Re: [ATM] A more or less new optical test

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

At 19:15 11/1/05, mbartels@bbastrodesigns.com wrote:
> > lists three assumptions that need to be made to make them
> > approximately equal. Those same three assumptions would apply to the
> > Foucault test since the underlying physics and mathematics are the
> > same. The only difference is the form of the mathematical description
>
>
>Can I trouble you to briefly list the 3 assumptions?
>

Mel:

Paraphrasing a bit:

1) The pupil is uniformly illuminated.
2) The edge is discarded from the analysis.
3) The third is stated in a more technical way, but one way to 
satisfy it is to have the lens diameter of the test apparatus 
approach infinity. Basically that's a roundabout way of assuming away 
wave optical effects, which makes the whole argument circular.

The author realized the third assumption isn't really satisfactory, 
which is why the numerical simulations were needed to verify the 
potential accuracy of the test.

I (and I think Steve Koehler) have done the same sort of simulation 
to verify that maskless Foucault (like James Lerch's "Robo-Foucault") 
works, in principle. Of course we also have some real data so we 
aren't entirely dependent on theoretical handwaving or computational voodoo.

Mike Peck


_________________

Michael Peck
email mpeck1@ix.netcom.com
Wildlife photoblog! http://wildlife-pix.com
Amateur telescope making http://home.earthlink.net/~mlpeck54/astro/astro.html 

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