Jim Kelley wrote:
Please cite your reference for this 'conjugate mirror'.

In "Reflections", Walt has a chapter entitled "Into the
Conjugate Mirror" or something like that.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Please cite your reference for this 'conjugate mirror'.


In "Reflections", Walt has a chapter entitled "Into the
Conjugate Mirror" or something like that.

I'm hoping to buy the third edition. The reason I asked is because the
only thing I can find is something called a phase conjugate mirror,
which has some really interesting behavior. And not exactly the
behavior being discussed in this thread. Time reversal for example.
For starters, check out:

http://www.optics.kth.se/fysik2/staf...sis/node7.html

I doubt Richard had considered all the possibilities when he said to
elaborate would be redundant.

73, ac6xg

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:04:12 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Effluvium for the sake of effluence, and vice versa.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:47:02 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

I doubt Richard had considered all the possibilities when he said to
elaborate would be redundant.

Hi Jim,

In the 18th century politics, someone who straddled the fence was
called a Mugwump - their mug on one side and their wump on the other.

The reason I asked is because the
only thing I can find is something called a phase conjugate mirror,

It was suitable enough, but rather slim.

which has some really interesting behavior. And not exactly the
behavior being discussed in this thread. Time reversal for example.

This issue of what "is" and "is not" behavior being discussed is
strictly a matter of interpretation. Insofar as discussion continues,
it is quite evidently what "is" being discussed (a tautology). After
all, how many could mistake a director from a reflector and after
discussion still emerge confused?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC