Bands of Saturn. How many of them can be counted (really!) with 7" scope?

(Chris1011) wrote in message ...
I made what I
thought was a funny remark to a fabulous image. It had nothing at all to do
with any eyepiece debate. Are you being totally fair or do you have some other
thing that's bugging you?

Something smells indeed.

Roland Christen

Okay Roland, we'll continue here. First I appreciate your
acknowledging Eric's skills as an observer.

The subject at hand is perceived integrity of our vendor community.
Something you and I have had more than a few emails traded about in
the past. I hold vendors to a very high standard in this area. We
all should.

You said the only reason you entered the thread was to respond to the
misquote. Yet you were actually, date-wise, in the primary thread at
the point where you were going to toss your Saturn images as I tried
to indicate with my third post to the thread. Hence you were
participating in the primary thread essentially from the start (or no
more than a few posts in). One can only assume that you are reading
all the thread's posts as there really isn't anything in the titles to
differentiate one from the other except structure as Mr. Taylor has
pointed out. Hence you have been following the general discussion.

Now, you walk a fine line in participation in the groups that you do,
and you do so very well, in my opinion. But there are two parts to
participation. Each one carries some baggage. You participate
technically when the subject matter is of interest. You keep much of
this relegated to the AP users groups to a focused audience. Here you
are undeniably a standard, without fault, and make a valuable
contribution to us all. The second part has to do with how you are
perceived as an individual. Here we all establish a 'presence' by how
we write, the tone of our responses, what we actually say, and what we
don't say. The last is just as important as the others.

In this case, where VD has used this band count as a teaser to draw
attention to other quotes within Eric's review, something he has
presented more than once in a demeaning manner to Eric, you (1) are an
early participant in the thread, (2) are tied to the benefit of the
criticism as a commercially tied individual to VD, and (3) had been
silent on VD's comments, which could mean you didn't want to get
involved, but because of (2) makes you appear in agreement with VD.

My second post was to suggest to you that if you continue to
participate in these things, that you need to reconsider the total
effect of that participation. Just because you don't post, once your
presence is established you're perceived as being there. All of your
actions or inactions from that point forward say more about your
'presence'.

The rest of my second post was trying to get to the big picture.
Words like 'legacy' speak to how you as an individual will be
remembered. I want you to be remembered for more than these
telescopes that you make. I do know you pretty well, and I think
there's a lot more there than just amazing technical ability. I was
cautioning you to revalue the personal relationships that have brought
you where you are today. The comments you just made about Eric's
observing skills if said earlier would have been supportive to someone
that has been more than supportive of you, and would have distanced
you from VD; not a bad thing from what I've seen of his posts.

I try to have no biases here, as I think that anyone that knows me
would agree with. I have owned (and still own) and used just about
every great manufacturer's scopes and eyepieces and agree with your
comment about great cars and their different handling. I do like to
see the hobby built up, not torn down. And I truly believe that
vendors have to live to a higher standard; that they have to set a
better example. This has absolutely nothing to do with the technical
aspects of our hobby. It has to do with people and interactions.
Especially on the net that challenge is daunting.

Hope that clarified where I was coming from.

Stew

"Bill Becker" wrote in message ...
"Chris1011" wrote in message
...



You very clever Gail. Maybe too clever.

I have not seen the review of this particular eyepiece. The only thing I
know
is that Eric Jamison did a review apparently on the TMB group. The details
are
hidden to me since I am not a member of that group and I don't get the
e-mails
of the various posts.
I think Stu Squires wrongly accuses me of dissing Eric Jamison. Eric is an
honest individual and an astute planetary observer. I doubt that anyone
would
fault him for what he observed and what he wrote. I know that I have not
and
would not in any public or private forum. What Eric writes is what Eric
saw.

snip

I could not agree more about Eric. He is *definitely* not the kind of guy to
exaggerate his experiences
with any equipment. I feel very bad that his integrity is being questioned!
Look at his website, people, and see
how much of a contribution he is making to the astro community!!!!!!:

http://home.fiam.net/ericj/

Best regards,
Bill

Hello Bill and group ,

I agree with you that EJ is not the kind of
person to exaggarate his experiences with equipment and his integrity
seems to be first class. In my opinion that is why he asked his fellow
group members at TMB optical newsgroup to edit his review BEFORE it
went to a public scope review
site. What more can one ask of a person ?
His use of words like more and much is his way of describing the
differences he observed at the eyepiece. When looking for (small?)
differences to show up in two different eyepieces the word MUCH can
agitate some people and may not be the best word to use . We know from
the review he clearly saw more.
Time will bear out his words that appear in the final review
and the final review only.
BTW group , Roland did NOT comment on any other make of
eyepiece but his own.
Valery sees no difference in the different eyepieces use in
the comparison that is his view and thats fine. That means to VD the
TMB mono. is as good as the BEST out there to compare too and thats
saying something .
I need a nice porter beer , Leonard

"Bill Becker" wrote in message ...
"Chris1011" wrote in message
...



You very clever Gail. Maybe too clever.

I have not seen the review of this particular eyepiece. The only thing I
know
is that Eric Jamison did a review apparently on the TMB group. The details
are
hidden to me since I am not a member of that group and I don't get the
e-mails
of the various posts.
I think Stu Squires wrongly accuses me of dissing Eric Jamison. Eric is an
honest individual and an astute planetary observer. I doubt that anyone
would
fault him for what he observed and what he wrote. I know that I have not
and
would not in any public or private forum. What Eric writes is what Eric
saw.

snip

I could not agree more about Eric. He is *definitely* not the kind of guy to
exaggerate his experiences
with any equipment. I feel very bad that his integrity is being questioned!
Look at his website, people, and see
how much of a contribution he is making to the astro community!!!!!!:

http://home.fiam.net/ericj/

Best regards,
Bill

Hello Bill and group ,

I agree with you that EJ is not the kind of
person to exaggarate his experiences with equipment and his integrity
seems to be first class. In my opinion that is why he asked his fellow
group members at TMB optical newsgroup to edit his review BEFORE it
went to a public scope review
site. What more can one ask of a person ?
His use of words like more and much is his way of describing the
differences he observed at the eyepiece. When looking for (small?)
differences to show up in two different eyepieces the word MUCH can
agitate some people and may not be the best word to use . We know from
the review he clearly saw more.
Time will bear out his words that appear in the final review
and the final review only.
BTW group , Roland did NOT comment on any other make of
eyepiece but his own.
Valery sees no difference in the different eyepieces use in
the comparison that is his view and thats fine. That means to VD the
TMB mono. is as good as the BEST out there to compare too and thats
saying something .
I need a nice porter beer , Leonard

"Bill Becker" wrote in message ...
"Chris1011" wrote in message
...



You very clever Gail. Maybe too clever.

I have not seen the review of this particular eyepiece. The only thing I
know
is that Eric Jamison did a review apparently on the TMB group. The details
are
hidden to me since I am not a member of that group and I don't get the
e-mails
of the various posts.
I think Stu Squires wrongly accuses me of dissing Eric Jamison. Eric is an
honest individual and an astute planetary observer. I doubt that anyone
would
fault him for what he observed and what he wrote. I know that I have not
and
would not in any public or private forum. What Eric writes is what Eric
saw.

snip

I could not agree more about Eric. He is *definitely* not the kind of guy to
exaggerate his experiences
with any equipment. I feel very bad that his integrity is being questioned!
Look at his website, people, and see
how much of a contribution he is making to the astro community!!!!!!:

http://home.fiam.net/ericj/

Best regards,
Bill

Hello Bill and group ,

I agree with you that EJ is not the kind of
person to exaggarate his experiences with equipment and his integrity
seems to be first class. In my opinion that is why he asked his fellow
group members at TMB optical newsgroup to edit his review BEFORE it
went to a public scope review
site. What more can one ask of a person ?
His use of words like more and much is his way of describing the
differences he observed at the eyepiece. When looking for (small?)
differences to show up in two different eyepieces the word MUCH can
agitate some people and may not be the best word to use . We know from
the review he clearly saw more.
Time will bear out his words that appear in the final review
and the final review only.
BTW group , Roland did NOT comment on any other make of
eyepiece but his own.
Valery sees no difference in the different eyepieces use in
the comparison that is his view and thats fine. That means to VD the
TMB mono. is as good as the BEST out there to compare too and thats
saying something .
I need a nice porter beer , Leonard

Okay Roland, we'll continue here. First I appreciate your
acknowledging Eric's skills as an observer.

The subject at hand is perceived integrity of our vendor community.
Something you and I have had more than a few emails traded about in
the past. I hold vendors to a very high standard in this area. We
all should.

You said the only reason you entered the thread was to respond to the
misquote. Yet you were actually, date-wise, in the primary thread at
the point where you were going to toss your Saturn images as I tried
to indicate with my third post to the thread. Hence you were
participating in the primary thread essentially from the start (or no
more than a few posts in). One can only assume that you are reading
all the thread's posts as there really isn't anything in the titles to
differentiate one from the other except structure as Mr. Taylor has
pointed out. Hence you have been following the general discussion.

Now, you walk a fine line in participation in the groups that you do,
and you do so very well, in my opinion. But there are two parts to
participation. Each one carries some baggage. You participate
technically when the subject matter is of interest. You keep much of
this relegated to the AP users groups to a focused audience. Here you
are undeniably a standard, without fault, and make a valuable
contribution to us all. The second part has to do with how you are
perceived as an individual. Here we all establish a 'presence' by how
we write, the tone of our responses, what we actually say, and what we
don't say. The last is just as important as the others.

In this case, where VD has used this band count as a teaser to draw
attention to other quotes within Eric's review, something he has
presented more than once in a demeaning manner to Eric, you (1) are an
early participant in the thread, (2) are tied to the benefit of the
criticism as a commercially tied individual to VD, and (3) had been
silent on VD's comments, which could mean you didn't want to get
involved, but because of (2) makes you appear in agreement with VD.

My second post was to suggest to you that if you continue to
participate in these things, that you need to reconsider the total
effect of that participation. Just because you don't post, once your
presence is established you're perceived as being there. All of your
actions or inactions from that point forward say more about your
'presence'.

The rest of my second post was trying to get to the big picture.
Words like 'legacy' speak to how you as an individual will be
remembered. I want you to be remembered for more than these
telescopes that you make. I do know you pretty well, and I think
there's a lot more there than just amazing technical ability. I was
cautioning you to revalue the personal relationships that have brought
you where you are today. The comments you just made about Eric's
observing skills if said earlier would have been supportive to someone
that has been more than supportive of you, and would have distanced
you from VD; not a bad thing from what I've seen of his posts.

I try to have no biases here, as I think that anyone that knows me
would agree with. I have owned (and still own) and used just about
every great manufacturer's scopes and eyepieces and agree with your
comment about great cars and their different handling. I do like to
see the hobby built up, not torn down. And I truly believe that
vendors have to live to a higher standard; that they have to set a
better example. This has absolutely nothing to do with the technical
aspects of our hobby. It has to do with people and interactions.
Especially on the net that challenge is daunting.

Hope that clarified where I was coming from.

Stew

Of course I have an interest in what's going on in this thread. I don't read or
participate in all threads on SAA, maybe 2% of them.

My interest is usually to clarify some misconception of optical theory or
practice that crops up all the time. I think if you go through the past 5 years
of SAA, that is 99% of my posting here.

I followed this one from the beginning because it involved Valery, and that
usually provokes some spirited discussions. However, I honestly had no idea
what review or reviewer he was talking about. It was you who brought up Eric's
name.

I read Eric's review now, thanks to Markus. I have no comment either way. It is
one individual's perception of the performance of TMB monos vs. the other
eyepieces.

I have some advise for anyone who does a review and wishes it to be accurate.
Remember, that a blind test or double blind test is always to be preferred over
one where you know which product you are evaluating. It is always human nature
to want the outcome to be the one you expected. If you are going to make some
quantitative statement, it is better if you can measure it using known
techniques. It is not so good to say something was brighter, wider, sharper,
less periodic error, more filling, without actually having test data. It does
not mean that you cannot say this, but it is tons more credible to say that you
measured it using photometer, interferometer, speedometer, or whatever and it
confirmed your own visual impressions.

I will tell you a story that left me red faced a long time ago. I was out at a
private gathering with a couple of friends and had brought with me one of my
eyepieces that I made and sold (2" 40mm Plossl) when Astro-Physics first got
started. We all had C8s in those days. One of my friends had a 48mm Vernonscope
2" Orthoscopic, and was using it on his C8 for deep sky viewing. I was certain
that my 2" wide field Plossl was tons better and allowed several of the other
guys to try it out. The eyepiece was passed around, but meanwhile I went over
to my friend's scope, the one with the 48mm Vernonscope Ortho. I looked in the
eyepiece and saw astigmatic star images at the edge of the field and said "Eww!
this eyepiece is a piece of crap!" Somebody came over with a flashlight and
examined the eyepiece. It turned out to be MY Plossl. Now there was a blind
test that really worked! It turns out that the Vernonscope also showed similar
astigmatism, and that part of it was actually due to the SCT design. Never mind
that, everyone had a good laugh at my expense.

Roland Christen

Okay Roland, we'll continue here. First I appreciate your
acknowledging Eric's skills as an observer.

The subject at hand is perceived integrity of our vendor community.
Something you and I have had more than a few emails traded about in
the past. I hold vendors to a very high standard in this area. We
all should.

You said the only reason you entered the thread was to respond to the
misquote. Yet you were actually, date-wise, in the primary thread at
the point where you were going to toss your Saturn images as I tried
to indicate with my third post to the thread. Hence you were
participating in the primary thread essentially from the start (or no
more than a few posts in). One can only assume that you are reading
all the thread's posts as there really isn't anything in the titles to
differentiate one from the other except structure as Mr. Taylor has
pointed out. Hence you have been following the general discussion.

Now, you walk a fine line in participation in the groups that you do,
and you do so very well, in my opinion. But there are two parts to
participation. Each one carries some baggage. You participate
technically when the subject matter is of interest. You keep much of
this relegated to the AP users groups to a focused audience. Here you
are undeniably a standard, without fault, and make a valuable
contribution to us all. The second part has to do with how you are
perceived as an individual. Here we all establish a 'presence' by how
we write, the tone of our responses, what we actually say, and what we
don't say. The last is just as important as the others.

In this case, where VD has used this band count as a teaser to draw
attention to other quotes within Eric's review, something he has
presented more than once in a demeaning manner to Eric, you (1) are an
early participant in the thread, (2) are tied to the benefit of the
criticism as a commercially tied individual to VD, and (3) had been
silent on VD's comments, which could mean you didn't want to get
involved, but because of (2) makes you appear in agreement with VD.

My second post was to suggest to you that if you continue to
participate in these things, that you need to reconsider the total
effect of that participation. Just because you don't post, once your
presence is established you're perceived as being there. All of your
actions or inactions from that point forward say more about your
'presence'.

The rest of my second post was trying to get to the big picture.
Words like 'legacy' speak to how you as an individual will be
remembered. I want you to be remembered for more than these
telescopes that you make. I do know you pretty well, and I think
there's a lot more there than just amazing technical ability. I was
cautioning you to revalue the personal relationships that have brought
you where you are today. The comments you just made about Eric's
observing skills if said earlier would have been supportive to someone
that has been more than supportive of you, and would have distanced
you from VD; not a bad thing from what I've seen of his posts.

I try to have no biases here, as I think that anyone that knows me
would agree with. I have owned (and still own) and used just about
every great manufacturer's scopes and eyepieces and agree with your
comment about great cars and their different handling. I do like to
see the hobby built up, not torn down. And I truly believe that
vendors have to live to a higher standard; that they have to set a
better example. This has absolutely nothing to do with the technical
aspects of our hobby. It has to do with people and interactions.
Especially on the net that challenge is daunting.

Hope that clarified where I was coming from.

Stew

Of course I have an interest in what's going on in this thread. I don't read or
participate in all threads on SAA, maybe 2% of them.

My interest is usually to clarify some misconception of optical theory or
practice that crops up all the time. I think if you go through the past 5 years
of SAA, that is 99% of my posting here.

I followed this one from the beginning because it involved Valery, and that
usually provokes some spirited discussions. However, I honestly had no idea
what review or reviewer he was talking about. It was you who brought up Eric's
name.

I read Eric's review now, thanks to Markus. I have no comment either way. It is
one individual's perception of the performance of TMB monos vs. the other
eyepieces.

I have some advise for anyone who does a review and wishes it to be accurate.
Remember, that a blind test or double blind test is always to be preferred over
one where you know which product you are evaluating. It is always human nature
to want the outcome to be the one you expected. If you are going to make some
quantitative statement, it is better if you can measure it using known
techniques. It is not so good to say something was brighter, wider, sharper,
less periodic error, more filling, without actually having test data. It does
not mean that you cannot say this, but it is tons more credible to say that you
measured it using photometer, interferometer, speedometer, or whatever and it
confirmed your own visual impressions.

I will tell you a story that left me red faced a long time ago. I was out at a
private gathering with a couple of friends and had brought with me one of my
eyepieces that I made and sold (2" 40mm Plossl) when Astro-Physics first got
started. We all had C8s in those days. One of my friends had a 48mm Vernonscope
2" Orthoscopic, and was using it on his C8 for deep sky viewing. I was certain
that my 2" wide field Plossl was tons better and allowed several of the other
guys to try it out. The eyepiece was passed around, but meanwhile I went over
to my friend's scope, the one with the 48mm Vernonscope Ortho. I looked in the
eyepiece and saw astigmatic star images at the edge of the field and said "Eww!
this eyepiece is a piece of crap!" Somebody came over with a flashlight and
examined the eyepiece. It turned out to be MY Plossl. Now there was a blind
test that really worked! It turns out that the Vernonscope also showed similar
astigmatism, and that part of it was actually due to the SCT design. Never mind
that, everyone had a good laugh at my expense.

Roland Christen

Okay Roland, we'll continue here. First I appreciate your
acknowledging Eric's skills as an observer.

The subject at hand is perceived integrity of our vendor community.
Something you and I have had more than a few emails traded about in
the past. I hold vendors to a very high standard in this area. We
all should.

You said the only reason you entered the thread was to respond to the
misquote. Yet you were actually, date-wise, in the primary thread at
the point where you were going to toss your Saturn images as I tried
to indicate with my third post to the thread. Hence you were
participating in the primary thread essentially from the start (or no
more than a few posts in). One can only assume that you are reading
all the thread's posts as there really isn't anything in the titles to
differentiate one from the other except structure as Mr. Taylor has
pointed out. Hence you have been following the general discussion.

Now, you walk a fine line in participation in the groups that you do,
and you do so very well, in my opinion. But there are two parts to
participation. Each one carries some baggage. You participate
technically when the subject matter is of interest. You keep much of
this relegated to the AP users groups to a focused audience. Here you
are undeniably a standard, without fault, and make a valuable
contribution to us all. The second part has to do with how you are
perceived as an individual. Here we all establish a 'presence' by how
we write, the tone of our responses, what we actually say, and what we
don't say. The last is just as important as the others.

In this case, where VD has used this band count as a teaser to draw
attention to other quotes within Eric's review, something he has
presented more than once in a demeaning manner to Eric, you (1) are an
early participant in the thread, (2) are tied to the benefit of the
criticism as a commercially tied individual to VD, and (3) had been
silent on VD's comments, which could mean you didn't want to get
involved, but because of (2) makes you appear in agreement with VD.

My second post was to suggest to you that if you continue to
participate in these things, that you need to reconsider the total
effect of that participation. Just because you don't post, once your
presence is established you're perceived as being there. All of your
actions or inactions from that point forward say more about your
'presence'.

The rest of my second post was trying to get to the big picture.
Words like 'legacy' speak to how you as an individual will be
remembered. I want you to be remembered for more than these
telescopes that you make. I do know you pretty well, and I think
there's a lot more there than just amazing technical ability. I was
cautioning you to revalue the personal relationships that have brought
you where you are today. The comments you just made about Eric's
observing skills if said earlier would have been supportive to someone
that has been more than supportive of you, and would have distanced
you from VD; not a bad thing from what I've seen of his posts.

I try to have no biases here, as I think that anyone that knows me
would agree with. I have owned (and still own) and used just about
every great manufacturer's scopes and eyepieces and agree with your
comment about great cars and their different handling. I do like to
see the hobby built up, not torn down. And I truly believe that
vendors have to live to a higher standard; that they have to set a
better example. This has absolutely nothing to do with the technical
aspects of our hobby. It has to do with people and interactions.
Especially on the net that challenge is daunting.

Hope that clarified where I was coming from.

Stew

Of course I have an interest in what's going on in this thread. I don't read or
participate in all threads on SAA, maybe 2% of them.

My interest is usually to clarify some misconception of optical theory or
practice that crops up all the time. I think if you go through the past 5 years
of SAA, that is 99% of my posting here.

I followed this one from the beginning because it involved Valery, and that
usually provokes some spirited discussions. However, I honestly had no idea
what review or reviewer he was talking about. It was you who brought up Eric's
name.

I read Eric's review now, thanks to Markus. I have no comment either way. It is
one individual's perception of the performance of TMB monos vs. the other
eyepieces.

I have some advise for anyone who does a review and wishes it to be accurate.
Remember, that a blind test or double blind test is always to be preferred over
one where you know which product you are evaluating. It is always human nature
to want the outcome to be the one you expected. If you are going to make some
quantitative statement, it is better if you can measure it using known
techniques. It is not so good to say something was brighter, wider, sharper,
less periodic error, more filling, without actually having test data. It does
not mean that you cannot say this, but it is tons more credible to say that you
measured it using photometer, interferometer, speedometer, or whatever and it
confirmed your own visual impressions.

I will tell you a story that left me red faced a long time ago. I was out at a
private gathering with a couple of friends and had brought with me one of my
eyepieces that I made and sold (2" 40mm Plossl) when Astro-Physics first got
started. We all had C8s in those days. One of my friends had a 48mm Vernonscope
2" Orthoscopic, and was using it on his C8 for deep sky viewing. I was certain
that my 2" wide field Plossl was tons better and allowed several of the other
guys to try it out. The eyepiece was passed around, but meanwhile I went over
to my friend's scope, the one with the 48mm Vernonscope Ortho. I looked in the
eyepiece and saw astigmatic star images at the edge of the field and said "Eww!
this eyepiece is a piece of crap!" Somebody came over with a flashlight and
examined the eyepiece. It turned out to be MY Plossl. Now there was a blind
test that really worked! It turns out that the Vernonscope also showed similar
astigmatism, and that part of it was actually due to the SCT design. Never mind
that, everyone had a good laugh at my expense.

Roland Christen

Thanks,

That was the only method I could think of but was wondering if you knew
another method that might be more easily imitated by the rest of us.

Clear Skies

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

************************************
"Chris1011" wrote in message
...

How do you test/measure surface quality to come up with quantitative
numbers?

How would you? I don't think it would be easy for the average person to
do. It
is a Mil spec which has a procedure to do this. It is done by the
inspection
department using measuring microscopes to determing the max number and
size of
scratch/dig on a surface. A 10-5 spec is very stringent and is usually
applied
to laser optics where scatter must be tightly controlled.

Roland Christen

Thanks,

That was the only method I could think of but was wondering if you knew
another method that might be more easily imitated by the rest of us.

Clear Skies

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

************************************
"Chris1011" wrote in message
...

How do you test/measure surface quality to come up with quantitative
numbers?

How would you? I don't think it would be easy for the average person to
do. It
is a Mil spec which has a procedure to do this. It is done by the
inspection
department using measuring microscopes to determing the max number and
size of
scratch/dig on a surface. A 10-5 spec is very stringent and is usually
applied
to laser optics where scatter must be tightly controlled.

Roland Christen

Thanks,

That was the only method I could think of but was wondering if you knew
another method that might be more easily imitated by the rest of us.

Clear Skies

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

************************************
"Chris1011" wrote in message
...

How do you test/measure surface quality to come up with quantitative
numbers?

How would you? I don't think it would be easy for the average person to
do. It
is a Mil spec which has a procedure to do this. It is done by the
inspection
department using measuring microscopes to determing the max number and
size of
scratch/dig on a surface. A 10-5 spec is very stringent and is usually
applied
to laser optics where scatter must be tightly controlled.

Roland Christen