On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:46:47 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
That will get us started.
Rolling on the floor laughing, no doubt.
5 place precision indeed :-)
1000mW in,
20mW reflected,
1010.1mW internal and
1000mW out.

Makes as much sense as Roy's "who's on first base?" math.

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:46:47 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

That will get us started.

Rolling on the floor laughing, no doubt.
5 place precision indeed :-)
1000mW in,
20mW reflected,
1010.1mW internal and
1000mW out.

Makes as much sense as Roy's "who's on first base?" math.

You were too quick on the trigger. I copied one of my
article graphics and then decided you are right before
you told me. I removed the extraneous stuff and
simplified it and reposted it to my web page. Please
try again.

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/weblaser.GIF
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:14:32 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Please try again.
Indeed, as if a million monkeys would eventually write Hamlet....

The laugh-athon continues Roy's "I don't know's on third!" math.

Even with all precision removed (two places is two places too many :-)
the rays show absolutely no evidence of refraction (which makes the
reflections bogus), and the angles are unmarked (which makes the 10mW
labels spurious), and the term irradiance was pulled out of a hat (it
is radiant flux - iff we are to believe anything).

Back to Optical kindergarten.

Richard Clark wrote:
Even with all precision removed (two places is two places too many :-)
the rays show absolutely no evidence of refraction (which makes the
reflections bogus), and the angles are unmarked (which makes the 10mW
labels spurious),

:-) It's a conceptual thought experiment, Richard, not
a cruse missile design.

and the term irradiance was pulled out of a hat (it
is radiant flux - iff we are to believe anything).

Funny that Eugene Hecht, of "Optics" fame, disagrees
with you. "When we talk about the 'amount' of light
illuminating a surface, we are referring to something
called the irradiance, denoted by I - the average energy
per unit area per unit time."

All of Hecht's interference equations are presented
using 'irradiance' not 'radiant flux'. I quote those
equations in my article and possibly in this thread.
That's why I am using 'irradiance'.
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:54:00 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
a cruse missile design.

ROFL

And eventually this will lead to a balanced energy equation. :-)

Well if there are no places of precision, you are already the
1 million monkeys with white-out.

and the term irradiance was pulled out of a hat (it
is radiant flux - iff we are to believe anything).

Funny that Eugene Hecht, of "Optics" fame, disagrees
with you. "When we talk about the 'amount' of light
illuminating a surface, we are referring to something
called the irradiance, denoted by I - the average energy
per unit area per unit time."
What unit of area? Do your power meters read in Watts/cM² ?
SWR per acre? (or are you metric? SWR per hectare?)

Funny is right
and fame is fleeting when a fan posts your picture - face to the wall.

0% for effort,
10% for Xerox work
0% for graphics
0% for showing work
0% for correctness
-10% for inability to use spell-checker (cruse indeed)
-----
F-

No one expects you to get it right.

Richard Clark wrote:
0% for effort,
10% for Xerox work
0% for graphics
0% for showing work
0% for correctness
-10% for inability to use spell-checker (cruse indeed)

How much for everyone refusing to respond to the challenge
at the risk of being proven wrong?
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:18:54 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
0% for effort,
10% for Xerox work
0% for graphics
0% for showing work
0% for correctness
-10% for inability to use spell-checker (cruse indeed)

How much for everyone refusing to respond to the challenge
at the risk of being proven wrong?

0% for logic
-----
F-

Everyone? You quote me above and you ARE responding to the last in a
chain of responses that annihilated your challenge.

You were off by at least a factor of 10 and your material was grossly
inaccurate - it was that easy to prove you wrong. Those details, have
already been examined and their repetition will change nothing.