Jon,

Whether I post or not, the scopes are in production. Let's put it in other
terms. The time to make these statements is before pulling the trigger
on the move to production. Bill is committed at this point. I fully agree
that it is a decision each person needs to make for themselves whether they
choose to get a first unit (which sometimes better than later scopes,
depending on the manufacturer), or wait to see what the quality level is
on a number of scopes from the production batch. If Bill is going to get
in trouble, that has already happened here. He has to pay for the scopes
up front. The time to work out any questions on production quality are
in the pre-production stages. He is well satisfied with their capability to
produce here, for a number more reasons than I feel free to discuss
publicly. Still, the risk is his, not the publics. They will only be sold
the
scopes if they pass muster. Despite this, he is still on the hook for the
costs of the first quantity production batch of scopes. This is a bit too
late a time to put this warning out there. He is fully commited here.

The 1026 issue is one very much on your mind, I understand that. Bill
failed to perform proper testing on those scopes. Chalk it up to
inexperience, over-exubberance, or whatever, but believe me, as one
who has spent quite a bit more time with him on this, he has learned well
from that situation. Every objective will be built, assembled, and tested
to stringent requirements for the quantity production run. If they don't
pass, they don't ship. The manufacturer has a stake in this as well. You
can eat a batch of low-cost achromat objectives, but not one of fluorite.
I they have to throw out a batch of fluorite objectives, this can get costly
in a hurry.

Since the scope I have uses the production design objective, produced by
production process, it is representive of what this scope should be in
production, if they meet the specified quality level. In that sense, it is
not a prototype. The manufacturer took this lens through the prototype
stage before Bill received his first samples. Every step they took to
produce this involved the use of the actual machines that will produce
the quantity run. Since they are high-end computerized machines, nothing
different will be done in final production, save putting a larger number of
blanks in the machine. The requirement to have these first samples be
produced via the final production process on the actual machines was
part of the requirement Bill established before allowing production to
occur. I really don't know what more you can ask him to do here.
My lens was produced in this way, and the results from it are what I
have posted, not a lens produced in a small shop by hand.

Again, because my lens was produced this way, I really see no reason
not to post my results. I agree, each buyer needs to evaluate what risk
they may be willing to take here, but before they do so, they might want
to know about this scope and its capabilities. As long as the QA is there,
it will not be inferior to what I have here. If it is, this will be known
even before anyone gets a final production scope. I really think you are
going too far in this request for silence here. Bill has already taken the
risk here, and that can't be taken back at this point.

Thanks, Tom Davis

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
I am extremely sorry I got involved with this. I did not agree to hold
back on this scope, but the semi-apo. How many times must I say
this. The objective in this scope IS NOT A PROTOTYPE. It is
production. The lens cell on the scope I have is the prototype, not
the objective. Bill had them test the first five scopes on an
interferometer.
All 5 passed the test with flying colors, and were essentially carbon
copies
of each other.

Tom:

I am sorry you are upset by my comments but in the interests of everyone
involved I feel that I have addressed important issues.

Whether the cell, the objective, tube itself is "production" or
"prototype", it
seems apparent to me that the scope you tested does not seem to be true
"production scope." I don't see how this can be anything but a
"Prototype"
with a Prototype cell and non-standard OTA.

Whether or not you or anyone promised anyone not to publish reports until
the
production items are available is not the important issue in my view.

The important issue is that BO has gotten itself into trouble doing this
in the
past and the lesson to be learned, which I thought had been learned, was
that
keeping one's mouth shut until the final product was available was the
wisest
course of action.

Jon Isaacs