Lawrence,
Worked fine. Excel converted the spreadsheet into the latest version of Excel.
I utilized the empirical method to decide the optimum Paracorr setting for each of my TeleVue eyepieces rather than trust TeleVue's spreadsheet that showed the proper setting.
I started at the outmost (1) setting and focused, examined the edge, moved in one setting (2), focused and examined the edge, repeating the process through all 5 settings if necessary.
If two settings seemed to have equal edge correction, I tried the in between setting (e.g.2.5) to see if the correction was better.
All my eyepieces are Naglers now, but I had a Panoptic at the time, and some series 4000 Meade UWAs. My empirical results pretty much agreed with TeleVue's. A couple of the eyepieces' best settings were in between settings, I thought, but the TeleVue recommendations would be fine for their eyepieces in my f/5 scope. At shorter f/ratios, coma correction becomes more critical and residual coma is visible even in a Paracorred eyepiece. In such cases, an in-between setting might become more important.
I put a small marker label on each eyepiece with the proper Paracorr setting, and marked the 1-5 settings of the Paracorr with numbers as well. Now, when I take an eyepiece out of the case, I merely match number with setting--no memory involved.
In the cases where settings 1 or 5 were chosen as the best candidates, I've often wondered if having the tunable top move a little farther in each direction would result in improved coma correction. In other words, I'd have been happier with 7 settings where all my eyepieces' best corrections were settings 2-6. Your spreadsheet could have answered the question if you allowed it to calculate the optimum position rather than the optimum setting.
-------------------- Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie