Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 =---- |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. :-) |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 =---- |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. :-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
THIS will solve that pesky Darfur problem... | Shortwave | |||
(OT) - Solve The Beal Conjecture and win $100,000 | Shortwave | |||
Audio problem when using an antenna multicoupler, how to solve? | Scanner | |||
Audio problem when using an antenna multicoupler, how to solve? | Shortwave |