Talk:Fresnel rhomb

... of light exactly 180 degrees (pi radians) out of phase.
✅ — Gavin R Putland (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

Should this not read 90 degrees (pi/2 radians)? With 180 degrees the polarisation angle is just oriented differently. --Klaus with K 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What was done with the polarized light?
✅ — Gavin R Putland (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

Of what usefulness was the production of circularly polarized light in Fresnel's time? 76.200.153.78 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know what technological applications there were, however I believe that the theoretical usefulness was considerable, and that it led to a deeper understanding of matter. I believe that the demonstration of circular polarization was important in establishing a consensus at the time that light was a transverse wave. It was based on the realization that if light were a two-dimensional transverse wave it could explain phenomena such as Malus' law. (It appears that up until this time it was assumed that if light were a wave, it could just as well be a longitudinal wave. I believe the reasoning followed was similar to the string analogy in the transverse wave article.) I believe this rhomb must have been the first demonstration that light could be circularly polarized, as implied by this transverse wave hypothesis. Further, it led to new understanding of matter and the discovery of new phenomena, for instance, the timeline of electromagnetism and classical optics says that Fresnel "phenomenologically explains optical activity by introducing circular birefringence" in 1825.  --AJim (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the article
✅ I hope the issues below ("Extended content") have now been  ✅  by:


 * Adding a "Theory" section to the article on Fresnel equations;


 * Citing that section in the newly expanded subsections on "Derivation of evanescent wave" and "Phase shifts" in the article on Total internal reflection;


 * Citing those subsections in the now abbreviated "Theory" section of the present article; and


 * Using  instead of   inside  environments (now moved to other articles).

— Gavin R Putland (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC).

Submission on promotion to B-Class
This article was last rated soon after a major deletion broke some important internal links. I concede, however, that much material previously included in this article needed to be distributed between the articles on the Fresnel equations and Total internal reflection. That has how been done.

Accordingly I submit that the present article, of which I admit being main author, now meets (at least) the criteria for a B-Class article, as follows.

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.

The article (at the time of this submission) has 35 inline citations, some appearing in more than one place, and some citing more than one source.

All but one of the inline citations link to the numbered "References". The more frequently-cited sources are collected in the later "Bibliography" and cited Harvard-style in the "References" (or, on one unusual occasion, in the text). "Bibliography" entries are in a "date second" format. No attempt has been made to impose this pattern on historic papers, whose provenance tends to be more complicated.

It has reliable sources...

It has 22 sources, comprising 4 standard textbooks, 5 other academic books (in which category I include Whewell 1857, and Whittaker 1910), one modern refereed paper, 9 historic papers or articles (Fresnel, Brewster, Young), one historic report (Lloyd, 1834), one set of collected works (Fresnel), and one manufacturer's website (commercial, but informative).

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions...

The article does not seem to omit any major issue covered in the cited optical or electromagnetic texts, and goes beyond them in historical content.

...or inaccuracies.

The working equations are supported not only by citations but also by derivations in related articles. Effects of differing notations and sign conventions are noted. Many (not all) of the citations in the "History" section include both secondary and primary sources.

3. The article has a defined structure.

The main headings are (1) Operation, (2) Related devices, (3) Theory, (4) History. The last section is extensive and divided into subsections, because the device was invented in stages spanning a large part of the inventor's career, and because the last stage was apparently the first use of the argument of a complex number in physics.

The lead section gives the essentials of the operation and related devices, and the barest outline of the history.

4. The article is reasonably well-written.

That is the issue that other assessors can only settle by reading the article.

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.

There are three illustrations: a diagram showing the operation, a graph of the phase shifts, and a portrait of the inventor. There are no apparent copyright issues. The diagram and the graph are my own work (and the diagram is a correction of File:Fresnel rhomb.svg, which is public-domain).

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.

Although it obviously helps to be familiar with elliptical and circular polarization, the meanings of these terms could if necessary be gleaned from Fig.1. The s and p components are explained before use. The operation of the device is described in functional terms before the theory of phase shifts is outlined. Parenthetical issues are relegated to the "Notes" section.

— Gavin R Putland (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC).