Re: [ATM] Updated pictures of 8"f6 mirror............

["Jerry" <wa4guu@verizon.net>]

Mike

	You should look at all the photos, not just the last.  When I made
reference to looking at results, I had looked at all posted images and the
action that produced each. If you had done that you would have less reason
to guess.

	You did not for a second think that I could be right that the
elevated temperature did not cause the roughness. You also did not consider
that John had gone to 1/4D strokes and elevated temperature at the same
time.  Now through your convoluted reasoning the lap is too hard. Whether
that is right or not, that seems to say you agree with my conclusion that
elevated temperature was not the cause. You took 4 days longer to determine
what I already had about elevated temperature not being the cause. 

	As I said about the message getting lost in the details.... I
question one of your details and you say "I could just as well...." I could
just as well lay it out in 100% detail too, but then the email gets too long
and details that matter get lost.  You lost the detail that John did answer
your question on channel closing time. It is not that details don't matter.
If all details that matter are in one post, you will never get around to
hitting the send button. If you do get to it, most details will go unnoticed
by the recipient and you will not know which ones. That is worse than
leaving some out for clarity on what is important at the moment.

	I was speakin specifically about John's work. If some other atm
reads my post and fails to take it in the context of the mirror surface and
lap conditions I am specifically talking about... shame on them. 

	I have not said the lap is perfect, I do not know. I have not said
the edge is perfect. Do you expect it to be with the oblate and roughness?

	There is TDE on all the images. It is worse in some.

THE FOLLOWING IS SOMETHING I WANT YOU TO ANSWER.

	Mike... You are being a jerk. Forget all of our posts since you
posted your dislike for my suggestions.  You look at what I suggested.
Don't add to them what has gone back and forth between me and you. Which of
the following is it you disagree with?

1) I suggested that John go back to what he was doing before.

2) I suggested that what he was doing since series 04 was making it more
oblate and that the edge would not likely get better if he continued with
the 1/4D stroke.

3) I suggested the roughness was from short strokes.

4) When he said he thought the lap may be too hard, I said I think not, that
he could try working at 25C with the previous method for series 04 images. 

That was the extent of the comments you so clearly disagree with.

	I know how much experience you have. You post about it all the time.
You have behaved as though you think I don't know squat.  I have more
experience than you.  I don't care to push it on people like I can't be
wrong about anything.

Jerry


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Lockwood
 Jerry,

Jerry wrote:
> My reply: You may be guessing, but I am not. There are the results
>  to give us an idea.

I like to gather a bit more information before I start trying to
figure out what's happenning.  I've seen enough results from others to
know I can't come close to making a recommendation until I have
certain bits of information.

> My Reply: Why do you think his pitch is too hard? Could it be too
> soft? Could it be just right?

I never made a judgement either way until he answered my question 
about channel closing time.  The example was just to indicate how much 
climate change was necessary to alter the pitch characteristics.  I 
could just as easily have spoke of cooling things down by 10F.

> My reply: "Keeping" might be a problem. John's work area is.... I 
> believe he said a garden shed.....  The work temperature will be
> varying.... lets say "wildly".

I wasn't talking just to John, I was making a point to anyone on the 
list that might have issues with the temperature of their work area. 
Maybe John will decide to work indoors in the future.

> My reply: Obviously I do not think it is the best we can do. I 
> agree most will not make a pitch tester. Ruling out the pitch 
> tester, channel close time is not the best.   I'm not saying CCT is
> of no interest at all. You seem to imply that if the mirror results
> are excellent but the channels closed "too fast" or "too slow" a 
> new lap of different hardness is needed.

I'm not sure how you got that out of it - I'm just trying to help 
someone judge how their pitch is acting, and the results thus far are 
clearly NOT excellent yet, because there is TDE and surface roughness 
(or at least there was on the last set of photos I saw).

> And here we see the vagueness of CCT.  His answer is as
> specific as can be expected. Yet if he had said 3 hours you would
> be no more certain of the lap condition than if he had said 5 or 6
> hours.

I use Gugolz pitch daily, and 3 hours is definitely different than 6 
hours.  Big difference.

I am curious - what is your mirror making experience, Jerry?

Mike Lockwood
http://bi-staff.beckman.uiuc.edu/~melockwo/index.html


_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/

_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/