From: JC 
To: atm{at}shore.net
Reply-To: JC 


Unless you used diamond i could not see a 2000 or even 3000 dollar and in
refractor unless it was a APO.
Even that is way too high.

As for folding a refractor when you dealing with a 5-8 foot tube it one
thing not to fold it but
when its a 8-10 /f15 at 120-150 inches fold for an amatuer is almost a
necessary but minor evil.

Unless you have a permanent observatory to leave it in which most of us don't.

Joe Cartolano

On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 06:04 AM, Dan Chaffee wrote:

>
> Hi John,
>
>> Good points you made. I myself have nothing against looking in a
>> non-folded
>> refractor. Indeed, I have seen only two 8"ers that outperform
my 8"
>> f/8
>> Newt. One is an 8" f/10 Newt, the other is one of those new 8"
>> f/very-long
>> refractor jobs from Germany. At a cost reputed to be near $2000 per
>> inch
>> (over $3000 per inch counting the mount) the refractor only barely
>> beats
> the
>> Newts.
>
> $3000/inch?? It must have had some special glasses; D&G are asking
> $3500 for an 8" ($437/in) for what are some of the best achromat
> OTAs availible. At any rate, it depends on what you mean by
> "outperform". I don't necessarily see more detail inch per inch in
> a refractor(so far), but the aesthetics of the overall image are in
> some
> ways superior-- to my eyes. The blacks next to bright objects/regions
> are definitely deeper with a refractor, giving a certain punchiness I
> just don't see in even the best baffled reflectors. Images are somewhat
> steadier as well unless the seeing is really good. The Moon is hands
> down nicer to look at than in my big newtonian, although certainly
> not sharper. Saturn is somehow a tad more 'gem-like' as well.
>
>  Dan
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP