Posts Made By: Jeremy Schmit

I currently have a rather large set of calouses (sp?) on my hands that speak to my current experience in this area.

Typically when you hear the expression "turned edge" the speaker really means "turned down edge" (TDE). An edge can also be turned up, but this is less common and much easier to fix. For this reason TUE is almost never observed on finished mirrors. The paragraph below refers primarily to TDE.

When making a mirror the first step is to give the surface of the mirror a spherical shape. This can be done to arbitrary precision by grinding the glass against another surface in a random manner. Once a spherical shape is achieved, the figure is tweaked to make it paraboloidal. TDE usually originates prior to parabolizing. Because the glass at the edge is relatively unprotected by neighboring glass, it is easy to grind it off much faster than the rest of the surface. This can happen due to improper grinding technique, differential heating of the glass, or pitch that is too soft (pitch is the stuff used to polish and figure the mirror.) Once the glass at the edge of the mirror has been removed, it is impossible to replace it, so the only cure for TDE is to grind down the rest of the mirror to match the edge. This is very time consuming (did I mention my sore wrists?) Often mirror makers will ignore (pretend not to notice) the turned edge and proceed the figure the mirror anyhow. The result is the edge does not focus light at the same place as the rest of the mirror and contrast is reduced.

Does this help?

Jeremy

Good choice going with the 8". That should serve you nicely. My first scope (about 2.5 yrs ago) was a 6" newt and I wish I had gotten the dob mount instead of the clunky GEM. You will definitely want to get a telrad (or other reflex finder). There are plenty of objects that are easy to find and are fun to look at while you are first learning to use your scope (planets, moon, andromeda, orion nebula to name a few). Don't take your scope out under light polluted skies and try to find dim DSO's on your first few nights as this will be an exercise in frustration.

btw, I knew a Sarah Graves in College (about 5-7 yrs ago.)

I get the same thing all the time. Mostly with burgundy pitch, although I havn't used Gugolz much. I think it is just dried cerium on the glass, and it happens when you let the pitch/glass get too dry. Like you said, it comes off quickly once you re-wet the surface, perhaps in 2-3 minutes. As for the squeeking, I've heard over and over that squeeking is a very bad thing. Most of the polishing happens when the surfaces are barely wet, but when you start to hear squeeking, you are definitely too dry.

This is my work in progress at Pinos last month. It is a 10" f5.4. Since I took this picture, I have made a bunch of changes including staining the rockerbox and putting ebony star on the bearings. I'm still working on the mirror too. I'm at about 1/4 wave and getting tantalizingly close to finishing it.

Jeremy

Actually 424 billion. Frances hasn't been counted yet.

This is the overwhelming theme of the Bush financial plan, he has no vision for the future. If you look at his projections for the future you find that even in times of peace, with a booming economy, no unforseen expenses, and congress passing Bush's budget without modification (yeah, right!) Bush's deficits still cause the debt to grow faster than inflation. Given that those four conditions will (almost) never be satisfied, the debt will very quickly suffocate this country.

It isn't quite as bleak as this article makes it sound. A vote for a single person (eg. Salazar) can only tip one house. The government is built with checks and balances, so tipping one house of congress does not have much effect, except of course in the rare situation that one party controls the white house and both houses. I vote primarily Democrat, but even I concede that we would be better off if the Republicans retain control of at least one house of Congress. On the other hand Bush has to go because his actions as Commander in Chief are effectively unconstrained by checks and balances.

I think this point of view is misleading. While you are right that we have favorable governments in those locations, the people of these countries strongly dislike us. Why does this matter? I can think of 1000+ reasons (and counting) why a favorable government is insufficient. Any attemt to use this encirclement as a strategic advantage (short of Soviet style occupation) would lead to another situation similar to Iraq today.

Just like 2000, this election will come down to the Electoral College, so I have been watching that closer than the national polls. My favorite sites are

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ (leans left, has the most user-friendly display)
http://www.geocities.com/hedgehogreport/bushkerry2004state.html (leans right)
http://unfutz.blogspot.com/ (compilation of electoral college prediction)

The interesting thing, is that even with Bush enjoying a significant (outside the margin of error) lead, Kerry still had a lead in almost half the electoral college predictions. That was yesterday. Today new polls in FL (Bush +1), WI (Bush +4), PA (Bush +1), and OH (Bush +12) have given Bush a sizable lead. But notice that all of these are well within the margin of error (except for the Ohio poll which was conducted by the GOP polling firm Strategic Vision and is completely inconsistent with other polls conducted at the same time.)

My current predictions:

The Big three (OH, PA, FL)
Ohio goes Bush, Pa goes Kerry, FL should be a coin flip but Jeb is doing a hell of a job trying to influence the vote (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/09/14/fla_official_allows_nader_onto_ballot/)

Kerry's to lose:
Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, NH, Maine (throw in OR, WA, MN, NM if you want)

Bush's to lose:
Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee (I'd bet Bush loses one of these: CO, MO, AR)

Nevada is a coin flip.

There are also a few major wild cards:
1) Voter turnout is expected to be much bigger this year, therefore the polling firms' definitions of "likely voter" are out the window
2) The Colorado referandum to divide electoral votes proportionatly would effectively take CO off the table. This was a big deal a month ago (when if would have given Kerry four EVs out of nowhere), but the last three polls have shown CO split down the middle, so this could turn out to be a non-factor.
3) Word is that oversees voters are registering in record numbers this year. There are about 5 million american over 18 overseas, and nobody has any idea what their demographics are (only 8% of those are military). These voters are not represented in any of the polls.
4) Tradition is that undecided voters vote for the challenger over the incumbent by a 2 to 1 margin. But are there any undecided voters this year?

My handicap? I still have high hopes for Kerry. This race is neck-and-neck, and we still have the debates to go.

Mike, Chris, thanks for answering. Some thoughts of mine:

Mike, you said that "none of the points you have raised have yet caused me to switch to Kerry". This is reasonable. None of these points, when placed in the context of the last four years is terribly upsetting (at least to someone with a conservative leaning.) As Chris pointed out, many of these things were beyond the president's control. Others, can simply be attributed to bad luck. But, when you look at the president's record as a whole, it just doesn't seem like much has gone right. The invasion of Afghanistan is a good example. The overthrow of the Taliban was a good move that was praised from both sides of the aisle (including by me). However, three years later Afghanistan is creeping toward anarchy and OBL and his gang are still on the loose. What went wrong? Similarly, the No Child Left Behind act was also widely praised, but its effect is limited by poor funding. I can't think of anything the administration has done that has been a resounding success (there probably is something, but I'll admit my thinking is tainted.) On the other hand, there have been a lot of things that have sounded like good ideas that have either turned very bad (Iraq), or have been a lukewarm success (economy).

At this point there are enough data points to notice a trend. Far more has gone wrong for this president than has gone right. Too much, I would argue, to be blamed on bad luck. (warning, rant approaching) I believe the underlying theme here lies within the administration. They have made a habit of doing what they want, when they want to do it; a luxury available to them because the republicans have controlled both houses. The problem is that they have spent insufficient time doing cost/benefit/risk analysis. They have acted on their gut instincts without the detailed examination required for matters as complicated as the economy, foreign affairs, or even terrorism. So, when something fails to go according to plan, they are stuck. This administration has no 'plan B'. It is plainly obvious that there was no contingency plan if we were not "welcomed as liberators". It is doubtful they ever considered what to do if tax cuts failed to revive the economy.

Things rarely go exactly according to plan. This is normal, and the administration should not be faulted for this fact of life. However, the leaders of this great country need to anticipate what might go wrong and prepare accordingly. The alternative is the list of failures and partial successes that have marked the last four years.

Actually, there is lots of good news for Kerry. The polls are starting to universally move back in his favor. The national polls show an even race after Bush was clearly ahead a week or two ago. And more importantly, the electoral college is swinging back to Kerry. ARG just completed polls in all 50 states and they have Kerry at 270 EV's vs. Bush at 253 (WI and WV are tied). The electoral vote tracking sites are all over the place (due to how often they are updated and how they define 'most recent'), but all of them are showing a shift in Kerry's direction.