[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Another piece of the puzzle?
- To: bmansur <bmansur@oc.edu>, David <David@InterWorld.com>, hous0042 <hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu>, jim <jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu>, KellySt <KellySt@aol.com>, kgstar <kgstar@most.magec.com>, lparker <lparker@destin.gulfnet.com>, rddesign <rddesign@wolfenet.com>, stevev <stevev@efn.org>, "T.L.G.vanderLinden" <T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl>
- To: zkulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
- Subject: RE: Another piece of the puzzle?
- From: Brian Mansur <bmansur@oc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 09 Mar 96 16:57:00 PST
- Encoding: 32 TEXT
----------
From: T.L.G.vanderLinden
To: KellySt; kgstar; stevev; jim; zkulpa; hous0042; rddesign; David;
lparker; bmansur
Subject: Another piece of the puzzle?
Date: Saturday, March 09, 1996 11:39PM
>From Brian
>Tim
>Could we use polarisation as a way to eliminate the effect of a backward
and
>forward moving beam in the same path.
>What if we can make it so that the forwardmoving beam is horizontally
>polarized and the backwardmoving beam is vertically polarized?
>All the ships sail? has to do is to discriminate between both kinds of
>polarizations and thus reflect only on of the two.
>For this we need:
>- A polarisation turner (at the retro-mirror)
>- A sail that reflects only horizontal or vertical polarized maserlight.
>Do such materials exist (and are they not to difficult to use in large
>quantities)?
Brian.
Wouldn't we lose a lot of energy in such a process? That would be a bumber.
I