Say no to Refractors
Shawn Grant
other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is the
refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and foremost
they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then any other
telescope. They are big and bulky. They take a lot of space to store and are
hard to transport. Because of the high price and their long length they
generally have a small aperture. Remember the larger the aperture the more
light collected and better resolution. What other alternatives are there?
There are plenty and all better at the task and better value for your money.
For Planetary observing a long f/ratio 6" to 10" Newtonian on an equatorial
mount with top quality optics is hard to beat. The images of the planets are
comparable to a refractor of equal or smaller in size. They cost a quite a
bit less then the same size or even a much smaller refractor. The same scope
is great for astrophotography and CCD imaging as well. For deep Sky
observing a large aperture dobsonian can't be beat. There are many
dobsonians with very high quality optics. StarMaster and Obsession make
great dobs. Compare the price of a high quality dob with that of a quality
refractor. Which is a better value. You can get a 12" or even a 16" dob for
less then some 6" refractors. When it comes to deep sky observing it is
aperture aperture aperture coupled with optical quality. That can easily be
achieved with a dob at a better value. Some people are casual observers.
They enjoy planets, deep sky and perhaps CCD imaging or astrophotography but
not to serious at it. They want a portable scope to take with them anywhere.
The 8" to 10" SCT is an excellent choice. The larger SCTs make excellent
scopes in your observatory and are portable to the hardy few. An SCT is a
better general purpose scope then a refractor and a much better value.
Given that a refractor is a poor choice for everything then why do people
buy them? Some are simply ignorant. They don't understand there are much
better alternatives. Purchasing a Newtonian or SCT that best fits your
interest easily remedies this. Others are not happy unless they spend the
most money possible on a telescope. They have to spend as much possible per
aperture. It makes them feel better. They enjoy going around bragging that
they spent lots of money. It gives them the illusion of power and happiness.
This is a serious mental illness that needs to be addressed immediately.
Please correct this by seeking psychiatric help. After much medication and
therapy you will be cured of this. You can enjoy astronomy better with your
new Newtonian or SCT.
In closing Newtonians and SCT are much more rewarding for all types of
astronomy and lots kinder on your bank account. I hope you learn from this
and do not fall into the refractor trap. There are only two reasons to buy a
refractor and those are ignorance or a serious mental illness.
Stargazer
Shawn Grant wrote in message <7loj22$o0m$1...@news3.icx.net>...
>There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over any
>other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is the
>refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and foremost
>they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then any other
>telescope. They are big and bulky. They take a lot of space to store and
DUH!
Paul Gustafson
Paul Gustafson
Shawn Grant <ngc...@icx.net> wrote
>snip<
MitchAlsup
>other type of telescope.
This is patently not true. As an owner of a 6" AP, a 11" SCT and a 20"
DOB, each is suited for different work. The refractor is best on planets
where fine scale detail is more visible in an unobstructed system.
>Why is this? First and foremost
>they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then any other
>telescope.
The glass used in a quality refractor is very difficult to manufacture,
and requires several pieces (2 or 3) leading to higher cost. However,
there is a gain in an unobstructed system which can be used without
any additional reflections (secondaries/diagonals) for access to the
highest quality wavefront.
>What other alternatives are there?
>There are plenty and all better at the task and better value for your money.
>For Planetary observing a long f/ratio 6" to 10" Newtonian on an equatorial
>mount with top quality optics is hard to beat.
I disagree. Although there are many wonderful NEWTs for planetary
views, refractors are a (useful) touch better. I expect that sometime
in the (hopefully) near future, my 20" will look through an atmosphers
clean enough to see planets as well as the 6" does routinely.
>Some people are casual observers.
>They enjoy planets, deep sky and perhaps CCD imaging or astrophotography but
>not to serious at it. They want a portable scope to take with them anywhere.
>The 8" to 10" SCT is an excellent choice.
No disagreement here--I find I use my 11" more than my others
combined because I can leave it set up in my garage and move
it to my viewing spot in 45 sec. (Tuthil IsoStatic mount) 3 more
minutes for polar and I set for a causual night.
But it never give planetary images like the 6" AP.
>Given that a refractor is a poor choice for everything then why do people
>buy them?
It is not. Just like choosing to buy a Rolls Royce over a Mercedes
is not (necessarily) a poor choice.
> In closing Newtonians and SCT are much more rewarding for all types of
>astronomy and lots kinder on your bank account.
Your argument is based not on optical performance but on
price.
>There are only two reasons to buy a
>refractor and those are ignorance or a serious mental illness.
Wrong.
Mitch
Mitch Alsup
Mitch...@aol.com
Philip C. Farnam
-**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?c ****-
Search and Read Usenet Discussions in your Browser
Rich N.
ROTFLMAO!
Rich
Shawn Grant wrote in message <7loj22$o0m$1...@news3.icx.net>...
>There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over any
>other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is the
>refractor is the worst possible choice.
-snip
Don Holcombe
incoherent ramblings and adopt them as the creed of this newsgroup.
Nah......let's just put him in the killfile. At least he stopped his
profanity and just resorted to labeling and name calling.
Don
Shawn Grant wrote in message <7loj22$o0m$1...@news3.icx.net>...
Some are simply ignorant.
They enjoy going around bragging that>they spent lots of money. It gives
them the illusion of power and happiness.
>This is a serious mental illness that needs to be addressed immediately.
>Please correct this by seeking psychiatric help. After much medication and
>therapy you will be cured of this. You can enjoy astronomy better with your
>new Newtonian or SCT.
> In closing Newtonians and SCT are much more rewarding for all types of
>astronomy and lots kinder on your bank account. I hope you learn from this
>and do not fall into the refractor trap. There are only two reasons to buy
Rich N.
outside of the *case* for the AP 155EDF f/7
is 44 inches.
Rich
Stargazer wrote in message ...
>
>Shawn Grant wrote in message <7loj22$o0m$1...@news3.icx.net>...
>>There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over any
>>other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is the
>>refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and foremost
>>they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then any other
Patrick Kelly
Shawn Grant wrote:
<medicated this post>
> This is a serious mental illness that needs to be addressed immediately.
> Please correct this by seeking psychiatric help.
Might take some of your own advice here, Shawn.
Patrick
Jan Owen
Shawn, this is an age old discussion that is nowhere as cut and dried as you
imply.
Virtually every telescope type has it's own merits. That's why they all
exist together at the same time.
Many experienced amateur astronomers have developed preferences based on the
predominant type of observing they do. For them, their preferences are
correct. For anyone else, they may not be. There are a lot of folks who
read this newsgroup who don't really have ANY experience yet. They rely on
what they read here to make their decisions. It's really a GREAT place to
go for information. And especially opinions...
Assertions such as you just made might cause some of the uninitiated to make
the wrong decision for their needs.
For them, I'd point out that you have stated an opinion, not a fact. This
opinion may be correct for you, but they should view it just as an opinion
to be considered along with a lot of other opinions available here. I'd
also make an educated guess that yours is an opinion not shared, or only
partially shared, by a significant portion of the newsgroup population.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with your having a divergent opinion. For
you it IS correct. But don't deny the validity of other opinions, either.
At least, I expect this'll make for some interesting reading...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Shawn Grant wrote in message <7loj22$o0m$1...@news3.icx.net>...
>There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over any
>other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is the
>refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and foremost
>they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then any other
>telescope. They are big and bulky. They take a lot of space to store and
are
>hard to transport. Because of the high price and their long length they
>generally have a small aperture. Remember the larger the aperture the more
>light collected and better resolution. What other alternatives are there?
>There are plenty and all better at the task and better value for your
money.
>For Planetary observing a long f/ratio 6" to 10" Newtonian on an equatorial
>mount with top quality optics is hard to beat. The images of the planets
are
>comparable to a refractor of equal or smaller in size. They cost a quite a
>bit less then the same size or even a much smaller refractor. The same
scope
>is great for astrophotography and CCD imaging as well. For deep Sky
>observing a large aperture dobsonian can't be beat. There are many
>dobsonians with very high quality optics. StarMaster and Obsession make
>great dobs. Compare the price of a high quality dob with that of a quality
>refractor. Which is a better value. You can get a 12" or even a 16" dob for
>less then some 6" refractors. When it comes to deep sky observing it is
>aperture aperture aperture coupled with optical quality. That can easily be
>achieved with a dob at a better value. Some people are casual observers.
>They enjoy planets, deep sky and perhaps CCD imaging or astrophotography
but
>not to serious at it. They want a portable scope to take with them
anywhere.
>The 8" to 10" SCT is an excellent choice. The larger SCTs make excellent
>scopes in your observatory and are portable to the hardy few. An SCT is a
>better general purpose scope then a refractor and a much better value.
>Given that a refractor is a poor choice for everything then why do people
>buy them? Some are simply ignorant. They don't understand there are much
>better alternatives. Purchasing a Newtonian or SCT that best fits your
>interest easily remedies this. Others are not happy unless they spend the
>most money possible on a telescope. They have to spend as much possible per
>aperture. It makes them feel better. They enjoy going around bragging that
>they spent lots of money. It gives them the illusion of power and
happiness.
>This is a serious mental illness that needs to be addressed immediately.
Pat Plunkett
DAVID DEMING
Dave
mark dambrosio
but are a bit one sided i would say. Let me bring up one good point
that others haven't mentioned here yet. You talk about good value. A
high quality scope regardless of type will hold its value quite well. A
refractor like an AP can be more, or less used for free. Most AP
refractors sell for much more used than they cost new, and buyers gladly
eat them up. That is what i call a good value!
Try recovering your money when you wish to sell with a Celestron, or
Meade scope. Yes
i'm somewhat saddened too by the high cost of these truly beautiful
instruments, because they are beyond the affordability of many amateurs,
but if you could see the work that is involved in making one, (i have)
you will have a greater appreciation of the cost. Mark
Rich N.
Steve O'Hagan wrote in message <7lp238$oh...@news.hk.linkage.net>...
>
>Kevin Daly wrote in message
>> At some point in the future I can see myself with a nice Tak or Aries or
>Zeiss for photography.
>> As much of a fan of newts as I am, it's hard to beat the photo quality of
>a
>> good refractor.
>
>I always thought refractors were worse for photography because the matching
>for focal point for different colours was only carried out at 2 or 3
>wavelengths selected in the visible spectrum, whilst photographic film
>responds to a much wider range of wavelengths (e.g. well into the UV). So
>that in effect, the residue colour fringing due to chromatic aberation is a
>more serious problem for photography? Is my info wrong or out of date?
>
>Regards,
>
>Steve O'Hagan
Maybe a little out of date. The Astro-Physics EDF APO refractors
can produce outstanding astro photos.
Rich
mmolus
People, please...
Shawn Grant wrote in message <7loj22$o0m$1...@news3.icx.net>...
(what maybe a perfectly valid assessment for him, but is obviously intended
to rattle a bee's nest)
Mark Molus
Hoping for a "kinder, gentler" S.A.A.
tim harincar
Shawn Grant <ngc...@icx.net> wrote in message
news:7loj22$o0m$1...@news3.icx.net...
First you say:
> There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over
any
> other type of telescope. ... They are big and bulky. They take a lot
of space to store and are
> hard to transport.
Then you say:
> For Planetary observing a long f/ratio 6" to 10" Newtonian on an
equatorial
> mount with top quality optics is hard to beat.
Ok, you're trying to make me believe that something like a 4" or 6" tak
or AP is going to be bigger or bulkier than a long f/ratio 10" newt on
an EQ mount? You really are off the deep end.
--
Tim
---
tim harincar
<remove spoiler for email>
http://www.skyrover.net/ Don't just observe, explore!
>
>
>
Rich N.
Kevin Daly wrote in message
>>So
>>that in effect, the residue colour fringing due to chromatic aberation is
a
>>more serious problem for photography? Is my info wrong or out of date?
>
been
>taken through refractors. Tak, etc. all have flourite refractors which are
>capable of procucing outstanding photos.
Some of the best use a very low dispersion glass, FPL53, that performs
very much like fluorite. In the modern triplets it can make an outstanding
astrograph.
Rich
>
>
>Kevin Daly
>Mattatuck Astronomical Society
>http://members.aol.com/kdaly10475/index.html
Bob May
relative to the eye at the EP. And on top of it, the violet response with
B&W film isn't quite as good as the eye is, especially at the timings that
astrophotographers use. With those two things in consideration, film is
excellent with refractors. The bloom at the edges of the color spectrum are
pretty much ignored by film and usually the bloom isn't large enough to
exceed the resolution of film. CCD's are another thing alltoghther in this
matter due to thier small size.
Have Fun and Keep Looking Up.
--
Bob May
I don't read attachments to posts as they may give me a
virus If I expect an attachment from you I will open it..
You may have a brilliant thought but if you put it into an
attachment I won't read it and thus both you and I lose.
I don't like to say it but unfortunatly, there are those who
insist upon being nasty to the rest of us. Bob May
gemf...@my-deja.com
A few questions:
1. Are you the membership chairman for the Smoky Mountain Astronomy Club
this year?
2. Do you still write articles for and maintain their web site?
3. Have you found any Questar 7s for less than $1000 yet?
4. How long have you been off Prozac?
Just curious, Jim
In article <7loj22$o0m$1...@news3.icx.net>,
"Shawn Grant" <ngc...@icx.net> wrote:
>Snipped<
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
PJ
a sentence!
Kevin Daly
>also make an educated guess that yours is an opinion not shared, or only
>partially shared, by a significant portion of the newsgroup population.
>There's absolutely nothing wrong with your having a divergent opinion. For
>you it IS correct. But don't deny the validity of other opinions, either.
>
>
I'll admit to not being a huge fan of refractors, but that's primarily due to
my observing interests and the fact that I own an excellent 8" long Newt
(f/7.5). But to say there's no reason for them is ludicrous. At some point in
the future I can see myself with a nice Tak or Aries or Zeiss for photography.
As much of a fan of newts as I am, it's hard to beat the photo quality of a
good refractor.
PJ
Astro-Physics 7" or a Takahashi 6" refractor in a heartbeat. For the first time
ever, I just looked through a Takahashi refractor this weekend and left in awe
of the incredible view, which could not be mimicked by the neighboring Newts and
SCTs.
Aside from the technical and costly comparison of different types of scopes, I'm
not sure that directing your hostility toward individuals who own refractors is
justifiable. Assuming that refractor owners made their investment as such for
the sole purpose of filling a void in their life or to gain attention among
peers or to be the source of envy is an unfair and rather harsh analysis. I
think the "mental illness" comment was out of line.
Stick with the facts, Shawn, and leave out the personal attacks. You'll display
more credibility and your audience will less likely generate emotive responses
that may be quite unfriendly.
-Phil
Shawn Grant wrote:
> There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over any
> other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is the
> refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and foremost
> they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then any other
> telescope. They are big and bulky. They take a lot of space to store and are
> hard to transport. Because of the high price and their long length they
> generally have a small aperture. Remember the larger the aperture the more
> light collected and better resolution. What other alternatives are there?
> There are plenty and all better at the task and better value for your money.
> For Planetary observing a long f/ratio 6" to 10" Newtonian on an equatorial
Steve O'Hagan
Kevin Daly wrote in message
Zeiss for photography.
> As much of a fan of newts as I am, it's hard to beat the photo quality of
a
> good refractor.
I always thought refractors were worse for photography because the matching
for focal point for different colours was only carried out at 2 or 3
wavelengths selected in the visible spectrum, whilst photographic film
responds to a much wider range of wavelengths (e.g. well into the UV). So
that in effect, the residue colour fringing due to chromatic aberation is a
more serious problem for photography? Is my info wrong or out of date?
Regards,
Steve O'Hagan
Kevin Daly
>that in effect, the residue colour fringing due to chromatic aberation is a
>more serious problem for photography? Is my info wrong or out of date?
It could be. The majority of really excellent astro-photos I've seen have been
taken through refractors. Tak, etc. all have flourite refractors which are
capable of procucing outstanding photos.
Dan Dilamarter
only 13 or 14 years old--adults don't typically generate such rabid
opinions in such long winded incindiary fashion...well, ok....some
do...but this is kid stuff.
Dan
Frez
I don't understand how there can be serious replies
to this trash. Let's smarten up before this group
starts to attract more of these morons.
Frez
mmolus <mmo...@northnet.net> wrote in message
news:rHUf3.2347$WH3.8...@homer.alpha.net...
Max
Shawn Grant wrote in message <7loj22$o0m$1...@news3.icx.net>...
gemf...@my-deja.com
compare the email address of Mr. Grant and the author's name of some of the
articles. It could have been someone else, but I don't think so. But that
is why I asked...to make sure. Maybe some other members of the club could
comment on his boorish behavior. Thanks, Jim
In article <3780581C...@omnibusweb.com>,
meier
>
> It sure is a troll....and not even a good one either.
One of the worst trolls I've ever seen. The first sentence gives it
away.
-Rolf
Jon Isaacs
>away.
>
I think the guy thought that he could convince everyone with an AP or Takahashi
or whatever that they were mistaken and then they would donate their scopes to
him out of gratitude for his helping enlighten them.
Personally I think he was correct in his assessment of refractors and as a
noble gesture, since by his own admission he clearly does not need or want such
scopes, I am willing to accept all such worthless refractors and make sure that
they are properly disposed of.
-)
Jon Isaacs
CHASLX200
>From: joni...@aol.com (Jon Isaacs)
>Date: Mon, 05 July 1999 10:45 AM EDT
>Message-id: <19990705104543...@ng-bd1.aol.com>
>SNIP>
>
>Personally I think he was correct in his assessment of refractors and as a
>noble gesture, since by his own admission he clearly does not need or want
>such
>scopes, I am willing to accept all such worthless refractors and make sure
>that
>they are properly disposed of.
>
>-)
>
>Jon Isaacs
>**********************************
I have a Meade 7" Ed u can damn sure dispose of!!!!
Chas P.
Shawn Grant
was only meant to help others. First I am not some 13 or 14 year old who is
immature. I am a full grown adult who has enjoyed amateur astronomy for many
years. In those years I have seen a growing trend that is alarming. That
trend is the total disregard to aperture in favor of pure optical quality.
In fact in this newsgroup someone posted a statement that a 6" AP refractor
could out perform a 10" LX200 in deep sky observing. This is a serious
misconception that needs to be addressed. At many star parties I have seen
very small telescopes costing several times more then quality telescopes
that are several times their size. I believe that one should choose a
telescope that fits their interest and portability considerations. Also
contrary to popular believe aperture is very important. There needs to be a
happy medium between aperture and optical quality. Value is very important
thing to consider. All of those considerations put together makes for good
telescope purchasing or building choices. You buy a nice 6" refractor for
$6,000. It does have impressive planetary views. You take it to a star party
and set it up. Next to you someone is setting an 8" Newtonian with a perfect
mirror and many optimizations for planetary viewing. The total cost $1500.
The 8" Newtonian shows just as good planetary images as the 6" refractor but
cost $4500 less then the refractor. Now which scope do you think represents
a good value. This is not a far-fetched scenario. It is very possible and
happens all the time. I have seen it time after time and I am sure many
others have. Granted a Refractor will out perform most Newtonians because
most have modest optical quality. A top quality Newtonian will give
competitive planetary views that will make the purchase of a refractor
unwise. I do not deserve the ridicule I have gotten from the post. It is
just food for thought to help others make wiser choices. I did not call
anyone names or insult any one. I did use the term ignorant. There is
nothing wrong with that we are all ignorant about many things. Once I
thought light pollution filters or nebula filters were the magical solution
to light pollution. I thought I would see open clusters, globular clusters,
galaxies and even planets like I was out in the country. Pretty ignorant! A
friend told me I was ignorant and that nebula filters work on nebulas only
no matter if you are in the country or city and they diminish the view of
star clusters and galaxies. Instead of getting mad at him I excepted my
ignorance and learned from his guidance. Now I enjoy nebula filters and know
when to employ them. I used the term mental illness. I was not out of line
in this either. Let me explain with this very true story. At a star party
there was a man with a 3.5" Questar. He set it up and was proud of it. He
bagged about it costing $3,500. He said it maybe a little step but I am a
superior man of stature I only get the best. Around that time A friend of
mine came pulling up in a Yugo. Opened up the back and pulled out a skinny
dob mount. Set that on the ground. Then pulled out a red tube that contained
a 6" f/9.2 mirror with a curved vain Novak spider. He got a good deal on the
scope $300. Only one problem with the scope it has a skinny mount and is
prone to tip over on occasion. That is exactly what happened. The man with
the Questar was quick to point out the error and that it was a piece of
crap. He said I have a 3.5" Questar it cost $3,500 it is far better then
your scope. I am this, I am better, I have, I have went on the man. I call
that a mental illness and people like that needs help. I did not say
everyone who buys a refractor or another over priced scope such as a Questar
is like that but some are. Some (note some does not mean all it just means
some) do really truly buy over priced scopes just to show off and make
themselves look better. That man later had to eat his words. The 6" dob
showed planetary images that were several time better then the Questar and
it blow it away in deep sky as well. $3,500 for nothing. A $300 dob
outperformed it.
I am not insulting anyone I am just providing alternatives to overpriced
telescope. I do raise some valid points. Just food for thought and I do not
deserve the flack I have received. I deserve an apology.
gemf...@my-deja.com
You may have meant well, but neither post deserves an apology from anyone but
you...to saa. If after re-reading your posts and still do not understand
what you have written, I'll take the time in private email to explain. IMHO
you received less flack than I expected. My ha'pence worth, Jim
In article <7lqpbm$40r$1...@news3.icx.net>,
"Shawn Grant" <ngc...@icx.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I am not insulting anyone I am just providing alternatives to overpriced
> telescope. I do raise some valid points. Just food for thought and I do > not deserve the flack I have received. I deserve an apology.
Vahe Sahakian
>
> There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over any
> other type of telescope.
> refractor and those are ignorance or a serious mental illness.
Hi there,
I am not about to get into what appears to me as a spectacularly
pointless debate, but as I was reading this gentleman's arguments
regarding scopes and mental illness, I remembered Walter Scott Houston's
"Deep Sky Wonders" that appeared on monthly basis in the Sky & Tel for a
long time, Scott's writings were my favorite among various features that
appeared in that magazine. Those of you who remember Scott, probably
remember that his primary instrument was a 4" achromatic (4" Clark),
pretty damn modest instrument when compared to todays 6" & 7" apo's, but
look what the man was able to do with that little thing, everything from
deep sky to you name it. What he had was not mental illness, he had
supreme dedication and desire to explore the sky, and there are many
like him.
Yes Shawn, Refractors are not for everyone.
Be Good,
Vahe
Maxaggie
Well, did you get what you wanted......
You heard that old saying, "I told you so".
Remember that passion is universal. No matter what data is presented,
interpretation is in the eyes of the beholder.
Contrast is the holy grail of modern refractors, it does not matter weather the
Strelh ratio of a refractor and long FL telescope (if you select a Newtonian,
please limit your usable FOV to suppress coma) are super close, people will
believe they can see the difference. It is a psychological phenomenon.
Despite this, there are many optical reasons to own a refractor.
Now I'm sure there are those who disagree with me concerning their ability to
detect a difference in contrast. Most people are not dedicated 2-3 hour at a
time Mars observers. Even if they were, these planetary observers would tell
you otherwise. BTW, what does Jack Newton use? Percival Lowell used what?
was it a flourite apochromat <snicker>? was it coated <besides dust>? what
light loss do you suppose 4 lens surfaces plus the uncoated lens elements of
his eyepieces had? How often do you totally clean a big or small refractor
lens (all external surfaces)? Do you suppose he had better contrast than a
modern reflecting telescope of today? Now before eyeryone starts to BBQ me,
organize your facts based on proven data, not he said, she said, or according
to ???.
Maxaggie
Dan Dilamarter
responses, but here's my nickel--
Shawn,
I don't usually respond with the intent to cut anyone down, but really,
you are too much. You e-mail me at home to tell me you are actually a
widely respected amateur astronomer and web designer. Well, obviously
you are not, a sample of the responses from the contributors to this
newsgroup shows how profoundly un-respected you are.Your colossal
arrogance in assuming that you are the source of truth for us all
prompted me to disbelieve that you are even old enough to drive a car,
as this sort of childish belief in one's superiority is so common among
the very young. I hope that the members of the Smoky Mt. Astronomy Club
don't follow this news group, as they are no doubt embarrassed as hell
by now.
By the way, since you crowed so loudly in your e-mail to me about your
award winning website, I checked it out. It is a nice amateur effort,
but please spare me the claim that these jaggy, halo'ed fuzzed out
graphics represent the top web design around. It pains me to be so
acidic toward you, but it may just be that you might benefit by the
knowledge that there are many of us out here in the world who are not
clamoring to our computers to recieve the TRUTH from one immature
newsgroup poster somewhere in the Smokies. There are many of us out here
who build websites --I personally have developed over 60, and am
currently directing a staff of 11 database developers and web
designers--do I have to post these credentials every time I hit the
newsgroup? There are many out here who know lots about astronomy and
telescopes. Do they try to tell everybody here that they are actually in
need of mental help if they disagree with their TRUTH? Now everybody
probably thinks I'm as bad as you with this post, but at least I've said
my bit, and that's the rationale behind discussion groups--everybody
gets to say their peice. You would have everyone stop all further
discussion or even the use of refractors, all as a favor to us.
Whatever. And don't e-mail me at home again.
MadDan Grrrr
P.S. I'm sorry that you have Internet access. That's as close as you'll
get to an apology from me.
Chris Marriott
Shawn Grant wrote in message <7lqpbm$40r$1...@news3.icx.net>...
>I don't know why I am getting such a negative response to my posting that
>was only meant to help others. First I am not some 13 or 14 year old who is
>immature.
With the greatest respect, Shawn, it's difficult to take ANY of your posts
seriously following your normal style of posts in which every other word is
an obscenity. Language such as you are prone to using is normally only found
in messages from 13 year old kids who believe it's "cool" to swear; most
adults have a somewhat larger vocabulary and are able to express their views
without having to resort to that. Whatever your chronological age, your use
of language is definitely immature.
The other problem I personally have with your posts is that your views seem
to all be black and white - it's always "Product X is WONDERFUL and all
other products are GARBAGE". Again, most people realise that the "real
world" has shades of grey and that every product has its pluses and minuses
which must be weighed up when making a decision.
Just a personal view of course; perhaps everyone else believes that you've
been hard done by.
Regards,
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, UK (ch...@skymap.com)
Visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Astronomy software written by astronomers, for astronomers
Dan Dilamarter
_______________________________________________________________
This is a troll in the truest sense, and doesn't warrant a serious
response.
People, please...
Shawn Grant .....
(what maybe a perfectly valid assessment for him, but is obviously
intended
to rattle a bee's nest)
Mark Molus
Hoping for a "kinder, gentler" S.A.A.
_______________________________________________________________
Now you, Mark, you get a real apology. I'm a bee.
GentleDan
Ratboy99
>trend is the total disregard to aperture in favor of pure optical quality.
Yeah, and?
rat
~( );>
meier
> immature. I am a full grown adult who has enjoyed amateur astronomy for many
> years. In those years I have seen a growing trend that is alarming. That
> trend is the total disregard to aperture in favor of pure optical quality.
Alarming? That is very funny.
-Rolf
Ratboy99
>
>P.S. I'm sorry that you have Internet access. That's as close as you'll
>get to an apology from me
Lol
rat
~( );>
Ratboy99
refractor but
>cost $4500 less then the refractor. Now which scope do you think represents
>a good value.
Nobody argues which is the better value. To each his own, some people like
refractors, and for a lot of different reasons, including the historical
significance of the design. It's a hobby, ok?
>>I do not deserve the ridicule I have gotten from the post.
Yes you do. YOU dished ridicule out and you received same back.
>> I did not call anyone names or insult any one.
Yes you did. You called people stupid by telling them to 'use their brains',
and by implying that only an idiot would purchase a refractor. Furthermore you
choice to use profanity was totally uncalled for. You are surprised to have
been labeled a 'troll'. I do not agree with the 13 year old hypothesis. I
would instead suggest that you are a social retard. Typical introvert nerd.
Develop some social skills (be friendly) and you will not find yourself under
attack.
rat
~( );>
Bob May
comments. It's not so much the basic content of your assertions but rather
the way you made them. Remember that you are in a conversation with others
who really are strangers to you. There are even people on this NG who are
from other countries and do not fully understand the English language. I
think that you, like everybody else, will consider that when you hear
absolute and derogratory comments like what you stated will tend to take
offense to the person stating the comments.
There have been a lot of discussion concerning the quality of different
scopes and of the basic quality of any brand of telescope. It's all old
news in that regard and tends to be boring to those who have been on the NG
for a long time. The opinions are there. Everybody that has experience
with different telescopes knows the difference between views of a refractor
and a reflector and what the different sizes of apeture does to the image as
well as the effects of the different EPs and filters. We all know that
making comments like what you have done are those of someone who hasn't any
really good clue as to what is going on.
Those of us on the NG tend to want to discuss good things rather than get
blindsided with agressive comments like what you did. Remember that by
being polite you tend to be more appreciated in a discussion (as opposed to
an argument) and your comments will be more accepted as a result, Look at
the example of AndersonRM and the comments that he generates as to where you
are heading with the comments that you have been making. He has been on
this NG with different names and there are a number of people that have
thier filter program cull out his name from the NG posts so they don't even
have to see his name. Do you want to be in his enviable position? I don't
want to be so. So, as a result, be civll when posting and if you can't keep
a civil tounge on your keyboard, it is better not to make the post to the
real discussions going on. It makes everybody much happier and everybody
will enjoy the experience much more.
Rich N.
Given the number of recommendations for 6" and 8" Newts/Dobs
to newbies here on saa and the different scopes that show up
at star parties I don't think very many people are too uninformed.
Rich
Shawn Grant wrote in message <7lqpbm$40r$1...@news3.icx.net>...
>I don't know why I am getting such a negative response to my posting that
>was only meant to help others
-snip
Paul Schlyter
> I did use the term ignorant. There is nothing wrong with that we are
> all ignorant about many things.
> I used the term mental illness.
> I call that a mental illness and people like that needs help.
> I am not insulting anyone
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
Andy Wallace
the very best for this.
Shawn Grant wrote:
>
> There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over any
> other type of telescope.
> In closing Newtonians and SCT are much more rewarding for all types of
> astronomy and lots kinder on your bank account. I hope you learn from this
> and do not fall into the refractor trap. There are only two reasons to buy a
AndersonRM
(Ratboy99) writes:
>
>Nobody argues which is the better value. To each his own, some people like
>refractors, and for a lot of different reasons, including the historical
>significance of the design. It's a hobby, ok?
Maybe what he's saying is that some people shouldn't use
clearly wrong statements when trying to justify owning a
small refractor. Simply saying "I prefer refractors"
is sufficient reason to own one without fantasizing about
impossible comparisons with much larger reflective
instruments. This is as bad a Questar ads that used to
say a Q3.5" was superior to an C8 when it came to
details on planets or deepsky objects.
-Rich
"The media should be the first line of defense against charlatans
and con artists. Instead, they are the conduit for every claim
that activists dream up."
-Terence Corcoran
AndersonRM
MarkDa...@webtv.net (mark dambrosio) writes:
>You talk about good value. A
>high quality scope regardless of type will hold its value quite well
Not a Questar.
AndersonRM
>LOL! I have never known another person to use "cognitive dissonance" in
>a sentence!
>
>Paul Gustafson wrote:
A few months ago, it was like he developed a "thing" for it. You
know how a little kid learns a new word and then says it
constantly?
AndersonRM
(MitchAlsup) writes:
>The glass used in a quality refractor is very difficult to manufacture,
>and requires several pieces (2 or 3) leading to higher cost
It's harder to grind spherical surfaces (small ones at that)
than large parabolic surfaces?
jjgoss
The better refractors are using aspherics, at least some of them. And that
is a tough
surface to do....but I agree that very high quality parabolas, and
especially faster than
f/6 or so, need lots of loving care to do it right.
In fact, large (0.5meter or better) mirrors seem to take inordinate amounts
of time,
testing, and perserverance...some day, I hope to do one. How about you?
J.Goss
AndersonRM wrote in message
<19990705173654...@ngol03.aol.com>...
PJ
concept -- one being the originator of the concept. I used it in a grad
school research paper when I analyzed two historical individuals who I
alledged to have demonstrated cognitive dissonance. Not sure Shawn actually
displayed any cognitive dissonance.
AndersonRM wrote:
> In article <377FFB7F...@flash.net>, PJ <pcj...@flash.net> writes:
>
> >LOL! I have never known another person to use "cognitive dissonance" in
> >a sentence!
> >
> >Paul Gustafson wrote:
>
> A few months ago, it was like he developed a "thing" for it. You
> know how a little kid learns a new word and then says it
> constantly?
Chris1011
Yes. Take it from me. When Meade first introduced their ED Apos, I talked to
Meade's pres. John Diebel. I suggested that they would have lots of fun getting
a good quality result. He said, "what's so hard about spheres?"
I've made quite a few paraboloids on pyrex. It takes about 1 hour to polish the
surface to a good sphere, free of pits. This is all hands-off work and requires
almost no supervision. Any competent technician can do 10 sets at a time. It
takes 5 to 6 minutes to convert that sphere to a diffraction limited parabola
(approx 1/6 P-V). This is hands on work requiring an advanced skill level. 1/10
wave takes a little longer, maybe 1/2 to 1 hour. Pyrex (coefficient =27x10-7)
is very forgiving, since the surface does not move much under the different
temperatures encountered during polishing (quartz and zerodur are even easier).
Optical glasses used in lenses, especially Apos, have 5 times higher
coefficient of expansion. This means that it is infinitely harder to get 1/10
wave spheres on the surfaces. The temperature profiles across the surface
varies as the humidity of the room changes. This is because the polishing
slurry is evaporating and thus cooling the edges more than the middle of the
glass. anyone who thinks it is a piece of cake to make lenses, please try it.
If you have good success, more power to you. I've been at it 20 years and have
lots of tricks to make the work go easier. Even so it is still difficult.
Roland Christen
Dr.Science
Shawn Grant <ngc...@icx.net> wrote in message
news:7lqpbm$40r$1...@news3.icx.net...
> I don't know why I am getting such a negative response to my posting that
You are getting a negative response because of the obscenity and
inflammatory tone in your post.
>First I am not some 13 or 14 year old who is
> immature. I am a full grown adult who has enjoyed amateur astronomy for
many
> years.
Thanks for the info.
> In those years I have seen a growing trend that is alarming. That
> trend is the total disregard to aperture in favor of pure optical quality.
This trend is not as alarming as the notion that aperture wins with total
disregard to optical quality.
> In fact in this newsgroup someone posted a statement that a 6" AP
refractor
> could out perform a 10" LX200 in deep sky observing. This is a serious
> misconception that needs to be addressed.
In this very newsgroup someone posted something even more ridiculous. He
said that there were no reasons to buy a refractor.
> A top quality Newtonian will give
> competitive planetary views that will make the purchase of a refractor
> unwise.
This is often untrue. I do not doubt that there exist fine Newtonian
reflectors. The best planetary views I have had the pleasure to experience
were through refractors. Seeing often favors smaller apertures so the "big
dobs" you are fond of are often at disadvantage. Also, there are no dobs
that are as carefully baffled as a good refractor, this can be very
important for planetary observations. In short real life experience shows
that you are simply mistaken. One evening I looked thru a 5" AP refractor,
an 8" (or so) Mak-Newt, my 8" SCT, a 14" SCT and a host of Newts ranging
from 6" to 18". The target was a transit of Io across Jupiter. The best view
given by the AP refractor. This is a typical experience. When it comes to
very fine details of both high and low contrast across extended objects
refractors win. Not any refractor of any size but when you count in seeing
and quality and all of the other factors that go into real life observing a
refractor can be a wonderful instrument.
> I do not deserve the ridicule I have gotten from the post. It is
> just food for thought to help others make wiser choices. I did not call
> anyone names or insult any one.
This a quote from your original post: "There are only two reasons to buy a
refractor and those are ignorance or a serious mental illness." Do you still
deny that you insulted anyone?
> I am not insulting anyone I am just providing alternatives to overpriced
> telescope. I do raise some valid points. Just food for thought and I do
not
> deserve the flack I have received. I deserve an apology.
>
You deserve the treatment you have gotten. If fact, you deserve as obscene a
tirade as the one you spewed. I will not do you favor of giving you what you
deserve.
Shawn Grant
agree with my views on refractors. I volinteer my time and effert in
creation of this site. http://user.icx.net/~ngc457 It takes time and
deadication. It is something I don't have to do. No club web site should
ever be insulted poor design or not. All of them are designed by volonteers
because they care about thier clubs and want to introduce others to
astronomy. My hand goes out to all those who design thier clubs web sites.
Sometimes it is a thankless job but you are rewarded when a new member comes
up to you and says I would have never found the club if you haven't put up a
site.
I do have a fair knowledge on web design and I know that dead links are not
acceptible. I went to your web site www.omnibusweb.com and every link was
dead went no where.
Rich N.
Shawn Grant wrote in message <7lrkcs$lch$1...@news3.icx.net>...
>You have gone to far when you insult my clubs website all because you do
not
>agree with my views on refractors. I volinteer my time and effert in
>creation of this site. http://user.icx.net/~ngc457
Nice looking website.
Rich
Paul Gustafson
concept to Mr. Anderson, it is a common topic in undergraduate psychology
studies. On my way to a degree in psychology, I not only studied cd, I
worked with the graduate psy department to design studies to investigate
this behavior. It is very easy to put someone in a dissonant position, and
very interesting to see how different individuals resolve their cd.
An interesting and very readable introduction to cd can be found in the book
"The Social Animal" by Elliot Aronson (is he one of the two "academic types"
you cite?). The seventh edition was printed in 95, not sure if there is a
more recent one. In this context, Shawn's strident one-sided post could
indeed be an attempt to reduce his dissonance. We could always ask him;
however, since one who is trying to reduce his dissonance isn't trying to
convince others but is instead trying to convince himself, we are usually
unaware that we engage in this common behavior. An example of cd on s.a.a.
might be those Meade owners who denounce _any_ poster delivering negative
info about Meade scopes as a "Meade basher" (or in Rich's case, the AP Mafia
<g>).
Since this is way ot, let's take any further discussion to private e-mail.
Regards,
Paul Gustafson
PJ <pcj...@flash.net> wrote in message news:3781374C...@flash.net...
Dan Dilamarter
off as some totally all-wise authority on everything you say and expect
that people won't shoot you down. You make remarks, as one poster said,
that are completely black and white--nobody wants to hear you, or
anybody else, TELL us what to think. It is the essence of the NG
community that we DISCUSS things--we don't preach. You act as though
your opinion is the only one that can be right. Please, we all (except
you) know that refractors have their strong points and weak points, as
does every other type of scope, as does every other type of religion,
every type of person. The world and its contents is different for all of
us, and it is a gift that we can communicate at all--when we communicate
successfully, we share a point of view that may be new, and may be
valuable. You have told us that any who do not share your point are
mentally ill...I am searching for the value in this opinion, and find
only a voice that shouts and stops communication. I'm sorry if I hurt
your feelings. Your website is serving a valuable purpose--if you
continue to post messages to the NG, perhaps the reaction of almost
everyone here can show you a more valuable approach.
Dan Dilamarter
Buggs
I own a TV101 and I am so happy with it that I have a savings acount
that says AP 7". You might say that I am mental for spending that kind
of money for just 4" of aperture but the contrast of planets and pin
point stars to me are worth every penny. The thing is only 33" long
and sets up in about 30 seconds. I do have a passion for quality. I
buy pentax xl eye pieces and just bought two radians. Am I just
throwing my hard earned money away? Lets let the majority decide. You
have said what you think of me.
Donnie
PJ
While your story is indeed touching, not sure how relevant this one man's ego is
with people who purchase refractors. The logic just ain't happenin'.
Shawn Grant wrote:
> I don't know why I am getting such a negative response to my posting that
> was only meant to help others. First I am not some 13 or 14 year old who is
> immature. I am a full grown adult who has enjoyed amateur astronomy for many
> years. In those years I have seen a growing trend that is alarming. That
> trend is the total disregard to aperture in favor of pure optical quality.
> In fact in this newsgroup someone posted a statement that a 6" AP refractor
> could out perform a 10" LX200 in deep sky observing. This is a serious
> misconception that needs to be addressed. At many star parties I have seen
> very small telescopes costing several times more then quality telescopes
> that are several times their size. I believe that one should choose a
> telescope that fits their interest and portability considerations. Also
> contrary to popular believe aperture is very important. There needs to be a
> happy medium between aperture and optical quality. Value is very important
> thing to consider. All of those considerations put together makes for good
> telescope purchasing or building choices. You buy a nice 6" refractor for
> $6,000. It does have impressive planetary views. You take it to a star party
> and set it up. Next to you someone is setting an 8" Newtonian with a perfect
> mirror and many optimizations for planetary viewing. The total cost $1500.
> The 8" Newtonian shows just as good planetary images as the 6" refractor but
> cost $4500 less then the refractor. Now which scope do you think represents
> a good value. This is not a far-fetched scenario. It is very possible and
> happens all the time. I have seen it time after time and I am sure many
> others have. Granted a Refractor will out perform most Newtonians because
> most have modest optical quality. A top quality Newtonian will give
> competitive planetary views that will make the purchase of a refractor
> unwise. I do not deserve the ridicule I have gotten from the post. It is
> just food for thought to help others make wiser choices. I did not call
> anyone names or insult any one. I did use the term ignorant. There is
> nothing wrong with that we are all ignorant about many things. Once I
> thought light pollution filters or nebula filters were the magical solution
> to light pollution. I thought I would see open clusters, globular clusters,
> galaxies and even planets like I was out in the country. Pretty ignorant! A
> friend told me I was ignorant and that nebula filters work on nebulas only
> no matter if you are in the country or city and they diminish the view of
> star clusters and galaxies. Instead of getting mad at him I excepted my
> ignorance and learned from his guidance. Now I enjoy nebula filters and know
> when to employ them. I used the term mental illness. I was not out of line
> in this either. Let me explain with this very true story. At a star party
> there was a man with a 3.5" Questar. He set it up and was proud of it. He
> bagged about it costing $3,500. He said it maybe a little step but I am a
> superior man of stature I only get the best. Around that time A friend of
> mine came pulling up in a Yugo. Opened up the back and pulled out a skinny
> dob mount. Set that on the ground. Then pulled out a red tube that contained
> a 6" f/9.2 mirror with a curved vain Novak spider. He got a good deal on the
> scope $300. Only one problem with the scope it has a skinny mount and is
> prone to tip over on occasion. That is exactly what happened. The man with
> the Questar was quick to point out the error and that it was a piece of
> crap. He said I have a 3.5" Questar it cost $3,500 it is far better then
> your scope. I am this, I am better, I have, I have went on the man. I call
> that a mental illness and people like that needs help. I did not say
> everyone who buys a refractor or another over priced scope such as a Questar
> is like that but some are. Some (note some does not mean all it just means
> some) do really truly buy over priced scopes just to show off and make
> themselves look better. That man later had to eat his words. The 6" dob
> showed planetary images that were several time better then the Questar and
> it blow it away in deep sky as well. $3,500 for nothing. A $300 dob
> outperformed it.
David Ward
you hit the nail on the head..... It's your money and you can spend it
any way which makes you happy (Or as a co-worker of mine put it once
when someone asked him if he was really going to eat "that": "It's my
mouth, and I'll haul coal in it if I want to....")
David Ward
David Ward
And besides, what website is not under constant revision (I should know
as this is one of my duties at work also). This makes no sense to me
(Web site flaming????).
Your point about finding clubs via the web is a very good one. I would
have never found the local club last year (Flint River Astronomy Club)
if it were not for the web (The Atlanta Astronomy Club is too far and
just too big for me).
Just out of curiosity what application do you use for the web site
editing?
Shawn Grant wrote:
>
> You have gone to far when you insult my clubs website all because you do not
> agree with my views on refractors. I volinteer my time and effert in
barry Cain
and can state the FACT that he is a seasoned astronomer with observing
skills comparable to Phil Harrington and Tom Lorenzin. Actually he has
observed side by side with them on more than one occasion. Additionally, I
find your comments regarding his web design skills disturbing. Actually, if
the afore-linked site (omnibusweb) is your creation you should feel humbled
by visiting his site. Maybe you could get to Tennessee sometime and Shawn
could arrange to give you some pointers on web design.
Bill McHale
: I don't know why I am getting such a negative response to my posting that
: was only meant to help others. First I am not some 13 or 14 year old who is
: immature. I am a full grown adult who has enjoyed amateur astronomy for many
: years. In those years I have seen a growing trend that is alarming. That
: trend is the total disregard to aperture in favor of pure optical quality.
Well I can think of a number of reasons. The primary one being that you
call those who have opted for refractors ignorant or insane.
There is no disregard being given to aperture, rather some amateurs have
decided to place a higher priority on optical quality. They may not want
to have to deal with all the extra maintenance and weight accompanying a
large SCT or Dob and prefer to get the best possible instrument in the
size they feel comfortable with. for some this will be a 6" refractor, in
other cases it will be the (hugely popular) 4" refractor, particularly
Apochromatics.
: In fact in this newsgroup someone posted a statement that a 6" AP refractor
: could out perform a 10" LX200 in deep sky observing. This is a serious
: misconception that needs to be addressed.
Well this will depend on a number of factors. Perhaps the 10" was a
rather poor example (after all SCT optical quality has been very spotty in
the past) or for a variety of reasons the SCT may never have reached
thermal equilibrium. In either case the SCT might well be out performed
by one of the better refractors on the market.
: At many star parties I have seen
: very small telescopes costing several times more then quality telescopes
: that are several times their size. I believe that one should choose a
: telescope that fits their interest and portability considerations. Also
: contrary to popular believe aperture is very important. There needs to be a
: happy medium between aperture and optical quality.
That happy medium is not for you to decide, rather it is for the
individual purchaser. Comparing a 105mm Traveler with a 12" Dob (an
instrument several times the Traveler's size) reveals two very different
scopes. The 12" will show more on the deepsky, but it also going to be
harder to transport and for some might be more scope than they need.
: Value is very important
: thing to consider. All of those considerations put together makes for good
: telescope purchasing or building choices. You buy a nice 6" refractor for
: $6,000. It does have impressive planetary views. You take it to a star party
: and set it up. Next to you someone is setting an 8" Newtonian with a perfect
: mirror and many optimizations for planetary viewing. The total cost $1500.
: The 8" Newtonian shows just as good planetary images as the 6" refractor but
: cost $4500 less then the refractor. Now which scope do you think represents
: a good value.
That all depends... some people hate the diffraction effects that can only
be minimized not eliminated in a Newtonian. It should also be remembered
that an 8" f/8 is going to be considerably larger than a 6" f/6. Mind you
I am making assumptions about the size of the instrument in each case, but
I think an f/8 f-ratio is reasonable for a Planetary reflector and I
believe the AP 155 is an f/6.
: This is not a far-fetched scenario. It is very possible and
: happens all the time. I have seen it time after time and I am sure many
: others have. Granted a Refractor will out perform most Newtonians because
: most have modest optical quality. A top quality Newtonian will give
: competitive planetary views that will make the purchase of a refractor
: unwise. I do not deserve the ridicule I have gotten from the post.
Even with the best possible mirrors a Newtonian is not going to equal a
Refractor of equal size in terms of performance on planets (Assuming good
optics).
Again, your ridicule was brough on by the insults thrown at people who
have bought refractors.
: It is
: just food for thought to help others make wiser choices. I did not call
: anyone names or insult any one. I did use the term ignorant. There is
: nothing wrong with that we are all ignorant about many things.
No, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but mind you, you are
writing to people who in some cases have been in Astronomy for years or
even decades. Many of them have in fact owned the SCT and Newtonians
before buying refractors. Calling them ignorant or mentally ill is most
certainly an insult.
<snip>
: in this either. Let me explain with this very true story. At a star party
: there was a man with a 3.5" Questar. He set it up and was proud of it. He
: bagged about it costing $3,500. He said it maybe a little step but I am a
: superior man of stature I only get the best. Around that time A friend of
: mine came pulling up in a Yugo. Opened up the back and pulled out a skinny
: dob mount. Set that on the ground. Then pulled out a red tube that contained
: a 6" f/9.2 mirror with a curved vain Novak spider. He got a good deal on the
: scope $300. Only one problem with the scope it has a skinny mount and is
: prone to tip over on occasion. That is exactly what happened. The man with
: the Questar was quick to point out the error and that it was a piece of
: crap. He said I have a 3.5" Questar it cost $3,500 it is far better then
: your scope. I am this, I am better, I have, I have went on the man. I call
: that a mental illness and people like that needs help. I did not say
: everyone who buys a refractor or another over priced scope such as a Questar
: is like that but some are. Some (note some does not mean all it just means
: some) do really truly buy over priced scopes just to show off and make
: themselves look better. That man later had to eat his words. The 6" dob
: showed planetary images that were several time better then the Questar and
: it blow it away in deep sky as well. $3,500 for nothing. A $300 dob
: outperformed it.
Yes in this particular case the Questar owner was an ass, but that does
not mean that all or most Questar owners are like that. For many a scope
like a Questar or a 4" Apo is in fact a compromise they have reached after
many years struggling with larger scopes and a bad back. Sure they love
the views through a 12" or larger Dob but it is just to big for them to
handle. In contrast the Questar or the 4" Apo is just about right and if
you are going to be limited to the smaller scope, you might as well get as
much out of it as possible.
The current refractor craze is the reaction from the previous aperature
craze of the 80's and early 90's when often people were getting the
largest mirror possible without regard to quality. Doubtless there are
still many amateurs happy with their 17-20 inch 1 wave mirrors but there
are others who are equally happy with their compact refractors that
provide the absolute best possible image for a scope its size.
: I am not insulting anyone I am just providing alternatives to overpriced
: telescope. I do raise some valid points. Just food for thought and I do not
: deserve the flack I have received. I deserve an apology.
Most people understand their alternatives and I would say this is
particularly true of most people in the APO market... only the very rich
would spend that sort of money on a scope without understanding its
virtues and limitations, so give the APO owners the benefit of the doubt.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Nostalgia is not what it use to be!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Bill McHale
: In article <19990704182645...@ng-ca1.aol.com>, mitch...@aol.com
: (MitchAlsup) writes:
: >The glass used in a quality refractor is very difficult to manufacture,
: >and requires several pieces (2 or 3) leading to higher cost
: It's harder to grind spherical surfaces (small ones at that)
: than large parabolic surfaces?
: -Rich
:
Its not just the surfaces. Remember glass used for mirrors can have all
sorts of errors that would ruin it for a refractor. The glass by itself
probably is responsible for a large part of the cost difference between
refractors and reflectors.
Also I doubt that most of the premium short focus refractors use spherical
surfaces. Sperhical probably works well for longer focus instruments like
the VX102 Flourite or even the Tak FS-102 but for short focus instruments
like the Traveler, FSQ-106, TV-101, and the TMBack 105mm I am sure that
they probably use aspherics and I am willing to bet that a convex aspheric
is more difficult than a moderate sized parabola.
Rich N.
ddd wrote in message <378212e1....@news.texas.net>...
-snip
> But visual work is not the primary design criteria.
-snip
But some of us buy them primarily for visual use and
would be happy if they were optimized for visual use.
Rich
>Gene Horr
>trarubee ng fjoryy qbg arg
>
>ROT13 to reply
>
>South Seas Investments, Tulips, Asian Real Estate,
>Internet Stocks.
>
>The new paradigms.
Rich N.
Bill McHale wrote in message <7lt4sp$r0a$1...@news.umbc.edu>...
-snip
>I think an f/8 f-ratio is reasonable for a Planetary reflector and I
>believe the AP 155 is an f/6.
Just a nit...
It is listed as an f/7. The 130EDF is listed as an f/6.
Rich
Rich N.
barry Cain wrote in message <7lt4nc$jcd$1...@news3.icx.net>...
Mr. Grant seems a bit bitter when it comes to people spending
their own money a fine refractor.
Rich
AndersonRM
>Yes in this particular case the Questar owner was an ass, but that does
>not mean that all or most Questar owners are like that. For many a scope
>like a Questar or a 4" Apo is in fact a compromise they have reached after
>many years struggling with larger scopes and a bad back.
Then it would be nice to hear the people who use these scopes
say they "struggle with larger scopes" or "I have a bad back"
rather than the misleading statement, "A 4" apo will beat
an 8" SCT" rationalization for owning a small refractor.
tfla...@my-deja.com
"Shawn Grant" <ngc...@icx.net> wrote:
> I don't know why I am getting such a negative response to my
> posting that was only meant to help others.
How can anybody possibly respond positively to a posting that
starts out with two clearly falsehoods? I quote:
1. There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a
refractor over any other type of telescope.
2. No matter what your observing interest is the refractor
is the worst possible choice.
Statement #1 is untrue right on the face of it. If there were
no reason to choose refractors, nobody would choose them. You
presumably meant to say that there are no "valid" reasons, or
no "legitimate" reasons to choose a refractor. Of course there
are reasons, if nothing more than pure vanity. May not be valid
in my eyes or your eyes, but it is most certainly a reason.
Statement #2, unlike statement #1, might possibly be true, but
it isn't. Here are three niches where refractors are good choices
for the best possible reasons:
1. If you want a small, ultra-portable telescope, refractors
are clearly the default choice. Their price disadvantage
all but disappears in apertures of 80mm or less, whereas
the central obstructions of all other designs become
overwhelmingly problematic in these apertures. To take
an extreme case, how many non-refractive binoculars have
you seen?
2. People who want wide, sharp, flat fields for photography
basically have no other choice.
3. People who do planetary observing, especially in places
with less-than-perfect atmospheric conditions, and who
have enough money so that they don't care about the
extra cost, may be best served by a 5" or 6" refractor.
Your diabtribe against refractors assumes that "real" people's
choice of aperture is constrained primarily by money. This may
well be true for the majority of Americans, but it is not true
for everyone. Consider, for instance, people who are genuinely
wealthy, so that money is no constraint. Or, on the other hand,
people who don't own cars, so that portability is an overwhelming
constraint.
What is really annoying is that most of us agree with you that
refractors are over-rated, and sometimes bought for "bad" reasons
rather than "good" reasons. But by overstating your case in such
an extreme and ridiculous fashion, all you have accomplished is
to discredit it.
--
- Tony Flanders
Cambridge, MA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Andy Wallace
At my dark site Sunday, a grandmother unloaded a 13" dob from her truck
and declined my offer of help. People who think an 8" dob is too big to
handle amaze me. She also had the little Questar that had amazing sun
views with an off-axis :-) sun filter the size of a silver dollar.
Andy
AndersonRM wrote:
>
> In article <7lt4sp$r0a$1...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) writes:
>
> >Yes in this particular case the Questar owner was an ass, but that does
> >not mean that all or most Questar owners are like that. For many a scope
> >like a Questar or a 4" Apo is in fact a compromise they have reached after
> >many years struggling with larger scopes and a bad back.
>
gemf...@my-deja.com
enjoyed reading the tips and information on the site. Clingmans' Dome is not
that far a drive for me and I had considered driving up for one of your get
togethers. Unfortunately, my travel scope is a TV-85....... Jim
In article <7lt4nc$jcd$1...@news3.icx.net>,
"barry Cain" <bcc...@icx.net> wrote:
> For what it is worth, I have been acquainted with Mr. Grant for some time
> and can state the FACT that he is a seasoned astronomer with observing
> skills comparable to Phil Harrington and Tom Lorenzin. <snip>
Rockett Crawford
Andy Wallace wrote:
>
> At my dark site Sunday, a grandmother unloaded a 13" dob from her truck
> and declined my offer of help. People who think an 8" dob is too big to
> handle amaze me. She also had the little Questar that had amazing sun
> views with an off-axis :-) sun filter the size of a silver dollar.
>
> -Terence Corcoran
Agreed. I have an 8 inch dob that I have built and rebuilt over
the years. The current configuration breaks down to two
components (scope and bearing box) which weigh, I estimate,
somewhere around 10 lbs each. Very light yet very stable
scope with views that equal my 8 inch SCT.
Weight should not scare anyone off from an 8" scope.
BTW, I am not anti-refractor person. I own a TeleVue
Genesis.
Take care,
Rockett Crawford
Rashad Al-Mansour
the how to buy a telescope section. And I wonder if all the members of that
club only use Newtonians. If that is the case it must be an awfully dull
club.
Kind of like living on a diet of popcorn.
Rashad
barry Cain <bcc...@icx.net> wrote in message
news:7lt4nc$jcd$1...@news3.icx.net...
| For what it is worth, I have been acquainted with Mr. Grant for some time
| and can state the FACT that he is a seasoned astronomer with observing
Rockett Crawford
ddd wrote:
> One clarification:
>
> On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 17:04:51 GMT, tfla...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Here are three niches where refractors are good choices
> >for the best possible reasons:
> >
> > 2. People who want wide, sharp, flat fields for photography
> > basically have no other choice.
>
> No true. There are choices, But the clincher is that these
> instruments often cost much more than an APO refractor.
>
> The advantage they have is a "faster" f-ratio. But the
> refractor definitly wins on the $/sq. arc. sec film coverage
> <g>.
>
One way to reduce field curvature on SCTs is to
either get a bigger SCT or a smaller film or
detector size.
An 8 inch SCT has field curvature that approx. a cross
section of a basketball.
A 16 inch SCT however has the field curvature of
a cross section of a beach ball.
Taking a smaller cross section by using a smaller
detector also helps to reduce the amount
of field curvature in an image or photo.
Here is an image taken with an 11 inch SCT. The
field curvature is minimal because the 11 inch
mirror has a little flatter cross section, the ST-7
detector is much smaller than a 35mm neg and
it has been cropped a little. There is just a
little asymmetry in the stars towards the top of the
image.
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/m51.htm
Rockett Crawford
Rich N.
ddd wrote in message <378639f7...@news.texas.net>...
>On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:02:53 -0700, "Rich N." <rn...@znet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>ddd wrote in message <378212e1....@news.texas.net>...
>>-snip
>>> But visual work is not the primary design criteria.
>>
>>-snip
>>
>>But some of us buy them primarily for visual use and
>>would be happy if they were optimized for visual use.
>
>INSANE!!!
But they haven't caught me yet. I'm still on the loose.
><VBSEG>
>
>A 6" or 7" f/12 APO would make a GREAT visual instrument,
>wouldn't it? And could fill a price gap between the f/15
>acromats and the short FL APOs (it should be cheaper
>to make than a f/8 instrument and one could stick with the
>tiny (2.7") focusers.)
>
>Unfortunately it would be a long beast.
No, they wouldn't need to be that long. I am really nit picking
here. The 6" and 7" f/9 EDTs were (are) very fine telescopes.
I beleive they used FPL52 glass. The 6" f/7 with FLP53 is
a fine visual instrument too. So, while "on paper" a 6" f/8 or f/9
with FPL53 may be better I don't know if I could see a difference
in the in focus image.
I don't think it will happen but I wouldn't mind seeing new 7" f/9s
and 6" f/8s made by AP using FPL53.
Rich
>I wish there was a perfect all round design. But it just isn't
>going to happen. And attempts to do so wind up with
>the optical equivelent of the El Camino. Yes, it will do
>many things, but none of them very well.
David H. Roberts
surfaces are spherical...
Bill McHale wrote:
--
David H. Roberts
Physics Department, MS-057
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA 02254 USA
d...@quasar.astro.brandeis.edu
http://www.astro.brandeis.edu
AndersonRM
writes:
>At my dark site Sunday, a grandmother unloaded a 13" dob from her truck
>and declined my offer of help. People who think an 8" dob is too big to
>handle amaze me.
You're right. Although I'm not a big Dob fan, I do think they are
quite hadleable up to 10" or so in size (F6 max).
John Miller
news:7lt4nc$jcd$1...@news3.icx.net...
> For what it is worth, I have been acquainted with Mr. Grant for some time
> and can state the FACT that he is a seasoned astronomer with observing
> skills comparable to Phil Harrington and Tom Lorenzin.
That being the case, I have only one comment: see what influence you can
provide
to ensure he doesn't skip his medication.
Andy Wallace
I'll bet you have a great scope--I'd like to see a picture. I know you
have a great mirror; you are lucky--I understand Carl is not selling
directly to the public anymore.
Andy
Chuck Gulker wrote:
>
> << At my dark site Sunday, a grandmother unloaded a 13" dob from her truck
> and declined my offer of help. People who think an 8" dob is too big to
> handle amaze me. >>
>
> << You're right. Although I'm not a big Dob fan, I do think they are quite
> hadleable up to 10" or so in size (F6 max).
> Rich >>
>
> Rich, I agree in that a 10 inch F6 is manageable in size. Yesterday I
> completed/had first light on my new 10 inch F6 Zambuto mirror dobsonian. It
> came out great in fit/finish/optics/ease of use. If you or anyone else is
> interested in getting an electronic picture of my scope, just let me know
> and I will send you one.
>
> Chuck
Thomas Halay
I have entered into some kind of "holy war" :) One thing is certain
,because of the posts in this thread I have done more research on the pro's
and con's concerning each type of telescope. I have built my first
reflector scope and am making plans to build a 6" f/8. Maybe its just me
but it seems the majority of homemade scopes are of the reflector type.
Hmmmm that is a whole other thread... eh
Tom
Rockett Crawford wrote in message ...
Chuck Gulker
RichardN22
news:7lt4nc$jcd$1...@news3.icx.net...
> For what it is worth, I have been acquainted with Mr. Grant for some time
> and can state the FACT that he is a seasoned astronomer with observing
> skills comparable to Phil Harrington and Tom Lorenzin.>>
Too bad some of Phil's and Tom's social and writing skills didn't rub off. :-(
Richard Navarrete
Richa...@aol.com
Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22
Dan Dilamarter
I use Adobe Photoshop for imaging and one of several HTML editors for
code, either the excellent shareware Mac app Pagespinner, or another
shareware app called Arachnofilia for Windows. I have been testing Adobe
GoLive on both platforms, as the predecessor, GoLive Cyberstudio (Mac
only) was such a good product. I use Microsoft Visual Interdev (and
Access or SQL Server) for database driven site development, but it is
not much for designing things--just hardcore server programming, which
for me is not so fun, but pays the mortgage.
I have obviously come off as a web snob, and I apologize. I wished to
illustrate for Mr. Grant that his bragging about his award-winning web
design skills (in an off-line e-mail he sent to me) did not impress me,
a point which actually had no bearing on the discussion at hand, and a
point I should have refrained from making. I remarked in my last post,
and will re-iterate, that his site serves a valuable purpose, and I will
go one further and say that the content is well conceived and collected,
and the jaggy graphics etc. bother, I'm sure, no-one. Mr. Grant managed
to get under my skin, and I responded with an ill-phrased rebuttal.
For those who have commented, I have no concern about broken links, as
my site, unlike Mr. Grant's, serves no valuable purpose whatsoever
(other than to amuse myself) and has become rambling and boring to me. I
whacked it all a month ago and have only done a redesign on the front
page. I will continue working on it as suits me, so don't anybody hold
their breath waiting for something great! I have often said that doing
web design for a living has been, for me, a great way to ruin a good
hobby.
I think that it is easy to sound mean in electronic messages, and I
suspect that neither Mr. Grant nor myself are mean people at all, and I
for one, would like to bury the hatchet. Let's talk about astronomy.
Dan Dilamarter
Chuck Gulker
views last night!. Stunning. In and out of focus star images were, well,
text book. To me, a 10 inch F6 dob built right is hard to top. Chuck
Andy Wallace wrote in message <37828320...@home.com>...
>Chuck--
>
>I'll bet you have a great scope--I'd like to see a picture. I know you
>have a great mirror; you are lucky--I understand Carl is not selling
>directly to the public anymore.
>
>Andy
>
>Chuck Gulker wrote:
>>
Dan Dilamarter
Rich N.
David H. Roberts wrote in message
<37826CAD...@quasar.astro.brandeis.edu>...
>Actually, according to the Company Seven page about the Traveler, all of
the lens
>surfaces are spherical...
I believe either Roland or Thomas Back have mentioned that
some of the surfaces are aspherical.
Rich
Dan Dilamarter
Y'know...even though my posted response to Shawn Grant's refractor
message produced a cascade of relatively useless, off topic discussion,
(which I regret), I can't help but notice how many of the posts on this
thread are getting right down into the nitty gritty details that the NG
thrives on. Maybe, even when the post that triggers a new thread is not
dead on topic or is incindiary (a "troll") it still promotes the purpose
of the NG. If so, it is only due to the passion for the subject that is
enjoyed by all of us that a less than ideal post still generates a
fevered discussion of focal lenths, apertures, ccd, etc. This is a fun
and healthy NG compared to many lackluster ones out there, wouldn't you
agree?
Dan
Kevin N. Brown
work. Maybe Phil Harrington could give him some pointers in that regard.
In the meantime, Mr. Grant joins such S.A.A. luminaries as Rich Anderson and
J. Goof, oops, I mean J. Goose, oops again, I mean J. Goss in my kill file.
Kevin Brown
Burke, VA
barry Cain <bcc...@icx.net> wrote in message
news:7lt4nc$jcd$1...@news3.icx.net...
> For what it is worth, I have been acquainted with Mr. Grant for some time
> and can state the FACT that he is a seasoned astronomer with observing
Sue_and_Alan
Perhaps you can provide an alternative to my wife's Traveler. It provides
nice, well corrected, low power wide field views, and also does extremely
well at high powers. It fits in a case that can legally be carried onto an
airplane. What would you get instead?
APOs certainly cost more on a per inch basis, but I would hardly call them
overpriced. In terms of quality and performance I think they are an
excellent value.
Clear skies, Alan
Shawn Grant wrote in message <7loj22$o0m$1...@news3.icx.net>...
>There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over any
>other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is the
>refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and foremost
>they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then any other
>telescope. They are big and bulky. They take a lot of space to store and
are
>hard to transport. [SNIP]
TMBack
>>David H. Roberts wrote in message
>>37826CAD...@quasar.astro.brandeis.edu
>>Actually, according to the Company Seven page
>>about the Traveler, all of the lens surfaces are
>>spherical...
>
>
>I believe either Roland or Thomas Back have
>mentioned that some of the surfaces are aspherical.
The Astro-Physics 92mm f/4.9, 105mm f/5.8,
and 130mm f/6 do indeed have aspherical surfaces.
At these fast focal ratios, zonal spherical aberration
must be controlled for a good diffraction image.
Also, any index variations from the glass, and small
radius errors must be nulled out by hand figuring.
You would not believe how much hard work this is
for an optician.
The TMB Optical apos have been designed with
all spherical surfaces. However, just like in the case
with Astro-Physics, our lenses will be hand figured
for the best null in the green-yellow part of the visual
spectrum.
Thomas Back
TMB Optical
Frank Bailey
eventually build, and am always looking for ideas.
Frank B
Hamamatsu Japan
John J. Kasianowicz
>Then it would be nice to hear the people who use these scopes
>say they "struggle with larger scopes" or "I have a bad back"
>rather than the misleading statement, "A 4" apo will beat
>an 8" SCT" rationalization for owning a small refractor.
>-Rich
I compared my Traveler against C-8s and C-11s. The latter two had an
advantage in light grasp (no surprise). However, only the Traveler showed
stars as pinpoints (the same magnification was used with each scope). This
was particularly obvious when observing the Trapezium. When the "F" star was
visible with the Traveler, it was usually not detected w/the SCTs. While I
can't believe that SCTs can't perform well on this test, I have yet to see
one that does (I've owned one).
That said, the iTraveler has a pretty limited photon budget for DSOs. The
Veil and the North American Nubulae are visible in it, but they look much
more impressive in larger aperture reflector.
Herm
bad as he seems. I was the original person that Grant responded in such a
gross manner to, I felt it was totally wrong of him to insult me in such a
foul manner. I merely posted, that from personal experience, a 6" APO will
outperform the deep sky performance of a 10" sct. I have two friends that
owned 10" scts and now own 6" APOs (among a bunch of other scopes)and
directly made this observation. I agree with them, I also believe that a
good 10" newt will outperform any 6" APO but I never have looked thru
one..just the typical Meade or Orion 10" dobs. The 10" scts were not
diffraction limited, at most they were 1/3-1/2 wave output, fairly typical
I believe. If you are interested I will post actual deep skies examples
that were compared with both scopes.
Herm
Andy Wallace
I don't know what state you are in, but have you tried to get your money
back or exchange for the 6" which I've heard tends to have better
optics? Jason Ware uses the 6" with great success.
Andy
CHASLX200 wrote:
> I have a Meade 7" Ed u can damn sure dispose of!!!!
>
> Chas P.
Andy Wallace
In this group we have all ages and varied backgrounds including some
very sensitive people--I wouldn't let it bother you. Vigorous debate is
a great learning tool if you can avoid getting upset. You would not
believe how "brutal" some law school professors are :-) Some in the
group would not survive the first day. :-)
Andy
Shawn Grant wrote:
> I am not insulting anyone I am just providing alternatives to overpriced
> telescope. I do raise some valid points. Just food for thought and I do not
> deserve the flack I have received. I deserve an apology.
CHASLX200
>From: Andy Wallace <andyw...@home.com>
>Date: Wed, 07 July 1999 10:50 AM EDT
>Message-id: <378368DB...@home.com>
>Andy wrote.
>
>Charles-
>
>I don't know what state you are in, but have you tried to get your money
>back or exchange for the 6" which I've heard tends to have better
>optics? Jason Ware uses the 6" with great success.
>
>Andy
*************************************
Hi Andy! I will give Meade 1 more shot to get the scope rite...
They said it would get the work over, time will tell.
Chas P.
Bill McCall
Shawn Grant wrote:
> I don't know why I am getting such a negative response to my posting
A lot can be read from that one statement alone - death to this thread.
Ratboy99
>thread are getting right down into the nitty gritty details that the NG
>thrives on. Maybe, even when the post that triggers a new thread is not
>dead on topic or is incindiary (a "troll") it still promotes the purpose
>of the NG.
No question about that. It's why I posted to the troll. the issue of
Refractor vs Reflector has no definite black and white answer and deserves
endless discussion to inform purchasers as to which design will best serve
their particular needs.
rat
~( );>
Temguys
I would very interested to see a picture of your new scope.
>If you or anyone else is
>interested in getting an electronic picture of my scope, just let me know
>and I will send you one.
Thanks,
Jay
(Tem...@aol.com)