On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:07:58 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Take a look at the frequency chart in the "Reference Data for Radio
Engineers" and you will see why someone with poor eyesight might
make that mistake.

I duly note at the top of the graphic the expanded "Visible Spectrum
in Microns (Micrometers)" which clearly offers 4 cardinal points none
of which has a leading three (3) as a wavelength specification. Now
"clear" may be an unfortunate choice of wording, but the separation of
topic which is part and parcel to the issue of glare with its
corresponding distinct and uncluttered typeface offers far less
ambiguity. [Others may wish to observe the 610nm specification
offered as "red" in other correspondence is distinctly yellow here.
Such is the plight of subjectivity and the illusion of human
perception.]

As glare is another illusion of human perception of visible light it
follows that there is no specification of it, nor visibility for any
wavelength starting with a 3. It matters little how many decimal
points you slipped on the occasion of visiting the extreme lower edge
of the infrared. If you had misquoted 6.35 MILLION Angstroms instead
of 6350 Angstroms that would have passed with little comment.

All of this is commonplace to a practitioner of the art of Optics and
OptoElectronics.

This, then, returns us to the topic of through-glass attachments,
their loss, and the contribution of the layers to reflect (a la glare
suppression) which you re-introduced to this thread, above. [I will
suspend the absurdity of this logic for the moment.]

What is the resonant frequency of this adhesive layer:
in wavelengths, frequency, or color? I think we can all agree
(barring the slipped decimal place) that it is not 2M nor 440 MHz.

I will go one step beyond and ask, if this geometry of attachment is
variable through curvatures (windshield are always curved) what are
the prospects of Newton's Rings offering a variation in that
determination?

These are all garden variety questions that plague newbies to the art.