Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [William Optics] Re: UWAN EP reviews

Expand Messages
  • Diane Worth
    I m not sure if I am understanding the purpose of the barlow for magnification and quality of objective vs using a higher power eyepiece. Is there a loss of
    Message 1 of 25 , Jun 3, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm not sure if I am understanding the purpose of the barlow for magnification and quality of objective vs using a higher power eyepiece.  Is there a loss of scrificed image quality when a barlow is in use vs using a higher power eye piece.
      Diane

      Scott Walker <sdwalker@...> wrote:
      Thanks . It did.
      Scott Walker
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 4:54 PM
      Subject: [William Optics] Re: UWAN EP reviews

      Hi Scott,

      Comparing the 7mm Nagler to the 7mm UWAN I saw pretty close to the
      same thing. I really don't think there was more contrast or less
      scatter in the Nagler vs. the UWAN, but at that magnification it is
      really hard to tell.

      I don't have the TV 8mm plossl to compare it to anymore. The problem
      in comparing them is that the only real differences I ever saw were
      on Saturn, and Jupiter. The 7mm UWAN barlowed showed significantly
      more scatter than the 8mm TV plossl barlowed, but both actually
      barlowed quite well, surprisingly.

      I guess this makes the case for having dedicated eyepieces for those
      that really like to study planets. My 80mm Megrez FD is not really
      the "Best" planet scope out there, so that was why I reached the
      conclusions I did regarding selling off the plossls and going with
      UWANs.

      Hope this helps,

      Timm

      --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, "Scott Walker" <sdwalker@.. .>
      wrote:
      >
      > Hi Timm
      >
      > In your review of the Uwan you had commented that there was a
      little lack of contrast on planets with the Uwans.Did you see the
      same thing with the Nagler?
      >
      > Scott Walker
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Timm Bottoni
      > To: William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:38 AM
      > Subject: [William Optics] Re: UWAN EP reviews
      >
      >
      > Hi,
      >
      > My UWAN review is on Astromart, and thanks to a loaner from a
      good
      > friend, I have now been able to compare a Nagler 7mm with my UWAN.
      >
      > My opinion is that with my scope, a WO 80FD, there is no real
      > difference optically except that the 7mm UWAN is closer to 8mm
      based
      > on what I can see. Obviously it's not that much difference and
      > unless you very precisedly compare them, you would never know the
      > difference. 8mm is actually better for me since I have the 16mm
      UWAN
      > and the 4mm UWAN as well, and makes for 2x jumps.
      >
      > I actually prefer the way WO does the eyecup, with the adjustable
      > turn up setting as I find it easier to use. I also prefer the
      > tapered barrel which doesn't snag in the eyepiece compression
      ring
      > when removing it.
      >
      > If they were the same price, I can honestly say I would still buy
      the
      > WO UWAN 7mm over the Nagler 7mm, but the Nagler is significantly
      more
      > money - so it's a no brainer to me.
      >
      > Any feedback or thoughts are welcome.
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Timm
      >
      > --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, Diane Worth <dianesails@ >
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > James,
      > >
      > > Thank you for the expansive reporting on the UWAN eyepieces for
      > my Meade 8" LX200GPS and WO Zenithstar 66SD, you have provided me
      > more information than I ever expected. The reason I mentioned
      TeleVue-
      > Nagler in my message was directly related as I too feel it's past
      > time for high priced naglers to move aside....and WO Ferrari to
      move
      > into the top spot, driving primo optics at affordable prices. I
      have
      > the highest regard for this fine company.
      > >
      > > I will print your message and keep for reference.
      > >
      > > Thank you once again,
      > > Diane
      > >
      > > WO site members, I will try to refrain with my heart felt
      > promotional messages, I am as you have seen very passionate and
      am
      > taken with the fact that WO and Ferrari are joining forces. My
      > background in advertising and promotion, it comes naturally and
      > always from the heart. I also want to say how much I enjoy
      reading
      > the posts here, it's a great way to get a better understanding of
      the
      > inner workings of my scopes.
      > >
      >


    • James T. Bronson
      Diane, Barlow lenses are negative elements in the optical train which increase the effective focal length of the telescope objective. By increasing the
      Message 2 of 25 , Jun 3, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Diane,

        Barlow lenses are "negative elements" in the optical train which
        increase the effective focal length of the telescope objective. By
        increasing the effective focal length of your scope, both the focal
        ratio and the magnification are increased for any given eyepiece...

        Increasing the magnification of your telescope by using a Barlow lens
        rather than by using a shorter length eyepiece has some advantages...

        And...disadvantages...depending upon your perspective...

        Barlow lenses come in a variety of power magnifications...from 1.5X
        to 5X...depending upon the given manufacturer...and are available in
        both 1.25" and 2 " format...

        But...not all Barlows are created equal...in either design or optical
        performance...

        The two lens variant tends to be achromatic, although there are some
        hotly contested claims by certain vendors that their two lens Barlows
        are color free. The better quality Barlow tends to be the three lens
        version which is commonly and probably more correctly advertised as
        apochromatic. The top end Barlows are designed around the four lens
        configuration and referred to by many as "telecentric". Both TeleVue
        and Siebert Optics make exceptional four element telecentric Barlows
        and I have included a couple of links below in case you're interested
        in additional information...

        http://www.televue.com/engine/page.asp?ID=42

        http://www.siebertoptics.com/SiebertOptics-barlows.html#Ad%20#2

        In theory...owning a single Barlow can "double" your collection of
        eyepieces...

        As I commented above...as far as using a Barlow lens to increase the
        magnification or using a shorter focal length eyepiece to accomplish
        the same thing...there are certain advantages and disadvantages to
        either option. The main advantage to using a Barlow is that the
        longer eye relief of the original eyepiece is more or less preserved,
        while its effective focal length is reduced by the Barlow
        magnification factor. Many of the "non-widefield", shorter focal
        length eyepieces have painfully short eye relief as low as 3 - 5 mm,
        while many of the longer focal length eyepieces of the same design
        will have much more comfortable eye relief in the range of 7 - 12
        mm...or better...

        "Eye relief" versus "focal length" is really a function of eyepiece
        design and I've listed a couple of sites below which very succinctly
        summarize several of the major eyepiece designs and their related
        characteristics...

        http://www.aoe.com.au/eyepiece_types.html

        http://www.aoe.com.au/eyepiece_types.html

        The main downside to using a Barlow instead of just using a shorter
        focal length eyepiece is that you are inserting additional elements
        into the optical train and thereby, further corrupting the image. I
        am a loyal devotee of the old school of thought that advocates "less
        is more" where eyepiece design and high resolution are concerned...

        "Every" lens or mirror element in your optical train, irrespective of
        whether it is in your telescope, Barlow or focal reducer/corrector,
        diagonal or eyepiece...is, in effect..."an undesirable filter". Each
        and every one of these "elements" reflects, scatters, distorts, and
        attenuates some of the incident light...and don't let any vendor or
        manufacturer try to tell you otherwise...

        Simply stated..."less elements" really do equate to "more light"...

        Many of the exotic widefield eyepieces are nothing more than a longer
        focal length eyepiece...often of modified Erfle design...mated to an
        integral "mini-Barlow" on the telescope end of the eyepiece. That is
        why a number of the "widefield, long eye relief, short focal length"
        eyepieces are longer and heavier than their "big brothers" and often
        have more elements and groups within the eyepiece body...

        Good question, Diane...

        Clear Skies to All...

        James T. Bronson



        --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Diane Worth <dianesails@...>
        wrote:

        I'm not sure if I am understanding the purpose of the barlow for
        magnification and quality of objective vs using a higher power
        eyepiece. Is there a loss of scrificed image quality when a barlow
        is in use vs using a higher power eye piece...

        Diane
      • markleewebb
        Has anyone ever seen the Geico Caveman commercial where they are interviewing some sort of analyst/psychologist and the Caveman, in split screen ala O Reilly
        Message 3 of 25 , Jun 3, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Has anyone ever seen the Geico Caveman commercial where they are
          interviewing some sort of analyst/psychologist and the Caveman, in
          split screen ala O' Reilly or Hannity and Colmes style? The analyst
          waxes eloquently about some obscure point she wants to make...they
          ask the Caveman if he has any comments...and he says " Yeah !!!!
          What?" putting into perspective the need to be pithy and concise in
          one's commentary.

          Honestly, Diane, you're a little over the top on this WO Ferrari
          thing. It looks more like a licensing arrangement to me - not a
          partnership. WO is gonna use the Ferrari name and logo on some of
          their products - the Ferrari line. It's been done in other
          industries, too. Bicycling for one (where it's a big flop and a big
          joke).

          The WO line of equipment is excellent. I think we need more
          companies in the astro-hobby biz like WO with readily available
          products (no multi-year waiting lists) and at reasonable prices;
          more companies like WO will help buck the trend of a diminishing
          market in the astro-hobby. But I don't think the Ferrari license
          agreement will mean all that much. I'm not gonna go out and buy a
          scope just 'cause it's got the name Ferrari on it.

          Anyhow, that's what I meant by the Caveman reference - the
          analyst/Caveman split screen talk show. It was intended to be funny
          and elicit a fun dialogue.

          I ain't big 'n bad at all :)

          --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Diane Worth <dianesails@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Hey James
          >
          > .........."Wax On"
          >
          > You are good!!!
          >
          > Diane
          >
          > Hey Marklee tell me about you!!
          >
          > How big and bad are you.......no fair slithering downhill!!
          >
          > I don't remember reading your blogs then again I'm new!
          >
          > Is that how you say welcome to WO......if so you have lousy
          manners!
          >
          > .....and devils wear red!!
          >
          >
          >
          > markleewebb <webb.m@...> wrote:
          > Hey James - you're not as funny as Diane.
          >
          > Thanks for sending all the insults my way.
          >
          > You're a great guy - have a nice day.
          >
          > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "James T. Bronson"
          > <jamesbronson@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Diane,
          > >
          > > Contrary to the Neanderthal retort, I enjoyed your response and
          > agree
          > > with "your vision" about William Optics...at least, in theory...
          > >
          > > Industry does need to take the lead in terms of scientific
          > endeavor
          > > and technological development and the synergistic combination of
          > > Ferrari and WO certainly has the potential to be a "marriage
          made
          > in
          > > heaven", so to speak...
          > >
          > > However...I am a bit pessimistic after viewing the WO site and
          > seeing
          > > the "teaser listings" which include a "Ferrari ZenithStar
          Racing"
          > > refractor. As I believe I correctly commented...most serious
          > amateur
          > > astronomers are more interested in "flat fields" and "reduced
          > coma",
          > > rather than racing stripes and corporate hype...
          > >
          > > "Ferrari" is a household name which has worldwide recognition,
          > while
          > > William Optics is a moniker which primarily has recognition
          within
          > > the amateur astronomy community...and mainly, within the
          refractor
          > > niche. I'm not sure what William Yang plans to accomplish by
          this
          > > licensing agreement, but it should prove "interesting" in the
          near
          > > future...
          > >
          > > As I said...my main concern is that WO will get pulled up to
          > Olympus
          > > by the European "jet set" and we'll end up in the same situation
          > as
          > > another elite refractor manufacturer who now produces a grand
          > total
          > > of one model which has an indeterminant waiting list...and whose
          > site
          > > no longer even lists the price...
          > >
          > > You have to call for that...
          > >
          > > And...get on "a waiting list" to be notified about the price...
          > >
          > > As far as your would-be detractor, perhaps his sensibilities
          would
          > > have been less offended if you had presented your vision in a
          more
          > > visual form...like a picture done in crayon...or, finger
          paints...
          > >
          > > Shame on you, Diane...for using multi-syllable words...how could
          > you
          > > possibly be so insensitive to our genetically challenged, fellow
          > > hominids...;)...
          > >
          > > Big smile...:)...but, mind you...no grunts...
          > >
          > > Clear Skies to All...
          > >
          > > James T. Bronson
          > >
          >
        • Diane Worth
          Hey Marklee, Thank you for responding, I wanted to learn more about you. It was good to see your expressions and we really do share many same thoughts. I think
          Message 4 of 25 , Jun 3, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Marklee,
             
            Thank you for responding, I wanted to learn more about you. It was good to see your expressions and we really do share many same thoughts. 
             
            I think it is approriate to keep slams to ones self and just move to the next posting that catches your interest. When I have read enough comments on a particular topic I move on, one expects us to read everything, there's no exam at days end.  
             
            Today I was scaning the days new postings hoping to see a response to my inquiry last night on barlows. James responded and gave an excellent unbiased reporting which I passed on to another club site I belong to.  If I see his name listed as the author I will take time out no matter the topic. 
             
            Myself and a few here are novices but still want to contribute, if I see an article I feel maybe of interest I post it.  
             
            Thanks again for responding, are you from michigan?
             
            Diane
             
             
            hereof it and manybe move on to another postingn.  It really doesn't befit the level of the comentary here  Just lkeep your polks to yourselfis good to read your thoughts and we share many of the same thoughts.  Thanks for responding and please do be more polite, some of us aren't going to be on the same track that's a good thing however we don't need pot shots in the dark to make our point.

            markleewebb <webb.m@...> wrote:
            Has anyone ever seen the Geico Caveman commercial where they are
            interviewing some sort of analyst/psychologis t and the Caveman, in
            split screen ala O' Reilly or Hannity and Colmes style? The analyst
            waxes eloquently about some obscure point she wants to make...they
            ask the Caveman if he has any comments...and he says " Yeah !!!!
            What?" putting into perspective the need to be pithy and concise in
            one's commentary.

            Honestly, Diane, you're a little over the top on this WO Ferrari
            thing. It looks more like a licensing arrangement to me - not a
            partnership. WO is gonna use the Ferrari name and logo on some of
            their products - the Ferrari line. It's been done in other
            industries, too. Bicycling for one (where it's a big flop and a big
            joke).

            The WO line of equipment is excellent. I think we need more
            companies in the astro-hobby biz like WO with readily available
            products (no multi-year waiting lists) and at reasonable prices;
            more companies like WO will help buck the trend of a diminishing
            market in the astro-hobby. But I don't think the Ferrari license
            agreement will mean all that much. I'm not gonna go out and buy a
            scope just 'cause it's got the name Ferrari on it.

            Anyhow, that's what I meant by the Caveman reference - the
            analyst/Caveman split screen talk show. It was intended to be funny
            and elicit a fun dialogue.

            I ain't big 'n bad at all :)

            --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, Diane Worth <dianesails@ ...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Hey James
            >
            > .........."Wax On"
            >
            > You are good!!!
            >
            > Diane
            >
            > Hey Marklee tell me about you!!
            >
            > How big and bad are you.......no fair slithering downhill!!
            >
            > I don't remember reading your blogs then again I'm new!
            >
            > Is that how you say welcome to WO......if so you have lousy
            manners!
            >
            > .....and devils wear red!!
            >
            >
            >
            > markleewebb <webb.m@...> wrote:
            > Hey James - you're not as funny as Diane.
            >
            > Thanks for sending all the insults my way.
            >
            > You're a great guy - have a nice day.
            >
            > --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, "James T. Bronson"
            > <jamesbronson@ > wrote:
            > >
            > > Diane,
            > >
            > > Contrary to the Neanderthal retort, I enjoyed your response and
            > agree
            > > with "your vision" about William Optics...at least, in theory...
            > >
            > > Industry does need to take the lead in terms of scientific
            > endeavor
            > > and technological development and the synergistic combination of
            > > Ferrari and WO certainly has the potential to be a "marriage
            made
            > in
            > > heaven", so to speak...
            > >
            > > However...I am a bit pessimistic after viewing the WO site and
            > seeing
            > > the "teaser listings" which include a "Ferrari ZenithStar
            Racing"
            > > refractor. As I believe I correctly commented... most serious
            > amateur
            > > astronomers are more interested in "flat fields" and "reduced
            > coma",
            > > rather than racing stripes and corporate hype...
            > >
            > > "Ferrari" is a household name which has worldwide recognition,
            > while
            > > William Optics is a moniker which primarily has recognition
            within
            > > the amateur astronomy community... and mainly, within the
            refractor
            > > niche. I'm not sure what William Yang plans to accomplish by
            this
            > > licensing agreement, but it should prove "interesting" in the
            near
            > > future...
            > >
            > > As I said...my main concern is that WO will get pulled up to
            > Olympus
            > > by the European "jet set" and we'll end up in the same situation
            > as
            > > another elite refractor manufacturer who now produces a grand
            > total
            > > of one model which has an indeterminant waiting list...and whose
            > site
            > > no longer even lists the price...
            > >
            > > You have to call for that...
            > >
            > > And...get on "a waiting list" to be notified about the price...
            > >
            > > As far as your would-be detractor, perhaps his sensibilities
            would
            > > have been less offended if you had presented your vision in a
            more
            > > visual form...like a picture done in crayon...or, finger
            paints...
            > >
            > > Shame on you, Diane...for using multi-syllable words...how could
            > you
            > > possibly be so insensitive to our genetically challenged, fellow
            > > hominids...; )...
            > >
            > > Big smile...:).. .but, mind you...no grunts...
            > >
            > > Clear Skies to All...
            > >
            > > James T. Bronson
            > >
            >


          • Chris Lord
            A Barlow lens should not be confused with a Telecentric amplifier. A Barlow takes the divergent off axis ray bundles from the objective and amplifies them,
            Message 5 of 25 , Jun 4, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              A Barlow lens should not be confused with a Telecentric amplifier. A
              Barlow takes the divergent off axis ray bundles from the objective and
              amplifies them, making them diverge more. The further off the optical
              axis the greater the field angle becomes, introducing field curvature
              and vignetting. A Telecentric amplifier returns the outer principal
              rays parallel to the optical axis.

              Barlow lenses used to be sold with a specified focal length (negative).
              The lens was fitted into a cell within a tube that could be slid into a
              drawtube which was an integral part of the rackmount. The increase in
              the effective focal length of the telescope could be varied by altering
              the separation between the Barlow lens and eyepiece. Now, because
              telescope focusers tend not to have drawtubes, they are sold with a
              specified, usually fixed, amplification. Spacer tubes placed between
              the back of the Barlow and the eyepiece may be used to increase the
              amplification. However the aberration correction of the Barlow is
              designed for its specified amplification and will increase if spacers
              are introduced. In the days when achromatic refractors had focal ratios
              of f/16 and loner, and the popular eyepiece was the Huyghenian, this
              hardly mattered, but these days of fast apochromatic OG's and highly
              corrected eyepieces, it does.

              In theory a telecentric has to be designed for a specific aperture and
              focal ratio because the principal rays have to be made parallel to the
              optical axis. In practice there is a margin that enables a commercial
              telecentric amplifier to be used across a limited range of apertures
              and focal ratios with a slight adjustment of placement and eyepiece
              separation. A true telecentric must be located with its front elements
              a specific distance inside the focal plane, and the eyepiece located a
              specific distance behind the rear elements (referred to as the 'top
              surface'). The amplification of a telecentric amplifier is fixed, and
              does not vary with eyepiece separation.

              The design and optical quality of a Barlow matters. You tend to get
              what you pay for. The Zeiss Abbe Barlow, x2 / x3, the Dakin x1.4 & x2.4
              by Vernonscope & Edmund Scientific, and the x2 TeleVue Big Barlow are
              amongst my favourites. Siebert also make a x2.5 Big Barlow which works
              well with low power eyepieces.

              Telecentrics offer certain advantages over standard Barlows for fast
              objectives where field curvature is already a problem. A contact
              triplet apochromatic object glass will posses quite a steep radius of
              field curvature, typically approximately 37.5% of the focal length. A
              Barlow will only make this worse, severely limiting the useable field.
              A telecentric can act as a field flattener as well as a focal length
              amplifier.

              Televue and Siebert Optics offer a range of telecentric amplifiers
              intended for visual observation. Note that the x5 PowerMate is not
              truly telecentic, the amplification varies from x5 with the eyepiece at
              the top surface and x8 when 100mm from the top surface.

              The built in mini-Barlow found in some very short focal length
              eyepieces is called a Smyth converter, after William Henry Smyth,
              author of "A Cycle of Celestial Objects" and the "Bedford Catalogue" -
              1844, who following on from the work of Peter Barlow, first suggested
              incorporating a Barlow within an eyepiece to increase the apparent
              field of view and increase eye relief.

              If you understand algebra, I have a monograph on the subject with
              worked examples and ray traces, just e-mail me for a copy.

              Chris Lord

              On 3 Jun 2007, at 14:09, James T. Bronson wrote:

              > Diane,
              >
              > Barlow lenses are "negative elements" in the optical train which
              > increase the effective focal length of the telescope objective. By
              > increasing the effective focal length of your scope, both the focal
              > ratio and the magnification are increased for any given eyepiece...
              ___________________________________
              ===================================
              Chris Lord
              Brayebrook Observatory northern outpost
              49 Kenilworth Road
              Lytham St.Annes
              Lancashire
              FY8 1LB
              tel (+44) 01253 728210
              mob. 07842 756382
              http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/
              ===================================
              ___________________________________
            • markleewebb
              Hey Diane: I am from Kentucky. Well, I grew up in SoCal but have been in Kentucky many years. I, too, am a novice as in I don t have a lotta technical skills
              Message 6 of 25 , Jun 4, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Hey Diane:

                I am from Kentucky. Well, I grew up in SoCal but have been in
                Kentucky many years.

                I, too, am a novice as in I don't have a lotta technical skills
                acquired in Astronomy. I took some Physics and Astronomy courses at
                UCLA and UL, and did planetarium lectures at UL. But I don't know
                much about optical theory and such - I just like to get out in the
                country under dark skies during the warmer months with my scope and
                a blanket. Wine and women, too, if available on any particular
                evening.

                My scopes right now are a WO 66mm SD and an Intes 5" Mak. I intend
                to use a WO Eazy Touch mount so I can mount both scopes. Actually,
                my order from WO for the 66 SD and mount are due to arrive via UPS
                today. I'm hoping this combo gives me a good grab-n-go set up while
                still allowing decent views of DSO's with the f/10 5" Mak (it only
                weighs 7 pounds).

                --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Diane Worth <dianesails@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Hey Marklee,
                >
                > Thank you for responding, I wanted to learn more about you. It
                was good to see your expressions and we really do share many same
                thoughts.
                >
                > I think it is approriate to keep slams to ones self and just
                move to the next posting that catches your interest. When I have
                read enough comments on a particular topic I move on, one expects us
                to read everything, there's no exam at days end.
                >
                > Today I was scaning the days new postings hoping to see a
                response to my inquiry last night on barlows. James responded and
                gave an excellent unbiased reporting which I passed on to another
                club site I belong to. If I see his name listed as the author I
                will take time out no matter the topic.
                >
                > Myself and a few here are novices but still want to contribute,
                if I see an article I feel maybe of interest I post it.
                >
                > Thanks again for responding, are you from michigan?
                >
                > Diane
                >
                >
                > hereof it and manybe move on to another postingn. It really
                doesn't befit the level of the comentary here Just lkeep your polks
                to yourselfis good to read your thoughts and we share many of the
                same thoughts. Thanks for responding and please do be more polite,
                some of us aren't going to be on the same track that's a good thing
                however we don't need pot shots in the dark to make our point.
                >
                > markleewebb <webb.m@...> wrote:
                > Has anyone ever seen the Geico Caveman commercial where
                they are
                > interviewing some sort of analyst/psychologist and the Caveman, in
                > split screen ala O' Reilly or Hannity and Colmes style? The
                analyst
                > waxes eloquently about some obscure point she wants to make...they
                > ask the Caveman if he has any comments...and he says " Yeah !!!!
                > What?" putting into perspective the need to be pithy and concise
                in
                > one's commentary.
                >
                > Honestly, Diane, you're a little over the top on this WO Ferrari
                > thing. It looks more like a licensing arrangement to me - not a
                > partnership. WO is gonna use the Ferrari name and logo on some of
                > their products - the Ferrari line. It's been done in other
                > industries, too. Bicycling for one (where it's a big flop and a
                big
                > joke).
                >
                > The WO line of equipment is excellent. I think we need more
                > companies in the astro-hobby biz like WO with readily available
                > products (no multi-year waiting lists) and at reasonable prices;
                > more companies like WO will help buck the trend of a diminishing
                > market in the astro-hobby. But I don't think the Ferrari license
                > agreement will mean all that much. I'm not gonna go out and buy a
                > scope just 'cause it's got the name Ferrari on it.
                >
                > Anyhow, that's what I meant by the Caveman reference - the
                > analyst/Caveman split screen talk show. It was intended to be
                funny
                > and elicit a fun dialogue.
                >
                > I ain't big 'n bad at all :)
                >
                > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Diane Worth <dianesails@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > Hey James
                > >
                > > .........."Wax On"
                > >
                > > You are good!!!
                > >
                > > Diane
                > >
                > > Hey Marklee tell me about you!!
                > >
                > > How big and bad are you.......no fair slithering downhill!!
                > >
                > > I don't remember reading your blogs then again I'm new!
                > >
                > > Is that how you say welcome to WO......if so you have lousy
                > manners!
                > >
                > > .....and devils wear red!!
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > markleewebb <webb.m@> wrote:
                > > Hey James - you're not as funny as Diane.
                > >
                > > Thanks for sending all the insults my way.
                > >
                > > You're a great guy - have a nice day.
                > >
                > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "James T. Bronson"
                > > <jamesbronson@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Diane,
                > > >
                > > > Contrary to the Neanderthal retort, I enjoyed your response
                and
                > > agree
                > > > with "your vision" about William Optics...at least, in
                theory...
                > > >
                > > > Industry does need to take the lead in terms of scientific
                > > endeavor
                > > > and technological development and the synergistic combination
                of
                > > > Ferrari and WO certainly has the potential to be a "marriage
                > made
                > > in
                > > > heaven", so to speak...
                > > >
                > > > However...I am a bit pessimistic after viewing the WO site and
                > > seeing
                > > > the "teaser listings" which include a "Ferrari ZenithStar
                > Racing"
                > > > refractor. As I believe I correctly commented...most serious
                > > amateur
                > > > astronomers are more interested in "flat fields" and "reduced
                > > coma",
                > > > rather than racing stripes and corporate hype...
                > > >
                > > > "Ferrari" is a household name which has worldwide recognition,
                > > while
                > > > William Optics is a moniker which primarily has recognition
                > within
                > > > the amateur astronomy community...and mainly, within the
                > refractor
                > > > niche. I'm not sure what William Yang plans to accomplish by
                > this
                > > > licensing agreement, but it should prove "interesting" in the
                > near
                > > > future...
                > > >
                > > > As I said...my main concern is that WO will get pulled up to
                > > Olympus
                > > > by the European "jet set" and we'll end up in the same
                situation
                > > as
                > > > another elite refractor manufacturer who now produces a grand
                > > total
                > > > of one model which has an indeterminant waiting list...and
                whose
                > > site
                > > > no longer even lists the price...
                > > >
                > > > You have to call for that...
                > > >
                > > > And...get on "a waiting list" to be notified about the price...
                > > >
                > > > As far as your would-be detractor, perhaps his sensibilities
                > would
                > > > have been less offended if you had presented your vision in a
                > more
                > > > visual form...like a picture done in crayon...or, finger
                > paints...
                > > >
                > > > Shame on you, Diane...for using multi-syllable words...how
                could
                > > you
                > > > possibly be so insensitive to our genetically challenged,
                fellow
                > > > hominids...;)...
                > > >
                > > > Big smile...:)...but, mind you...no grunts...
                > > >
                > > > Clear Skies to All...
                > > >
                > > > James T. Bronson
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • Diane Worth
                Hi there, is it Mark....Marklee? You do not appear to be a novice by any means....a humble fellow! UCLA astronomy and taught planetarium presentations, I
                Message 7 of 25 , Jun 4, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi there, is it Mark....Marklee? 
                   
                  You do not appear to be a novice by any means....a humble fellow!   UCLA astronomy and
                  taught planetarium presentations, I just knew it you are a great....well for now a "good guy".
                   
                  My dad grew up in the Louisville area,  horses and bue grass, a gorgeous country side, I have always wanted to live there.
                   
                  I have a WO Zenith Star 66 SD and a Meade 8" LX200GPS.  Tri-Pod for the WO 66, a fella from my club is letting me use or he sez it's a gift, a Vixen porta mount and seems like a perfect match.  Free works as real estate here is killing my optimistic spirit.
                   
                  I enjoyed reading about you and hope to hear more fun stuff!
                   
                  .....and my gratitude to  "James".
                   
                  Diane
                   


                  markleewebb <webb.m@...> wrote:
                  Hey Diane:

                  I am from Kentucky. Well, I grew up in SoCal but have been in
                  Kentucky many years.

                  I, too, am a novice as in I don't have a lotta technical skills
                  acquired in Astronomy. I took some Physics and Astronomy courses at
                  UCLA and UL, and did planetarium lectures at UL. But I don't know
                  much about optical theory and such - I just like to get out in the
                  country under dark skies during the warmer months with my scope and
                  a blanket. Wine and women, too, if available on any particular
                  evening.

                  My scopes right now are a WO 66mm SD and an Intes 5" Mak. I intend
                  to use a WO Eazy Touch mount so I can mount both scopes. Actually,
                  my order from WO for the 66 SD and mount are due to arrive via UPS
                  today. I'm hoping this combo gives me a good grab-n-go set up while
                  still allowing decent views of DSO's with the f/10 5" Mak (it only
                  weighs 7 pounds).

                  --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, Diane Worth <dianesails@ ...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Hey Marklee,
                  >
                  > Thank you for responding, I wanted to learn more about you. It
                  was good to see your expressions and we really do share many same
                  thoughts.
                  >
                  > I think it is approriate to keep slams to ones self and just
                  move to the next posting that catches your interest. When I have
                  read enough comments on a particular topic I move on, one expects us
                  to read everything, there's no exam at days end.
                  >
                  > Today I was scaning the days new postings hoping to see a
                  response to my inquiry last night on barlows. James responded and
                  gave an excellent unbiased reporting which I passed on to another
                  club site I belong to. If I see his name listed as the author I
                  will take time out no matter the topic.
                  >
                  > Myself and a few here are novices but still want to contribute,
                  if I see an article I feel maybe of interest I post it.
                  >
                  > Thanks again for responding, are you from michigan?
                  >
                  > Diane
                  >
                  >
                  > hereof it and manybe move on to another postingn. It really
                  doesn't befit the level of the comentary here Just lkeep your polks
                  to yourselfis good to read your thoughts and we share many of the
                  same thoughts. Thanks for responding and please do be more polite,
                  some of us aren't going to be on the same track that's a good thing
                  however we don't need pot shots in the dark to make our point.
                  >
                  > markleewebb <webb.m@...> wrote:
                  > Has anyone ever seen the Geico Caveman commercial where
                  they are
                  > interviewing some sort of analyst/psychologis t and the Caveman, in
                  > split screen ala O' Reilly or Hannity and Colmes style? The
                  analyst
                  > waxes eloquently about some obscure point she wants to make...they
                  > ask the Caveman if he has any comments...and he says " Yeah !!!!
                  > What?" putting into perspective the need to be pithy and concise
                  in
                  > one's commentary.
                  >
                  > Honestly, Diane, you're a little over the top on this WO Ferrari
                  > thing. It looks more like a licensing arrangement to me - not a
                  > partnership. WO is gonna use the Ferrari name and logo on some of
                  > their products - the Ferrari line. It's been done in other
                  > industries, too. Bicycling for one (where it's a big flop and a
                  big
                  > joke).
                  >
                  > The WO line of equipment is excellent. I think we need more
                  > companies in the astro-hobby biz like WO with readily available
                  > products (no multi-year waiting lists) and at reasonable prices;
                  > more companies like WO will help buck the trend of a diminishing
                  > market in the astro-hobby. But I don't think the Ferrari license
                  > agreement will mean all that much. I'm not gonna go out and buy a
                  > scope just 'cause it's got the name Ferrari on it.
                  >
                  > Anyhow, that's what I meant by the Caveman reference - the
                  > analyst/Caveman split screen talk show. It was intended to be
                  funny
                  > and elicit a fun dialogue.
                  >
                  > I ain't big 'n bad at all :)
                  >
                  > --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, Diane Worth <dianesails@ >
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Hey James
                  > >
                  > > .........."Wax On"
                  > >
                  > > You are good!!!
                  > >
                  > > Diane
                  > >
                  > > Hey Marklee tell me about you!!
                  > >
                  > > How big and bad are you.......no fair slithering downhill!!
                  > >
                  > > I don't remember reading your blogs then again I'm new!
                  > >
                  > > Is that how you say welcome to WO......if so you have lousy
                  > manners!
                  > >
                  > > .....and devils wear red!!
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > markleewebb <webb.m@> wrote:
                  > > Hey James - you're not as funny as Diane.
                  > >
                  > > Thanks for sending all the insults my way.
                  > >
                  > > You're a great guy - have a nice day.
                  > >
                  > > --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, "James T. Bronson"
                  > > <jamesbronson@ > wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Diane,
                  > > >
                  > > > Contrary to the Neanderthal retort, I enjoyed your response
                  and
                  > > agree
                  > > > with "your vision" about William Optics...at least, in
                  theory...
                  > > >
                  > > > Industry does need to take the lead in terms of scientific
                  > > endeavor
                  > > > and technological development and the synergistic combination
                  of
                  > > > Ferrari and WO certainly has the potential to be a "marriage
                  > made
                  > > in
                  > > > heaven", so to speak...
                  > > >
                  > > > However...I am a bit pessimistic after viewing the WO site and
                  > > seeing
                  > > > the "teaser listings" which include a "Ferrari ZenithStar
                  > Racing"
                  > > > refractor. As I believe I correctly commented... most serious
                  > > amateur
                  > > > astronomers are more interested in "flat fields" and "reduced
                  > > coma",
                  > > > rather than racing stripes and corporate hype...
                  > > >
                  > > > "Ferrari" is a household name which has worldwide recognition,
                  > > while
                  > > > William Optics is a moniker which primarily has recognition
                  > within
                  > > > the amateur astronomy community... and mainly, within the
                  > refractor
                  > > > niche. I'm not sure what William Yang plans to accomplish by
                  > this
                  > > > licensing agreement, but it should prove "interesting" in the
                  > near
                  > > > future...
                  > > >
                  > > > As I said...my main concern is that WO will get pulled up to
                  > > Olympus
                  > > > by the European "jet set" and we'll end up in the same
                  situation
                  > > as
                  > > > another elite refractor manufacturer who now produces a grand
                  > > total
                  > > > of one model which has an indeterminant waiting list...and
                  whose
                  > > site
                  > > > no longer even lists the price...
                  > > >
                  > > > You have to call for that...
                  > > >
                  > > > And...get on "a waiting list" to be notified about the price...
                  > > >
                  > > > As far as your would-be detractor, perhaps his sensibilities
                  > would
                  > > > have been less offended if you had presented your vision in a
                  > more
                  > > > visual form...like a picture done in crayon...or, finger
                  > paints...
                  > > >
                  > > > Shame on you, Diane...for using multi-syllable words...how
                  could
                  > > you
                  > > > possibly be so insensitive to our genetically challenged,
                  fellow
                  > > > hominids...; )...
                  > > >
                  > > > Big smile...:).. .but, mind you...no grunts...
                  > > >
                  > > > Clear Skies to All...
                  > > >
                  > > > James T. Bronson
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >


                • markleewebb
                  More info (it s Mark, too): Our local club has a dark site about 50 miles northwest of Louisville in Indiana, but that makes for almost 2 hours of driving to
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jun 4, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    More info (it's Mark, too):

                    Our local club has a dark site about 50 miles northwest of
                    Louisville in Indiana, but that makes for almost 2 hours of driving
                    to and from the site. I had actually sold my scopes and mounts
                    because I used them so little. But then the club found a new local
                    site called our Urban Astronomy Center that's about 5 minutes from
                    my house - it has surprisingly dark horizons (to the south
                    especially). I can't observe well from my backyard because of
                    neighbors security lights. So when they opened the new site just
                    down the street from my house I bought a new WO 66SD and the WO Eazy
                    Touch mount!! I should be able to pack up and be at the new site in
                    15 minutes total (well...maybe 20 minutes if I go to local market
                    for some soft drinks or beer before heading over to the new site).

                    I should get my new WO equipment tonite from UPS when I arrive home !

                    --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Diane Worth <dianesails@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi there, is it Mark....Marklee?
                    >
                    > You do not appear to be a novice by any means....a humble
                    fellow! UCLA astronomy and
                    > taught planetarium presentations, I just knew it you are a
                    great....well for now a "good guy".
                    >
                    > My dad grew up in the Louisville area, horses and bue grass, a
                    gorgeous country side, I have always wanted to live there.
                    >
                    > I have a WO Zenith Star 66 SD and a Meade 8" LX200GPS. Tri-Pod
                    for the WO 66, a fella from my club is letting me use or he sez it's
                    a gift, a Vixen porta mount and seems like a perfect match. Free
                    works as real estate here is killing my optimistic spirit.
                    >
                    > I enjoyed reading about you and hope to hear more fun stuff!
                    >
                    > .....and my gratitude to "James".
                    >
                    > Diane
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > markleewebb <webb.m@...> wrote:
                    > Hey Diane:
                    >
                    > I am from Kentucky. Well, I grew up in SoCal but have been in
                    > Kentucky many years.
                    >
                    > I, too, am a novice as in I don't have a lotta technical skills
                    > acquired in Astronomy. I took some Physics and Astronomy courses
                    at
                    > UCLA and UL, and did planetarium lectures at UL. But I don't know
                    > much about optical theory and such - I just like to get out in the
                    > country under dark skies during the warmer months with my scope
                    and
                    > a blanket. Wine and women, too, if available on any particular
                    > evening.
                    >
                    > My scopes right now are a WO 66mm SD and an Intes 5" Mak. I intend
                    > to use a WO Eazy Touch mount so I can mount both scopes. Actually,
                    > my order from WO for the 66 SD and mount are due to arrive via UPS
                    > today. I'm hoping this combo gives me a good grab-n-go set up
                    while
                    > still allowing decent views of DSO's with the f/10 5" Mak (it only
                    > weighs 7 pounds).
                    >
                    > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Diane Worth <dianesails@>
                    > wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Hey Marklee,
                    > >
                    > > Thank you for responding, I wanted to learn more about you. It
                    > was good to see your expressions and we really do share many same
                    > thoughts.
                    > >
                    > > I think it is approriate to keep slams to ones self and just
                    > move to the next posting that catches your interest. When I have
                    > read enough comments on a particular topic I move on, one expects
                    us
                    > to read everything, there's no exam at days end.
                    > >
                    > > Today I was scaning the days new postings hoping to see a
                    > response to my inquiry last night on barlows. James responded and
                    > gave an excellent unbiased reporting which I passed on to another
                    > club site I belong to. If I see his name listed as the author I
                    > will take time out no matter the topic.
                    > >
                    > > Myself and a few here are novices but still want to contribute,
                    > if I see an article I feel maybe of interest I post it.
                    > >
                    > > Thanks again for responding, are you from michigan?
                    > >
                    > > Diane
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > hereof it and manybe move on to another postingn. It really
                    > doesn't befit the level of the comentary here Just lkeep your
                    polks
                    > to yourselfis good to read your thoughts and we share many of the
                    > same thoughts. Thanks for responding and please do be more polite,
                    > some of us aren't going to be on the same track that's a good
                    thing
                    > however we don't need pot shots in the dark to make our point.
                    > >
                    > > markleewebb <webb.m@> wrote:
                    > > Has anyone ever seen the Geico Caveman commercial where
                    > they are
                    > > interviewing some sort of analyst/psychologist and the Caveman,
                    in
                    > > split screen ala O' Reilly or Hannity and Colmes style? The
                    > analyst
                    > > waxes eloquently about some obscure point she wants to
                    make...they
                    > > ask the Caveman if he has any comments...and he says " Yeah !!!!
                    > > What?" putting into perspective the need to be pithy and concise
                    > in
                    > > one's commentary.
                    > >
                    > > Honestly, Diane, you're a little over the top on this WO Ferrari
                    > > thing. It looks more like a licensing arrangement to me - not a
                    > > partnership. WO is gonna use the Ferrari name and logo on some
                    of
                    > > their products - the Ferrari line. It's been done in other
                    > > industries, too. Bicycling for one (where it's a big flop and a
                    > big
                    > > joke).
                    > >
                    > > The WO line of equipment is excellent. I think we need more
                    > > companies in the astro-hobby biz like WO with readily available
                    > > products (no multi-year waiting lists) and at reasonable prices;
                    > > more companies like WO will help buck the trend of a diminishing
                    > > market in the astro-hobby. But I don't think the Ferrari license
                    > > agreement will mean all that much. I'm not gonna go out and buy
                    a
                    > > scope just 'cause it's got the name Ferrari on it.
                    > >
                    > > Anyhow, that's what I meant by the Caveman reference - the
                    > > analyst/Caveman split screen talk show. It was intended to be
                    > funny
                    > > and elicit a fun dialogue.
                    > >
                    > > I ain't big 'n bad at all :)
                    > >
                    > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Diane Worth <dianesails@>
                    > > wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Hey James
                    > > >
                    > > > .........."Wax On"
                    > > >
                    > > > You are good!!!
                    > > >
                    > > > Diane
                    > > >
                    > > > Hey Marklee tell me about you!!
                    > > >
                    > > > How big and bad are you.......no fair slithering downhill!!
                    > > >
                    > > > I don't remember reading your blogs then again I'm new!
                    > > >
                    > > > Is that how you say welcome to WO......if so you have lousy
                    > > manners!
                    > > >
                    > > > .....and devils wear red!!
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > markleewebb <webb.m@> wrote:
                    > > > Hey James - you're not as funny as Diane.
                    > > >
                    > > > Thanks for sending all the insults my way.
                    > > >
                    > > > You're a great guy - have a nice day.
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "James T. Bronson"
                    > > > <jamesbronson@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Diane,
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Contrary to the Neanderthal retort, I enjoyed your response
                    > and
                    > > > agree
                    > > > > with "your vision" about William Optics...at least, in
                    > theory...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Industry does need to take the lead in terms of scientific
                    > > > endeavor
                    > > > > and technological development and the synergistic
                    combination
                    > of
                    > > > > Ferrari and WO certainly has the potential to be a "marriage
                    > > made
                    > > > in
                    > > > > heaven", so to speak...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > However...I am a bit pessimistic after viewing the WO site
                    and
                    > > > seeing
                    > > > > the "teaser listings" which include a "Ferrari ZenithStar
                    > > Racing"
                    > > > > refractor. As I believe I correctly commented...most serious
                    > > > amateur
                    > > > > astronomers are more interested in "flat fields"
                    and "reduced
                    > > > coma",
                    > > > > rather than racing stripes and corporate hype...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > "Ferrari" is a household name which has worldwide
                    recognition,
                    > > > while
                    > > > > William Optics is a moniker which primarily has recognition
                    > > within
                    > > > > the amateur astronomy community...and mainly, within the
                    > > refractor
                    > > > > niche. I'm not sure what William Yang plans to accomplish by
                    > > this
                    > > > > licensing agreement, but it should prove "interesting" in
                    the
                    > > near
                    > > > > future...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > As I said...my main concern is that WO will get pulled up to
                    > > > Olympus
                    > > > > by the European "jet set" and we'll end up in the same
                    > situation
                    > > > as
                    > > > > another elite refractor manufacturer who now produces a
                    grand
                    > > > total
                    > > > > of one model which has an indeterminant waiting list...and
                    > whose
                    > > > site
                    > > > > no longer even lists the price...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > You have to call for that...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > And...get on "a waiting list" to be notified about the
                    price...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > As far as your would-be detractor, perhaps his sensibilities
                    > > would
                    > > > > have been less offended if you had presented your vision in
                    a
                    > > more
                    > > > > visual form...like a picture done in crayon...or, finger
                    > > paints...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Shame on you, Diane...for using multi-syllable words...how
                    > could
                    > > > you
                    > > > > possibly be so insensitive to our genetically challenged,
                    > fellow
                    > > > > hominids...;)...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Big smile...:)...but, mind you...no grunts...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Clear Skies to All...
                    > > > >
                    > > > > James T. Bronson
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.