On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:21:54 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Let's see, you don't know the wavelength,

I gave the wavelength. You apparently missed it. Here it
is again - 632.8 nm.

As it was a long time in getting you from 3 MILLION Angstroms to this
after several clues, there is still that distance from this red to any
ACTUAL application :-)

Not to worry, no one expected this in the first, second, third...
round. However, the humor tapped out long ago.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:07:48 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:
Glare is a scattered reflection of source light.

Hi Dave,

This is a definition by example, and as such is a weak one because it
can be shown that other example definitions neutralize it.

Glare is first and foremost a subjective interpretation. In other
words it has to be observed by a human and described as distinct from
other sources of light. As such, the common vernacular easily allows
the expression of "the glare of the noon day sun" when in fact there
are no reflections being observed. Stage lights are said "to glare,"
again without any notion of a specular surface. In fact, the
vernacular allows that a steady stare with malice is a "glare."

The point of the matter is that to say something is anti-glare; and
for the specific notion of what glare means having to be ferreted out;
then this necessarily throws the original statement into doubt and
confusion (which makes it perfectly suitable for internet posting :-)

It is absurd to call an application anti-glare without commenting on
the wavelength of the source, as you point out. To this point it
appears that it only works for red (and no other color). This is, of
course, true, and simultaneously irrelevant to common applications.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
No, again you failed, the answer was yours 6 MILLION Angstroms. There
is no such glare wavelength.

I already admitted it was a mistake caused by macular degeneration.
Guess you would rather I be completely blind, eh? I thought I was reading
the frequency of visible red. I don't carry such things around in my
head. Hardly any amateur radio operator does.

"Glare wavelength" is just a logical diversion from your lack of knowledge
about interference. The wavelength of glare matters not one iota to the core
of the technical discussion that you are trying to avoid at all costs. Why
do you disagree with J. C. Slater who understood interference probably
before you ever wet your diapers?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dave Shrader wrote:
At RF, HF, VHF, UHF, SHF, etc. the parallel to glare is scattering from a
reflective surface where the line spectral response is the single
frequency.

Yep, and "glare" from the laser experiment I proposed is limited to a
single laser frequency. That Richard C. would ask, what is the frequency
of the glare from a single frequency laser beam, just shows an extreme
amount of ignorance.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
I gave the wavelength. You apparently missed it. Here it
is again - 632.8 nm.

As it was a long time in getting you from 3 MILLION Angstroms to this
after several clues, there is still that distance from this red to any
ACTUAL application :-)

Too bad you didn't know that the glare frequency from a red laser is
the same frequency as the laser. If you had known that, we could have
saved a lot of bandwidth because you never would have asked the question
and I wouldn't have made the visual mistake when I read the frequency chart.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:
It is absurd to call an application anti-glare without commenting on
the wavelength of the source, as you point out. To this point it
appears that it only works for red (and no other color). This is, of
course, true, and simultaneously irrelevant to common applications.

100% relevant to comparisons to single frequency RF transmitters.
Red lasers are single frequency. Therefore, they are appropriate
vehicles for comparison to single frequency amateur radio RF
transmitters. All your ****ing, moaning, and hand-waving won't
change that fact. Ham transmitters are hardly anything like a
light bulb, the diversion that you are attempting to insert. Ham
transmitters are a lot like lasers, the subject you are trying to
avoid at all costs.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:07:48 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:
My Physics books indicate that wavelengths greater than 610 nm are 'red'.

Hi Dave,

Last touch on this point of experience. Probably very, very few
scientists and even fewer engineers would subscribe to this. It is
fine for a commonplace description useful for discussion in cocktail
parties, or tailgate parties (why they would want to know this rather
inspecific specific is another issue).

I dare say any commercial application would characterize 610 nm as
either yellow or orange. However, this is again a problem of human
perception - just like calling sunlight yellow (most photographers
would beg to differ) or calling it white (the rest of the
photographers would beg to differ). In one word: Subjective.

So, to the nature of glare, and its frequency and to the ACTUAL
purpose of anti-glare glass
it supposedly suppresses the reflection of rare gas light by
covering sensitive exhibition photographs:
Ar - Argon vapor
Na - Sodium vapor
and a host of other mixes, none of which are commonly red ;-)

When was the last time you visited any photographic art galleries that
were illuminated with Neon? Anti-glare is just a marketing pitch
anyway, how many photos are illuminated under any wavelength specific
source? The truth of the matter is that all general purpose lighting
is broad banded and negates any promise of "anti-glare."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:27:08 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I thought I was reading
the frequency of visible red. I don't carry such things around in my
head. Hardly any amateur radio operator does.

And such is the point of my illustrating the shortfalls of your lack
of experience. No one is challenging your amateur status.

The recitation of any wavelength starting with a significant three is
enough to set off alarms when there is a concurrent claim of its
visibility. That is why I said it was impossible to be a decimal
error.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:42:40 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Ham
transmitters are a lot like lasers, the subject you are trying to
avoid at all costs.

So, without avoiding the topic at hand, what is the resonant frequency
of the cement layer between the glass of the window and the mounting
pad? Or wavelength? Or color? :-)

Does it merit 0.5 to 1.0 dB of Glare suppression?

Humor me with another half dozen responses void of that value.

Richard Clark wrote:
The recitation of any wavelength starting with a significant three is
enough to set off alarms when there is a concurrent claim of its
visibility. That is why I said it was impossible to be a decimal
error.

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.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:
The recitation of any wavelength starting with a significant three is
enough to set off alarms when there is a concurrent claim of its
visibility. That is why I said it was impossible to be a decimal
error.

The point of the thing, which you seem intent on missing, is that EM
radiation is reflected by impedance discontinuities. Optical reflection is
very similar to what happens at lower frequencies.
I normally use this analogy when discussing the use of shielding and
absorbent materials for EMI supression.

Richard Clark wrote in message

As the Army Times has noted about the Bush White House's support of
the troops:
"President Bush, the commander in chief himself, rode a Navy jet
to the aircraft carrier Lincoln to bask in the reflective glow of some
of the brave Americans who helped oust Saddam Hussein.
"Money talks -- and we all know what walks."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, you got the last word with that book you wrote recently :-)

It seems like a thousand years ago when a big discussion of glass mount
antennas took place on INFO-HAMS.

(Anyone remember INFO-HAMS?)

My poor memory recalls that there was not much said in favor of glass mount
antennas and a lot said against them. Most of the discussion was regarding 2-m
antennas.

I think the mag mount antenna is a great invention and that's all I use for 2
and 0.7.

When traveling I put the antenna on top of the car. Around town I mount on
truck lid.

73 de Jack, K9CUN

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 10:20:58 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:
The recitation of any wavelength starting with a significant three is
enough to set off alarms when there is a concurrent claim of its
visibility. That is why I said it was impossible to be a decimal
error.

The point of the thing, which you seem intent on missing, is that EM
radiation is reflected by impedance discontinuities. Optical reflection is
very similar to what happens at lower frequencies.
I normally use this analogy when discussing the use of shielding and
absorbent materials for EMI supression.


Hi Dave,

I certainly am missing something from this post. How do you get from
my comment about visible wavelengths to one about shielding EMI?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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.

Richard Clark wrote:
I certainly am missing something from this post. How do you get from
my comment about visible wavelengths to one about shielding EMI?

Dave is probably missing the fact that you like to harp and pick
the same nit for weeks before you get it out of your system. :-)
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Richard Clark wrote:
All of this is commonplace to a practitioner of the art of Optics and
OptoElectronics.

And completely irrelevant to the subject of matches in transmission
lines. Thus, it is obviously only a nit-picking logical diversion on
your part to avoid discussing match points on transmission lines.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On 8 Apr 2004 08:29:59 -0700, (k4wge) wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in message

As the Army Times has noted about the Bush White House's support of
the troops:
"President Bush, the commander in chief himself, rode a Navy jet
to the aircraft carrier Lincoln to bask in the reflective glow of some
of the brave Americans who helped oust Saddam Hussein.
"Money talks -- and we all know what walks."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, you got the last word with that book you wrote recently :-)

The White House squirmed and squealed about it;
The Department of State nodded knowingly;
The CIA smiled inwardly.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:31:48 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
All of this is commonplace to a practitioner of the art of Optics and
OptoElectronics.

And completely irrelevant to the subject of matches in transmission
lines. Thus, it is obviously only a nit-picking logical diversion on
your part to avoid discussing match points on transmission lines.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:10:52 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

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.

I gather you have no response to the on-topic question then.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 10:20:58 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:
The recitation of any wavelength starting with a significant three is
enough to set off alarms when there is a concurrent claim of its
visibility. That is why I said it was impossible to be a decimal
error.

The point of the thing, which you seem intent on missing, is that EM
radiation is reflected by impedance discontinuities. Optical reflection
is
very similar to what happens at lower frequencies.
I normally use this analogy when discussing the use of shielding and
absorbent materials for EMI supression.


Hi Dave,

I certainly am missing something from this post. How do you get from
my comment about visible wavelengths to one about shielding EMI?

By the intervening sentence, about the similarity of optical reflection to
reflection at lower wavelengths.

Richard Clark wrote:
I gather you have no response to the on-topic question then.

I have not perceived you asking any on-topic questions. Are
you talking about glare with respect to through-glass antennas?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:21:19 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
I gather you have no response to the on-topic question then.

I have not perceived you asking any on-topic questions. Are
you talking about glare with respect to through-glass antennas?

You are off topic once again. Consult the archive.

Hi Dave,

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:48:53 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

My EM guys, Physics types, [from my working days] indicated that the
three dielectric interfaces, adhesive to glass to adhesive, all with
different dielectric coefficients create reflections at the boundaries.

How much reflection is there from a device with sub wavelength
dimension? Cecil can't answer this, can you?

Let's cast this back to optics:
You have a mirror with 60nm sides
(a similar, proportional scale to the glass mount).

The question becomes, how much light (percentage or dB) is reflected?

For others following this: would you use this mirror to shave? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
I have not perceived you asking any on-topic questions. Are
you talking about glare with respect to through-glass antennas?

You are off topic once again. Consult the archive.

On the contrary, the topic is "Through-Glass Antenna/
Ford Taurus". What did you think it was?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Richard Clark wrote:
How much reflection is there from a device with sub wavelength
dimension? Cecil can't answer this, can you?

OK, genius, please tell us how much reflection is there from
a Through-Glass Antenna/Ford Taurus.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:08:32 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
I have not perceived you asking any on-topic questions. Are
you talking about glare with respect to through-glass antennas?

You are off topic once again. Consult the archive.

On the contrary, the topic is "Through-Glass Antenna/
Ford Taurus". What did you think it was?

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:58:12 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:10:52 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

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.

I gather you have no response to the on-topic question then.

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
You are off topic once again. Consult the archive.

On the contrary, the topic is "Through-Glass Antenna/
Ford Taurus". What did you think it was?

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:58:12 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

You can't answer my questions about matching so you are forced into an
off-topic logical diversion. I fully understand.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:58:22 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
You are off topic once again. Consult the archive.

On the contrary, the topic is "Through-Glass Antenna/
Ford Taurus". What did you think it was?

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:58:12 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

You can't answer my questions about matching so you are forced into an
off-topic logical diversion. I fully understand.

At least is was logical and you understood.

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
You can't answer my questions about matching so you are forced into an
off-topic logical diversion. I fully understand.

At least is was logical and you understood.

Heh, heh, the "logical" in "logical diversion" doesn't mean the
diversion is not illogical.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:18:22 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Heh, heh, the "logical" in "logical diversion" doesn't mean the
diversion is not illogical.
Hmm a logical diversion is a statement with three negatives. You have
a talent for doing it the long way.