From: "Russell Jocoy" 
To: mbartels{at}efn.org, atm{at}shore.net
Reply-To: "Russell Jocoy" 






>From: "Mel Bartels" 
>Reply-To: "Mel Bartels" 
>To: 
>Subject: Re: ATM Dental stone & tile tool question
>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 23:12:32 -0800
>
>
> >>>
>          PS  it was either MEL or BOB  has listed on their website that
>less
>than  4% of all mirrors made
>                         are considered even close to perfect.. but a
>perfect
>mirror is beyond  the limitations of
>the world we live on,
><<<
>
>This is not exactly the wording on my webpage.  First of all, I post
>pertinent comments by others.  That comment was not mine.  Secondly, that
>isn't what was said, or implied.  Lastly there is the tiny matter called,
>"suitability of purpose" when considering whether optics need
to be perfect
>according to the laws of physics.  There's very little that we ever do that
>could by any criteria be judged perfect, but there is a lot that we can
>claim is suitable.
>
>Mel Bartels


("atm {at}shore.net")

   Sorry Mel for mis-quotation  by my last post.  It was Bratislav Curcic's
comments printed on your
website that impressed me to believe there was a percentage said, but there was not.
    His comments were concerning using the star test to judge optical
quality.  He listed them one
through ten, one being the best. At the end of this list it says;  99% of
all scopes I've seen fall into
the (4 to 10) bracket.... Judging by his comments only 1% of all scopes are
in the (1 to 3) bracket.
    This is where I was misinformed about the percent  I mis-quoted.    RUSS
(atm{at}shore.net")

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP