Astronomy & Astrophysics

All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=17cm,clip]{0474fig1.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Interferogram obtained by measuring a 6.5 cm diameter sample of an oil surface coated with a MELLF. The resolution on the surface of the liquid was 0.1 cm. Figure 1b shows the wavefront obtained from that interferogram. They show an excellent optical quality, as evidenced by the 0.1 waves rms on the wavefront ( $\lambda$ /20 on the surface).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{0474fig2.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Reflectivity curves for two water-based and an oil-based mirror, as well as a coated ferrofluid. The difference between the two water-based curves illustrates some of the progress achieved in a few months work following Paper II. The better reflectivity curve of the water based mirror is probably due to the fact that we have spent far more time working with water-based liquids.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0474fig3.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Image obtained from a knife-edge test carried out on a 1-m diameter f/2.5 rotating parabolic liquid mirror composed of a MELLF spread on paraffin oil. We can clearly see the signature of a parabola. The surface roughness on the figure is consistent with the surface roughness measured for the wavefront of Fig. 1 ( $\lambda$ /20).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=18cm,clip]{0474fig4.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Piston term wavefront produced using the 25 central actuators in the ferrofluid mirror as well as the interferogram of the entire mirror. This wavefront was obtained on an uncoated ferrofluid. The array of small light grey disks show the positions of the actuators.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=17cm,clip]{0474fig1.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 1: Interferogram obtained by measuring a 6.5 cm diameter sample of an oil surface coated with a MELLF. The resolution on the surface of the liquid was 0.1 cm. Figure 1b shows the wavefront obtained from that interferogram. They show an excellent optical quality, as evidenced by the 0.1 waves rms on the wavefront ( $\lambda$ /20 on the surface).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{0474fig2.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Reflectivity curves for two water-based and an oil-based mirror, as well as a coated ferrofluid. The difference between the two water-based curves illustrates some of the progress achieved in a few months work following Paper II. The better reflectivity curve of the water based mirror is probably due to the fact that we have spent far more time working with water-based liquids.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.8cm,clip]{0474fig3.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: Image obtained from a knife-edge test carried out on a 1-m diameter f/2.5 rotating parabolic liquid mirror composed of a MELLF spread on paraffin oil. We can clearly see the signature of a parabola. The surface roughness on the figure is consistent with the surface roughness measured for the wavefront of Fig. 1 ( $\lambda$ /20).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=18cm,clip]{0474fig4.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: Piston term wavefront produced using the 25 central actuators in the ferrofluid mirror as well as the interferogram of the entire mirror. This wavefront was obtained on an uncoated ferrofluid. The array of small light grey disks show the positions of the actuators.
Open with DEXTER