Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?
From: clyde crewey (clydec_at_nyc.rr.com)
Date: 10/15/04
- Next message: CHASLX200: "Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?"
- Previous message: Jon Isaacs: "Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?"
- In reply to: Peter Abrahams: "Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?"
- Next in thread: Tom Davis: "Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?"
- Reply: Tom Davis: "Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 15 Oct 2004 05:50:42 -0700
Peter Abrahams <telscope.at.europa.dot.com> wrote in message news:<>
> >Then another poster wrote that Tom Back had said on
> >his Yahoo list that the Type 2 Naglers were actually copies of the
> >Meade eyepieces. This was the first time I heard about this and was
> >quite surprised to see such a statement from Tom Back.
>
> You didn't hear such a statement from TB, you read a post from someone
> who either read it or heard it from someone else, if the recollection is
> correct in the first place. A full quotation of the TB yahoo post in
> question would be appropriate here if this idea is to be discussed.
> --Peter Abrahams
Peter,
I understand your skepticism and I said as much to the poster on the
Astromart forum. At any rate, here's Tom's full post on the TMB
board. He was responding to Darren Henning who had asked about the
Meade's being copies of the TeleVue's:
"Thank you for understanding Darren. Most people give Meade too much
of a bad rep for their eyepiece line. They're not copies, or reverse
engineered TeleVue's. Now this will surprise everyone. If anyone
copied, it was TeleVue. The 7 element Nagler Type 1's had a lot of
spherical aberration of the exit pupil, or kidney bean effect, most
noticeable in the 13mm. Meade came out with the first 82 degree
eyepiece with 8 elements to correct for spherical aberration of the
exit pupil, not TeleVue. TeleVue then came out with the Type 2 line,
the worst Naglers ever made. And that is why Uncle Al couldn't do
anything to stop Meade.
In fact I find Meade's 14mm to be superior to the 13mm Nagler in
almost all parameters. However, the new TeleVue Type 5 and 6 are
above the old designs of Meade and Meade has never really been a
threat to TeleVue, or has tried to improve upon their original design.
Al Nagler is by far the most wealthy person making amateur optics
and probably has the greatest following too."
Now to me it's clear how the poster on Astromart got the impression
that Tom was saying the Type 2's are copies of the Meade's. If
others don't see it, so be it. But further, according to TeleVue
and David in particular, there is simply wrong info in Tom's post.
The UWA was a copy of the original Nagler. They merely added a
singlet to the doublet of the upper element in the 7 element design to
get the 8 elements. Look at the configurations of the eyepieces. It
was not an attempt to deal with kidney beaning, but a way to
circumvent copyright infringement. The way Meade dealt with kidney
beaning was to fudge the apparent FOV while claiming a larger FOV.
Now look at the lens configuration of the Type 2. It's totally
different. This WAS a real 8 element design to specifically address
kidney beaning and this design was completed in 1985 well before Meade
came out with their "8 element" UWA. If you believe Al Nagler, that
is and obviously I do.
Clyde
- Next message: CHASLX200: "Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?"
- Previous message: Jon Isaacs: "Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?"
- In reply to: Peter Abrahams: "Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?"
- Next in thread: Tom Davis: "Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?"
- Reply: Tom Davis: "Re: I'm disappointed, why would Tom Back say this?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|