Stop lying in public though you’ve been habituated to that.
I asked you why 10 lambda not 7 to test you basic concept of physics, and obviously you are hopelessly lacking it, much less to understand Born Approximation that I have worked for years. So please leave a laughing stock after another for the whole world to view.
Keep having fun...
No...The 10-lambda rule simply states that
IF the diameter (sphere or cylinder) is 10 times greater than wavelength, the creeping wave behavior will
NOT occur. Any less and that behavior will occur, or if the ratio is near 10, we may have erratic oscillation from the diameter due to the incomplete travel of the creeping wave around the structure.
So if you knew what the 10-lambda rule was all about, you would not have posed that patently stupid question. If the ratio is 7, the creeping wave behavior would be incomplete and would not contribute to the diameter's RCS. If the ratio is 5 or 2, it would mean the same thing.
Born Approximation is used in radar imaging, such as to portray a complex body with multi-point scatterers, either singly or in clusters, to produce this visual representation...
...Is common.
Then when it comes to diameters, such as that on a gun, we have these fine examples of the 10-lambda rule in effect...
Synthetic Aperture Radar Applications -- Sandia National Laboratories
http://www.sandia.gov/radar/images/lynx_m47.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/radar/images/tanks_optical.jpg
We can even make out the distinct gun barrels, and we did in many experiments, if the ratio matched.
It is no different than if the goal is to simply calculate its radar cross section (RCS) instead of producing a radar image in the manner of a photo (optic) image. For complex bodies that inevitably have multi-point scatterers that will and will not be in radar view, radar bombardment must be persistent and in diverse perspectives to capture as much of these scatterers as possible, whereas with simple RCS calculation, if the transmission pulse characteristics are sophisticated enough, a single burst can achieve what we want.
For a complex structure like a jet engine that have high quantity of and hidden internal multi-point scatterers and unpredictable field interactions from the same, Born Approximation of any type of structure is no good for radar imaging but sufficient for simple RCS value calculation simply because we do not care how the target appears to the human mind but only if scatterers and their fields are strong enough to trespass a certain threshold. So for a jet fighter, the EM field that is indicative of a jet engine, that is a composite of many scatterers, does not need to be represented in the precise physical location on the aircraft itself. All we want to know is if that EM field is strong enough and is sufficiently in the same cluster as the other structures.
That is why in the above graph, we see two spikes that hinted at a general locations of two jet engine pods but even though the starboard field strength (spike) seems to hint that the starboard engine may be located elsewhere away from the aircraft, it is still sufficiently close enough that the RCS calculator will classify it as a contributor to the aircraft's total RCS.
Born Approximation is in play at every stage, whether the structure is a true diameter, an ogive, or even a curvature on a larger structure. As long as there is a curvature for the surface wave behavior to form, the potential for the 10-lambda rule is available.
I do not need to know the finer mathematical points of Born Approximation calculations. That is what I have 'people' for when I was in aviation. But I know enough of its function and utility to say that if you declare the 10-lambda rule violated Born Approximation...
YOU ARE WRONG...!!!
Do not try to weasel out of that now by claiming that you were 'testing' me. If -- and it is a big if -- you are a physics professor, you can throw out all kinds of arcane math and it still would not matter one whit.
You did not know what the 10-lambda rule is. And if you did not know it, your claim to be a physics professor is completely in jeopardy because it is simply unthinkable that anyone working or instructing in physics would be ignorant of it.
You declared the 10-lambda rule violated Born Approximation. So here is a paper, by Chinese at that, attesting otherwise...
Senors Jinkui Yan, Changlong Xu, and Deming Xu of Shanghai University said:
'When the geometric dimension of an object is large enough (>10λ
...' So that mean they used it -- the 10-lambda rule -- in either their professional work or research.
YOU said the rule violated Born Approximation.
That mean everything Sandia Labs and Shanghai U. did should now be tossed out the window.
Please provide the readers with a link to your papers explaining how. We want to see it peer reviewed and acknowledgement that you are correct. This would undoubtedly make 'Chinese physics' indisputable.
