SCT Coatings

Looks like Celestron is now admitting that their original Starbright
coatings are inferior to UTHC. That's not the impression they tried to
create before, oddly enough.

--
Joe Bergeron

http://www.joebergeron.com

Joe Bergeron wrote:
Looks like Celestron is now admitting that their original Starbright
coatings are inferior to UTHC. That's not the impression they tried to
create before, oddly enough.


Data at the bottom of this web page

http://www.celestron.com/prod_info/index.htm

do not bear this out.

"Joe Bergeron" wrote in message
ed...
Looks like Celestron is now admitting that their original Starbright
coatings are inferior to UTHC. That's not the impression they tried to
create before, oddly enough.

Joe,

The whole coating thing is rather interesting - and confusing. Meade came
out with their UHTC group, and suddenly they had "standard" coatings on the
other scopes. Their "EMC" label vanished and they never said what
improvement UHTC had over EMC, or, perhaps, EMC was really just "standard"
coatings? I guess we'll never know, but it is annoying when companies play
these games, and, to me, it makes all their claims suspect.

Clear skies, Alan

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:54:45 GMT, "Alan French"
wrote:

Things could be interesting in the realm of SCT ads during the coming
months.

See http://www.celestron.com/starbright/

Clear skies, Alan

I've got two questions; What happened to the claims by both
Meade and Celestron that prior scope coatings transmitted in the
high 90's at the corrector surface and mid 90s at the mirror surfaces?
Also, is Celestron still doing crude hand figuring on their
secondaries to null out the system? If so, is this still producing
the optical roughness I used to see and how much light is scattered
as a percentage?

Other than that, it will be interesting to compare the two 8's since
they are they only matching sizes (other than the 14's) the two
companies have.
-Rich