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

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

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 =----

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. ;-)

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 =---

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.

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 =----

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 =----

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. :-)