Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site arizona.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!utah-cs!arizona!wendt
From: wendt@arizona.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Trapezoidal holes & the 2nd Law
Message-ID: <4440@arizona.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Aug-83 23:25:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: arizona.4440
Posted: Wed Aug 31 23:25:31 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Sep-83 20:49:38 EDT
Organization: CS Dept, U of Arizona, Tucson
Lines: 10

Wait a minute.  It's not sufficient to say that the (distribution of the)
angle of reflection is not a function of the angle of incidence.
If, for example, the angle of reflection were constant 90%, it's pretty
clear from the diagram that conditions wouldn't have changed much,
in fact would probably have gotten somewhat worse.
For random reflection the situation is murkier, but it's at least
plausible that, since the random distribution would have to be centered
around 90%, it would behave similarly.
Time to run more simulations.