Re: ATM few comments

[Bratislav Curcic <epabcc@epa.ericsson.se>]

> Is this the *only* thing Texereau got wrong

I have to apologize here for not making it clear in my first posting
that I _DON'T_ think 'Texerau got it wrong', it is just that he is often
misinterpreted (or maybe mis-translated). Note that Texerau talks a lot
about how secondary has to be _very_ flat (i.e. no sphericity is
allowed), and goes great deal into details how to ensure that (and how
to test it). A secondary that passes the test as he proposed will be
MUCH flatter than it is allowed in Newtonian configuration.

> bug to start making my
> *own*...from wild obsidian outcrops perhaps, or quartz at least...build
> me a little polishing machine...

I don't think it is really worth the effort. Besides, 'little polishing machine'
won't do it, the ease of making flats comes from using BIG machines and lots of
secondaries at once; if you get a 20" mold (holding say 50 or so small flats) 
to say 1 wave flat (reasonably trivial), each individual flat will be easily 
1/10 of a wave ove its entire surface. If you fiddle with just one flat, it 
will take forever to get it to the same precision ... See Bill Marriott's (hi 
Bill) home page, link on making the flats :
http://www.starlightoptical.com/diagonal.htm

The industry batches are much larger. See an article on planetary polishing
machines by late Tom Waineo in ATMJ 2 or 3.

Bratislav