Meade RCX400 Manual de usuario descargar pdf (Pagina 2)

INTRODUCTION

Few (if any) new product introductions have created quite the stir that Meade’s RCX

series did. Of course, Meade went out of their way to help things along with their pre-

announcement that a new model would be announced shortly and that it would have a

major impact on amateur astronomy. This created plenty of buzz on the various astro

Groups and Fora as to just what the news would be. When the details were released,

the buzz only grew larger. It was described as an “Advanced Ritchie-Cretien” telescope

on a dual-arm forkmount similar to that used on current LX200GPS models. Since the

existing RC models on the market are in the lofty price classes and chosen for use by

some of the most serious imagers in amateur astronomy, this raised three issues.

One question frequently raised was just what Meade had in mind producing an

obviously imaging-optimized telescope on a forkmount instead of the far more

commonly-used German equatorial mounting? How could it match the performance

of the $8000+ GEMs used by imagers? A check of the prices offered made those

answers clear; this series was aimed at a lower price point; a complete 10” RCX

system cost considerably less than most high-end mounts alone. It apparently was

intended not to compete with the highest-end gear, but instead to fill the gap

between the forkmounted SCT’s and the premium imaging setups - at a price of

about double that of current SCT offerings.

Another issue related to optical quality - how could a 10” complete system for

$5000 match a conventional RC when a 10” RC optical tube from RCOS costs

$13,000? Again, the answer is apparent to me. Despite some of the marketing

language used, it’s not meant to compete, but to make enhanced imaging

performance available at a performance and price point attractive to a different

(and presumably much larger) market. Whether it can do that is a much more

interesting question.

The third topic generated by far the most activity. What was Meade doing describing

this as an Advanced RC when it’s not identical to a conventional RC? The actual

optical design wasn’t described by Meade for some time, permitting folks to embark on

an orgy of uninformed speculation as to the optical configuration. Some such

speculations were published so widely and in such an authoritative tone that confusion

remains, despite the fact that the configuration is now well-documented. For the

record, the system consists of a hyperbolic secondary (as in a conventional RC) and a

spherical primary with a new design of corrector lens (NOT a Schmidt corrector)

added; the combination of the corrector and the spherical primary behaves much as a

hyperbolic primary by itself would. That’s the RC connection - a conventional RC uses

two hyperbolic mirrors.

Not surprisingly, I was curious about this offering. I’ve owned and used most of the

forkmounted SCT’s currently offered, and have dabbled at imaging for a while. I wanted

to see if this series would provide a performance boost above the SCT’s without

requiring the investment involved in a higher-end imaging platform. When Astronomics

offered to provide a 12” for review purposes, I cheerfully volunteered. I had just

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12 13

Sin comentarios

Meade RCX400 Manual de usuario Pagina 2