|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Open Letter to Sky and Telescope
The following post reflects my personal opinions
only: Sky and Telescope's Test Report on "Bargain Scopes You Can Recommend To Friends And Family" in the December issue was certainly timely, and should have been a service to the amateur astronomical community; instead it appears to be an example of vendor bias. If this is not the case, then we must accept the idea that a first time telescope user, who cannot purchase an extra eyepiece and cannot operate a telescope without explicit instructions (according to the magazine's premise), can nevertheless disassemble, collimate, and rebuild a sealed instrument to endow it with acceptable optics. S&T describes taking delivery of an Edmund Scientific Astroscan that could not come to a sharp focus. Its staff then returned it and received another that was out of collimation and.... presumably could not come to a sharp focus. The Astroscan is not designed to be collimated by users, and the practice is strongly discouraged in the accompanying literature. Despite that fact, the S&T staff of experts disassembled and rebuilt their second instrument to make it perform acceptably - though still imperfectly. They then had the temerity to actually recommend the Astroscan, on the basis of the rebuilt scope's (tepid) performance. A rational, impartial observer would have had to disqualify the Astroscan on the basis of quality control issues (poor optics), design problems (impossibility of user collimation and a primary mirror cell that pinches the optics), and delivery issues (poor undajustable collimation upon arrival). S&T did not do this, so simple logic compels me to conclude that the magazine is not impartial, or that it is not rational, or that it is not an observer. The procedure was certainly not scientific, as the term "Test Report" implies, and was evidently designed to confirm preconceived opinions. Yes, the Astroscan was once an acceptable instrument. Yes, many S&T readers have fond childhood memories of the Astroscan. Yes the Astroscan has fine eyepieces. Yes, Edmund Scientific is a reputable dealer with excellent phone support. Alas, S&T's experience with the *present day* Astroscan telescope, *as delivered*, reflects my own. I certainly cannot recommend it, and I am astonished that S&T did, given identical information. Ethically, the rating is on a par with a teacher who erases the incorrect responses of favored students and supplies correct ones. (Indeed, it is a lie to call the procedure a "Test" since favored vendors were not allowed to fail.) This is more than a matter of ethics, however; it has substance as well. What happens when a first time telescope user purchases an Astroscan, and draws a sample from the same universe that S&T sampled? The article betrays that first time telescope buyer - the very person it pretends to aid. -Larry Curcio |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Open Letter to Sky and Telescope
Nothing new, I see. Both for the Astroscan and S&T.
Andrea T. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Open Letter to Sky and Telescope
Hi Larry:
Larry Curcio wrote: The following post reflects my personal opinions only: Understand... Sky and Telescope's Test Report on "Bargain Scopes You Can Recommend To Friends And Family" in the December issue was certainly timely, and should have been a service to the amateur astronomical community; instead it appears to be an example of vendor bias. If this is not the case, then we must accept the idea that a first time telescope user, who cannot purchase an extra eyepiece and cannot operate a telescope without explicit instructions (according to the magazine's premise), can nevertheless disassemble, collimate, and rebuild a sealed instrument to endow it with acceptable optics. I've read and reread the article and don't see that they (S&T/Gary Seronik) recommended this course of action for beginners or anyone else. Quite the contrary. Mssr Seronik explicitly states: "we were able to dismantle it and correct the problem. Unlike most reflectors, however, _this isn't a procedure recommended for users_" (emphasis mine). The Astroscan has been a very popular scope with beginners over the years for some obvious reasons. The alternative would have been for the Sky and Scope gang to leave the A-scan out of their review, something I don't think would have been a good thing. I assume that the collimation was bad enough to be deemed "not normal" for an Astroscan by Gary Seronik, who certainly has more than enough experience to judge such things, and that this prompted the adjustments. Further their final assessment of the Astroscan is hardly the glowing recommendation you seem to think it is. Seronk says that, following collimation, the Astroscan delivered "acceptable" images. In the summation of the scopes tested, it gets 3.5 stars out of 5 and the comment: "Good low power views." That's the bottom line on all the Astroscans. Always has been, but many folks have found it a pretty useful little scope anyway. Peace, Rod Mollise Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_ and _The Urban Astronomer's Guide_ Like SCTs and MCTs? Join the SCT User Mailing List. http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user See my home page at http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm for further info For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See: http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Open Letter to Sky and Telescope
You might consider shortening your letter and then sending it in to Sky
and Telescope. They might surprise you and print it. Dave "Larry Curcio" wrote in message news:vgQsf.3406$yx.2176@trndny01... The following post reflects my personal opinions only: Sky and Telescope's Test Report on "Bargain Scopes You Can Recommend To Friends And Family" in the December issue was certainly timely, and should have been a service to the amateur astronomical community; instead it appears to be an example of vendor bias. If this is not the case, then we must accept the idea that a first time telescope user, who cannot purchase an extra eyepiece and cannot operate a telescope without explicit instructions (according to the magazine's premise), can nevertheless disassemble, collimate, and rebuild a sealed instrument to endow it with acceptable optics. S&T describes taking delivery of an Edmund Scientific Astroscan that could not come to a sharp focus. Its staff then returned it and received another that was out of collimation and.... presumably could not come to a sharp focus. The Astroscan is not designed to be collimated by users, and the practice is strongly discouraged in the accompanying literature. Despite that fact, the S&T staff of experts disassembled and rebuilt their second instrument to make it perform acceptably - though still imperfectly. They then had the temerity to actually recommend the Astroscan, on the basis of the rebuilt scope's (tepid) performance. A rational, impartial observer would have had to disqualify the Astroscan on the basis of quality control issues (poor optics), design problems (impossibility of user collimation and a primary mirror cell that pinches the optics), and delivery issues (poor undajustable collimation upon arrival). S&T did not do this, so simple logic compels me to conclude that the magazine is not impartial, or that it is not rational, or that it is not an observer. The procedure was certainly not scientific, as the term "Test Report" implies, and was evidently designed to confirm preconceived opinions. Yes, the Astroscan was once an acceptable instrument. Yes, many S&T readers have fond childhood memories of the Astroscan. Yes the Astroscan has fine eyepieces. Yes, Edmund Scientific is a reputable dealer with excellent phone support. Alas, S&T's experience with the *present day* Astroscan telescope, *as delivered*, reflects my own. I certainly cannot recommend it, and I am astonished that S&T did, given identical information. Ethically, the rating is on a par with a teacher who erases the incorrect responses of favored students and supplies correct ones. (Indeed, it is a lie to call the procedure a "Test" since favored vendors were not allowed to fail.) This is more than a matter of ethics, however; it has substance as well. What happens when a first time telescope user purchases an Astroscan, and draws a sample from the same universe that S&T sampled? The article betrays that first time telescope buyer - the very person it pretends to aid. -Larry Curcio |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Open Letter to Sky and Telescope
I was also a little curious about any corelation between advertising
and reviews. Here's what I found: Orion had the top 4 spots in the reviews. Meade had 4 of the 5 lowest rankings. Then I counted ads. I forget the exact number, but Meade had the most by far, and Orion the least of the big 3. So, not only there no evidence of bias in favor of their advertisers, they actually hammer their biggest advertiser with reviews like "Shaky mount, below-average optics." I should have expected that considering S&T's reputation. Someone should do the same with Car & Driver. While the Astroscan sounds like crap, it is a 114mm reflector up against 70mm dept store refractors. I think S&T did real well. And their top two picks (XT45 and Starblast) have won rave reviews in many other places. Greg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Open Letter to Sky and Telescope
Their conclusion was likely motivated by the fact that Edmund
advertises the Astroscan in the magazine. As with any of their reviews -- particularly with products advertised -- read between the lines. They were honest enough to point out the problems with the product vs actual performance. In the end it is left to the reader to draw their own conclusion. One may listen to someones' opinion/conclusion that this or that is a good scope or not, but it is just one opinion, expert or not. Examine the evidence offered and make your own judgement. Failure to do so is one's own fault which runs rampant thruout America, and is one reason we are overrun with corrupt and anti-constitution politicians. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Open Letter to Sky and Telescope
urban astronomer wrote: Their conclusion was likely motivated by the fact that Edmund advertises the Astroscan in the magazine. Hi: You have some _evidence_ of this? Or is it just a "feeling"? Hi: Peace, Rod Mollise Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_ Like SCTs and MCTs? Join the SCT User Mailing List. http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user ============================ See my home page at http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm for further details! ============================ For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See: http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Open Letter to Sky and Telescope
"urban astronomer" wrote in message oups.com...
Their conclusion was likely motivated by the fact that Edmund advertises the Astroscan in the magazine. Have you actually READ the reviews or just took Larry's letter at face value. I have(read the article) and concur with Rod Mollise's comments. Furthermore, if the ratings correlated with ad dollars then the Meade scopes should have been top rated instead of receiving the low ratings they did. The top rated scopes were the Orions. -- Hilton Evans --------------------------------------------------------------- Lon -71° 04' 35.3" Lat +42° 11' 06.7" --------------------------------------------------------------- Webcam Astroimaging http://mysite.verizon.net/hiltonevan...troimaging.htm --------------------------------------------------------------- ChemPen Chemical Structure Software http://www.chempensoftware.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Open Letter to Sky and Telescope
Worst thing about the Astroscan; Focus creep in cold weather.
Apart from that, is a robust rich field scope. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Open Letter to Sky and Telescope
urban astronomer wrote:
Their conclusion was likely motivated by the fact that Edmund advertises the Astroscan in the magazine. As with any of their reviews -- particularly with products advertised -- read between the lines. They were honest enough to point out the problems with the product vs actual performance. In the end it is left to the reader to draw their own conclusion. One may listen to someones' opinion/conclusion that this or that is a good scope or not, but it is just one opinion, expert or not. Examine the evidence offered and make your own judgement. Failure to do so is one's own fault which runs rampant thruout America, and is one reason we are overrun with corrupt and anti-constitution politicians. Ah .. S&T as the next ENRON? Seems unlikely. I've always had fond memories of the Astroscan I owned in the late 80s until I gave it away 4-5 years ago. Especially noteworthy were the great views of a total solar eclipse from So Calif in Jan of 1992 (or was it 1991?). Had it outfitted with a glass solar filter, necessary plumber's special counterbalance and on a PVC tripod of my making (S&T article, as I recall). Lots of folks got to see the eclipse with my Astroscan that day. Just to compare my fond memories with reality, I borrowed it back a year or two ago. Good views at 16x (sort of the default magnification with the standard EP, as I remember now). At higher powers it quickly became seriously flawed, compared to an ST-80 refractor I was using for A-B testing (not my best refractor, but I was striving for fairness). Still, a nice starter scope for the kids of the fellow I gave it to, and likely for many. These days it may be a bit overpriced relative to the small Orion Dobs. Phil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|