Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 24th October 2017, 18:46   #51
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Nixterdemus,

You are evidently trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here or maybe you don't get what is going on. I stated that the magnification was 8x. I determined that by shining a light through the ocular and measuring the diameter of the light circle through the binocular. It was 42 mm and the exit pupil is 5.25 mm.

You are talking about resolution. It does not matter enough to matter if you or I or somebody else can read 1/16" on a yellow Stanley tape closer or further away than somebody else can. If a binocular has a specified fov of 8* or 420' at 1,000 yards you need to be able to see about 50.5 inches of tape. 50 inches is 417' and 51 inches is 425'. That last half inch is easy enough to see even if if the binocular is slightly out of focus, which due to edge distortions and field curvature, it probably will be. If the binocular falls close to those outer limits, my take, as I have stated previously, is close enough. Yes over the whole series of production runs there will be some sample variation in magnification as well as with fov. In my experience it is rare for one of these to get out of whack by over the design specified QC spread. Again I am not too concerned with a couple of tenths magnification or with a couple of tenths of fov variance.

How clearly the binocular reads the small gradations across the view of the tape is useful in determining size of sweet spot. Resolution is determined in the center field of the binocular.

You do have to strain or screw your eyes to actually getting a reading at the edge of the field. Typically the fov is the same with one barrel vs both. Yes there can be differences if specifications from onse side to the other. When two sides differ enough to exceed the ability of the users eye to accommodate there will be issues with apparrent focus and some eye strain or lack of depth of field.

Also if you have properly set the focus for the binocular it seems you are dealing with corrected vision.

It seems Steve Ingraham used some small spots on dollar bills to use for vision acuity, but he was talking about resolution in those reviews.

Also Nixterdemus please note the 8*/420 feet was just an example, not a reference to the fov I measured in the Toric. I suggest you can screw your eye balls around the fov all you want. This method has been discussed here in discussions of how to measure fov. It works for my purposes.

You do have to screw the eye somewhat to actually read the tape at the edge. There can be some issues with the two barrels differing too much from each other.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.

Last edited by Steve C : Tuesday 24th October 2017 at 19:13.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 24th October 2017, 20:16   #52
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdc View Post
it is also asking him to do more work

Bill
I'm not asking anything of Steve-O save a few inquiries.
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 24th October 2017, 20:46   #53
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Nixterdemus,

You are evidently trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here or maybe you don't get what is going on. I stated that the magnification was 8x. I determined that by shining a light through the ocular and measuring the diameter of the light circle through the binocular. It was 42 mm and the exit pupil is 5.25 mm.

You are talking about resolution. It does not matter enough to matter if you or I or somebody else can read 1/16" on a yellow Stanley tape closer or further away than somebody else can. If a binocular has a specified fov of 8* or 420' at 1,000 yards you need to be able to see about 50.5 inches of tape. 50 inches is 417' and 51 inches is 425'. That last half inch is easy enough to see even if if the binocular is slightly out of focus, which due to edge distortions and field curvature, it probably will be. If the binocular falls close to those outer limits, my take, as I have stated previously, is close enough. Yes over the whole series of production runs there will be some sample variation in magnification as well as with fov. In my experience it is rare for one of these to get out of whack by over the design specified QC spread. Again I am not too concerned with a couple of tenths magnification or with a couple of tenths of fov variance.

How clearly the binocular reads the small gradations across the view of the tape is useful in determining size of sweet spot. Resolution is determined in the center field of the binocular.

You do have to strain or screw your eyes to actually getting a reading at the edge of the field. Typically the fov is the same with one barrel vs both. Yes there can be differences if specifications from onse side to the other. When two sides differ enough to exceed the ability of the users eye to accommodate there will be issues with apparrent focus and some eye strain or lack of depth of field.

Also if you have properly set the focus for the binocular it seems you are dealing with corrected vision.

It seems Steve Ingraham used some small spots on dollar bills to use for vision acuity, but he was talking about resolution in those reviews.

Also Nixterdemus please note the 8*/420 feet was just an example, not a reference to the fov I measured in the Toric. I suggest you can screw your eye balls around the fov all you want. This method has been discussed here in discussions of how to measure fov. It works for my purposes.

You do have to screw the eye somewhat to actually read the tape at the edge. There can be some issues with the two barrels differing too much from each other.
Hi, Steve:

I think my next book will be—

BB Stacking for Fun and Profit.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 24th October 2017, 22:20   #54
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Nixterdemus,

You are evidently trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here or maybe you don't get what is going on.
When curious I prefer going to the source & it is your review. I've formed no conclusions that indicated you erred.

Quote:
I stated that the magnification was 8x. I determined that by shining a light through the ocular and measuring the diameter of the light circle through the binocular. It was 42 mm and the exit pupil is 5.25 mm.
I refer you to Henry's post #26 & 31.

Quote:
You are talking about resolution.
Resolution, but at maximum distance w/o magnification X whatevah power should evah so roughly also be able to be resolved.

Quote:
It does not matter enough to matter if you or I or somebody else can read 1/16" on a yellow Stanley tape closer or further away than somebody else can.
Out of context. I merely used a known quality, Stanley tape, at a specific maximum distance unaided view, not excluding corrective lens if required, X 10 due to example of a 10X bin.

Quote:
If a binocular has a specified fov of 8* or 420' at 1,000 yards you need to be able to see about 50.5 inches of tape. 50 inches is 417' and 51 inches is 425'. That last half inch is easy enough to see even if if the binocular is slightly out of focus, which due to edge distortions and field curvature, it probably will be. If the binocular falls close to those outer limits, my take, as I have stated previously, is close enough. Yes over the whole series of production runs there will be some sample variation in magnification as well as with fov. In my experience it is rare for one of these to get out of whack by over the design specified QC spread. Again I am not too concerned with a couple of tenths magnification or with a couple of tenths of fov variance.
So, anything you can see whilst mounted to the bins is fov & if you cannot read the 1/16" you rely on 1/8" &/or perhaps a bit o' estimation. If the couple of tenths become a half or even more that would be significant.

Quote:
How clearly the binocular reads the small gradations across the view of the tape is useful in determining size of sweet spot. Resolution is determined in the center field of the binocular.

You do have to strain or screw your eyes to actually getting a reading at the edge of the field. Typically the fov is the same with one barrel vs both. Yes there can be differences if specifications from ones side to the other. When two sides differ enough to exceed the ability of the users eye to accommodate there will be issues with apparent focus and some eye strain or lack of depth of field.
I don't know what I was thinking when I suggested that one barrel doubled would equal the bins fov. I was curious of possible extra fov from not forming a perfect circle w/both barrels. Plausible especially w/fat E.P.

Quote:
Also if you have properly set the focus for the binocular it seems you are dealing with corrected vision.

It seems Steve Ingraham used some small spots on dollar bills to use for vision acuity, but he was talking about resolution in those reviews.

Also Nixterdemus please note the 8*/420 feet was just an example, not a reference to the fov I measured in the Toric.
Some folks require corrective lens to view through bins, but even if they do not the diopter adjustment w/focus could be considered corrected vision.
My use of 'corrected vision' is not of the latter.

I just found it peculiar that you referenced your example of 8*/420' w/377' of the listed spec for the reviewed bin instead of your 7.8*/404' determination.

Quote:
I suggest you can screw your eye balls around the fov all you want.
That's a childish approach at best. I wondered if you stayed mounted looking to the sides for fov & if you could see more unmounted looking across the field stops.

I cannot hardly view at any deviation L-R w/o vision blacking out. Possibly if I backed away from the mount though I cannot stand not being buried in the eyecups. I can look sideways across the field stop unmounted one eyed for more fov & in one case the other day, at the same time, it brought the previously out of focus far edge into sharp focus. I could see fine detail of the small red berries that grow from an ivy type vine. I know what's up w/that, how 'bout you?

Quote:
This method has been discussed here in discussions of how to measure fov. It works for my purposes.

You do have to screw the eye somewhat to actually read the tape at the edge. There can be some issues with the two barrels differing too much from each other.
I never speculated that you invented the method, nor do I doubt that it works accurately enough if indeed the magnification is as stated. You have no problem dismissing spec sheet fov/close focus, yet you do not question magnification to the point of testing.

Closer than spec minimum focus combined w/larger than spec fov would seem to suggest that perhaps the spec'd magnification is lagging a wee bit on the low side. Doesn't have to, but it could. Also, if lower than 8X it doesn't have to be to the point of 377'. Instead of the whole 27' it might only account for around half putting the bin at a very respectable 390'.

Because of blackouts when straying very much from center view wide fov means little to me. I can see fov w/peripheral though devoid of sharp detail. However, I note it seems to be a big item for birders in the lower, <12X, magnifications. The higher magnification, even if considered wide fov, are narrow enough for me to see the entire fov sharply.

Is it possible that bias for large fov prevents some from digging any deeper when they run across a much larger fov and/or significantly shorter miniumum focus than spec'd?

I enjoy reading your reviews. Not quite as much fun as analyzing various possibilities for the abundent fov. I love a good argument though do not care to argue.

JGRaider came up w/similar results. For whatevah reason the fov appears to hover around 400' suggesting a pattern in at least a sample of two.

Thanks for your replies I appreciate your explanations and the time it took to present them unto me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
I think my next book will be—
Hey swabbie how 'bout sharing that w/Cloudy Nights crew?

Oh, R-I-G-H-T

nevermind ...
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom

Last edited by Nixterdemus : Tuesday 24th October 2017 at 22:30.
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 24th October 2017, 23:03   #55
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
"Hey swabbie how 'bout sharing that w/Cloudy Nights crew?

Oh, R-I-G-H-T

nevermind ..."

I wanted to come back for some time. However, now that they have TWO know-nothing experts over there misleading the newbie and non-English speakers—who seem eager to lap up the male bovine excrement—it will probably never be. I can just bask in all the many good things said about my contributions before I started having my experience and credentials used to pump the ego of an inexperienced (except for reading) and non-credentialed wannabe—one who I asked more than once, KINDLY in PMs, to leave me alone.

I also take pleasure in that so many current and past moderators have bought my book and have said so many nice things about me.

As one moderator recently told a friend about the troll with the proven record of coming out of the woodwork at the mere mention of my name:

“___________ is not just a troll; he’s a very skillful troll.” This is, of course, why he gets away with shredding their terms of service when others are consistently censured for far less.

And when I was cast aside, a member-at-large said: “It looks like they threw out the baby and kept the bathwater.”

But, as I said in Vignette #28:

“One might think moderators would see what was going on and address the issue. But most forums are about head count to increase business revenue and not furthering knowledge of a hobby, craft, or science.”

See the signature, below; it had its origin there.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking

Last edited by WJC : Tuesday 24th October 2017 at 23:11.
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 24th October 2017, 23:45   #56
Coin Hound
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Creston
Posts: 70
Golly!

What in the world is all this about?

We are arguing over a toy.

My GI Joe doll is better than your Army Pete! Oh YA! My Batmobile can run over your X Wing fighter.

Gents--relax and enjoy the view.

Last edited by Coin Hound : Tuesday 24th October 2017 at 23:49.
Coin Hound is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 00:03   #57
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coin Hound View Post
What in the world is all this about?

We are arguing over a toy.

My GI Joe doll is better than your Army Pete! Oh YA! My Batmobile can run over your X Wing fighter.

Gents--relax and enjoy the view.
Coin Hound, methinks you joined a conversation that had been in progress for 12 years, and I can assure you if you had been in my shoes those 12 years you would have something more than a cavalier attitude. Just sayin'. And, what I said was FOR Nixterdemus and NOT AT him. I'm confident he understood that.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking

Last edited by WJC : Wednesday 25th October 2017 at 00:06.
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 00:08   #58
Coin Hound
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Creston
Posts: 70
This is a public forum

No I have not been in your shoes for many years--so take time and educate me about this.

My original request was for an explanation of this thread.

Of course I'm sarcastic--enlighten me about the "history" of this thread.

I own a pair or Tracts--happen to be pretty good glass

Last edited by Coin Hound : Wednesday 25th October 2017 at 00:25.
Coin Hound is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 00:48   #59
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coin Hound View Post
No I have not been in your shoes for many years--so take time and educate me about this.

My original request was for an explanation of this thread.

Of course I'm sarcastic--enlighten me about the "history" of this thread.

I own a pair or Tracts--happen to be pretty good glass
I have no idea about the history of the thread. I was just making a comment about a comment Nixterdemus had made. Just be glad you're here. If you think you NEED to know what I was talking about, you should ask Steve C, Troubador, NDFarmer, Perterra, Mono, Arthur Checiny, or some of the PhDs who no longer go there, or do so very sparingly: Ed Huff, Holger Merlitz, Marco Ciacca, etc.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 01:04   #60
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coin Hound View Post
What in the world is all this about?

We are arguing over a toy.

My GI Joe doll is better than your Army Pete! Oh YA! My Batmobile can run over your X Wing fighter.

Gents--relax and enjoy the view.
That's irrational as we are discussing the same bin. As well I will argue a point(s), yet not stoop to arguing.

Is English your second language or have you always lacked basic comprehension skills and/or cognitive limitations?

Might you be a graduate of Trump University?
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 01:30   #61
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixterdemus View Post
That's irrational as we are discussing the same bin. As well I will argue a point(s), yet not stoop to arguing.

Is English your second language or have you always lacked basic comprehension skills and/or cognitive limitations?

Might you be a graduate of Trump University?
OH Lord how that begs for a comment, leaving Trump out of the equation. However, I'll be a good boy and let this foolishness lie.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 01:38   #62
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
Hi, Steve:

I think my next book will be—

BB Stacking for Fun and Profit.

Bill
Bill,

Might be fun to try one at Stacking Odds in the Casino

Looks to me like if you look at Dr Hawkings quote he is really saying there is no such thing as knowledge. If anybody ever gets to the point where they think they know all about it they will find that light at the end of the tunnel is attached to a train. How many times has the impossible been done by somebody who did not take no for an answer. However much is learned simply represents the tip of the iceberg.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 01:55   #63
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Bill,

Might be fun to try one at Stacking Odds in the Casino

Looks to me like if you look at Dr Hawkings quote he is really saying there is no such thing as knowledge. If anybody ever gets to the point where they think they know all about it they will find that light at the end of the tunnel is attached to a train. How many times has the impossible been done by somebody who did not take no for an answer. However much is learned simply represents the tip of the iceberg.
"Too often an education goes to the head and not to the mind."—Bill Cook

Each new generation of scientists proves the last generation of scientists to be foolish. College is a place where pebbles are polished and diamonds are dimmed.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 01:58   #64
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
"Too often an education goes to the head and not to the mind."—Bill Cook

Each new generation of scientists proves the last generation of scientists to be foolish. College is a place where pebbles are polished and diamonds are dimmed.

Bill
Amen to that. I had a college professor who once said that a good education serves to show us what we don't know. That always stayed with me somehow.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have" Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 02:15   #65
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve C View Post
Amen to that. I had a college professor who once said that a good education serves to show us what we don't know. That always stayed with me somehow.
I spent 10 years in college, have 2 BAs, an AA, an AAS, and a bunch of certificates. Yet, I sit here waiting for the sales of my book to climb so I can eat out a few times, pay for a big iMac repair, and buy a few of my books to sell locally. I have NO job, NO retirement, and NO pension from the government after 23 years of federal service.

IQ does not trump SMARTS.

If I were a person who would bend the truth for the almighty dollar, I could be a rich man today. But, the big guys in optics stay away from me ... in droves. Captain’s was the only place where I could live my philosophies. But, since they were bought out, virtually everything I worked so hard to build has gone the way for the dodo.

Such is life.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 05:35   #66
Nixterdemus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central AR
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdc View Post
Nixterdemus, Is the basis of your argument that it is more accurate to measure 3000' with a 60' ruler than a 30' one? Or that a calculated fov error induced by magnification above or below 8x could be reduced by measuring 'less'? Or maybe both. I had trouble following your reasoning, but that's what I get out of your comments.
Obviously Steve is assuming that the magnification is as stated when measuring the FOV.

Bill
I never actually addressed your inquiry per se. W/o reading it again I'm going to attempt to explain the point I was trying to make at that time.

The fov method Steve is using, by my guesstamation, is roughly twice as close as needed for 8X. He argues 8X is 8X. However, he is reading the tape to determine fov/field curvature of the edge & its influence on the view.

To me this represents an advantage/bias in favour of increased fov. By being twice as close you have a much better view than you would at 1X. Twice as much as a matter of fact.

Let's take the specs that Steve determined. Eight power w/fov of 404'. By him reading the tape twice as close as needed he is in essence looking at 30' through a 16X bin w/404' fov.

How can you determine the fov for an 8X if indeed you're viewing at 16X? I have no idea what size tape he's using except that he is reading 1/16" until the point of about 1" towards the ends and he seems to be twice as close as needed to read those marks. It isn't so much the 1/16" marks as it is viewing them through the field curvature.

Then add to that the 7' close focus, instead of spec'd 8' along w/404' instead of spec'd' 377' and perhaps these variables, perhaps others as well, combine to make a difference/explain somewhat the large fov discrepancy of this particular model. Maybe not.

He says he can see through the curve enough to count that as fov. Yet, if he backed up as much as I think he should/needs to for his maximum distance to resolve 1/16" mark then he might not see so well through that curvature of the lens. It could be enough of a blur not to count as usable fov.

If at 30' w/8x bin he cannot distinguish 1/16" marks on a tape at roughly 1" from the ends then that would only compound if he read the tape from further back. You can still claim that fov, but I would contest the blur being usable. I consider it perhaps degraded to a point of not actually being within the fov.

Nothing against Steve or the fov method he employs. I'm sure most times for the most part that he is accurate. I'm not questioning his accuracy this time. Also, if he sees about an inch on each side of curve, at 30' w/8X, then surely Tract sees that as well.

That's why I mentioned that perhaps Tract spec'd 377' fov because they were assured that number fell well within the usable quality amount of fov. Not just the angle on the outside edge of the objective(s). Just a thought.

It doesn't matter as this is only a discussion of potential possibilities. I have no agenda to advance. Tract has already received accolades from Outdoor Life. As well apparently besides being well received for overall qualities it punches well above price point. They seem to have a leg up on a number of start-ups from over the past few years.

I view this sort of as an unsolved mystery. I'm leaning towards the butler w/candlestick, but I'm not sure what room in which he committed his vile act.

As always, YMMV ...
__________________
Celestron M2 f/5.4 100mm ED-Manfrotto 516 fluid head w/140mm sliding plate

SLV 50* 4mm-- HD-60* 4.5mm-- UWA 82* 5.5mm-- SLV 6mm-- Luminos 82* 7mm-- MWA 100* 10mm-- Luminos 15mm--TV Nagler 50* 3mm/180X - 6mm/90X Zoom
Nixterdemus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 06:02   #67
ailevin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Southern California
Posts: 180
I spent a number of years in the academic world and then had an interesting several decades in the aerospace industry. In retirement I have again spent a little time affiliated with major universities. The only thing more terrible than academic politics is the politics of home owners associations and social clubs. My experience is that the viciousness of the politics is inversely proportional to the issues at stake.

This theorem would seem to hold for many threads in this forum as well.
ailevin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 14:56   #68
wdc
Registered User
 
wdc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Moraga, California
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by ailevin View Post
I spent a number of years in the academic world and then had an interesting several decades in the aerospace industry. In retirement I have again spent a little time affiliated with major universities. The only thing more terrible than academic politics is the politics of home owners associations and social clubs. My experience is that the viciousness of the politics is inversely proportional to the issues at stake.

This theorem would seem to hold for many threads in this forum as well.
Yes, I can see your point.
wdc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 25th October 2017, 16:02   #69
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Gainesville, Palo Alto, Uppsala
Posts: 490
Quote:
My experience is that the viciousness of the politics is inversely proportional to the issues at stake.
This theorem would seem to hold for many threads in this forum as well.
That's Sayre's law, and it does apply to many discussions on the BF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre's_law
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 09:08   #70
Synaps
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
I spent 10 years in college, have 2 BAs, an AA, an AAS, and a bunch of certificates. Yet, I sit here waiting for the sales of my book to climb so I can eat out a few times, pay for a big iMac repair, and buy a few of my books to sell locally. I have NO job, NO retirement, and NO pension from the government after 23 years of federal service.

.....

Bill
That grieves me and since I learned so much from your posts on this forum I am happy to sponsor you a dinner or chip in on the iMac repair. Will send PM for details.
Synaps is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 18:36   #71
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synaps View Post
That grieves me and since I learned so much from your posts on this forum I am happy to sponsor you a dinner or chip in on the iMac repair. Will send PM for details.
OFF TOPIC FOR SYNAPS AND OTHERS:

And what grieves me more is that while I have painted an ACCURATE PICTURE, I have obviously painted an equally MISLEADING PICTURE! I AM SO SORRY!!! PLEASE FORGIVE ME.

I live in a new house (downsized from the 3-story in Washington when we were raising 3 children) in a new neighborhood in the newest part of my town. I can drive all over town, every week, and still only gas my little truck once every SIX WEEKS. I can easily walk to my large, newly constructed, superbly appointed, all brick church and, by looking at my belly, one might tell I am getting more than my fair share of food.

By way of FURTHER explanation: book sales are going well. It launched on Amazon the last day of August. That day, it sold over $100. That was the magic number to get a check from Amazon (100USD, 100 GBP, or 100 EUR). But, and as they say it was a BIG butt, they took out $8 because I want to be paid by check. This meant my total dropped to $94 and did not qualify for a check in September. I had planned on using the money to buy some to sell locally and hand out to some who offered assistance with the book. We are now on October 26 and the check has yet to be cut. Frustrating, but not devastating. I hear it will be sent on the 29th.

The problems academically and federally are my own fault. I’ve always said, “Without health you HAVE nothing and without integrity you ARE nothing.” Holding to the latter can cost one financially. But, I view that as just a temporary thing. Anyway, I am working on both.

The biggest problem rests with the Office of the Exchequer—to whom I’ve been married for just shy of 40 years.

When we moved to Twin Falls from Western Washington, we knew she would be giving up $25K to teach here. But, we felt for the simpler life style, lesser traffic, and cheaper goods and services we could make it work. Then, with a house bought, a contract signed, and a 770-mile move finished they mentioned they had made a mistake in their calculations and that she would be getting $32K less. Ouch!

Now, after teaching 3rd grade for 2 years (yuck!) she is finally back to teaching high school Spanish ... in another town. Then, after signing a contract there, they mentioned to her—with temperatures in the mid-90s—that ONLY THE OFFICES have air conditioning! That, of course, was a side issue. With the gasoline and wear and tear of an additional commute, the highest insurance either of us have ever paid, and the additional work they place on her that was NEVER required in Washington State she is up to being shorted $36K and rising. I guess that’s why these paragons of intellectualism lord over a state that’s 49th out of 50 states in education. And the teacher’s unions in Idaho have teeth with the same strength as overcooked noodles. And I would ask the legislators “Would you like some cheese with that WHINE?”

Yep, things can get a little tight—and often are—but we are FAR short of needing Section 8 Housing, Food Stamps, or the Welfare Checks that I have apparently painted for some.

Just be thankful you are the kind of person who would be that concerned for others. I assure you that kind of thinking will pay big dividends down the road.

Bless you,

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking

Last edited by WJC : Friday 27th October 2017 at 00:08.
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 20:29   #72
Synaps
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 29
[OT] I am glad to read that things are manageable on your side. Perhaps I was jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly, but having read about your health issues in another thread and knowing that the safety net in the US is a tad less generous than we are used to in large parts of Europe, I was under the impression your financial concerns were extremely pressing. Furthermore I would not feel comfortable leeching a lot of knowledge from someone and then let him hang in financial difficulties while I enjoy my new toy.
Synaps is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 21:17   #73
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synaps View Post
[OT] I am glad to read that things are manageable on your side. Perhaps I was jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly, but having read about your health issues in another thread and knowing that the safety net in the US is a tad less generous than we are used to in large parts of Europe, I was under the impression your financial concerns were extremely pressing. Furthermore I would not feel comfortable leeching a lot of knowledge from someone and then let him hang in financial difficulties while I enjoy my new toy.
NOW HEAR THIS! (‘salty Navy talk, huh?)

Leech all you want. I’ve been trying to help my neighbors—and protect them from some know-nothing know-it-alls for a long time—and it has cost me greatly. But if you could surf 4 or 5 binocular forums you could find most everything in my book. That ticked off some of my would-be publishers who thought it not professional to GIVE away what could be SOLD. But, professional for whom? They just couldn’t wrap their greedy heads around wanting to help someone without charge.

The safety net in America is TOO GOOD ... for those who have never deserved it and don’t deserve it now. That makes it hard for those who really need and do deserve it. Some people in our country desire popularity and position so much they are eager to take from those who work and give to those who refuse to do so.

Winston Churchill said: “However beautiful the strategy you should occasionally look at the results.” I wish our legislators had a modicum of his reasoning power.

That is not a political statement, just the musings of a historian.

Cheers,

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th October 2017, 21:27   #74
mooreorless
Registered User
 
mooreorless's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntingdon,Pa.
Posts: 3,393
Steve C thank you very much for your excellent review of the Tract Toric 8x42. Having read all the replies I doubt that I would ever take the time to review any optics and post on here. I also notice someone trying to make a stupid political statement, I have done that in the past, Sorry David ! WJC thank you for all that you do as well.

Last edited by mooreorless : Friday 27th October 2017 at 00:01.
mooreorless is online now  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has Anyone Used the Tract Toric 10X42? BruceH Binoculars 43 Wednesday 2nd August 2017 21:54
Tract Toric 8x42 Experience jgraider Binoculars 275 Wednesday 19th April 2017 16:07
Swarovski EL 8.5x42 review, and updated SLC 8x42 W B review Tobias Mennle Swarovski 35 Wednesday 18th March 2015 16:14

{googleads}
£100 Cashback on Opticron DBA VHD Binoculars. Click to find out more.

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.31206894 seconds with 36 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:17.