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.