[Top] [All Lists]

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

Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence S&T January Editorial
From: ""
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:36:53 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
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

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.

[email protected] 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"!!
> 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.
> [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>
> > > 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.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), (continued)
    • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), [email protected]
    • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), JohnFG
    • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), Paul Winalski
      • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), [email protected]
      • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), [email protected]
        • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), [email protected]
          • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), [email protected] <=
            • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), William R. Mattil
              • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), [email protected]
            • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), [email protected]
            • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), bratislav3162
              • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), [email protected]
            • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), AM
    • Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial), Paul Winalski