| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2005 07:43:50 AM |
| Object: |
A wave-based polishing theory |
17 A wave-based polishing theory
Ed 01.12.31 -----------------------------
Abstract
--------
The molecules of the reflecting surface are sources of Huygens'
wavelets
which make the reflected wavefront. These molecules can be nonplanar to
the
extent of a fraction of the wavelength while yet there exists
practically
reflected plane wavefront.
The theory
----------
At first let's assume that a beam of light consists of some very thin
rods
of light. When a collimated beam of light descends on a polished
surface
within a determined angle, it will be reflected from the surface within
an
equal angle. If the descended surface is rough instead of being glossy,
different parts or in fact different rods of the beam will be reflected
in
different directions depending on the orientation of the facets of
roughness
on which the rods of light descend. So, the surface appears matt
instead of
being polished.
To produce a polished plane surface we should give an oscillating and
freely
rotating movement to a plane tool on the rotating work surface while
there is
a powder of equisized abrasive grains (mixed in water) between the tool
surface and work surface. These grains due to their movement and
pressure
on the glass surface break the glass surface in some dimensions
comparable
with their sizes, and so a plane surface will be obtained that have
some
unevenness the bigness of which are in the order of the size of the
grains;
if the size of each working grain is about ten micron the obtained
surface
will be matt and the process is named smoothing, and if, after
smoothing,
the size of each working grain is about one micron the obtained surface
will be polished and the process is named polishing. In this manner we
see
that even a polished surface has a rough surface the size of unevenness
of
which is in the order of the size of polishing abrasive grains. And it
is
obvious that the shape of unevenness of the surface after polishing
should
be similar to its shape of unevenness after smoothing.
Now if the theory presented at first for the reflection (based on
considering a beam of light as a collection of rods of light) is true,
why
should we see our surface after performing the polishing process as a
reflecting (polished) surface while its similar surface after smoothing
is
matt? (We know that according to this theory what causes a surface to
be
glossy is not the smallness of the roughness of the surface but is
nonexistence of the roughness ie nonexistence of angles crossing the
continuation of the surface.) Existence of such a contradiction between
the
mentioned theory and what in practice shows a surface worked by
polishing
powder glossy has caused creation of justifying theories of athermic
surface
flow (Beilby et al) [1, 2, 3] and formation of a silica-gel surface
(SiOH)
by hydrolysis (Grebenshchikov et al) [4] in one of which it is said
that the
solid surface flows and fill the unevennesses of the surface to produce
a
continuous smooth glossy surface and in the other one it is said that
this
work is done by the produced silica gel. These theories and other
similar
theories in this respect have not been proven clearly and are rather
as proposal.
To solve the problem let's define correctly a glossy surface. To do
this,
we should realize correctly the physics of reflection since after that
we
can define a glossy surface as a reflecting surface.
Pointing to rods of light propagating in straight lines and acting like
some balls which after hitting a wall will rebound (or be reflected)
does not certainly become a physicist when trying to define reflection,
since as a rule he/she is aware of the wavy nature of light. Thus, let
consider a plane wavefront (instead of the beam conception) reaching
the
molecules (of a surface to be glossy) set in a geometrical plane
surface
within a determined angle. Exposed molecules will be sources for
radiating
spherical (Huygens') wavelets [5] envelope of which is the same
wavefront
of the reflected wave. It is clear that since the molecules are
coplanar
the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence, and in more
accurate words in other angles of reflection there is no plane envelope
of visible propagating wavelets.
In this manner the condition of reflection is that the molecules of the
reflecting surface be coplanar. What is the tolerance of this
coplanarity?
It is clear that if these molecules are not coplanar only to a very
small
extent we can have the same reflected plane wavefront, although not
with
the same ideal qualification, within the same reflection angle. This
tolerance is a small fraction of the incident wavelength. So, the
molecules
existent about an ideal plane surface within the vertical distances
smaller
than a fraction of the wavelength can reflect the plane wavefront
incident
on themselves as acceptable plane reflected wavefront within an angle
equal
to the angle of incidence. These molecules can be the molecules of all
the
facets of the roughness of a (polished) plane surface provided that the
depth of the pits is smaller than the same fraction of the wavelength.
Therefore, it is not surprising that while with an electron microscope
polishing tracks left behind the abrasive grains of the polishing
powder
or in other words roughnesses of the polished surface (due to the
polishing powder) are visible, the surface appears polished and glossy
and scrachless with naked eyes or with the optical microscope. These
grooves and unevennesses are not filled with anything, but they are not
seen.
As Rayleigh Roughness criterion states if the depth of each
roughness relative to the continuation of the reflecting surface is h
and the acute angle between the incident plane wavefront and the
reflecting surface is T, the depth of roughness relative to the
(continuation of) the incident wavefront will be h.cosT, and that's
why for grazing incident beams (in which T approaches 90 degrees) the
(reflecting) surface is more reflective. Also a roughness is more
reflective for a long wavelength than for a short one because the
depth of roughness is a fraction of the wavelength smaller in the
first case than in the second one.
As we see corpuscular theory of light cannot really justify
existence of a polished surface, while wave theory of light can
do this act quite well.
References
----------
[1] Beilby, Aggregation and flow of Solids, 1921, Macmillan, London
[2] F. Twyman, Prism and Lens Making, Hilger and Watts, 2nd edn., 1951
[3] Colonel Charles Deve, Optical workshop principles, Hilger and
Watts,
Ltd, 1954
[4] Douglas F. Horne, Optical production technology, Adam Hilger Ltd,
Bristol, 2nd edition, 1983
[5] Eugene Hecht, Alfred Zajak, Optics, Addison-Wesley, 1974
Hamid V. Ansari
My email address: ansari18109<at>yahoo<dot>com
The contents of the book "Great mistakes of the physicists":
0 Physics without Modern Physics
1 Geomagnetic field reason
2 Compton effect is a Doppler effect
3 Deviation of light by Sun is optical
4 Stellar aberration with ether drag
5 Stern-Gerlach experiment is not quantized
6 Electrostatics mistakes; Capacitance independence from dielectric
7 Surface tension theory; Glaring mistakes
8 Logical justification of the Hall effect
9 Actuality of the electric current
10 Photoelectric effect is not quantized
11 Wrong construing of the Boltzmann factor; E=3Dh<nu> is wrong
12 Wavy behavior of electron beams is classical
13 Electromagnetic theory without relativity
14 Cylindrical wave, wave equation, and mistakes
15 Definitions of mass and force; A critique
16 Franck-Hertz experiment is not quantized
17 A wave-based polishing theory
18 What the electric conductor is
19 Why torque on stationary bodies is zero
A1 Solution to four-color problem
A2 A proof for Goldbach's conjecture
Google Home - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs, Press, & Help
=A92005 Google
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A wave-based polishing theory |
13 Oct 2005 11:30:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
17 A wave-based polishing theory
Ed 01.12.31 -----------------------------
[snip 180 lines of crap]
Idiot.
The contents of the book "Great mistakes of the physicists":
0 Physics without Modern Physics
1 Geomagnetic field reason
2 Compton effect is a Doppler effect
3 Deviation of light by Sun is optical
4 Stellar aberration with ether drag
5 Stern-Gerlach experiment is not quantized
6 Electrostatics mistakes; Capacitance independence from dielectric
7 Surface tension theory; Glaring mistakes
8 Logical justification of the Hall effect
9 Actuality of the electric current
10 Photoelectric effect is not quantized
11 Wrong construing of the Boltzmann factor; E=h<nu> is wrong
12 Wavy behavior of electron beams is classical
13 Electromagnetic theory without relativity
14 Cylindrical wave, wave equation, and mistakes
15 Definitions of mass and force; A critique
16 Franck-Hertz experiment is not quantized
17 A wave-based polishing theory
18 What the electric conductor is
19 Why torque on stationary bodies is zero
A1 Solution to four-color problem
A2 A proof for Goldbach's conjecture
Don't trust an idiot who cannot count beyond fingers and toes.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
