HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters)
Subject: Re: Anthropic Principle?
Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu
Organization: NRAO
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:50:35 GMT

In article 20653@colorado.edu, matthews@ajsh.colorado.edu (Alex Matthews) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.002050.7540@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> newberry@newton.as.arizona.edu (Mike Newberry) writes:
>>
>>I look at this whole idea as being something of a nonsequitur--what's the
>>point?  Does this lead to anything?  I think we have to be especially careful
>>about this kind of... well, for lack of a better word, "religion". The 
>>direction of causality in the use of "because..." bothers me a great deal.
>>If you reversed the sentence, then it would destroy the anthropic principle
>>but make a heck of a lot more sense to me; to wit, "We are here to observe
>>the universe because of the way it is", an obvious fact. As stated, the AP
>>can't help but carry some baggage about an omnipotent entity created in
>>Man's own image who cares more about humankind than about the rest of the
>>universe.  In short, I have no use for the Anthropic Principle.
>
>I agree with this.
>
>It is somewhat disquieting that our estimates of the probability of
>the occurrence of life are very low.  

The weak anthropic principle demonstrates that this disquiet is
unfounded.

	Chris Flatters
	cflatter@nrao.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Telescope question
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:49:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.034229.13646@athena.cs.uga.edu>
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
      [...]
>There is an old piece of folklore that says a 3-inch refractor is equal to
>a 6-inch reflector.  It's late 19th century folklore, from the days of
>silvered mirrors with low reflectivity.
>
>The images from a good refractor will be _slightly_ better than those from
>a good Newtonian of the same  aperture, because there is no additional
>diffraction from the central obstruction.  (Not only does the central
>obstruction block some light -- it also has a diffraction effect which
>puts more light into the first diffraction ring rather than the center of
>the star image.)  Schmidt-Cassegrains, in turn, are _slightly_ worse than
>Newtonians.  (All of which is offset by the fact that you can afford,
>and use, a larger aperture with the latter kind of telescope.)
>
>HOWEVER, equating a 3-inch refractor to a 6-inch reflector in this day
>and age is a bit excessive.  I'd think the comparison is more like 5-inch
>versus 6-inch.
>
>
From what I've read and seen in the past year, I'd add a few comments to
that. One, the *average* commercial newtonian has a pretty poorly figured
mirror, adding to the problem. And the typical commercial schmidt-cassegrain
has a much worse image, compounded by poor baffling and the fact that the
corrector plate is only an approximation of the correct figure. It's
certainly possible to build compound reflecting telescopes that outperform
most achromats- cf Questar, for one. Thus the 3"-6" comparison is based not
on the theoretical differences, but rather the practical ones. There are
just a lot of mediocre telescopes out there.
However....a properly figured newtonian of long focus (f/8+) with a small
secondary can rival a refractor for contrast and resolution. The major
mass-market manufacturers don't make such a telescope. Pity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 30 August
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:19:56 GMT

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 242, 08/29/92
10.7 FLUX=095.3  90-AVG=124        SSN=063      BKI=4534 1112  BAI=016
BGND-XRAY=B1.8     FLU1=1.2E+05  FLU10=1.5E+04  PKI=4534 2222  PAI=015
  BOU-DEV=044,098,025,051,008,006,005,010   DEV-AVG=030 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= C1.5   @ 0001UT    XRAY-MIN= B1.7   @ 1703UT   XRAY-AVG= B4.9
NEUTN-MAX= +004%  @ 2020UT   NEUTN-MIN= -001%  @ 0955UT  NEUTN-AVG= +0.7%
  PCA-MAX= +0.2DB @ 1515UT     PCA-MIN= -0.1DB @ 2110UT    PCA-AVG= +0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55453NT @ 0340UT   BOUTF-MIN=55392NT @ 1715UT  BOUTF-AVG=55430NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+102NT@ 2012UT   GOES7-MIN=N:-032NT@ 1019UT  G7-AVG=+070,+050,+007
GOES6-MAX=P:+116NT@ 0006UT   GOES6-MIN=E:-016NT@ 1432UT  G6-AVG=+078,-004,+033
 FLUXFCST=STD:100,105,105;SESC:100,105,110 BAI/PAI-FCST=010,015,015/010,015,010
    KFCST=2224 4222 2225 5222  27DAY-AP=006,005   27DAY-KP=2202 1222 1111 2222
 WARNINGS=
   ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: rbunge@access.digex.com (Robert Bunge)
Subject: Re: C8 Coma for astrophoto, radial guider bug
Organization: Express Access Online Communications Service, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:13:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.214325.17277@engage.pko.dec.com> yerazunis@cthulu.enet.dec.com writes:
>>I've started to use my C8 for prime focus astrophoto.
>>The result look sharp at the center of the field but i'm
>>surprised to see how important the coma is at the edge
>>of the field !
>>What's the point of a Schmidt if it's to get so much coma.
>>Also for guiding, coma stars are not that fun...
>
>Hmmmm... well, to start out with, I have a C8 (same optic tube as your 
>Ultima) and I have NO problems with coma, even using the radial guider.
>(I have another beef about the radial guider, but that's neither here nor
>there).  
>
>My first hunch would be to check your scope's collimation.  A mis-collimated
>Schmidt has a distortion pattern that looks a lot like coma, and varies
>over the field of view as well; you may be seeing miscollimation.

Well, I'm _not_ an SCT user, but I've fooled around enough with raytrace
programs to know that a poorly figured or mis-matched SCT system like 
C's or Meades _can_ sometimes produce various aberrations that look something
like coma.  (See _Telescope Optics_, Willmann-Bell, 1988).  Poor collimation, 
as noted above is possible, but the images should change shape from one side
of the field to the other.  I'd suggest a good star test to check the figure.
If it star tests poorly, send it back.

Bob Bunge
rbunge@access.digex.com
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Advice needed for Purchase (Novice)
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:41:47 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <16857E8FF.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>My year of novice experience has taught me two things:
> 
>1. Buy a good pair of binoculars first, and learn the sky. See what you
>can do with these before you buy a telescope. I spend 10 times as much
>time with my 8x56s as with my 80mm refractor. And when you do buy a telescope,
>you'll still have plenty of uses for the binocs.

Amen!  I have an 8" Meade, a 5" Celestron, and 8x40 binoculars.
Guess which I use the most?

In fact I enjoy picking out "telescopic" objects (such as M27) in
the binoculars.
-- 
+ Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA 
+ Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.
+ VOTE NO GEORGIA LOTTERY - we need not imitate mistakes of other states.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
Subject: Laser Guide Star Obs  8/26/92 AM
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 00:11:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

After stopping by the "off-site observers" place, where 
many interesting things were being done with 'scopes and
cameras, I proceeded up Mines Rd. out of Livermore, 
stopping every couple of miles to observe.  This is a
long, approx. 15-mile climb out of the Livermore Valley into
the mountains.  The seeing improved with altitude so that
I could readily observe both the beam and the star itself,
although not dark-adapted and using only 6x30 binocs.  At
a distance of ~14 miles (as the photon flies) from the laser,
both beam and star were very clear, the star being 3-4 field
diameters above the apparent end of the beam, appearing as a
line about 1/3 field-diameter long.  Not being dark-adapted,
I hesitate to state brightness: the beam was always easily seen
with the naked eye, the star only with the binocs. 

The sites were all connected by ham radio and I heard that adjustments
were being made to the beam, which probably accounts for the fact that,
11 miles later on I could see only the beam, not the star. 

Arriving home 15 minutes later (2:30 AM), I could not see the beam;
possibly turned off?

Times of obs:  ~1:15 to 2:15 AM, 8/26/92   
Next: ~12:30 AM, 8/27/92, possibly with a real light-bucket?

trr
-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice   WB6BYH                   Holler Observatory - 
tomrice@netcom.com                     Longitude:  121 d  30 m  20 s W 
CIS: 71160,1122                        Latitude:    37 d  25 m  10 s N
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Subject: Re: AURORA WATCH: Middle Latitude Auroral Activity Watch
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:14:45 GMT


   I would say "MODERATE" auroral visibility is an understatement!  Right now
   (about 6h UT) I am under the biggest auroral storm I have ever seen.  (Here
   in Winnipeg, we get to see a *lot* of them.)  The aurora is pulsating and
   rirpling so fast it's almost hard to follow it around the sky.  Intensely
   bright (easily casting shadows), with mostly green and a brilliant cyan
   (which I have not seen before).  Is anyone else getting this stuff farther
   down south?  It goes to my south horizon; I'm curious to see how far that
   it can be seen.

   Why couldn't this happen on a full moon night?  What a waste of dark sky.
   Sigh...

   Scott Young
   youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca
   "I'd rather see starlight than that damn aurora!"
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 3 Sep 1992 08:14:55 CDT
From: Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: WANTED: Cheap CCD Camera Plans

Early this year I saw a posting for making a CCD camera from some type of
chip.  I am working on a 12" Newtonian telescope mirror and I would like to
have a CCD camera to take long "deep sky" exposures with it.
Can someone help me out?   Thank you

Wesley J. Bielinski     U53734@uicvm.uic.edu
SGT, USAR
12th Special Forces Group (Airborne)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: jmcvey@boi.hp.com ( John McVey         x3638 )
Subject: Aero-Ektars Available
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:54:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

It took two calls to Skycraft (with the help of Thomas Clarke) for
them to locate the Aero-Ektars.  I bought one.  They have six left.
They apparently weigh about 15 pounds.

If you call them.  Ask for Mike.  He now knows where and what to 
look for.

John McVey
jmcvey@hpbslq.boi.hp.com
From: benoit@netcom.com (BENOIT SCHILLINGS)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Konica 3200
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:46:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

So far i've done all my prime focus exposures with some
hypered fuji hg400.
Unfortunatly hypered films are quite a problem since
one one night you can only use a small part  of the
film (and cuting is a mess), and the rest of the film
is suppose to loose hypering (is that true ?).

I was thinking to try the Konica 3200 (non hypered).

Who do it work, is the grain real bad ?

What exposure time do you use at f/10 and pretty
good sky (visual magn +- 6).

Benoit

benoit@netcom.com
benoit@be.com
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
Subject: Re: C8 Coma for astrophoto.
Organization: UIUC SCS
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:49:34 GMT

In article <75960059@hpldsla.sid.hp.com> tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich) writes:

>benoit@netcom.com (BENOIT SCHILLINGS)  writes:

>> I've started to use my C8 for prime focus astrophoto.
>> The result look sharp at the center of the field but i'm
>> surprised to see how important the coma is at the edge
>> of the field !

>Part of the problem in the image on film is field curvature, on
>top of the coma of the Schmidt-Cassegrain design.

That is part of it. Another part is that Cassegrains in general,
not just SCTs, suffer badly from astigmatism. That is very hard to fix
at the film end.

Actually, you can get a big improvement in overall sharpness on 35 mm
film by moving the corrector plate forward about 7 inches. This however
causes some spherical aberration on-axis. This is optimal for flat
film.  It makes it hard to mount the secondary, however. You'd probably
need a spider. [Note: this is a ray-tracing result, not experimentation].

It appears to be much harder to design a non-reducing corrector for
the standard SCT. I've managed to design reducing ones that, on
my computer, work great, but not non-reducing ones. I suspect it
would take 6 elements.

The Celestron compressor-corrector works fine on my Meade 8 incher.
It vignettes badly of course.

Doug McDonald
From: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Subject: Re: Particle/Cosmology/Relativity Texts?
Originator: mock@benz
Reply-To: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Organization: MIT Center for Space Research
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:55:54 GMT


In article <1992Aug27.133009.18938@tellab5.tellabs.com>, jcj@tellabs.com (JCJ) writes:
> Reading the MM-Big Bang debate and looking through my old textbooks
> (14 years!), I've come to the conclusion that I've forgotten more 
> than I learned -) ...  So I'd appreciate it if I could get some
> recommendations for contemporary texts in:
> 
> 1) standard model of particle physics
> 
> 2) general relativity
> 
> 3) cosmology
> 
> I have my bachelor's in astro and I took the obligatory calculus 
> through diff. eq's and a semester of mathematical physics in grad 
> school (although I confess that course was a real bitch - I still 
> wonder if I was a total idiot or the prof was from another planet).
> I don't think I'm masochistic enough to tackle MTW yet but I find
> the "Sci. Am." style overviews less than satisfying.  Thanks.

I just thumbed through a copy of "300 Years of Gravitation", ed. Hawking & Israel,
Cambridge University Press, QC178.T47.  It seems to be what you are looking for.

Pat
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: eric@cs.ruu.nl (Eric Nieuwland)
Subject: Re: Space Poop
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:53:54 GMT
Organization: SERC/RUU
Followup-To: sci.astro

In article <183hitINNl9o@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Mike E. Romano) wrote:
> ... [description of stuff in orbit] ...
> Further, there are from 30,000 to 70,000 smaller objects greater than
> 1 cm which have not been catalogued.  Any pieces in this size range
> can damage spacecraft.
> Objects above the geo stationary orbit of 1000 km will remain there
> for 1000 years, orbitting the earth 5 million times, posing a constant
> risk of collision.
> 
> Interactive collisions in earth orbits will eventually generate sufficient
> debris to creat a dense Debris Belt and prevent further launchings.
> Some scientists predict that sufficient debris will begin to reduce
> solar radiation and thereby affect global climate.

Can't we make a "trash bumper" ? It would be some strong and heavy thing
that could bump the trash such that its orbit would bring it to the upper
atmosphere where it then would burn.
Small stuff could perhaps be collected by a trash can with a special kind
of cover/intake. After a while it could then dive into the atmosphere to
be destroyed.

Too simple perhaps?

--eric
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Standard model of QSOsex
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:33:56 GMT


pdiamond@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Phil Diamond) writes:

> I can't let that statement go by. Tom Van Flandern states that there are
> early indications from VLBI for the proper motions of quasars. I agree that
> we see many proper motions of blobs down jets, but there is no, I repeat
> no, measurements indicating the proper motion of a quasar with respect to
> other extragalactic objects.

     Sorry, Phil, but see Ma, C. & Shaffer, D. B. 1991, Proc. IAU Colloq.
127, p. 135.  Most of the two dozen quasars used as anchors for the VLBI
reference frame were themselves found to be moving (not just blobs in jets).
The formal statistical significance of the observed proper motions averages
four sigma, ranging up to six sigma.

     The reason you haven't heard more about this is that no one (including
me) believes them yet.  At the sub-millisecond level, there may well be
systematic effects we have yet to discover.  But as the time base grows and
more quasars are added, it will soon be obvious whether the quasars really do
move or not.

     Personally, I think anyone who would bet heavily that no quasar moves at
that rate has been living a shielded existence, and ought to read a greater
variety of journals and talk to more astronomers.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan M. Gilligan)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.optics
Subject: Re: cleaning mirrors - NOT!
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:59:00 GMT
Followup-To: sci.astro
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1992Sep2.141132.9895@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>So I got some pool chlorine (stronger than chlorox) and put a
>little on the mirror.  To my horror, the aluminum film
>began to dissolve.  Quickly rinsing it under water I partly
>saved the coating; I suspect what remains is about 50% reflective 
>now.
>
>At least I know how to remove the old coating before I send 
>it out for recoating :-)  
>
>Anyone know what the chemistry of an Al film plus 
>sodium hypochlorite solution would be?

I don't know the exact chemistry, but in my experience using XeCl
excimer lasers and aluminum ultraviolet mirrors, I've found that even
a very small concentration of chlorine or HCl in the air can quickly
fog a mirror. Bulk aluminum exposed to HCl and water forms a green
salt.  The CRC lists HCl as a solvent for elemental aluminum. Aluminum
oxide (Al_2 O_3) is listed as very slightly soluble in acids and
alkalis, while the oxide trihydrates are listed as soluble. These
properties are also known to people who keep house, as chlorine bleach
(Ajax, Comet, etc.) will pit the surface of aluminum pans.

---Jon


-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Space Poop
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:57:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.112254.4184@ulrik.uio.no> jarleb@athena.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann) writes:
>Is there any plans whatsoever to remove or collect some of the debris
>up there ?

Actually, this would be illegal under international law: A old, 1960-era
treaty prohibited one nation from "interfering" with anything
another nation put into orbit (without previously obtaining permission).
The phrasing in this part of the treaty was really poor, and
(technically) includes _everything_ put into orbit (spent upper stages,
paint chips, debris, etc...)

> I haven't really calculated anything, but I guess that any
>big space-station would have to face the problem that quite a lot of
>debris are flying around up there.

I believe the estimate (more like a best guess) for the 
NASA/ESA/NASDA/whoever space station is to expect two impacts 
with debris sever enough to cause a loss of pressure, over the
station's 30-year lifetime.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
From: davecole@cie.uoregon.edu (Dave Cole)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: C8 astrophotgraphy, optical specs
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:36:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: nntp.1992Sep2.133630.573
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

Hello,
  Is there any information regarding the C-14 regarding optical design?
If so...  where is it?
Dave
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 02.09.1992.
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Date: 02 Sep 92 19:51:00 MESZ
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 02.09.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7267 02N 59W Bxo   20   b
7270 09S 26E Dao  110   b    2
7271 09S 15E Bxo   10   b
7272 11S 38W Bxo   10   b


No optical or x-ray flares yesterday observed.


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 30.08.1992.
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Date: 30 Aug 92 09:04:00 MESZ
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 30.08.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
No sunspots on the solar disk or no report available, sorry.


No optical or x-ray flares yesterday observed.


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: C8 astrophotgraphy, optical specs
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:18:58 GMT

In article <mcdonald.262@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
>
>
>
>I've "obtained" the specs for my Meade 2080 by "reverse engineering". 
>First, I'm assuming that primary and secondary are spherical. Otherwise
>their admitted manufacturing method of "mix and match" would be silly,
>and in any case,  using aspheric mirrors when you can correct it
>with the corrector is even sillier. 
>...

When did they admit to using the mix and match method?

When I talked to Meade, they claimed that the primary, secondary, and corector
were made together as a set.  They also made some other claims which seemed 
rather silly--they said that if the optics fail their final test they are 
*DESTROYED* rather than refigured.  

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: s35277r@saha.hut.fi (Jaakko Oksa)
Subject: Warning
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:56:39 GMT

I'd like to warn everyone against using cyanoacrylate glue (Loctite super-
glue etc.) near optical surfaces -  the stuff seems to release vapor which
forms a semi-opaque coating. I used it on my telescope's auxiliary mirror
assembly, and part of the fumes landed on the surface... 
I was finally able to remove the coating with acetone; water and 
isopropanol didn't have any effect.

Could someone try and find a practical use for this discovery, a do-it-
yourself deep-sky filter or something...:-)

jaakko oksa
s35277r@saha.hut.fi
joksa@vipunen.hut.fi


........................................................................
.Jaakko Oksa........................"When all other means of............
.s35277r@saha.hut.fi.................communication fail, try words".....
Newsgroups: sci.astro