Re: This distrust of glass canopies seems like bunk
- From: George Pontis <gpontis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:48:27 -0700
In article <sLmdnZ2dnZ2migLdnZ2dnWnplN6dnZ2dRVn-0p2dnZ0@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gse1977
@comcast.net says...
> You lose 6-8% of the light from the two additional interfaces. Fused silica
> (glass) doesn't absorb significantly at the wavelengths in question so it's
> just the reflections that are an issue. It's not that it's "bad," but 6-8%
> is not completely insignificant either, especially if you are trying to get
> the most bang for your (electric bill) buck.
Minor quibble: fused silica is an exotic synthetic material, not the same as
"glass". It is closely related to quartz. Primary uses are in premium fiber optic
cables, lenses for high power lasers, and special applications that require
excellent clarity deep into the UV range.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: This distrust of glass canopies seems like bunk
- From: Greg E.
- Re: This distrust of glass canopies seems like bunk
- References:
- This distrust of glass canopies seems like bunk
- From: Fjord
- Re: This distrust of glass canopies seems like bunk
- From: Greg E.
- This distrust of glass canopies seems like bunk
- Prev by Date: Re: our impact
- Next by Date: Re: our impact
- Previous by thread: Re: This distrust of glass canopies seems like bunk
- Next by thread: Re: This distrust of glass canopies seems like bunk
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|