you didn't answer the question the first time it was asked.
>
> >All Markus had to do was ask me if he could replace or repair the diagonal, instead
> >he attacked my opinions.
> >
> >All Markus had to do was ask me if he could replace or repair the diagonal, instead
> >he attacked my opinions.
>
> Why should he replace a diagonal for a supposed defective screw?
> I have had problems myself with innacurate hints and allegations
> that he has made. But in this case I can see a reason for him to
> be irritated.
>
> >This is no troll, I wanted the Intes to be better, it just isn't.
>
> >BTW, did you check the Tak tube holder hinge screws? They are custom threads.
>
> No I haven't. This is the one part I've never seen a reason to ever
> disassemble. But having ripped apart several of their OTAs
> I've never seen a non-standard bolt/screw, which implied that
> they used in their OTAs. Have you seen any other instances
> of this?
>
> In fact, now that I think about it, with very few non material
> exceptions ALL OTAs that I have worked on use standard
> bolts.
>
> The three exceptions that pop into mind is the alleged one
> you mentioned, two of the bolts that attach the mounting
> plates to the Meade SCTs, and the set screw on a "cheapo"
> refractor's 1.25" visual back. As the last one is the only
> example of the lot that would ever be lost in the normal
> course of use of the product, I hardly think that this is a
> material problem as you indicate that would make one
> never go to a hardware store to look for replacements.
>
> >Before accusing me of trolling, check your facts.
>
> Well, we're still waiting to the answer to Markus'
> question.
mark dambrosio
Mark
jjgoss
product...they seem to come out of the woodwork. Ap scopes
probably aren't the best available, but many here say they are. Whose
opinion to believe, hmmmm, I don't know but I don't like being pushed
around by "my scope is better than your scope" people.
J.Goss
mark dambrosio wrote in message
<28770-36...@newsd-213.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
jjgoss
but I see endless criticism of Meade, Takahashi (mostly color complaints),
and other scopes. I'd like the "AP Mafia" to just cool down the rhetoric,
so we can see thru all their smoke about how much they know.
It would be nice to learn something besides how to fight for your life on
the internet on this newsgroup....
J.Goss
ddd wrote in message <371341ab....@news.swbell.net>...
>On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 13:09:14 GMT, lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>>In another post yesterday i explained that i cutted a lot of that screws
about
>>which you are maybe !!! talking and not one was hollowed.
>>Maybe in your diagonals was used an not original screw ? Maybe you
diagonal is
>>not an Intes diagonal.
>
>Markus:
>
>I think that you are being trolled. You mentioned the small drill-out
>in the tip for a nylon pad. I think that they are looking at this
>small indentation and calling this a "hollow" screw, a highly
>dishonest act.
>
>I wouldn't worry too much about it. Most of the members
>of this newsgroup see through lies of the "AP Mafia".
>As long as you have pointed out to newcomers how
>they are being lied to you have done your duty.
>
>I have a hard time understanding why they are so insecure
>that they feel that they have to bash any product that is as
>good or better. AP makes some very products that stand
>up for themselves. And I've never seen Roland ever
>advocate this type of stance (although he does continue
>to deal with Co. 7, which does....)
>
>But also keep in mind, Markus, that I've caught you
>occasionally doing the same thing.
>
Blandp1
You had a question as to which diagonal Rob was refering to, the Intes or Intes
Micro. Since you sold him this diagonal, you should be able to answer the
question - unless, of course, you sold him one item while describing it as
another.
-Philip J. Blanda III
PGP Public key available
Fred Burger
diagonal (purchased from APM Markus Ludes) and it is of superlative
quality. The metal is thick and the unit as a whole is very well made.
I have very much enjoyed using it and have found the optical quality
to be on par with my Zeiss diagonals. None of my Intes screws have
ever broken or failed and I have never had any problems or seen in
defects in any of my Intes equipment. Markus Ludes has been a very
honorable person to deal with and I very much appreciate all of his
time and help with purchases.
Best Wishes,
Julie :-)
Fred Burger
e-mail: f...@sos.net
http: www.sos.net/~fjb
Chuck Lane
yesterday. The build quality is above reproach and is solid almost to a
fault. I can't imagine needing or wanting anything any stronger. It's also
optically excellent. Note that this isn't meant to refute anyone else's
findings, I've never seen an AP Maxbright so I can't compare the two.
I'm using the Intes on an Apogee 4" Widestar refractor and I'm very pleased
with the performance. Although an achromat, the Apogee gives very sharp and
contrasty views.
Chuck Lane
Atlanta, GA
CMUDUDE101
>product...they seem to come out of the woodwork. Ap scopes
>probably aren't the best available, but many here say they are. Whose
>opinion to believe, hmmmm, I don't know but I don't like being pushed
>around by "my scope is better than your scope" people.
>
>J.Goss
>
Since you say this now i feel i must post.. no to defend AP < it doesnt need it
coming from you> but i posted to piss ya off
Sean
Todd Gross
Todd
RAnder3127
MarkDa...@webtv.net (mark dambrosio) writes:
>Just curious, Who is the AP mafia? And what lies have they spread?
>Mark
It's more like a slow, steady stream of criticism of all competing
brands of apo-style refractors that the AP Mafia continue to
push. I'm sure you've heard:
-Taks and Vixens aren't apos.
-Real fluorite is fragile, temp sensitive, etc.
-Taks "fluorite up front design is pure marketing, with no benefits."
-Markus has an agenda and is lying about things.
-All scope dealers and their associates who sell apos competative
to AP are evil because they says nasty things (Except AP and it's
supporters, of course.)
-Colour correction in all other refractors is inferior to AP's
-I've never seen a Tak that was better than an AP of the same size.
-Meades use "cheap" ED glass
-FPL53 is superior to real fluorite
-Air spacing is inferior to oil spacing
-TV 101's aren't as good as Travellers
-Mak Newts take too long to cool down (as if there weren't ways to
alleviate most of that, but it makes a nice side issue to avoid the
issue of performance vrs. dollars.)
-Two element scopes can't be apochromatic
-Blurry definitions of apochromatism that change to suit an AP objective
produced at the time.
There are more. But, having said that, most well-known apo and apo-like
refractors will produce very good images, better per inch than any
other type of scope.
-Rich
lude...@my-dejanews.com
Hi Philip,
I asked him , because I did not remember it and I could not find his name in
my selling book to check what he bought. In the mean time he gave me the
month but i could still not find him, now I asked him to give me the shipping
adresse with which i can check for shure with my bookkeepers help. But in the
meantime he also gave me an very interested information. Now he talks about
about an black hollowed screw. The problem is: We never sold any diagonal
with black screws. INTES never sold black screws and I never too. So i asked
him , is this black screw his own exchange but still i am waiting for his
next answere. It is interested to discuss so long time about an little screw
which was not supplied from us or INTES. He should say that he changed an
screw and let us know that he talk about his own screws not about our screws,
or I am wrong ?
Markus
>
> PGP Public key available
lude...@my-dejanews.com
tele...@email.com wrote:
> Gene,
>
> Again.
>
> The screw is hollow. As stated numerous times. This doesn't mean solid with
a nylon
> tip. It means straw-like.
>
> Is that clear enough?
yes it is clear enough and I have to say now here clearly, that INTES or APM
never sold an black hollowed screw to anybody. All you doing here is talk
about an screw which you maybe bought in an shop and replaced byourself and
to trouble me, but you not talking here about an screw of APM or INTES,
clearly said : In my opoinion you are an very very big Liar, you understand ?
An Liar is someone who say wrong things to trouble others and you are the
king of them.
Markus
> >
> I guess a few people have implied that I'm lying.
and they are fully right.
>
> > On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 12:56:12 -0500, Robert <tele...@email.com>
> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> > >All Markus had to do was ask me if he could replace or repair the
diagonal, instead
> > >he attacked my opinions.
Dont forget your first words, where you made the INTES diagonal looking as the
poorest item on this planet. If your memory is to short, go back to your first
post and see your start of this trouble.
> > >
> > >All Markus had to do was ask me if he could replace or repair the
diagonal, instead
> > >he attacked my opinions.
I have not to ask an big liar to replace something which you not get from us
or INTES.> >> >> >
> > Well, we're still waiting to the answer to Markus'
> > question.
Gene , now you see my answeres to this big Liar, named Robert.
I am sad of this bad guy, (sorry for my bad words , but since 1 week he
trouble me even in privat emails because of an few cent screw which is not
from us)
best wishes to Gene , terrible wishes to Robert
Markus
> >
> > Gene Horr
> > trarubee ng fjoryy qbg arg
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
lude...@my-dejanews.com
tele...@email.com wrote:
> Markus,
>
> On 6/20/98 I sent you a check for the Intes diagonal I won in a Scibid
auction.
> It arrived on 8/1/98.
>
> You keep asking me what diagonal it was, you are the Intes dealer, what did
you
> send me?
>
> Now, me and the current owner have confirmed the set screw is hollow on that
> diagonal.
Where you bought this screw ? This screw is not from INTES and not from APM ,
thats for shure. Nobody of us ever have sold an black hollowed screw.
>
> What difference you ask?
>
> I commented that I felt the mechanics were inferior to the AP.
Please go back to your post and read again how you did it. Did you say it is
inferior or did you say something much more bad about this piece of metal ?
Or do you want that i repead here your own words ?
You attacked me,
> and in a fit of insanity started to cut screws. All you had to do was send a
new
> diagonal to the current owner, and have him return the apparently defective
> diagonal to you.
You did not say even one words about an defective diagonals, you only talked
that you using an hollow screw (from whom ever you bought it and how bad this
INTES diagonal is in your opinion, thats all about you talked here, if you
dont remember go back through all your posts.)
> > >
> It is my opinion that Markus has denied the facts, and pursued an illogical
method
> to settle this issue.
And you trouble with me with your liar story that you got an black hollowed
screw with an made INTES diagonal.
Markus
>
> Rob
>
> lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <36DC3D9C...@email.com>,
> > tele...@email.com wrote:
> > > Markus,
> > >
> > > I emailed the current owner of the Intes Diagonal you sold me.
> > >
> > > His response is quoted below:
> > >
> > > "Hi Rob,
> > > On the intes 2" diagonal the set screw is hollow and the diameter
> > > where
> > > it goes through is 1/8 inch. Hope this helps."
> > >
> > > Now what? That's two of us that noted the hollow set screw.
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> > I send you yesterday via email 2 pictures , one from INTES Stardiagonal 2"
and
> > one from INTES MICRO 2" Stardiagonal. About which one we are here talking
> > really?
> > 1/8 inch is 3.2 mm wallthickness , i meashured 4 mm wallthickness, not big
> > diffrence. But still 1/8 inch is more thickness than in most stardiagonals
> > where screws are fitted. As said before , never an customer claimed that the
> > thread was damaged, never an customer claimed that this screw was damaged.
So
> > where we have now the problem ?
> > In another post yesterday i explained that i cutted a lot of that screws
about
> > which you are maybe !!! talking and not one was hollowed.
> > Maybe in your diagonals was used an not original screw ? Maybe you diagonal
is
> > not an Intes diagonal.
> > Anyway , do we have to discuss nothing else that which screws must be used
in
> > an diagonal ?
> > If you have an 2" INTES diagonal and if you have on this INTES diagonal and
> > original INTES screw , than maybe here was used an wrong screw, but still i
> > cannot understand the problem , because even if your one screw is hollowed,
it
> > still cannot be damaged due any normal handling.
> > So again my question where is now the problem ?
> > best wishes
> > Markus
> > >
> > > Leonard Bottleman wrote:
> > >
> > > > RAnder3127 wrote:
> > > > > When I see a single set-screw
> > > > > holding in a chunky 2" diagonal and 2lb eyepiece, I start to worry.
> > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > >
> > > > I had heard that Naglers were heavy, but I had no idea they were
> > > > this heavy!
> > > >
> > > > Leonard Bottleman leo...@teleport.com
> > >
> > >
> >
Robert
Markus,
For the last time:
The diagonal was Intes, not Intes Micro.
You sold it to me, I'll forward details by private email.
It came in a sealed plastic packet in a cardboard box with a Black Hollow screw.
I did not change it.
I have said these things to you privately and publicly many times. Is it
possible this was an unusual diagonal? I know it was on of the first you sent to
this country.
Instead you continue to say it's impossible.
First you tell me I must not have bought it from an authorized dealer, I tell you
I got it from you.
You tell me you have no record, I have a canceled check with your name on it.
How many more denials can you make?
Rob
lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Philip,
>
> I asked him , because I did not remember it and I could not find his name in
> my selling book to check what he bought. In the mean time he gave me the
> month but i could still not find him, now I asked him to give me the shipping
> adresse with which i can check for shure with my bookkeepers help. But in the
> meantime he also gave me an very interested information. Now he talks about
> about an black hollowed screw. The problem is: We never sold any diagonal
> with black screws. INTES never sold black screws and I never too. So i asked
> him , is this black screw his own exchange but still i am waiting for his
> next answere. It is interested to discuss so long time about an little screw
> which was not supplied from us or INTES. He should say that he changed an
> screw and let us know that he talk about his own screws not about our screws,
> or I am wrong ?
>
> Markus
> >
> > PGP Public key available
> >
>
Robert
You have crossed the line.
I bought it from you. It came as I said. Yet you keep telling me I'm wrong.
Why?
Rob
lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Robert
It is my opinion you have "lost it".
I have answered all your questions in private email, yet you keep telling me I'm
wrong.
I sold the diagonal a long time ago. I couldn't care less about the quality, I
don't own it.
On the other hand:
To tell me I didn't buy it from you, when I have a canceled check with your name and
a memo "Intes diagonal" on the check, is insanity!
I didn't change the screw, perhaps if I did, I would have kept the diagonal. It was
the black hollow screw that made me think it was so cheap.
In my posts I have complimented the optics, just not the mechanics.
I have determined to never buy from you again. Partly because of your behavior
here, and partly because of other things I've bought that were not as expected when
they arrived.
Rob
lude...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Rob
RichardN22
> >
> > Again.
> >
> > The screw is hollow. As stated numerous times. This doesn't mean solid
with
> a nylon
> > tip. It means straw-like.
> >
> > Is that clear enough?
>
> yes it is clear enough and I have to say now here clearly, that INTES or APM
> never sold an black hollowed screw to anybody. >>
You guys are ridiculous! :-) At least it's kinda funny to read.
Raise your hand if you've ever had a missing or wrong part included with
something you've bought. That happens all the time, to lots of company.
Markus, don't you think perhaps a mistake could have been made through some
minor oversight, or that there was a bad set screw in a batch that INTES
bought, and it was mistakenly sent along? My feeling is Robert wrote a
personal account of his impressions of two diagonals, stating both strong and
weak points as he saw them. He mentioned the screw in passing. You guys have
got to learn to lighten up!
Richard
Richard Navarrete
Richa...@aol.com
Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22
Robert
Enough is enough.
I *called* Markus in Germany to settle this. I settle issues directly.
These are the facts that Markus and I seem to agree to:
1) I bought the diagonal from him.
2) It did come with a hollow black screw.
3) He didn't have the opportunity to inspect it, it was factory sealed.
4) Intes and APM sell the diagonal with a solid steel screw.
5) The was an aberration, Markus knows of no other instance such a screw was
sent, I believe him.
6) I posted my original comments below. To clarify, the hesitancy I had in use
was do to the nature of the screw being able to hold heavy objects, I stand by all
my impressions. I felt the quality control that let such a simple problem as a
bad screw go out was indicative of the Company's general operation.
7) I received one of the early interations of the diagonal, Markus told me a vast
improvement in Quality and Quality Control has taken place at Intes.
8) I have no personal malice towards Markus after talking to him, I think the
difference in language lead to an escalation in the discussion. However, I think
he needs to address some of his comments to me on SAA.
9) I welcome the opportunity to see or use a new Intes diagonal to reevaluate it,
but the sample I had was not up to standard, primarily due to QC issues. A
shameless plug: I'll take the same deal Rich Whalen got.
Markus,
The ball is in your court now.
Rob
********************************************************************
Rich,
A great review. I had a little different experience than yours.
I've had both the Intes, and the AP, and even the TeleVue.
In my opinion, the AP crushes the Intes, and the TV.
The optics are similar at best. The mechanics tell the story. The reason the AP
is heavier is because it's made to hold the heaviest eyepieces and accessories
with
stability. I never had the guts to put a Binoviewer in the Intes, I feared it
wouldn't hold.
The Intes set screw was *hollow*, I've never seen a hollow set screw before. The
machining and finish were amateurish. I experienced the catching of eyepieces in
the Intes too. I attributed it to poor design and execution.
The AP is a machining work of art. Holding it in your hand is a harbinger of it's
perfection. In the scope, it continues to impress.
I didn't feel there was any difference in centering of the eyepieces.
To me it comes down to economics. The AP is clearly better, but costs a bit more.
To me, it's worth the peace of mind knowing my eyepieces and accessories are
secure
in the scope.
Thanks,
Rob
************************************************************************
mark dambrosio
They're the MIB (Men in Black). They're real easy to spot at any
star-party, or astronomy club meeting, (They wear dark sunglasses).
Once they spot a Non-AP owner they "Flash them" with their "Neuralizer",
and then implant a new memory. "Repeat after me, AP's are the best".
Just thought you would like to know. Mark :-)
lude...@my-dejanews.com
tele...@email.com wrote:
> Markus,
> >
> Rob
>
Dear Rob Astro, dear Rob .... real name,
thanks for the nice phonecall this evening started from your side. Until this
evening you did not talk to me with your correct name , so I did not know to
whom I talk. When this thread was started, I feelt that here again an bad
thread against foreigner russian Items will be started as it was done many
times before. I found some explanations with which I have had fully to
disagree, because it was totaly unknown to me in that way. We never heard
from anybody that the INTES Stardiagonal was not strong enough nor amateurish
made. Additional we never saw any time in an INTES product in the past years
an black hollow screw. The discussion started to becomes strange and the
personal attachs between us increased. We couldn't findæºn our salebooks the
name Bob Astro or your email as an past customer and we must believe here
someone wants to trouble INTES and therefore us too. Than we saw today in the
last postings of from you and have been so much dissapointed that it comes to
my overreaction. Only during the phonecall this evening (german time) when i
heard your real name Robert ......, instead of Rob Astro , I immediatly
remembered this name as one of the most friendly buyerys i have had in the
past. In our discussion by phone, we come together, that nobody is perfect
and I am not too. Because I know Robert ...... as an very friendly and
correct person ( not so Rob Astro), I will agree to believe to Robert......
and wants to give hime here on the public of the newsgroup my personal
friendly apology. I think we have to play any time with open cards and
correct names, than such bad thread will never start again
best wishes to Robert ..... ( BTW: not to Rob Astro , ha, ha, ha)
Markus
Ratboy99
>star-party, or astronomy club meeting, (They wear dark sunglasses).
>Once they spot a Non-AP owner they "Flash them" with their "Neuralizer",
>and then implant a new memory. "Repeat after me, AP's are the best".
>Just thought you would like to know. Mark :-)
>
They are in with the Nagler gang. Helping them to get their outer space glass
down from the orbiting platform. Get your tin foil hat, jj.
rat
~( );>
RAnder3127
MarkDa...@webtv.net (mark dambrosio) writes:
>Once they spot a Non-AP owner they "Flash them" with their "Neuralizer",
>and then implant a new memory. "Repeat after me, AP's are the best".
>Just thought you would like to know.
"They're cleaning up the galaxy; One telescope at a time."
-Rich
RAnder3127
found a diffraction image I didn't like on a refractor. However,
the refractor was about the least expensive and produced
good extended images so I figured i'd live with it, it was only $600
Now I see a thread with people going head to head
over a f------ screw!
-Rich
RAnder3127
(RichardN22) writes:
>You guys are ridiculous! :-) At least it's kinda funny to read.
The National Film Board in Canada did a film a long time ago
about two neighbours who killed each other over the ownership
of a flower that staddled their property. It won a large number
awards....
-Rich
Chris1011
heard pro, and con on the Dielectric coatings, and notice that Televue
now offers an upgrade for their unit. I'd like to hear Uncle Al's
opinion on the new mirror, and how he feels it improves on the old one.>>
Unfortunately for us, Al found our source for the dielectric coated diagonal
mirrors. So, if you buy his or the AP, you will get the same exact mirror. The
execution of the mechanics is of course different.
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics