From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: People Keep Walking Into Glass at Apple Park
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: People Keep Walking Into Glass at Apple Park
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:37:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <210220181337437891%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <p6gudf$bop$> <> <200220181243457729%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="b714f03f8db88ea0570c0359ae6ced6b";
logging-data="17532"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zJoKpEGWGtTD/gdcrLYds"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iKPhdH7oUd8M68My8edz6z/vN7w=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<>,
RichA<> wrote:

> > > "Quite hard to see?"  Maybe if you're stoned all the time.  Glass reflects 4%
> > > at each surface (perpendicular rays) and a lot more at glancing angles. 
> > > Hard not to actually see it.
> > 
> > nowhere near 4%.
> > 
> > if that were the case, a camera lens with multiple surfaces would be
> > nearly opaque.
> 96% uncoated, 98.5% single-layer magnesium-fluoride coated, 99% or so with
> multicoatings.  Old cameras lens could (through reflection and internal
> absorption cut out 40-50% of the incoming light.

no they didn't.

> Please feel free to educate yourself further.

take your own advice.