Re: ATM Re: re : 1/60th wave

[Carl Woebcke <carlw@telis.org>]

Bratislav,

        The following is one response to your two last postings (the longer of
which is at the end) to atm@shore.net.  I spent a lot of time writing
and editing that last response to you, but it appears that the gist of
it fell on your deaf ears.  My "problem" as you put it, is not that I
take this "personally", but that I am a person who feels - FOR WHICH I
HAVE PAID DEARLY.  And that means that I feel the bad along with the
good: your insensitivity along with your good advice.  It's not a
"problem", Bratislav.  It's that I'm ALIVE!!  Why the hell are we doing
anything unless we take it personally and feel something about it. 
Otherwise I'd rather be dead.
        You wrote: "I suggest you read my messages more carefully before
(over)reacting."  I suggest you take your own advice and read mine
carefully - again, and again, and again.  I'm not trying to engage you
in battle.  I'm trying to suggest to you that a number of people, not
just me, are reacting to your insensitive style, and that their feelings
are worth considering before you loose yourself on them as the messenger
of the almighty truth.  And, in fact, that anyone's feelings are more
important than ANY so-called truth.  CAN YOU HEAR WHAT I'M SAYING?!!
        Where do you get the gaul to tell me (and others) what to say or not to
say on this list - you're in no position of authority in relation to
me.  Was that some kind of bizarre threat you e-mailed to me: "Trying to
provoke me you can only achieve getting your future mails to
/dev/null."  I don't even know what that means.  Is that some kind of
hell to which my e-mail to you will be consigned?  And if you think
you've been flamed by me, you can't imagine the restraint I've put
myself through and the number of times I've edited out more heated and
personally satisfying language.
        I believe there are more than two who are interested in this very far
from "personal brawl" - as you characterize my communication to you. 
Everyone who has been stepped on in the name of facts, everyone who
feels too much but can't verbally defend themselves, everyone who has
been made to feel too embarrassed of their ignorance to even remember
how to ask to be educated, everyone who is no longer even conscious of
their truth in the face of oppressive righteousness - is interested.  If
you want to see me stop reacting, then START HEARING WHAT I'M SAYING!!
        I value two things on this list.  One is the openness and warmth with
which I've consistently been approached.  Strangers have given me their
time, told me their stories, opened their hearts.  And the other is the
information I've gotten which I wouldn't know how to get anywhere else,
and without which I couldn't build my scope.  I value them both, but I
value the first far above the second.  I want to protect that openness
for all those who are shyer than I am, for all the other beginners, and
to some extent, for those who will come in the years after you and I are
dead and dust.  What memories do you want to leave those future
generations of ATMers, Bratislav, to say nothing of those who are
listening now?  Do you really think that you and I are the only ones
interested in this conversation?
        Perhaps I'm guilty of what I accuse you of: self-righteousness.  So be
it.  I've said what I have to say.  I've really listened to what you've
said.  I am done.  Let's bury the hatchet and pick up the telescope. 
Peace.

With warmth, to a man I don't yet know (and who reminds me of myself),

Carl Woebcke

> 
> Carl,
> 
> your problem is that you take this personally. What I tried to point
> out is that noone should fool anyone about wave ratings. If you DID
> receive mirror labeled as 1/60 wave and you feel happy about it, fine.
> But I don't want to let Galaxy (or anyone for that matter) start
> labeling mirrors like we had it it seventies with wave inflation big
> time. It took ATM community LOT of time to contain it (and one name
> pops out more than any other - Ceravolo), it would be shame to let it
> happen again.
> I know that by critizising you don't make friends, especially not with ones
> that do not want to see the truth. It's fine by me, I'm not begginng anyone
> to become my friend.
> 
> Back to ATMing.
> 
> A 1/60th wave mirror is a MASTERPIECE. In any size, at any f-ratio. To
> verify such a masterpiece we need something that is WAY better than
> Foucault, Ronchi, wire, Hartmann on any other test available to amateur.
> We need a reference element of comparable surface quality (or better,
> depending on how it is used), a very quiet lab (or granite table with
> special shock absorbers) and computer program capable of calculating
> surface errors based on thousands of measurement points. It is called
> interferometer.
> Now, there are interferometers and interferometers, as with anything
> else in life. Galaxy's interferometer is I believe supplied by Ceravolo
> optics.  In its standard form (with Doug Geroge's EzFringe software) it
> is capable of documenting optics to approximately 1/20 wavefront. Maybe
> a bit more, maybe a bit less. So it is illusion (and I would call it a
> lie!) to 'document' a mirror with a 1/60th wave certificate using such
> an interferometer.  Yes, there ARE interferometers on the market
> capable of measuring _much_ smaller errors. But they cost a lot of
> money, and I don't think guys at Galaxy can afford it (incidently the
> remark about the NSX is because I saw that someone mentioned that John
> Hudek bought one recently).
> 
> In your post you did say 1/60th wave. The statement like that is ALWAYS
> going to grab my attention, and a reaction as well. Yes, I'm sensitive
> to that. You may say why should I care, and I can only say that you may
> be right in that.
> 
> Bratislav
> 
> PS _I_ would call your mirror 'a fine mirror'. If you want a number,
> it's Strehl ratio of 0.992 is most impressive. Much more impressive than
> (still excellent) 1/10 wave p-v
> 
> PPS no, I didn't 'pee' on you, nor it is my intention. I suggest you
> read my messages more carefuly before (over)reacting