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.

you don't know the frequency,

Frequency is 300,000/wl in meters. Need help with the math?

you don't know the color;

I assumed you knew the color of a red laser is red. Sorry,
I guess I assumed too much.

All the distractions about frequency, color, and wavelength
are just a typical logical diversion of yours to keep from
facing the fact that you don't understand interference and
refuse to discuss the subject. Very old trick, doesn't work
anymore.
--
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! =-----

My Physics books indicate that wavelengths greater than 610 nm are 'red'.

To the original 'Glare' question:

Glare is a scattered reflection of source light. It's wavelength/color
is a function of the color temperature of the source, or the color
spectrum of the source as in solar, and the absorption coefficient[s] of
the reflecting material[s] at the wavelength or over the spectrum of the
source.

So, in general terms, the color of glare has the primary color of the
source and a second component based on the absorption cross section
[color] of the glare producing material.

In simple terms, glare contains two or more spectral responses that may
be line sources, or spectral sources and line reflections from 'pure'
material or spectral sources from compound materials.

Potentially, glare can contain the entire visible spectrum. [400 nm to
approximately 700 nm]

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.
And reflection of spectral powwer density is scattered background noise;
like from BPL :-)

Deacon Dave

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:
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 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 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 :-)

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.

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! =-----

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 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.