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

This is fun and so easy. RCOS is run by incredible hypocrites, This
from their web site:



"Designed exclusively for RC Optical Systems, this Field Flattener
reduces field curvature and off axis astigmatism, while also reducing
off axis spot size. The FFC mounts on the back plate or inside the 2004
Model (or newer) PIR. There is no telecompression and will allow the
optics to operate at their native f/ratio.

Designed to work with the 12.5RC, 14.5RC, 16RC, and 20RC. Ideal for use
with 35mm format (CCD or Film).
RC Optical Systems, Inc. An Arizona Corporation
4025 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 105, Flagstaff, AZ 86004, 928-526-5380"




If the RCOS RC scope is the "ultimate optical design", why does it need
a "field flattener"?

And, obviously, they are introducing additional "glass lenses" in their
optical train"---just like the Meade RCX does.

Where are all the self-styled "optical experts" from this group?
Bratislov?? How do you resolve all these conflicting claims of RCOS
and Star Instruments. It will be fun to watch this lawsuit as it
proceeds.

And I note that RCOS still refuses to identify Dan Azari as one on
their employees on their website discussion of the lawsuit. Azari
"misled by Meade advertising into buying a Meade rather than a RCOS
thinking they were identical?? What incredible BS to allege in a
federal lawsuit when it is knowingly false.

Star and RCOS have handed their heads on a plate to Meade.



M104galaxy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
This whole fiasco gets better and better as you closely examine both
the Star and the RCOS web sites. Below is an announcement of a "new
astrograph" being sold by RCOS:

"For the past several years, Star Instruments has been developing a
low-cost alternative to our professional series of Ritchey-Chrétien
optics. Our goal was to design a system with as flat a field as
possible, no color and a system that could be produced less
expensively. With these goals in mind we designed a system using Pyrex
mirror blanks, a 50% central obstruction and a short back focus.

The Star Instruments Ritchey-Chrétien Astrograph is the ultimate
optical system producing impressive results. When compared to f8
coma-free Schmidt-Cassegrain systems, the RC Astrograph has no color,
approximately twice as flat a field, less astigmatism and a faster f
ratio - the qualities that advanced astrophotographers have been
seeking for deep sky astrophotography. Optics are high quality,
diffraction-limited for maximum performance."

OK--Star states on their web site that Pyrex is inferior for mirrors
and can't hold better than 1/4 wave and RCOS on the other hand states
on website that their Star manufactured Pyrex system is the "ultimate
optical system"!!

WHICH IS IT??? LETS SUE BOTH STAR AND RCOS FOR MISLEADING THE PUBLIC,
RIGHT???

BTW, the Hubble is not a pure RC. Remember the original focus problems
with its mirror? Now corrected with "eyeglass-type lenses"? Sounds like
the Meade RCX to me.


M104galaxy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Wonder what Carl Zambuto or Roland Christian would have to say about
this verbatim statement from the Star Instruments website:

" STAR INSTRUMENTS guarantees a minimum of 1/4 wave front, 1/20 wave
r.m.s. on all systems.
STAR INSTRUMENTS continues to be concerned with the false advertising
claims being made by amateur optical suppliers who claim 1/10 to 1/20
wave optics. These claims tend to confuse the amateur astronomer into
believing you must have 1/10 wave optics, when in reality there are
very few 1/4 wave 8" and larger optical systems. The fact is that Pyrex
is not a zero expansion glass and, therefore, cannot keep a figure
better than 1/4 wave front."


Sue Star Instruments for misleading advertising right?? Or maybe
AstroPhysics and Zambuto optics ought to be sued for their "false
advertising claims??

What f__king nonsense!




Paul Winalski wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:31:22 GMT, gobbletwo <gobble-two@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
well as the advertisement next to it.

Comments are solicited. ;-)

jon

I would hardly expect S&T to do anything other than support their
biggest advertiser. But I do think that the editorial raises some
good points, which I'll get to later.

My own opinion on the R-C lawsuit is that it's high time Meade and
others in the industry got called to task for what IMO are deceptive
marketing practices. One of the apologies for Meade in the editorial
is that this sort of thing has been going on for years in the eyepiece
realm, where we have "Super-Plossls" and the like with 5 or more
elements. Well, I've been miffed about that for years.

The 4-element Plossl eyepiece design has over decades built up a well-
deserved reputation as an excellent, inexpensive general-purpose
eyepiece. If someone comes along later and improves the design by
adding another element, I think that's great. But to call it
"Super-Plossl", so that you piggyback on the reputation that the real
Plossl design has earned, is at best ethically disingenuous and at
worst a deliberate attempt to trick consumers into buying something
other than what they thought they were buying.

Which brings me to one of the points of the editorial. It points out
that the Meade RCX optical design adds a corrector plate that makes
the light reflecting off a spherical primary mirror appear at the
secondary as if it had reflected off a hyperbolic mirror. This lets
you use a much cheaper to manufacture spherical primary, yet still
get the wide, flat field of the Ritchey-Chretien design. I agree with
the S&T editor that this is precisely the sort of clever innovation
that we should encourage.

But don't call the result a Ritchey-Chretien, because it isn't.
Again, as in the case with "Super-Plossl", this is poaching on the
hard-earned reputation of another design, is at best ethically
dodgy, and, as we see from the lawsuit, at worst an actionable tort.
Or perhaps even criminal consumer fraud.

I have heard nothing but good things about the performance of Meade's
RCX optics. The only issue that I and others have had is with the
attempt to market the RCX as something that it isn't.

The merits of the lawsuit are for the court to decide. But if it
puts a stop to "Super-Plossl" and all the other deceptive marketing
pitches, then it will have served a useful purpose.

-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
    ... " STAR INSTRUMENTS guarantees a minimum of 1/4 wave front, ... Sue Star Instruments for misleading advertising right?? ... The 4-element Plossl eyepiece design has over decades built up a well- ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
    ... the Star and the RCOS web sites. ... " STAR INSTRUMENTS guarantees a minimum of 1/4 wave front, ... The 4-element Plossl eyepiece design has over decades built up a well- ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
    ... sell and are still advertising a TAK "Baker RC" ... If the RCOS RC scope is the "ultimate optical design", ... and Star Instruments. ... "misled by Meade advertising into buying a Meade rather than a RCOS ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
    ... Does anybody in this thread honestly believe that a person or organization would seriously order an RCOS _because_ it's an RC and then jump ship to Meade _because_ their LX200R and RCX designs are marketed as "Advanced RCs"? ... put on the market under another name? ... If somebody with a true 4-element Ploessl sells their EP for 20,000 Imperial Credits and faces competition from a different supplier selling a 5-element Advanced Ploessl that performs a little less well but only costs 8,000 Imperial Credits, it is fair to assume that Company A's 4-element design might see a hit in sales. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)