From: "William A. Podgorski" Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:08:56 -0400 To: gaetz Subject: (Fwd) Focus (again and again and again and again) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART-BOUNDARY=.19709301508.ZM12622.harvard.edu" X-UIDL: 0b0b4dc51753bd4d08a6a838be04bdb6 --PART-BOUNDARY=.19709301508.ZM12622.harvard.edu Content-Description: Text Content-Type: text/plain ; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Zm-Decoding-Hint: mimencode -q -u --- Forwarded mail from "Atkinson, Charlie" Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:31:56 -0400 To: Scott Texter (TRW) From: Charlie Atkinson (Kodak) Subject: Focus (again and again and again and again) [ plain text Encoded with "quoted-printable" ] : Hi Scott. I took a peek at your fax (I didn't get to look at it until now, 'cause things have been rather frantic). I get the same error as you, but have different absolute values. I defined X=3D0 as the best HRMA focus. Here= 's my numbers: ARM Focus location -2.268 From HRMA final tests HRMA FOCUS 0 CCRF surface 360.6038 Based on ISIM and IAS tests PLANO surface 406.64126 Based on ISIM and IAS tests ISIM INTERFACE LOCATION 723.9914 Based on ISIM and IAS tests CAP DATUM -D- 10029.63 3/4/97 e-mail from me CAP CENTERLINE 10054.58 CAP DATUM -A- 10079.53 CAP thickness of 49.9mm ******Podgorski had 10079.2, using H6 end as datum******** ARM -X surface 10075.932 ARMF focal length & HRMA data ARM +X surface 10126.732 2.000" thickness of ARMF expected Plano surface to ARMF 9720.09 Scott measured: ARMF 3220.1 PLANO 12944 phase delay 3.1 delta 9720.8 error 0.71 mm. I spent a little time convincing myself of the sign of the correction for= the ARMF reticle OPD delta (I do always seem to get the sign wrong on the= first attempt). My interpretation is that even though we get slightly different numbers, the overall agreement between the cross check and the alignment test are pretty good. I'm not sure what you expected to get, but less than 1mm seems pretty good to me. The biggest error source is probably our understanding of the true focal length of the ARMF, which is estimated to= be =B10.5mm as discussed in the VETA-II Test Report. \ | / OK, so LA isn't that bad! \\\\ -- O -- @ @ / | \ & \_/ Charlie Atkinson AXAF Program, TRW Operations Eastman Kodak Company ---End of forwarded mail -- = --PART-BOUNDARY=.19709301508.ZM12622.harvard.edu Hi Scott. I took a peek at your fax (I didn't get to look at it until now, 'cause things have been rather frantic). I get the same error as you, but have different absolute values. I defined X=3D0 as the best HRMA focus. Here= 's my numbers: ARM Focus location -2.268 From HRMA final tests HRMA FOCUS 0 CCRF surface 360.6038 Based on ISIM and IAS tests PLANO surface 406.64126 Based on ISIM and IAS tests ISIM INTERFACE LOCATION 723.9914 Based on ISIM and IAS tests CAP DATUM -D- 10029.63 3/4/97 e-mail from me CAP CENTERLINE 10054.58 CAP DATUM -A- 10079.53 CAP thickness of 49.9mm ******Podgorski had 10079.2, using H6 end as datum******** ARM -X surface 10075.932 ARMF focal length & HRMA data ARM +X surface 10126.732 2.000" thickness of ARMF expected Plano surface to ARMF 9720.09 Scott measured: ARMF 3220.1 PLANO 12944 phase delay 3.1 delta 9720.8 error 0.71 mm. I spent a little time convincing myself of the sign of the correction for= the ARMF reticle OPD delta (I do always seem to get the sign wrong on the= first attempt). My interpretation is that even though we get slightly different numbers, the overall agreement between the cross check and the alignment test are pretty good. I'm not sure what you expected to get, but less than 1mm seems pretty good to me. The biggest error source is probably our understanding of the true focal length of the ARMF, which is estimated to= be =B10.5mm as discussed in the VETA-II Test Report. \ | / OK, so LA isn't that bad! \\\\ -- O -- @ @ / | \ & \_/ Charlie Atkinson AXAF Program, TRW Operations Eastman Kodak Company --PART-BOUNDARY=.19709301508.ZM12622.harvard.edu--