RE: [ATM] RE: ATM Schiefspieglers in Oslo LT

["Donald Good" <donald.good@comcast.net>]

I think that items that are calculated relative to some unknown reference
such as indicated for the distortion reference height might be suspect.
Items that are calculated on intrinsic characteristics (ray tracing based on
optics geometry) probably can be relied on to the extent that program errors
are minimized.  Again, as the documentation stated, "it is important for the
user to know what the program is computing."  I think that if the values of
items that you understand agree and indicate superior performance, then
those that you don't understand can be ignored, especially when the
documentation gives warnings about the applicability or relevancy of those
items as it did twice about the distortion plot.  If I had reasonable doubts
about the unusual distortion plot, I would investigate further.  As it is, I
don't think it is worth the time.
Clear skies,
Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Lindner [mailto:mikell@optonline.net] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 6:05 PM
To: Donald Good; 'ATM'
Subject: Re: [ATM] RE: ATM Schiefspieglers in Oslo LT

On Thursday 10 June 2004 10:48 pm, Donald Good wrote:
> I can't believe that there would be a 10000% (i.e. 100x) distortion...

Me either. that's why I was wondering...if the distortion is being computed
wrong for some reason, can we trust the spots or other numbers...I don't
mean to cast doubts on your work, I just want to understand the significance
of the results.

Clear skies.
--
Michael Lindner
http://www.starastronomy.org *** http://home.att.net/~mikel
http://www.atmsite.org *** http://www.atmlist.net

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