On Mar 1, 2:34*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 24, 5:29*am, wrote:





On Feb 24, 12:53*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Feb 22, 12:33*am, (Brian Tung) wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
It is because other manufacturers CAN do it that tells us that
astronomy manufacturers SHOULD do it.

In a completely different kind of manufacture? *Not compelling.

I've not made a telescope myself, but a couple of good friends have..
It is an enormously time-consuming process. *Automated processes can
only get you so far.

I'm willing to be convinced that somewhere there's gouging, but I won't
be convinced by arguments from electronics manufacture. *Chipsets are
basically die cut. *You can't do that with optical components because
the tolerance ratios are ridiculous. *A chip may have tolerances on the
nanometer level, but those tolerances are local only; that is to say,
one does not have to make sure that two components a centimeter apart
are calibrated to one another. *An optical surface has to be accurate
to a quarter-wave on a surface that is perhaps a million times wider
than that; the *whole* thing has to be like that.

You started this thread, but I think you only want comments that are
sympathetic to your point of view.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/
*Unofficial C5+ Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
*My PleiadAtlas Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/
*My Own Personal FAQ athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html

A good discussion has arguments and proofs for the many facets of the
subject.

My opinions are not the only ones that count.

I do understand your argument concerning electronics and I would agree
to a point...it is that "magic" that has allowed GOTO mounts to occur
and the revolution in imaging. The evolution of cheaper H-alpha
filters and other specialized filters for night time viewing is
another example.

I also agree with the relative precision concerning optics..but much
of that now is automated with the final figuring perhaps done by
hand...statistical sampling can and does go far with providing us with
good optics.

When one considers the significant price reduction that has occurred
once the Chinese began producing telescopes tells us that there was a
significant protected profit margin...and a significant portion still
remains.

If you really believe that, then start a company that builds
telescopes that sell for a price that you think is fair and that gives
you profits that you think are fair.

A recurring example in this hobby is where a manufacturer will
closeout a product by cutting it to less than half price...and the
vendors still make a profit selling it. A recent example is where
Meade has closed out its SolarMax offerings at 50%...and a number of
vendors have complained that Meade did not allow them to sell that
closeout product. Obviously there was profits made even at the
firesale prices.

They were probably selling off the remaining inventory, in order to
concentrate on more profitable products.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And showed us the real profit margin the product has...you know that
"razor thin" margin that vendors always claim they are just living
on...while driving their Lexus and BMW.

By way of example, if they were making just a $50 profit on a $1000
item, and sold 9,900 of them at full price, they would take in a
$495,000 profit. If they slashed the price in half on the last 100
units of a total production run of 10,000 they would only lose
$45,000. In some cases that might be a good business decision since
the quick sale of the last 100 units would bring in $50,000 cash that
could be used to launch a new product.