Just to clarify. I had a PM with Chuck several weeks ago wherein what I related previously here, was discussed. The information was private, so unless he or I post a screenshot of said conversation, you won't find it in that locked thread. If you read that entire thread carefully, the facts are there. It WAS on loan, as he was in fact a potential buyer, again, read carefully. The results weren't posted, as a cell phone is not accurate enough to convey what the eye sees/saw. The Japanese tests show as much. While I don't appreciate the insinuation that I was bearing false witness and regret even weighing in on this subject at this point, giving another the benefit of doubt, because of lack of information, I will now let this go and forgive their tiny assumption of me. Anecdotally or not, it stands, all things being equal in a Newtonian and a Gregorian, the Newt will best it. That's just physics.- Chip
I think it was a matter that all were happy to put to bed two years ago. There is a reason that threads are locked. As far as your post, name dropping third-hand testimony, ie. ‘he said/she said heresay’, are never admissible as evidence. (“Oh, but my camera wasn’t working.”
). Strong statements need strong evidence to back them up! It’s best to speak from personal experience, but I see from your post that you are still learning. At any rate, your post is a wonderful example of why one should speak to the topic at hand when addressing a topic, rather than drift off into unknown territory. It seems that the original topic was to ascertain why the OPs 8” SCT was not performing at the same level as his 6” Newtonian, and address the ‘physics’ of that particular problem.
But just to clarify:
“Anecdotally or not, it stands, all things being equal in a Newtonian and a Gregorian, the Newt will best it. That's just physics.- Chip”
This represents the optical system of a Gregorian. Please note that it has the same number of optical surfaces (2) as a Newtonian (when viewed straight through without a diagonal). The figure of the first surface primary mirror is parabolic, that of the first surface secondary mirror is ellipsoidal. It is optically quite a different design than an SCT or a Maksutov (both of which are compound telescopes, as opposed to both Newtonians and Gregorians which are not), so I am not quite sure why this brought up in your argument. At any rate, onward and upward!