so called new approach to design doublet APOs. ;>)

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

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.
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.

Tom:

I had hoped that Bill had finally decided that it was wiser for the product
ready for the market before singing its praises. In the past the practice of
hyping the product prior to its being in his hands has caused a fair amount of
difficulty for various folks, Burgess Optical included.

From my point of view, the scope that you tested is not a production scope,
rather it is a limited production Prototype. A scope is more than the
objective, it is the objective, the OTA and the cell that holds the objective.
The cell seems to be quite critical in this design.

I think anyone who has followed the progess of various BO products would not be
the least bit surprised to find when the first shipment of true Production
93mm Fluorite scopes arrive in this country that they have some problems that
need to be corrected...

The fact that Bill is committed to producing these scopes is quite irrelevent
IMHO. I believe he is committed to producing an acceptable 102mmF6 Achromat or
semi-APO. I just wish he had had that one in his hands and ready to ship
before getting me involved.

It seemed to me that there is a clear lesson that could be learned from that
debacle....

I do appreciate the help that you have given me over the last many months
regarding my 102F6. But my concern that others might get tangled up in a
similar mess overshadows my interest in ever receiving a working 102F6....

Best wishes to all, clear and dark skies.

jon isaacs

There are always two sides to a story, though. All the 1026s were sold
at a discount as-is. Those with scopes they could not work to their
satisfaction were still offered refunds, but they could not be fixed due to
not having proper objectives to replace them with. I've had a problem with
every short-focus Synta achromat I've owned, except for a good 8 year
old orion short-tube 80 I have. Bill simply sold that quality level with
these
scopes, when he expected to sell better. At $150 for the package, it was
not at all out of line with the market price for other branded versions
that
were no better. Some people are happy with theirs, others not. Bill was
not happy with them, so sold them at a discount. This is an old story,
but it has left some deep wounds with some expecting a better product.
To make a long story short, he has been on a long search since for higher
quality products overseas. This scope appears to be on hit on the search.


I am one of those with deep wounds... What really finally sunk the knife in
was not the fact that I had received a substandard scope after waiting nearly a
year, not the fact that no one had taken the time to even look through this
astigmatic disaster even though BO was supposed to be providing great customer
support, not the fact that the replacement objectives were supposed to arrive
last April...

Rather, after waiting 9 months for a scope that was supposed to be delivered in
1 month I finally realized that someone had not told the truth from the outset.
There was "no way in hell" those scopes were ever going to be shipped and
delivered in a month, I had been taken for a SUCKER. The stories of the
scopes stuck in customs, while we anxiously waited....

Regarding some folks being happy with their 102F6 while others are not..

On the Astromart BO forum I have asked that people report the capabilities of
the 102F6 as a doubles scope, specifically the double-double. So far no one
has reported that they could split the double-double, I have had private
reports of difficulty with Castor. The one fellow who really thought his 102F6
was good reported splitting Albireo !!! That same poster had commented that
the 102F6 was far better than the Synta scopes but geeze, my Apogee Inc ST-80
clone splits the double-double.

Yes, this is ancient history to those who don't have a 102F6 sitting in a case
somewhere..

But it seems to me that somewhere there is a message in there. They say if you
don't learn from history, it repeats itself....

Jon Isaacs

PS:

I am visiting my son and his wife and 2 year old in Wisconsin. I had given
them my $99 Apogee Inc ST-80 Clone. Last night it was clear and out it came.
Surprisingly nice scope. With Plossls it provided nice sharp views of the
Pleiades, my son and daughter-in-law were able to split Castor and Gamma
Andromedae, the moon and Saturn were quite impressive.. I gave the
double-double a try, pretty low in the west but I did get it to split.

Five scopes passed an interferometer test. What
more do you want?

Can you say who conducted the interferometer test? Was it the Chinese
manufacturer or was it done independently?

How long can you tread water?

(Jon Isaacs) wrote:

I am one of those with deep wounds... What really finally sunk the knife in
was not the fact that I had received a substandard scope after waiting nearly a
year, not the fact that no one had taken the time to even look through this
astigmatic disaster even though BO was supposed to be providing great customer
support, not the fact that the replacement objectives were supposed to arrive
last April...

Early adopters want to be the first kid on the block with an ace new
product - they risk the kind of experience you describe and should not
put all the blame on the manufacturer - we're all free to wait until a
product settles into the market before we take the plunge.

When a manufacturer brings a new product to market he can lose money
either because it doesn't actually do what it says on the tin or
because he can't make it at a price enough people are prepared to pay
or because he can't get market penetration fast enough to generate the
cash to maintain production.

A company like BO is never going to be able to wait until the
production line has churned out thousands and become confident in the
production line before alerting the market. Tut-tutting that BO and
others shouldn't alert the market is just plain silly. It's a bugger
when it doesn't work out - but stop this incessant whining.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Bill,

Jon was offered a refund on more than one occasion. He chose to wait
for the new semi-apo which is a TMB design, and will be out soon.

Tom:

As long as you want to discuss the 102F6 and other issues I am available. It's
a knee jerk thing with me.

As long as you concentrate on the $150 and not the nearly 2 years wait for a
promised one month delivery I will be disappointed and feel I have not
communicated. I don't see how the production of the scope could have been even
started when that promise was being made.

It is true I was offered a refund. However at that point (a year into this
experience), I had just gotten the scope was still hopeful that there was
something wrong with the assembly rather than the objective itself.

(I might note that I got more help about what might be wrong with this scope
from Roland than from BO.)

As far as the wait for the semi-APO lens, in January of 2004, that lens was
supposed to be delivered in April of 2004, a three month wait and $100 didn't
seem too bad,...


I
wish Jon had gotten one of the better ones, but his was clearly the worst
of the batch Bill sold. It was not representative of the typical 1026.

Again: I have challenged the members of the Burgess Optical Astromart forum to
come forward with the performance of a "good" 102F6. So far I have not seen
anyone who has gotten the sort of performance I believe possible with the
average Orion 100mm F6 scope (splitting the double-double) and in fact Tom
Davis himself has stated on that forum that he believes the average 102F6 is
out performed by his ST-80.

Since the 102F6 was shipped with an approximately 80mm aperture stop, this does
not say much for the 102F6.

I might note the reason for my challenge was to establish that indeed there
were "good" 102F6s out there. At this point it is not clear whether I am the
only one who had enough experience to tell that my optics were poor or that
mine was one of the worst...


Jon

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message

At this point it is not clear whether I am the
only one who had enough experience to tell that my optics were poor or
that
mine was one of the worst...

Hi Jon,

Do we get to vote on the probabilities? After seeing all the reports like
"My 6" f/6 achro doesn't have any false color so I must have got one of the
really good ones," I'm voting on you.

;-)

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

************************************

Jon

Jon is one of the most respected contributors to s.a.a., known for his
sensible and moderate posts on a variety of astronomical subjects over
many years. We are interested in hearing from him. Perhaps you could
express your views without tryng to quell others? You do make some good
points about innovation and we are glad to hear those.
Bill Meyers

Martin Frey wrote:
(Jon Isaacs) wrote:


I am one of those with deep wounds... What really finally sunk the knife in
was not the fact that I had received a substandard scope after waiting nearly a
year, not the fact that no one had taken the time to even look through this
astigmatic disaster even though BO was supposed to be providing great customer
support, not the fact that the replacement objectives were supposed to arrive
last April...


Early adopters want to be the first kid on the block with an ace new
product - they risk the kind of experience you describe and should not
put all the blame on the manufacturer - we're all free to wait until a
product settles into the market before we take the plunge.

When a manufacturer brings a new product to market he can lose money
either because it doesn't actually do what it says on the tin or
because he can't make it at a price enough people are prepared to pay
or because he can't get market penetration fast enough to generate the
cash to maintain production.

A company like BO is never going to be able to wait until the
production line has churned out thousands and become confident in the
production line before alerting the market. Tut-tutting that BO and
others shouldn't alert the market is just plain silly. It's a bugger
when it doesn't work out - but stop this incessant whining.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Bill Meyers wrote:

Jon is one of the most respected contributors to s.a.a., known for his
sensible and moderate posts on a variety of astronomical subjects over
many years. We are interested in hearing from him. Perhaps you could
express your views without tryng to quell others? You do make some good
points about innovation and we are glad to hear those.
Bill Meyers

But when the same post goes round and round and round - time to call a
halt. If Jon has issues with BO, or any other manufacturer, and keeps
repeating it, it begins to sound like either a witch hunt or wounded
whining, whatever the past record. Whatever the rights and wrongs BO
is the party that dropped a bundle on the earlier scope. If they don't
get the next one right they will be, I suspect, in deep trouble and
most likely vanish from the market place. That seems to me lend some
credibility to Tom's assurances for which BO (and Tom) should be given
a bit of leeway. All Jon has to do is stay away from the new scope a
relatively easy task. All BO have to do is deliver a decent scope -
even more than decent - nowhere near such an easy task and one that
can be made impossible with enough negativity trumpeted from enough
rooftops.

If a more than decent scope at a more than decent price fails because
of negative criticism of an unseen product rather than because of real
performance issues, we all lose, not just BO.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------