Abstract
Comments on two related papers by Gupta et al. (ibid., vol.AP-35, no.5, p.553-631, May 1987 and ibid., vol.AP-35, no.12, p.1426-35, Dec. 1987) are made. The commentor states that the usual reason for preferring physical optics (PO) over geometrical optics (GO) in application to curved surfaces is to avoid a numerical search for a specular point. The evaluation of the end-point contributions, however, also requires a numerical search, this time for the shadow boundaries. It would therefore be inconsistent to try to remove the above contributions if the PO procedure is used. Thus the entire discussion of the redundant end point contributions seems to be equally redundant. The authors address the comments and defend their work.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.