Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)


atasselli@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37 -0800, "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
Ritchey Chretiens...

Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)

I agree it is all about marketing. All the same, many designs are
"modified" but retain the original core name. SCTs are a perfect
example- the differences there are as extreme as the RCX case (spherical
versus aspherical secondaries and primaries, all called SCTs).


A SCT does have a corrector plate and for as many ways you can cook it
it will still correct for spherical aberration for both or one mirror.
This is to say that the main feature of the design and indeed the
trademarl of the design itself is in having that specific feature.
Besides, there aren't many ways you can cook a SCT. In fact if
Celestron and Meade (copying the original Celestron design) had an
aspherical secondary in their SCTs all the way from the start then RCX
business wouldn't have any sense.


Does simulating an RC wavefront by changing the shape of the primary and
adding a corrector plate qualify a design as a "modified" or "enhanced"
RC? I don't know... I'd be inclined to say no, but there really are no
rules for this game. With no rules, lawsuits are really questionable.


There is no simulation possible, in fact the field curvature results
are radically different as it is the spherochromatism results. Probably
it can be shown theoretically that no simulation is indeed possible,
There is little defensible in the sleazy appropriation of the Ritchey
Cretien name by Meade for purely marketing purposes, and I, for one,
just hope they (Meade) get their just punishment for what the RCX
marketing is really, unfair trading.

Andrea T.

You anti-Meade people are pathetic. You are opening the floodgates for
a slew of potential lawsuits. What if I decide that only true apos can
use that term sue everyone marketing an refractor using "apo" in
their ads? Or, I sue a company for using a subdiameter corrector
because they used the term, Maksutov?
Stop trying to protect the unwashed, they don't f----- BUY these things.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do you reviewed the RCX 400 ?
    ... >> I think he meant that, strictly speaking, the Meade ... A true R-C has hyperbolic primary and secondary ... The Meade design has a spherical primary working ... > SCT or a MCT) ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
    ... Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic ... I agree it is all about marketing. ... trademarl of the design itself is in having that specific feature. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Celestron vs. Meade
    ... Meade should change the decal on the LX200R to read "LX200R*" ... I want this scope to last possibly a lifetime... ... SCT for imaging. ... SCT,and despite what some people seem to think, the same field curvature. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Opinions sought Meade RC/Russian Mak
    ... I have an MK-67 and the Russian optics are beautiful. ... concerning the Meade GPS forks. ... I call it an "optimized SCT," ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: RCX400 Anyone??
    ... >1- measuring the corrector diameter to secondary baffle diameter ratio ... >same as in Meade SCT scopes. ... Just the same as Meade has always sold ... on computer screen RCX performance is better because of better ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)