Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Most of the reflection examples in _Optics_, by Hecht, assume
zero net refraction and I will continue to follow Hecht's lead.

After-all if we can see
the reflections from these anti-reflective layers, and that is
sufficient proof to invalidate this folderol;

Following exactly the same reasoning, if we can measure loss in
all transmission lines, the concept of a lossless transmission
line is also folderol. The example I gave was designed for
clarity of understanding. If you choose to obfuscate clarity,
don't expect me to join you.
--
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 Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:55:32 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The example I gave was designed for clarity of understanding.
It is a poor example of understanding when you purposely inject error.
There is nothing clear about intentional mistakes. Any rejection of a
complete solution is a suspect agenda from the beginning.

Understanding does not come of clouded data and murky results. What
has been offered is evidence of poor knowledge, and no experience.
That poor foundation built on sand has translated into outrageous
conclusions that are nothing more than castles in the sky.

I can demonstrate this in that when posed with a REAL power
application, silence typically falls for the simplest of computations.
Like how much power does a light bulb radiate to illuminate in the
660nM region a target of 1 cm square, at 1 M with 64 microWatts/30 nM
of bandwidth?

The inability to do such trivial power models reveals every thing else
offered has the makings of superstition that builds CFAs and their
ilk.

Dear Readers,

Knowing the binary result beforehand (0) to this simple appeal, I will
render that answer before the day is out. It will exhibit how little
optical knowledge is contained in this "Can you solve this" banality.

You may all note that my embarrassing question:
What is the wavelength of Glare?
remains without comment or response, even though there is a practical
answer and a perfectly reasonable explanation. The gulf of silence
that attends this remarks how complete the void of experience is. Can
you imagine basing an entire exposition around such a commonplace
problem and not knowing the basics? In short, this "Can you solve
this?" is more an appeal for knowledge than a demonstration of skill.
For one, you need to know WHO needs this glare cancellation capacity,
and then you would ask WHY; and it then follows that the wavelength
falls within these particular aspects. Fairly simple stuff for the
optical engineer, but wholly outside of the binary engineer's
experience and education.

The greater embarrassment is that apparently it is outside of the
skill of performing a simple Google search to fill that gap of
knowledge. As I offered, once that knowledge came to mind, the WHY
and WHO would explain the WHEREFORE instead of this rummaging through
text to xerox formulas to force-fit a presumed theory of "total"
cancellation.

It is still entertaining tho', as a burlesque of engineering. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:07:12 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:
I can demonstrate this in that when posed with a REAL power
application, silence typically falls for the simplest of computations.
Like how much power does a light bulb radiate to illuminate in the
660nM region a target of 1 cm square, at 1 M with 64 microWatts/30 nM
of bandwidth?

Dear Readers,

It comes as no great surprise that this simple example of optical
power is so powerfully baffling to a neophyte. Optical studies are
not nearly as simple as some might believe, and on the other hand, the
field yields answers as easily as any if you simply observe first
principles.

Those principles are as simple as knowing the area of the total
surface illuminated by the standard light bulb (we will ignore the
shadow cast by the base). This is quite easily determined as I
already offered the distance of 1M and the equivalent power within a
1cM area of that total surface.

The math is hardly as arcane as "interference math," but as I have
demonstrated how poorly that was performed, perhaps a little walk
through here is in order.

The area of sphere, at 1M radius quickly resolves to 4·pi M².
Conversion to cM² "should" be a knock off, but when you use 5 place
math to perform 1 place accurate results.... Well, let's just cut to
the chase and skip all the so obviously difficult parts and just
answer the question above.

Our source is a 10W bulb. Common, mud-ordinary situation offering
smaller values of power than supposedly encountered in the
"reflections" of this "Can you solve this?" drek. And as I offered,
such reflections as you would observe (much like the mathematical
impossibility of a bee's flight) - quite bright.

However, this was on scale with 1cM² and when the original question
posed a 1W laser - well you can appreciate that I do not hesitate to
point out that the power of those "totally" cancelled reflections are
easily 10,000 time brighter than my insipid Christmas tree bulb - and
AT LEAST 10 TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN!

One must truly imagine quite hard to dismiss such brilliance as being
"totally" canceled out to the point of invisibility. :-)

It has been enjoyable, and yet there are questions remaining that
relate to the point of this origin in "Glare." I notice that this too
draws a vacuum of response and yet it was so central to "illustrating"
a thesis. No wonder such papers find their way to the round file at
the editor's desk. The only chance for publication, however, is
strictly meeting the academic strictures of a vanity press - its
vaudeville quality. In this regard, the opus of "total cancellation"
is destined for serialization and possibly a Hollywood movie for next
summer. Myself, I enjoyed the new "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,"
but I found the new Ford Prefect rather lame. Oh well, I went to the
matinee showing to save a buck or two - so let's call it break-even.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:37:50 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

there are questions remaining that
relate to the point of this origin in "Glare." I notice that this too
draws a vacuum of response and yet it was so central to "illustrating"
a thesis.

Dear Readers,

Taking a deep breath and wading into the hits found at Google comes
one very typical observation:

" The methods discussed above will work with varying degrees of
success, depending on the details of the manufacturer's process.
The glare reduction factors claimed by many manufacturers should
not be taken too seriously. Some claim glare reduction factors of
up to 250 to 1. Such numbers are either dreamed up in the
advertising department or are the result of unrealistic test
conditions. A good quality anti-glare filter with a multi-layer
optical coating will reduce glare and reflections by about a
factor of 20. Visually compare glare reductions before you buy
anything."

I leave the WHO undisclosed (being it is such a tantalizing overture
to yet another, unanswerable question). We may all note that what is
described here is "multi-layer" which suggests more than one layer for
more than one BW of glare components (yet another tantalizing,
unanswerable question: What wavelength is Glare?). I will pose that
the necessity for multiple layers is derived from the same need for
one (which is actually quite useless in ordinary life).

As I offered, this is all a very common arena for the optical
engineer, and thin-films are tools for SPECIFIC needs (the WHEREFOR,
or yet another tantalizing, unanswerable question whose origin is one
of practicality) rather than as sacred cows for the theory of
moonbeams.

There are correlatives in RF and antennas such that this is not an
alien discussion. However, it takes little more effort to be correct
instead of simply clowning through the math, because these side-show
results we have been subjected with can be stretched to cover any kind
of bizarre theory. As the final line of the quote above suggests:
"Visually compare glare reductions before you buy anything."
rather ordinary advice that is so aggressively shunned by, instead,
shoveling formulas at us instead.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:07:29 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:
yet another tantalizing, unanswerable question: What wavelength is Glare?

Dear Readers,

In this vein, and from contemporary reports from the NY Times comes:
"It's the old story of the C.E.O. who asks the chief marketing
officer, 'What happens if I take 10 percent out of the marketing
budget?' and the C.M.O. replies, 'I don't know,' so the C.E.O.
says: 'O.K., I'll take 20 percent.' "
...
"Marketers are tracking all kinds of data and they still can't
answer basic questions" about advertising accountability..."

This, of course, returns us to the sage advice offered by me
previously:
"Visually compare glare reductions before you buy anything."
especially when the salesman in boots tells you that you cannot see
reflections TEN TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN.

Salesman: "Any totally cancelled Glare that you will see is Black."

Turning lemons into lemonade:
"Glare that is TEN TIMES BLACKER THAN THE SUN!"
Let's just hope it doesn't turn up in toothpaste. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
yet another tantalizing, unanswerable question: What wavelength is Glare?

Dear Readers,

Richard, I am really worried about you arguing with your own
postings. The wavelength of glare from a single-frequency
coherent laser is obviously the same as the wavelength of the
laser's primary output beam. What else could it possibly be?
--
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 Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:05:18 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
yet another tantalizing, unanswerable question: What wavelength is Glare?

Dear Readers,

Richard, I am really worried about you arguing with your own
postings. The wavelength of glare from a single-frequency
coherent laser is obviously the same as the wavelength of the
laser's primary output beam. What else could it possibly be?

Golly gee, fellas, you two, Cecil and Richard C, you sure don't talk
nice to each other. But it sure is fun to sit back and listen to you
scream at each other. Just think, what would happen if Leno and
Letterman should be reading the mail? They'd kill each other to get
their hands on you for their nightly shows, and they could fire all
their present writers.

Walt

Richard Clark wrote:
It comes as no great surprise that this simple example of optical
power is so powerfully baffling to a neophyte.

Who said it is baffling? The problem is that if you cannot understand
the simplest of examples involving lossless, refractionless, laser
systems, you cannot possibly understand anything more complicated.
I haven't even read past your inability to understand that simple
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 Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:35:16 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The problem is that if you cannot understand
the simplest of examples involving lossless, refractionless, laser
systems, you cannot possibly understand anything more complicated.

Um, yes. Can tell us why your example exhibits a reflection product
TEN TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN; when in your words it has canceled
completely? :-)

This question, like others, is likely to suffer the fate of you
whining on about "understanding." Go ahead anyway, it establishes you
as an academy of one - just don't chew the scenery.

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The problem is that if you cannot understand
the simplest of examples involving lossless, refractionless, laser
systems, you cannot possibly understand anything more complicated.

Um, yes. Can tell us why your example exhibits a reflection product
TEN TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN; when in your words it has canceled
completely? :-)

It doesn't. All reflections are eliminated by wave cancellation.
That is a given boundary condition for the simple example.

You can argue that there's no such thing in reality as a
dimensionless point or a line of only one dimension or a
plane of only two dimensions. That doesn't keep such from
being taught as concepts in every plane geometry class.
--
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 =----