On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:21:54 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Let's see, you don't know the wavelength,

I gave the wavelength. You apparently missed it. Here it
is again - 632.8 nm.

As it was a long time in getting you from 3 MILLION Angstroms to this
after several clues, there is still that distance from this red to any
ACTUAL application :-)

Not to worry, no one expected this in the first, second, third...
round. However, the humor tapped out long ago.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:07:48 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:
Glare is a scattered reflection of source light.

Hi Dave,

This is a definition by example, and as such is a weak one because it
can be shown that other example definitions neutralize it.

Glare is first and foremost a subjective interpretation. In other
words it has to be observed by a human and described as distinct from
other sources of light. As such, the common vernacular easily allows
the expression of "the glare of the noon day sun" when in fact there
are no reflections being observed. Stage lights are said "to glare,"
again without any notion of a specular surface. In fact, the
vernacular allows that a steady stare with malice is a "glare."

The point of the matter is that to say something is anti-glare; and
for the specific notion of what glare means having to be ferreted out;
then this necessarily throws the original statement into doubt and
confusion (which makes it perfectly suitable for internet posting :-)

It is absurd to call an application anti-glare without commenting on
the wavelength of the source, as you point out. To this point it
appears that it only works for red (and no other color). This is, of
course, true, and simultaneously irrelevant to common applications.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
No, again you failed, the answer was yours 6 MILLION Angstroms. There
is no such glare wavelength.

I already admitted it was a mistake caused by macular degeneration.
Guess you would rather I be completely blind, eh? I thought I was reading
the frequency of visible red. I don't carry such things around in my
head. Hardly any amateur radio operator does.

"Glare wavelength" is just a logical diversion from your lack of knowledge
about interference. The wavelength of glare matters not one iota to the core
of the technical discussion that you are trying to avoid at all costs. Why
do you disagree with J. C. Slater who understood interference probably
before you ever wet your diapers?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dave Shrader wrote:
At RF, HF, VHF, UHF, SHF, etc. the parallel to glare is scattering from a
reflective surface where the line spectral response is the single
frequency.

Yep, and "glare" from the laser experiment I proposed is limited to a
single laser frequency. That Richard C. would ask, what is the frequency
of the glare from a single frequency laser beam, just shows an extreme
amount of ignorance.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
I gave the wavelength. You apparently missed it. Here it
is again - 632.8 nm.

As it was a long time in getting you from 3 MILLION Angstroms to this
after several clues, there is still that distance from this red to any
ACTUAL application :-)

Too bad you didn't know that the glare frequency from a red laser is
the same frequency as the laser. If you had known that, we could have
saved a lot of bandwidth because you never would have asked the question
and I wouldn't have made the visual mistake when I read the frequency chart.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:
It is absurd to call an application anti-glare without commenting on
the wavelength of the source, as you point out. To this point it
appears that it only works for red (and no other color). This is, of
course, true, and simultaneously irrelevant to common applications.

100% relevant to comparisons to single frequency RF transmitters.
Red lasers are single frequency. Therefore, they are appropriate
vehicles for comparison to single frequency amateur radio RF
transmitters. All your ****ing, moaning, and hand-waving won't
change that fact. Ham transmitters are hardly anything like a
light bulb, the diversion that you are attempting to insert. Ham
transmitters are a lot like lasers, the subject you are trying to
avoid at all costs.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:07:48 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:
My Physics books indicate that wavelengths greater than 610 nm are 'red'.

Hi Dave,

Last touch on this point of experience. Probably very, very few
scientists and even fewer engineers would subscribe to this. It is
fine for a commonplace description useful for discussion in cocktail
parties, or tailgate parties (why they would want to know this rather
inspecific specific is another issue).

I dare say any commercial application would characterize 610 nm as
either yellow or orange. However, this is again a problem of human
perception - just like calling sunlight yellow (most photographers
would beg to differ) or calling it white (the rest of the
photographers would beg to differ). In one word: Subjective.

So, to the nature of glare, and its frequency and to the ACTUAL
purpose of anti-glare glass
it supposedly suppresses the reflection of rare gas light by
covering sensitive exhibition photographs:
Ar - Argon vapor
Na - Sodium vapor
and a host of other mixes, none of which are commonly red ;-)

When was the last time you visited any photographic art galleries that
were illuminated with Neon? Anti-glare is just a marketing pitch
anyway, how many photos are illuminated under any wavelength specific
source? The truth of the matter is that all general purpose lighting
is broad banded and negates any promise of "anti-glare."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:27:08 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I thought I was reading
the frequency of visible red. I don't carry such things around in my
head. Hardly any amateur radio operator does.

And such is the point of my illustrating the shortfalls of your lack
of experience. No one is challenging your amateur status.

The recitation of any wavelength starting with a significant three is
enough to set off alarms when there is a concurrent claim of its
visibility. That is why I said it was impossible to be a decimal
error.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:42:40 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Ham
transmitters are a lot like lasers, the subject you are trying to
avoid at all costs.

So, without avoiding the topic at hand, what is the resonant frequency
of the cement layer between the glass of the window and the mounting
pad? Or wavelength? Or color? :-)

Does it merit 0.5 to 1.0 dB of Glare suppression?

Humor me with another half dozen responses void of that value.

Richard Clark wrote:
The recitation of any wavelength starting with a significant three is
enough to set off alarms when there is a concurrent claim of its
visibility. That is why I said it was impossible to be a decimal
error.

Take a look at the frequency chart in the "Reference Data for Radio
Engineers" and you will see why someone with poor eyesight might
make that mistake.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----