Re: [ATM] Re: Weird Foucault readings

["Jeff Anderson-Lee" <jonah@cs.berkeley.edu>]

Vladimir Sacek wrote:

>I think your real objection was that it isn't that you "tried" to
>determine the most convincing (you may prefer some other attribute) null
>location, but that you did actually determine what it is. The reason I
>said "tried" is not because I think it's not valid, rather that
>determining this point for a perfect mirror has more or less compromised
>usefulness for actual (imperfect) mirrors. But, then, it seems to be the
>best point of reference we can have.
>  
>
If the target is to work towards perfect parabolic mirrors, then at 
least the error should diminish the closer you get to a "perfect" 
mirror.  It might be a useful exercise though to try and estimate an 
error bound for say quarter wave and eighth wave mirrors, so you know 
how much farther you need to go than advertised to achieve your desired 
goal.

Then again, maybe the final acceptance test should be a star test...

Jeff Anderson-Lee
Sacramento, CA

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