What is an example of an "application" that uses concave and/or convex MIRRORS? Why? (need help! dont get it?)
86377
An addition:\n"blind-spot" mirrors in cars are convex-they increase the field of view so vehicles in the blindspot can be seen.\nFlashlights, while not having glass mirrors, have some metal fashioned in a concave manner to direct the light in a beam. The "crazy mirrors" in carnivals are examples of convex or concave mirrors to distort shapes. In a concave mirror, all incident light rays parallel to the principle axis are reflected through the mirror's focus. A formula:\n1/i + 1/O = 1/f, where f is focal length, i is image distance, and o is object distance.
36159
As mechanical engineer this is out of my normal field but felt you deserved an answer of some sort.\n\n"Because of diffraction effects caused by slits or apertures in optical measurement systems, the radiation energy which is directed towards a particular region on a sample will be spread over a larger area than desirable. By employing an apodizing filter in the radiation path in such system, diffraction tails of the system will be reduced. The apodizing filter preferably has a pattern of alternating high transmittance areas and substantially opaque areas where the locally averaged transmittance function is an apodizing function. In the preferred embodiment, the locally averaged transmittance function varies smoothly and monotonically from the periphery to the center of the filter"\n\nI see the theory here, also found on on using an apodizing mirror to stabalise images in a telescope\n\n"I built and used an apodizing screen for my 6" f/8 scope many years \nago. I made it by layering several layers of window screen, each one \nwith a circular cutout of different diameter. The result was an aperture \nmask with a step-wise approximation to a smooth apodizing function. It \nwas claimed to improve contrast for planetary viewing. Anyway, my \nexperience was that it seemed to make the image more stable but if it \nimproved contrast, I couldn't see it. If you do this on-axis, the \ndownside is that your diagonal mirror will now become more of a factor \nin the contrast equation. The bottom line is I wouldn't recommend it."\n\nAlso "An excellent reference for all sorts of technical techniques is\n>"Procedures in Experimental Physics" (also printed under the title\n>"Physical Laboratory Practice") by John Strong.  I don't recall the\n>publisher, but it came out in the 30's.  The bad news it that it's been\n>out of print for decades (and some SOB stole the copy I got from my\n>father!); the good news is that an outfit called Lindsay is reprinting it\n>in paperback.  (Don't have their name/address here in the office; I'll try\n>to remember to look it up tonight.)\n>\n>                            Dr. Kurt Hillig\n\nEvery ATM should have a copy of this great book. Lots of stuff on\nmirror making, figuring, special laps,making flats, prism ,etc.\nThere is nice modifed Draper machine ( upper disk also powered)\nand a homemade diamond cutting wheel to cut small glass blocks.\n( I would like to build this one someday ) A great section on\nkinematical mechanical construction. Yeah this a mid 30,s book but the \ninfo\nstill can be used. No I don't work for Lindsay Publications,<G>\n\nBob Pfaff\n\n\n This book, in paperback form, can be ordered from\n      http://www.amazon.com, on the Web. It can also be ordered\n      through your local bookstore. Amazon prices it at $23.95, and\n      provides the following information:\n\n      Published by Lindsey Publications\n      Publication date: June 1986\n      ISBN: 0917914562"\n\nSorry couldn't find any really decent expplanations, but at least you've got a starting point.
168848
practuce in frony of a mirror
52768
B.  A convex mirror will make light diverge, and no mirror will *alwats* give a inverted image, because it depends whether you're closer than the focal point for a concave lens.\n\nThink about those little round mirrors on buses and huge trucks, and how small the image is.  Those mirrors are convex.
725982
I suspect there is an open-source product that would be free and pretty competitive to CAD.  Give http://www.sourceforge.net a try to see if such a product exists.\n\nEdit:  found this http://sourceforge.net/projects/brlcad/
340531
I recommend using POV-Ray to practice with, as it is easy to learn and of commercial quality, but is provided free. Since the rendering is done independently of the design work, your computer's power will not interfere with design progress.\nMany accessory programs are available that read/write pov format files, including modellers and animation programs.
360723
Use a prism like Newton did.
557771
Draw a straight line.\nDraw a good cuve (mirror), using a compass or a protractor(for later mark a point as centre and place the protractor on this point coinciding with the axis.)\nThe curve should be of equal length on each side of principle axis.\nNow mark the pole, radius and focal point (twice the radius).\nIn case u use protractor, take focal lenght as twice the distance between the marked pont and pole.\n\nRemember how the rays reflect/refract, and accordingly draw two incident and two reflected/refracted rays.\nGive the standard sign convention...I hope plane mirror and prism are easier.
368951
Same phenomenon happens when you look through a convex lens or at your reflection in a spoon. Something to do with the movement of light. It bends and shows stuff the other way around. Sorry, it's not my expertise. But that's basically how it happens.
944867
You could duplicate the layer/objects and go to Objects > Transform > Reflect. Also, you could make an opacity mask overlay by making a black-to-white square and selecting both it and your object you want to mirror and in the transparency dialog click "Make Opacity Mask". With text you may need to use the "Make Outlines" feature at the bottom of the Objects list. I forget exactly where that is.\n\nI can help you specifically if you want (contact me through Yahoo Answers).
699549
See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_printing\n\nTh
149736
A conver mirror is diverging in nature.Ligh rays incident at its extreme corners gets diverged following laws of reflection.Hence if we draw the diagram we can clearly understand that the reflected rays follow a wider path.While in case of a plane mirror the divergence is not so large.The credit to this can be given to the cuvature in convex mirror
793532
Good question!  However, 1-way mirrors are not really 1-way: they let as much light out as they do in!  They depend on the fact that the "invisible" side is less well illuminated than the "visible" side.
67116
Its made that way as an anti-glare feature.\n\nThere's a full mirror behind a partial mirror.  The two mirrors are a few degrees apart either can be used.  The dimmer one is for night driving to cut glare from headlights.
459285
Photos capture an image of light.  And mirrors essentially reflect photons. We know that photons, particles of light, have wave/particle properties and when they are reflected off of an object, they are affected by the surface of the object of mirror. Look at your self on both side of a spoon.  The concave part, the one that is curved in, should have an upside down version of you, and on the otherside, convex, you will have an elongated version of yourself.  \nIf you look at the queston from a quantum phsyics perspective.  Every time you look in the mirror, you will see a different you. This is because you are actually seeing different light reflecting off a different surface.  \nI really dont know much about cameras, but thank God for photo shop.  Mirrors are a bad invention in my opinion.  People get caught up in having to maintain an external image that the rest of the world sees, when in reality the image of ourselves that we should really work on is the one inside our heads.  Anyways, I hope I answered your question to some extent.
730887
I have a pair of those interesting deep-dish-shaped double-domed parabolic mirrors from Edmund Scientific, the top one sits upside-down on the bottom one, and the top one has a hole in it.  So when you put something inside it, and move away at an angle, an image of the object appears to be sitting above the top dish.  I ask people, "Hand me that little pink pig sitting on that dish".  They see it, reach for it, pick up nothing, reach for it again, and see their fingers apparently pass right through a solid object.\n\nWhat is the reality there?  My eyes tell me there's a little pink plastic pig sitting on the top of that dish.  Yet when I try to pick it up, my fingers pass right through it.  But then I distort the mirrors a little, and the pig blurs in an odd way that lets me see that he's actually a reflected image from inside the unit.  And if I understand optics sufficiently, I understand that it is possible, with certain arrangments of parabolic mirrors, to erect "real" images (versus the more common "virtual" images that we see in most mirrors and lens) of objects, and even design and build versions of my own, with the effects and capabilities fully determinable in advance.  That's reality.\n\nReality does exist.  Granted, we have a limited and distorted view of it due to the limitations of our senses, but it does exist.  For example, this desk in front of me seems like a solid object.  But in truth, my view of it is limited by the fact that my eyes are not able to resolve the electrons orbiting the nuclei that make up the desk, and that the vast majority of this desk is vacuum, therefore the fact that, when I touch this supposedly-solid desk, what's actually happening is that the electrostatic field generated by the electrons of the desk are exerting a force against the electrostatic field of the electrons orbiting the nuclei of the atoms making up my fingers.  There are no "solids" touching anything, just fields pushing against each other the way 2 magnets can push against each other.\n\nTo me it looks like reality begins immediately outside your eyes.  All is reality.  The only place it ends is inside your head, when you misinterpret what your limited senses tell you.
144364
What kind of application?