|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
MrGrytt wrote in message . .. "matt" wrote in message ... Since such coincidences are extremely unlikely, why on earth would the ONLY 3 bad eyepieces out of 600 manage to be next to each other so that they'd be all picked up and sent to S&T untested ? If the first attempt yields 3 bad out of 3 in a batch of 600 , how many bad ones are found after testing 200 more ? Statistics say it's virtually impossible for the only 3 bad eyepieces to lign up ready to be picked from the first attempt. best regards, matt tudor The fact that is most amazing is that even these three so called "faulty" eyepieces were NOT out-performed by the ones they were tested against. In addition, it was in a test environment that didn't allow the Super Monos to show what they can do. Even then they were at least as good as the others, and usually better. When you have conditions that are good enough that other top eyepieces have shown you all they can you will then be able to see the improvement that can be gained with the Super Monos. It is very real, when conditions allow, and that is the extra viewing advantage they were designed to give you. The eyepieces are mainly for those who want to be assured they have the very best image that optics will allow at those rare times when conditions permit such great views. Harvey I am not qualified to discuss the design or theoretical quality of these eyepieces. I don't own any so I can't comment on their real merits . I *can* comment on the merits of a claim made by a vendor when the odds are 1 in millions and things sound like an excuse. See, I'm trying to separate the vendor's attitude from the eyepiece design . No comment on the design, an F for the attitude . Shipping out of spec parts without testing, most likely not only to S&T , then trying to obfuscate , and generally having a defiant attitude doesn't exactly compel more people to buy from him . |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
Matt wrote:
I am not qualified to discuss the design or theoretical quality of these eyepieces. I don't own any so I can't comment on their real merits . I *can* comment on the merits of a claim made by a vendor when the odds are 1 in millions and things sound like an excuse. See, I'm trying to separate the vendor's attitude from the eyepiece design . No comment on the design, an F for the attitude . Shipping out of spec parts without testing, most likely not only to S&T , then trying to obfuscate , and generally having a defiant attitude doesn't exactly compel more people to buy from him . I think you are being a tad harsh, given that the "excuse" was posted by TMB only to a (Yahoo?) mailing list, and that TMB is not exactly well known for shoddy quality assurance. But that's just my opinion. I think it is quite likely that TMB foolishly decided to ship the eyepieces without at least looking at them first, thinking (rightly) that it was the more conscientious thing to do, and also thinking (wrongly, I believe) that quality assurance on the production was better than it was. The consequent excuse is designed, I also think, not to save face for TMB himself. But this is all just speculation on my part. I haven't joined the Yahoo group yet. Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
Matt wrote:
I am not qualified to discuss the design or theoretical quality of these eyepieces. I don't own any so I can't comment on their real merits . I *can* comment on the merits of a claim made by a vendor when the odds are 1 in millions and things sound like an excuse. See, I'm trying to separate the vendor's attitude from the eyepiece design . No comment on the design, an F for the attitude . Shipping out of spec parts without testing, most likely not only to S&T , then trying to obfuscate , and generally having a defiant attitude doesn't exactly compel more people to buy from him . I think you are being a tad harsh, given that the "excuse" was posted by TMB only to a (Yahoo?) mailing list, and that TMB is not exactly well known for shoddy quality assurance. But that's just my opinion. I think it is quite likely that TMB foolishly decided to ship the eyepieces without at least looking at them first, thinking (rightly) that it was the more conscientious thing to do, and also thinking (wrongly, I believe) that quality assurance on the production was better than it was. The consequent excuse is designed, I also think, not to save face for TMB himself. But this is all just speculation on my part. I haven't joined the Yahoo group yet. Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
Shipping out of spec parts without testing, most
likely not only to S&T , then trying to obfuscate , and generally having a defiant attitude doesn't exactly compel more people to buy from him . Since Thomas Back was a frequent poster here on S.A.A., I think most of here are familar with TMB and Thomas Back himself and have no reservations about whether or not he puts out a good product and about whether or not he stands behind his product. It will be interesting to see what S&T thinks of the replacement eyepieces that I assume they are going to test. jon |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
Shipping out of spec parts without testing, most
likely not only to S&T , then trying to obfuscate , and generally having a defiant attitude doesn't exactly compel more people to buy from him . Since Thomas Back was a frequent poster here on S.A.A., I think most of here are familar with TMB and Thomas Back himself and have no reservations about whether or not he puts out a good product and about whether or not he stands behind his product. It will be interesting to see what S&T thinks of the replacement eyepieces that I assume they are going to test. jon |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
And if flawed as a factm what socalled "expert" reviewer does not
test for obvious flaws (manufacturing), add 1+1 and get 2, and call the provider up saying: "I think something is wrong here" .... AND NOT RWRITE HIS IDIOTIC REVIEW! This reveals perhaps more about the reviewer than the eyepieces! Have you considered that obvious fact? Who goes ahead and drives and reviews a car with flat tires, if the issues were trully that bad!? Something is wrong with the scale of this whole evaluation, the methodology, the weighting of comparative assessments .... for such lousy flawed eyepieces that S&T then "highly recommended". If perfection is the goal, then all aspects of the methodology must be perfect, otherwise its gobblewobble. Edith- matt wrote: Since such coincidences are extremely unlikely, why on earth would the ONLY 3 bad eyepieces out of 600 manage to be next to each other so that they'd be all picked up and sent to S&T untested ? If the first attempt yields 3 bad out of 3 in a batch of 600 , how many bad ones are found after testing 200 more ? Statistics say it's virtually impossible for the only 3 bad eyepieces to lign up ready to be picked from the first attempt. But if that's indeed the case, maybe the owner of that lucky hand (who performed the selection) should consider playing the lottery . Alternatively, whoever decided to not test products received straight from manufacturing and ship them straight to customers should consider adding a normal testing step for each eyepiece before shipping . Unfortunately, there are lots of buyers who just purchase expensive stuff for bragging rights , and perceive it as automatically being good . These people would not even question the quality of products coming from such famous vendors . That might be an explanation to why nobody complained yet . The same way there are millions of scopes sitting in garages , there are millions of eyepieces sitting in cases unused for decades. Hopefully, this TMB will become a collector item, anybody wants to sell me his from the now world famous astigmatic lot ? best regards, matt tudor Phil Wheeler wrote in message ... But why on earth would TMB not test each one before it left their shop? Truly a mystery. Phil Leonard wrote: "Markus Ludes" wrote in message news:395377e1fed02501e56034fdbc66313d.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org... Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600 pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic, Mystic, Mystic This may answer your own question . Of the four TMB Super Mono eyepieces (as you know, I did not test these, they were taken from a large stack of untested units, figuring what could be more honest from a manufacturer than to do that -- not hand pick a set like I'm sure so many do. Markus assured me that the second run was flawless -- it certainly was not. Leonard |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
And if flawed as a factm what socalled "expert" reviewer does not
test for obvious flaws (manufacturing), add 1+1 and get 2, and call the provider up saying: "I think something is wrong here" .... AND NOT RWRITE HIS IDIOTIC REVIEW! This reveals perhaps more about the reviewer than the eyepieces! Have you considered that obvious fact? Who goes ahead and drives and reviews a car with flat tires, if the issues were trully that bad!? Something is wrong with the scale of this whole evaluation, the methodology, the weighting of comparative assessments .... for such lousy flawed eyepieces that S&T then "highly recommended". If perfection is the goal, then all aspects of the methodology must be perfect, otherwise its gobblewobble. Edith- matt wrote: Since such coincidences are extremely unlikely, why on earth would the ONLY 3 bad eyepieces out of 600 manage to be next to each other so that they'd be all picked up and sent to S&T untested ? If the first attempt yields 3 bad out of 3 in a batch of 600 , how many bad ones are found after testing 200 more ? Statistics say it's virtually impossible for the only 3 bad eyepieces to lign up ready to be picked from the first attempt. But if that's indeed the case, maybe the owner of that lucky hand (who performed the selection) should consider playing the lottery . Alternatively, whoever decided to not test products received straight from manufacturing and ship them straight to customers should consider adding a normal testing step for each eyepiece before shipping . Unfortunately, there are lots of buyers who just purchase expensive stuff for bragging rights , and perceive it as automatically being good . These people would not even question the quality of products coming from such famous vendors . That might be an explanation to why nobody complained yet . The same way there are millions of scopes sitting in garages , there are millions of eyepieces sitting in cases unused for decades. Hopefully, this TMB will become a collector item, anybody wants to sell me his from the now world famous astigmatic lot ? best regards, matt tudor Phil Wheeler wrote in message ... But why on earth would TMB not test each one before it left their shop? Truly a mystery. Phil Leonard wrote: "Markus Ludes" wrote in message news:395377e1fed02501e56034fdbc66313d.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org... Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600 pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic, Mystic, Mystic This may answer your own question . Of the four TMB Super Mono eyepieces (as you know, I did not test these, they were taken from a large stack of untested units, figuring what could be more honest from a manufacturer than to do that -- not hand pick a set like I'm sure so many do. Markus assured me that the second run was flawless -- it certainly was not. Leonard |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
Edith Head wrote:
And if flawed as a factm what socalled "expert" reviewer does not test for obvious flaws (manufacturing), add 1+1 and get 2, and call the provider up saying: "I think something is wrong here" .... AND NOT RWRITE HIS IDIOTIC REVIEW! I think it is not unknown for the different FL eyepieces from the same manufacturer differ in quality. And what was the obvious flaw, in this case, that should have raised an alarm? -- Lauri |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
Edith Head wrote:
And if flawed as a factm what socalled "expert" reviewer does not test for obvious flaws (manufacturing), add 1+1 and get 2, and call the provider up saying: "I think something is wrong here" .... AND NOT RWRITE HIS IDIOTIC REVIEW! I think it is not unknown for the different FL eyepieces from the same manufacturer differ in quality. And what was the obvious flaw, in this case, that should have raised an alarm? -- Lauri |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt | hermesnines | Astronomy Misc | 10 | February 27th 04 03:14 AM |
Bands of Saturn. How many of them can be counted (really!) with 7" scope? | ValeryD | Amateur Astronomy | 294 | January 26th 04 09:18 PM |
Majority of Planetary Nebulae May Arise from Binary Systems (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 9th 04 06:02 AM |
Chiral gravity of the Solar system | Aleksandr Timofeev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 13th 03 04:14 PM |
*Review: Astrosystems 30mm WIDE SCAN III Eyepiece | David Knisely | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | August 8th 03 05:53 AM |