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