On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:05:57 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Non-glare glass works the same
way as a 1/4WL matching section in a transmission line.
One trivial example that you thoroughly bumbled through every mistake
possible, arriving at no answer before abandoning.

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Non-glare glass works the same
way as a 1/4WL matching section in a transmission line.

One trivial example that you thoroughly bumbled through every mistake
possible, arriving at no answer before abandoning.

It was an example for Jim Kelley to respond to.
He declined to discuss it, nobody else (including you)
responded with any technical content, so the thread
was abandoned. If you have anything technical to
contribute, feel free to fire it up again.

That happens a lot on this newsgroup. When someone
realizes that he is about to be proven wrong in
public, he simply goes away - human nature.
--
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 =----

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Non-glare glass works the same
way as a 1/4WL matching section in a transmission line.


One trivial example that you thoroughly bumbled through every mistake
possible, arriving at no answer before abandoning.


It was an example for Jim Kelley to respond to.
He declined to discuss it, nobody else (including you)
responded with any technical content, so the thread
was abandoned. If you have anything technical to
contribute, feel free to fire it up again.

That happens a lot on this newsgroup. When someone
realizes that he is about to be proven wrong in
public, he simply goes away - human nature.

Cecil, you never actually prove anyone wrong,
you just get excited and irrational whenever
anyone disagrees with you. You're confusing the
fear of being proven wrong with just giving
up in disgust at your silly antics.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
You're confusing the
fear of being proven wrong with just giving
up in disgust at your silly antics.

More of the same personal stuff. How about some
technical content for a change?
--
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 Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:14:36 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
More of the same personal stuff. How about some
technical content for a change?

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/weblaser.GIF
(which I am sure you will soon hustle off in embarrassment)

For an angle of incidence of 30°

How much power is reflected from Surface A (first incidence)?

How much power is reflected from Surface B (first incidence)?

How much power is transmitted through all interfaces?

:-)

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:14:36 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

More of the same personal stuff. How about some
technical content for a change?


http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/weblaser.GIF
(which I am sure you will soon hustle off in embarrassment)

For an angle of incidence of 30°

The angle of incidence is always 90 degrees. It is drawn that
way because it cannot be drawn in one dimension. This is typical
of physics textbook drawings. An angle of incidence of 30 degrees
is irrelevant to this particular example.

How much power is reflected from Surface A (first incidence)?

The reflectance is 0.01, so 1%. First incidence 0.01 watts

How much power is reflected from Surface B (first incidence)?

The reflectance is 0.01, so 1%. First incidence is 0.0099 watts
Steady-state after re-reflection is 0.01010101 watts

How much power is transmitted through all interfaces?

One watt net to the "load".
The steady-state forward power in the thin film is 1.010101
watts of which 0.010101 is a steady-state internal reflection
from surface B.
--
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 Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:43:13 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
An angle of incidence of 30 degrees
is irrelevant to this particular example.
Changing the question to suit the answer, Hmm? As if it mattered!

How much power is reflected from Surface A (first incidence)?
The reflectance is 0.01, so 1%. First incidence 0.01 watts
depending upon the polarization r¬ = 1.583% and r|| = 0.5485%
Splitting the difference (1.066%)
0.0107W
or
0.9893W @ 24° available at the next interface
How much power is reflected from Surface B (first incidence)?
The reflectance is 0.01, so 1%. First incidence is 0.0099 watts
depending upon the polarization r¬ = 1.3381% and r|| = 0.7099%
Splitting the difference (1.024%)
0.0101W
or
0.9792W @ 19° available at the next interface
How much power is transmitted through all interfaces?
One watt net to the "load".
Already provided as 0.9792W

**********************************

Since you couldn't answer the original question, let's explore how
accurate your answer to your own question was:

How much power is reflected from Surface A (first incidence)?
The reflectance is 0.01, so 1%. First incidence 0.01 watts
depending upon the polarization r¬ = 0.9999% and r|| = 0.9999%
Splitting the difference (0.9999%)
0.0100W
or
0.9900W @ 0° available at the next interface
How much power is reflected from Surface B (first incidence)?
The reflectance is 0.01, so 1%. First incidence is 0.0099 watts
depending upon the polarization r¬ = 0.9998% and r|| = 0.9998%
Splitting the difference (0.9998%)
0.0099W
or
0.9801W @ 0° available at the next interface
How much power is transmitted through all interfaces?
One watt net to the "load".
Already provided as 0.9801W

But, hey, what's 2% error in a conservation of energy equation? You
can prove anything (especially your absolute proofs) if you simply
discard precision. Pons and Fleishman proved cold fusion by throwing
away fewer digits than you.

Well, for 1W of light and presuming cancellation (you cannot achieve
full cancellation); this leaves 100µW of light reflected from a
non-reflecting layer - which is quite bright.

So, energy is conserved, and there is no such thing as complete
cancellation.

By the way, the math is available from:
Hecht, Eugene, Optics, 2nd Ed, Addison Wesley, 1987
or perhaps you should invest in:
Hecht, Eugene, Optics, Schaum's Outline Series, McGraw-Hill ,1975

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:43:24 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
That happens a lot on this newsgroup. When someone
realizes that he is about to be proven wrong in
public, he simply goes away - human nature.
No doubt this is a set up for abandoning my other question
in this thread
Message-ID: