From: "Aditya Munshi" 
To: 
Reply-To: "Aditya Munshi" 



Hi guys,

I've used both programs together since I parabolized, and both have given
consistent results, it is only this once that there was a discrepancy.
Anyway here are the readings and zonal radii ,

Zone Radii (mm)

Main mask zones
Zone    R inner    R outer    R center    Rcenter
                                          Method

  0     20.000     47.920     35.370      Carlin
  1     47.920     67.110     57.910      Carlin
  2     67.110     85.180     76.410      Carlin
  3     85.180    100.000     92.740      Carlin

Avg readings (mm):

0.0000
1.4986
2.9083
2.7305


thanks
Aditya


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-atm{at}shore.net [mailto:owner-atm{at}shore.net] On Behalf Of Jim
Burrows
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 5:13 AM To: atm{at}shore.net
Subject: Re: ATM Figuring Update


At 20:19 2003-07-22 +0530, Aditya Munshi wrote:

>The overall figure shows a 1/5 wave PV and 0.93 Strehl according to
>figure XP.(this time I am sure the readings are accurate :) ). But
>putting the same data into Foucault test analysis which works on the
>maths of Jim Burrows shows a 1/3.9 PV and 1/17.5 RMS Surface.
>
>Don't know what causes the discrepancy; from what I've heard I feel
>figxp should be trusted more.

Post the readings together with inner and outer zone radii (and, of course,
fixed or moving source).  Maybe we can figure out what is going on.

         -- Jim Burrows
         -- mailto://burrjaw{at}earthlink.net
         -- http://home.earthlink.net/~burrjaw
         -- Seattle N47.4723 W122.3662 (WGS84)

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5