An 80 mm APO (f/6, f'/5) or 5" to 6" SCT?
😨

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:30:10 PM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> An 80 mm APO (f/6, f'/5) or 5" to 6" SCT?
> 😨

The SCT will have more light gathering and resolving power.

The apo will have a wider field of view and faster photo speed.

The apo might or might not have better quality control.

The apo might be slightly easier to carry on a plane.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
wrote:

>An 80 mm APO (f/6, f'/5) or 5" to 6" SCT?
>?

Better for what?

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:30:49 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
> >An 80 mm APO (f/6, f'/5) or 5" to 6" SCT?
> >?
>
> Better for what?

All around, of course!
Me like APOs, though!

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:20:21 PM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:30:49 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT),
> > wrote:
> > >An 80 mm APO (f/6, f'/5) or 5" to 6" SCT?
> > >?
> >
> > Better for what?
> All around, of course!
> Me like APOs, though!

Both of those telescopes are good "all-around" performers.

The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 15:20:20 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:30:49 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT),
>> wrote:
>> >An 80 mm APO (f/6, f'/5) or 5" to 6" SCT?
>> >?
>>
>> Better for what?
>
>All around, of course!

I don't know what that means. Indeed, I don't think it means much of
anything. There are lots of ways that telescopes can be used, and the
nature of that usage very much defines the best type of telescope.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:

> The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.

Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
>
> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.

>>>>

It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:20:21 PM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:30:49 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT),
> > > wrote:
> > > >An 80 mm APO (f/6, f'/5) or 5" to 6" SCT?
> > > >?
> > >
> > > Better for what?
> > All around, of course!
> > Me like APOs, though!
> Both of those telescopes are good "all-around" performers.
>
> The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.

Can't pronounce it, so I don't buy it!

On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
>>
>> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
>> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.
>
>>>>>
>
>It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.

Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
problematic for visual planet observation.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
> >>
> >> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
> >> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.
> Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
> Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
> problematic for visual planet observation.

Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
>> >> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.
>> >
>> >>>>>
>> >
>> >It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.
>> Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
>> Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
>> problematic for visual planet observation.
>
>Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"

Perhaps you should investigate the meaning of the MTF in optics. An
obstruction reduces contrast. For an imager, that's not much of a
problem, because the black and white points and transfer function can
be adjusted. Your brain can't do that dynamically when you're
observing.

A large aperture RC is about as good as it gets for imaging. Planets
viewed through it look awful.

You don't need much light gathering for planets. And resolution is
only a piece of the entire picture.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:27:24 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
> >> >> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.
> >> >
> >> >>>>>
> >> >
> >> >It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.
> >> Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
> >> Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
> >> problematic for visual planet observation.
> >
> >Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"

> Perhaps you should investigate the meaning of the MTF in optics.

Perhaps you should learn something about optics? You certainly don't seem to know much about MTF!

Now, try to ANSWER the question truthfully and without any more of your usual BS:

"Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:57:16 PM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:20:21 PM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:30:49 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT),
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >An 80 mm APO (f/6, f'/5) or 5" to 6" SCT?
> > > > >?
> > > >
> > > > Better for what?
> > > All around, of course!
> > > Me like APOs, though!
> > Both of those telescopes are good "all-around" performers.
> >
> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
> Can't pronounce it, so I don't buy it!

These are only sporadically available from commercial vendors.

One wonders why...

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 07:01:57 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:27:24 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
>> >> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
>> >> >> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >
>> >> >It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.
>> >> Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
>> >> Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
>> >> problematic for visual planet observation.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"
>
>> Perhaps you should investigate the meaning of the MTF in optics.
>
>Perhaps you should learn something about optics? You certainly don't seem to know much about MTF!
>
>Now, try to ANSWER the question truthfully and without any more of your usual BS:
>
>"Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "

I just did.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 07:01:57 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:27:24 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
> >> >> >> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.
> >> >> Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
> >> >> Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
> >> >> problematic for visual planet observation.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"
> >
> >> Perhaps you should investigate the meaning of the MTF in optics.
> >
> >Perhaps you should learn something about optics? You certainly don't seem to know much about MTF!
> >
> >Now, try to ANSWER the question truthfully and without any more of your usual BS:
> >
> >"Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "
> I just did.

You did not answer the question. That's twice that you have evaded it.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 09:51:10 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 07:01:57 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:27:24 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
>> >> >> >> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.
>> >> >> Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
>> >> >> Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
>> >> >> problematic for visual planet observation.
>> >> >
>> >> >Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"
>> >
>> >> Perhaps you should investigate the meaning of the MTF in optics.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you should learn something about optics? You certainly don't seem to know much about MTF!
>> >
>> >Now, try to ANSWER the question truthfully and without any more of your usual BS:
>> >
>> >"Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "
>> I just did.
>
>You did not answer the question. That's twice that you have evaded it.

My, aren't you stupid. I did answer it. A central obstruction reduces
contrast. If you think that isn't a problem for a planetary observer,
you're as stupid as you are illiterate.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:12:37 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 09:51:10 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 07:01:57 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:27:24 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
> >> >> >> >> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.
> >> >> >> Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope..
> >> >> >> Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
> >> >> >> problematic for visual planet observation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"
> >> >
> >> >> Perhaps you should investigate the meaning of the MTF in optics.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps you should learn something about optics? You certainly don't seem to know much about MTF!
> >> >
> >> >Now, try to ANSWER the question truthfully and without any more of your usual BS:
> >> >
> >> >"Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "
> >> I just did.
> >
> >You did not answer the question. That's twice that you have evaded it.
> My, aren't you stupid. I did answer it. A central obstruction reduces
> contrast. If you think that isn't a problem for a planetary observer,
> you're as stupid as you are illiterate.

I never mentioned "central obstruction" at all. Perhaps you have a central obstruction in your brain?

What part of this question do you NOT understand? :

"Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:21:44 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:12:37 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 09:51:10 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 07:01:57 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:27:24 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types.
>> >> >> >> >> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.
>> >> >> >> Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
>> >> >> >> Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
>> >> >> >> problematic for visual planet observation.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"
>> >> >
>> >> >> Perhaps you should investigate the meaning of the MTF in optics.
>> >> >
>> >> >Perhaps you should learn something about optics? You certainly don't seem to know much about MTF!
>> >> >
>> >> >Now, try to ANSWER the question truthfully and without any more of your usual BS:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "
>> >> I just did.
>> >
>> >You did not answer the question. That's twice that you have evaded it.
>> My, aren't you stupid. I did answer it. A central obstruction reduces
>> contrast. If you think that isn't a problem for a planetary observer,
>> you're as stupid as you are illiterate.
>
>I never mentioned "central obstruction" at all. Perhaps you have a central obstruction in your brain?
>
>What part of this question do you NOT understand? :
>
>"Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "

Go fuck yourself.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 2:35:25 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:21:44 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:12:37 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 09:51:10 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 07:01:57 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:27:24 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:55:33 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > The telescopes to avoid are those 'schiefspiegler' types..
> >> >> >> >> >> Why do you make this claim? Sure, a Schiefspiegler design is an exotic design and is best suited to lunar and planetary observations.... but for folks who enjoy such observations, they are really good. For general observation, not so much... but still, in their limited application, they are quite good.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >It's not a claim, it's a fact. All one needs to do to get a better image of a planet is to get a slightly larger telescope of conventional, normal design.
> >> >> >> >> Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
> >> >> >> >> Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
> >> >> >> >> problematic for visual planet observation.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Perhaps you should investigate the meaning of the MTF in optics.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Perhaps you should learn something about optics? You certainly don't seem to know much about MTF!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Now, try to ANSWER the question truthfully and without any more of your usual BS:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "
> >> >> I just did.
> >> >
> >> >You did not answer the question. That's twice that you have evaded it..
> >> My, aren't you stupid. I did answer it. A central obstruction reduces
> >> contrast. If you think that isn't a problem for a planetary observer,
> >> you're as stupid as you are illiterate.
> >
> >I never mentioned "central obstruction" at all. Perhaps you have a central obstruction in your brain?
> >
> >What part of this question do you NOT understand? :
> >
> >"Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "
> Go fuck yourself.

Well, that confirms my theory about your central obstruction. You should get a proctologist to clear that out for you.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 2:52:51 AM UTC-6, W wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> > Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
> > Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
> > problematic for visual planet observation.

> Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"

He did not claim that greater light-gathering power or higher resolving power were problematic.

The central obstruction of a Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope, however, which he did
refer to, and indeed which was the issue, given that an apochromat and a Schmidt-Cassegrain
were being compared, _is_ problematic.

"Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are problematic for
visual planet observation."

See? He said that what was problematic was the fact that the aperture was
obstructed. So by explaining that this was what he was referring to, he did
explain himself. I don't know why you were claiming otherwise.

John Savard

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:21:45 PM UTC-6, W wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:12:37 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> > My, aren't you stupid. I did answer it. A central obstruction reduces
> > contrast. If you think that isn't a problem for a planetary observer,
> > you're as stupid as you are illiterate.

> I never mentioned "central obstruction" at all. Perhaps you have a central obstruction in your brain?
>
> What part of this question do you NOT understand? :
>
> "Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is 'problematic for visual planet observation?' "

Well, you asked that question *immediately following* a statement on
his part that *central obstruction* was problematic. He did NOT make
a statement that greater light-gathering power and higher resolving
power in themselves were problematic, and therefore he had no obligation
to explain or justify such a ludicrous position as you were imputing to him.

It was entirely natural to assume your question was intended to ask
him to explain *his statement* as he made it, not confined to the
specific issues which you repeated in your question.

John Savard

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 8:57:16 PM UTC-6, StarDust wrote:

> Can't pronounce it, so I don't buy it!

A Schiefspiegler is a reflecting telescope with no
central obstruction.

No central obstruction. No chromatic aberration. What's
not to like?

Well, for one thing, usually Schiefspiegler designs have
long focal lengths for their apertures. So they're more
like refractors than like Dobsonians, good for planets,
but not for the deep sky.

For another, while I think Orion actually did make and
sell one, in general, you don't go and buy one of these,
you have to make it yourself.

And, because it's an off-axis design, it's very sensitive
to errors in alignment, and there are other aberrations
it will have - and they won't be symmetrical.

John Savard

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:54:29 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 8:57:16 PM UTC-6, StarDust wrote:
>
> > Can't pronounce it, so I don't buy it!
> A Schiefspiegler is a reflecting telescope with no
> central obstruction.
>
> No central obstruction. No chromatic aberration. What's
> not to like?
>
> Well, for one thing, usually Schiefspiegler designs have
> long focal lengths for their apertures. So they're more
> like refractors than like Dobsonians, good for planets,
> but not for the deep sky.
>
> For another, while I think Orion actually did make and
> sell one, in general, you don't go and buy one of these,
> you have to make it yourself.
>
> And, because it's an off-axis design, it's very sensitive
> to errors in alignment, and there are other aberrations
> it will have - and they won't be symmetrical.
>
> John Savard

I've seen one for sale at Walmart!
Very nice Shitspiegler!
😂😎

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 3:47:34 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 2:52:51 AM UTC-6, W wrote:
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> > > Image with a camera, yes. Visual image through an eyepiece. Nope.
> > > Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are
> > > problematic for visual planet observation.
>
> > Perhaps you would like to explain how the greater light-gathering power and higher resolving power of a larger telescope is "problematic for visual planet observation?"
> He did not claim that greater light-gathering power or higher resolving power were problematic.
>
> The central obstruction of a Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope, however, which he did
> refer to, and indeed which was the issue, given that an apochromat and a Schmidt-Cassegrain
> were being compared, _is_ problematic.
> "Obstructed apertures present no problem for imagers. They are problematic for
> visual planet observation."
> See? He said that what was problematic was the fact that the aperture was
> obstructed. So by explaining that this was what he was referring to, he did
> explain himself. I don't know why you were claiming otherwise.

You missed the point. I never said anything about "central obstructions." I just said "larger telescope." He was the one who threw in the red herring and you are, so far, falling for it.