Holographyforum.org / holowiki.org

None of what you just posted is from the reference I gave you., proving my point.

[quote=BobH post_id=73390 time=1736447943 user_id=2166]
I won't engage with you until you acknowledge my reference and can discuss only it.

You won't, because it proves you wrong and verifies Rich's and my direct observations and measurements.
[/quote]

Sure, if your source is from a peer reviewed paper in a recognised scientific journal, or a (text)book from an author who is from a faculty in physics or engineering in a recognised university. Stupid people can give any opinion they like, it doesn't make it valid.

"Introduction to Holography" , Vincent Toal (Director of the Center for Industrial and Engineering Optics, Dublin Institute of Technology)

Notice, [b]no mention of polarisation[/b]
[attachment=0]Toal.jpg[/attachment]

P. Hariharan's (CSIRO Division of Applied Physics, Sydney, Australia) statement of DE. Notice, no mention of polarisation.
[attachment=0]Hariharan.jpg[/attachment]

Stephen Benton's expressions for the DE of a hologram. Stephen Benton was a professor of holography at the Massachusett's Institute of Holography, you may have heard of it. It educates students in the physics of holography, not the ramblings of stupid people with opinions, nor the ramblings of science deniers. Notice, [b]polarisation is not mentioned[/b]
[attachment=0]Benton.jpg[/attachment]

I won't engage with you until you acknowledge my reference and can discuss only it.

You won't, because it proves you wrong and verifies Rich's and my direct observations and measurements.

Do you have a reference from a peer reviewed paper in a recognised journal or a recognised (text)book?

The DE [b]cannot[/b] be based on polarisation because the efficiency of any system in which an energy interchange takes place is based on the ratio of the energy out to energy in:

η = energy out/energy in.

It's a [i]scalar[/i] quantity.
You wouldn't understand, but opinion by an uneducated person is simply that, an opinion. An opinion from stupid egocentric people is simply that - an opinion. If you want [b]any[/b] parameter of a holographic system based on optical physics, you have to give a reference from a peer reviewed paper in a recognised journal or an established (text)book.

"One of the most important hologram characteristics is it's [i]diffraction efficiency η[/i]. It is defined as the diffracted intensity E(i) of the wanted diffraction order of the hologram in relation to the incident intensity of the reconstruction beam: η = E(i)/E(r)"
"Silver-Halide Recording Materials", H. I. Bjelkhagen (author's italics), page 60. Part of the Springer Series in Optical Sciences

Notice, Hans only mentions intensities, [b]polarisation is not mentioned. [/b]

Also, Hans expression for the DE of a thick volume hologram (below). Notice, [b]polarisation is not mentioned[/b]. Personally, I think Hans Bjelkhagen's derivation of the DE is more acceptable than stupid people's opinions. There's nothing to do with being able to "handle" anything, it's physics and it's mathematics.To put it in another way, it's what science deniers cannot accept.
[attachment=0]Hans.jpg[/attachment]

[quote=Din post_id=73387 time=1736393952 user_id=2357]
[quote=BobH post_id=73386 time=1736359800 user_id=2166]
DE dependance on polarization,
[/quote]

Do you have a reference for this?
[/quote]

I posted it here before and you "hand-waved" it away saying you "didn't have that book". Look it up.

I posted pics of the pages of the book on the facebook holography forum page. Look it up.

Rich Rallison got it right and you just can't handle that.

[quote=BobH post_id=73386 time=1736359800 user_id=2166]
DE dependance on polarization,
[/quote]

Do you have a reference for this?

[quote=BobH post_id=73375 time=1736261676 user_id=2166]
So is a thin hologram Q=<10 (as you stated) or Q=<0.1?
[/quote]
It depends, specifically on the spatial frequency. I assume you can read. I was quoting Hariharan, so I'll repeat Hariharan:
""Small values of Q correspond to thin gratings. [b]However this criterion is not always adequate"[/b]
And, once again:[b]"However this criterion is not always adequate"[/b]

[quote=BobH post_id=73375 time=1736261676 user_id=2166]
Are transmission holograms necessarily "thin" (as you stated)?
[/quote] Yes. The distinction is made dependent on the spatial frequency. If the Bragg condition is not met, then there is dispersion. The Bragg condition is given by equation 14 in Kogelnik, reproduced:

cos(φ - θ) = K/(2β)

where φ and θ are the angles between the K and ρ vectors, K is the grating vector and β is the propagation constant. If this condition is met, there is no dispersion, and the hologram is considered 'thick'. If this condition is not met, then there is no Bragg selectivity, and dispersion exists. In this case, the hologarm is considered 'thin'.

[quote=BobH post_id=73375 time=1736261676 user_id=2166]
Is Covestro's 16 micron material a "thin" material with visible light (again as you stated)?
[/quote]
Firstly, I did not state that a 16 micron material is necessarily 'thin'. I said that an absolute figure is invalid, since an absolute figure is meaningless. I know such sophisticated thinking must be difficult, do try and pay attention. Secondly, it depends on what you mean by "visible light". Light itself cannot be seen, only the interaction of light with matter. However, all 'light', when it interacts with matter is visible, assuming that the word 'light' refers to electromagnetic radiation in the range 400nm - 700nm, as determined by Maxwell's equations ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html ). If the hologram on 16 micron material shows dispersion, it's 'thin', as stated above. If it meets the Bragg condition cos(φ - θ) = K/(2β), then it's thick. One more time: the defining condition is determined by the spatial frequency.

By the way, I don't see anywhere in the video that's the subject of this post any statement about "thin" or "thick" holograms. Therefore, this insistence on the difference between "thin" and "thick" has off topic, and is simply an extension of your hate-filled cyber-bullying. You clearly don't understand the point of dispersion relations or Bragg conditions.
[b]
If there are any more posts on this "thin" and "thick" differentiation, I will report it as bullying and hate messaging.[/b]
I repeat:

[b] If there are any more posts on this "thin" and "thick" differentiation, I will report it as bullying and hate messaging.[/b]