A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Which planetary eyepiece?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old June 27th 04, 09:04 PM
matt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 27th 04, 10:04 PM
Brian Tung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 27th 04, 10:04 PM
Brian Tung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 28th 04, 02:45 PM
Jon Isaacs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old June 28th 04, 02:45 PM
Jon Isaacs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 1st 04, 08:46 AM
Edith Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 1st 04, 08:46 AM
Edith Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 1st 04, 09:17 AM
Lauri Uusitalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 1st 04, 09:17 AM
Lauri Uusitalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.