Anyone use full polarizers rather than circular?

[Plato]

"They only select a portion of the light to allow though UNALTERED and block the rest."

And that action is known as "polarizing the light."

... though it is poor grammar to do so and implies that some action has been taken to alter the light. In order to truly understand the workings of a linear polarizer and a circular polarizer (both the real thing and the combination photographic accessory) you need understand that a "polarizer" produces the photographic effect by being selective (e.g. passing a lower percentage of the light from the sky, where there is a disproportional amount with a particular orientation, that it passes from the diffuse reflective surfaces in the picture, where the light has a very uniform amount of every orientation).

One could make the point that the light IS altered by virtue of the fact that some rays are blocked. You certainly can use whatever semantics you choose but it's probably better if you choose semantics that others can understand.

 

[Garbz]

But can you argue that when you shine a light in one side of a linear polariser say for arguments sake oriented vertically at 0 degrees, and the linear polariser at 45 degrees; Can you argue that the light measured on the output is not at 45 degrees, and thus altered (changed or moved from one state to another according to the dictionary)?

I find it really hard to follow your argument. Yes not all the light makes it through, and yes by definition all light is polarised in some way, and true the use of the word "polariser" probably isn't the best choice given that all light is polarised, however on the topic of alteration this isn't semantics, this is simply:

light in != light out.

Thus something altered it in between. The light out regardless of the state of the light in has a polarisation angle determined exclusively by the angle of the polariser. Whether this is selecting the angle or not is completely irrelevant as in the end the polariser is still the exclusive cause of the measurable change in light.

Or to think of it another way. You have $100 in your wallet. Me the scummy friend decides to take $10 of it to buy a beer, have I not "altered" the contents of your wallet?

 

[Plato]

But can you argue that when you shine a light in one side of a linear polariser say for arguments sake oriented vertically at 0 degrees, and the linear polariser at 45 degrees; Can you argue that the light measured on the output is not at 45 degrees, and thus altered (changed or moved from one state to another according to the dictionary)?

I find it really hard to follow your argument. Yes not all the light makes it through, and yes by definition all light is polarised in some way, and true the use of the word "polariser" probably isn't the best choice given that all light is polarised, however on the topic of alteration this isn't semantics, this is simply:

light in != light out.

Thus something altered it in between. The light out regardless of the state of the light in has a polarisation angle determined exclusively by the angle of the polariser. Whether this is selecting the angle or not is completely irrelevant as in the end the polariser is still the exclusive cause of the measurable change in light.

Or to think of it another way. You have $100 in your wallet. Me the scummy friend decides to take $10 of it to buy a beer, have I not "altered" the contents of your wallet?

:thumbup: