--
On Wed, 9 May 2001 17:51:40 Jim Choate wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 9 May 2001, Tim May wrote:
>
>> I give up. Now Choate has his own idiosyncratic interpretation of
>> geometry. Add it to the list of number theory, physics, electronics,
>> etc.
>>
>> Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. If the flat plate
>> reflector is not perpencular to the beam, the beam will most
>> definitely not return "more or less directly back."
>
>Bullshit, rf at that frequencies isn't a laser beam it's more like a
>reflective wave from a beach, the reflection loses the tight coherence
>from the incident wave (as a result of the radar guns waveguide). As a
>result the reflected wave splatters out into a rough semi-circle. This
>means you don't get those tight reflections that you're talking about.
>
>As to F-117's, the 'stealth effect' only occurs if the angle of indicence
>is very acute (ie much greater than 90 degrees),
In a reflection off a flat surface the sum of the angles of incidence and reflection
must be equal to or less than 180 degrees.
The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection
Thus the angle of incidence cannot be greater than 90 degrees.
QED
Of course an "angle of indicence" can be anything it wants to be.
Jim
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at
http://www.eudoramail.com
