Re: [ATM] Ear of the Sow

["Scott Milligan" <starzkey@charter.net>]

Richard:

I don't know enough about the details of what residuals you are seeing in
the (Schupmann) design you are looking at to make any certain judgments,
however I can share from my own experience that a slight "tweak" of the
field element position (tilt if mirror type, lateral translation if lens
type) is often necessary to remove the small amount of lateral color at the
field center that is introduced by the tilt/de-center that is in turn
present to achieve an unobstructed beam path to and from the corrector.
Since different programs handle tilts and decenters differently, is it
possible that this small adjustment has gone missing in the design that
didn't trace "up to snuff"?


Scott Milligan
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: atm-bounces@atmlist.net [mailto:atm-bounces@atmlist.net] On Behalf Of
Richard F.L.R. Snashall
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:58 PM
To: Richard F.L.R. Snashall
Subject: Re: [ATM] Ear of the Sow

Richard wrote:
>
> Thanks Richard. As a double check, I get Nd = 1.518828 Vd = 60.6665
Yes.
>
> I have a finite value of -2.5920E-004 for D0. I don't know if I 
> accidentally left that there of if it has been derived.
>
Not derived.
_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/

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