Re: [ATM] Cassegrain vs. Gregorian (secondary testing)

["Richard F.L.R. Snashall" <rflrs@rcn.com>]

Bob May wrote:
> Decent start for a page.  Now lets have the formulas and so forth so that we
> can see what is needed for the two doublets of the test lenses.

As I'm not terrificly facile in applied math, this may take me awhile.
However, I'm getting the impression that, while the lateral error looks
to me to be relatively independent of the lens set, the longitudinal
error is not.  It appears to be quite dependent upon the Gaussian model
for the lens set.  And, after all, it is the longitudinal error that we
measure, since it is that that gives us the gain, right?

I assume that this means we probably can't just grab a lens off the
shelf and use it, even with the ability to calibrate the test.

> Bob May
> http://nav.to/bobmay
> bobmay@nethere.com
> NEW! http://bobmay.astronomy.net


-- 

Rick S.

http://users.rcn.com/rflrs

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