Mak-cass vs Mak-newt. Long.
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > It seem that newest Mak-Cass with small central
> > obscuration (less than 25% of aperture diameter)
> > and exelent optics quality will be *impossible*
> > to beat. Can you sign up under such statement?
>
> No , there is no reason to give any advantage excapt tubelength to
this
> system. An Mak-Newt. is an fast telescope with much better
> fieldflattnes than any small central obstruction Mak-Cass.
> The field of view is much bigger in the Mak-Newt.
> Big Mak-Newt. show no problem with cooling down even under dropping
> temperatures due mechanical designs which are impossible to handle out
> in the Mak-Caas.
> The 10" Mak-newt. last year at Stellafane with all the night dropping
> temperature have had never even an smallest problems, but all big Mak-
> Cas. have it.
> The Mak-Newt. can be designed with 2 secondary's, one for visual
> observing ultrasmall and an second larger once with fieldflattner for
> widefield photographie, all this is impossible in the Mak-Cass.
design.
> Therefore never now or in future an Mak-Cas. can show even close
that,
> what an well designed Mak-New. can show.
>
> best wishes
> Markus
Hi Markus,
You always protect your main steam production without
any looks back. This were with your recently loved
standard Intess Mak-Cass, then with fluorite apos from
ARIES, then with APM ED apos, and now with Mak-Newt.
If listen you, than we always *must* come to conclution
that only APM can offer a right (right FOR NOW!)production,
right problem solution etc.
For more detailed different scopes comparition see my post
with computer simulation results. We all know that you
always say that computer simulations are wrong and does not
reflect the reality. In this case the very right question:
does your new apos was designed with paper and pencil in hand?
Or they was designed (read - simulated) in computer and there-
fore will show quite different perfomance in the reality?
With false colors instead of color free, with big over or under
corection instead of good spherical correction?
But let return to your case Mak-Net vs Mak-cass.
You write << No , there is no reason to give any
advantage excapt tubelength to this system. >>
This your statement is extremely proofless. Let
see with only a bit of attention and unbiasy.
Both scopes same apreture and has 21% and 24%
central obscuration. F/5.5 and F/15.
" + " mean that this scope is winner in a given property.
Two " + " mean that this scope is clear winner in a given
property.
" - " mean that this scope is loss in a given property.
" = " mean draw.
Property Mak-Newt Mak-Cass
-----------------------------------------------------------
1.Reachable optical prfomance = =
2.Telescope mass - +
3.Cool- down time and compactness - +
4.Stability on a wind - ++
5.Installation - +
6.Transportation - ++
7.Mount mass - +
8.Mount cost - ++
9.Sensitivity to fosus change
due to atmosphere (focus depth) - +
10.Observing comfort - ++
11.Acessories suitable - ++
12.Focusing tarvel - ++
13.Image contrast = =
14.Collimation sensitivity - +
15.Long focus photography, CCD - +
16.Short focus photography + -
17.Short focus CCD = =
18. OTA price + -
19. Total telescope price = =
Comments:
--------------------------------------------------------
1. No comments. All depends from manufacturer and money.
2. Obviously, as longer the tube as larger its mass.
3. As larger the mass as longer the cool-down time. And all
Markus's sentences about absence of this problem in his
10" (!) Mak-newt can make us only smile.
Mak-newt with F/5.5 or F/6 does has at least(!) two times
longer tube than Mak-cass. Such Mak-cass with small
central obstruction does utilize a very fast primary mirror
- around F/2.5 . Compare this with SCT where the primary
is around F/2.2 or F/2. So, such Mak-cass is very close
in compactness to a the recordsmen - SCT.
4. - 8. Obviously. No comments needed.
9. The atmosphere randomly change the focus of the image
(part of the image) . As faster the system as more sensitive
such system to these random focus variation. All experienced
observers a long time ago noted, that an images in a long focus
refactors are more stable than in short focus reflectors. But this
is not only due to closed tube and lack of central obscuration,
the focal depth is also the reason and as slower F/D as larger
focal depth.
10. Obviously.
11. Most of available acessories are designed for relatively long
focus travel ( focus stock) . I personally dont't know if even
one accessory available for a very short travel focuser of M-N.
This disadvantage is very important to thouse who like to use
a binoviewer. Even if a binoviewer will reach the focus, it
will need the correction lens. As faster F/D as more wave front
distortion will be introduced by the binoviewers. A slow Mak-
cass will use the binoviewer easy without any additional correc-
tor lens.
12. Obviouse. The way with exchange of the secondary and focuser
is too complicated. In additional to change the secondary
(which is not so easy and has the damage risk) the user need
to change not only the focuser, but also he need to change the
place of a new focuser - towards primary mirror.
13. Of course a Mak-cass does has slightly larger central obscu-
ration. But in the distance 21% - 24% the contrast loss is
very very small, almost not detectable. But instead of this,
Mak-cass does not require to use a barlow lens to reach high
magnification.
A Mak-newt always require to use a barlow even with the shortest
focus oculars. But the barlow can decrease the wave front perfo-
mance include spherical and color additional errors + at least
two reflection. If we remember that case with binoviewer, all
togther these additional reflections on a barlow and corrector
lens and additional wave front distortion in a barlow will cause
enough contrast loss which allow us to say that no any real
contrast win for Mak-Newt vs Mak-cass.
14. There is a general rule - as faster the system as more sensitive
this system to miscollimation. The difference F/5.5 (or 6) and
F/15 is too big.
15. Obviously.
16. Obviously. But honestly speaking we all remember for which
tasks the small obscuration is required. Not for prime focus
conventional film photography.
17. With easy designed up to F/6 and easy installed F/D compressor,
the disadvantage of slow F/D is a myth.
See now, please, haw "many" + in the Mak-newt ! I am sure that
popularity of the Mak-newt is based on the fact that now a several
models of small Mak-newt are available on the market and they are
really good optically and offers good ratio in perfomance/price.
But Mak-Cass does has so many advantages vs Mak-newt, that if it
will be realized with really high optical and mechanical perfomance,
then it will be very hard or impossible to beat it. The only one
disadvantage of such small obscured Mak-cass - it is diffucult to
reach the high optical perfomance. Far not all manufacturers even
close to such challenge in a serial manufacturing. This cause its
higher price, but all additional money which such OTA does require
can be saved on a mount cost and even if this gap in the price will
be not completely removed in the total telescope price, the remain
gap is well worth to pay to get all advantages of high performed
Mak-cass with a small obscuration. And it will be interested to see
what will happens when a small (5" or 6") Mak-cass with very small
central obscuration and really veru high perfomance in optics and
mechanic will come to the market? Of course such scope will be also
more expensive (require high order aspherization) than Mak-newt, but
its very high portability will worth all additional money.
Take care,
Andrey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Trimil
Thank you for this excellent comparison. You included many factors
outside the OTA that others tend to forget about when looking at a
design. IMO, the best telescope is the one that people want to take
outside and use. Any design feature that helps to achieve this goal is a "+".
Clear skies,
Jim McSheehy
lude...@my-deja.com
>
> Hi Markus,
>
> You always protect your main steam production without
> any looks back. This were with your recently loved
> standard Intess Mak-Cass, then with fluorite apos from
> ARIES, then with APM ED apos, and now with Mak-Newt.
> If listen you, than we always *must* come to conclution
> that only APM can offer a right (right FOR NOW!)production,
> right problem solution etc.
Not agreed with your conclusion. Just excapt that we are not Questar,
designing 1 or 2 telescopes and than sleeping for 50 years.Each
telescope have his sky and his advantage.
>
> For more detailed different scopes comparition see my post
> with computer simulation results. We all know that you
> always say that computer simulations are wrong and does not
> reflect the reality. In this case the very right question:
> does your new apos was designed with paper and pencil in hand?
Optical design is made on computer. Anything else by paper, pencial,
opticians and maschine shops. If the optical design is bad, the scope
can still work with an limitation. if anything else is made bad, the
scope is unusable.
> > " + " mean that this scope is winner in a given property.
> Two " + " mean that this scope is clear winner in a given
> property.
> " - " mean that this scope is loss in a given property.
> " = " mean draw.
>
> Property Mak-Newt Mak-Cass
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1.Reachable optical prfomance = =
agreed.
>
> 2.Telescope mass - +
agreed, confirmed by my info"excapt longer tubelenght)
>
> 3.Cool- down time
Mak-Newt. design allow better cool down system desinging than mak-Cass.
and compactness - +
agreed, confirmed by my info," excapt tubelength"
>
> 4.Stability on a wind - ++
depends on the mount only.
>
> 5.Installation - +
>
> 6.Transportation - ++
10" is in my opinion the limitation for both.Tubeweight is about the
same in both scopes, therefore not agreed.
>
> 7.Mount mass - +
>
> 8.Mount cost - ++
confirmed by my note"excapt tubelength"
>
> 9.Sensitivity to fosus change
> due to atmosphere (focus depth) - +
>
> 10.Observing comfort - ++
depense on customer. Some like sitting behind, some prefer sitting or
staying on side.
>
> 11.Acessories suitable - ++
give me 1 sample please which is usable in MC and not in MN.
>
> 12.Focusing tarvel - ++
in MN enough for Sky observing.
>
> 13.Image contrast = =
>
> 14.Collimation sensitivity - +
>
> 15.Long focus photography, CCD - +
using an Barlow is no problem for MN
>
> 16.Short focus photography + -
>
> 17.Short focus CCD = =
>
> 18. OTA price + -
>
> 19. Total telescope price = =
>
> Comments:
> -------------------------------------------------------->
> 3. As larger the mass as longer the cool-down time.
in general yes, but all depents on tubeconstruction.
And all
> Markus's sentences about absence of this problem in his
> 10" (!) Mak-newt can make us only smile.
go ahead.
> Mak-newt with F/5.5 or F/6 does has at least(!) two times
> longer tube than Mak-cass. Such Mak-cass with small
> central obstruction does utilize a very fast primary mirror
> - around F/2.5 . Compare this with SCT where the primary
> is around F/2.2 or F/2. So, such Mak-cass is very close
> in compactness to a the recordsmen - SCT.
who transport larger than 10" ? 10" MN not a problem for an Car.
> >
> 9. The atmosphere randomly change the focus of the image
> (part of the image) . As faster the system as more sensitive
> such system to these random focus variation. All experienced
> observers a long time ago noted, that an images in a long focus
> refactors are more stable than in short focus reflectors. But this
> is not only due to closed tube and lack of central obscuration,
> the focal depth is also the reason and as slower F/D as larger
> focal depth.
agreed, but long focus have an much bigger limit of visible objects.
> >
> 11. Most of available acessories are designed for relatively long
> focus travel ( focus stock)
waiting to hear from you an sample which is not usable in MN.
> This disadvantage is very important to thouse who like to use
> a binoviewer. Even if a binoviewer will reach the focus, it
> will need the correction lens. As faster F/D as more wave front
> distortion will be introduced by the binoviewers. A slow Mak-
> cass will use the binoviewer easy without any additional correc-
> tor lens.
An Binoviewer will introduce in any optical system an chromatical
abberation and overcorrection, therefore for real critical observers an
corrector is an must.
>
> 12. Obviouse. The way with exchange of the secondary and focuser
> is too complicated. In additional to change the secondary
> (which is not so easy and has the damage risk) the user need
> to change not only the focuser, but also he need to change the
> place of a new focuser - towards primary mirror.
depense on the mechanical design only.
>
> 13. Of course a Mak-cass does has slightly larger central obscu-
> ration. But in the distance 21% - 24% the contrast loss is
> very very small, almost not detectable.
You should observe with both, before you make such statement.Not agreed.
But instead of this,
> Mak-cass does not require to use a barlow lens to reach high
> magnification.
> A Mak-newt always require to use a barlow even with the shortest
> focus oculars.
Why? Perfect eyepieces down to 2.8mm, 2.5 mm available, this gives
enough power.
>
> 14. There is a general rule - as faster the system as more sensitive
> this system to miscollimation. The difference F/5.5 (or 6) and
> F/15 is too big.
you are right about refractors and newtonians. Mak cass. will get much
more quickly an astigmatism than an flatfield Mak-Newt.
Collimating an newtonian styled telescope is easy for most users,
collimating Primary and secondary in Mak-Cass. is extremly difficult
for all.
> >
> 17. With easy designed up to F/6 and easy installed F/D compressor,
> the disadvantage of slow F/D is a myth.
please design an reducer from F/15 down to F/6 which gives enough field.
>
> then it will be very hard or impossible to beat it. The only one
> disadvantage of such small obscured Mak-cass - it is diffucult to
> reach the high optical perfomance.
very difficult.
> be not completely removed in the total telescope price, the remain
> gap is well worth to pay to get all advantages of high performed
> Mak-cass with a small obscuration. And it will be interested to see
> what will happens when a small (5" or 6") Mak-cass with very small
> central obscuration and really veru high perfomance in optics and
> mechanic will come to the market?
They are offered from TEC since long time. How many talking about it ?
Not so many, what does it means ? Not many buying it, because most
don't like long focallength.
Of course such scope will be also
> more expensive (require high order aspherization) than Mak-newt,
Thats your opinion, please try. My manufactors say to produce the
optics for MN is more expensive than for Mak-Cass.
Take my answeres as an an interested discussion and nothing else, okay ?
best wishes
Markus
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Hi Markus,
> >
> > You always protect your main steam production without
> > any looks back. This were with your recently loved
> > standard Intess Mak-Cass, then with fluorite apos from
> > ARIES, then with APM ED apos, and now with Mak-Newt.
> > If listen you, than we always *must* come to conclution
> > that only APM can offer a right (right FOR NOW!)production,
> > right problem solution etc.
>
> Not agreed with your conclusion. Just excapt that we are not Questar,
> designing 1 or 2 telescopes and than sleeping for 50 years.Each
> telescope have his sky and his advantage.
Markus,
Please, see the archive of this n.g. and if you will read your own
posts unbiasly, as thrid side "observer" you will easy come to the
conclution that you always protect your mainstream production.
> Optical design is made on computer. Anything else by paper, pencial,
> opticians and maschine shops. If the optical design is bad, the scope
> can still work with an limitation. if anything else is made bad, the
> scope is unusable.
Woya! Let to your new apos designer T.Back to confirm your statement
that a bad optical design is forgiven (poor spherical correction,
large coma, poor color correction + manufacturing errors)!!!
May be you joking? Or you too intolerant to all another thoughts
exept your own? I really smile of your above statement (no offence,
please).
> Mak-Newt. design allow better cool down system desinging than
>mak-Cass.
But in this case you simply intolerant to all another researches
and developments. Do you really think that longer tube with larger
mass is more suitable for faster cool-down? Any real physicist or
engineer will only smile about this statement. Also you are slightly
dishonest in your statements. Recently you posted the cool-down time
for several APOs and Mak-newt. The cool-down time for your 10"
Mak-newt is around 2 hours (I don't remember your data exactly) in
the slightly earlier post you declared that at last Stellafine this
10" (!) Mak-net worked without any (!) problem with cool-down.
Where you said the truth where you was wrong? Is this you make
to protect you new lovely baby - Mak-net ? If we remember that your
table of cool-down times is based mainly on your europian sky obser-
ving where the night temperature drop is not so fast as in the USA
(where the Stellafine take place) and not continues a whole night,
than your statement that the 10" worked flawlessly is clear fantasy
for inflation of your 10" Mak perfomance. I think that you should
remeber what did you said before when you writing your new post or
ads.
> > 4.Stability on a wind - ++
> depends on the mount only.
On the same mount the Mak-newt is loss. Or the mount
should be as minimum 2 times stronger and oversized
(overpriced, overdifficulted :-) for the installation
and transportation)
> > 5.Installation - +
> >
> > 6.Transportation - ++
> 10" is in my opinion the limitation for both.Tubeweight is about the
> same in both scopes, therefore not agreed.
See Roland Christen answers on the questions about his further
MCT. From his answers you can see that even his 12" Mak-cass
will be relatively lightweight (lighter than the 10" Mak-newt)
and transportable not say about his 10". Or you think that this
is new fantasies?
> > 9.Sensitivity to fosus change
> > due to atmosphere (focus depth) - +
> >
> > 10.Observing comfort - ++
> depense on customer. Some like sitting behind, some prefer sitting or
> staying on side.
Not true! Most of observers like the traditional ocular
(focus) position. Only some observers like to stay during
observing session especially if it is long. Also I forget to
add one important fact closely connected with an observer posi-
tion. During observing the warm air currents from observer body
will cause the image distortion.
> > 11.Acessories suitable - ++
> give me 1 sample please which is usable in MC and not in MN.
Please: photometer, multiport from Van Slyke or Taurus especially
with CCD and color filter wheel, Giant easy guider from Lumicon,
all binoviewers (especially for small Mak-newt)
> > 12.Focusing tarvel - ++
> in MN enough for Sky observing.
See one line above.
> > 3. As larger the mass as longer the cool-down time.
> in general yes, but all depents on tubeconstruction.
It will be need to be a stupid engineer to design the
amateur *transportable* Mak-cass with 2x shorter tube
same heavy as Mak-newt (this is possible only with such
company as Meade - their 7" Mak-cass)
Does any of your 6" Mak-Newt even close in weight to your
standard 6" Mak-cass? Or 7" Mak-newt vs 7" Mak-cass ?
The Mak-cass with small central obscuration does utilize
even faster primary mirror (F/2.5) than in standard Mak-cass -
F/3 and therefore such Mak-cass are even lighter.
> >And all Markus's sentences about absence of this
> >problem in his 10" (!) Mak-newt can make us only smile.
> go ahead.
Please: :-))))
> > Mak-newt with F/5.5 or F/6 does has at least(!) two times
> > longer tube than Mak-cass. Such Mak-cass with small
> > central obstruction does utilize a very fast primary mirror
> > - around F/2.5 . Compare this with SCT where the primary
> > is around F/2.2 or F/2. So, such Mak-cass is very close
> > in compactness to a the recordsmen - SCT.
> who transport larger than 10" ? 10" MN not a problem for an Car.
I am sure that Roland's estimation of the weight of his new
Mak-cass is true. Who can know this better? Even his 12"
will be for sure one-man transportable and one man can install
it not say about smaller 10" .
You are right the 10" Mak-newt is not a problem for a car,
but what for a man? Imagine, you need to take outside your
10" Mak-newt with its heavy mount and need to move them to a
backyard on 40 - 50 meters (same distance to take them back).
And if you, for example, do observe each second evening. Easy?
If you is older than 40, I am sure that in such (often) situation
you will prefer the Mak-cass.
> >9. The atmosphere randomly change the focus of the image
> >(part of the image) . As faster the system as more sensitive
> >such system to these random focus variation. All experienced
> >observers a long time ago noted, that an images in a long focus
> >refactors are more stable than in short focus reflectors. But
> >this is not only due to closed tube and lack of central obscu-
> >ration, the focal depth is also the reason and as slower F/D as >
> >larger the focal depth.
> agreed, but long focus have an much bigger limit of visible objects.
????? What did you meant? Did you meant that C11 will limit
visible (as you write) objects and C8 don't ? C8 does has
shorter focus than C11.
I think that you are simply mistaken. I probably should remind
you that the scopes of the same aperture will show the same
field under same magnification. I think that such experienced
dealer, observer and star-tester should know this simplest fact.
> > 11. Most of available acessories are designed for relatively
> > long focus travel ( focus stock).
> waiting to hear from you an sample which is not usable in MN.
See above, please.
> >This disadvantage is very important to thouse who like to use
> >a binoviewer. Even if a binoviewer will reach the focus, it
> >will need the correction lens. As faster F/D as more wave front
> >distortion will be introduced by the binoviewers. A slow Mak-
> >cass will use the binoviewer easy without any additional correc-
> >tor lens.
> An Binoviewer will introduce in any optical system an chromatical
> abberation and overcorrection, therefore for real critical observers
>an corrector is an must.
We all know that you don't like any computer simulation saying that
the reality is far not the same. BTW, please, my computer simulation
show me that in 10" F/15 Mak-cass the binoviewer with 140mm glass
way (BAK4 glass)and 21mm distance from its last prism to the focal
point will introduce additional spherical aberration 0.1 wave
peak-to-peak. You again wrong.
> > 12. Obviouse. The way with exchange of the secondary and focuser
> > is too complicated. In additional to change the secondary
> > (which is not so easy and has the damage risk) the user need
> > to change not only the focuser, but also he need to change the
> > place of a new focuser - towards primary mirror.
> depense on the mechanical design only.
Oh no, no! If you would like to have a longer focus travel
in a Mak-newt (or in simple newt) you need a larger secondary
mirror and you need to place it closer to primary mirror.
If you don't know eeven this *simplest* fact we can only friendly
smile.
> > 13. Of course a Mak-cass does has slightly larger central obscu-
> > ration. But in the distance 21% - 24% the contrast loss is
> > very very small, almost not detectable.
> You should observe with both, before you make such statement.Not
>agreed.
Unlike you I do belive to a computer simulations and they show
me that picture. The eye can't see reliably this contrast
difference.
> > But instead of this,
> > Mak-cass does not require to use a barlow lens to reach high
> > magnification.
> > A Mak-newt always require to use a barlow even with the shortest
> > focus oculars.
> Why? Perfect eyepieces down to 2.8mm, 2.5 mm available, this gives
> enough power.
OK. Haw many more lens these oculars does utilize than Zeiss
Abbe orthos? What is the eye relief in such ocular?
> > 14. There is a general rule - as faster the system as more
> >sensitive this system to miscollimation. The difference F/5.5
> >(or 6) and F/15 is too big.
>you are right about refractors and newtonians. Mak cass. will get
>much more quickly an astigmatism than an flatfield Mak-Newt.
>Collimating an newtonian styled telescope is easy for most users,
>collimating Primary and secondary in Mak-Cass. is extremly difficult
>for all.
The field perfomance is Mak-cass is so poor as you think. Buy the
optical simulation software and look. And in general this has nothing
to do with the sensitivity to the miscollimation.
I don't agree with you about Mak-cass collimation difficulties.
> > 17. With easy designed up to F/6 and easy installed F/D compressor,
> > the disadvantage of slow F/D is a myth.
>please design an reducer from F/15 down to F/6 which gives enough
field.
> >
> > then it will be very hard or impossible to beat it. The only one
> > disadvantage of such small obscured Mak-cass - it is diffucult to
> > reach the high optical perfomance.
> very difficult.
> Thats your opinion, please try. My manufactors say to produce the
> optics for MN is more expensive than for Mak-Cass.
>
> Take my answeres as an an interested discussion and nothing else,
> okay
OK, no problem. The s.a.a. is not a war field.
Take care,
Andrey.
the ATMer
First, I'll say that I mostly agree with your points.
Just couple more issues that you have left out :
1. Baffling. Your f/15 Maksutov Cassegrain can NEVER be properly
baffled and stay at 24% obstruction. By the time you baffle it
well enough to match Mak-Newtonian's inherent baffling, you are
getting closer to 30% obstruction and things are getting worse
quite noticeably in contrast department
2. Optical quality. In your 'simulation' you used 1/10 wave M-C
and 1/6 wave M-N. In real life, most probably it will be the other
way around as shallow curves in M-N give you more manufacturing
tollerance. And a small flat is easier to make very smooth than a
small convex secondary. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
3. Focus stability. M-Cass' focus shift induced by temeparture differences
will be an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE greater than in M-N. Unless you resort
to drastic solutions (carbon fibre etc) which will increase OTA price
quite a bit
4. Versality. You will NEVER see whole Moon in a 10" f/15 instrument using
standard 2" eyepieces. M-N at f/5.5 will easily go down to low 30's and
show you several degrees, while working just as well (if not better) on
planets.
5. Field curvature. M-C will suffer FAR more than M-N. Not so important for
CCD user, something to ponder about for someone who still uses film for
imaging.
6. Collimation. You stated : "There is a general rule - as faster the system
as more sensitive this system to miscollimation. The difference F/5.5
(or 6) and F/15 is too big" but conveniently forgot that primary in a
Mak-Cassegrain is f/2.5 ! I guess you never collimated instrument based
on f/2.5 primary. It is a BITCH. On the other hand, just eyeballing
Mak-Newtonian will get you very close to perfect performance. This should
be a big plus for M-N, not M-C.
As with everything else in life, one must choose his own compromises.
I don't think that Mak-Cass is clearly better instrument overall. For
some things it is better, for some it is worse. There is no clear cut.
AndersonRM
>See Roland Christen answers on the questions about his further
>MCT. From his answers you can see that even his 12" Mak-cass
>will be relatively lightweight (lighter than the 10" Mak-newt)
>and transportable not say about his 10". Or you think that this
>is new fantasies?
Sir, are you associated with the firm who made the optics for
Roland's new Mak-Cass design?
-Rich
Divx is dead; Thank God!
Now is the time to encourage ALL video stores
to stock lots of sale/rental DVD titles and to
force Disney and Dreamworks to "DVD" all their titles.
It's time to END the VHS "reign of terror."
morn...@my-deja.com
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
> Sir, are you associated with the firm who made the optics for
> Roland's new Mak-Cass design?
> -Rich
Dear Sir,
No, I don't. I live in suburb of Moskow. I working in one
research instutute (geophysical and atmosphere research).
But I am an amateur astronomer since 10 + years. Several
times, when I was a student of the Moskow University and
later I visited the Crimean Astrophysical Observatoty as
a private person and in connection with my scientific works
(the optical systems for two big lidars were ordered here).
Thanks this I do know many of CAO opticians, engineers and
scientists. Some of them are also a member of ARIES Co.
I am in communication with two of them, but we are not friends.
So, I am not involved in any project in CAO or ARIES and
I simply slightly informed about their general goals in an
optics manufacturing. This is the reason why I have a little
interest to this subjects. I don't know nothing about important
details but a general picture is clear for me. The CAO and
ARIES peoples are very kind to any amateur or scientists who
has a reasons to visit them. I know the level of their works
and I don't think that they can be wrong in their choise of
the optics they making now or will make.
I know from Valeriy Deryhin, that Roland Christen was the initi-
ator of a newest Mak-cass telescopes creation. His experience
in a new telescopes and mount developing is well know to all here.
And I don't think that both the AP and the ARIES(+CAO) did made
a wrong choice of the subject of their mutual business. Do you
sir?
morn...@my-deja.com
the ATMer <A...@down.under> wrote:
> Andrey,
>
> First, I'll say that I mostly agree with your points.
Thanks. It is interesting to know an opinions from somebody
who do have a practical experince in the subject we do discuss.
I see in your nickname of your e-mail that you are such person.
Let see.
> Just couple more issues that you have left out :
>
> 1. Baffling. Your f/15 Maksutov Cassegrain can NEVER be properly
> baffled and stay at 24% obstruction. By the time you baffle it
> well enough to match Mak-Newtonian's inherent baffling, you are
> getting closer to 30% obstruction and things are getting worse
> quite noticeably in contrast department
?? All depends the F/D of the primary mirror and the size
of the field which need to be completely free of straight light.
Also, very often during night time observing of a planets
and double stars (these are the basic objects for such instrument)
it is absolut not necessary to have 100% baffling. If some amount
of straight light(from very narror ring around secondary) will reach
the focal point, this will not damage the contrast on a planets
and double stars. For lunar observing the black round screen in
a front of the secondary will stop the straight light easy. The
central obscuration increasing in this case is not important because
the moon is very contrast object. Same screen can be used during
day time observing and for deepsky observing.
Very often the Mak-newt will be even in poorer situation with
scatteted light than even not 100% baffled Mak-cass. Imagine, that
you do observe the object in 45 degree above the horizon and that
you do observe in suburb area. The light from street lighters, from
nearby houses, may be from the moon can easy illuminate the wall
behind the secondary (when we look through focuser). This light can
be effectively stopped if you only don't use the very long dew cap.
As lower to the horizon you do observe as worse the situation for the
Mak-newt.
I a daytime observing (Venus, Mercury and simply earth landscapes) a
Mak-cass can be used with the black screen and in the same time the
Mak-newt will suffer from scattered light much more.
Do you agree with this ?
> 2. Optical quality. In your 'simulation' you used 1/10 wave M-C
> and 1/6 wave M-N. In real life, most probably it will be the other
> way around as shallow curves in M-N give you more manufacturing
> tollerance. And a small flat is easier to make very smooth than a
> small convex secondary. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
Of course you are right, but partially only. The modern figuring
methods allow to reach in the new Mak-cass the same levels of a
wave front correction and smoothness. All depends does the given
manufacturer has such methods or not. Also, in my post about simu-
lation results I had noted that I took the data of telescopes as
close as possible to the reality. If the scope is not currently avai-
lable on the market, I took a guessed data. Valery said me reecently
that their *serial* Mak-cass optics will has at least 1/10 wave
font correction and 0.02 - 0.025 RMS smothness. Such tolerances were
required by the AP, while the warranted wave front in Intes Mak-newt
is around 1/6 wave peak-to-peak.
> 3. Focus stability. M-Cass' focus shift induced by temeparture
differences
> will be an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE greater than in M-N. Unless you
resort
> to drastic solutions (carbon fibre etc) which will increase OTA
price
> quite a bit
You are right. But the Mak-cass is much less sensitive to a
random focus "shift" caused by the atmosphere. So, the images
will be more stable than in Mak-newt. Am I right?
> 4. Versality. You will NEVER see whole Moon in a 10" f/15 instrument
using
> standard 2" eyepieces. M-N at f/5.5 will easily go down to low 30's
and
> show you several degrees, while working just as well (if not
better) on
> planets.
For sure not better on the planets. See my comment to 3.
> 5. Field curvature. M-C will suffer FAR more than M-N. Not so
important for
> CCD user, something to ponder about for someone who still uses film
for
> imaging.
For CCD users: at the F/15 on full the ST-8 format the images
will be diffraction limited with compromized focal position.
For the F/6 or F/8 focal ratio compressor, the field curvative
will be close to a zero.
> 6. Collimation. You stated : "There is a general rule - as faster the
system
> as more sensitive this system to miscollimation. The difference
F/5.5
> (or 6) and F/15 is too big" but conveniently forgot that primary in
a
> Mak-Cassegrain is f/2.5 ! I guess you never collimated instrument
based
> on f/2.5 primary. It is a BITCH. On the other hand, just eyeballing
> Mak-Newtonian will get you very close to perfect performance. This
should
> be a big plus for M-N, not M-C.
No, you are not right. Even standard Mak-cass even in our russsian
perfomance :-) does has close to zero image shift. This does mean
that the collimation is more or less stable during mirror movement.
So, forget the primary mirror. The same geometrical secondary mirror
edge tilt, say 0.3mm in the Mak-newt will cause larger image wave
front distortion than in spherical secondary in Mak-cass.
> As with everything else in life, one must choose his own compromises.
> I don't think that Mak-Cass is clearly better instrument overall. For
> some things it is better, for some it is worse. There is no clear cut.
Of course this is not clear to somebody cut. But as the person who,
I guess, know enough in the telescope making, you will change your
mind quickly when you will be able to compare the monster 10" Mak-newt
on the monster mount with the AP's 10" very lightweight Mak-cass
on, say G11 or AP600 mount and with significantly better optics at
close price of the total telescope.
lude...@my-deja.com
morn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7kbbjs$pbn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Markus,> > Optical design is made on computer. Anything else by
paper, pencial,
> > opticians and maschine shops. If the optical design is bad, the
scope
> > can still work with an limitation. if anything else is made bad, the
> > scope is unusable.
>
> Woya! Let to your new apos designer T.Back to confirm your statement
> that a bad optical design is forgiven (poor spherical correction,
> large coma, poor color correction + manufacturing errors)!!!
> May be you joking? Or you too intolerant to all another thoughts
> exept your own? I really smile of your above statement (no offence,
> please).
please read carefull what I wrote. If the optical design is bad, the
scope can still work with some limitations.
It the optics are poorly made and if mechanics are poorly made, than
the scope is maybe useless.
> >
> But in this case you simply intolerant to all another researches
> and developments. Do you really think that longer tube with larger
> mass is more suitable for faster cool-down?
If the design is optimized, yes i think soo.
Any real physicist or
> engineer will only smile about this statement. Also you are slightly
> dishonest in your statements. Recently you posted the cool-down time
> for several APOs and Mak-newt. The cool-down time for your 10"
> Mak-newt is around 2 hours (I don't remember your data exactly) in
> the slightly earlier post you declared that at last Stellafine this
> 10" (!) Mak-net worked without any (!) problem with cool-down.
> Where you said the truth where you was wrong? Is this you make
> to protect you new lovely baby - Mak-net ? If we remember that your
> table of cool-down times is based mainly on your europian sky obser-
> ving where the night temperature drop is not so fast as in the USA
> (where the Stellafine take place) and not continues a whole night,
> than your statement that the 10" worked flawlessly is clear fantasy
> for inflation of your 10" Mak perfomance. I think that you should
> remeber what did you said before when you writing your new post or
> ads.
Please carefull again. The cool time is 2 hours if the scope comes from
inside house to outside sky. In Stellafane the scope was always
outside, but still during dropping temeperatures no problem due
excellent cool design.
>
> See Roland Christen answers on the questions about his further
> MCT. From his answers you can see that even his 12" Mak-cass
> will be relatively lightweight (lighter than the 10" Mak-newt)
> and transportable not say about his 10". Or you think that this
> is new fantasies?
No I dont think so, but wait until you see the first sample, okay? No
discussion about not available telescopes, please.
>
> Not true! Most of observers like the traditional ocular
> (focus) position. Only some observers like to stay during
> observing session especially if it is long.
Maybe thats the reason why so many people buy Dobsoanians and maybe
thats the reason why we sell twice Mak-Newt. than mak-cass. , yes ?
It is no problem to sit at the side of an Mak-newt. up to 10".
Also I forget to
> add one important fact closely connected with an observer posi-
> tion. During observing the warm air currents from observer body
> will cause the image distortion.
I have owned an 16" Zeiss Maksutov Cassegrain and now I have an 16"
newt.with optical window, believe me no diffrence.
I heard that the new AP mak design is using an open back for more quick
cooling,is it not so , that the warm body air can go easily into the
tube in such design ?
Just last night I have had outside an Meniscas 180 from side. I opened
the back to optimize the collimation. Only after i closed the back
again the image becomes real stable.
> >
> Please: photometer,
how many using it ?
multiport from Van Slyke or Taurus especially
> with CCD and color filter wheel,
CCD is usefull in Mak-Newt. , too.
Giant easy guider from Lumicon,
not designed to work with Mak-Cass. optics, sorry.
> all binoviewers (especially for small Mak-newt)
Tele Vue is working in all mak-Newt. Zeiss is working in all INTES
MICRO Mak-Newt. 7" and larger, no problem at all.
> > >
> It will be need to be a stupid engineer to design the
> amateur *transportable* Mak-cass with 2x shorter tube
> same heavy as Mak-newt (this is possible only with such
> company as Meade - their 7" Mak-cass)
So you call zeiss and Questar engineers stupid ? The 7" Zeiss Mak
weights 15 kg, the 7" Mak-Newt. from INTES MICRTO weights 10 kg.
> Does any of your 6" Mak-Newt even close in weight to your
> standard 6" Mak-cass?
6" MC weights from 4 kg to 6 kg, Ceravolo HD 145 weights 4,5 kg, INTES
MN 61 weights 9 kg, APM lightweight version weights 5 kg.
Or 7" Mak-newt vs 7" Mak-cass ?
7" MC weights 7 kg, 7" Mak-Newt. weights 10 kg, APM Lightweight version
weights 7 kg
9" MC weights 12 kg, 8" MN weights 13 kg (without tuberings but include
dovetail), APM Lightweight version weights 10 kg.
> >
> I am sure that Roland's estimation of the weight of his new
> Mak-cass is true. Who can know this better?
no discussion about not excisting telescopes, please.
> You are right the 10" Mak-newt is not a problem for a car,
> but what for a man? Imagine, you need to take outside your
> 10" Mak-newt with its heavy mount and need to move them to a
> backyard on 40 - 50 meters (same distance to take them back).
> And if you, for example, do observe each second evening. Easy?
> If you is older than 40, I am sure that in such (often) situation
> you will prefer the Mak-cass.
Be shure , such persons will also not transport an 10" or 12" MC with
heavy mount that way many times and even not each second evening.
> >
> ????? What did you meant? Did you meant that C11 will limit
> visible (as you write) objects and C8 don't ? C8 does has
> shorter focus than C11.
The limitation of eyepiece size is 2" with 48 mm fieldstop. Each scope
with an C.O have an limited usefull entrance pupill diameter of about 5
mm , otherwise the secondary shadow will trouble you.
Many objects needs lower powers than this allows.
> I think that you are simply mistaken. I probably should remind
> you that the scopes of the same aperture will show the same
> field under same magnification. I think that such experienced
> dealer, observer and star-tester should know this simplest fact.
How many people observed ever more than totaly more than 500 objects, ?
only a few. Most observing any time the same objectcs.
>
> We all know that you don't like any computer simulation saying that
> the reality is far not the same. BTW, please, my computer simulation
> show me that in 10" F/15 Mak-cass the binoviewer with 140mm glass
> way (BAK4 glass)and 21mm distance from its last prism to the focal
> point will introduce additional spherical aberration 0.1 wave
> peak-to-peak. You again wrong.
Buy an Mk-Cass. and try by your eyes. Uing an binoviewer without
corrector means dramaticale exchange of optimized mirrorspacing,
therefore big decreasing of correction. Additional it means vigneting
due the primary mirror baffle, therefore you get an larger central
obstruction due using less aperature, > contrastlost follows
If the primary mirror baffle will be designed larger you getting lot of
straylight > follows contrastlost.
>
> Oh no, no! If you would like to have a longer focus travel
> in a Mak-newt (or in simple newt) you need a larger secondary
> mirror and you need to place it closer to primary mirror.
> If you don't know eeven this *simplest* fact we can only friendly
> smile.
we dont need to exchange secondary position, not any reason at all.I
dont need simply longer focustravel.
> >
> Unlike you I do belive to a computer simulations and they show
> me that picture. The eye can't see reliably this contrast
> difference.
again, buy an scope and test it under real sky, than we can go ahead
with this point.
> >
> OK. Haw many more lens these oculars does utilize than Zeiss
> Abbe orthos? What is the eye relief in such ocular?
eyerelief up to 20 mm, lenses about 6 pc with high quality coating. Ask
around this newsgroup about here impression of the Vixen LV 2.5 mm,
Takahashi Hi-ortho 2.8 mm or Radian 3 mm, than we can go ahead with
this discussion.
> >
> The field perfomance is Mak-cass is so poor as you think. Buy the
> optical simulation software and look. And in general this has nothing
> to do with the sensitivity to the miscollimation.
> I don't agree with you about Mak-cass collimation difficulties.
buy an Mak-Cass. and try out, before you make this statement.
> > > >
> > > then it will be very hard or impossible to beat it.
waiting to see your design and an real simple, than we can go ahead
with this point.
>
> OK, no problem. The s.a.a. is not a war field.
I like your discussion, waiting your next answeres
Take care, too.
Markus
lude...@my-deja.com
of CAO opticians, engineers and
> scientists. Some of them are also a member of ARIES Co.
I am sorry, to stop you, but ARIES is an 1 man company plus an
customsagent and an lawer, nothing more.Believe me, I work since 5
years with him.Anything else is managing, not manufactoring.
Valery is an good manager who knows where he can get what he need, AP
itself is an real manufactor with mashines, opticians and so on.
Markus
T_M_C...@scs.dera.gov.uk
Snip
>9.Sensitivity to fosus change
>due to atmosphere (focus depth) - +
>
Snip
>
>9. The atmosphere randomly change the focus of the image
> (part of the image) . As faster the system as more sensitive
> such system to these random focus variation. All experienced
> observers a long time ago noted, that an images in a long focus
> refactors are more stable than in short focus reflectors. But this
> is not only due to closed tube and lack of central obscuration,
> the focal depth is also the reason and as slower F/D as larger
> focal depth.
Snip
>Andrey
>
When I first read this it seemed plausable and interesting but I
thought about it while I walked home yesterday and I couldn't see how
focal length would make a difference. I assume that you mean that
atmospheric refractive index fluctuations cause the apparent distance
of an object to change and thus defocus the image. The robustness of
an instrument to this problem depends on its depth of field. Have I
misunderstood you?
My optics knowledge is a bit of a hodge podge so I may be mistaken
but I think depth of field (in a test where two scopes have eyepieces
chosen to give the same overall magnification) should have depth of
field independant of focal length (all else being equal).
I would be intereseted if you would elaborate or others would make
comments.
Tom
WHALEN44
Sounds like you need to make lightweight versions of your large MCT's.If you
did I would bet they would be close in weight or less than your lightweight
MNT's.
Richard
Trimil
*quite a bit less* than at f/22 ;-)
In telescopes, focus sensitivity has something to do with the angle of
the light cone, and higher f-numbers are less sensitive to defocusing.
clear skies,
Jim McSheehy
Howard Lester
behind that is in "acceptable" focus is, well, more or less "acceptable" [to the
viewer]. ;^)
Howard Lester
AndersonRM
>
>
>On my SLR camera with a 50 mm FL lens, the depth of field at f/1.4 is
>*quite a bit less* than at f/22 ;-)
>
>In telescopes, focus sensitivity has something to do with the angle of
>the light cone, and higher f-numbers are less sensitive to defocusing.
We should make clear that depth of field as describe in cameras used
for close up objects and depth of focus are two different concepts.
There is NO depth of field when viewing at infinity.
AndersonRM
(WHALEN44) writes:
>Sounds like you need to make lightweight versions of your large MCT's.If you
>did I would bet they would be close in weight or less than your lightweight
>MNT's.
That must be a real problem, given in order to maintain stability
(flexture, sag, etc) some weight is required. Why is it no such
thing as "foamed" aluminum has been developed for structural
components of lightweight products? You could cut the weight by
half without losing any strength.
AndersonRM
>For lunar observing the black round screen in
>a front of the secondary will stop the straight light easy. The
>central obscuration increasing in this case is not important because
>the moon is very contrast object. Same screen can be used during
>day time observing and for deepsky observing.
I'm curious about one thing; My Q7 had a black spot (painted) on the
front of the corrector to (I assume) stop stray light. However, it was
considerably larger than the aluminized secondary spot itself. Is
it necessary to have the "screen" larger than the secondary spot?
AndersonRM
>And I don't think that both the AP and the ARIES(+CAO) did made
>a wrong choice of the subject of their mutual business. Do you
>sir?
No. Who said they did?
AndersonRM
>1. Baffling. Your f/15 Maksutov Cassegrain can NEVER be properly
> baffled and stay at 24% obstruction. By the time you baffle it
> well enough to match Mak-Newtonian's inherent baffling, you are
> getting closer to 30% obstruction and things are getting worse
> quite noticeably in contrast department
Care to field this one, Roland C?
AndersonRM
>I heard that the new AP mak design is using an open back for more quick
>cooling,is it not so , that the warm body air can go easily into the
>tube in such design ?
>Just last night I have had outside an Meniscas 180 from side. I opened
>the back to optimize the collimation. Only after i closed the back
>again the image becomes real stable.
If someone were directly behind it (naturally since that's where the
eyepiece is) on a cold night then, yes, heat could migrate into
the optical tube, possibly coming in front of the primary. Just
like the housing of a secondary mirror on the SCT releases
heat which is quite visible until it cools down.
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7kda0q$emt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,> > Thanks this I do know
many
> of CAO opticians, engineers and
> > scientists. Some of them are also a member of ARIES Co.
>
> I am sorry, to stop you, but ARIES is an 1 man company plus an
> customsagent and an lawer, nothing more.Believe me, I work since 5
> years with him.Anything else is managing, not manufactoring.
> Valery is an good manager who knows where he can get what he need, AP
> itself is an real manufactor with mashines, opticians and so on.
>
> Markus
Hi Markus,
Just an hour back I called Valery and told him what did
you said (above)and ask him to comment. He said me that
he is absolut not intersted even in one more unfriendly
discussion with you. But lastly he was agree to comment
but without any deep details.
His comment is as follow (from his words, not exactly):
<<The ARIES Co. were founded at the end of 1987 and were
reoganized in the 1992. So, this company is 11+ year old.
The reason of the ARIES creation were the Michael's Gorbachev
economical politic, when the government brings much more
financial freedoms and allow to organize a private enterprises.
In the same time with allowing of such freedoms, the government
has declared, that their support of the science will be much
less than before and each scientific oganization must try to
earn a significant part of money for their budgets.
The "current" of a military orders to the CAO for the optics
becames very thin at that time and money from these remained
orders were quite not enough to support the scientific activity
and scientific fundamental researches. One way was an obviouse -
to organize the independent from CAO company which can make the
optics and develop an equipment not only for professional
astronomers but also for another research and industrial
organisations.
The ARIES Co. was created with three divisions -
1. Special optical systems and equipment for research and
industrial applications (lidar systems, photometric systems,
calibration and testing equipment, systems for a remote
control of some processes in an industry etc.
2. Software development.
3. Optics for the world amateur market.
All these three divisions are independent financially only,
but should follow by coordinated decisions.
The division #3 called exactly not as "ARIES Co." but
"The ARIES Instruments Co." (AIC). Valery Deryuzhin is
the cheaf of this small division (five persons on the
regular job). This division rent the equipment in the
optical center and use them for the present orders shedule.
The AIC does invite a necessary persons for a short and
long term project developing and shedule, soves all the
problems on the way to orders shedule.
The AIC does use a subcontractors not only in Ukraine but
also in Russia and Izrael. The ARIES is the joint stock
company with several co-owners - small "counsil". Valery
Deryuzhin is only one of them. Some very famouse scientists
and engineers are the members of ARIES's counsil. The profit
each division does earned can be invested in another division.
When the rent of the equipment becames too expensive, the AIC
has build its own private optical facility with enough quantity
of a good equipment for an optical systems (from 4" to 24")
manufacturing and testing. This optical facility now is 80%
completed and alreary working. The only high transmittion coating
equipment is remain to install and make it work, some testing
optical componets should be finished too.
Even one "ION BEAM" machine with a small chamber was purchased,
completely redesigned and installed with the related equipment
(on the rented square in the CAO ) on which therritory this optical
facility was build. Corresponds to Valery, all this took only one
year since the decision about this were taken!
And now it is not a secret that in THIS facility the very best
optics will be making for the newest AP's Mak-cass. As Valery
said me, Roland's initiative came in the very right time and to
the very right team of a kind and experienced peoples.
At the end of the call conversation Valery also said that he
already did recommended to you, Markus, to take a week tour to
the Crimea, visit for one day the CAO and see this facility by
your own eyes, but not spead the rumors.
Saying that the ARIES is the one-man company is the same
that to say that our INTES-micro is one man company too.
The INTES-micro does rent the square and the equipment in the
Russian Acoustic Research Institute and does not make most of
their optics itself and mostly place the orders in a several,
based in Moskow, optical laboratories and in the LZOS optical
plant. Of course, the Intes-micro does has their own small
equipment stock, but this is mostly for a telescope testing,
assembling, coloring and stocking, for a drawings creating and, of
course, office equipment. From last Vaalery's visit of the Intes-
mirco something, of course, were probably changed but not too
much, he guess.
If the company does not has of its own equipment and rent it
in another company or organisation for their manufacturing needs,
this does not mean that this company is not manufacturer.>>
Thanks to Valery for kindly comments.
My own thoughts: If to follow by above Markus' definition of a
real manufacturer and one-man company (not manufacturer), the
firm "APM Markus Ludes" is the *very first* company which can't
be called as the *manufacturer*. The TV is the second one. Which
is the next? Anyone can visit the APM's web site as see Markus'
proud claims: "APM is the high-end telescopes manufacturer and
dealer".
Markus, no offence, please, but you seems really the person
who like to confuse all peoples, who like to by the equipment
from the AP or another you competitors. One of an AP scope
owner already noted this fact today (or yesterday?) - see the
"Mak-net vs APO" thread.
Quite recently (end of last May) you have promised publically
in this n.g. that you will offer the peace to Roland and that
you will *never* drop to *any* thread which is even slightly
concerning the AP's equipment or AP's business. Your todays
"info" is a hidden in mind jump to the AP and does not has any
reason exept that the ARIES was welcomed to make the optics for
the famouse AP.
Keep your *own* word, please.
It is pity, that Valery can't post something in reply and,
as he said me, he don't like to do so because of endless
X vs Y threads which, as a rule, soon becomes an insulting
"wars" between several well known persons. And some n.g. members
even think that to keep the s.a.a. clear they need to not allow
to you and him to discuss any question in the amateur optics
in which you both are disagree. He said that if an amateurs
don't like to know more from him, he has no any reason to be
here.
WHALEN44
I don't think it should be a problem at all.
Think about it. You have basically the same weight optics at each end, and
given that the MCT is shorter, it should be stiffer.
Composite aluminum coring would insulate to much, you would never get rid of
the heat. All that is really required is thin wall aluminum, best if CNC
machined from one solid block (backplate, focuser body, baffles included).
Expensive for sure, but would cut the weight and offer perfect alignment of
various parts if done to close enough tolorances.
>That must be a real problem, given in order to maintain stability
>(flexture, sag, etc) some weight is required. Why is it no such
>thing as "foamed" aluminum has been developed for structural
>components of lightweight products? You could cut the weight by
>half without losing any strength.
>-Rich
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan
WHALEN44
>>a wrong choice of the subject of their mutual business. Do you
>>sir?
It seems like a great matchup, but at this point, I think that remains to be
seen. Lets put this question aside for a year or two until we see what comes of
it.
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
Hi Markus!
I have now my summer holidays and therefore I can pay
so much attention to the s.a.a. threads. I did subscribed
here early last winter and my job does not allow me to be
here in discussions - this, as I think before, will take
too much of my time, so I were as passive member - I only
read some interesting to me theads. But now I see that I
were wrong. This took too much more that I guessed. I see
that you always try to be in a discussions up to when all
rest peoples are close to a death. OK, I am in holydays,
but you are not. Where do you find a time to be "on-line" ? :-)
BTW. You writes:
> please read carefull what I wrote. If the optical design is bad, the
> scope can still work with some limitations.
> It the optics are poorly made and if mechanics are poorly made, than
> the scope is maybe useless.
A small scopes with a poor optics (say, 1 wave or poorer) is
always useless. Who like to own or keep even 1/2 wave scope?
> > But in this case you simply intolerant to all another researches
> > and developments. Do you really think that longer tube with larger
> > mass is more suitable for faster cool-down?
>
> If the design is optimized, yes i think soo.
OK, but if we will use the same or similar approach to
the cool-down of a shorter and less heavy tube can we
reach a better result than with heavier tube? A simple
logic saying yes, we can. You don't think such?
> Please carefull again. The cool time is 2 hours if the scope comes
from
> inside house to outside sky. In Stellafane the scope was always
> outside, but still during dropping temeperatures no problem due
> excellent cool design.
OK. If you do agree that the proper "cool-down design" for
a shorter and less heavy tube is possible (it certanly possible),
than a Mak-cass will at least same stable or even better.
> No I dont think so, but wait until you see the first sample, okay?
>No discussion about not available telescopes, please.
Why you say so? The human experience show that it is quite useful
to discuss something which is still under developing. I am
sure that before you created your Mak-newts (mostly copied
from Ceravolo), you have discuss many first and second order
questions and you did report that your scopes does work fine.
Is this were occasionly or were a result of the discussion and
thoughts during creation? The answer is obviouse.
So, why we can't discuss a scopes which are in a creation now?
Or you think that AP's new Mak-cass will work wiseversa to
what Roland think and guess? May be you hope so, but for sure
you don't think so. I think that you simply excited by possible
new AP's Mak-cass success.
> Maybe thats the reason why so many people buy Dobsoanians and maybe
> thats the reason why we sell twice Mak-Newt. than mak-cass. , yes ?
> It is no problem to sit at the side of an Mak-newt. up to 10".
You are palying here. You, of course, know well why peoples
buy a Dobs and for which kind of observing - quick tours over
Massier or NGC list. There are no any cheap and suitable for
this task large aperture scopes. Due to their alt-az mount
design and large (mostly) size, this newt design is a very
single possible.
Mak-newt is really good alternative to expensive apos. And
many amateurs far not reach enough to afford a 6" and up
apo. Some even reach enough peoples don't like to wait an
ordered apo and whish to observe their lovely planets and
double stars just next week after the scope was ordered. But
wait for a while and newest Mak-cass will revive this fine
design.
> multiport from Van Slyke or Taurus especially
> > with CCD and color filter wheel,
> CCD is usefull in Mak-Newt. , too.
Of course the CCD is possible to use, but what with the
color filter wheels for these CCD and whats about multiports?
> Giant easy guider from Lumicon,
> not designed to work with Mak-Cass. optics, sorry.
If this Giant e.g. does consist the additional optics
expt small prism, remove it and you will have the very
comfortable off-axis guider for Mak-cass.
> > all binoviewers (especially for small Mak-newt)
> Tele Vue is working in all mak-Newt. Zeiss is working in all INTES
> MICRO Mak-Newt. 7" and larger, no problem at all.
Oh! See, please: let take the most common case - the
MN61 and binoviewer with 140mm glass way.
What will be the distance from the center of the secondary
to the focal point in the binoviewer.
85mm - distance from the center of the secondary to the
tube wall (may be +/- 3mm)
30mm - the length of the shortest focuser
30mm - from the end of the focuser to the front glass in
the bino.
140mm - glass way
20mm - distance from last glass surface of the bino to the
focal point of the ocular.
Summarize all 85+30+30+140+20= 305mm. Suppose then that the
scope does has F/6 (or very close to this). Divide 305mm on
6. 305 : 6 = 51mm .
Such small axis of the secondary should be to allow the
unvignetted observing. The central obscuration in this case
will be 51/152=0.34 So the central obscuration will be 34% !
Whats about image contrast? Something is wrong with Markus'
claim that all MakNewt does not has any difficulties to use
the binos. May be some spaces is not as I suppose, but in any
case for unvignetted observing a small MakNewt does require
a larger secondary and therefore larger central obscuration.
> > It will be need to be a stupid engineer to design the
> > amateur *transportable* Mak-cass with 2x shorter tube
> > same heavy as Mak-newt (this is possible only with such
> > company as Meade - their 7" Mak-cass)
>
> So you call zeiss and Questar engineers stupid ? The 7" Zeiss Mak
> weights 15 kg, the 7" Mak-Newt. from INTES MICRTO weights 10 kg.
If the task is the same - to design the best cooled scope,
only stupid "engineer" can design a shorter OTA heavier than
2x longer one! Questar and Zeiss engineers obviously did has
another task in mind when they create their scopes.
> The limitation of eyepiece size is 2" with 48 mm fieldstop. Each scope
> with an C.O have an limited usefull entrance pupill diameter of about
5
> mm , otherwise the secondary shadow will trouble you.
> Many objects needs lower powers than this allows.
*Any* scope with the same D and same central obscuration
(21% and 24% are very close) under same magnification
will give the *same* exit (not entrance!) and a black spot
size. So, no any difference at all. Ask T.Back. All seems
that he know the optics much better than you and he will
confirm that you are wrong in this case.
> > I think that you are simply mistaken. I probably should remind
> > you that the scopes of the same aperture will show the same
> > field under same magnification. I think that such experienced
> > dealer, observer and star-tester should know this simplest fact.
>
> How many people observed ever more than totaly more than 500 objects,
?
> only a few. Most observing any time the same objectcs.
Be carefull, please. See about what I speak. The quantity of
a lovely objects *has nothing to do* with the FOV angular size.
> > We all know that you don't like any computer simulation saying that
> > the reality is far not the same. BTW, please, my computer simulation
> > show me that in 10" F/15 Mak-cass the binoviewer with 140mm glass
> > way (BAK4 glass)and 21mm distance from its last prism to the focal
> > point will introduce additional spherical aberration 0.1 wave
> > peak-to-peak. You again wrong.
>
> Buy an Mk-Cass. and try by your eyes. Uing an binoviewer without
> corrector means dramaticale exchange of optimized mirrorspacing,
> therefore big decreasing of correction. Additional it means vigneting
> due the primary mirror baffle, therefore you get an larger central
> obstruction due using less aperature, contrastlost follows
> If the primary mirror baffle will be designed larger you getting lot
>of straylight follows contrastlost.
I don't know the designs of ARIES Mak-cass with a small
central obscuration, but as Valery said me the optical system
is optimized for long enough back focal distance which is well
longer than the binos does required. So, you again and again wrong.
May be you think that you can predict of another minds think way?
You simply don't like to agree that some peoples can think deeper
than you, you don't like to agree that you knowelege in the optics
is far not enough to exeed Roland's and Valery's one. Do you think
that they are so simple to not consider such obviouse problems
from all sides and find the best solution?
> > Oh no, no! If you would like to have a longer focus travel
> > in a Mak-newt (or in simple newt) you need a larger secondary
> > mirror and you need to place it closer to primary mirror.
> > If you don't know eeven this *simplest* fact we can only friendly
> > smile.
> we dont need to exchange secondary position, not any reason at all.
>I dont need simply longer focustravel.
See above about binos with Mak-newt. May be you don't need the
additional focal travel (in the focuser) but you for sure need
an additional back focal distance for use the binos without vig-
netting which will cause in any case larger central obscuration.
There is a rule - as longer back focal distance as larger the
central obstruction (in the same scope with the same primary
mirror F/D ).
> > Unlike you I do belive to a computer simulations and they show
> > me that picture. The eye can't see reliably this contrast
> > difference.
> again, buy an scope and test it under real sky, than we can go ahead
> with this point.
I already got the telescope - an 8" Dall-Kirkham F/2.9 , f/16
(earlier used for the lidar, made in CAO and later figured to
1/11 wave front). This is my third telescope.
> > I don't agree with you about Mak-cass collimation difficulties.
>
> buy an Mak-Cass. and try out, before you make this statement.
My 8" D-K is very close to Mak-cass in the collimation method.
Two my first scopes was 4" and 8" Newtons which are close in
collimation to a Mak-newt. I well now what I say.
> > > > then it will be very hard or impossible to beat it.
> waiting to see your design and an real simple, than we can go ahead
> with this point.
I do not have any idear to realize something. My hands are not
suitable for this. :-) My designs are quite simple and I think
that a manufacturers are far ahead.
I am sure that ARIES simply can't be wrong with an optical design.
AndersonRM
>> > all binoviewers (especially for small Mak-newt)
>> Tele Vue is working in all mak-Newt.
Tele Vue is making a Mak-Newt??
Peter Ceravolo really did start something interesting!
AndersonRM
(WHALEN44) writes:
>Composite aluminum coring would insulate to much, you would never get rid of
>the heat. All that is really required is thin wall aluminum, best if CNC
>machined from one solid block
No one is going to machine 6" plus aluminum cylindrical bar
stock so it ends up with a 1/16" wall! They would start with
tubing as close to the final configuration as possible.
morn...@my-deja.com
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
> In article <376A817D...@my-deja.com>, Trimil
<tri...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >
> >
> >On my SLR camera with a 50 mm FL lens, the depth of field at f/1.4 is
> >*quite a bit less* than at f/22 ;-)
> >
> >In telescopes, focus sensitivity has something to do with the angle
of
> >the light cone, and higher f-numbers are less sensitive to
defocusing.
>
> We should make clear that depth of field as describe in cameras used
> for close up objects and depth of focus are two different concepts.
> There is NO depth of field when viewing at infinity.
> -Rich
Rich,
Jim has explained all correctly. In the case with SLR camera
and different F/stops F/1.4 and F/22 the *real* focus will
be always the same as before if we not thouch the focusing
ring, but the space depth which will be in "tolerable" focus
will be much longer in the case with F/22.
More detailed: imagine that we set the focus on the infinity.
For both F/1.4 and F/22 the images of the objects in the infinity
will be same sharp (if not consider the diffraction). But closer
objects will be out of a *true* focus because their *true* images
the objective will make slightly behind of a film plane. But in the
case with F/22 even relatively close objects will be sharp on the
photos and with F/1.4 not.
The atmosphere random optical power variation (due to different
optical power of an atmospheric lenses which projected on the
telescope aperture) will play the same role as defocusing in SLR
camera due to different distance to the objects.
And slower F/D telescope will work with a less image focusing
distortion than faster F/D one.
WHALEN44
up with a 1/16" wall! They would start with
tubing as close to the final configuration as possible.>>
Your probably right, but it would be the "best" way. Sure would have alot of
waste, wouldn't it!
morn...@my-deja.com
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
> In article <7kdd87$fnu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, morn...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >For lunar observing the black round screen in
> >a front of the secondary will stop the straight light easy. The
> >central obscuration increasing in this case is not important because
> >the moon is very contrast object. Same screen can be used during
> >day time observing and for deepsky observing.
>
> front of the corrector to (I assume) stop stray light. However, it
was
> considerably larger than the aluminized secondary spot itself. Is
> it necessary to have the "screen" larger than the secondary spot?
> -Rich
Hi Rich,
Basically speaking, yes. If you need a fully baffled MCT the
baffle on the secondary (or the screen around the spot) is
required. But you can significantly improve the contrast of
a planets images if you carefully remove the black screen around
the aluminized spot and probably make slightly longer the main
tube baffle (inside of the primary). The screen for the lunar,
daytime and deepsky(probably not required in a deep sky locations)
observing can be used as mechanical one. You should think haw
to do this. I can imagine this easily but it is diffucult to me
to explain these two idears in english.
Trimil
depends only on the f ratio and is independent of aperture. Lower
f-numbers have smaller spot sizes that enlarge very rapidly outside of
the focal point because the light cone is broader. It makes sense that
higher f-numbers are less sensitive to defocusing because spot sizes are
bigger, and they increase more slowly away from the focus.
The blurring we perceive as depth of field in a camera is just the
combined effects of defocusing on objects in the image. The angle of the
light cone in the camera is very different between f/1.4 and f/22.
That's why I used it as an example.
Clear skies,
Jim McSheehy
Ratboy99
>stock so it ends up with a 1/16" wall! They would start with
>tubing as close to the final configuration as possible.
>
That's what AP does, Rich.
rat
~( );>
AndersonRM
(Ratboy99) writes:
I can say without question AP does not hog 5 4/16ths inches
worth of metal out of a solid tube in order to make
a tube for a telescope. It would be a horrible waste of material
and time, even with CNC machines. You are mistaken.
AndersonRM
>Basically speaking, yes. If you need a fully baffled MCT the
>baffle on the secondary (or the screen around the spot) is
>required. But you can significantly improve the contrast of
>a planets images if you carefully remove the black screen around
>the aluminized spot and probably make slightly longer the main
>tube baffle (inside of the primary).
Thanks, that's exactly what I observed when I removed it from
my old Q7.
AndersonRM
>The atmosphere random optical power variation (due to different
>optical power of an atmospheric lenses which projected on the
>telescope aperture) will play the same role as defocusing in SLR
>camera due to different distance to the objects.
Well, when it comes to atmosphere-induced image modifictation,
i've seen variations in object position (small scopes mostly)
and object breakup (larger scopes), and even intact surface features
on planets "change" their positions on the planet, but I don't think i've ever
seen an even focus shift that could be followed by adjusting the
focus on a telescope. It's possible this happens too fast to compensate
for by hand and simply resembles normal large scope seeing-related
image break up.
>And slower F/D telescope will work with a less image focusing
>distortion than faster F/D one.
That's true. It's one reason why people with eye focus problems can
share views through long focal length instruments without adjusting
focus than through scopes with fast f-ratios.
jjgoss
AndersonRM wrote in message
<19990619192425...@ngol01.aol.com>...
>I can say without question AP does not hog 5 4/16ths inches
>worth of metal out of a solid tube in order to make
>a tube for a telescope. It would be a horrible waste of material
>and time, even with CNC machines. You are mistaken.
>-Rich
Well, if AP does, Rich, then they are about the dumbest bunch of
metalworkers I
have yet discovered!!! ;-) But then again, everyone argued about
interferometers
without one mention of the FACT that every damn one of them produces
different
results.
So I take it back about star testing (even using real stars), that may be
more accurate
that interferometric testing IF different interferometers are used on
different telescopes.
Metalworking and optics are just two more fields where about 99% of what I
read on
this NG is completely bogus....
J.Goss
AndersonRM
<jjg...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> that may be
>more accurate
>that interferometric testing IF different interferometers are used on
>different telescopes.
>
>Metalworking and optics are just two more fields where about 99% of what I
>read on
>this NG is completely bogus....
>
Certain companies have a vested interest in perpetuation "mythology"
concering construction and testing of scopes. It's all part of
the "marketing" effort.
-Rich
"Beware of academics and special interests that
speak of "group rights" as opposed to "induvidual
rights." This is Marxism thinly disguised as democratic
thought."
lude...@my-deja.com
> Hi Markus,
>
> Just an hour back I called Valery and told him what did
> you said (above)and ask him to comment. He said me that
> he is absolut not intersted even in one more unfriendly
> discussion with you. But lastly he was agree to comment
> but without any deep details.
> His comment is as follow (from his words, not exactly):
Maybe you are Valery Deryuzhin under other e-mail adresse now ?
>
> <<The ARIES Co. were founded at the end of 1987 and were
> reoganized in the 1992.
As Valery told me as an computerinstallation company and tennis
teacher, yes you are right .
>
> The ARIES Co. was created with three divisions -
> 1. Special optical systems and equipment for research and
> industrial applications (lidar systems, photometric systems,
> calibration and testing equipment, systems for a remote
> control of some processes in an industry etc.
ARIES is an manager, like APM. APM is placing orders to diffrent
companys. APM have some own Ideas and other manufactors doing that for
us, same and nothing else is doing ARIES.
>
> 2. Software development.
Software installing would be the correct word.
>
> 3. Optics for the world amateur market.
wrong. ARIES is producing zero Optics. Aries order optics from CAO and
from GOI for payments. Thats what I call to be an dealer. If ARIES
would be owner of this equipment and companys, than you could say he
produce.
> >
> The division #3 called exactly not as "ARIES Co." but
> "The ARIES Instruments Co." (AIC).
The only instruments made by ARIES are some samples of tubes for Apos
by his friends company Vadik and some 10" Maksutov Telescopes, made by
CAO for ARIES.
Valery Deryuzhin is
> the cheaf of this small division (five persons on the
> regular job).
Valery is the chief of his cat, fax and telephon.
This division rent the equipment in the
> optical center and use them for the present orders shedule.
Now you say rent. It is an good word. Yes I rent each month the
opticians from INTES and INTES MICRO to produce telescopes for me. I
also rent maschine shops to produce tubes and mounts for me, but still
I am not the owner of this companys or divisions.
> The AIC does use a subcontractors not only in Ukraine but
> also in Russia and Izrael.
So now you use the word subcontract, accepted.
The ARIES is the joint stock
> company with several co-owners - small "counsil".
Joint-Stock ? with whom ?
Valery
> Deryuzhin is only one of them. Some very famouse scientists
> and engineers are the members of ARIES's counsil. The profit
> each division does earned can be invested in another division.
So Dr. Ghain from GOI or Dr. Terebish are memebers of the ARIES council
? Is it not more correct that Dr. Ghain is an member of GOI and gets
paid to produce Apos ? Is it not more that Dr. Terebish is an member of
CAO ?
>
> When the rent of the equipment becames too expensive, the AIC
> has build its own private optical facility with enough quantity
> of a good equipment for an optical systems (from 4" to 24")
> manufacturing and testing. This optical facility now is 80%
> completed and alreary working. The only high transmittion coating
> equipment is remain to install and make it work, some testing
> optical componets should be finished too.
Thas what I hear since 2 years, but until today i am waiting now the
fourth year to get my backordered ~30 Apos from 4" to 7".
I hope thisoptical facility will be ready soon and maybe I will get
than my 3~4 years backordered and downpaid Apos.
> And now it is not a secret that in THIS facility the very best
> optics will be making for the newest AP's Mak-cass. As Valery
> said me, Roland's initiative came in the very right time and to
> the very right team of a kind and experienced peoples.
I hope so , maybe thats the reason why he asked me last week to place
more orders to him , since he need some money to finish the projects ?
>
> At the end of the call conversation Valery also said that he
> already did recommended to you, Markus, to take a week tour to
> the Crimea, visit for one day the CAO and see this facility by
> your own eyes, but not spead the rumors.
I tried to do this in last 2 years many times, but anytime ecist other
reasons why it could not be done.
>
> Saying that the ARIES is the one-man company is the same
> that to say that our INTES-micro is one man company too.
INTES MICRO is an manufactoring company.
> The INTES-micro does rent the square and the equipment in the
> Russian Acoustic Research Institute and does not make most of
> their optics itself and mostly place the orders in a several,
> based in Moskow, optical laboratories and in the LZOS optical
> plant. Of course, the Intes-micro does has their own small
> equipment stock, but this is mostly for a telescope testing,
> assembling, coloring and stocking, for a drawings creating and, of
> course, office equipment. From last Vaalery's visit of the Intes-
> mirco something, of course, were probably changed but not too
> much, he guess.
It is about 6 years or longer ago, of course my friend knows all the
changes, since his telefon have now an monitor.
Please go to Moscow and visit INTES and INTES MICRO, than you will see
tools with working opticians and maschines producing tubes. I you call
this subcontractors made, okay . I staid last year in December in
moscow and have visit both companys.
>
> If the company does not has of its own equipment and rent it
> in another company or organisation for their manufacturing needs,
> this does not mean that this company is not manufacturer.>>
Of course it means it is not an manufactor, since the optics and
possible mechanics made by another company who get paid for it.
> >
> My own thoughts: If to follow by above Markus' definition of a
> real manufacturer and one-man company (not manufacturer), the
> firm "APM Markus Ludes" is the *very first* company which can't
> be called as the *manufacturer*.
Everybody knows that my optics and my tubes are made by subcontractors.
So yes you are right, I am doing this work not bymyself, it is made by
subcontractors.
>
> Markus, no offence,
no offence, don't worry.
please, but you seems really the person
> who like to confuse all peoples, who like to by the equipment
> from the AP or another you competitors.
I don't like to confuse such people, I like only to give correct
correct informations, even if some guys dont agree or dont like to hear
it.
>
> Quite recently (end of last May) you have promised publically
> in this n.g. that you will offer the peace to Roland and that
> you will *never* drop to *any* thread which is even slightly
> concerning the AP's equipment or AP's business. Your todays
> "info" is a hidden in mind jump to the AP and does not has any
> reason exept that the ARIES was welcomed to make the optics for
> the famouse AP.
Yes you are right, but the situation was that some telescopes was
brought into bad picture comparing with ...., so i feelt to give my
impression.
>
> Keep your *own* word, please.
yes, you are right. Sometimes it would be better for me to shut my
mouth .>
> Take care,
>
> Andrey.
>
Take care too
Markus
lude...@my-deja.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Markus,
>
> Sounds like you need to make lightweight versions of your large
MCT's.If you
> did I would bet they would be close in weight or less than your
lightweight
> MNT's.
>
>
yes you are right.The mirror focuser requieres something heavier part
in the MCT, but in general you are right. The Newtonian styled scopes
are more easy to make for us. The MCT would become to expensive if we
do it.
lude...@my-deja.com
death. OK, I am in holydays,
> but you are not. Where do you find a time to be "on-line" ? :-)
It is my hobby, not only my business and for my hobby I spend my free
time.>
> A small scopes with a poor optics (say, 1 wave or poorer) is
> always useless. Who like to own or keep even 1/2 wave scope?
You would not believe how many such scopes are on the today market.
Last week i sold to some guys an 7" Mak. They have been unhappy, why?
The showed me the testreport of here second (even better than first
sample) 12" SC with 1/1.5 wave. Believe me , it is not an unique bad
once.>
> OK. If you do agree that the proper "cool-down design" for
> a shorter and less heavy tube is possible (it certanly possible),
> than a Mak-cass will at least same stable or even better.
yes and no. The MCT have an primary mirror baffle and mostly larger
C.O. My long time experience show that this primary mirror baffle is
one of the mechanical parts who needs the longest time to cool down. I
have an Idea, which we are testing in next month to improve it.
>
> Or you think that AP's new Mak-cass will work wiseversa to
> what Roland think and guess?
No I dont think so. I saw the AP 9" MN perfectly working under most
terrible conditions. Roland knows very well how to make an design
correctly.
>
> You are palying here.
yes i like playing.
>
> double stars just next week after the scope was ordered. But
> wait for a while and newest Mak-cass will revive this fine
> design.
I will wait yes, since we produce also both designs I am not against it.
> >
> Of course the CCD is possible to use, but what with the
> color filter wheels for these CCD and whats about multiports?
No telescope can do really anything.
> >
> If this Giant e.g. does consist the additional optics
> expt small prism, remove it and you will have the very
> comfortable off-axis guider for Mak-cass.
In the 7" and larger INTES MICRO MN you can use the LUMICON Newtonian
guider.
> >
> Oh! See, please: let take the most common case - the
> MN61 and binoviewer with 140mm glass way.
please , dont forget the relay lens.
>
> Such small axis of the secondary should be to allow the
> unvignetted observing. The central obscuration in this case
> will be 51/152=0.34 So the central obscuration will be 34% !
> Whats about image contrast? Something is wrong with Markus'
> claim that all MakNewt does not has any difficulties to use
> the binos. May be some spaces is not as I suppose, but in any
> case for unvignetted observing a small MakNewt does require
> a larger secondary and therefore larger central obscuration.
or the relay lens.
> > > 2x longer one! Questar and Zeiss engineers obviously did has
> another task in mind when they create their scopes.
another task than astroamateur use ?
> >
> *Any* scope with the same D and same central obscuration
> (21% and 24% are very close) under same magnification
> will give the *same* exit (not entrance!) and a black spot
> size. So, no any difference at all.
Please dont forget the focallength.
10"F/5.5 MN have 1.400 mm focallenght, 48 mm fieldstop allows close to
2° field
10"F/15 MCT have 3.810 mm focallenght, 48 mm fieldstop allows close to
0.7° field ( nearly 3 times less field)
> > > I think that you are simply mistaken. I probably should remind
> > > you that the scopes of the same aperture will show the same
> > > field under same magnification.
the field of view is limited also by the biggest usefull fieldstop and
that is as i think to know about 48 mm in 2" eyepieces.
Now lets see: The 10"F/5.5 used with the Unitron 32 mm 84° widescan
using 40 power and 2° field
The 10"F/15 MCT used the old 80 mm Celestron provides about 48 power (
very similar to the MN) and about 0.7° field .
>
> Be carefull, please. See about what I speak. The quantity of
> a lovely objects *has nothing to do* with the FOV angular size.
No ? Many observers I know love the objects with which requires field
over 1° and there are a lot at the sky. They will miss them , be shure.
> > >
> > Buy an Mk-Cass. and try by your eyes. Uing an binoviewer >
> I don't know the designs of ARIES Mak-cass with a small
> central obscuration, but as Valery said me the optical system
> is optimized for long enough back focal distance which is well
> longer than the binos does required.
An Binoviewer with 2" Stardiagonal ( most using this combination)
requires about 240 mm backfocus.
Using an 2" Stardiagonal only, they need about 120 mm backfocus. So you
want to tell me, exchanging the backfocus for 120 mm does not decrease
the calculated quality ?
So, you again and again wrong.
Thanks.
> >
> See above about binos with Mak-newt. May be you don't need the
> additional focal travel (in the focuser) but you for sure need
> an additional back focal distance for use the binos without vig-
> netting which will cause in any case larger central obscuration.
don't forget the relay lens.
> > >
> > > I don't agree with you about Mak-cass collimation difficulties.
You are maybe very experienced to collimate such system. My customers
can collimate newtonian styled telescopes, but not MCT if the primary
also requires collimation.
> >> > >
> I am sure that ARIES simply can't be wrong with an optical design.
I agree with you and i hope he have success, since we are also
producing both systems
best wishes
Markus
morn...@my-deja.com
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
> Certain companies have a vested interest in perpetuation "mythology"
> concering construction and testing of scopes. It's all part of
> the "marketing" effort.
> -Rich
Hi Rich,
Which ones did you meant? Do you think they
try to convince an amateurs in a wrong way tes-
ting ? And why the telescope testing is the "myth"
field. There were some discussions here about
Suiter's recommendations haw to evaluate a telescopes.
From my own opinion the only one reliable method to
check the telescope quality - the interferometrical
testing.
Take care.
jjgoss
trite, ok?
You know, there is more BS per spoken word in optics than just about any
other
field I can name - except maybe politics and professional wrestling.... ;-)
No offense
to those in either field, I think Jesse Ventura is a great guy!
Please say you rely on interferometers, but also say in the same sentence
that there
are very serious limitations in the use of these instruments as tools to
discover the
market of value of a telescope. I can make an interferometer read 1/7 wave
or 1/14 wave
with very little tweaking - or maybe just by having different people operate
it and
interpret the results.
But I digress, let the war of words continue!!! And remember, the scope you
interferometrically
test today at 1/10 wave will be the scope you sell tomorrow as a 'world
class' instrument!
Whatever that means....
J.Goss
morn...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7kjvh2$rr6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7kjamq$lu6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>Markus,
>
>You seems to to become the Oracle over this n.g.
>Today one very kind guy here had described you
>(and the real reason why you is here) very precisely:
morn...@my-deja.com
Markus,
You seems to to become the Oracle over this n.g.
Today one very kind guy here had described you
(and the real reason why you is here) very precisely:
<snip>
<<Markus us a very knowledgeable person when it
comes to optics, and a very outspoken one, but he
has developed a habit of criticizing others products
all the time and for that reason he gets himself in
hot waters frequently, no doubt he does carry premium
products, but you must be careful in taking his
recommendations, he is after all in the sales end of
this hobby, he is a salesman with obvious agenda.>>
I think that you should not feel yourself offenced
because all this is very close to the truth, exept
of your education in optics.
During several our conversation with Valery in the
CAO (where I frequently for a scientific missions
of the upper atmosphere study) he told me that in
general you are a nice guy, but your princips in
business are quite unacceptable for most of peoples.
He did not described what did he meant, but the very
last phrases still in my mind: " For us it will be
better if he (Markus) will know as less as possible.
This becames clear for us during his very first visit.
He asked to many questions about things that are not
for a simple kind dealer. All his next steps only con-
firm this our very first conclution".
May be this is a reason why he keep from you all
important information and therefore you finally
get him wrong?
I can't ask Valery again about his comments and I can
only add my own thoughts. They are 100% solid facts.
Anyone include you Markus, can come and see.
The ARIES was really founded just after Gorbachev's
revolution and the task was - to organize the business
structure which will allow to support the scientific life
in the CAO.
I know this very well because our institute does has the
scientific relations with the CAO and several large and
small lidar optics and related things + several sectrome-
ters were made for us by the ARIES during 1989 - 1997.
Many persons I know in CAO does has their basic job in CAO
and second in the ARIES. Really, haw possible for doctor
of science ( Ph.D and professor) to live with a government
salary of equivalent to $100? Many scientist and engineers
simply leave the government positions and now working only
for a business or industrial orders but not in a fundamental
science. And the word " they rent the equipment" is not good
word as you said. This werb "rent" is the very single sense
haw the ARIES can have the CAO equipment to use it.
The continues rent cost increasing (this is a real life for
all small firms and enterprises in russia and ukraine) and
lastly its dramatic fly-up (Black August 1998 in Russia and
Ukraine) resulted the drop of an orders qantity which can be
sheduled on a rented equipment.
As Valery told me last time, this was a last drop which over-
filled the cap of their patience. During less than one year(!)
the ARIES Instruments (not the ARIES Co.) has build their own
private optical facility just in 400m nearby of CAO therritory.
Valery is one of two co-owners. I saw this facility under deve-
loping by my own eyes last March. It is worth to see it! More
than 9 tons of optical manufacturing equipment here and some
tons more are still to come. I think that it will be interes-
ting for you to see this, but I am aware that you can get a
lot of slipless nights. And the second part of this facility
they plan to build next year with two more small ion figuring
machines. This facility is looks great, and will, as I know
for sure, manufacture same precision optics as in the CAO optical
center. And such precision (up to 1/25 wave front) is well beyond
to reach for *any* your present supplier.
This facility is already working for their two first projects.
The very first results of one of them will be shown to a public soon.
Now you can come and see that not all what you have heard is the
truth. The truth in the Crimea and the rumors are in your mind.
The rumors and cooked in own mind thoughts are not the best material
to know the world around.
In the end. The very first thing (except my interests to astronomy
and optics) that give me the possibility to know more Valery is
that I am a tennis fun. He were very good player in a past. After
he leave the active tennis he spent a lot of time teaching a young
players (one of them is #2 in Ukraine rating) in his free time.
He did this for free and he always were very proud of this.
He *never* make a tennis as a business as you wrote here. This may
be a rumor or your own thoughs.
In Russia and, I am sure, in Ukraine it is not possible to work in
any sports as profeccional coach without diploma of related education.
And Valery don't have such diploma.
You wrote that may be I am Valery. :-)) I see that he see
him even in your sleep dreams. Do you think that only you
are (were?) a friend of him? Are you so worry abot him that
you can't miss even smallest chance to pinch him as you new
competitor which was born by youself lately?
Take care,
Andrey.
lude...@my-deja.com
morn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7kjamq$lu6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Markus,
>
salesman with obvious agenda.>>
>
> I think that you should not feel yourself offenced
> because all this is very close to the truth, exept
> of your education in optics.
Valery,
it seems, you are coming here with the reason ,drying to trouble me as
more as possible, otherwise I cannot understand why you are using any
time the words of other people.
Last week you said you are not a friend of Valery Deryuzhin, but over
the weekend you told me you did call to Valery for a while. No normal
guy would do that, if he would not have in mind to trouble someone with
informations he can get only from other persons. Therefore you spend
your time and your money for such phone calls to get informations how
to trouble me and to bring me in a bad picture.
Thanks for you attacks.
Markus
>
> During several our conversation with Valery in the
> CAO (where I frequently for a scientific missions
> of the upper atmosphere study) he told me that in
> general you are a nice guy, but your princips in
> business are quite unacceptable for most of peoples.
Valery should take himself on his Noice. I am an dealer and i am
forcing my manufactors to keep hir words. All my russian partners doing
that, valery is only troubling , me, my customers and even goverment
people with wrong informations and 4 times longer delays than any
promisse.
> As Valery told me last time, this was a last drop which over-
> filled the cap of their patience. During less than one year(!)
> the ARIES Instruments (not the ARIES Co.) has build their own
> private optical facility just in 400m nearby of CAO therritory.
Yes and as Valery said to me, from the downpayment he received from me
and my customers for Apos, which are produced in St. petersburg and now
delayed due the point that valery not paid the manufactor, no he took
the money to buy his BMW, the computer, television, nice flat and more.
> center. And such precision (up to 1/25 wave front) is well beyond
> to reach for *any* your present supplier.
As Valery said, yes ? Maybe thats the reason why he needet 2 years to
finish an 16" Optic which was ordered with confirmed 6 month delivery
time ? It was made by Quick ion beaming, but as Valery told they was
dancing for about 1 year between 1/10 and 1/12 wave , and now you start
talking about 1/25 wave.
>
> He *never* make a tennis as a business as you wrote here.
I am sorry, bzut I used just valerys own words.
tell me why you try to defent him so much, if you are not friends ?
maybe you are really Valery itself with diffrent e-mail ?
> >
> Take care,
Not anymore, its now enough. No more answeres to your liared
informations.
Markus
lude...@my-deja.com
one reliable method to
> check the telescope quality - the interferometrical
> testing.
>
> Take care.
>
> Andrey.
>
this show your opinion is very limited in telescopes again.
Test an 6" Apo undercorrect in interferometer by + 20° celsius. That go
to sky and see how much the correction changes.
Test an apo working perfectly in testing room, go with it to sky and
what your testing doing if there you see astigmatism. Will test room
testing result still the same ? No.
Another sample: An Apo is correct well for roomtesting at +20° celisus,
than you go to sky and see an overcorrection .
What you doing now with your testing ? Interferometer testing is needet
of course, but it is of course not the only one reliable testing.
Many more testings must be made to get an all temperature working
optics and telescope.
Maybe you must give now again an call to Deryuzhin to ask him what to
answere me ?
Markus
AndersonRM
>For us it will be
>better if he (Markus) will know as less as possible.
>This becames clear for us during his very first visit.
>He asked to many questions about things that are not
>for a simple kind dealer.
Kind of sounds like a response by a manufacturer who really
didn't want to answer any questions. I can understand that,
considering paranoia over production methods, and
the ability to substantiate claims being what it is for some
companies.
AndersonRM
>> Certain companies have a vested interest in perpetuation "mythology"
>> concering construction and testing of scopes. It's all part of
>> the "marketing" effort.
>> -Rich
>
>Hi Rich,
>
>Which ones did you meant? Do you think they
>try to convince an amateurs in a wrong way tes-
>ting ? And why the telescope testing is the "myth"
>field.
Some companies will see pretty outlandish claims made for their
scopes on this group, things like $500 mirrors testing out at
1/16-1/20 wave (as though it were a regular occurance),
tubes made by machining them out of solid
blocks of aluminum, cooldown times most people know are
too optimistic by a large margin, etc. Those companies read this
and they won't do anything to dispell these clearly misguided
beliefs because they like to see this mythology perpetuated, it gives
their instruments a kind of mistique.
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Last week you said you are not a friend of Valery Deryuzhin, but over
>the weekend you told me you did call to Valery for a while.
Hi Markus,
Haw many true friends do you have? Can you call all
peoples for whom you can dial as your friends and not
just a more or less familiar persons? Does it mean in
your country that you can't dial to a persons who are
not your friends? And what you definition of the "friend"
and "friendship" ?
You simply seems forgotten what did you made, what did you
said, which companies are still your partners. You position
and your relations to a products, amanufacturers and peoples
has been changed countless times depends only your present
business interests. Is this was not your hidden intention to
confuse a potential buyers of your competitors? Why you think
that speading a poor rumors and misinformation will help you
to draw a peoples attention from your competitors to you?
Can you exclude, please, that such your attempts can (if not
already) bring the direct opposite results?
The unbiased retrospective look into the s.a.a. archive will
show to any one that you can't miss even one smallest chance
to be the Oracle here and pinch your competitors(their friends
too) and your own principal opponents in this n.g. The pre-Markus
s.a.a. seems the very kind n.g. with no wars at all except several
personal people's conflicts which are inevitable in any speechroom
(ng). See the archive and you will be not able to argue this fact.
Can you yourself call even one manufacturer (from your competitors)
about which you never said something negative? Do you think that
the best what peoples can buy in a high-end equipment can be made in
Moskow only and supplied by you?
From the time you came to this ng the world was changed
(in your definitions):
The TeleView apos became a very good semi-apos.
Takahashi and Zeiss apos became an average good apos
(but when you need to sell them, you call them as one of
the best ever made!)
The AP apos (an american deram) becames your basic object
for your unprooved claims about their quality.
The ARIES from being a good company in your early posts
(and your web page) drops to a one-man company.
The only thee companies was not sleeping and only rised and
do represent the very best and the very modern acheavements
in the amateur telescopes development and manufacturing. These
three companies are - the APM and two Intes.
And the very specially purposed telescope - Mak-newt became the
best choice as an all-around telescope.
But what was *your* *true* acheavements in a past? `The only 4"
triplet apos (haw many of them was made?) of an average quality?
You main agenda as an dealer *must* be the telescope selling
but not the permanent argues, accusations, rumors spreading,
peoples confusing and misinformation as like as the selfseeking.
Just do the telescope selling and keep a fair (your lovely word)
competition and such in-threads wars will ends.
morn...@my-deja.com
>Maybe thats the reason why he needet 2 years to
>finish an 16" Optic which was ordered with confirmed 6 month delivery
>time ? It was made by Quick ion beaming, but as Valery told they was
>dancing for about 1 year between 1/10 and 1/12 wave , and now you
>start talking about 1/25 wave.
I did not said even one word about ion beaming capacity/per
time . I only simply noted that the principal precision for
this figuring method is 1/25 wave peak-to-peak. This is at
first. The second: you noted the 16" optics. What kind of the
optics? Does it has an aspherics? If yes, haw deep this asphe-
rics were?, is this optics were fast F/D or slow? is this optics
were a single mirror/lens or it does has several components?
if several, haw many components this optics does consist?
As more or less *expert* tester you should know haw above different
factors can influence on the process where the main difficulty
is not the figuring itself, but the collimation and testing
methods limitations. Am I right? or you can argue (as you always
do) this obviouse facts? You should easy understand that for the
spherical and close to sphere surfaces the reachable precision
is much higher than for high aspherics. It seems that the 16"
optics you noted was not a simple sphere or close where the
1/10 precision usually does not require the ion beaming. What
was the optics? And haw many of them? Taking the sinle facts
without another is incorret way to find the truth. Or not?
You write: - two years 16" optics delay. I know, that THIS
ion-beam machine were not in use since the middle of the 1996
and some their main parts were installed to another arge ion
beam machine with 3 m diameter vacuum camera. You write in your
initial post to this thread that you doing business with ARIES
since 5 years. The very simple calculation show that the two
years delay is *your* myth.
> tell me why you try to defent him so much, if you are not
>friends ? maybe you are really Valery itself with diffrent
> e-mail ?
Why? I simply know enough about real peoples who created
a lot of optics for you in a past, I simply know much better
some another guys in CAO/ARIES with whom I am a friend. What
they did poor for you? Or you think that speading wrong rumours
does not touch them. Directly not, but really does.
I think that one another solid reason was that you call some
peoples here and not only here as a big liers. Who are you in
this case? Do you have a moral rights to judge them in such
manner? What will be (suppose, please) if the Intes will stop
supply of their goods to you? The same as with ARIES?
Mainly you called as a liers an americans. And I am quite wonder
about their patience with which they reply to your angry posts.
We are liers you said? Come and see, as Valery invited you!
Is this will be not correct way to see the truth? If you will
lastly come to the Crimea to see all personally, please let
me know the date of vsit well before. I will be here and will
look in your eyes. OK?
As for the your suppose about the bogus nickname. I saw
that in the recent past Valery has quite enough courage
to discuss with you under his own name. But what were the
results - nothing. You still remain as before. The post-
Markus ng is well worth to be here under nicknames if the
discussions and argues are in X vs Y mode, where the
X and Y are the scopes from Markus, Meade, AP, TeleView
and Intes.
Bratislav and Valery are gone. Who will be the next?
Whom we will thanks? To you and your team here.
As you said, no more reply. I hope you will keep you
"this" word and also will not touch another guys. I
think you do have enough to do with your new telescopes
to come.
WHALEN44
Andrey,
I have noticed that Bratislav is no longer posting, though we do hear from
Valery now and again. I think that perhaps we hear less of Valery due to the
fact he has less time to post (and the good sense to stay out of flame wars) as
he is now busy with new projects.
>Whom we will thanks? To you and your team here.>>
I don't think you can blame Markus for others not posting. I am not aware that
Markus has a "team" here. I have seen no evidence.
As a further note, you seem to be fanning the flames here, why do you feel this
is ?
If you have a problem with Markus or any other poster, please take it private.
It's getting old, and is certainly boring.
As an aside, it's obvious to some here that you have an axe to grind, and may
or may not be as you claim.
And Markus, you should take your own advice. :) This does no one any good.
AndersonRM
(WHALEN44) writes:
>Andrey,
>
>I have noticed that Bratislav is no longer posting
Running like a bandit from the war crimes tribunal in Yugoslavia. :)
-Rich
"Beware of academics and special interests that
speak of "group rights" as opposed to "individual
Bratislav
> >Andrey,
> >
> >I have noticed that Bratislav is no longer posting
>
> Running like a bandit from the war crimes tribunal in Yugoslavia. :)
> -Rich
We all know who pulls strings of that puppet Louise Arbour.
Who pulls YOUR strings, little man ?
You are so insignificant that I shouldn't even bother to know about
your existance. But I will give you a free advice or two :
1. get laid
2. get a job
But most probably you are incapable of either. The only thing you are good
for is a mental masturbation on SAA. What a waste of human material you are.
Bratislav
lude...@my-deja.com
> You write: - two years 16" optics delay. I know, that THIS
> ion-beam machine were not in use since the middle of the 1996
Just some last answeres:
so you saying now, that ARIES who sold to Japan, to Max. Planck
Institut and to my customers optics, where Valery clearly wrote in the
offers and final papers " Quick Ion Beam Polished", that Valery made an
Lier to all this customers ?>
Bratislav was going for while due country problems.
Valery was going due recomment of Roland, since he saw, that valery
don't have his emotion enough under control (This are Valerys own words
to me)
>
And now talk to yourself.
Markus
WHALEN44
>> >
>> >I have noticed that Bratislav is no longer posting
Bratislav,
For the record, I posted the above, though you are right, Rich A. very
inappropriately wrote the comment about war crimes. I think there was no call
for this, it's totally unprovoked, and extremly offensive. I think Rich A owes
you a very public apology.
On the other hand, miss your post's. Hope all is well with you and yours.
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> h
> > You write: - two years 16" optics delay. I know, that THIS
> > ion-beam machine were not in use since the middle of the 1996
>
> Just some last answeres:
> so you saying now, that ARIES who sold to Japan, to Max. Planck
> Institut and to my customers optics, where Valery clearly wrote in the
> offers and final papers " Quick Ion Beam Polished", that Valery made
an
> Lier to all this customers ?>
Too many times in your very early posts when Valery was
your friend you proudly note that ALL optics from you
(ARIES) include a very small 5" telescopes are supplied
with an interferometric reports. Does the optics for these
japan and german customers were lower in the quality than
were required? If all were OK with the requirements what
is problem were? I see that you can find or *cook* any
quantity of arguments to argue any question up to the death
of any your opponent. If he (not always you?)has sold the
optics to japan and to best physics institute in germany,
he can be only congratulated, but not be pinched.
>Bratislav was going for while due country problems.
>Valery was going due recomment of Roland, since he
>saw, that valery
>don't have his emotion enough under control (This are
Valerys own words
> to me)
> >
Do you know where Bratislav is living? Before I knew that
he is in Australia. Look on his english, please. Or you will
argue here again and again?
Valery going or gone? What did you meant?
I can barely belive that older and smarter Roland can give
him an advice to keep his emotions cooler, but I can also
understand Valery that may be this is to hard to be cool
seeing your attacks and hearing your rumours and unprooved
lie claims about anyone on your way.
Make one very easy and interesting thing for me, please.
Be so kind as surf over the s.a.a. archive and see what
the s.a.a. was before you drop to it and later in the
very beginning and in very recent spring time. Compare
these two *different* news groups and make the conclution.
The free advice to you: sell the scopes, improve them and
don't self-promote in this public n.g. And your business
will rise. You earn too many enemies here and in the USA
already (someone's words here in past winter). You don't
need more of them.
morn...@my-deja.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> >> >Andrey,
> >> >
> >> >I have noticed that Bratislav is no longer posting
>
> Bratislav,
>
> For the record, I posted the above, though you are right, Rich A. very
> inappropriately wrote the comment about war crimes. I think there was
no call
> for this, it's totally unprovoked, and extremly offensive. I think
Rich A owes
> you a very public apology.
>
> On the other hand, miss your post's. Hope all is well with you and
yours.
>
> Richard Whalen
> whal...@aol.com
Hi Rich,
Now you know which kind of team did I meant. And I am
sure you saw enough evidences for this in the past.
Another deal that you seems to another Markus team -
his production testers. But in this case you have a
free access to the very modern russian made telescopes.
It will be fine if Markus will be focused on *such* team,
but not peoples insulting team. And therefore you will
never been bored.
Take care,
AndersonRM
>I think there was no call
>for this, it's totally unprovoked, and extremly offensive. I think Rich A
>owes
>you a very public apology.
>
No, Bratislav offhandedly defended his Serb comrades.
No apology is likely to be forthcoming from me since
I don't subscribe to being "politically correct."
P.S. The Balkan fiasco cost the U.S. $20 from every
person in the U.S. with more to come.
AndersonRM
writes:
>> Running like a bandit from the war crimes tribunal in Yugoslavia. :)
>> -Rich
>
>We all know who pulls strings of that puppet Louise Arbour.
Well, I phrased mine as a joke, I see you are serious.
>Who pulls YOUR strings, little man ?
No one ever has, or ever will. Isn't free will wonderful?
>You are so insignificant that I shouldn't even bother to know about
>your existance. But I will give you a free advice or two :
I admit i've never brutalized, shot, raped, tortured, driven out an ethnic
group.
>1. get laid
Do that, without resorting to rape.
>2. get a job
Have one, thanks.
>But most probably you are incapable of either. The only thing you are good
>for is a mental masturbation on SAA. What a waste of human material you are.
Well, at least I am human.
>Bratislav
He's BACK! Peace in our time!
Bryan Greer
> Do you know where Bratislav is living?
It is my understanding that Bratislav is a Belgrad-born Serb living in
Australia. Obviously the past few months have been difficult for him, and
much more so for the populations at the focus of the war. It is
understandable that we have not heard much from him.
Sincerely,
Bryan Greer
Columbus, OH
(remove *takeout* for private replies)
jjgoss
ethnic conflict that has brewed in that area for centuries has anything to
brag about.
Don't try to sell us on the viciousness of the NATO effort after what we
now know to be true about the natives of the area.
J.Goss
Bratislav wrote in message <377015D7...@down.under>...
>AndersonRM wrote:
>
>> Well, I phrased mine as a joke, I see you are serious.
>
>Only a sick mind can joke with things so serious. But then,
>I'm not surprised one bit.
>
>> >Who pulls YOUR strings, little man ?
>>
>> No one ever has, or ever will. Isn't free will wonderful?
>
>Dream on, free little man.
>
>> I admit i've never brutalized, shot, raped, tortured, driven out an
ethnic
>> group.
>
>No, you prefer dropping cluster bombs from 15000 feet on schools,
hospitals,
>kindergardens, homes for elderly, markets, bus stations, trains, farms,
post
>offices and houses. And from the safe distance bomb bridges (further from
Kosovo,
>the better), military objects like tobacco and white goods factories,
heating
>plants, power stations, hotels and TV and radio stations (more people
inside
>the better). 'Freedom of speech' is that what is called ? You're free to
>speak as long as you don't talk against me ?
>
>> He's BACK! Peace in our time!
>
>Oh no, I don't want to spoil the pleasure of people reading your great
posts.
>
>Bratislav
Bratislav
WHALEN44
evidences for this in the past.>>
Andrey,
I don't think you can say Rich A. is on anyones "team". He is an equal
opportunity critic (to put it kindly).
As far as testing equipment for Markus, I enjoy doing so. However it does not
mean I always agree with him here on SAA, or feel obligated to do so.. Markus
expects me to be honest about my evaluations of his products, and pull no
punches.
Anyways, I don't take anything written here at face value very often, there
seems to be to many hidden motives and agendas at work. You and Markus can
argue "till the cows come home" fighting to get in the last word. Niether of
you at this point are changing any minds out there, so please take it private.
And back to Astronomy, in particular the MNT verses MCT debate. Both are fine
designs that have their individual advantages. I think the jury is in on the
MNT, as it has been optimised by several companies now. However the verdict is
still out on the MCT, as highly optimised versions have been seen very little
here. This should change when models from AP and APM and others hit the market.
Let's revisit the subject then.
Bratislav
> Based on what we all can see in the news now, neither side of the ugly
> ethnic conflict that has brewed in that area for centuries has anything to
> brag about.
>
> Don't try to sell us on the viciousness of the NATO effort after what we
> now know to be true about the natives of the area.
Ahhhh ... of course. THEY deserve it. All 2000 civilians killed (more than 500
of them children at age under 15), and all 8000 maimed and crippled by shrapnel
from 'smart' cluster bombs. It's only THEM, a lower form of intelligence.
You saw that on your news, you superior Arian human being ?
Don't overestimate yourself. I wouldn't try to sell you an empty paper bag,
let alone an argument.
Richard A. Schumacher
>> I admit i've never brutalized, shot, raped, tortured, driven out an ethnic
>> group.
>No, you prefer dropping cluster bombs from 15000 feet on schools, hospitals,
>kindergardens, homes for elderly, markets, bus stations, trains, farms, post
>offices and houses. And from the safe distance bomb bridges (further from Kosovo,
>the better), military objects like tobacco and white goods factories, heating
>plants, power stations, hotels and TV and radio stations (more people inside
>the better). 'Freedom of speech' is that what is called ? You're free to
>speak as long as you don't talk against me ?
Retaliation is a bitch, isn't it. Milosevic and his supporters
will drown in lakes of blood.
Ob sci.astro.amateur content: the former Yugoslavia generally
has very poor seeing.
AndersonRM
<Bratisla...@ericsson.com.au> writes:
>
>Ahhhh ... of course. THEY deserve it. All 2000 civilians killed (more than
>500
>of them children at age under 15), and all 8000 maimed and crippled by
>shrapnel
>from 'intelligent' cluster boms. It's only THEM, a lower form of
>Did you see THAT on your news, you superior Arian human being ?
Actually, we did hear about this, quite a bit in the news.
Unfortunately, gone are the days when you could watch a battle from a
hillside in relative safety. The civilians were killed and maimed, but there
is little to prevent that, considering NATO launched thousands of sortees
over 78 days. Be thankful NATO didn't simply turn Belgrade into a Dresden.
The fact is, in terms of destroying infrastructure rather than humans,
this was the least bloody war on record. $15 billion worth of bombs,
and maybe 18,000 killed. Compare that to Iraq which took 1/2 the time
and killed 10x the number of people.
But ultimately, the children were victims of their parent's racism and their
government's attempts to exterminate or drive out the Moslems.
It took the racist Europeans 10 YEARS to do something about the problem
in Yugoslavia, mostly because they don't really care if the Moslems in
Europe all get killed off.
If it hadn't been for the FACT the U.S. prodded them, and still pays for most
of the NATO contingient, the Europeans would have simply kept
watching.
Clive Gibbons
>We were talking about sensitivity to defocusing. Spot size at best focus
>depends only on the f ratio and is independent of aperture. Lower
>f-numbers have smaller spot sizes that enlarge very rapidly outside of
>the focal point because the light cone is broader. It makes sense that
>higher f-numbers are less sensitive to defocusing because spot sizes are
>bigger, and they increase more slowly away from the focus.
>
>The blurring we perceive as depth of field in a camera is just the
>combined effects of defocusing on objects in the image. The angle of the
>light cone in the camera is very different between f/1.4 and f/22.
>That's why I used it as an example.
>
>Clear skies,
>
>Jim McSheehy
When measuring photographic depth of field (eg. objects from 20 ft. to 25
ft. distance appear "in focus"), the determining factor is *clear
aperture*. It's not f/ratio, focal length, or anything else.
If you take a shot with a 100mm lens @ f/2, it will show the same depth of
field as a 400mm lens @ f/8, for any given focus position. Note that both
lenses have a 50mm clear aperture.
Note: this has very limited application to astrophotography, as
few objects are close enough to benefit from "depth of field". :)
Cheers,
--
Clive Gibbons
Technician, McMaster University,
School of Geography and Geology.
jjgoss
don't
war with each other, right? How many centuries will it take you learn that?
How many deaths have resulted from the hostilities between the residents
there, over the past 10 years? past 20? past 200?
J.Goss
Bratislav wrote in message <37706F75...@down.under>...
>jjgoss wrote:
>
>> Based on what we all can see in the news now, neither side of the ugly
>> ethnic conflict that has brewed in that area for centuries has anything
to
>> brag about.
>>
>> Don't try to sell us on the viciousness of the NATO effort after what we
>> now know to be true about the natives of the area.
>
>Ahhhh ... of course. THEY deserve it. All 2000 civilians killed (more than
500
>of them children at age under 15), and all 8000 maimed and crippled by
shrapnel
morn...@my-deja.com
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> >Now you know which kind of team did I meant. And I am sure you saw
enough
> evidences for this in the past.>>
>
> Andrey,
>
> I don't think you can say Rich A. is on anyones "team". He is an equal
> opportunity critic (to put it kindly).
>
> As far as testing equipment for Markus, I enjoy doing so. However it
does not
> mean I always agree with him here on SAA, or feel obligated to do so..
Hi Rich W.,
I don't see any kind problem for s.a.a. or anybody else
that you are friend of Markus and was expected him to
test his new equipment. This has only positive moments -
an amateurs will have more chances to buy better scopes.
I still convinced that there is (in a hidden form) another
Markus "team". If you can look in the past, you can see,
that Markus is the main AP busher and two little
AP bushers - JJ Goss and Rich Anderson are behind him.
Markus also can't miss even a little chance to claim
something about another mfgs.
Their motives to bush AP and AP funs are different -
Markus is an angry competitor (without any real chances),
Rich Anderson is probably associated with Meade (another
competitor with no chances against AP), JJ Goss motives are
not clear, may be he simply can't afford to buy an AP
refractor?
I also don't know the reasons why they many times insulted
Roland, Bratislav, Thomas Back and Valery personally. All
seems that Markus does not consider two these guys as his
friends, but we can't deny the existance of this virtual
"team".
>Markus expects me to be honest about my evaluations of his products,
and pull no
> punches.
>
> Anyways, I don't take anything written here at face value very often,
there
> seems to be to many hidden motives and agendas at work. You and Markus
can
> argue "till the cows come home" fighting to get in the last word.
Niether of
> you at this point are changing any minds out there, so please take it
private.
This is not my idear to argue with him in such manner, but his
jumps to his competitors and former friends is really poor taste
habit as one guy here had exactly noted. This Markus's problem,
not mine.
Most of members here read a posts daily. Please, try to spend
tens of hours, as I did, to read s.a.a. archive to extract
the whole real picture. You will be wonder haw this picture is
looks like about Markus and his "team" and whole s.a.a. especially
in contrast with pre-Markus s.a.a.
> And back to Astronomy, in particular the MNT verses MCT debate. Both
are fine
> designs that have their individual advantages. I think the jury is in
on the
> MNT, as it has been optimised by several companies now. However the
verdict is
> still out on the MCT, as highly optimised versions have been seen very
little
> here. This should change when models from AP and APM and others hit
the market.
> Let's revisit the subject then.
I disagree with you unless I miss the firms (except two Intes)
which did optimized the MN scopes. Even if so, the MCT does has
the *same* or even better chances to be optimized due to existed
experience in a MN optimizing and MCT's smaller mass and compact-
ness. Can you see the sense in this my claim? And see who is
pioneers in this field - newest MCT creation. The AP + ARIES.
Do you know even one poor AP product for the time it was develo-
ped? If the AP does keep their traditions, we can guess the
MCT win. Do you?
Thank you for your friendly post.
lude...@my-deja.com
Hi Andrew,
You are the most crazy guy with whom I ever had had an thread. Nobody
ask you to defent anybody.
I called yesterday Valery Deryuzhin and informed him about your
terrible discussions. He was so kind to take time at another computer
to look in the newsgroup and read your postings. He told me that you
are not his friend, even if he know you.
He told me that you should shut up your mouth now and that you have no
right to talk for Valery/ARIES or CAO and even not to defent for him.
He said, if something need to be say or to be defented about ARIES he
will do it self, he dont need another mouth talking for him. He
confirmed me that he will call you as soon as possible to inform you
never again to talk about him or ARIES.
If Astrophysics have an dissagreement with him, Roland itself is easily
able to answere me as he have done it in the past. I think he also not
need your voice talking for him.
Therefore please stop any talking about me. You want to be so clever
but you don't see, that you bring yourself in much poorer face as me.
So again, Valery Deryuzhin and I am asking you to shut your mouth
speaking about us. You can call Valery immediatly and he will tell you
the same.
Start producing something, than you can talk about your products.
Talk about something normal or go away.
APM Telescopes
Markus Ludes
AndersonRM
>Rich Anderson is probably associated with Meade (another
>competitor with no chances against AP)
What nonsense. Do you actually think;
1. That I have any connection to Meade
2. That they even care about AP as "competition?"
Many AP supporters have pointed out (rightly) that AP is not
in the same market as Meade is anyway.
If you think I'm connected to Meade, please show me a case
where anyone connected to a company has criticized that company
as I have done with various Meade products.
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> You are the most crazy guy with whom I ever had had an thread. Nobody
> ask you to defent anybody.
> I called yesterday Valery Deryuzhin and informed him about your
> terrible discussions. He was so kind to take time at another computer
> to look in the newsgroup and read your postings. He told me that you
> are not his friend, even if he know you.
Hi Markus,
I am not sure that you are less crazy than I am (if I am).
Yes, nobody ask me about defend. But my post mostly can't
be considered as defending. I only write what I know about
ARIES (for sure more than you) and correct your claims and
nothing more. I have made also the analysis of your post in
the past and saw some threads in pre-Markus s.a.a.
You can do this yourself and I am sure if you will be unbiased,
you will come to close conclutions as I made. Your picture is
not as good as you think now. It is much worser. Nobody here
did made so many jumps to another manufacturers and dealers and
their products. If you not agree with this, please, show me
his name. If you will do this, then I will give you my apologies
publically even if I don't need to do this. But I think nobody
can show me another guy with so agressive judge politic.
You write that nobody ask me to protect them. You are right.
But as nobody can say me what I must to do and what I can't
to do. If you have the rights to jump to whom you wnat, then
I have the rights to argue your rights to do so. Or not?
Never I say that Valery is my friend. I only close enough
familiar with him. Some incorrect facts you have posted were
argued by me, no more. I never insulted you or your friends,
just ask you to use a correct and solid facts and not a rumours.
If I use in my discussion with you the clear facts (about your
signs), they were taken from the s.a.a. archive. I did not add
even one *my own* trait to your picture.
It will be much more interesting to all here, who are interested
in Mak-cass vs Mak-newt comparition, to see your comments about
initial subject of this thread, but not your jump to Valery.
Will you be so kind to leave the war mode and make you own
comments about advantages and disadvantages of both kind of
scopes? Keep your own words about discontinue of your jumps
and make a constructive discussion, please.
*My apologies to Valery* that due to my courage he was indirectly
involved in this unwanted subjectless discussion. The only one
reason did inspired this - your jump to Valery may be because his
first class Mak-cass optics is about to begin to be available on
the market in AP developed scopes which will be for sure the main
competitors to your MN serie especially as a complete scopes, not
as an OTA only.
morn...@my-deja.com
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
> In article <7ksn42$vig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, morn...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >Rich Anderson is probably associated with Meade (another
> >competitor with no chances against AP)
>
> What nonsense. Do you actually think;
> 1. That I have any connection to Meade
> 2. That they even care about AP as "competition?"
> Many AP supporters have pointed out (rightly) that AP is not
> in the same market as Meade is anyway.
>
> If you think I'm connected to Meade, please show me a case
> where anyone connected to a company has criticized that company
> as I have done with various Meade products.
> -Rich
Hi Rich,
Please, don't take me wrong, but you were so clearly
described here (by yourself and some your opponents)as
a geat Meade fun and probably associated with a big
Meade dealer, that it will be unbelivable if we can call
you as unbiased Meade user and Meade critic.
I don't think that Meade care about the AP. I simply think
that Meade never care about anybody. Simple, lie, agressive
advertisement politic and cheap middle-end and low-end
priducts are their guns.
You are right that the Meade and AP are simply in different
markets. But you can't see this *real* difference in the
Meade's ads. They always lie claims - the most advanced
astronomical telescopes(something else) and the most suitable
for even the most experienced amateurs. Here the unfair
competition from Meade is really exist.
Take care,
Andrey.
> "Beware of academics and special interests that
> speak of "group rights" as opposed to "individual
> rights." This is Marxism thinly disguised as democratic
> thought."
>
Richard A. Schumacher
>You're as much of an idiot as always - if you folks don't want war, then
>don't
>war with each other, right? How many centuries will it take you learn that?
>How many deaths have resulted from the hostilities between the residents
>there, over the past 10 years? past 20? past 200?
Longer than that. The latest unpleasantness arises directly
from a Serbian grudge formed in 1389. Sheesh.
Ob sci.astro.amateur content: I vote Mak-Newt.
jjgoss
deserved it, my trite little friend.
Just for your information, it is said far and wide how biased this NG has
been
for YEARS towards AP....AP could do no wrong. Well, pal, when it comes to
optics this just ain't so...
J.Goss
morn...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ksn42$vig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I still convinced that there is (in a hidden form) another
>Markus "team". If you can look in the past, you can see,
>that Markus is the main AP busher and two little
>AP bushers - JJ Goss and Rich Anderson are behind him.
>Markus also can't miss even a little chance to claim
>something about another mfgs.
>Their motives to bush AP and AP funs are different -
>Markus is an angry competitor (without any real chances),
>Rich Anderson is probably associated with Meade (another
jjgoss
From a investor's point of view, AP is off the radar...however, Meade is
making
good profits and they will likely continue to do so..The problem with most
volume
optical manufacturers is that they can't make the big bucks as easily if the
quality
is to be high...
But how many thousands of satisfied Meade owners are out there, and how many
dissatisfied? I'll bet the dissatisfied number less than 10%, and I'll bet
there are
5 or 10% of AP owners who wish the scope was better. So, what does that
say...
I think it says that this NG is not a meaningful sample of anything...
J.Goss
AndersonRM wrote in message
<19990624105136...@ngol08.aol.com>...
>In article <7ksn42$vig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, morn...@my-deja.com writes:
>
>>Rich Anderson is probably associated with Meade (another
>>competitor with no chances against AP)
>
>What nonsense. Do you actually think;
>1. That I have any connection to Meade
>2. That they even care about AP as "competition?"
>Many AP supporters have pointed out (rightly) that AP is not
>in the same market as Meade is anyway.
>
>If you think I'm connected to Meade, please show me a case
>where anyone connected to a company has criticized that company
>as I have done with various Meade products.
>-Rich
>
>
lude...@my-deja.com
"jjgoss" <jjg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> From a investor's point of view, AP is off the radar...however, Meade
is
> making
> good profits and they will likely continue to do so..The problem with
most
> volume
> optical manufacturers is that they can't make the big bucks as easily
if the
> quality
> is to be high...
>
> But how many thousands of satisfied Meade owners are out there, and
how many
> dissatisfied? I'll bet the dissatisfied number less than 10%, and
I'll bet
> there are
> 5 or 10% of AP owners who wish the scope was better. So, what does
that
> say...
> I think it says that this NG is not a meaningful sample of anything...
>
> J.Goss
>
give it up, this guy will never agree with you or me and any time
reply. He talk in the way, as he make an meating with all guys on the
n.g and than have to be the speaker, since he always say " here over in
USA " and " we all", to mean it seems he is living in USA and not in
Russia, he speak as he is the representative for this newsgroup .He
will reply even in 100 years to all your posts and he will not reply if
he see, that the opposite is doing an correction to him with arguments
against he cannot say anything more, as I always saw in his threads
last week. In any case Valery asked him to stop talking about him , but
he always not stopping doing that.
The best way is giving no more reply, as I do as an recommentation from
Richard.
clear skies (BTW I have it this evening)
Markus
AndersonRM
>Please, don't take me wrong, but you were so clearly
>described here (by yourself and some your opponents)as
>a geat Meade fun and probably associated with a big
>Meade dealer, that it will be unbelivable if we can call
>you as unbiased Meade user and Meade critic.
Well, one trait you should be aware of. That's the one that
plagues most Americans and says that you MUST attack
the largest and the most sucessful companies as part of
your birthright. They preach capitalism but long for some
kind of socialist control of big companies. Therefore,
any defense of a large company is seen by them as
"suspicious."
jjgoss
mark about you.
J.Goss
morn...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7l1at6$kor$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7kv28f$n...@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>,
> "jjgoss" <jjg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Why were your list of people insulted??? If we did it, it is because
>they
>> deserved it, my trite little friend.
>>
>> Just for your information, it is said far and wide how biased this NG
>has
>> been
>> for YEARS towards AP....AP could do no wrong. Well, pal, when it
>comes to
>> optics this just ain't so...
>>
>> J.Goss
>
>
>Hi J.Goss,
>
>
>I am sure that the peoples insulting is the thing that
>should not be seen here. We all here not for peoples
>insulting, just for the opinions exchange, share of our
>experineces etc., my big, much triter friend. Is this is
>not clear for you? Belive me, the most bore and trite posts
>here are *your* ones. They *never* consist even a bit,
>smallest bit, of a useful information. Just tritest thoughts
>of a bored mind.
>
>
>If this n.g. was so many years biased towards the AP,
>I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be so. The
>AP were always a pioneer in a high-end affordable(!)
>equipment developing and manufacturing (see the S&T
>for a past 15 years). And this were not a biase, this
>were real estimation and thanks for a good if not exellent
>products and service.
>The AP seems to remain the same exellent manufacturer and
>smart developer and the object for another manufacturers
>clear simple envy. This simple poorly hidden envy is a main
>motive of someone here to bush the AP without any solid
>reasons. Simple envy and hate. This is the destiny of a
>weaks.
>
>
>Take care,
>
>
>Andrey.
jjgoss
has got - it is something that if you've got it, flaunt it, right???
After all, AP does, we know Tak is widely sold, the wide acceptance of the
Intes
and Intes Micro lines, etc, etc, etc.
If numbers are a problem for you, don't get into arguments about them.
J.Goss
ed_an...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7l1b6e$krj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7ktaom$5cd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> You are the most crazy guy with whom I ever had had an thread. Nobody
>> ask you to defent anybody.
>> I called yesterday Valery Deryuzhin and informed him about your
>> terrible discussions. He was so kind to take time at another computer
>> to look in the newsgroup and read your postings. He told me that you
>> are not his friend, even if he know you.
>> He told me that you should shut up your mouth now and that you have no
>> right to talk for Valery/ARIES or CAO and even not to defent for him.
>> He said, if something need to be say or to be defented about ARIES he
>> will do it self, he dont need another mouth talking for him. He
>> confirmed me that he will call you as soon as possible to inform you
>> never again to talk about him or ARIES.
>> If Astrophysics have an dissagreement with him, Roland itself is
>easily
>> able to answere me as he have done it in the past. I think he also not
>> need your voice talking for him.
>> Therefore please stop any talking about me. You want to be so clever
>> but you don't see, that you bring yourself in much poorer face as me.
>> So again, Valery Deryuzhin and I am asking you to shut your mouth
>> speaking about us. You can call Valery immediatly and he will tell you
>> the same.
>> Start producing something, than you can talk about your products.
>> Talk about something normal or go away.
>>
>> APM Telescopes
>> Markus Ludes
>
>It looks like Markus, you do not like if somebody shows your real face
>with no mask. Your reaction is : "stop any talking about me". " shut
>your mouth"... But Andrew did show just a little bid of you...
>
>Would you do the same - "shut your mouth" in regards of our TEC
>products, it is not of your business how many of f/20 we are selling and
>what we are doing.
>
>Yur
ed_an...@my-deja.com
7kmkt6$prl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
morn...@my-deja.com wrote:
.........
> You main agenda as an dealer *must* be the telescope selling
> but not the permanent argues, accusations, rumors spreading,
> peoples confusing and misinformation as like as the selfseeking.
>
> Just do the telescope selling and keep a fair (your lovely word)
> competition and such in-threads wars will ends.
>
> Andrey.
Hi Andrew,
how did you get such a realistic picture
of Mr. Ludes?
Markus, how do you like your real face
with no mask?
Yuri.
morn...@my-deja.com
ed_an...@my-deja.com
Yur
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi J. Goss,
> give it up, this guy will never agree with you or me and any time
> reply. He talk in the way, as he make an meating with all guys on the
> n.g and than have to be the speaker, since he always say " here over
in
> USA " and " we all", to mean it seems he is living in USA and not in
> Russia, he speak as he is the representative for this newsgroup.He
> will reply even in 100 years to all your posts and he will not reply
if
> he see, that the opposite is doing an correction to him with arguments
> against he cannot say anything more, as I always saw in his threads
> last week.
You are not correct. You gave no any solid arguments. You only
think that they were solid. Just rumours and *your own* thoughts.
You heve *never* even look to the posts of some important guys
here where you were described as you is. You have *never* made
a right conclution from the numerouse critic to your address
because you probably consider yourself as allknown person and
the person who has more rights to judge than anybody. The problem
th THIS plane, not in another.
>In any case Valery asked him to stop talking about him ,
but
> he always not stopping doing that.
You again wrong. Yesterday, Valery dial me and ask to
represent only myself and if I like to speak about his
company in any sense, I should point out that this is
only *my own thoughts*. His dial was slightly later than
you probably suppose and I gave him my full apologies.
>The best way is giving no more reply, as I do as an recommentation
from
> Richard.
So, Rich (suppose Wallen) asked you to not reply just after
his own friendly reply to my post? This can slightly clarify
the situation. May be he see that you simply can't make a con-
structive discussion just can to argue only. You don't have
your own brakes? You, not I , can argue with anybody about
anything up to the death (if somebody wanted to activate your
brakes). As I can suppose, the topic of this thread should be
really interested for you as for dealer and fan of any kind of
X vs Y comparitions. But you, that is very strange, missed the
point of discussion (may be specially? because you feel that MN
really has no chances in the near future and then forever against
compact and highly optimized Mak-cass?) and try to change the
subject of discussion offered.
Congratulate! You have a success. The public's attention were
draw to the pointless discussion with followed insults up to
political and national insults. This is *your nice* job.
Well done Markus! Thanks!
But be sure, I will do all my best to show *all* your
mistakes in *any* your explanations about optics etc.
I will let know all peoples here haw you are limited in
your knoweleges and the myth about this will be dissipated
for sure. Strict reading of your posts in the past show me
that you have similar if not less knowelege in optics as
many beginners here. They at least know the lens simplest
formula which you, probably, don't.
For your note: speaking "we all here" I did meant us -
members of this n.g. Why I write "all" ? Please, find
anybody here who don't know you. After RA your second rate
in the post quantity. If you don't belive, see yourself.
At least 25% of your posts is any kind jumps to another
manufacturers, dealers, funs.
Andrey.
AndersonRM
>The AP seems to remain the same exellent manufacturer and
>smart developer and the object for another manufacturers
>clear simple envy. This simple poorly hidden envy is a main
>motive of someone here to bush the AP without any solid
>reasons. Simple envy and hate. This is the destiny of a
>weaks.
You aren't quite clear on something. No one ever accused AP
of making "bad" products. They (me) objected to certain people
on the group and their propensity to attack anyone asking
anything about AP. The only things they wanted to hear were
praises for AP. A long while back, I was attacked for mentioning
some AP scopes "were more perfect" than others. However,
recent reports from non-biased people who own/have owned AP
refractors confirmed there are visual differences between some
AP refractors indicating some are better than others.
What a rabid AP supporter will "read" into that is that one is bad,
while the other is good, which clearly isn't the case.
Attempted stifling of questions we can all do without.
lude...@my-deja.com
> Markus, how do you like your real face
> with no mask?
>
> Yuri.
>
Yuri,
I cannot answere this question to you , but I can tell you , my wife
see me each day with my mask and without my mask and she still loves me.
Markus
lude...@my-deja.com
"jjgoss" <jjg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Simple stupidity and very, very trite, my friend. Markus is right on
the
> mark about you.
Thanks J.,
but I am shure he does not understand what you say and will reply
immediatly
Markus
>
> J.Goss
morn...@my-deja.com
ed_an...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <
> 7kmkt6$prl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> morn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> .........
> > You main agenda as an dealer *must* be the telescope selling
> > but not the permanent argues, accusations, rumors spreading,
> > peoples confusing and misinformation as like as the selfseeking.
> >
> > Just do the telescope selling and keep a fair (your lovely word)
> > competition and such in-threads wars will ends.
> >
> > Andrey.
>
> Hi Andrew,
> how did you get such a realistic picture
> of Mr. Ludes?
>
> with no mask?
>
> Yuri.
Hi Yuri,
Unbelivably easy - read all Markus post in the past
("poster history" option works fine) and the picture
becames clear. I would recommend to all, who still not
sure who really Markus Ludes is, to use this option and
get his unmasked portrait from his own words. Of course,
this need a lot of time, but the truth is worth of this.
Take care,
Andrey.
lude...@my-deja.com
>
> Would you do the same - "shut your mouth" in regards of our TEC
> products, it is not of your business how many of f/20 we are selling
and
> what we are doing.
>
> Yur
>
please don't to go the same way as Andrew, I know you to long time and
I don't want to make with you such an bad thread. Please I did say
nothing bad about your products or did I ?
best wishes
Markus
lude...@my-deja.com
> Hi Yuri,
>
> Unbelivably easy - read all Markus post in the past
> ("poster history" option works fine) and the picture
> becames clear. I would recommend to all, who still not
> sure who really Markus Ludes is, to use this option and
> get his unmasked portrait from his own words. Of course,
> this need a lot of time, but the truth is worth of this.
>
> Take care,
>
> Andrey.
Hi Andrey,
I think all interested guys knows my unmasked face , but
still my business is growing, why ? I am maybe overcritical, but I play
fair.
What did you ever made for the astronomical community, excapt bringing
up other companys in ýour worse threads. Have some Ideas and do some
work for the astroamateur, than I am shure, you have to say us
something more than critism my person.
Yuri,
I though you are somthing similar as an friend to me, but now I see you
are still an russian patriot.
have a nice weekend
AndersonRM
>Hi Yuri,
>
>Unbelivably easy - read all Markus post in the past
>("poster history" option works fine) and the picture
>becames clear.
The one thing I'm not clear on is who you are. Are you
an amateur, or do you have something to do with
Russian optical fabrication?
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7l1a6j$kjq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,> >
> > Markus, how do you like your real face
> > with no mask?
> >
> > Yuri.
> >
>
> I cannot answere this question to you , but I can tell you , my wife
> see me each day with my mask and without my mask and she still loves me.
>
> Markus
Ah ha! Now you finally confessed that you do have and use
the mask on your real face.
Andrey.
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7l1a6j$kjq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,> >
> > Markus, how do you like your real face
> > with no mask?
> >
> > Yuri.
> >
> Yuri,
>
> I cannot answere this question to you , but I can tell you , my wife
> see me each day with my mask and without my mask and she still loves me.
>
> Markus
Why you can't answer so simple question? May be you
aware Yuri? May be you feel a big shame? If so, than
your deals are not hopeless.
You were again wrong about JJG. I will never reply him
as many guys here. Probably his brain was collapsed and
disappeared in a black hole.
Hope you will finally remember what your agenta should be -
selling a scopes, but not all what you are doing here.
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Would you do the same - "shut your mouth" in regards of our TEC
> > products, it is not of your business how many of f/20 we are selling
> and
> > what we are doing.
> >
> > Yur
> >
> Yuri,
>
> please don't to go the same way as Andrew, I know you to long time and
> I don't want to make with you such an bad thread. Please I did say
> nothing bad about your products or did I ?
>
> best wishes
> Markus
>
Markus,
My name is Andrey, not Andrew. You, of course, is not Mirkus.
Sorry to reply you on this your post actually adressed to Yuri,
but you can't escape to touch me. I need to remind you that
I did not say you even one poor word or poor estimation of
any your products, I only try to correct your rumours and in
the answer I have your jumps and angry cry. In this you all,
Markus. You like to do what you want with whom you want
but as soon as someone try to put you on your place, you
immediately cry. I can understand your angry tone to me
( I am too unimportant person for you) but you for sure aware
of Yuri. And you probably feel that he is 100% right.
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> I think all interested guys knows my unmasked face , but
> still my business is growing, why ? I am maybe overcritical, but I play
> fair.
> What did you ever made for the astronomical community, excapt bringing
> up other companys in ýour worse threads. Have some Ideas and do some
> work for the astroamateur, than I am shure, you have to say us
> something more than critism my person.
Hi Markus,
You have promised here to not reply to my crazy (as you
said ) posts. OK, I am not against of communication with
you. I only can't accept your approach to use the deja n.g.
At first - this n.g. is not a commercial info channel; second -
you do have the *same* rights as anybody here, not one
more; third - you can't have such status here, when you can
criticize any product/dealer/manufacturer/person, spread
a wrong rumours without any negative reply to all these your
poor actions. You are not God here! You simply exteremely
scandalic dealer and scandalic person. If you feel you do
have a moral rights and enough solid facts (not your rumours
or cooked in your mind thoughts) to criticize something or
somebody, be ready, please, that another persons can has
a directly opposite opinions and the *same* rights to criticize
you.
Once you will understand this, understand your real place
in this world, you will probably become a nice guy whom you
now consider youself, but whom you for sure aren't.
Anybody here can say you that you seems much better when
you temporarily forgot your scandalic habits.
For example, look on the phrase you reply to Yuri (see below).
Belive me, in correct english, your this phrase is so insulted,
that I can't find the words.
You for sure need to change your mind and habits.
Andrey.
> Yuri,
> I though you are somthing similar as an friend to me, but now I see you
> are still an russian patriot.
lude...@my-deja.com
> > Markus
>
> Ah ha! Now you finally confessed that you do have and use
> the mask on your real face.
>
> Andrey.
Of course I do , you not ?
Markus
lude...@my-deja.com
morn...@my-deja.com wrote:> >
> > Markus
>
> Why you can't answer so simple question? May be you
> aware Yuri? May be you feel a big shame? If so, than
> your deals are not hopeless.
Do you know what means doing an " Joke" ?
> >
> Hope you will finally remember what your agenta should be -
> selling a scopes, but not all what you are doing here.
Astronomy is still my hbby too and therefore I have the same rights
than all and than you too, or not ?
Markus
>
> Andrey.
lude...@my-deja.com
> > something more than critism my person.
>
> Hi Markus,
I have to accept you here , so you have to accept me here too, same
right for all, yes ? Free country.
> spread
> a wrong rumours
let me know just one wrong information please . Before you post now
even 1 point, make 100% shure, that you know i am wrong. If I have an
complain, than i have an reason for it, which you couldn't proove,
since you not saw what i have had in my hands, yes ?
You are not God here!
I did never say this.
You simply exteremely
> scandalic dealer and scandalic person.
Why ? Because I give some prooved input which is unbelievable for some
guys ? Is it really scandalic to say thruth and prooved stuff ? Only
because many cannot confirm my experience, it must not be wrong . Be
shure I am ready for everybody to show the proovement of my infos, to
you too. If you cannot believe something, lets make an agreement. You
fly over to Germany. We doing the prooving of my words together. If my
info was wrong I pay your flight and any other cost, even if this cost
me US $ 10,000 or more. If I am right, you pay yourself and you make an
very big apology to me on this newsgroup, is that an fair deal? Can I
offer mare to you ? if yes, i will do.
If you feel you do
> have a moral rights and enough solid facts (not your rumours
> or cooked in your mind thoughts) to criticize something or
> somebody, be ready, please, that another persons can has
> a directly opposite opinions and the *same* rights to criticize
> you.
If he can deliver same prooved arguments, I must accept it of course.
>
> You for sure need to change your mind and habits.
Maybe , but how about yourself ? In Germany we say: Take your own nose
at first.
morn...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7l4rva$kkt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> morn...@my-deja.com wrote:> >
> > > Markus
> >
> > Why you can't answer so simple question? May be you
> > aware Yuri? May be you feel a big shame? If so, than
> > your deals are not hopeless.
>
> Do you know what means doing an " Joke" ?
Yes, I do.
> > Hope you will finally remember what your agenta should be -
> > selling a scopes, but not all what you are doing here.
>
> Astronomy is still my hbby too and therefore I have the same rights
> than all and than you too, or not ?
> Markus
Stop to boil, please. Due to your permanent boiling you
simply too impatient (of couse, 100 C is not as easy) to
understand what I did meant. I did meant in "what you are
doing here" only you some negative actions, no more. I will
be glad to see you here with constructive approach to *any*
discussion and with friendly relations to all your competitors
and persons who are not agree with your opinion and with no
any wrong rumours. This will be fine.
morn...@my-deja.com
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
> In article <7l2he9$v41$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, morn...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >Hi Yuri,
> >
> >Unbelivably easy - read all Markus post in the past
> >("poster history" option works fine) and the picture
> >becames clear.
>
> The one thing I'm not clear on is who you are. Are you
> an amateur, or do you have something to do with
> Russian optical fabrication?
I am astronomy amateur in hobby. Geophysicist in education.
The main subject of my job is the upper atmosphere study.
Because our institute do use a lot of special optical equip-
ment, which always we order from different manufacturers in
Russia and Ukraine, I am familiar with many persons in this
field (optical systems developing and manufacturing). But I
have nothing to do with their business. As an amateur I do use
the 8" reflector (Dall - Kirkham) for a planet observing
(not too successful due to poor seeing near Moskow where I do
living). For my computer simulation of simple optical designs
(not needed more complicated ones) I do use the "Demos"
optical design software (Russian State Optical Institute).
I think this is enough.
Who are you sir? You do have so much time to post countless
messages! I wonder haw you can write so much posts without
loss of the points of all discussion where you are.
Jan Owen
Just for a split second, there, I thought we were going to have a post from
you where you didn't go directly for someone's throat. But you took care of
that idea in your last sentence.
I disdain flame wars. It's basically meaningless most of the time. This
one goes way past any rational discussion of facts, and has escalated to
where you and Markus, but particularly you, have lowered yourselves to
engaging in mindless paranoid personal attacks. You seem to have a personal
vendetta against Markus. I don't really know what's behind it. And I don't
care.
You have spent a HUGE amount of time trying to discredit Markus. And you've
even declared victory, after a fashion, by telling all of us (the two or
three still listening in hopes something useful might still come of all
this) that all this garbage has made Markus look bad.
Over time, Markus has earned a certain degree of credibility and respect in
this group. Yes, he too, is guilty of carrying on this discussion long
after he should have put you in his "kill filter", but you've kinda' put him
in a position where he probably feels driven to defend himself against you.
It's personal now, isn't it? That puts this in a little different light...
You, on the other hand, have not really had an opportunity to build much
credibility before trashing it here.
My advice to you is to stop. Then re-engage Markus in a civil manner. Or
just switch it off and move into lurk mode, and watch how other members of
this group behave (not always civil, but much more so than what you've
subjected us all to). That goes for Markus, too.
I'm here to listen, learn, and help when I can. I'm not here to listen to
this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
morn...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7l64nh$v3p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
morn...@my-deja.com
"Jan Owen" <Jan....@gte.net> wrote:
> Andrey,
>
> Just for a split second, there, I thought we were going to have a post
from
> you where you didn't go directly for someone's throat. But you took
care of
> that idea in your last sentence.
>
> I disdain flame wars. It's basically meaningless most of the time.
This
> one goes way past any rational discussion of facts, and has escalated
to
> where you and Markus, but particularly you, have lowered yourselves to
> engaging in mindless paranoid personal attacks. You seem to have a
personal
> vendetta against Markus. I don't really know what's behind it. And I
don't
> care.
Jan,
Sorry, I disagree with you. I do not have anything personal,
especially *vendetta*, against Markus or anybody here. Of
course, if you don't care, this is your right. But someone
here can and wich to care. For some peoples here Markus'
poor habits are not acceptable, for someone else they are
quite appreciated, for someone they does mean nothing. If
you carefully track this thread, you will see where the root
of the conflict - Markus in a next time jumped to another
manufacturer trying to spread a wrong harmful rumour(s).
This manufacturer was ARIES. When Valery were here, he were
able to answer him privately or publically. I do have two
my friends working in ARIES main division. What were poor
in the fact that I try to clarify some sides of Markus'
rumours?
> You have spent a HUGE amount of time trying to discredit Markus. And
you've
> even declared victory, after a fashion, by telling all of us (the two
or
> three still listening in hopes something useful might still come of
all
> this) that all this garbage has made Markus look bad.
I did not have any idear to make vendetta to Markus. No
reason, I am not in this business (telescope selling and
manufacturing), but I can the *same* rights to say to Markus
(or anybody else if needed) something hard in reply to his
attacks, lies and rumours. You can not agree with me, but you
can see youself reading the archive of this n.g. that the root
of all Markus' problems in *his own* behavior, *his own*
poor habits. And, note, please, I were *not a first* person
who point out to these his signs. These persons, who were
the first ones pointed out to this, were *amaricans* - your
co-sitizens and co-brathers in the hobby. But in that right
time Markus were not stopped by many another guys, include you
too. This, as he for sure think, give him all rights to insult
anyone for his choise. Almost all rest are simply silently
look on this and he did cosidered this silense as a ticket
for his further campaign agaist another manufacturers, dealers
and pesons. To be better, Jan if you all will stop him, not
me. I have no any reason to jump to anybody here, not as Markus.
You like to be teacher for me. Wrong address. Try to teach him,
not me. See the pre-markus s.a.a. and all will be clear for
you.
>
> Over time, Markus has earned a certain degree of credibility and
respect in
> this group. Yes, he too, is guilty of carrying on this discussion
long
> after he should have put you in his "kill filter", but you've kinda'
put him
> in a position where he probably feels driven to defend himself against
you.
> It's personal now, isn't it? That puts this in a little different
light...
>
> You, on the other hand, have not really had an opportunity to build
much
> credibility before trashing it here.
I am not care in even in lowest order my credibility. Not
necessary for me. I don't have in mind to teach anybody here,
I am not, as I said above, in this business etc. I only like
to see this group not as group as "The Markus Ludes listen
group". As Markus said me, in his countly there is an expres-
sion: "take your nose first". This expression is directly
for him.
As for his credibility, I can say that many guys here do
have a much much deeper knoweleges in the optics and optics
testing and manufacturing ( Jim McSh., Roland C., Thomas B.,
Valery D., Bratislav C., Rich Bach., Yuri P.) and much
more credibility in this and another fields. As I did under-
stud, his credibility is based on his *long time experience*
of a telescope testing by his own eyes and mainly on the fact
that he can deliver a cheap russian made telescopes. But this
is Intes and rest mgfs deserve, not his. Remove this his pos-
sibility and you will see haw much does it cost - his credibi-
lity.
>
> My advice to you is to stop. Then re-engage Markus in a civil manner.
Or
> just switch it off and move into lurk mode
Let me give you advice. You should not be silent when
Markus freely jumps to whom he want without reasons.
Let you care about his reputation and credibility, he
need them much more than I do. It is very easy deal to
give an advices, much more difficult to stop someone
scandalic here. This cost me a lot of time to extract the
real root of the problem, this cost me some of my face
lowering (but I dn't care about this) and unpleasant
converastion with V. But you still is clear and silent.
And you need this group conflictless and only constructive
much more than I need. So, do something another (than advice
me) to make the s.a.a. interesting.
Take care,