Meade Sued

ariefm71 · Post by **ariefm71** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:33 pm

A bit off-topic, even if a scope doesn't have a front corrector plate, it can still be considered a catadioptric if it has a corrector lens, e.g. the Vixen VMC series where the light is corrected by a meniscus lens after it hits the primary mirror.

So VMC and RCX will be in the same family as SCT, MCT, and MN (i.e. Cats), whereas classical cass, ritchey-chretien, dall-kirkham, visac (vc200l), newtonian are reflectors.

MooEy · Post by **MooEy** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:42 pm

the point abt wavelength of light not focusing at same point is somehow irrelevant. when's the last time u seen ca on a sct? i dun think the corrector refract the light so much to the extend that it causes ca.

~MooEy~

kingkong · Post by **kingkong** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:56 pm

ariefm71 wrote:A bit off-topic, even if a scope doesn't have a front corrector plate, it can still be considered a catadioptric if it has a corrector lens, e.g. the Vixen VMC series where the light is corrected by a meniscus lens after it hits the primary mirror.
So VMC and RCX will be in the same family as SCT, MCT, and MN (i.e. Cats), whereas classical cass, ritchey-chretien, dall-kirkham, visac (vc200l), newtonian are reflectors.

what about meade SNT? is that a cat or a reflectors? it has a corrector lens.

ariefm71 · Post by **ariefm71** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:03 pm

I'm not sure how to classify an SNT. It is neither a cat nor a reflector (a schmidt camera is also not a cat).

Robin Lee · Post by **Robin Lee** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:29 pm

Good explanation!

Canopus Lim · Post by **Canopus Lim** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:46 pm

If a Cat means compound telescope that has both lens and mirrors, than the SNT could be called a Cat. Or perhaps a Cat requires folded optic to be included in this equation of lens and mirrors? If so then the SNT cannot be called a Cat.

I think the main thing about this legal issue is not because of this confusion (if there is in the first place because of what Meade explained), it is more because of commercial reasons. If there is a scope that performs much better than a conventional SCT, and performs almost similar as a RC or close to it, and the cost is much cheaper than a RC, then this scope is worth the money and a threat to other companies who just makes RCs only. Does it matter so much about the name? For example the mini cooper car is so much different from the classical mini and it is supposed to be the modern mini. So can the mini cooper have the mini name attached to it? Accordingly as this reasoning follows it should not. It looks different for sure but I think it holds some of the main characteristics of the mini; like its small size, quick accelaration, generally quite similar shape and retro theme.

Also for the Schmitt Newtonian telescope.. it has a corrector plate so how can it still have the Newtonian in its name? Strickly speaking a Newtonian is a reflector and there should not be any lens at all.
The RCX in principle works like a RC if what is claimed by Meade is true. It replaced the hyperbolic mirror with an optimized corrector plate and spherical mirror to achieve its purpose and reduce cost especially it cost a lot to make a hyperbolic mirror. However, if what is claimed by Meade is falsed in that the secondary is not hyperbolic, than the association with RC is really off. Lastly, the spot diagram in which the RC company used in the Zemax 'simulation' looks rather ridiculous. The on-axis spot size is so many times great than the Airy disc. That is real wrong. If SCT has such spot diagrams, all SCTS should be thrown into the dustbin.

kingkong · Post by **kingkong** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:59 pm

Canopus Lim wrote:...the spot diagram in which the RC company used in the Zemax 'simulation' looks rather ridiculous. The on-axis spot size is so many times great than the Airy disc. That is real wrong. If SCT has such spot diagrams, all SCTS should be thrown into the dustbin.

are you accusing s-i of false representation?

imho, a good scope at a good price by any name is a good scope. as amateur astronomers and as consumers we should not welcome any attempt by any manufacturer to discourage another manufacturer to be innovative and/or cost effective. if the scope is crap or the price vs performance ratio is not favorable or there are better alternatives out there, the product will fail. let the market decide, not the court. infringement of intellectual property is one thing, but this particualr case is rather... lame?

Post by **weixing** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:36 pm

Hi,

I think the main thing about this legal issue is not because of this confusion (if there is in the first place because of what Meade explained), it is more because of commercial reasons. If there is a scope that performs much better than a conventional SCT, and performs almost similar as a RC or close to it, and the cost is much cheaper than a RC, then this scope is worth the money and a threat to other companies who just makes RCs only. Does it matter so much about the name?

I think that does matter a bit or else Meade won't call it as "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien". If Meade call it as something else, I think the sale will take quite sometime to pick-up, but when you put "Ritchey-Chretien" as part of your telescope name and sell at such low price (compare to a traditional R-C), sale will pick-up very fast... it is same when you compare the name "very well corrected Archomatic Refractor" and Semi-APO Refractor... which is more attractive??

Also for the Schmitt Newtonian telescope.. it has a corrector plate so how can it still have the Newtonian in its name? Strickly speaking a Newtonian is a reflector and there should not be any lens at all.

Ha ha ha... you got a point here..

Anyway, may be Meade will tell the judge that "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien" is the name of the new telescope, not the type of the telescope... like those shop here that are always having "closing-down sale" 365 days a year, but doesn't seem to really closed down... ha ha ha

Have a nice day.

Post by **weixing** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:02 am

Hi,
They settled out-of-court: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/14070427.html

Summary: Meade RCX design will introduces a tiny amount of chromatic aberration (false colour), blocks light at the shortest (bluest) visible wavelengths and is actually an old design called "aplanatic Schmidt-Cassegrain".

Result: Meade give money and the RCX400 and LX200R will be renamed to LX400-ACF and LX200-ACF.

Have a nice day.