Re: MEMO to Meade: How to write an honest news release

AFM_at_andersonsoftware.ca
Date: 02/02/05 

Date: 1 Feb 2005 21:46:33 -0800

So long as the surgeon fixes the problem then he can say he did as many
bypasses as he wants :)
"Nomenclature is trivial" you are right I should have been clearer
in this statement. I made this statement in direct reference to
telescope nomenclature and how it would become overly complex if every
single modification to a design received a new name, as it stands you
can determine something about a telescope's design and behavior from
its name.

I agree words have meaning and what Meade did was probably an act of
marketing. I also agree that the RCX is not a true Ritchey Chretien.
But if it is a Ritchey with a Schmidt corrector then it could be called
a Schmidt Ritchey Chretien the same way a Richey with a Baker corrector
is a Baker Richey Chretien. Can Takahashi call their BRC250 a Richey?

If, on the other hand, Meade did not use two hyperbolic mirrors then I
totally agree with you: calling the RCX a ritchey is fraudulent and the
name should be changed.

You, on the other hand, decided to attack my products in a way that has
nothing to do with the issue and I do not appreciate it. I especially
do not appreciate your spreading false information about my products
you were entirely out of line and now I need to correct the remarks you
made.

For "P" to be identical to "Q" they must share all properties.
If they do not share all properties then they are not the same thing.
So which is it, do words only mean one thing or don't they. You said
a mak cass can have a spherical mirror or it can have an aspherical
mirror. You gave two things the same name. If the conical constant of
the primary mirror is irrelevant then there is no reason why Takahashi
cannot call their mewlons Ritcheys. You just blurred the term mak cass.

"I suppose as long as people realize the limited size of the fully
illuminated FOV, it is fine."
The fully illuminated field is considerably larger in my telescope than
a newtonian of equal obstruction. I designed the field to be equal to a
typical Newtonian.

I wont dignify the rest of the paragraph with a response. Read the site
again.

"I did have some questions though. You wrote, "You can understand my
reluctance to simply quote a specific number. The optics in my
telescopes
are hand made by Barry Arnold to be atmosphere limited. This means the
optics will not be the weak link of your equipment.""
When you quote me quote all of what I say. I wont give a number because
there are an infinite number of ways to rate a telescope.

" "Atmosphere limited" I like that. But what exactly does
"atmosphere limited"
mean? If nomenclature is trivial, what is the surface accuracy in
nontrivial
terms? Saying, "the optics will not be the weak link" really doesn't
say
anything."
Interesting, I thought that did mean something. I already told you why
I refuse to give a number. "atmosphere limited" means the optical
system is limited only by the quality of atmospheric seeing. "the
optics will not be the weak link" means the quality of my optics will
not be the limiting factor in what you can see.

"What is "qualitatively perfect"?"
When the telescope is in focus you will not notice an improvement from
higher optical quality. For those who have not read my site yet I
should mention I said this about ALL hand made telescopes.
Qualitatively means "in someone's opinion." In this context it
means "in your opinion". In other words the statement I made on my
website could also be phrased as "when you look through any hand made
telescope you will not be able to discern the in focus image from that
of a perfect telescope."

"With that tiny illuminated FOV, it is not going to keep up with
other scopes
at "low power [wide field] deep sky viewing." That is fine if people
understand that."
I suppose you think that about all Newtonians and cassegrains. My
telescopes have the same field drop off. If you want a truly wide field
of view I can do that too. The problem is the obstruction will be equal
to a standard Newtonian. That is why my company is named custom optical
systems. I will make a telescope to order. Given equal obstruction my
telescopes will always have the advantage over other reflectors.

You didn't need to attack me to get your point across. Have you ever
used one of my telescopes?
Ian Anderson
www.customopticalsystems.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wiki for ATM
    ... usually do so with other parts of the system than the telescope. ... The few people I know who still build optics ... The class of people the wiki is targetting is a bit different. ... We have two books, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Big Dobson
    ... > John Hudec tells a story about the 36" optics he made for Obsession. ... Nor will the ladder fit in any ... > Telescope" by Berry and Kriege. ... This particular telescope rides in a small trailer; ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Wiki for ATM
    ... usually do so with other parts of the system than the telescope. ... information database underlying telescope making (presumably, ... The few people I know who still build optics ... other serious amateur astronomy forums should help get the word out. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Fixing an unfocused image theoretically straightforward?!
    ... Telescope wouldn't have needed a $700M repair mission. ... If the Hubble sensor was essentially noiseless, ... until the optics were fixed that it could be used for faint-object ...
    (rec.photo.digital)