ATM Val_G

[Atmj1@aol.com]

To: Val Germann (and his critics)
From: Bill Cook, editor / publisher ATM Journal

Dear Val:

I don’t get to read these messages very often, and when I do, I try to keep
my 2 cents worth to myself. However, your attack on the late Bob Cox and the
attack on you by some of Bob’s friends and supporters have forced me out of
my shell.

First, take a deep breath, relax and know that you are still among friends. I
would like to thank you and Mark for the article in issue #10 of ATM Journal.
You did a great job. And while you have also stirred up a hornet’s nest of
controversy, for the most part it is good. The sad thing is that in your
attack on Bob, you unknowingly shifted the emphasis from the point you were
trying to make to the importance or inappropriateness of the attack itself.
Bob Cox was a dear friend of mine, and you most certainly caught my
attention!

With all I have seen in the list in just the last 2 days, it would seem that
if we are all truly interested in uniting those in our hobby, we might do
well to get this behind us and try to find some common ground. To that end I
would like to offer some thoughts.

1) You are absolutely right. Most folks haven’t a clue about optical
performance -- what makes it, what destroys it, or how it is attained. If it
is true that ignorance in bliss, then some folks are undoubtedly blisters.
But, to whom does it matter? Are they happy? Does it matter that you (or I)
care so much? After all, we are not talking about something tantamount to the
Noah’s flood. No one is going be killed because they choose to use a
mass-produced telescope with 1/2 wave optics.

Is it frustrating to some like yourself who does care? Absodarnlutely! But,
we can’t change everyone. In my day job, I have to talk telescopes and
binoculars to the general public, at least some, everyday. I must hear “How
far can you see with it?” 20 times a week. Along about number 15, I start
trying to scrounge up Dr. Kervorkian’s phone number. I will hand a binocular
to a lady who will look over my shoulder toward the bino case (a distance of
4 feet) and tell me what a good image she’s getting totally unaware that I
know the instrument’s close focus is 23 feet! I will be asked if a
telescope’s inverted image can be corrected with “weights.” I have been
asked, “Do you have any telescopes that can look through wood, steel and car
doors?”  Still, these people aren’t bad or stupid. They just don’t know
anything about optics or telescopes. Everything is relative. 

You say that the old wisdom of telescope making is too complicated. Yet, much
of your article is written in such a scholarly manner that I’m certain you
missed the mark a bit on getting the exact audience you wanted. Nope. I’m not
picking on the article at all. It was great. Still, I feel confident that
much of your thoughts concerning P-V and RMS went right over the heads of
some of the folks you wanted most to address. I understand RMS, you
understand RMS, and most of those on the list understand RMS. Yet, I’m sure
there are some budding ATM’s out there who think RMS is something that goes
on the fantail of British ocean liners. That’s okay. If you had gone into a
lengthy explanation about wavefront error measurements, some would have
thought it out of place in such an article. You simply can’t please everyone.

2) You promote the use of polishing pads. Good. If I ever have the time
again, I will be using polishing pads too. But don’t feel bad if some are
skeptical. Not Everyone has a “green thumb.” Not everyone is going to have a
good experience with pads! It’s okay. Any optic worth my time is worth me
finishing off with a slow pitch polish. I would hope that your critics
understand that any number of people would be pleased to use a telescope
mirror made in 4 or 5 hours (ala Dobson) and that while pads are not, in a
classical sense, as good as a pitch lap, the results of using them slowly and
sensibly (on a sphere) will be at least as good as those produced by a pitch
lap being pushed around at break-neck speed, where water is used more as a
coolant than a lubricant.

3) Finally, I approach on the subject of Bob Cox.

You say that Bob “May have been hot stuff in the 50’s.......”  There are some
of us who think Bob was hot stuff in about 5 more decades. 

You say he was boring. Perhaps this is so. Yet, I have heard more than one
telescope maker reminisce about the times Bob would hold informal meetings at
some star-party keep the ATM spirit and discussions going into the wee hours.

You say that he was a PROFESSIONAL optician and not a real ATM. What is wrong
with earning a living doing what you love to do? Al Nagler is certainly a
professional who knows how to make a buck. Yet, is he not part of our
brotherhood? And while you might consider his telescopes mass produced, his
track record with my company is sterling. I have been firing across the bow
of one manufacturer who keeps me tied up in returning goods and apologizing
to my customers. Yet in FY 95 and FY 96 not one Tele Vue telescope or
accessory was returned from my store, there no malfunctions of any kind, and
there were no customer complaints. Why? I think it is because Al is an ATM at
heart. 

Beyond his critique of a method of mirror making that you hold dear, I don’t
know what Bob did to you to make you so antagonistic toward him. I’m sure you
see that there are a number of us out here who hold him in higher esteem than
yourself. Since you live in Missouri (and Bob lived in Missouri), there is a
good chance you knew Bob better than me. Perhaps, somewhere along the way, he
offended you. If so, and you feel the need to hold a grudge, I would not try
to persuade you to feel otherwise. I understand. I do the best I can to build
bridges in the ATM community and not walls, but there are a couple of folks
out there in astronomy land who just simple rub me the wrong way.
Nevertheless, you should be aware that you are only going to reach your full
potential in helping rebuild and shape our hobby if you can keep your
credibility. And toward that end, saying bad things about Bob Cox is going to
be much like kissing a rattlesnake on the lips -- it’s a neat trick, but you
can’t do it often.

Along with a funny looking little hat, the University of Washington once gave
me a piece of paper which stated I knew a bit more than average about
history. If this is so, then I would like to suggest that before Bob is
judged too harshly, one should consider: the state of the art at the time,
the state of the publication in which the critique appeared, the make-up of
the intended audience, and the motivation for the negative comments.
Criticizing him 41 years after the fact without taking those things into
consideration might not be fair. And while it is not politically correct to
mention religious items these days, I would point out that while the Paul
comes to most people’s mind at the mention of the word “Apostle,” He was not
one of the original 12. At the time they were chosen, he was off having their
followers killed or imprisoned. We all change -- especially over a 35 year
period.

I am excited that you are so passionate about getting more people interested
in telescope making and proposing more streamlined methods to that end. I
wish you all the success in the world. However, on behalf of those of us to
whom Bob Cox was a great friend and mentor, I would ask, in all kindness,
that you reconsider your need to publicly attempt to tarnish his memory. Bob
Cox was just a man -- with as many faults and weaknesses as the rest of us.
Even so, if by the end of your life you come to influence and nurture in a
profound manner as many telescope makers (advanced and novice) as Bob did,
you’re going to have to find yourself a faster horse.

TO ALL: I know this has been long, but I don’t get on very often. I thank you
for your patience.