On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:55:32 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The example I gave was designed for clarity of understanding.
It is a poor example of understanding when you purposely inject error.
There is nothing clear about intentional mistakes. Any rejection of a
complete solution is a suspect agenda from the beginning.

Understanding does not come of clouded data and murky results. What
has been offered is evidence of poor knowledge, and no experience.
That poor foundation built on sand has translated into outrageous
conclusions that are nothing more than castles in the sky.

I can demonstrate this in that when posed with a REAL power
application, silence typically falls for the simplest of computations.
Like how much power does a light bulb radiate to illuminate in the
660nM region a target of 1 cm square, at 1 M with 64 microWatts/30 nM
of bandwidth?

The inability to do such trivial power models reveals every thing else
offered has the makings of superstition that builds CFAs and their
ilk.

Dear Readers,

Knowing the binary result beforehand (0) to this simple appeal, I will
render that answer before the day is out. It will exhibit how little
optical knowledge is contained in this "Can you solve this" banality.

You may all note that my embarrassing question:
What is the wavelength of Glare?
remains without comment or response, even though there is a practical
answer and a perfectly reasonable explanation. The gulf of silence
that attends this remarks how complete the void of experience is. Can
you imagine basing an entire exposition around such a commonplace
problem and not knowing the basics? In short, this "Can you solve
this?" is more an appeal for knowledge than a demonstration of skill.
For one, you need to know WHO needs this glare cancellation capacity,
and then you would ask WHY; and it then follows that the wavelength
falls within these particular aspects. Fairly simple stuff for the
optical engineer, but wholly outside of the binary engineer's
experience and education.

The greater embarrassment is that apparently it is outside of the
skill of performing a simple Google search to fill that gap of
knowledge. As I offered, once that knowledge came to mind, the WHY
and WHO would explain the WHEREFORE instead of this rummaging through
text to xerox formulas to force-fit a presumed theory of "total"
cancellation.

It is still entertaining tho', as a burlesque of engineering. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC