Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
It's not really fair to the readers to use a word in an obscure
way and refuse to define it.

What's sauce for goose must be **** for the gander.

I try to stick to common usage of words. Sometimes I'm wrong,
as I was about "non-glare glass". When I discover a mistake,
I am quick to admit it, correct it, and move on. Others, incapable
of admitting mistakes, would simply have pleaded an esoteric
definition of "glare" in an obvious CYA move.

Some posters delight in uncommon usage of words at the expense
of the majority of readers. I won't name any names. :-)

Truly English is a dead language here. There is more effort expended
in trying to find the Rosetta stone for its interpretation than the
performance of bench work or simple computation.

Actually, there is a lot of effort expended in trying to under-
stand the words describing the previous bench work. Doing so
is simply an efficient use of time and effort.

For instance, I could expend a lot of time and effort duplicating
on the bench what has been reported on those two optics web pages.
But I am satisfied that they said what they meant and meant what
they said, i.e. wave cancellation (destructive interference) in
one direction causes a redistribution of the associated energy
(constructive interference) in another direction. Remembering that
Walter Maxwell said the same thing in "Reflections" a quarter of
a century ago is icing on the cake.
--
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 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:08:42 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I won't name any names.
What an Herculean effort of restraint.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:20:31 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The EM light wave energy from the North Star that is absorbed
by a human eye conveyed energy from the North Star to that
human eye.
How much energy:
"conveyed?"
"converted?"

Quantified answers only as English seems to be so wholly unsuited to
this purpose.

Damn, Clinton could have used you guys!

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:20:31 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The EM light wave energy from the North Star that is absorbed
by a human eye conveyed energy from the North Star to that
human eye.
How much energy:
"conveyed?"
"converted?"

Quantified answers only as English seems to be so wholly unsuited to
this purpose.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:22:04 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Damn, Clinton could have used you guys!

Hi Fred,

Your post is living proof of the failure of English. I notice you
incorrectly dolloped an extra comma into your sentence.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The EM light wave energy from the North Star that is absorbed
by a human eye conveyed energy from the North Star to that
human eye.

How much energy:
"conveyed?"
"converted?"

Quantified answers only as English seems to be so wholly unsuited to
this purpose.

I see the North Star on a clear night through detection of
photons. What does it matter how many photons I am detecting?
There's more than enough to detect. And every one contains
energy "conveyed" from Polaris and "converted" by my retina.
--
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 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:45:14 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

How much energy:
"conveyed?"
"converted?"

Quantified answers only as English seems to be so wholly unsuited to
this purpose.

I see the North Star on a clear night through detection of
photons. What does it matter how many photons I am detecting?
There's more than enough to detect. And every one contains
energy "conveyed" from Polaris and "converted" by my retina.

Clearly the understanding of the English words "How much energy" sets
the bar too high for this technical forum. That, or the experience
with the subject matter is so limited as to render the poster's
response in xeroxed cut-and-paste platitudes. An undocumented worker
could easily provide material of equal quality.

Richard Clark wrote:
Clearly the understanding of the English words "How much energy" sets
the bar too high for this technical forum. That, or the experience
with the subject matter is so limited as to render the poster's
response in xeroxed cut-and-paste platitudes. An undocumented worker
could easily provide material of equal quality.

I could go look up the quantitative energy calculation
and post it. But nobody in the world would be better
off because of my effort. Therefore, I would rather
spend my time doing something more enjoyable like
swigging Merlot.
--
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 =----

Well, here, are, a, few, more, for, your, reading, pleasure.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:22:04 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Damn, Clinton could have used you guys!

Hi Fred,

Your post is living proof of the failure of English. I notice you
incorrectly dolloped an extra comma into your sentence.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:12:34 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Well, here, are, a, few, more, for, your, reading, pleasure.

Printing did not always include punctuation and in fact it is a
relatively recent invention where some authors who tried to publish
complained publisher wanted them to add inverted commas to denote a
speaker's words.

Before then, another recalcitrant author submitted his manuscript with
the last page:
............................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,"""""""""""""""""""""""""";;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;
............................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,"""""""""""""""""""""""""";;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;
............................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,"""""""""""""""""""""""""";;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;
............................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,"""""""""""""""""""""""""";;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;
salt and pepper the text to taste with these marks

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC