But this is simply an improper use of the term. And ironically, per the relaxed use of the term as used by Everest, literally every reflectivetreatment device used is technically a "diffusor" as there is no treatment method that does not feature some degree of reflection and/or diffraction. While some may use the terms loosely, in the stricter use of the term "diffusion", defined below as a particular type of reflection, polys are indeed "scatterers". And still the behavior is extremely frequency limited.Įverest tends to include any form of distribution of energy in his use of the term diffusion - including the use of spaced rectangular panel absorbers which feature edge diffraction as "diffusion" (p.215-6, MHoA, 2nd ed.). Only in well designed arrays can the performance of multiple polycylinders begin to approach the behavior of a diffusor. And Everest should have known better, as he was present and quite aware of the early proof of performance testing of the Schroeder PRDs and QRDs as well as of the polys when the polys literally were removed and replaced precisely due to that very distinction based upon objective empirical measured behavioral distinctions. Andre, unfortunately Everest is incorrect and John is correct.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |