Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

How can Meade call it an Advanced RC ? easy.

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
143 replies to this topic

#1 Gama

Gama

    Vendor (Gama Electronics)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,046
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 07:46 AM

I was flicking thru for some pricing on the 20" RCX400 before its price hike, and i read again about its "Modified Ritchey Chretien Optics" and thought what are they going to produce as evidence in court. Then it hit me, theres nothing stopping Meade saying they "Started with optics like the RC" then placed a corrector and finished by polishing a slightly different optical shape on the mirrors. Then it WOULD be a modified RC. As it started out as an RC but was modified to include these options. Then they decided to Mass produce it as such. This is the only way i can see them going in fighting. Regardless of what optical system it compares to when finished, if they say it started as a RC then thats it. Further, they could say that they did this in design only, even before they produced the first RCX scope. So again, it starts as an RC on paper, then they start to add and change. Thus giving the name of Modifed blah blah ...
Whats ya reckon ?....


Theo

#2 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,168
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 08:13 AM

Smoke and mirrors. The RCX is nothing more then a well corrected SCT. If the views are good, what else matters?

#3 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,764
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 02 February 2007 - 08:27 AM

Sounds like a valid approach to me.

#4 gillmj24

gillmj24

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,209
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 08:30 AM

Right but they called it Advanced aka better RC and RCOS is claiming lost sales. This was talked to death elsewhere in this forum.

#5 Gama

Gama

    Vendor (Gama Electronics)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,046
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 08:47 AM

I know its been talked about and i dont wish to talk about the details again. Just what i suggested, that its realisticly accurate if this method was used.
I also dont want to re talk about the accuracy and deception etc etc. Just that i see how they can say what they say without getting into deep water.

["guy talk" edited by Joad"]

#6 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,764
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:25 AM

I can go along with that...... all of it.

#7 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,168
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:39 AM

["guy talk" edited by Joad"]

#8 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,764
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:46 AM

I betcha we about to get nailed. I feel it in the force....... :tomatodance: :x

#9 Gama

Gama

    Vendor (Gama Electronics)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,046
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:51 AM

["guy talk" edited by Joad"]

#10 Gama

Gama

    Vendor (Gama Electronics)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,046
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:54 AM

["guy talk" edited by Joad"]

#11 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,764
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:55 AM

:imawake: (Joad..... trying to think of something tactful.)

#12 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,168
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:01 AM

["guy talk" edited by Joad"]

#13 JAT Observatory

JAT Observatory

    NOT a Wimp

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,185
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:15 AM

It's been nice knowing you guys :lol:

#14 gillmj24

gillmj24

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,209
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:17 AM

Can....open.

Worms.......everywhere!

#15 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,764
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:18 AM

Won't be long now....... and so much more to say :bawling:

Its here,this button ||| just under the marks.

#16 Steph

Steph

    Texas Wildflower

  • *****
  • Posts: 27,878
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:41 AM

If only I was a mod in this forum.... :ohgeeze: No wait, I don't think I could handle it. I take it back! Don't make me a mod in this forum puhleeeeeeeeeeeeez! :begging:

#17 LLEEGE

LLEEGE

    True Blue

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,168
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:55 AM

A bit off topic, but if RCOS thinks that Meade duped unsuspecting buyers into buying an RCX instead of one of their scopes, it shows that they don't think much of their customers intelligence. I mean come on. How many people are buying RCOS scopes without having any practical knowledge of what and why they are buying?
Sure the RCX may have cut into RCOS's sales, but not because of some possibly misleading sales brochure. They just made a more affordable alternative. Now if they would just get a grip of the QC issues....
Boy could that turn around their bottom line.

Oh, wait. That was on topic :john:

#18 NukenGeek

NukenGeek

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2006

Posted 02 February 2007 - 11:12 AM

This whole lawsuit thing really sounds like sour grapes to me. I have an LX200R and I'm very happy with it.

#19 gillmj24

gillmj24

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,209
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 11:23 AM

I think the main issue was some university's budget/acquisitons board that knows/cares nothing about telescopes will see:
Choice 1: RCOS RC scope: $$$$$$$$$$$$
Choice 2: Meade ARC scope: $$$$ not only way cheaper but advanced too??!?!

Decision: Choice is clear. Next up, what color Jaguar does the head of the University acquisitions board buy this year.... :grin:

The above may have happenedall of twice ever, if that. Sour grapes I agree.

#20 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,764
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 02 February 2007 - 11:37 AM

I think, in some of the discovery documents, they referenced a University purchase. Might be wrong.

#21 Joad

Joad

    Wordsmith

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,585
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2005

Posted 02 February 2007 - 11:48 AM

Well, ol'd Joad was earning his living last night telling students about the history of literary theory and Plato, so I missed this one. I've got a problem here: I know the guys are just joshing around about wives and such (or may be serious, for all I know) but this partcular forum is a pretty small one and I don't want any of our Cloudy Nights women to visit this forum and feel shut out, or intimidated, or just put off by "guy talk." It isn't a good way to expand our user base, as they might say in the business world. So I'm going to edit out the off topic jokes. No demerits to anyone; no harm done. There shouldn't be any hard feelings. Surely the wife jokes do not rank among your most carefully thought out posts, so you shouldn't miss them.

Thanks for understanding.

#22 Futzman

Futzman

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 731
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2006

Posted 02 February 2007 - 01:23 PM

Well, the way I look at it is Meade cutting into RCOS sales is like Ford cutting into Hummer sales. I'm a "Ford" guy. I can't AFFORD a Hummer, so they didn't lose a sale on me. :shocked:

#23 FLNightSky

FLNightSky

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2006

Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:04 PM

Well, ol'd Joad was earning his living last night telling students about the history of literary theory and Plato, so I missed this one.


I remember studying that in school - the book I had actually had excerpts of the original Greek interspersed in the book where I guess the English translation could or would not do the original justice. Very interesting.

#24 JerryWise

JerryWise

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,764
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2003

Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:39 PM

Well, ol'd Joad was earning his living last night telling students about the history of literary theory and Plato, so I missed this one. I've got a problem here: I know the guys are just joshing around about wives and such (or may be serious, for all I know) but this partcular forum is a pretty small one and I don't want any of our Cloudy Nights women to visit this forum and feel shut out, or intimidated, or just put off by "guy talk." It isn't a good way to expand our user base, as they might say in the business world. So I'm going to edit out the off topic jokes. No demerits to anyone; no harm done. There shouldn't be any hard feelings. Surely the wife jokes do not rank among your most carefully thought out posts, so you shouldn't miss them.

Thanks for understanding.


Joad..... if you were a speech writer for the candidates in the upcoming election they all would win. I think we are all on board now. Thank you.

Oh, and as far as Plato, while not as gifted as some in philosophical discourse, I don't mind showing sophistication by quoting the Plato I know "et tu brute". I think he said that when he was about to let the adder bite him after his trial rather than flee to Thessaly. (Be glad to guest lecture.)

#25 AstroArlo

AstroArlo

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 427
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2006

Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:45 PM

Gama:

That may be a valid argument, if that's what happened. But if Meade doesn't have any documentation that shows it started as an RC, they are out of luck in a legal proceeding.

It's more likely it started out like this - "what existing optics do we have that we can modify to make a scope better for imaging that will potentially compete in the RC Market?" I think it is likely they started with SCT mirrors and correctors right off the production line and modified them to come up with the RCX design. I'd place it at a 50-50% chance that the RCX primaries are the same as their SCT primaries...

This makes economic and business sense to me - you don't have to come up with a new manufacturing stream for every element of the new telescope, which allows you to produce the scope at a better price. Isn't that what their claim is - "Ritchey-Chretien 'like' performance" at a much lower cost? It was their marketing and legal department that messed up, not the engineers...

And once again to the RCX owners...you bought a scope with significantly improved performance over an SCT, but you didn't get an RC. But you didn't pay the RC price either. So, overall you should be happy...


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics