[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Another piece of the puzzle?
- To: KellySt@aol.com, kgstar@most.magec.com, stevev@efn.org, jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com, David@InterWorld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, bmansur@oc.edu
- Subject: Re: Another piece of the puzzle?
- From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:40:11 +0100
To Kelly,
>> 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 forward moving 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.
>
>Hummm. Could making the mesh out of long open strips, not open squares,
>effect its reactions to a polorized beam?
Yes, it would reflect or let through only one polarisation. But I still need
a polarization changer at the retro-mirror.
So one piece is already there, now the other one...
Tim