To: atm{at}shore.net
From: Michael Peck 
Reply-To: Michael Peck 


At 04:28 PM 7/22/2003 -0700, Jeff Anderson-Lee wrote:

> > My estimate from reprocessed images: 23.8 nm.
> >
> > James' original data (pooled): 20.0 nm.
> >
> > Royce interferometry:   47nm
> >    minus coma                    46 nm
> >    minus coma & astig.   38 nm.
>
>Yes, but Royce's measurement are reported in wavefronts, not waves.  To

I converted all those numbers to surface errors in nanometers. Royce's
"bottom line" number was something like 0.145 waves RMS on the
wavefront. Multiply that by his source wavelength of 633nm and divide by 2
and I hope you get 46 nm.

I also subtracted off the astigmatism components in his report to get the
number that I think would be most comparable to what you'd get in a
foucault test. All of the numbers I listed should be "apples to
apples" comparisons if I did my arithmetic right. I'm rarely 100%
confident my arithmetic is right, so I hope someone double checks my work.

Mike Peck


------
Michael Peck
mpeck1{at}ix.netcom.com

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