|
Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » Astro-Physics on the Travel Channel
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
| Author |
Message |
| Davoud |
 Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Davoud:
Quote:
?? Does Questar say in their advertising that Questar telescopes
violate the laws of physics?
Alan French wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps not, but this is from the Questar literature...
"Our 3.5-inch Mak approaches the performance of a fine 6-inch Apochromat."
It's just not a very close approach.
I'm sorry that you all could not have been at the Howard Astronomical
League's public Mars Madness event at the last opposition. My Q was set
up near the Company 7 AP 160. The traffic flow was such that people --
experienced observers and first-timers alike -- would look at Mars
through the 160, then stop at my little Q, probably out of curiosity;
they certainly didn't expect to see much through such a tiny 'scope.
They would look, then do a double take. They would look back at the AP
160, then take /another/ look through the Questar. The question didn't
vary much: why does he need such a large telescope?
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael McCulloch |
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 15 Mar 2007 07:29:49 -0700, "M104galaxy@gmail.com"
<M104galaxy@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Oh, you mean like Meade claiming its RCX-400 is a "Hubble for your
backyard", right?? Only an idiot like Dan Azari of RCOS would take
that claim literally, right??
Poor Meade. It's tough getting a taste of your own medicine.
---
Michael McCulloch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rich |
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 15, 5:07 am, Pierre Vandevennne <pierre@datarescue_ns.com>
wrote:
Quote: Davoud <s...@sky.net> wrote innews:140320072157376113%star@sky.net:
?? Does Questar say in their advertising that Questar telescopes
violate the laws of physics?
Their advertisements suggested the Questar would beat a larger instrument.
It is simply not the case, unless the larger instrument was very poor.
True. At the time, every telescope maker was panicking because of the
success of the SCT
which were cheaper than the Q's and far more portable than the
Newtonians from Cave and Telescopics and
more portable and cheaper than Unitron refractors. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| William R. Mattil |
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Davoud wrote:
My Q was set
Quote: up near the Company 7 AP 160. The traffic flow was such that people --
experienced observers and first-timers alike -- would look at Mars
through the 160, then stop at my little Q, probably out of curiosity;
they certainly didn't expect to see much through such a tiny 'scope.
They would look, then do a double take. They would look back at the AP
160, then take /another/ look through the Questar. The question didn't
vary much: why does he need such a large telescope?
David,
Plenty of reasons .....just try putting a Pentax67 Medium Format camera
or an SBIG STL11000M on the Q...... No comparison. Or a wide angle EP in
it to peruse large nebular regions. Not the forte of the Q. But the Q
has a lot of focal length in a small package and for objects it's an
excellent choice as long as it's at equilibrium.
But personally I've enjoyed the views through a Q many times. But I
don't consider them better or worse than an APO or "insert your favorite
OTA here". Just different.
Bill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jan Owen |
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:M3jKh.8884$FG1.881@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Quote: Davoud wrote:
My Q was set
up near the Company 7 AP 160. The traffic flow was such that people --
experienced observers and first-timers alike -- would look at Mars
through the 160, then stop at my little Q, probably out of curiosity;
they certainly didn't expect to see much through such a tiny 'scope.
They would look, then do a double take. They would look back at the AP
160, then take /another/ look through the Questar. The question didn't
vary much: why does he need such a large telescope?
David,
Plenty of reasons .....just try putting a Pentax67 Medium Format camera or
an SBIG STL11000M on the Q...... No comparison. Or a wide angle EP in it
to peruse large nebular regions. Not the forte of the Q. But the Q has a
lot of focal length in a small package and for objects it's an excellent
choice as long as it's at equilibrium.
But personally I've enjoyed the views through a Q many times. But I don't
consider them better or worse than an APO or "insert your favorite OTA
here". Just different.
Bill
Was that a but, but, but???
Kinda' sounded like it...
But, I'll let Howard be the final judge of THAT...
{;^)
--
Jan Owen
To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Howard Lester |
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jan Owen" wrote
Quote: But personally I've enjoyed the views through a Q many times. But I don't
consider them better or worse than an APO or "insert your favorite OTA
here". Just different.
Bill
Was that a but, but, but???
Kinda' sounded like it...
But, I'll let Howard be the final judge of THAT...
{;^)
I've butted out of this conversation... having taken a Quantum leap off the
stage. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Davoud |
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Howard Lester
Quote: I've butted out of this conversation... having taken a Quantum leap off the
stage.
A stage only 1.62 x 10e-35 m high!? Wow!
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Normandin |
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"W. H. Greer" <> wrote
Quote: .... Small touches of humor were present from both, Astro-Physics and
Made in America.
It may have had more humor if the show was about John Stiles and his
company Optical Guidance Systems. I wonder how they would explain about
40-inch RC's being made in the basement of the Stiles Funeral Home! Of
course maybe that's why Meade "improved" RCXs are better than OGS "original"
RCs.......... they don't have the "dead effect".
....but.... I missed this show and I hope that my friends have it taped.
George Normandin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
