Re: [ATM] TraceXP, Ronchi Simulation, etc.

[Michael Peck <mpeck1@ix.netcom.com>]

At 22:06 06-06-04 -0400, Aplanatic@aol.com wrote:
>There is one significant and obvious difference between the actual test and
>the simulation.  In the simulation a point source was used, and in 
>the  actual
>test an extended source was used.  The extended source tends to  (thankfully)
>smear and obscure some of the fine diffraction structure.

Dave:

I wrote up some notes a while back making an argument for how to treat an 
extended light source in a Foucault test. The same argument works for 
wires, spots, Ronchi gratings, etc. with appropriate modifications. The 
article is at <http://home.netcom.com/~mpeck1/astro/foucault/ext_foucault.pdf>.

Years before this Jim Burrows did something essentially similar to simulate 
an extended source in his program DIFFRACT. I think his rationale was 
different from mine though.

I'm still offering bonus points to anyone who identifies the unstated 
physical assumption I'm making.

Mike Peck

_________________

Michael Peck
email mpeck1@ix.netcom.com
Wildlife photography page http://home.netcom.com/~mpeck1/index.html
Amateur telescope making http://home.netcom.com/~mpeck1/astro/astro.html

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