View Single Post
  #86  
Old 23-11-2013, 10:38 AM
Satchmo's Avatar
Satchmo (Mark)
Registered User

Satchmo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,858
An interferogram analysis of the quality of an imaging optical system is always supposed to be presented as wavefront error unless otherwise specified . The setting in the analysis software of the 'waves per fringe spacing' determines that the results are correctly presented and quantified .

In the case of this RC opticsal auto-collimation tested system the spacing would have been 0.5 waves per fringe. If you ordered a flat you would expect the results to be expressed as a surface error. It is possible for an optician to fiddle this aspect by setting a less sensitive wave per fringe factor than is technically correct for the testing set up , thus making the optics appear to be better than it really is . It happens.
Reply With Quote