Minutes from Meade RCX meetings

For those who missed it, Meade has updated their webpage, indirectly
admitting it is not an RC design. Of course, there is still a long ways to
go.

Conversation in a Meade meeting room:

Tech: "We've finished the prototype testing and are ready to introduce the
new scope. What shall we call it?"

Marketing: "We did our research and found out people are paying a ton of
money for something called an R-C design. Is that related to the cola?

Tech: "No. And this isn't an R-C scope. In fact, it's closer to a
photo-optimized version of our old SCTs.

Marketing: "Great! That's even better. We'll call it an RCX! People will pay
extra because they think it's an R-C. And if anybody catches on, we can
always say we didn't call it an R-C. In the meantime, we can place ads
saying the pros use R-C scopes and let them think it is an R-C."


SAME MEETING ROOM ONE MONTH LATER:

Tech: "I've been monitoring the astro community and they figured out the
first day it wasn't likely to be an R-C. Quite a few of them figured out
what we did. Some even posted better designs than what we came up with in
our compromise with the manufacturing department. Those that haven't heard
will soon know we didn't really come out with an R-C scope."

Marketing: "That's not good. Legal, can we do anything about it?"

Lawyer: "Absolutely. We patent honest discussion. We'll call it 'True North
and on-the-level conversation.' Then we can force them to pay us a royalty
every time they talk."

Marketing: "Money no matter what we do."

;-)

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

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

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

Chuck -

For those of us who didn't scrutinize the original release, can you
summarize what the updates are? It seems to me that they still make
heavy use of the R-C term.

http://www.meade.com/rcx400/

Thanks,
Mark


CLT wrote:
For those who missed it, Meade has updated their webpage, indirectly
admitting it is not an RC design. Of course, there is still a long
ways to
go.

Conversation in a Meade meeting room:

Tech: "We've finished the prototype testing and are ready to
introduce the
new scope. What shall we call it?"

Marketing: "We did our research and found out people are paying a ton
of
money for something called an R-C design. Is that related to the
cola?

Tech: "No. And this isn't an R-C scope. In fact, it's closer to a
photo-optimized version of our old SCTs.

Marketing: "Great! That's even better. We'll call it an RCX! People
will pay
extra because they think it's an R-C. And if anybody catches on, we
can
always say we didn't call it an R-C. In the meantime, we can place
ads
saying the pros use R-C scopes and let them think it is an R-C."


SAME MEETING ROOM ONE MONTH LATER:

Tech: "I've been monitoring the astro community and they figured out
the
first day it wasn't likely to be an R-C. Quite a few of them figured
out
what we did. Some even posted better designs than what we came up
with in
our compromise with the manufacturing department. Those that haven't
heard
will soon know we didn't really come out with an R-C scope."

Marketing: "That's not good. Legal, can we do anything about it?"

Lawyer: "Absolutely. We patent honest discussion. We'll call it 'True
North
and on-the-level conversation.' Then we can force them to pay us a
royalty
every time they talk."

Marketing: "Money no matter what we do."

;-)

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

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

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

LOL! -- sad, funny, and probably not far from the truth! When both of
the large companies realized that they were in the business of selling
daydreams and not observing equipment, their fortunes took a turn for
the better ;-)

CLT wrote:
For those who missed it, Meade has updated their webpage, indirectly
admitting it is not an RC design. Of course, there is still a long ways to
go.

Conversation in a Meade meeting room:

Tech: "We've finished the prototype testing and are ready to introduce the
new scope. What shall we call it?"

Marketing: "We did our research and found out people are paying a ton of
money for something called an R-C design. Is that related to the cola?

Tech: "No. And this isn't an R-C scope. In fact, it's closer to a
photo-optimized version of our old SCTs.

Marketing: "Great! That's even better. We'll call it an RCX! People will pay
extra because they think it's an R-C. And if anybody catches on, we can
always say we didn't call it an R-C. In the meantime, we can place ads
saying the pros use R-C scopes and let them think it is an R-C."


SAME MEETING ROOM ONE MONTH LATER:

Tech: "I've been monitoring the astro community and they figured out the
first day it wasn't likely to be an R-C. Quite a few of them figured out
what we did. Some even posted better designs than what we came up with in
our compromise with the manufacturing department. Those that haven't heard
will soon know we didn't really come out with an R-C scope."

Marketing: "That's not good. Legal, can we do anything about it?"

Lawyer: "Absolutely. We patent honest discussion. We'll call it 'True North
and on-the-level conversation.' Then we can force them to pay us a royalty
every time they talk."

Marketing: "Money no matter what we do."

;-)

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

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

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

Tim Killian wrote:
LOL! -- sad, funny, and probably not far from the truth! When both of

the large companies realized that they were in the business of
selling
daydreams and not observing equipment, their fortunes took a turn for

the better ;-)

CLT wrote:
For those who missed it, Meade has updated their webpage,
indirectly
admitting it is not an RC design. Of course, there is still a long
ways to
go.

Conversation in a Meade meeting room:

Tech: "We've finished the prototype testing and are ready to
introduce the
new scope. What shall we call it?"

Marketing: "We did our research and found out people are paying a
ton of
money for something called an R-C design. Is that related to the
cola?

Tech: "No. And this isn't an R-C scope. In fact, it's closer to a
photo-optimized version of our old SCTs.

Marketing: "Great! That's even better. We'll call it an RCX! People
will pay
extra because they think it's an R-C. And if anybody catches on, we
can
always say we didn't call it an R-C. In the meantime, we can place
ads
saying the pros use R-C scopes and let them think it is an R-C."


SAME MEETING ROOM ONE MONTH LATER:

Tech: "I've been monitoring the astro community and they figured
out the
first day it wasn't likely to be an R-C. Quite a few of them
figured out
what we did. Some even posted better designs than what we came up
with in
our compromise with the manufacturing department. Those that
haven't heard
will soon know we didn't really come out with an R-C scope."

Marketing: "That's not good. Legal, can we do anything about it?"

Lawyer: "Absolutely. We patent honest discussion. We'll call it
'True North
and on-the-level conversation.' Then we can force them to pay us a
royalty
every time they talk."

Marketing: "Money no matter what we do."

;-)

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

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

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


Well, at least they didn't try to tell us that R-C stood for
"Raleigh-Criterion"...
Clif

Mark wrote:
Chuck -

For those of us who didn't scrutinize the original release, can you
summarize what the updates are? It seems to me that they still make
heavy use of the R-C term.

http://www.meade.com/rcx400/

Hi Mark,

They added this line:
"The RCX design is very similar to the Classical RC and achieves the
same benefits by using a hyperbolic secondary with a new advanced front
corrector plate and primary mirror that together perform as a hyperbolic
primary."

Of course, the rest of the world would still call that an aspherical SCT
and not an R-C

So they are being slightly more honest now that they were caught. It
reminds me of StupendousVue's "EDT" nonsense.

Clear Skies

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/

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

Chuck Taylor wrote:

They added this line:
"The RCX design is very similar to the Classical RC and achieves the
same benefits by using a hyperbolic secondary with a new advanced
front
corrector plate and primary mirror that together perform as a
hyperbolic
primary."

Bingo !

wrote:
Chuck Taylor wrote:

They added this line:
"The RCX design is very similar to the Classical RC and achieves the
same benefits by using a hyperbolic secondary with a new advanced
front corrector plate and primary mirror that together perform as a
hyperbolic primary."


Bingo !

You called it!

Clear Skies

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/

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

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:50:15 -0800, Chuck Taylor not@thisaddress
wrote:

wrote:
Chuck Taylor wrote:

They added this line:
"The RCX design is very similar to the Classical RC and achieves the
same benefits by using a hyperbolic secondary with a new advanced
front corrector plate and primary mirror that together perform as a
hyperbolic primary."


Bingo !

You called it!

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor

So now that that is settled, is the scope worth having?
-Rich

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:50:15 -0800, Chuck Taylor not@thisaddress
wrote:

wrote:
Chuck Taylor wrote:

They added this line:
"The RCX design is very similar to the Classical RC and achieves the
same benefits by using a hyperbolic secondary with a new advanced
front corrector plate and primary mirror that together perform as a
hyperbolic primary."


Bingo !

You called it!

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor

So now that that is settled, is the scope worth having?
-Rich
The answer probably depends on what you want.
By introducing a corrector, they have introduced a little chromatic
aberration, so the scope will not give quite the 'pinpoint' white light
images in really good seeing at the field centre, that a true RC is
capable of (notice that the spot diagrams they show are for green light
only). Also the scope is still going to have the curved field of a RC or
SCT, and a field flattener, should be a standard accessory (maybe they
will produce one - this would be a 'good' decision). With the flattener,
it'd produce views comparable to the 'best' at the centre field of an SCT,
across a much larger field.
Now there is some 'question' as to the size of the central obstruction.
The pictures seem to suggest about 38%, which is only fractionally more
than a standard SCT. If so, this will mean that the loss of contrast from
the CO, will not be as bad as was perhaps initially feared, but at a cost
in terms of the size of the fully illuminated field. The loss of contrast
from the CO, is a thing that can be processed out when imaging, but would
downgrade it as a visual scope. The 'real' answer on how well this
performs, will have to wait till the scope has been used by quite a few
people.
Realistically, the scope will probably perform like a really good SCT, but
with less coma. It is worth being aware, that a properly designed SCT, has
a slightly more complex secondary, that is supplied on the normal 'mass
production' scopes. Historically, Celestron, have repeatedly been reported
to get slightly 'closer' than Meade to this, an opinion, that seems at
times to be 'borne out', when the scopes are used together, though a good
example of either make will manage to better a 'poor' example from the
other manufacturer. If you assume that a reasonable proportion of the
extra cost, goes into improvements in the actual quality of the optics,
figuring a slightly more complex curve on the secondary, and on the
corrector, then the scope should give results comparable to a
'traditional' RC, when using narrowband filters, and results perhaps
halfway between an RC, and a traditional SCT, when working in white light.
I think the term 'SCT-GT', is probably going to be a good description of
the likely performance. :-)

Best Wishes

"CLT" not@thisaddress wrote in message
...
For those who missed it, Meade has updated their webpage, indirectly
admitting it is not an RC design. Of course, there is still a long ways to
go.

Conversation in a Meade meeting room:

Tech: "We've finished the prototype testing and are ready to introduce the
new scope. What shall we call it?"

Marketing: "We did our research and found out people are paying a ton of
money for something called an R-C design. Is that related to the cola?

Tech: "No. And this isn't an R-C scope. In fact, it's closer to a
photo-optimized version of our old SCTs.

Marketing: "Great! That's even better. We'll call it an RCX! People will
pay
extra because they think it's an R-C. And if anybody catches on, we can
always say we didn't call it an R-C. In the meantime, we can place ads
saying the pros use R-C scopes and let them think it is an R-C."


SAME MEETING ROOM ONE MONTH LATER:

Tech: "I've been monitoring the astro community and they figured out the
first day it wasn't likely to be an R-C. Quite a few of them figured out
what we did. Some even posted better designs than what we came up with in
our compromise with the manufacturing department. Those that haven't heard
will soon know we didn't really come out with an R-C scope."

Marketing: "That's not good. Legal, can we do anything about it?"

Lawyer: "Absolutely. We patent honest discussion. We'll call it 'True
North
and on-the-level conversation.' Then we can force them to pay us a royalty
every time they talk."

Marketing: "Money no matter what we do."

;-)

Chuck Taylor

Chuck:
In the interest of honest disclosure, please cite the source of this
extensive quote.

Bob Schmall