Through-Glass Antenna/Ford Taurus
 

I have a 2000 model year Ford Taurus wagon, and am thinking about mounting a
through-glass antenna on one of the back side windows. Yes, I know---a roof
mount would work better, but I would have to get a hole punch and a divorce
lawyer to do it ;-)

Does anyone have any practical experience with this set up? Does the window
tinting cause any problems on 146 MHz or 440 MHz? There is a completely
dark (opaque) band around the edge of the window. Should this be avoided?

I have seen Taurus wagons with cell phone antennas on the back side windows,
and was wondering how it worked on the ham bands.

Jim
N8EE

Jim,

Think about the front windshield behind the rear view mirror. That is
where I ran one on a Z-28 and Corvette and it worked great.

Dick - AA5VU

In article ,
"JLB" wrote:

I have a 2000 model year Ford Taurus wagon, and am thinking about mounting a
through-glass antenna on one of the back side windows. Yes, I know---a roof
mount would work better, but I would have to get a hole punch and a divorce
lawyer to do it ;-)

Does anyone have any practical experience with this set up? Does the window
tinting cause any problems on 146 MHz or 440 MHz? There is a completely
dark (opaque) band around the edge of the window. Should this be avoided?

I have seen Taurus wagons with cell phone antennas on the back side windows,
and was wondering how it worked on the ham bands.

Jim
N8EE

Just get a mag mount, that is a magnetic mount.
You can change out the rod for longer wavelengths
put on roof, or trunk, take off when done
(doesn't look good on the hood, )
your ham store should have them too.



"JLB" wrote in message
...
I have a 2000 model year Ford Taurus wagon, and am thinking about mounting
a
through-glass antenna on one of the back side windows. Yes, I know---a
roof
mount would work better, but I would have to get a hole punch and a
divorce
lawyer to do it ;-)

Does anyone have any practical experience with this set up? Does the
window
tinting cause any problems on 146 MHz or 440 MHz? There is a completely
dark (opaque) band around the edge of the window. Should this be avoided?

I have seen Taurus wagons with cell phone antennas on the back side
windows,
and was wondering how it worked on the ham bands.

Jim
N8EE

John Smith wrote:
Just get a mag mount, that is a magnetic mount.

One nice thing about a mag mount is that if you hit something
pretty hard, it just falls over but keeps attaching itself
to the vehicle body. I stopped worrying about parking garages,
trees, etc. I could hear it fall over and when everything was
clear, I simply stopped the vehicle and straightened it back
up. Sometimes the simple way is the best way. Life doesn't have
to be complicated.
--
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! =-----

JLB wrote:

I have a 2000 model year Ford Taurus wagon, and am thinking about mounting a
through-glass antenna on one of the back side windows. Yes, I know---a roof
mount would work better, but I would have to get a hole punch and a divorce
lawyer to do it ;-)

Does anyone have any practical experience with this set up? Does the window
tinting cause any problems on 146 MHz or 440 MHz?

Possibly

There is a completely dark (opaque) band around the edge of the window.
Should this be avoided?

YES


I have seen Taurus wagons with cell phone antennas on the back side windows,
and was wondering how it worked on the ham bands.

Cell phone antennas perform poorly on 2 & 440 grin. I presume you
mean the mounting not the antenna. Through the glass should be fine.

I use a Larsen Through the Glass and there is no noticeable loss of
signal. Theoretically, the loss is about 0.5 to 1.0 dB for clear glass.

Deacon Dave, W1MCE


Jim
N8EE

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

But it is not clear glass, it is tinted.

And, yes, I meant the window mounting not the cellular antenna (I asked that
in a seperate post).

Do you have a Taurus wagon? I was hoping to find someone here who actually
tried a glass mount on a Taurus. [I find it amusing how many people respond
to a post without reading it. Someone actually suggested putting a mag
mount on the trunk!]

Jim
N8EE
"Dave Shrader" wrote in message
news:elmcc.75941$gA5.905305@attbi_s03...
JLB wrote:

I have a 2000 model year Ford Taurus wagon, and am thinking about
mounting a
through-glass antenna on one of the back side windows. Yes, I know---a
roof
mount would work better, but I would have to get a hole punch and a
divorce
lawyer to do it ;-)

Does anyone have any practical experience with this set up? Does the
window
tinting cause any problems on 146 MHz or 440 MHz?

Possibly

There is a completely dark (opaque) band around the edge of the window.
Should this be avoided?

YES


I have seen Taurus wagons with cell phone antennas on the back side
windows,
and was wondering how it worked on the ham bands.

Cell phone antennas perform poorly on 2 & 440 grin. I presume you
mean the mounting not the antenna. Through the glass should be fine.

I use a Larsen Through the Glass and there is no noticeable loss of
signal. Theoretically, the loss is about 0.5 to 1.0 dB for clear glass.

Deacon Dave, W1MCE


Jim
N8EE

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.

Dick,

I think the reason that is a safe place is that the auto manufacturers
know that drivers like to mount radar detectors there, and that requires
an RF-transparent section of glass.

73,
Bob AD3K

Dick, AA5VU wrote:
Jim,

Think about the front windshield behind the rear view mirror. That is
where I ran one on a Z-28 and Corvette and it worked great.

Dick - AA5VU

In article ,
"JLB" wrote:


I have a 2000 model year Ford Taurus wagon, and am thinking about mounting a
through-glass antenna on one of the back side windows. Yes, I know---a roof
mount would work better, but I would have to get a hole punch and a divorce
lawyer to do it ;-)

Does anyone have any practical experience with this set up? Does the window
tinting cause any problems on 146 MHz or 440 MHz? There is a completely
dark (opaque) band around the edge of the window. Should this be avoided?

I have seen Taurus wagons with cell phone antennas on the back side windows,
and was wondering how it worked on the ham bands.

Jim
N8EE

--
Robert L. Spooner
Registered Professional Engineer
Associate Research Engineer
Intelligent Control Systems Department

Applied Research Laboratory Phone: (814) 863-4120
The Pennsylvania State University FAX: (814) 863-7841
P. O. Box 30
State College, PA 16804-0030

Wasn't it James Thurber who said, "When someone says 'theoretically,' he
means 'not actually.'"?

73
Bob AD3K

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

--
Robert L. Spooner
Registered Professional Engineer
Associate Research Engineer
Intelligent Control Systems Department

Applied Research Laboratory Phone: (814) 863-4120
The Pennsylvania State University FAX: (814) 863-7841
P. O. Box 30
State College, PA 16804-0030

Robert Spooner wrote:
Wasn't it James Thurber who said, "When someone says 'theoretically,' he
means 'not actually.'"?

73
Bob AD3K

When I use 'theory' or 'theoretically', I'm using it in the engineering
context of Physics and Mathematics. Meaning the mathematical solution
of the LAWs of Physics are applicable.

There are other understandings of theory: such as the district
attorney's theory behind a crime; or, in science terms the next step
beyond 'hypothesis'; or, the step below 'law of nature'.

The theory is understanding 'WHY' things are actually, to quote your
word above. Knowledge, in engineering and science, is incomplete without
the THEORY of operation or Physics.

So, I reject your hypothesis regarding Thurber's statement. It is
inconsistent with science/engineering/physics.

Bob, AD3K, made a good point that I overlooked. I had very good success
with the thru-the-glass behind the rear view mirror. It even cleared the
garage door.

I drive a C5 Corvette now and could not figure out where to mount the
dual-bander so it is mounted on a bean bag lap top desk and ride in the
passenger seat or on the hump when someone is onboard. The antenna is a
small dual-band mag mount on a thin steel plate in the hatch area. It
works!

dick aa5vu

In article ,
Robert Spooner wrote:

Dick,

I think the reason that is a safe place is that the auto manufacturers
know that drivers like to mount radar detectors there, and that requires
an RF-transparent section of glass.

73,
Bob AD3K

Dick, AA5VU wrote:
Jim,

Think about the front windshield behind the rear view mirror. That is
where I ran one on a Z-28 and Corvette and it worked great.

Dick - AA5VU

In article ,
"JLB" wrote:


I have a 2000 model year Ford Taurus wagon, and am thinking about mounting a
through-glass antenna on one of the back side windows. Yes, I know---a roof
mount would work better, but I would have to get a hole punch and a divorce
lawyer to do it ;-)

Does anyone have any practical experience with this set up? Does the window
tinting cause any problems on 146 MHz or 440 MHz? There is a completely
dark (opaque) band around the edge of the window. Should this be avoided?

I have seen Taurus wagons with cell phone antennas on the back side windows,
and was wondering how it worked on the ham bands.

Jim
N8EE

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

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:02:45 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

Robert Spooner wrote:
Wasn't it James Thurber who said, "When someone says 'theoretically,' he
means 'not actually.'"?

73
Bob AD3K

When I use 'theory' or 'theoretically', I'm using it in the engineering
context of Physics and Mathematics. Meaning the mathematical solution
of the LAWs of Physics are applicable.

Hi Dave,

This is a catch-all application of "theory." The solutions are
always applicable and the casual employment of the phrase "in theory"
is thus rendered gratuitous (or rhetorical chaff) - hence the
attachment of Thurber's observation that is a sardonic reference to
the lack of any actuality. You have confirmed that his artistic prose
has as much validity as Physics.

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! =-----

Richard Clark 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.

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


Hi Richard,
absent any numbers on the loss tangent of automobile window
glass at the frequency in question, any estimate of loss is just a guess.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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?"

Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

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.

SNIP

Why isn't an Angstrom a measure of wavelength?? You yourself simply
translated it into a parameter of your choice as 0.3 mm.

My 4.0 MHz antenna is 120 feet. Is the unit of feet not a measure of
wavelength? Could I not use a furlong as a unit of length?

I offer that ANY unit of length is acceptable in expressing wavelength.

DD

"Dave Shrader" wrote in message
news:eURcc.82679$gA5.1031413@attbi_s03...
Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

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.

SNIP

Why isn't an Angstrom a measure of wavelength?? You yourself simply
translated it into a parameter of your choice as 0.3 mm.

My 4.0 MHz antenna is 120 feet. Is the unit of feet not a measure of
wavelength? Could I not use a furlong as a unit of length?

I offer that ANY unit of length is acceptable in expressing wavelength.

DD


he said frequency - not wavelength

Richard Clark wrote:
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?"




-----= 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:
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).

Yep, I misread the units from a chart in Reference Data for Radio
Engineers. I accidentally picked a point in the low infrared region.
Macular Degeneration is playing havoc with my eyesight. But, FYI,
infrared lasers are readily available.

And EM is still EM no matter what the frequency. If it will make you
happy, let's discuss the familiar helium-neon laser whose wavelength
is 632.8 nm. Incidentally, you said anstroms are not a measure of
frequency. FYI, neither is wavelength, your preferred units. :-)

It really doesn't matter what EM frequency we discuss. We can cause
reflections (glare) at any frequency. But the experiment I previously
discussed used a coherent laser light source normal to the plane of
the thin-film. The two problems solved in the following diagrams are
virtually identical (where 'n' is the index of refraction).

100w laser-----air------|----1/4WL thin-film----|--flat black
n=1.0 n=1.225 n=1.5

100w XMTR--50 ohm coax--|--1/4WL 61.2 ohm coax--|--75 ohm load

The physical reflection coefficient magnitude is the same in both
cases, ~0.1. If one understands how the thin-film eliminates
reflections (glare) then one understands how the match point eliminates
reflections an RF transmission line. How the thin-film works is explained at:

http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm

Incidentally, J. C. Slater, author of _Microwave_Transmission_,
understood all this stuff way back in 1942. Here's a couple of
quotes: "Thus a light wave incident on a discontinuity between
two media, as a surface of separation of air and glass, is reflected.
If the surfaces are separated by a quarter wave film of material
whose index of refraction is the geometric mean of the indexes of
the two media, however, the reflection can be eliminated;"

And for RF transmission lines: "We can get a better understanding
of this device by considering reflections at discontinuities. This
method is useful in considering any impedance-matching device, and
we shall think of it first in connection with the ordinary quarter
wave transformer. The object of this transformer is to eliminate
the reflection that would be present if the impedance Z1 were
connected directly to Zt. The method of eliminating reflections is
based on the INTERFERENCE between waves. Two waves half a wavelength
apart are in opposite phases, and the sum of them, if their amplitudes
are numerically equal, is zero. The fundamental principle behind the
elimination of reflections is then to have each reflected wave CANCELED
by another wave of equal amplitude and opposite phase. In order that
this second wave may have traveled half a wavelength farther than the
first, it is OBVIOUS that it must have gone a quarter wavelength farther
up the line, and correspondingly a quarter of a wavelength back, before
it meets the original reflected wave. In other words, two discontinuities
in characteristic impedance, of such magnitude as to give equal amplitudes
of reflected waves and spaced a quarter of a wavelength apart, will give
no NET reflection and hence will not introduce reflections into the line."

Mr. Slater goes on to provide an example like mine above. So my question
is: If all this stuff was known and published as far back as 1942, why
do you, Richard, reject it in 2004, 62 years later?
--
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:

Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

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.

SNIP

Why isn't an Angstrom a measure of wavelength?? You yourself simply
translated it into a parameter of your choice as 0.3 mm.

It's even worse than that, Dave. Richard said Angstroms are not a
measure of *FREQUENCY* and then turned around and used wavelength
which is also NOT a measure of frequency. One wonders why his
non-frequency units are superior to mine. :-)
--
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! =-----

Roger Conroy wrote:

"Dave Shrader" wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
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.

Why isn't an Angstrom a measure of wavelength?? You yourself simply
translated it into a parameter of your choice as 0.3 mm.

I offer that ANY unit of length is acceptable in expressing wavelength.

he said frequency - not wavelength

He said frequency and then turned around and used wavelength. Wavelength
is also NOT a unit of frequency. His "elementary instruction" violated
his own objection and was thus inconsistent.
--
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 11:48:26 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

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.

SNIP

Why isn't an Angstrom a measure of wavelength?? You yourself simply
translated it into a parameter of your choice as 0.3 mm.

My 4.0 MHz antenna is 120 feet. Is the unit of feet not a measure of
wavelength? Could I not use a furlong as a unit of length?

I offer that ANY unit of length is acceptable in expressing wavelength.

DD

Hello OM,

In the Navy my students learned at every level of instruction to:
RTMFQ!
That question was:
name what frequency glare is.

Now and then a student would come through who would respond
"the frequency is such and such meters"
as they passed out into the fleet as a deck-ape.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 09:39:01 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

He said frequency and then turned around and used wavelength. Wavelength
is also NOT a unit of frequency. His "elementary instruction" violated
his own objection and was thus inconsistent.

HE Knows both the Frequency AND the Wavelength and demonstrated you
know neither. :-)

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 09:30:47 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
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).

Yep, I misread the units from a chart in Reference Data for Radio
Engineers. I accidentally picked a point in the low infrared region.
Macular Degeneration is playing havoc with my eyesight. But, FYI,
infrared lasers are readily available.

They are high in glare no doubt :-)


And after how many lines? No response to the original question
name what frequency glare is.

But in all honesty I never expected any answer that didn't have an
egregious error. Let's see, you don't know the wavelength, you don't
know the frequency, you don't know the color; but you can argue the
math - quite Droll. I quite expected it wasn't on that one page you
xeroxed. Well, as I figured this was good for only one more round,
that round has closed without an answer every driver on a wet rainy
night would know (experience counts).

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:55:24 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:

I offer that ANY unit of length is acceptable in expressing wavelength.

DD


he said frequency - not wavelength

Thanx Roger,

I am not such the pedant as to demand frequency however. But for this
particular exercise 0.3mm is invisible to everyone, as is 0.03mm,
0.003mm, or 0.0003mm. The revealing point is that there is no
wavelength with a significant three that is visible!

Such is my style to reveal the paucity of experience. As for this
mystery frequency/wavelength/color, I will offer a clue, very very
short so as to not confuse (but it will) in a follow up post to this
as an attempt to mine the humor beyond its expiration date :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Na

Richard Clark wrote:
In the Navy my students learned at every level of instruction to:
RTMFQ!
That question was:

name what frequency glare is.

Now and then a student would come through who would respond
"the frequency is such and such meters"
as they passed out into the fleet as a deck-ape.

So follow your own advice. You answered your question as to what
frequency, not with a frequency, but with a wavelength, just in
different units from mine. You failed your own test.
--
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:
He said frequency and then turned around and used wavelength. Wavelength
is also NOT a unit of frequency. His "elementary instruction" violated
his own objection and was thus inconsistent.

HE Knows both the Frequency AND the Wavelength ...

Actually, HE hasn't yet demonstrated that to be true. :-)
--
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:
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! =-----

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:11:52 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
In the Navy my students learned at every level of instruction to:
RTMFQ!
That question was:

name what frequency glare is.

Now and then a student would come through who would respond
"the frequency is such and such meters"
as they passed out into the fleet as a deck-ape.

So follow your own advice. You answered your question as to what
frequency, not with a frequency, but with a wavelength, just in
different units from mine. You failed your own test.

No, again you failed, the answer was yours 6 MILLION Angstroms. There
is no such glare wavelength. I will leave another very, very simple
clue. :-)

Ar

4.0 MHz and 75 meters define the same phenomena.

I'm currently tuned to 2.926829 meters and listening to Classical Music,
WCRB Boston.

Question for the new Extra Class: If 2.926829 meters is the wavelength,
what is the frequency??

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