On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:49:53 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
When the glare is exactly the same frequency
and yet you draw a blank when asked
"What is the wavelength of Glare?"

That's OK, I will bide my time and reveal this TOO, later.

The solution to this week's puzzler:
2(bad) you can('t) solve this.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:35:48 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
The wavelength of glare is
the inverse of its frequency - yeh, tell it to the judge, buddy. :-)

Gad, how much can you squirm? We enjoy this snake dance all the same.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:19:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Some areas could be
You might already be a winner!

Is that you? Are you really Ed McMahon? Have you stopped drinking
since Johnny died?

.... Oh, sorry, Skitch Henderson? When did you pick up the contract
for Publisher's Clearing house?

Richard Clark wrote:
and yet you draw a blank when asked
"What is the wavelength of Glare?"

Since, in my example, glare has been completely
eliminated, you are asking: "What is the wavelength
of nothing?" My guess is that it would be the same
as the wavelength of the sound of one hand clapping.

In my example, if we increase the thickness of the thin
film to 1/2WL, it will maximize the glare to 2% of the
incident laser power. In that case, the glare would be
the same wavelength as the single-frequency coherent
laser. In the mental example, the wavelength doesn't
matter so 632.8 nm might be a logical popular choice.
I have a collimated laser of that wavelength.
--
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, 22 Jul 2005 09:11:46 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
the wavelength doesn't matter so 632.8 nm might be a logical popular choice.

WRONG

This isn't even within the range of the two wavelength clues offered.



Dear Readers,

Let's examine why this answer is so wholly lacking:

1. The wavelength described, as already noted, is a wild foul out of
the ballpark;

2. a popular choice? This conjecture is broadly announced with the
characteristic couching of terms "might be" to hedge the answer. My
later discussion will reveal why no one would choose this at all;

3. logical choice? Absolutely no logic is offered - hence it is
exactly what it appears to be - a wild guess, My later discussion
will point out why this has no basis in logic whatever;

4. the wavelength doesn't matter? Given this is application driven,
the topic of Glare being just that, Glare is highly specific to
wavelength and is very intimately associated with perception. These
are two areas of discussion that exhibit considerable errors.

Naturally I will tie this all together in later discussion in a new
thread. And I will show:
"What is the wavelength of Glare?"
the answer of which has already been posted by me (see above) ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

and yet you draw a blank when asked "What is the wavelength of
Glare?"


Since, in my example, glare has been completely
eliminated, you are asking: "What is the wavelength
of nothing?"

But in order to conserve energy, wouldn't the glare have to re-reflect
off of an interference pattern and continue - I mean - start moving in
the forward direction? ;-)

73, ac6xg

Glare occurs entirely internally to the eye, and there are two main types of
glare effects. The first is the corona, which forms the fuzzy glow you see
around a light at night, or the rays which seem to shoot out from the light
of the sun. The second is the lenticular halo, which is only seen when the
pupils are dilated enough and is a color banded halo which is usually
visible surrounding the corona.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:11:46 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
the wavelength doesn't matter so 632.8 nm might be a logical popular
choice.

WRONG

This isn't even within the range of the two wavelength clues offered.



Dear Readers,

Let's examine why this answer is so wholly lacking:

1. The wavelength described, as already noted, is a wild foul out of
the ballpark;

2. a popular choice? This conjecture is broadly announced with the
characteristic couching of terms "might be" to hedge the answer. My
later discussion will reveal why no one would choose this at all;

3. logical choice? Absolutely no logic is offered - hence it is
exactly what it appears to be - a wild guess, My later discussion
will point out why this has no basis in logic whatever;

4. the wavelength doesn't matter? Given this is application driven,
the topic of Glare being just that, Glare is highly specific to
wavelength and is very intimately associated with perception. These
are two areas of discussion that exhibit considerable errors.

Naturally I will tie this all together in later discussion in a new
thread. And I will show:
"What is the wavelength of Glare?"
the answer of which has already been posted by me (see above) ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:21:49 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Glare occurs entirely internally to the eye, and there are two main types of
glare effects. The first is the corona, which forms the fuzzy glow you see
around a light at night, or the rays which seem to shoot out from the light
of the sun. The second is the lenticular halo, which is only seen when the
pupils are dilated enough and is a color banded halo which is usually
visible surrounding the corona.


Hi Fred,

Yes, this is another reason why using physiological characteristics to
explain otherwise dry, technical issues is so fraught with error.
That error is because not everyone perceives the "problem" (being
"Glare" here) in the same way. Further, within the population of
readers here, cataracts and "Glare" are a very common issue that is
wholly unrelated to the treatment of thin film interference and
"Glare."

I have spent a number of years in designing optical system to reduce
what is called "Glare" in this technical sense. In other words, the
suffering component was an artificial eye, so to speak, a
Photomultiplier Tube (PMT) within a fluorescence detection system that
achieved accuracies in the hundredths of percent. The abysmal math
performed in relation to this topic is amateurish in the extreme,
especially considering that so little more work was needed to offer
vastly better results.

It has been quite obvious that this poor math was necessary to support
a faulty premise: complete cancellation. There is no such thing,
especially within the context of "Glare."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

the wavelength doesn't matter so 632.8 nm might be a logical popular choice.

2. a popular choice? This conjecture is broadly announced with the
characteristic couching of terms "might be" to hedge the answer.

Actually, I got that wavelength from _Optics_, by Hecht.
Hecht says: "The He-Ne laser is still among the most popular
devices of it kind, ... (632.8 nm)." So your argument is with
Hecht, not with me. Good luck on that one.
--
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:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Since, in my example, glare has been completely
eliminated, you are asking: "What is the wavelength
of nothing?"


But in order to conserve energy, wouldn't the glare have to re-reflect
off of an interference pattern and continue - I mean - start moving in
the forward direction? ;-)


Wave cancellation causes the re-reflection but you are essentially
correct as described perfectly on the following web page.

I was just joking with you. That's not really what happens.

Note that
there are only two directions in an RF transmission line.

Lemme write that down. So just how fast does the RF energy move?

This applies to single frequency coherent glare (reflections). You see,
Jim, the field of optics has no virtual reflection coefficients for
you to hide behind.

Don't blame me for all this virtual stuff. It's a perfect fit for your
theory though.

73, ac6xg