Curious bicycle reflector incident

On Jul 6, 1:36*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
hibike wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:19 am, wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
http://www.niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm
Cheers,
That item is interesting in a few ways. *Unlike optical engineers,
the writer chooses to call a "cube corner" (trihedral) reflector, a
"corner cube" in a jargon that should include "shell eggs" instead
of "egg shells", or "tread tires" instead of "tire treads" as is
common in English for compound words. *This is often a flag that
something else going on than rational discussion.
If you Google the terms "corner cube" and "cube corner" you'll find
that both are used to reference retro reflectors, but "corner cube"
is the more popular term. When I did laser interferometer
application design the term used was "corner cube".
Google is smart and knows that these backassward terms are used by
enough folks that they need search targets. *It is the corner that
reflects and it is a cube corner into which light enters. *When
working in retro reflectors, I was curious about the logic of the
reversed name given to the cube corner that is a trihedral corner.

I suppose people also ride bike roads and bike mountains in that
sense.

Beyond that, the writer is apparently unaware that road signs,
Botts dot lane dividers, and spot reflectors, those 3-inch round,
red, yellow, and blue plastic reflectors in a two screw hole metal
frame use cube corners and serve well as safety devices.
Overlooked is that these cube corners do not have perfect 90°
corners so they reflect a diverging beam that does not go only back
to the light source. *If that were not so, road markings wold not
be visible in headlight beams.
Indeed, that was the "solution" to the "puzzle". *That the problem
was a "puzzle" reflects the author's unfamiliarity with optics more
than anything else.
These "gotcha" problems to me often reflect badly on the posers. *In
his explanation he says: "The query in the puzzle calls for an
explanation, which will be elementary for a sophisticated solver who
understands how a Corner Cube works". *So, the fact that he was
surprised by the failure of his retro reflector must be explained
either by his "unsophistication" at problem solving or his ignorance
of retro reflectors. *Presumably it's the latter since he seems to
regard himself a very clever fellow. *If so clever, why does he
attempt to use things without a basic understanding first? *It's
just plain vanilla ignorance on his part, which he also presumes of
his audience.
I don't see it as a puzzle as the writer apparently wanted to make it
seem. *I guess he once looked into a laser surveyor's target and saw
only his own eye regardless of how he moved his head.

Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you for recommending that I should change the expression "corner
cube" at...

*http://niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm

...to the argot of the optical engineer, "cube corner."

A Wikipedia search on "corner cube" turns up...

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_cube

...and a search on "cube corner" turns up no article by that name.
Perhaps you will offer an expert change via the discussion page,
which is currently blank.

Excuse me for wincing, but it is hardly collegial to imply "...that
something else [is] going on than rational discussion." *Try humor.
And a satirical illustration of “Perfection est l’enemie du bien.”

Perhaps the calendar plays a part in the mystery. *The self-
deprecative narrative describes events that occurred in 1972, which
possibly pre-dates the terminology as applied to both "Botts dots"
and "Scotchlite." *You are invited to do the research on that.

Easy, both products were widely available long before 1972 (although I
don't know what that has to do with anything).

Meanwhile "corner cube" is the only expression I have ever heard as
a synonym for "retro-reflector," beginning with my staff
responsibilities at Electro-Optical Systems in Pasadena during the
Apollo Program.

A brief browse should acquaint you with the uses of both terms,
shouldn't take more than 10 minutes, even for a slow reader.

Best regards,
Paul Niquette

P.S. *The "Corner Cube" puzzle has been quite popular, with most
people expressing appreciation for the graphic-intensive explanation.

Even with optical engineers?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Indeed, Botts Dots (“round nonreflective raised pavement markers”) go
way back before 1972 according to…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botts%27_dots

…however, they use white pigments not retro-reflectors that might be
expected to apply the expression “corner cube” or “cube corner.” Now,
Scotchlite, according to…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Heltzer

…was co-invented by Harry Heltzer “early on” in his career at 3M,
possibly before 1972; however, the product uses glass beads not retro-
reflectors that might be expected to apply the expression “corner
cube” or “cube corner.”

As for solvers of the “Corner Cube” puzzle, I think they are more
likely to be bicycling than optical (optics?) engineers.

Best regards,
Paul Niquette

P.S. Some solvers of “Dérailleur de Rigueur” at…

http://niquette.com/puzzles/gearsp.htm

…seem to be astonished about its solution. Hmm.

Peter Cole wrote:

Jobst Brandt wrote:

Carl Fogel wrote:

http://www.niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm

That item is interesting in a few ways. *Unlike optical engineers, the
writer chooses to call a "cube corner" (trihedral) reflector, a
"corner cube" in a jargon that should include "shell eggs" instead of
"egg shells", or "tread tires" instead of "tire treads" as is common
in English for compound words. *This is often a flag that something
else going on than rational discussion.

If you Google the terms "corner cube" and "cube corner" you'll find that
both are used to reference retroreflectors, but "corner cube" is the
more popular term. When I did laser interferometer application design
the term used was "corner cube".

I have known about these devices for decades, but I have only ever
heard the term "corner cube" applied to them.

Since they are often seen in arrays of many adjoining elements,
perhaps we can tailor the terminology more particularly for Mr. Brandt
by calling them "corner cubesets".

Chalo

On Jul 6, 3:38*pm, wrote:
Paul Niquette wrote:

*http://www.niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm

Cheers,

O think going into standard English, more readily finds a rational
form for such a device.

That item is interesting in a few ways. *Unlike optical
engineers, the writer chooses to call a "cube corner" (trihedral)
reflector, a "corner cube" in a jargon that should include "shell
eggs" instead of "egg shells", or "tread tires" instead of "tire
treads" as is common in English for compound words. *This is
often a flag that something else going on than rational
discussion.
If you Google the terms "corner cube" and "cube corner" you'll
find that both are used to reference retro reflectors, but "corner
cube" is the more popular term. When I did laser interferometer
application design the term used was "corner cube".

Google didn't exist when "cube corner" was standard for the device,
also known as a trihedral reflector that is a sliced off cube corner.





Google is smart and knows that these backassward terms are used by
enough folks that they need search targets. *It is the corner that
reflects and it is a cube corner into which light enters. *When
working in retro reflectors, I was curious about the logic of the
reversed name given to the cube corner that is a trihedral corner.
I suppose people also ride bike roads and bike mountains in that
sense rather than road bikes and mountain bikes.
Beyond that, the writer is apparently unaware that road signs,
Botts dot lane dividers, and spot reflectors, those 3-inch round,
red, yellow, and blue plastic reflectors in a two screw hole
metal frame use cube corners and serve well as safety devices.
Overlooked is that these cube corners do not have perfect 90°
corners so they reflect a diverging beam that does not go solely
back to the light source. *If that were not so, road markings
wold not be visible in headlight beams.
Indeed, that was the "solution" to the "puzzle". *That the problem
was a "puzzle" reflects the author's unfamiliarity with optics
more than anything else.
These "gotcha" problems to me often reflect badly on the posers. *In
his explanation he says: "The query in the puzzle calls for an
explanation, which will be elementary for a sophisticated solver who
understands how a Corner Cube works". *So, the fact that he was
surprised by the failure of his retro reflector must be explained
either by his "unsophistication" at problem solving or his ignorance
of retro reflectors. *Presumably it's the latter since he seems to
regard himself a very clever fellow. *If so clever, why does he
attempt to use things without a basic understanding first? *It's
just plain vanilla ignorance on his part, which he also presumes of
his audience.
I don't see it as a puzzle as the writer apparently wanted to make
it seem. *I guess he once looked into a laser surveyor's target and
saw only his own eye regardless of how he moved his head.
Thank you for recommending that I should change the expression
"corner cube" at...

I don't recall recommending that you should change wording, only that
you should be aware of what these devices are called and why.

*http://niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm

...to the argot of the optical engineer, "cube corner."

I think that is also defined by jargon, one of whose definitions is:

"obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and
long words"

A Wikipedia search on "corner cube" turns up...

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_cube

Wiki appears to dodge the issue by calling it a corner reflector and
showing how it is a cut from a cube corner.

...and a search on "cube corner" turns up no article by that name.
Perhaps you will offer an expert change via the discussion page,
which is currently blank.

As I said, it seemed to be jargon conspicuously used by people who
did not understand what a retro reflector has in common with a cube, it
being primarily a three sides figure. *That the device is derived from
a cube corner was not apparent.

Excuse me for wincing, but it is hardly collegial to imply "...that
something else [is] going on than rational discussion." *Try humor.
And a satirical illustration of “Perfection est l’enemie du bien.”

I think I explained what else is going on and how I was first
introduced to the words in reverse order. *It was not from an optical
engineer.

Perhaps the calendar plays a part in the mystery. *The self-
deprecative narrative describes events that occurred in 1972, which
possibly pre-dates the terminology as applied to both "Botts dots"
and "Scotchlite." *You are invited to do the research on that.

Why are you giving out homework assignments?

Meanwhile "corner cube" is the only expression I have ever heard as
a synonym for "retro-reflector," beginning with my staff
responsibilities at Electro-Optical Systems in Pasadena during the
Apollo Program.

I suppose explaining why it is a "cube corner" is

Best regards,
Paul Niquette
P.S. *The "Corner Cube" puzzle has been quite popular, with most
people expressing appreciation for the graphic-intensive explanation.

I see no puzzle other than what motivates users of the term.

Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sometimes a noun serves as an adjective modifying a following noun,
for which "egg shell" is a case in point. The reverse, "shell egg,"
is a case in the same point, since "shell egg" is term of distinction
(from "frozen egg") in commodities trading. Likewise, "cow milk" and
"milk cow" are a useful pair, although "goat milk" and "milk goat"
might be more significant since there is such a creature as a "billy
goat" but not a "bully cow."

What bothers me lately is the jargonesque chaining of n nouns, with
n-1 serving as adjectives. It seems whatever the chain's length, one
can always tack on the word "solutions" at the end ("license fee value
discount comparison evaluation solutions").

Seems to me adjectives are not always comfortable serving in the role
of a noun modifying a noun, for example "optical engineer" might
better be less illusionally designated "optics engineer," but then
wouldn't "mecahnics engineer" be less robotic than a "mechanical
engineer"?

Best regards,
Paul Niquette

In article
,
hibike wrote:

On Jul 6, 1:36Â*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
hibike wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:19 am, wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
http://www.niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm
Cheers,
That item is interesting in a few ways. Â*Unlike optical engineers,
the writer chooses to call a "cube corner" (trihedral) reflector, a
"corner cube" in a jargon that should include "shell eggs" instead
of "egg shells", or "tread tires" instead of "tire treads" as is
common in English for compound words. Â*This is often a flag that
something else going on than rational discussion.
If you Google the terms "corner cube" and "cube corner" you'll find
that both are used to reference retro reflectors, but "corner cube"
is the more popular term. When I did laser interferometer
application design the term used was "corner cube".
Google is smart and knows that these backassward terms are used by
enough folks that they need search targets. Â*It is the corner that
reflects and it is a cube corner into which light enters. Â*When
working in retro reflectors, I was curious about the logic of the
reversed name given to the cube corner that is a trihedral corner.

I suppose people also ride bike roads and bike mountains in that
sense.

Beyond that, the writer is apparently unaware that road signs,
Botts dot lane dividers, and spot reflectors, those 3-inch round,
red, yellow, and blue plastic reflectors in a two screw hole metal
frame use cube corners and serve well as safety devices.
Overlooked is that these cube corners do not have perfect 90°
corners so they reflect a diverging beam that does not go only back
to the light source. Â*If that were not so, road markings wold not
be visible in headlight beams.
Indeed, that was the "solution" to the "puzzle". Â*That the problem
was a "puzzle" reflects the author's unfamiliarity with optics more
than anything else.
These "gotcha" problems to me often reflect badly on the posers. Â*In
his explanation he says: "The query in the puzzle calls for an
explanation, which will be elementary for a sophisticated solver who
understands how a Corner Cube works". Â*So, the fact that he was
surprised by the failure of his retro reflector must be explained
either by his "unsophistication" at problem solving or his ignorance
of retro reflectors. Â*Presumably it's the latter since he seems to
regard himself a very clever fellow. Â*If so clever, why does he
attempt to use things without a basic understanding first? Â*It's
just plain vanilla ignorance on his part, which he also presumes of
his audience.
I don't see it as a puzzle as the writer apparently wanted to make it
seem. Â*I guess he once looked into a laser surveyor's target and saw
only his own eye regardless of how he moved his head.

Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you for recommending that I should change the expression "corner
cube" at...

Â*http://niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm

...to the argot of the optical engineer, "cube corner."

A Wikipedia search on "corner cube" turns up...

Â*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_cube

...and a search on "cube corner" turns up no article by that name.
Perhaps you will offer an expert change via the discussion page,
which is currently blank.

Excuse me for wincing, but it is hardly collegial to imply "...that
something else [is] going on than rational discussion." Â*Try humor.
And a satirical illustration of “Perfection est l’enemie du bien.�

Perhaps the calendar plays a part in the mystery. Â*The self-
deprecative narrative describes events that occurred in 1972, which
possibly pre-dates the terminology as applied to both "Botts dots"
and "Scotchlite." Â*You are invited to do the research on that.

Easy, both products were widely available long before 1972 (although I
don't know what that has to do with anything).

Meanwhile "corner cube" is the only expression I have ever heard as
a synonym for "retro-reflector," beginning with my staff
responsibilities at Electro-Optical Systems in Pasadena during the
Apollo Program.

A brief browse should acquaint you with the uses of both terms,
shouldn't take more than 10 minutes, even for a slow reader.

Best regards,
Paul Niquette

P.S. Â*The "Corner Cube" puzzle has been quite popular, with most
people expressing appreciation for the graphic-intensive explanation.

Even with optical engineers?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Indeed, Botts Dots (“round nonreflective raised pavement markers�) go
way back before 1972 according to…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botts%27_dots

…however, they use white pigments not retro-reflectors that might be
expected to apply the expression “corner cube� or “cube corner.� Now,
Scotchlite, according to…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Heltzer

…was co-invented by Harry Heltzer “early on� in his career at 3M,
possibly before 1972; however, the product uses glass beads not retro-
reflectors that might be expected to apply the expression “corner
cube� or “cube corner.�

As for solvers of the “Corner Cube� puzzle, I think they are more
likely to be bicycling than optical (optics?) engineers.

Best regards,
Paul Niquette

P.S. Some solvers of “Dérailleur de Rigueur� at…

http://niquette.com/puzzles/gearsp.htm

…seem to be astonished about its solution. Hmm.

No such reflector is perfect, therefore it reflects
some light off the incident axis. It is imperfect
because it is not built perfectly.

--
Michael Press

On Jul 7, 12:24*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,





*hibike wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:36*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
hibike wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:19 am, wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
http://www.niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm
Cheers,
That item is interesting in a few ways. *Unlike optical engineers,
the writer chooses to call a "cube corner" (trihedral) reflector, a
"corner cube" in a jargon that should include "shell eggs" instead
of "egg shells", or "tread tires" instead of "tire treads" as is
common in English for compound words. *This is often a flag that
something else going on than rational discussion.
If you Google the terms "corner cube" and "cube corner" you'll find
that both are used to reference retro reflectors, but "corner cube"
is the more popular term. When I did laser interferometer
application design the term used was "corner cube".
Google is smart and knows that these backassward terms are used by
enough folks that they need search targets. *It is the corner that
reflects and it is a cube corner into which light enters. *When
working in retro reflectors, I was curious about the logic of the
reversed name given to the cube corner that is a trihedral corner.

I suppose people also ride bike roads and bike mountains in that
sense.

Beyond that, the writer is apparently unaware that road signs,
Botts dot lane dividers, and spot reflectors, those 3-inch round,
red, yellow, and blue plastic reflectors in a two screw hole metal
frame use cube corners and serve well as safety devices.
Overlooked is that these cube corners do not have perfect 90°
corners so they reflect a diverging beam that does not go only back
to the light source. *If that were not so, road markings wold not
be visible in headlight beams.
Indeed, that was the "solution" to the "puzzle". *That the problem
was a "puzzle" reflects the author's unfamiliarity with optics more
than anything else.
These "gotcha" problems to me often reflect badly on the posers. *In
his explanation he says: "The query in the puzzle calls for an
explanation, which will be elementary for a sophisticated solver who
understands how a Corner Cube works". *So, the fact that he was
surprised by the failure of his retro reflector must be explained
either by his "unsophistication" at problem solving or his ignorance
of retro reflectors. *Presumably it's the latter since he seems to
regard himself a very clever fellow. *If so clever, why does he
attempt to use things without a basic understanding first? *It's
just plain vanilla ignorance on his part, which he also presumes of
his audience.
I don't see it as a puzzle as the writer apparently wanted to make it
seem. *I guess he once looked into a laser surveyor's target and saw
only his own eye regardless of how he moved his head.

Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you for recommending that I should change the expression "corner
cube" at...

*http://niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm

...to the argot of the optical engineer, "cube corner."

A Wikipedia search on "corner cube" turns up...

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_cube

...and a search on "cube corner" turns up no article by that name.
Perhaps you will offer an expert change via the discussion page,
which is currently blank.

Excuse me for wincing, but it is hardly collegial to imply "...that
something else [is] going on than rational discussion." *Try humor.

On Jul 7, 10:57*am, wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:

*http://www.niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm





That item is interesting in a few ways. **Unlike optical
engineers, the writer chooses to call a "cube corner"
(trihedral) reflector, a "corner cube" in a jargon that
should include "shell eggs" instead of "egg shells", or
"tread tires" instead of "tire treads" as is common in
English for compound words. **This is often a flag that
something else going on than rational discussion.
If you Google the terms "corner cube" and "cube corner" you'll
find that both are used to reference retro reflectors, but
"corner cube" is the more popular term. *When I did laser
interferometer application design the term used was "corner
cube".
Google is smart and knows that these backassward terms are used
by enough folks that they need search targets. *It is the
corner that reflects and it is a cube corner into which light
enters. *When working in retro reflectors, I was curious about
the logic of the reversed name given to the cube corner that is
a trihedral corner.
I suppose people also ride bike roads and bike mountains in
that sense.
Beyond that, the writer is apparently unaware that road
signs, Botts dot lane dividers, and spot reflectors, those
3-inch round, red, yellow, and blue plastic reflectors in a
two screw hole metal frame use cube corners and serve well as
safety devices. *Overlooked is that these cube corners do not
have perfect 90° corners so they reflect a diverging beam
that does not go only back to the light source. *If that were
not so, road markings wold not be visible in headlight beams.
Indeed, that was the "solution" to the "puzzle". *That the
problem was a "puzzle" reflects the author's unfamiliarity
with optics more than anything else.
These "gotcha" problems to me often reflect badly on the
posers. *In his explanation he says: "The query in the puzzle
calls for an explanation, which will be elementary for a
sophisticated solver who understands how a Corner Cube works".
*So, the fact that he was surprised by the failure of his
retro reflector must be explained either by his
"unsophistication" at problem solving or his ignorance of
retro reflectors. *Presumably it's the latter since he seems
to regard himself a very clever fellow. *If so clever, why
does he attempt to use things without a basic understanding
first? *It's just plain vanilla ignorance on his part, which
he also presumes of his audience.
I don't see it as a puzzle as the writer apparently wanted to
make it seem. *I guess he once looked into a laser surveyor's
target and saw only his own eye regardless of how he moved his
head.
Thank you for recommending that I should change the expression
"corner cube" at...

*http://niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm

...to the argot of the optical engineer, "cube corner."
A Wikipedia search on "corner cube" turns up...

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_cube





...and a search on "cube corner" turns up no article by that name.
Perhaps you will offer an expert change via the discussion page,
which is currently blank.
Excuse me for wincing, but it is hardly collegial to imply "...that
something else [is] going on than rational discussion." *Try humor.

In article
,
hibike wrote:

Has anybody in this group of erudite correspondents mentioned how a
"perfect" corner-cube overcomes the inverse square law for
reflection? Achieving the same for illumination would make a nifty
puzzle for those among us who like to "worry about inventing or. . .
hypothesizing" from time to time. Such a puzzle could use a 'gotcha',
though, as in. . .

http://niquette.com/puzzles/surgeonp.htm

. . .which, of course, will afford pleasure to good natured solvers
and draw resentment from others.

What was the question again?

--
Michael Press

On Jul 7, 5:39*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,

*hibike wrote:
Has anybody in this group of erudite correspondents mentioned how a
"perfect" corner-cube overcomes the inverse square law for
reflection? *Achieving the same for illumination would make a nifty
puzzle for those among us who like to "worry about inventing or. . .
hypothesizing" from time to time. *Such a puzzle could use a 'gotcha',
though, as in. . .

http://niquette.com/puzzles/surgeonp.htm

. . .which, of course, will afford pleasure to good natured solvers
and draw resentment from others.

What was the question again?

--
Michael Press

The question was invitation for a puzzle that deals with the unitended
consequences of an illuminator capable of surmounting the cube-square
law (a laser, surely) and was merely a friendly tweak of Jobst Brandt
for his most recent screed (07/07/09) concerning my "Corner-Cube"
puzzle. The rest of the entry is a delayed response to an anti-gotcha
sentiment expressed by Peter Cole (06/15/09). I shall reposition it
in the stack appropriately. Happy now?

Best regards,
Paul Niquette

On Jun 15, 7:33*am, Peter Cole wrote:
wrote:
Carl Fogel wrote:

http://www.niquette.com/puzzles/cornrefp.htm

Cheers,

That item is interesting in a few ways. *Unlike optical engineers, the
writer chooses to call a "cube corner" (trihedral) reflector, a
"corner cube" in a jargon that should include "shell eggs" instead of
"egg shells", or "tread tires" instead of "tire treads" as is common
in English for compound words. *This is often a flag that something
else going on than rational discussion.

If you Google the terms "corner cube" and "cube corner" you'll find that
both are used to reference retroreflectors, but "corner cube" is the
more popular term. When I did laser interferometer application design
the term used was "corner cube".

Beyond that, the writer is apparently unaware that road signs, Botts
dot lane dividers, and spot reflectors, those 3-inch round, red,
yellow, and blue plastic reflectors in a two screw hole metal frame
use cube corners and serve well as safety devices. *Overlooked is that
these cube corners do not have perfect 90° corners so they reflect a
diverging beam that does not go only back to the light source. *If
that were not so, road markings wold not be visible in headlight
beams.

Indeed, that was the "solution" to the "puzzle". That the problem was a
"puzzle" reflects the author's unfamiliarity with optics more than
anything else.

These "gotcha" problems to me often reflect badly on the posers. In his
explanation he says: "The query in the puzzle calls for an explanation,
which will be elementary for a sophisticated solver who understands how
a Corner Cube works". So, the fact that he was surprised by the failure
of his retroreflector must be explained either by his "unsophistication"
at problem solving or his ignorance of retroreflectors. Presumably it's
the latter since he seems to regard himself a very clever fellow. If so
clever, why does he attempt to use things without a basic understanding
first? It's just plain vanilla ignorance on his part, which he also
presumes of his audience.

Excuse me for parsing your antipathy for "gotcha" problems, in which
you say that a "puzzle" reflects the author's unfamiliarity with [the
subject] more than anything else. Maybe you are making an ironic
joke. If so, I shall be pleased to laugh alongside you. Your
assumption seems to be that the poser does his or her posing out of
ignorance and without knowing what the gotcha is going to be. Here is
a counter example entitled "Surgical Precision"...

http://niquette.com/puzzles/surgeonp.htm

.. . .which, of course, affords pleasure to good natured solvers and
draws resentment from others, the latter illustrated by "Riddle? -- or
Hoax?"...

http://niquette.com/puzzles/angryp.htm

Every word of the 1972 narrative in the "Corner Cube" puzzle is true,
but the narrative in the solution was tinctured with a bit of self-
deprecative fiction. Gotcha.

Best regards,
Paul Niquette

hibike wrote:
On Jul 7, 5:39 pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,

hibike wrote:
Has anybody in this group of erudite correspondents mentioned how a
"perfect" corner-cube overcomes the inverse square law for
reflection? Achieving the same for illumination would make a nifty
puzzle for those among us who like to "worry about inventing or. . .
hypothesizing" from time to time. Such a puzzle could use a
'gotcha', though, as in. . .

http://niquette.com/puzzles/surgeonp.htm

. . .which, of course, will afford pleasure to good natured solvers
and draw resentment from others.

What was the question again?

--
Michael Press

The question was invitation for a puzzle that deals with the unitended
consequences of an illuminator capable of surmounting the cube-square
law (a laser, surely) and was merely a friendly tweak of Jobst Brandt
for his most recent screed (07/07/09) concerning my "Corner-Cube"
puzzle. The rest of the entry is a delayed response to an anti-gotcha
sentiment expressed by Peter Cole (06/15/09). I shall reposition it
in the stack appropriately. Happy now?

Best regards,
Paul Niquette

Press is never happy. HTH