Hookes' Mirror Grinding Device

[Uchtungbaby]

Yes, I was just looking through a wonderful diagrammatic representation of the mechanical hand crank mirror grinding device which Professor Robert Hooke invented to create the mirror for the Newtonian telescope, which should really be called the Hookian Telescope.

Anyway, I won't get back on that track again. I can see that you are all chaffing at the butt to hear of how they grinded mirrors back in the 16-15th century.

It was actually done using a grinding device shaped like a dish. On the surface of the dish they glued sand with glue made from boiled down horse fat.

Simple eh! I could make some pretty big mirrors that way, couldn't I?

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Uchtungbaby

Simple eh! I could make some pretty big mirrors that way, couldn't I?

Would the mirrors be made out of cardboard like the stool!

[Uchtungbaby]

You know you are close to the mark on that one.

What I could do to make my own mirror easily, is to make a mould out of cardboard which follows the elipse for a 12inch reflector for example. On top of the cardboard mould I place a layer of fibreglass resin and fibreglass to strengthen the mould. Then I progressively add layer on layer of beach sand.

I add an attachment to the mould which enables me to connect the mould to a rigidly mounted variable drill.

The drill is switched on with the mould attached, and the mould circulates round and round on a a bed of glass. Water is periodically added to keep the mould from wearing down too much.

Toward the end of the process finer and finer grades of emery paper are used until the eliptical surface is perfectly smoothe.

Voila! A 12 inch mirror for less than $50 plus a little money for coating.

Using the same principle it is possible to construct a larger reflector and use ones own house as the frame, a little bit like a sky light.

This is not my idea. It is originally the idea of Professor Robert Hooke.

If only NASA had looked at the work of Professor Robert Hooke, they probably could have saved a lot of money. They probably would not have built the Hubble Telescope either.

You see it is the case that Hooke's methodology allows for the construction of hugely immense telescope.

Imagine a tower telescope using the television towers in Brisbane as the frame for example.

[Uchtungbaby]

...and I guess you all now know what the Eiffel Tower was originally designed to do.

It is the frame for an enormous refractor lens, believe it or not!

[matt]

Oh boy, have we got a live one here!!!!!

[JethroB76 (Jeff)]

I want more cardboard stools

[Ric]

I'm with you Matt, this is getting interesting

Cheers

[Uchtungbaby]

Oh Matt and Ric, what more could you want? I have given it to you all on a plate.

You'll find that the focal length of the ABC tower in Brisbane was calculated to take a square shaped lens on a trapdoor cover at the apex of the tower. I did the calculation over 20 years ago. The height of the tower is the correct focal length for a lens at the apex which is the size of the trap door. In fact, all you have to do is make a lens roughly 1 metre X 1 metre square, and you will have the largest refractor ever built in the world.

Conversely, you can place a mirror of a dimension equal to the four lower posts, and it will create one of the largest stationary Newtonian mirrors in the world.

It will give you images equal or better than those produced through the Hubble Telescope.

I guess to understand why NASA built the Hubble Telescope given this simple solution, we would have to look at the cost of house mortgages. That's right! The boys at NASA just wanted to make quid. They needed to pay off their mortgages.

Psst! Can you keep it all to yourselves. I just want to hear someone else say it purely through an act of reason as opposed to pollyanna.

[duncan]

Let's all email NASA and get 'em to put a 30mtr mirror on "THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON"

[Uchtungbaby]

We don't have to be so grand. The world of fantasy ends in quantum mechanics and multi-dimensional mathematics. We need not go there. Those who have gone, have gone too deep.

The common man knows that Einstein's theory of e=mc2 can be disproved with a child's summary of learning in volumes. That's right! A child who develops a sense of independence will one day disprove e=mc2 with a simple statement of comparison involving liquids in volumes. Every math teacher in Australia knows that one. We're all just waiting for it, that's all.

I find it kind of funny in a way that we are all still pretending. If we think about it, math teachers in Australia are being told all the time by primary school students that energy does not equal mass by the speed of light squared.

I think it is funny to listen to grown so called lettered men, argue this position. But in all honesty, lumieres' around the world are growing tired of this nonsense.

When we see the entire economy of a third world nation being spent on a ridiculous circumvention of technology such as one finds in the Hubble Telescope, then we all become a little concerned.

We start to think that the horse has no rider to comment on the feelings of repugnance by the great Paul Revere. We wonder whether science has lost focus. We blame ourself(ves) as humane scientists for not making pronouncements in these areas more clear.

Perhaps we are too hard on ourselves. I really don't know the answer in this regard. And that was Paul Revere's real name. His name was Paul Regard. I hope you can all walk the walk, because they sure can.

[matt]

It looks like English....reads like English.....

but......

[Gargoyle_Steve (Steve)]

In one quick post he takes aim at both Einstein and the Hubble telescope .... both of which are highly respected around my house.

As you say Matt the words are English, but it smacks of Gibberish.


"Hang the expense, throw the cat another goldfish."
Let him talk.

[okiscopey (Mike)]

I understand it all perfectly. I'm fluent in three languages: English, Gibberish, and Rubbish.

[Uchtungbaby]

I realise I'm trashing out an ensemble of old jokes, but I cannot resist. You do know that astronomers are pointing the telescope the wrong way, don't you? And physicists are measuring the space between their ears, okay!


So admittedly the joke has been done to death. But I find it interesting that I should arrive at it from my position in the humanities.

I guess if we were to bind all the elements on the periodic table in correct proportions, then I bet we would end up with a mirror.

I gaurantee you that the ratio of proportions of elements needed to create a mirror using compounds on the periodic table will be commensurate with the ratio of proportions of known elements in the universe. Put simply, the quantities of individual elements needed to form a mirror will be identical in proportion to the quantity of elements in the universe. For example, if only ten atoms of oxygen and five atoms of silver were used in the creation of the hypothetical elemental mirror then, it would be the case that the ratio of oxygen to silver in the universe would be 2:1. Believe it or not!

It was from this simple set of associations that missing elements in the periodic table were discovered.

In fact, it is now common knowledge among lumiere's that the universe is actually a mirror in relief.