Dear Alison,
On 7/25/14, 8:15 AM, "alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk"
<alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>It sounds as though it is not appropriate to say "Scattering of radiation
>is its deflection from its incident path without loss of energy", as in
>the existing definition for
>surface_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radar_wave, since John N says
>this is factually incorrect. I'm not sure of the origin of the sentence,
>but suspect that it may have crept into the definition of scattering
>standard names to differentiate from absorption/attenuation/quantities.
>However, if it is just plain wrong then perhaps we should change it to
>read simpy "scattering of radiation is its deflection from its incident
>path" in the definitions of all scattering names. Do others agree?
I support this change. Lossless scattering is certainly not something that
can be assumed as default.
>?? Backwards scattering refers to the sum of scattering into all backward
>angles i.e. scattering_angle exceeding pi/2 radians. ?"
This is not correct. In this case only the signal scattered right back
toward the instrument is measured. This is the situation where the
scattering angle is 180 degrees.
I am not sure that incident angles can always be a single value. That
depends on the scatterometer, I think. Also, another angle is needed to
specify the position of the instrument to the scattering surface and the
standard name to use for those values is platform_azimuth_angle.
-Aleksandar
Received on Fri Jul 25 2014 - 08:23:15 BST
