Folks, he's really coming unhinged. Inchoate wrote:
> Actualy I do, I've built several of them.
Oooh, "actualy" now I'm impressed.
> > http://www.strandnet.com/rozendal/reflectors/trihedral.htm.)
> >
> > For a good primer on RCS (radar cross section), see:
> >
> > http://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/rcs.htm
>
> Yada, yada, yada....
"Don't confuse me with the facts..."
> Which is irrelevant to the fact that
> the reflected signal is off axis from
> the incoming one...
Maybe a couple of centimeters in an expanding cone of signal, wow!
> ...the amount of energy captured by
> the whirly gig is SMALLER than that
> captured by the radiator...
But the amount reflected back to the radar gun is greater at any angle other
than 90 degrees to radiator.
> You're little spinning whirly gig
> won't return an echo stronger than
> the 'natural' return from the radiator.
At any angle other than 90 degrees Inchoate is simply wrong.
> Sticking a reflector in front of a
> reflector won't buy you one damn
> thing unless the reflector is MORE
> INEFFICIENT than the radiator...
He's cut back on the meds again. If the corner reflectors return the signal
before it reaches the radiator, there is not signal left to reflect from the
radiator. Duh. So you just design the cylinder holding the rotating array
to have approximately the same cross section as the radiator. QED.
SURRENDER DOROTHY, YOU'RE BEGINNING (BEGINNING?) TO LOOK QUITE THE FOOL.
S a n d y
