Fred W4JLE wrote:
Cecil, glare is truly in the eye of the beholder. Glare and reflections are
two different animals.

Indeed, "non-glare glass" was a misnomer and I appologize
for that mistake in word selection. Reflections, not
glare, was the actual topic of discussion. "Glare" or
"non-glare" does not even appear in the index of _Optics_,
by Hecht.

I should have called the thin-film function "non-reflective"
instead of "non-glare". Glare is actually totally irrelevant
to anything I have posted including the original example.
--
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 =---

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:19:36 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Since there's no such thing as a perfect world

This is a conceit one would only expect in a teenage girl's diary.
Or perhaps at the juke joint crying into a beer. The remainder of the
exposition is a sorry example for justifying the cracked paving stones
to an absurd destination.

Why you choose to engage in such silly diversions away from simple truths is
interesting.

Simultaneously silly and interesting? Your topic and you are the
first one to take shelter in this veneer of pouts and sulking. I've
laid out the math, complete, you've both acknowledge it, and then
claim it was unknown to you.

It bears re-visiting to wrap this up, but I have no doubt it will make
any impression on your future claims. That is of little concern to me
however as every forum needs a joker in the deck. It keeps stasis
from dominating this as a morgue - and silly is as silly does.
"But at my back I always hear
Times winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity."

You have taken a simple conceptual example to extremes.

Simple concepts have the capacity for resilience and extremes and can
tolerate all such examinations to emerge unscathed. A binary outcome
has no resilience and is remarkably brittle, suffering subtleties with
stress fractures such as you exhibit. Your work, outraged at
examination, simply doesn't measure up to any of these "ideals" you
hide behind.

Tomorrow we continue the brutal examination.

Richard Clark wrote:
It bears re-visiting to wrap this up, but I have no doubt it will make
any impression on your future claims.

My mistake was a semantic one. I didn't know the definition
of "glare" and used the word improperly. I appologized for
that mistake as soon as I realized it. Because of the
incorrect definition, I probably inadvertenly made some
false statements about "glare". If you replace the word
"glare" with "reflections" in all my postings, the claims
are still valid, given the boundary conditions. One semantic
mistake does not overturn the laws of physics.

Tomorrow we continue the brutal examination.

Since glare (defined properly) has nothing to do with
transmission lines, it is off topic for this thread.
This thread has always been about reflections. My
mistake was in thinking that "glare" and "reflections"
were synonyms.
--
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 =---

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Why you choose to engage in such silly diversions away from simple truths is
interesting.

Simultaneously silly and interesting? Your topic and you are the
first one to take shelter in this veneer of pouts and sulking. I've
laid out the math, complete, you've both acknowledge it, and then
claim it was unknown to you.

Richard, you laid out the math mistakenly using the amplitude
reflection coefficient instead of the correct power reflection
coefficient. Please lay out the correct math for us using the
power reflection coefficient (which is a magnitude less than
the amplitude reflection coefficient). We will await your new
corrected results.
--
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:

I just consulted my tea leaves, they say you will be properly forgiven by
gentlemen, they don't indicate where to find the gentlemen at,
unfortuantly.

Also, I expect there is an "error factor" in the data I received from the
leaves today. Running out of tea leaves, I had to substitute marijuana leaves,
I improvised a method of using them by first smoking the leaves and then
reading their ashes.

Gawd I am hungry, got a sudden case of the munchies here! frown

John

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:20:57 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
It bears re-visiting to wrap this up, but I have no doubt it will make
any impression on your future claims.

My mistake was a semantic one. I didn't know the definition
of "glare" and used the word improperly. I appologized for
that mistake as soon as I realized it. Because of the
incorrect definition, I probably inadvertenly made some
false statements about "glare". If you replace the word
"glare" with "reflections" in all my postings, the claims
are still valid, given the boundary conditions. One semantic
mistake does not overturn the laws of physics.

Tomorrow we continue the brutal examination.

Since glare (defined properly) has nothing to do with
transmission lines, it is off topic for this thread.
This thread has always been about reflections. My
mistake was in thinking that "glare" and "reflections"
were synonyms.