 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Amateur Astronomy / July 2009Say no to refractors (10th anniversary posting)
Remember this? 10 years ago today... From: "Shawn Grant" Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur Sent: Sunday 04 July 1999 Subject: Say no to refractors There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over any other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is the refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and foremost they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then any other telescope. They are big and bulky. They take a lot of space to store and are hard to transport. Because of the high price and their long length they generally have a small aperture. Remember the larger the aperture the more light collected and better resolution. What other alternatives are there? There are plenty and all better at the task and better value for your money. For Planetary observing a long f/ratio 6" to 10" Newtonian on an equatorial mount with top quality optics is hard to beat. The images of the planets are comparable to a refractor of equal or smaller in size. They cost a quite a bit less then the same size or even a much smaller refractor. The same scope is great for astrophotography and CCD imaging as well. For deep Sky observing a large aperture dobsonian can't be beat. There are many dobsonians with very high quality optics. StarMaster and Obsession make great dobs. Compare the price of a high quality dob with that of a quality refractor. Which is a better value. You can get a 12" or even a 16" dob for less then some 6" refractors. When it comes to deep sky observing it is aperture aperture aperture coupled with optical quality. That can easily be achieved with a dob at a better value. Some people are casual observers. They enjoy planets, deep sky and perhaps CCD imaging or astrophotography but not to serious at it. They want a portable scope to take with them anywhere. The 8" to 10" SCT is an excellent choice. The larger SCTs make excellent scopes in your observatory and are portable to the hardy few. An SCT is a better general purpose scope then a refractor and a much better value. Given that a refractor is a poor choice for everything then why do people buy them? Some are simply ignorant. They don't understand there are much better alternatives. Purchasing a Newtonian or SCT that best fits your interest easily remedies this. Others are not happy unless they spend the most money possible on a telescope. They have to spend as much possible per aperture. It makes them feel better. They enjoy going around bragging that they spent lots of money. It gives them the illusion of power and happiness. This is a serious mental illness that needs to be addressed immediately. Please correct this by seeking psychiatric help. After much medication and therapy you will be cured of this. You can enjoy astronomy better with your new Newtonian or SCT. In closing Newtonians and SCT are much more rewarding for all types of astronomy and lots kinder on your bank account. I hope you learn from this and do not fall into the refractor trap. There are only two reasons to buy a refractor and those are ignorance or a serious mental illness. > Remember this? 10 years ago today... > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > reasons to buy a refractor and those are ignorance or a serious mental > illness. Oh the irony--Shawn is a photographer and used refractor lenses to do photography. :-) > There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over > any other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > their long length they generally have a small aperture. Remember the > larger the aperture the more light collected and better resolution. I've only owned one quality refractor in my entire life (TV-85, which I still have). My other scopes have been (and still are) Newts, SCT, Mak-Cass. But I often wonder about comments like the one quoted. I've read similar comments within the past year in this forum. Who do these guys think they are -- my mom, trying to control her kids' expenditures? Why does Shawn or anyone else feel compelled to give gratuitous, finger-wagging advice on how we should spend our money? If he (they) hate refractors and want something else, that's fine. My own choice should be of no importance to them. Aside from that, aperture isn't the only reason for selecting a telescope. Just this past weekend, several of us took time out from our usual CCD and planetary imaging to look for Antares' companion. The only scope that showed it, and quite clearly, was a 6-inch APO refractor -- not mine, unfortunately. It defeated various Newts and SCTs, including my own 10-inch SCT.  SignatureCurtis Croulet Temecula, California > Aside from that, aperture isn't the only reason for selecting a > telescope. Just this past weekend, several of us took time out from our > usual CCD and planetary imaging to look for Antares' companion. The only > scope that showed it, and quite clearly, was a 6-inch APO refractor -- not > mine, unfortunately. It defeated various Newts and SCTs, including my own > 10-inch SCT. Did anyone try to look for the companion by lucky-imaging with a webcam in planetary mode? Perhaps at three arc-seconds distance and six magnitudes brightness difference you'd have to do some kind of PSF fitting on Antares, which would start to feel much more like hard work. (what's the sensible unambiguously-single star to use as a PSF reference in that part of the sky?) Tom > Did anyone try to look for the companion by lucky-imaging with a > webcam in planetary mode? Perhaps at three arc-seconds distance and > six magnitudes brightness difference you'd have to do some kind of > PSF fitting on Antares, which would start to feel much more like hard > work. No. The point of the effort was to see the star visually. SignatureCurtis Croulet Temecula, California > Remember this? 10 years ago today... Not that specific post, but I remember what a pathetic character he was. I also pitied him for having to go through life advertising the fact that his parents didn't know how to spell Sean. Davoud Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm > > Remember this? 10 years ago today... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Davoud ??? > -- > usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm They probably knew how to spell Sean, but chose to name him Shawn, instead of Sean, Jean, John, Ivan, Juan, Giovanni, Johannes, etc., or Sue. On Jul 3, 5:45 pm, barney <bar...@mailinator.com> quoted: > There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over > any other type of telescope. No matter what your observing interest is > the refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and > foremost they are way over priced. A refractor cost more per inch then > any other telescope. If, however, your observing interests are such that a telescope with an aperture of 50mm or 2 inches is suitable, the central obstruction of a Newtonian of that aperture with an eyepiece of reasonable size would be excessive. For apertures of 6 inches or above, there is no question that it would be very difficult to find a reason to recommend the refractor telescope. Even at a four-inch aperture, refractors indeed are very expensive compared to the other alternatives. But by the time you get down to 3 inches or so, the picture changes. John Savard > Remember this? 10 years ago today... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I miss him Those who want to enjoy comatic stars need look no further than a fast Newt. Those who enjoy fuzzy views and hours of cooling down should look no further than a Mak or Schmidt Cass, Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and knees should look no further than a refractor. Which of these represents a true image of the average instrument or the typical observer? Does any instrument avoid refraction in its make-up? Does any instrument completely avoid reflection? 'Nuff said. Shawn of the Dead. RIP. > Those who enjoy fuzzy views and hours of cooling down should look no > further than a Mak or Schmidt Cass, I haven't found cooldown to be much of an issue, and I observe and image from places where at least a 30 deg F drop is typical after sunset. By the time I've done a drift alignment and the camera is cooled and I've shot a few darks, the scope is close to its operating temperature for the night. This is with (usually) an MK-66 Mak-Cass. And it doesn't give "fuzzy views." I didn't use it the particular night we were looking at Antares mentioned in my earlier post. The 10-inch SCT's stars were, however, significantly inferior to the 6-inch APO. > Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and > knees should look no further than a refractor. Huh? Maybe your scope and mount. SignatureCurtis Croulet Temecula, California On Jul 4, 5:29 pm, "Curtis Croulet" <calypte@**NO**SPAM**verizon.net> wrote: > > Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and > > knees should look no further than a refractor. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Curtis Croulet > Temecula, California Au contrair, mon ami: http://fullerscopes.blogspot.com/ My comment was a dig at re-labelled Chinese refractors. > Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and > knees should look no further than a refractor. That's what telescoping legs and a lightweight folding stool are for. Rick > > "Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and > > knees should look no further than a refractor." > > That's what telescoping legs and a lightweight folding stool are for. > > Rick Really? I thought that was why most Americans had empty swimming pools. (to give them somewhere to stand so they could reach the eyepiece of their Meade refractors with some remaining dignity) :-) > Really? I thought that was why most Americans had empty swimming > pools. > (to give them somewhere to stand so they could reach the eyepiece of > their Meade refractors with some remaining dignity) :-) And here I thought that this was because the United States was running out of fresh water, which is why it has laws that force new toilets to have such small tanks that they're hard to flush properly. All because some Communist agents poisoned the Canadian political climate so that it has become impossible to get the people to accept NAWAPA, which would have brought much-needed money to Canada, and also benefited Canada by making a more prosperous, and therefore a bigger and stronger United States, so we could be even safer against being invaded by Russia, China, or the terrorists. Canadians need to cast off Communist brainwashing! John Savard >> Really? I thought that was why most Americans had empty swimming >> pools. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >And here I thought that this was because the United States was running >out of fresh water, That's a fact. Many pools in the Southeast have gone unfilled not from the economy being poor, but due to water use restrictions. That's eased up this year with all the rain, but in 2007 and 2008, it was a serious issue. We do, of course, have the Great Lakes, the largest body of fresh water outside of the polar glaciers and Lake Baikal. We don't have the infrastructure to use them to supply the nation's potable water. But we will, gradually, as demand exceeds the capacity of the aquifers by an ever greater amount. Unfortunately, the price of water will increase dramatically. >which is why it has laws that force new toilets to >have such small tanks that they're hard to flush properly. Yep. I've always wondered why, if you have to flush two or three times to get the job done, that's reducing comsumption how? Same for those stupid low-flow shower heads. They're fine if you take them apart and drill a 3/8" hole in the flow restrictor orfice. -- Dave On Jul 5, 10:45 pm, "Rick" <r...@nospammers.not> wrote: >> > "Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and >> > knees should look no further than a refractor." >> > That's what telescoping legs and a lightweight folding stool are for. >Really? I thought that was why most Americans had empty swimming >pools. You need to get away from Google Earth. SignatureRick Evans --------------------------------------------------------------- Lon -71° 05' Lat +42° 11' >> Those who like crawling around the base of a tripod on their hands and >> knees should look no further than a refractor. > > That's what telescoping legs and a lightweight folding stool are for. I agree: it seems a curious accusation to me. It is Dobs where you have the perennial problem of the eyepiece being in the wrong place. On no other scope type do you need to kneel on the ground (or sit on a tiny stool) for one observation and climb a ladder for the next. SignatureAndrew Smallshaw andrews@sdf.lonestar.org >I hope you learn from this and do not fall > into the refractor trap. There are only > two reasons to buy a refractor and those > are ignorance or a serious mental > illness. Y'know, with the way this group has deteriorated, I actually miss creative trolls like Shawn with his Andy Kaufmanesque sense of humor. Marty > >I hope you learn from this and do not fall > > into the refractor trap. There are only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > creative trolls like Shawn with his Andy Kaufmanesque sense of humor. > Marty How can people who believe in the astronomical equivalent of a flat Earth deteriorate further. You are into constellation observing yet cannot explain why Orion has disappeared from view and astrologers insist that seasonal difference are due to 'axial tilt' and can't interpret imaging which shows that it is the specific way that the Earth orbits the Sun. What about twilight variations at different latitudes where the person at the Equator,moving at 69.17 miles every 4 minutes rockets into the orbital shadow and day goes to night like a switch whereas Northern latitudes due to the slower rotation,the twilight is a long drawn out affair. In two sentences you learn something new which has never been explained properly due to the fact that you are just another complaining astrologer who uses a 'sidereal time' value for daily rotation which uses daily rotation to explain constellational motion and takes no account of planetary shape and rotation. Trolls?,you are all mindless trolls with a severe dislike for astronomy,that is not a personal insult but something has must be true given the level at which the most basic fact is disputed. > >I hope you learn from this and do not fall > > into the refractor trap. There are only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > creative trolls like Shawn with his Andy Kaufmanesque sense of humor. > Marty Me too. Shawn changed my life. I used to be an APO owner who would turn up at star parties just to brag about how much money I had. Shawn showed me the light. I also used to have an overpriced Macintosh, and thanks to Shawn's guidance, I switched to Windows the best OS in the world period. Windows is freedom. Shawn, (AKA Barney, John Henderson, Charles Henderson, NGC 457, etc, etc, etc,) was saying >Me too. Shawn changed my life. Hey, Shawn! How y'doin'? Marty >>> I hope you learn from this and do not fall >>> into the refractor trap. There are only [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > thanks to Shawn's guidance, I switched to Windows the best OS in the > world period. Windows is freedom. http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-legal_copy-us-200904 19_480x272.mov > >I hope you learn from this and do not fall > > into the refractor trap. There are only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > creative trolls like Shawn with his Andy Kaufmanesque sense of humor. > Marty You have to remember that his rants were posted at a time when refractor-bigotry was at an all-time high. Barney wrote: > Remember this? 10 years ago today... > > From: "Shawn Grant" > [snip massive troll] Wow. I never would have thought it, but this guy is just as effective a troll now (when he hasn't been active in years) as he was way back when. I wish the marine layer would just go away. This has been the worst year in Santa Monica since 2000. -- Brian Tung <brian@lunabase.org> (posting from Google Groups) The Astronomy Corner at http://www.astronomycorner.net/ Unofficial C5+ Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/ My PleiadAtlas Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ at http://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html > Remember this? 10 years ago today... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There is absolutely no reason what so ever to choose a refractor over > any other type of telescope. Funny. You go on Letterman. > No matter what your observing interest is > the refractor is the worst possible choice. Why is this? First and [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > reasons to buy a refractor and those are ignorance or a serious mental > illness. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.