On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:54:51 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:
Theoretically, the loss is about 0.5 to 1.0 dB for clear glass.

Hi Dave,

What's the theory?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

If it is smoked or mirrored glass,
you can use the "smoke and mirrors theory"
(yes, this is an attempt at humor)

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:54:51 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:
Theoretically, the loss is about 0.5 to 1.0 dB for clear glass.

Hi Dave,

What's the theory?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:54:51 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

Theoretically, the loss is about 0.5 to 1.0 dB for clear glass.


Hi Dave,

What's the theory?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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.

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.

There are four. You couldn't really have an odd number..

Metal-adhesive, adhesive-glass, glass-adhesive, adhesive-metal.

Then there's the tuner box and all that on the feedline to consider.
Not surprising that there's some significant loss in the process.

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.

There are four. You couldn't really have an odd number..

Metal-adhesive, adhesive-glass, glass-adhesive, adhesive-metal.

Then there's the tuner box and all that on the feedline to consider.
Not surprising that there's some significant loss in the process.

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

Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:54:51 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

Theoretically, the loss is about 0.5 to 1.0 dB for clear glass.


Hi Dave,

What's the theory?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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.

Hi Dave,

Poor theory. Reflection is not loss. There are reflections galore on
a radiator that supports the Standing Wave and yet with a large enough
metal surface it is nearly 100% radiative.

As for this boundaries explanation, those "Physics types" clearly did
not have any working knowledge (experience) - about as useful as
Cecil's poorly offered Light analogies suffering from the same lack.
I further note that none of this indicts clear glass (which may have
been a semantic issue) to the tune of nearly 1dB.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil's poorly offered Light analogies suffering from the same lack.

That's pretty funny, Richard, since you are agreeing with me 100%
in this posting. Glass that allows glare loses some light in the
rearward direction (reflections). Glass that doesn't allow glare
ensures that all the light reaches the object. Unmatched RF systems
can allow reflected power to be lost from the load. Matched RF
systems ensure that all the power reaches the load (minus line
losses).

You have never said anything worthwhile that technically disagrees
with me. Your only objections are to my style (witness the above).
--
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 Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:31:04 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil's poorly offered Light analogies suffering from the same lack.

That's pretty funny, Richard, since you are agreeing with me 100%
in this posting. Glass that allows glare loses some light in the
rearward direction (reflections).

Everything you write about light is pretty funny; your sheer lack of
experience is revealed where you can't name what frequency glare is.
Care to hazard a guess? Or do we get quotes from you suitable for
Thurberian response? :-)

Richard Clark wrote:
Everything you write about light is pretty funny; your sheer lack of
experience is revealed where you can't name what frequency glare is.
Care to hazard a guess?

In the light experiments I have been talking about, the glare is the
same frequency as the laser beam, somewhere around 3x10^6 angstroms.
--
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 Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:58:25 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Everything you write about light is pretty funny; your sheer lack of
experience is revealed where you can't name what frequency glare is.
Care to hazard a guess?

In the light experiments I have been talking about, the glare is the
same frequency as the laser beam, somewhere around 3x10^6 angstroms.

Quite Droll, I must admit. 3 MILLION Angstroms Hmmm? This is not a
unit of frequency by the way, so I suppose some elementary instruction
is in order.

Let's see, ten billion angstroms equal 1 meter. If we do a simple
conversion we find that your laser light operates at a wavelength of
0.3 millimeters (thicker than a hair). That would seem to be more
suitable for Masers, not Lasers, and hardly light any way that you
-ahem- look at it. Let's not even suppose it is a slip of the decimal
(because it ain't). Calling it glare is icing on the cake. :-)

So, you wanna try for what's behind door number three? Only one more
round, because humor has a limited shelf life. Given both frequency
and wavelength are stumpers, how about something more remedial: "What
is the color of glare?"