ATM Re: re : 1/60th wave

[Carl Woebcke <carlw@telis.org>]

To everyone out there,

        Well, I've been drawn into the fray.  As some of you may remember, I
posted an e-mail a few days ago with the following content:

"I'm about to buy a set of eyepieces for a 18" f/4.5 that I'm building
(1/60th wavefront Galaxy mirror already here).  I live and will be
viewing in the San Francisco Bay area, probably mostly about 30-50 miles
from the city, occasionaly 100 miles or more away.  I'd like some
opinions on the 2 different eyepiece sets I'm considering, both of which
will include a 2" big barlow and a 3x 1.25" barlow.  Using both barlows,
I'll get the following magnifications:
1) 35mm Pan, 9 & 4.8mm Naglers:  59, 118, 230, 431, 460, 690, 863, 1294x
2) 35mm Pan, 12 & 4.8mm Naglers: 59, 118, 173, 345, 431, 518, 863, 1294x
Any votes for these or OTHER COMBINATIONS?  I only own the 35mm Panoptic
(will be looking to buy the 9mm or 12mm Nagler and a big Barlow)."

        I got about half a dozen kind, very informative, and obviously
time-consuming replies.  Again I thank and appreciate those of you who
took the time to respond TO MY QUESTION.  I received 2 other responses,
however, that seemed to be from the keepers of the sacred truth.  They
enjoyed exercising their wit in exposing my (or someone's) state of
ignorance as to the existence of a 1/60th wave mirror.  I felt like they
didn't care whom they were speaking to, or HOW they said what they said,
as long as I was duly informed of the facts.
        ONLY to whom it MAY apply, I have this to say: Do me the honor and
courtesy of being aware that YOU DON'T KNOW ME.  And if you care about
the POSSIBILITY of getting to know me, and are willing to respect the
mystery of another person and his or her feelings, consider HOW what you
say may fall on a stranger's heart before you say it.  If that's too
much work for you, then don't speak to me.  And then you WILL be
deprived of knowing me.  It's true that you can't build a fine scope
without facts and precision, but HOW we say what we say is often the
ONLY thing that is heard.  I'm a human being, not a machine - and this
is coming from a mathematician.  I don't believe it is a sacred right to
be uncaring as long as we're right!
        For the past month or so I've pestered Mel Bartels with, I would guess,
over a hundred beginner's questions about building my own version of his
ultra-light scope - to the point where I often worried (with NO
prompting from him) that I was bothering him.  And perhaps I was. I
imagine that in that tender state of need and ignorance many beginners
are super-sensitive.  But I got nothing but cheery support from Mel (and
from Larry Manuel and Steve and Bruce Swayze and many others), which
bolstered my failing sense of self worth at that difficult beginner's
time when I was so ignorant.  And WE ARE ALL SO IGNORANT!  Especially
those of us who are lost in the truth.
        Are facts so important that we can allow ourselves to pee on each other
in our enthusiasm TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH and to be right?  The truth is, I
don't know if my mirror is a 1/60th wave mirror or not.  I'm guilty.  Is
anyone happy?  What I do know is that John Hudek of Galaxy Optics - who
has been very kind and supportive to me - said (and I'm doing my best to
quote, but please don't blame him) that in testing the Residual
wavefront variations over a uniform grid (in waves), at 2852 points, it
has a peak of 0.060, a valley of -0.038 (and hence a P-V of 0.099), an
RMS of 0.015, and a Strehl ratio of 0.992.
        Now in my enthusiasm, and ignorance, and pride of my fine, new mirror,
I thought that the wave number of a mirror was the reciprocal of its RMS
(which is why I said "1/60th", actually 1/67th).  Apparently not.  But
I'm open to the truth, at least if it be delivered with kindness and
mutual respect.  And given the chance I'd like to be on the same side as
the bearer of the truth.
        Therefore, to demolish my "1/60th wave tar baby", and using the above
data, can anybody tell me (if anybody still cares), what the n is in the
sentence "Carl's new mirror is a "1/nth wave mirror."?  Actually, I've
been half-privy to the long discussions about wave numbers on these
pages, and I don't want to enflame any more souls, so if the answer has
to be overly long, I'll respect your silence if you respect my
ignorance.
        I've been deeply touched by the kindness, consideration, the sharing of
your lives, and the time so many of you have taken with me in the little
while I've been on this web-whadda-ya-call-it.  Thank you.

With warmth,

Carl Woebcke