Re: [ATM] Polishing / Figuring Simulator

["James Lerch" <jlerch1@tampabay.rr.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry" <wa4guu@verizon.net>


> I think Matt is on to something.
>
> Aside from his approach, what would be wrong with a results analysis? If one
> could predict the wear if they knew the pressure distribution and
> stroke/overhang can't one find the pressure distribution from the measured
> results of stroke and overhang?

Assuming that Noise* from the so far ignored variables were inconsequential, 
finding a pressure distribution profile for the contact area between lap and 
mirror would be exceedingly challenging givin only a before and after surface 
profile.  I wouldn't know where to start..

* Noise being a list including, but not limited to, Pitch Hardness, Pitch 
surface condition, Ambient and localized tempature / humidity variations, CEO 
slurry variables, etc

>That seems to me to be what humans do. They learn to figure by testing the
>optic. By testing they learn the result of an action. That is not to say
>that humans do it the best way.

This is why I never finished the simulator!  While in the process of evaluating, 
optimizing, and playing with the code, intuition in machine figuring took hold. 
This new found intuition lead me to the path of completing the optic, which 
temporarily relieved the desire to finish the simulator.

However, in the beginning, intuition and 'common sense' lead me far away from 
the desired surface.  Working with the simulator helped point me in the correct 
direction.  So when the next optic finds itself on the machine, I'll probably 
start working on the code again... :)

Take Care,
James Lerch
http://lerch.no-ip.com/atm (My telescope construction,testing, and coating site)
http://lerch.no-ip.com/ChangFa_Gen (My 15KW generator project)



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