| |
Main
Date: 18 Oct 2006 13:53:25
From: Guy Macon
Subject: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
I am considering purchasing a 16" Meade LightBridge in a
few months after they work out any bugs in the new model.
See <http://www.meade.com/lightbridge/index.html >
What's the general consensus on this model?
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 15:32:39
From: Jim Klein
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
As an optical engineer and optical designer for 30 years I would,
myself, insist on being at the optical tests or at least having a copy
of the optical test results.
You will be spending over 10K by the time your acquisition is over.
You deserve to know whether you are buying a 1/2 wave system or a 1/20
wave system. The difference is unbelievable when the atmosphere is
quiet.
I would also make very sure that the residual vibrations in the system
are acceptible to you. All systems have them but not all systems damp
out at the same rate.
Jim Klein
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
>
>
>I am considering purchasing a 16" Meade LightBridge in a
>few months after they work out any bugs in the new model.
>See <http://www.meade.com/lightbridge/index.html>
>
>What's the general consensus on this model?
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 23:46:24
From: Mark F.
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
THEY PUT BUG IN THE SCOPE?!!
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:paGdnRr4IpZLrKvYRVn_vA@giganews.com...
>
>
> I am considering purchasing a 16" Meade LightBridge in a
> few months after they work out any bugs in the new model.
> See <http://www.meade.com/lightbridge/index.html>
>
> What's the general consensus on this model?
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
>
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 18:19:33
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue
|
schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>> Dan, Griessel, Orval
>>
>>>>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>>>> I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
>> Some of the water does not make it through the steel.
>>
>> But ALL of the plane did? Come on, you know there was no plane.
>> There were not enough eye-witnesses to say they heard the roar of the
>> engines.
>>
>>>>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>>>> It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
>>> See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> Dan, you and the others:
>>
>> I am soo glad that your ignorance and blinkered minds
>> provide AMPLE proof to not believe anyone without having
>> researched oneselves.
>>
>> HIP HIP HURRAY to the internet!
>>
>> Your moronic statements are here to stay, forever, full-text
>> searchable.
>>
>> Of course, right now, you just don't care.
>>
>> 3000 Americans died.. Arabs did it, all dead, we got the oil.
>>
>> But this INSIDE JOB will come out one day.
>>
>> And then we all expect apologies FROM YOUS.
>
> They'll never understand, let alone apologize for their obscene
> incompetence. These people are already gone - they are walking
> meat-bones, brainwashed beyond repair. I've been posting detailed
> physics/mathematics of freefalling buildings referencing every claim to
> instantly verifable online video sources for quite some time now, and
> even now I still get shocking responses from so called "physicists" and
> "mathematicians" that _still_ don't seem to comprehend the child-like
> physics.
If you are using "child-like physics" you are doing it all wrong. The
buildings never were in "free fall" since each structural member
encountered by the falling floors would have provided resistance. If you
had dropped a marble from the roof of the second tower to collapse at
exactly the same instant as the first one started to collapse of would
hit the ground before the roof of the first tower did. Air provides less
resistance than steel, aluminum, dry wall, acoustic tile etc does.
My experience in "higher-education" led me to believe that the
> _vast_ majority in academia were parrots repeating the transcribed
> thoughts of others fundamentally incapable (by choice) of independent
> and objective thought and analysis.
In other words you do not understand scientific method or higher
level science and math.
The responses and feedback from
> this bunch (and in the real world) reveals to me that this indeed is
> the current state of affairs.
>
> That being said, the sheer magnitude of inaccuracies and blatant
> deception in history and the sciences is still a constant source of
> amazement - one of the rewards of independent and objective analysis is
> its realization.
>
You mean like the deception set forth by the OP that the subway
wasn't damaged?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 10:52:48
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:paGdnRr4IpZLrKvYRVn_vA@giganews.com...
>
>
> I am considering purchasing a 16" Meade LightBridge in a
> few months after they work out any bugs in the new model.
> See <http://www.meade.com/lightbridge/index.html>
>
> What's the general consensus on this model?
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
>
The 16" LightBridge will sell in the US for $2000 delivered.
None have been sold commercially yet, so no one has tested a production
model. But several distributors are accepting pre-orders.
These scopes will be made in China, so there won't be any approval go/no-go
visits by a prospective buyer... Just as there is no such provision for the
rest of the LightBridge line. For the $2000 price you pay, it's neither a
custom scope, nor a premium scope; you're getting a quasi-mass-produced
scope, but a very nice one... They will be drop-shipped from Meade as they
arrive. If you don't like the quality of the one you get, or it's damaged
or defective in some way, you can return it, and get another one, depending
on the terms of the return policy of the dealer you buy from...
There will be no interferometry reports, nor will interferometry likely be
used in evaluating the mirror during production... But this manufacturer is
known to make generally quite nice mirrors... I own a 12" LightBridge, I
like it, the optics AND mechanics are well made (it LOOKS nice, too), and I
plan on keeping it for a long time... They offer great value... I would
expect the 16" to be of equal quality.
For a review of the 12" LightBridge, check the ober issue of Sky and
Telescope. I'd call it an accurate assessment, based on 7 months'
experience with my scope, as well as the comments of many other owners on
the Meade LightBridge Yahoo Group...
Oh. And I am not associated in any way with Meade or any of their
distributors...
--
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
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 10:42:25
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
Hi:
Meade Dobsonian optics have been pretty good over the decade plus that
they've been produced. The 12.5-inch mirrors have been better, usually,
but the 16s have generally be quite accepatble. I'd expect the new 16s
to be at least as good as the old ones optically. Probably better, as
GSO optics have a good reputation.
This is not a premium telescope, you will not get laser interferometry
results with one (!), and your scope will be drop shipped from Meade.
Frankly, the optics have always been the _one thing_ in Meade's dobs
(old and new) that have not been problematical.
The new dobs do have a few mechanical problems, but fewer than the old
ones.
There's also a Yahoogroup for the scopes, which should provide plenty
of guidance/information.
Where do you get the 10K figure?
Jim Klein wrote:
> As an optical engineer and optical designer for 30 years I would,
> myself, insist on being at the optical tests or at least having a copy
> of the optical test results.
>
> You will be spending over 10K by the time your acquisition is over.
> You deserve to know whether you are buying a 1/2 wave system or a 1/20
> wave system. The difference is unbelievable when the atmosphere is
> quiet.
>
> I would also make very sure that the residual vibrations in the system
> are acceptible to you. All systems have them but not all systems damp
> out at the same rate.
>
> Jim Klein
>
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >I am considering purchasing a 16" Meade LightBridge in a
> >few months after they work out any bugs in the new model.
> >See <http://www.meade.com/lightbridge/index.html>
> >
> >What's the general consensus on this model?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 17:26:39
From: Protagonist
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Meade Dobsonian optics have been pretty good over the decade plus that
> they've been produced. The 12.5-inch mirrors have been better, usually,
> but the 16s have generally be quite accepatble. I'd expect the new 16s
> to be at least as good as the old ones optically. Probably better, as
> GSO optics have a good reputation.
>
> This is not a premium telescope, you will not get laser interferometry
> results with one (!), and your scope will be drop shipped from Meade.
>
> Frankly, the optics have always been the _one thing_ in Meade's dobs
> (old and new) that have not been problematical.
>
> The new dobs do have a few mechanical problems, but fewer than the old
> ones.
>
> There's also a Yahoogroup for the scopes, which should provide plenty
> of guidance/information.
>
> Where do you get the 10K figure?
>
Mirror most likely 1/4 or 1/8 wave, that's about the best $2000 can buy,
I think.
Now days for final polishing MRF machines are used, I don't think any
one sit there over Meade and hand figuring optics.
Our MRF machine can do 1/20 wave figuring, but it takes much longer.
We even polished 3/4" dia diamond wafer to 1/20 wave, it took over a
month on and off of polishing time.
JS
>
>
> Jim Klein wrote:
>> As an optical engineer and optical designer for 30 years I would,
>> myself, insist on being at the optical tests or at least having a copy
>> of the optical test results.
>>
>> You will be spending over 10K by the time your acquisition is over.
>> You deserve to know whether you are buying a 1/2 wave system or a 1/20
>> wave system. The difference is unbelievable when the atmosphere is
>> quiet.
>>
>> I would also make very sure that the residual vibrations in the system
>> are acceptible to you. All systems have them but not all systems damp
>> out at the same rate.
>>
>> Jim Klein
>>
>> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am considering purchasing a 16" Meade LightBridge in a
>>> few months after they work out any bugs in the new model.
>>> See <http://www.meade.com/lightbridge/index.html>
>>>
>>> What's the general consensus on this model?
>
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 06:38:06
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
Newbie wrote:
> OK, I get that a $2000 16" scope won't hqve as good a mirror as
> a $10,000 16" scope, but can a scope's mirror be improved? I keep
> reading about people making their own mirrors -- could someone
> take the mirror out of the $2000 scope and improve it? If not,
> how much does a good 16" blank suitable for putting into the $2000
> scope (after a lot of hand work) cost?
Beleive me, the GSO mirror will be a LOT better than what you'd be able
to produce without quite a few years of experience under your belt.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
and
_The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm >
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user >
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 06:34:11
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
Newbie wrote:
> OK,I gt that a $2000 16" scope won't hqve as good a mirror as
> a $2000 16" scope, but can a scope's mirror be improved? I keep
> reading about people making their own mirrors -- could someone
> take the mirror out of the $2000 scope and improve it? If not,
> how much does a good 16" blank suitable for putting into the $2000
> scope (after a lot of hand work) cost?
Hi:
Sure, you could have somebody refigure the mirror for $$$. I doubt that
this would be necessary, though.
Even if you've got the seeing to show the difference, its likely you
wouldn't notice the difference. Especially if you mostly observe deep
sky objects. The performance of the GSO and Synta mirrors is pretty
amazing. Their main defect is usually that they are "rougher," due to
the machine production methods. This means they might be poorer than an
expensive mirror for critical planetary work.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
and
_The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm >
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user >
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 11:58:44
From: Newbie
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
OK,I gt that a $2000 16" scope won't hqve as good a mirror as
a $2000 16" scope, but can a scope's mirror be improved? I keep
reading about people making their own mirrors -- could someone
take the mirror out of the $2000 scope and improve it? If not,
how much does a good 16" blank suitable for putting into the $2000
scope (after a lot of hand work) cost?
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 04:35:06
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
Mark F. wrote:
> THEY PUT BUG IN THE SCOPE?!!
>
Uh...yeah...that's...uh right.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
and
_The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm >
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user >
|
| | |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 13:09:24
From: Newbie
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
OK, I get that a $2000 16" scope won't hqve as good a mirror as
a $10,000 16" scope, but can a scope's mirror be improved? I keep
reading about people making their own mirrors -- could someone
take the mirror out of the $2000 scope and improve it? If not,
how much does a good 16" blank suitable for putting into the $2000
scope (after a lot of hand work) cost?
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 09:43:27
From: Dennis Woos
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
"Newbie" <invalid@example.org > wrote in message
news:XMSdnWQmWIyu5KrYRVn_vA@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> OK, I get that a $2000 16" scope won't hqve as good a mirror as
> a $10,000 16" scope, but can a scope's mirror be improved? I keep
> reading about people making their own mirrors -- could someone
> take the mirror out of the $2000 scope and improve it? If not,
> how much does a good 16" blank suitable for putting into the $2000
> scope (after a lot of hand work) cost?
>
Google '16" pyrex mirror' and you will find lots of info. You will see that
you can easily pay as much or more than the cost of the scope for just the
primary mirror. Of course, how much is the rest of the scope worth? I
doubt it costs Meade more than a couple of hundred bucks for all of the
mechanical components.
These scopes are very inexpensive, and no one argues that corners haven't
been cut (e.g. BK7 instead of Pyrex for the mirror). The question is
whether or not the resulting scope is one which an individual user will
like. So far, I haven't read a terribly negative review from anybody who
actually has one of the smaller ones. I don't think there are many, or any,
of the 16" versions out yet so any comments on this model are largely
speculative. It is always good to observe with a couple examples of any
scope before buying one, as each person values features and problems
differently.
Dennis
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 04:30:16
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
Hi:
They sure don't. The telescopes are not made at Meade, but in China by
GSO.
;-)
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
and
_The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm >
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user >
Protagonist wrote:
> Mirror most likely 1/4 or 1/8 wave, that's about the best $2000 can buy,
> I think.
> Now days for final polishing MRF machines are used, I don't think any
> one sit there over Meade and hand figuring optics.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 20:44:06
From: Protagonist
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
> Hi:
>
> They sure don't. The telescopes are not made at Meade, but in China by
> GSO.
>
> ;-)
They sure do, I think! Only way to do consistent quality production!
Have you ever seen an MRF polishing machine?
JS
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
> and
> _The Urban Astronomer's Guide_
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm>
> Like SCTs and MCTs?
> Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user>
>
>
> Protagonist wrote:
>> Mirror most likely 1/4 or 1/8 wave, that's about the best $2000 can buy,
>> I think.
>> Now days for final polishing MRF machines are used, I don't think any
>> one sit there over Meade and hand figuring optics.
>
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 06:00:15
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
Protagonist wrote:
> They sure do, I think! Only way to do consistent quality production!
> Have you ever seen an MRF polishing machine?
> JS
>
Hi Protag:
The telescopes are produced, including the mirrors, by GSO in China,
NOT at the Meade plant in Irvine, California. What about that do you
not understand?
;-)
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
|
| | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 21:55:15
From: Protagonist
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
> Protagonist wrote:
>
>> They sure do, I think! Only way to do consistent quality production!
>> Have you ever seen an MRF polishing machine?
>> JS
>>
>
>
> Hi Protag:
>
> The telescopes are produced, including the mirrors, by GSO in China,
> NOT at the Meade plant in Irvine, California. What about that do you
> not understand?
>
> ;-)
>
It is not where, but how! You think, in China they use stones and sticks
to polish mirrors?
I'm just telling you, now days computerized MRF polishing machine is
used for finish polishing.
http://www.opticsexcellence.org/SJ_TeamSite/RS_mrf.html
http://www.ptbmagazine.com/features/2004/feat1_0504.html
Advantage of MRF, it only have to correct the necessary surface area,
after reading interferometer image.
JS
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 12:11:22
From: Ernie Dunbar
Subject: Re: 16" Meade LightBridge
|
RMOLLISE wrote:
> This is not a premium telescope, you will not get laser interferometry
> results with one (!)
Gee, really? And here I was under the impression that I would get an
Obsession for 1/2 the price...
|
|
