Posts Made By: Tom Rodstrom

Here is a question about health care and the free market.

Lets suppose that your are the CEO of a large drug company responsible for maximizing the profits of your stock holders. You currently sell an AIDS drug that holds the disease in check for as long as a patient takes it. Lets say it costs the patient $12,000 a year (for life). Now, your research department comes up with a drug that cures AIDS completely. What do you do, release the drug or bury it (until someone else releases a cure)?

It's a no brainer. Under the profit motive you bury it.

Years ago, I read an article in Science News about a drug company researcher who found a promising path to a cure for AIDS. In the article, the writer said that it would not be pursued because there was no funding. That article has haunted me ever since.

With all the bad news and strife in today's world, it's nice to read a "feel good" story once in a while.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2009/08/23/2009-08-23_rapper_schools_record_label_qns_ma_makes_warner_music_foot_bill_for_phd.html

The following is from the Paypal user agreement.

5.No Surcharges. Under Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express regulations and the laws of several states, including California, merchants may not charge a fee to the buyer for accepting credit card payments (often called a "surcharge"). You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as payment. This restriction does not prevent you from imposing a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services, as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge (in other words, the handling fee for transactions paid through PayPal may not be higher than the handling fee for transactions paid through other payment methods).

I tried a little test using a Pentax K1000 camera. I focused on a distant object using a Meade 6.7mm UWA eyepiece. I then focused on the same object with the camera. I needed 2.7" in travel to focus the camera. The camera adapter is 0.95" thick. It is a 2" to T thread adapter coupled to a T thread to Pentax bayonet adapter. The 2" to 1 1/4" eyepiece adapter is 0.25" thick so there is a difference in adapter thickness of 0.7" and the actual in travel from the eyepiece rim to the lens mounting plate surface is 2". I tried the same test with a Meade 3000 Series 25mm eyepiece and got a difference of 1.9".

Your in travel requirements will depend on the distance between the film plane the lens mounting surface of your camera and the thickness of your camera adapter. The distance between the lens mounting surface and the film plane on the Pentax is 1.8".

Hope this helps.

That takes a little more thought. It would only work for registered users who are logged in. Now that I have an account and persistent log-in, I am logged in all the time and I imagine that many others do the same. When a user who is logged in posts a message, you could capture his user name and use that to enable a "Contact" button. If you had a "Contact OK" line in the user account information a member could disable the contact feature.

When a logged in member hits the Contact button, he would get a message box much like the one I am using now (this one automatically fills in my user name already). Astromart would look up the recipient's e-mail address, add the sender's e-mail address, construct an e-mail message and send it. A copy of the message would not be sent to the sender to the recipient's address would not be revealed unless he replies to the e-mail.

The ghosts turn out to be more from the eyepieces than anything else. I have just disassembled the scope for cleaning and inspection. Using a laser from the side and a microscope (7x to 45x) I initially saw what looked like a very dense starfield at 15x. When I lightly wiped the tiny area under the laser using a cotton pad with isopropyl alcohol I would get streaks in the starfield in the direction of the cleaning. It appeared that there was a film that was from the alcohol or not being removed by it.

I washed the lens in mild soapy water, rinsed it, dried it with cotton pads and lightly wiped it with distilled water. I then did a light wipe with acetone. Now I get a sparse starfield, but I do see some scratches. The scratches are light even under 15x magnification. The scratches are not very numerous, much like a time exposure of a meteor shower with most of the field untouched. The scratches and microscopic pits causing the starfield do not change at all with cleaning so they must be in the glass.

I have not inspected the other lenses carefully, but the reflect the laser much like the tested lens before it was cleaned. From what I have seen, I believe my problem has been from dirty optics more than from scratches in the lenses. Are these tiny pits normal?

I plan to clean all the lenses like I did the first one, check them with the laser this evening and re-assemble the scope. I marked the parts so I can get the scope back together the way I had it earlier, but I could use some advise about collimating a four element scope.

Hi Ron

I am testing a Jaegers 4" f15 and looking at Rima Hyginus just before I tried your link. There I found the perfect picture to use for the test. I was able to easily see three of the four samll craters at 2:00 o'clock from the Hygines crater in the middle of the rille. I think I got a taste of the fourth, but it was right at the limit. I'll download the software tomorrow, I think I'll really enjoy it.

Thanks
Tom Rodstrom

Here is a link to a picture of a HUGE eyepiece I made from a pair of lenses that were part of an old Fujinon TV zoom lens assembly and an achromat I had laying around.

http://www.astromart.com/messages.asp?message_id=14105&page=

This eyepiece needs a telescope with a large focal plane to work properly. I have a 4" f4 refractor and a 5" f7.2 refractor which both give incredible views with this lens, it's a real space walk (almost makes you dizzy). Something similar might be done with some of the smaller zoom lenses from old camcorders which are being scrapped these days.

Maybe they are still in business, I found this link:

http://astroconjunction.tripod.com/starware/olddays.htm

Here is what it says about Jaegers:

Remember the ad for Jaegers shown above from 1961? As I said , their place in Lynbrook, NY was destroyed some years ago by a fire. I subsequently found out that they have reopened at 11 Roosevelt Rd., Valley Stream, NY, not far from the New York City border. I drove past there in January, 2001, only to find their "storefront" isn't exactly hospitable. The photo at left shows their "front door" (if you look carefully, you'll see an "11" on the second door from the left), while the right photo shows their back door (note unshoveled snow, there for about two weeks). A call to their phone number produced an "interesting" conversation. Yes, they are still in business, but the woman who answered didn't know exactly what they made! She also said that they have neither a catalog nor a web site. She suggested that I talk to someone else about what I wanted. She had no answer for me when I said that I wanted to know what they sold. I didn't exactly get a warm feeling...

Here is some more info:

A. Jaegers Optical Corp
691 Merrick Rd
Lynbrook, NY 11563
516-599-3167

My company ships 300 packages a month or more with UPS. Items that weigh more than about 50 lb are particularly at risk. The handlers don't like them and go out of their way to show it. We are very good at packing and use foam in place for many items, but EVERY claim we make for expensive items has been denied at the receiving end. When we get them back and keep complaining, most claims are paid.

I just shipped a Questar 7 from the west coast to the east coast and back with no problems. The case was bulletproof, but the real key is insurance. Items that are insured for more than $3000 are checked by supervisors at each stop.

Keep trying. All the claims we have made that were reconsidered have been paid. UPS customer service stinks (like something else that is brown).