On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:47:12 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
"Actually that is quite wrong. IR is not heat."

He got me. According to Lincoln`s Industrial Reference, from a 100-watt
MAZDA lamp the amount of energy emanating as light is 10%, and as
infrared is 72%. The rest is lost to gas end loss, etc. The loss would
be only 18% You can`t see infrared. The eye is most sensitive to a
yellow-green color around 5550 Angstrom units. Lamps are made to
emphasize white or "daylight" which is rated at about 2400 to 3100
degrees Kelvin.

Hi Richard,

Well, your ability to research the topic continues well in advance of
other's effort. Some may note the congruence of the specified
emission peak and my statements earlier choosing exactly this same
wavelength. This is called the eye's photopic response, but at night
it shifts slightly to become more sensitive in its scotopic response.
This is rod vision and occurs around the 510nM (5100Å) wavelength or a
pale blue.

The unintended consequence of this is that it suppress the eye's
ability to perceive red light at night (why you see them used in dark
rooms and WWII movies) which is something of a bummer for traffic
lights and taillights (they have to be brighter than they would be
normally).

Also, this discussion bears upon the answer to
"What is the wavelength of Glare?"
that has remained undiscovered by binary engineers. I bet our Readers
can catch this clue. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"The unintended consequence of this (exposure to white light) is that it
suppresses the eye`s ability to perceive red light at night (why you see
them (red lights) used in dark rooms and WWII movies--..)"

I was in WW-2 and confirm that aboard my ship our chartroom (the
compartment with an opening tp tje outside) indeed was illuminated with
red lamps so that we would not be blind when we stepped outside. We were
told that we used our cones in the daytime and our rods at night. How
could I ever have remembered that?

From Lincoln`s Reference: Glare is said to reduce the ability to see,
and hastens fatigue. Glare is wasted since it lowers the effectiveness
of useful light. Glare is high light energy over a measurable period of
time from above normal angles of vision (30 to 90-degrees above the
vertical). I think this means you don`t want a bright light shining in
your eyes. It`s glaring and impairs vision for awhile.

I wasn`t a signalman but I noticed our signaling light was fitted at
night with a red filter called the "Nan-gear". Our phonetic alphabet in
those days went: able, baker, charlie, dog---nancy. I suppose Nan was
short for nighttime gear. I speculate it was hoped that the enemy would
step out of white lighted quarters and not notice our red signal beams.
So much for red lights and glare.

It probably wouldn`t work, but you might say to the policeman: I didn`t
see the red light. The white glare desensitized my eyes!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Nan gear was infra-red, not red. The purpose was to be non detectable
without special equipment.

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:

I wasn`t a signalman but I noticed our signaling light was fitted at
night with a red filter called the "Nan-gear". Our phonetic alphabet in
those days went: able, baker, charlie, dog---nancy. I suppose Nan was
short for nighttime gear. I speculate it was hoped that the enemy would

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:17:13 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

From Lincoln`s Reference: Glare is said to reduce the ability to see,
and hastens fatigue. Glare is wasted since it lowers the effectiveness
of useful light. Glare is high light energy over a measurable period of
time from above normal angles of vision (30 to 90-degrees above the
vertical). I think this means you don`t want a bright light shining in
your eyes. It`s glaring and impairs vision for awhile.

Hi Richard,

Your continued research into the topic that the originator could not
identify reveals the problems of Glare being a subjective response and
not a technical specification.

However, I have already provided technical clues to answer:
"What is the wavelength of Glare?"
that has so far evaded absolutely any response from our binary
engineer.

So far the suggestions have been that it matters to a WHO, and there
is a practical WHY to reveal the WHEREFORE. The differences in
Photopic and Scotopic vision narrow down the wavelength, but there is
a vast gulf between them. Even being a binary choice, there is still
the chance of being wrong that puts the gag on his stepping forward
with an answer. In the end I will be alone in completing this I
suppose. It will cap off my full mathematical treatment and the
exposure of this full cancellation that is TEN TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE
SUN ;-)

This topic of Glare, being his alone, has subsequently been identified
by him as being inconsequential detail, or better yet, wholly from my
distorted imagination (but only when I examine this point).

There is still much to mine here. With errors so abundant, it is
difficult to choose any one aspect and not have to correct three
aspects of its distortions.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
This topic of Glare, being his alone, has subsequently been identified
by him as being inconsequential detail, ...

EXACTLY!!! When the glare is exactly the same frequency as the
forward laser beam, and when refraction has been eliminated,
as it is in a transmission line, your postings become completely
irrelevant, but I am not surprised since you seem to be protecting
some cow you consider to be sacred.
--
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 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.

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

Richard Harrison wrote:
It probably wouldn`t work, but you might say to the policeman: I didn`t
see the red light. The white glare desensitized my eyes!

There was a guy in my home town, who for decades, honked his
horn when encountering a red light, because he was color blind.
Everyone knew he would just blow through a red-light, honking
his horn, so everyone gave him the right-of-way. Finally, he
encountered a deaf person ...
--
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 =----