| Quote: |
| |
arbcav |
a la mode |
measurement |
| g tangential |
0.9754 |
0.9753 |
0.986 +/- 0.001 |
| g sagital |
0.9686 |
0.9685 |
0.968 +/- 0.001 |
|
Given that we're measuring different g parameters in the tangential and sagittal planes, I went back to alamode to see what astigmatism I could put into PR2 and/or PR3 to match what we're measuring. I looked at three cases: only PR2 is astigmatic, only PR3 is, or where we split the difference. Since the sagittal measurement matches, I left all the sagittal curvatures the same in
case 1: PR3 only
| |
PR2 RoC (m) |
PR3 RoC (m) |
g (half PRC) |
| tangential |
706 |
-420 |
0.986 |
| sagittal |
706 |
-700 |
0.969 |
case 2: PR3 only
| |
PR2 RoC (m) |
PR3 RoC (m) |
g (half PRC) |
| tangential |
5000 |
-700 |
0.986 |
| sagittal |
706 |
-700 |
0.969 |
case 3: PR2 and PR3
| |
PR2 RoC (m) |
PR3 RoC (m) |
g parameter |
| tangential |
2000 |
-600 |
0.986 |
| sagittal |
706 |
-700 |
0.969 |
From Koji's post about the scans of the G&H mirrors, it looks entirely reasonable that we could have these levels of astigmatism in the optics.
What this means for full PRC
These all make the same full PRC situation:
g (tangential): 0.966
g (sagittal): 0.939
ARM mode matching: 0.988
|