Not an average software engineer--beautiful page (imperfect spelling)!
Why does detection scale as the 4th root of the RCS? Nice problem for the radiation theory part of a graduate electrodynamics class.
It shouldn't, under the assumptions they are opening up with. Inverse square law twice is appropriate for an approximation that the reflection is entirely diffuse because you assume that the diffuse reflection is uniform in all directions away from the illuminated surface. A single inverse square law is appropriate (with both distances added to each other before squaring) under the approximation that the reflection is specular.
> Why does detection scale as the 4th root of the RCS?
Because the power returned to the antenna scales as the -4th power of the distance to the target, and detection depends on that power being greater than some threshold. If the fourth power (rather than the square) is surprising, think of the reflection as re-transmitting the power that arrived at the target. The incident power on the target goes as RCS/r^2, and the power that makes it back to the original antenna gets another factor of 1/r^2, so the return scales as RCS/r^4.
Thanks. I needed that reminder to sometimes NOT just solve a matrix of 3000 * 3000 equations and merely make an assumption and take an integral, metaphorically.
>where RR is the distance from the target (imagine the radar being very far away) en.wikipedia.org . This formula might look intimidating, so let's break it down:
You didn't even read your own slop. Why should anybody else?
Because the power returned to the antenna scales as the -4th power of the distance to the target, and detection depends on that power being greater than some threshold. If the fourth power (rather than the square) is surprising, think of the reflection as re-transmitting the power that arrived at the target. The incident power on the target goes as RCS/r^2, and the power that makes it back to the original antenna gets another factor of 1/r^2, so the return scales as RCS/r^4.
Also, I feel it's not who the generator is that should concern you--it's the quality of the text.
I would much rather read something that is clear, concise, and consistent regardless of the source.
As opposed to this, vibe coded slop which neither explains the stuff that's already there, nor is pedagogical. Why use AI for this?
You didn't even read your own slop. Why should anybody else?