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 =----