[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Another piece of the puzzle?
- To: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
- Subject: Re: Another piece of the puzzle?
- From: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39)
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:06:24 -0500
- Cc: KellySt@aol.com, kgstar@most.fw.hac.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
At 5:40 PM 3/11/96, Timothy van der Linden wrote:
>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
Sounds like the reflector would be a series of angular reflectors. They
would reflect the beam a couple of times at angles that would twist the
polorization before returning it.
Kelly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Starks Internet: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com
Sr. Systems Engineer
Magnavox Electronic Systems Company
(Magnavox URL: http://www.fw.hac.com/external.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------