Gary McKenzie wrote..........

<bulk of msg snipped>

>BTW how do you know that you've got one of the best Meade optical sets
>made? Could you please do a test for me? Next time you go out viewing,
>using at least 200x, focus the scope, then turn the focuser
>anti-clockwise until the donut appears, then turn the focuser clockwise,
>note the distance turned till the donut shows. Then express
>thendistances as a ratio of ech other eg 1:2 , 1:3 etc. This will give
>us an idea of the amount of spherical aberration in your scope. I'll
>tell you what the Tak was later :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Gary---I'm another GENE so I'd better tell you that I in NO WAY
come even close to the OTHER Gene's optical qualifications--matter
of fact, if someone were to tell me this or that about a telescope,
I would probably take it as "the Gospel truth"!

However, in the test you've prescribed above, I am somewhat confused:
what compensation is made for this so-called mirror "play" I've heard
so much about and even have experienced (I think) in CCD applications?
IOW-doesn't mirror "flop" account for some extra (partial) turn in
the focus knob and would this not as a consequence contaminate the
"amount of spherical aberration" test? Please understand I am NOT
trying to "blind side" you--I want to perform the test per your
suggestion but I must be "satisfied" as to its validity. Am I
misreading something here?

Best regards,
Gene Ducote (Charleston, SC-USA)

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Followup to: [Way Off Topic] Faulty eyes...(long!), Louis Batayte
Next message: RE: [M]: SCSI vs Serial speeds, Heapy Chris CG
Next message in thread: RE: [M]: I would love it, Richmann, Michael
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: I would love it, Gary McKenzie