To: pdk{at}tampabay.rr.com, Tom Krajci , atm{at}shore.net
From: tkrajci{at}san.osd.mil
Reply-To: tkrajci{at}san.osd.mil


>From:  pdk{at}tampabay.rr.com,

>I have made several mirrors with robo focault.

>For a couple of years now I have watched mirrors that
>I have produced as well as countless others figure
>their mirrors using this device as there yardstick.
>I am a member of the largest astronomy club in the
>southeast US.  I take my scopes to all our public,
>and private events.  During these times countless
>numbers of individuals have looked through my scopes.
>People of all levels, some professional astronomers.
>None has reported any of the gross discrepencies that
>the "incomplete" interferometry report that we have
>on one mirror would indicate it should have.

Anecdotal evidence and testimonials are a start...but can you be more
specific in terms of what was and was not measured in the finished optics?

>(the data
> from a commercial mirror provided by a
>successfull commercial enterprise, was simply buried
>from existence, I can only guess why.)

I can't guess why.  Please be more specific.

>I and others whom have used
>this device to test routinely run at very high power / in
>ratios (as seeing / target permits).  Would we do this
>on a seriously flawed mirror? NO.

Again, we have anecdotes and testimony.  How about something a bit more
concrete?  What estimates of overall correction error in the star test? Or
with other bench tests?  Smoothness?  Etc, etc.

You would probably not do this on a seriously flawed mirror.  But what
about a slightly flawed mirror?  We need more specifics.

>So to decide that robo focault is flawed when there
>are multiple data sources that say it is not, as well
>as some that say it is, would be ludicrous.

The multiple data sources you mention above are not very specific.

While they are at least encouraging, I am not yet convinced.

>Ground Control to major tom.
>Be constructive or be quiet.

I am being constructive.  I will not be quiet.

>I know you are an asset to ATMing
>but that sir was useless parroting of an unamed commercial
>mirror maker.  Not worthy of a man such as yourself.

I named the commercial mirror maker.  I stand behind what I identify and
state.  Above you stated:  "(the data from a commercial mirror
provided by a successfull commercial enterprise, was simply buried from
existence, I can only guess why.)"

You neither identify the mirror maker, nor provide specific reasons, nor
specific evidence to support your actions.  You appear to stand behind
smoke and mirrors.  Pun intended.  ;-)  Would you buy a mirror from such a
man?  ;-)

In review, I see lots of testimonials and anecdotes above...little in the
way of specific information.

This reminds me of those W. C. Fields movies where he's hawking Dr.
McGonigle's Tonic...you know...snake oil.  Of course, the audience is
skeptical.  But W. C. Fields is crafty enough to have planted someone in
the audience to provide that crucial 'testimonial' that overcomes the
skepticism...the anonymous 'plant' stands up and excitedly shouts
"I'll buy some!"...and the snake oil sale/stampede ensues.

Can we please have more specific information about various bench tests,
star tests, etc. of mirrors made with Robo-Foucalt?

Tom Krajci
Tashkent, Uzbekistan

PS.  And speaking of anonymous ‘plants’...who are you, PK?  ;-)

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