Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## Re: The Lunacy Begins

Expand Messages
• Not to mention that by using the field stop as the comparison criteria you end up comparing (?) ep s with different focal lengths. Somehow comparing that apple
Message 1 of 8 , Jul 1, 2010
Not to mention that by using the field stop as the comparison criteria you end up comparing (?) ep's with different focal lengths. Somehow comparing that apple to this pineapple removes any meaningful objectivism from the whole thing...

B

--- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <robertashcraft@...> wrote:
>
> THE ARMY AXIOM: Any order that can be misunderstood has been misunderstood.
>
> The same thing is true for mathematical concepts. No matter how many caveats are attached, someone will mis-apply the concept.
>
> When Al Nagler introduced the "Majesty Factor," he made it clear that the number applied to two eyepieces, and the two eyepieces had to have the same field stop diameter.
>
> I found two websites yesterday that had reviews of eyepieces, and they were quoting majesty factors for single eyepieces, just like you would quote a focal length. For example, they said that the majesty factor for the 31 mm Nagler is 4.41. Oh, really? Compared to what?
>
> If you do the math, you'll find that the 4.41 results from comparing an eyepiece with an 82° field to one with a 50° field. So they were using a Plossl as the reference, but none of the Plossls have the same field stop diameter as the 31 mm Nagler. So they're wrong on both counts.
>
> If Nagler has seen those websites, he's probably wishing he'd never invented the majesty factor.
>
> RWA :-(
>
• Nagler s point is that two eyepieces with the same field stop diameter will have the same true field of view, thus they re seeing the exact same portion of the
Message 2 of 8 , Jul 1, 2010
Nagler's point is that two eyepieces with the same field stop diameter will have the same true field of view, thus they're seeing the exact same portion of the sky, even if their focal lengths differ.

--- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, bob_hill12000 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Not to mention that by using the field stop as the comparison criteria you end up comparing (?) ep's with different focal lengths. Somehow comparing that apple to this pineapple removes any meaningful objectivism from the whole thing...
>
> B
>
> --- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <robertashcraft@> wrote:
> >
> > THE ARMY AXIOM: Any order that can be misunderstood has been misunderstood.
> >
> > The same thing is true for mathematical concepts. No matter how many caveats are attached, someone will mis-apply the concept.
> >
> > When Al Nagler introduced the "Majesty Factor," he made it clear that the number applied to two eyepieces, and the two eyepieces had to have the same field stop diameter.
> >
> > I found two websites yesterday that had reviews of eyepieces, and they were quoting majesty factors for single eyepieces, just like you would quote a focal length. For example, they said that the majesty factor for the 31 mm Nagler is 4.41. Oh, really? Compared to what?
> >
> > If you do the math, you'll find that the 4.41 results from comparing an eyepiece with an 82° field to one with a 50° field. So they were using a Plossl as the reference, but none of the Plossls have the same field stop diameter as the 31 mm Nagler. So they're wrong on both counts.
> >
> > If Nagler has seen those websites, he's probably wishing he'd never invented the majesty factor.
> >
> > RWA :-(
> >
>
• I agree that they will show the same amount of sky, but the higher magnification of the wider field will improve contrast increasing detail etc. etc. To me,
Message 3 of 8 , Jul 2, 2010
I agree that they will show the same amount of sky, but the higher magnification of the wider field will improve contrast increasing detail etc. etc. To me, this tends to add to the overall confusion around the marketing of the eps in question. Robert, in the field you know we tend to use comparable magnification for comparison. Actual field size comparisons based on field stop size is kind of like comparing a 320x200 image with one that is 1024x768. Yes, the second will appear better because it has more information for the eye/brain to process, and we tend to prefer the latter, but in my opinion (and only my opinion) :grin: it is actually marketing driving that particular comparison. I think Al could have done quite well letting the Ethos line stand on its own with just the increased apparent field at comparable mags with the Nagler line rather than introducing the Majesty Factor which drags much smaller apparent field eyepirces into the mix.

I won't say that it is the same by a long shot, because it does not even belong in the same ballpark, but Toyota's current ad campaign touting "We're spending "1,000,000 an hour for your safety" when that mil is actually what they are spending to repair their unsafe vehicles kind of set me off lately by misleading ads.

And no, I am not comparing Televue with Toyota, I would not mind adding an Ethos or two to the collection, but the CFO kind of put her foot down at OkieTex last year when she found out that the 2.5mm Nagler I picked up there was my 17th green letter eyepiece.

Bob

--- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <robertashcraft@...> wrote:
>
> Nagler's point is that two eyepieces with the same field stop diameter will have the same true field of view, thus they're seeing the exact same portion of the sky, even if their focal lengths differ.
• I agree -- the Ethos do stand on their own -- no majesty factor or other advertising hype needed.
Message 4 of 8 , Jul 2, 2010
I agree -- the Ethos do stand on their own -- no majesty factor or other advertising hype needed.

:-)

--- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, bob_hill12000 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that they will show the same amount of sky, but the higher magnification of the wider field will improve contrast increasing detail etc. etc. To me, this tends to add to the overall confusion around the marketing of the eps in question. Robert, in the field you know we tend to use comparable magnification for comparison. Actual field size comparisons based on field stop size is kind of like comparing a 320x200 image with one that is 1024x768. Yes, the second will appear better because it has more information for the eye/brain to process, and we tend to prefer the latter, but in my opinion (and only my opinion) :grin: it is actually marketing driving that particular comparison. I think Al could have done quite well letting the Ethos line stand on its own with just the increased apparent field at comparable mags with the Nagler line rather than introducing the Majesty Factor which drags much smaller apparent field eyepirces into the mix.
>
> I won't say that it is the same by a long shot, because it does not even belong in the same ballpark, but Toyota's current ad campaign touting "We're spending "1,000,000 an hour for your safety" when that mil is actually what they are spending to repair their unsafe vehicles kind of set me off lately by misleading ads.
>
> And no, I am not comparing Televue with Toyota, I would not mind adding an Ethos or two to the collection, but the CFO kind of put her foot down at OkieTex last year when she found out that the 2.5mm Nagler I picked up there was my 17th green letter eyepiece.
>
> Bob
>
> --- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <robertashcraft@> wrote:
> >
> > Nagler's point is that two eyepieces with the same field stop diameter will have the same true field of view, thus they're seeing the exact same portion of the sky, even if their focal lengths differ.
>
• Bob, I own a Toyota BOB!!!!..... Yes I am aware that Toyota got a bad rap for a sticking accelerator, but before you pass judgement on Toyota, I want you know
Message 5 of 8 , Jul 2, 2010
Bob,

I own a Toyota BOB!!!!..... Yes I am aware that Toyota got a bad rap for a sticking accelerator, but before you pass judgement on Toyota, I want you know that I am hearing that the problem is not specific to Toyota.  Ford & GM are having a similar problem with some of their new vehicles.

My brother in Kansas just purchased a new Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang last September and he is experiencing a sticking problem with his accelerator.   The car undergos sudden uncontrolled acceleration when pulling away from stop signs.....   The dealership has been unable to determine the cause of the sudden acceleration, even after numerous returns to the shop......I witnessed this occurance first hand while strapped tightly into the passenger seat of the car......After having a close and personal experience with God during those first terrifying 4 seconds, the car seemed to resume normal operation on its own.....   Not sure what is going on....the dealership replace the floor mat, but the accelerator still sticks on occassion.....especially when other people are in the car.

My brother however, is not without a sense of humor.   He helps my dad farm for a living and decided that it would be appropriate to personalize  the car by putting a license tag on the it that state "FARM USE",

Terry

________________________________
To: amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 9:52:30 AM
Subject: [Amarillo Astronomy Club] Re: The Lunacy Begins

I agree that they will show the same amount of sky, but the higher magnification of the wider field will improve contrast increasing detail etc. etc. To me, this tends to add to the overall confusion around the marketing of the eps in question. Robert, in the field you know we tend to use comparable magnification for comparison. Actual field size comparisons based on field stop size is kind of like comparing a 320x200 image with one that is 1024x768. Yes, the second will appear better because it has more information for the eye/brain to process, and we tend to prefer the latter, but in my opinion (and only my opinion) :grin: it is actually marketing driving that particular comparison. I think Al could have done quite well letting the Ethos line stand on its own with just the increased apparent field at comparable mags with the Nagler line rather than introducing the Majesty Factor which drags much smaller apparent field eyepirces into the mix.

I won't say that it is the same by a long shot, because it does not even belong in the same ballpark, but Toyota's current ad campaign touting "We're spending "1,000,000 an hour for your safety" when that mil is actually what they are spending to repair their unsafe vehicles kind of set me off lately by misleading ads.

And no, I am not comparing Televue with Toyota, I would not mind adding an Ethos or two to the collection, but the CFO kind of put her foot down at OkieTex last year when she found out that the 2.5mm Nagler I picked up there was my 17th green letter eyepiece.

Bob

--- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <robertashcraft@...> wrote:
>
> Nagler's point is that two eyepieces with the same field stop diameter will have the same true field of view, thus they're seeing the exact same portion of the sky, even if their focal lengths differ.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• OK Kids!!! If you children can t play nice together, you re going to get to sit in the corner until you can behave yourselves. And to think this all started
Message 6 of 8 , Jul 2, 2010
OK Kids!!!

If you children can't play nice together, you're going to get to sit in the corner until you can behave yourselves.

And to think this all started because some dim bulb wants to fool people into thinking Mars will look as big as the Moon in August.

Please God clear the sky so we can get away from our computers.

Gene

--- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, tzimmerman <tzimmermn@...> wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I own a Toyota BOB!!!!.....Â Yes I am aware that Toyota got a bad rap for a sticking accelerator, but before you pass judgement on Toyota, I want you know that I am hearing that the problem is not specific to Toyota.Â  Ford & GM are having a similar problem with some ofÂ their new vehicles.Â
>
> My brother in Kansas just purchased a new FordÂ Shelby GT500 Mustang last SeptemberÂ and heÂ is experiencing a sticking problem with his accelerator.Â Â  The car undergos sudden uncontrolled acceleration when pulling away from stop signs.....Â Â  The dealership has been unable to determine the cause of the sudden acceleration, even after numerous returns to the shop......I witnessed this occuranceÂ first hand while strapped tightlyÂ into the passenger seat of the car......After having a close and personalÂ experience with God during those first terrifying 4 seconds, the car seemed to resume normal operation on its own.....Â Â  Not sure what is going on....the dealership replace the floor mat, but the accelerator still sticks on occassion.....especially when other people are in the car.Â
>
> My brother however, is not without a sense of humor.Â Â  HeÂ helps my dad farm for a living and decided that it would be appropriate toÂ personalizeÂ  the car by putting a license tag on the it that state "FARM USE",Â Â Â
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: bob_hill12000 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
> To: amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 9:52:30 AM
> Subject: [Amarillo Astronomy Club] Re: The Lunacy Begins
>
> Â
> I agree that they will show the same amount of sky, but the higher magnification of the wider field will improve contrast increasing detail etc. etc. To me, this tends to add to the overall confusion around the marketing of the eps in question. Robert, in the field you know we tend to use comparable magnification for comparison. Actual field size comparisons based on field stop size is kind of like comparing a 320x200 image with one that is 1024x768. Yes, the second will appear better because it has more information for the eye/brain to process, and we tend to prefer the latter, but in my opinion (and only my opinion) :grin: it is actually marketing driving that particular comparison. I think Al could have done quite well letting the Ethos line stand on its own with just the increased apparent field at comparable mags with the Nagler line rather than introducing the Majesty Factor which drags much smaller apparent field eyepirces into the mix.
>
> I won't say that it is the same by a long shot, because it does not even belong in the same ballpark, but Toyota's current ad campaign touting "We're spending "1,000,000 an hour for your safety" when that mil is actually what they are spending to repair their unsafe vehicles kind of set me off lately by misleading ads.
>
> And no, I am not comparing Televue with Toyota, I would not mind adding an Ethos or two to the collection, but the CFO kind of put her foot down at OkieTex last year when she found out that the 2.5mm Nagler I picked up there was my 17th green letter eyepiece.
>
> Bob
>
> --- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <robertashcraft@> wrote:
> >
> > Nagler's point is that two eyepieces with the same field stop diameter will have the same true field of view, thus they're seeing the exact same portion of the sky, even if their focal lengths differ.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
• Gene, This email thread is way to serious.  I agree with Bob s comments and I was not really offended by the Toyota comment.   We are playing nice.  This
Message 7 of 8 , Jul 3, 2010
Gene,
This email thread is way to serious.  I agree with Bob's comments and I was not really offended by the Toyota comment.   We are playing nice.  This is what happens when you can't go outside and observe...(grin).    It was all in fun.    Maybe I need to be removed from this email thread.....(grin)

Just to set the record straight, I like American Cars and Ford or GM do not really have an acclerator sticking problem.  My brothers just used that as an excuse to exercise his pony....after all he does have 510 of them under the hood that need exercising occasionally....(grin)  ......and no, he really did not take his car to the dealership to get it checked.   The problem was attached right below his ankle.

As an aside, I enjoyed the field stop discussion between Bob and Robert.   Very good comments.

Are we playing nice now Gene......(grin)

________________________________
From: gstorlie2000 <g_storlie@...>
To: amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 10:35:31 PM
Subject: [Amarillo Astronomy Club] Re: The Lunacy Begins

OK Kids!!!

If you children can't play nice together, you're going to get to sit in the corner until you can behave yourselves.

And to think this all started because some dim bulb wants to fool people into thinking Mars will look as big as the Moon in August.

Please God clear the sky so we can get away from our computers.

Gene

--- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, tzimmerman <tzimmermn@...> wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I own a Toyota BOB!!!!.....Â Yes I am aware that Toyota got a bad rap for a sticking accelerator, but before you pass judgement on Toyota, I want you know that I am hearing that the problem is not specific to Toyota.Â  Ford & GM are having a similar problem with some ofÂ their new vehicles.Â
>
> My brother in Kansas just purchased a new FordÂ Shelby GT500 Mustang last SeptemberÂ and heÂ is experiencing a sticking problem with his accelerator.Â Â  The car undergos sudden uncontrolled acceleration when pulling away from stop signs.....Â Â  The dealership has been unable to determine the cause of the sudden acceleration, even after numerous returns to the shop......I witnessed this occuranceÂ first hand while strapped tightlyÂ into the passenger seat of the car......After having a close and personalÂ experience with God during those first terrifying 4 seconds, the car seemed to resume normal operation on its own.....Â Â  Not sure what is going on....the dealership replace the floor mat, but the accelerator still sticks on occassion.....especially when other people are in the car.Â
>
> My brother however, is not without a sense of humor.Â Â  HeÂ helps my dad farm for a living and decided that it would be appropriate toÂ personalizeÂ  the car by putting a license tag on the it that state "FARM USE",Â Â Â
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: bob_hill12000 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
> To: amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 9:52:30 AM
> Subject: [Amarillo Astronomy Club] Re: The Lunacy Begins
>
> Â
> I agree that they will show the same amount of sky, but the higher magnification of the wider field will improve contrast increasing detail etc. etc. To me, this tends to add to the overall confusion around the marketing of the eps in question. Robert, in the field you know we tend to use comparable magnification for comparison. Actual field size comparisons based on field stop size is kind of like comparing a 320x200 image with one that is 1024x768. Yes, the second will appear better because it has more information for the eye/brain to process, and we tend to prefer the latter, but in my opinion (and only my opinion) :grin: it is actually marketing driving that particular comparison. I think Al could have done quite well letting the Ethos line stand on its own with just the increased apparent field at comparable mags with the Nagler line rather than introducing the Majesty Factor which drags much smaller apparent field eyepirces into the mix.
>
> I won't say that it is the same by a long shot, because it does not even belong in the same ballpark, but Toyota's current ad campaign touting "We're spending "1,000,000 an hour for your safety" when that mil is actually what they are spending to repair their unsafe vehicles kind of set me off lately by misleading ads.
>
> And no, I am not comparing Televue with Toyota, I would not mind adding an Ethos or two to the collection, but the CFO kind of put her foot down at OkieTex last year when she found out that the 2.5mm Nagler I picked up there was my 17th green letter eyepiece.
>
> Bob
>
> --- In amarilloastronomyclub@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <robertashcraft@> wrote:
> >
> > Nagler's point is that two eyepieces with the same field stop diameter will have the same true field of view, thus they're seeing the exact same portion of the sky, even if their focal lengths differ.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.