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

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. Note that
there are only two directions in an RF transmission line. If the energy
stops moving rearward, as it does at a Z0-match, then it must start
moving forward. Walter Maxwell explained all of this decades ago.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are 180-
degrees out of phase with each other meet, they are not actually
annihilated. All of the photon energy present in these waves must
somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to
the law of energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons
are redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference, so
the effect should be considered as a redistribution of light waves and
photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction
of light."

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. A change in the index of refraction *always* causes
a reflection in optics. The only possibility of eliminating that reflection
is through wave cancellation. A change in Z0 also always causes a reflection
in RF transmission lines. An S-parameter analysis acknowledges that
fact of physics. Too bad so many RF engineers rely on a virtual
reflection coefficient as a cause when it is merely an end effect.
--
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 14:23:32 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Good luck on that one.
Luck is unnecessary when the quote is so obviously disassociated from
the context of Glare or its wavelength. Such a struggle you put on,
like an old wife wriggling into a girdle. Such exhibitionism would be
pornographic if it weren't so comic. :-)

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.

Is that what I am missing? Richard Clark has cataracts?
--
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 =----

It has been quite obvious that this poor math was necessary to support
a faulty premise: complete cancellation. There is no such thing,

Of course, in reality there's no such thing as complete
cancellation. But we can get the cancellation so good
as to be virtually perfect.

There's no such thing as a lossless transmission line,
yet you seem to have no problem with that concept. I
would venture that an SWR of 1.01:1 is close enough to
complete cancellation to be declared as close as humans
need to come to perfection which means that you are
just blowing smoke.
--
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 =----

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Good luck on that one.

That was "good luck on disagreeing with Hecht" which is exactly
what you did and trimmed out the details in hopes nobody would
notice. I honestly don't know what is the most popular laser
wavelength. I had to rely on Hecht for that answer.

Luck is unnecessary when the quote is so obviously disassociated from
the context of Glare or its wavelength. Such a struggle you put on,
like an old wife wriggling into a girdle. Such exhibitionism would be
pornographic if it weren't so comic. :-)

I'm sure you are a glare expert and I'm just as sure that your
postings on glare are completely irrelevant, an obvious diversion
in your feeble attempt to change the subject away from what is
important. Why are you so afraid to deal with my example including
the boundary conditions? Why are you so accepting of an ideal
transmission line yet so unaccepting of an ideal thin-film?
--
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 14:50:20 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It has been quite obvious that this poor math was necessary to support
a faulty premise: complete cancellation. There is no such thing,

Of course, in reality there's no such thing as complete
cancellation.

There's no such thing even in a perfect world. Adding qualifications
like "in reality" changes nothing. The poor math treatment you
offered is not justified by appeals to conceptual arguments. Being
conceptual still allows (as I have demonstrated in the actual math)
them to be far from immaculate conception. We've seen you assume the
name of Occam, Galileo, Newton, but not Madonna. ;-)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:00:06 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Why are you so afraid to deal with my example including the boundary conditions?

You've forgotten so soon? This marks twice we've been through this
complaint - not including the actual posting that responds directly to
your statement. Your Netzheimer affliction can be aided by a visit to
the archive. However, you will have another forgetting opportunity
when I soon revisit those results posted some time ago. :-)

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

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...

This applies to single frequency coherent glare (reflections). You see,

Jim Kelley wrote:
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?

All EM waves move at the speed of light (taking the velocity
factor of the medium into account).
--
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:
Of course, in reality there's no such thing as complete
cancellation.

There's no such thing even in a perfect world.

Since there's no such thing as a perfect world, that's a
moot point. But complete cancellation can certainly happen
in a human mind. All it takes is equal magnitudes and
opposite phases of conceptual EM waves. That's what makes
us different as a species.

You have taken a simple conceptual example to extremes.
Even more extreme is that there's no such thing as an
exact height, width, or depth, or an exact time, or a
point, line, or plane. There is no exact voltage, current,
or power except maybe at the quantum level. There is no exact
characteristic impedance. The list is endless. Why you choose
to engage in such silly diversions away from simple truths is
interesting. Taken to your extremes, nothing, including
communication among humans, is possible.
--
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 =---

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.