Who would have guessed an imaging technology involved X-rays? 😳 Gee, I wonder if the X-Ray telescope “sees” X-Ray photons? Side note, even lower energy visible light photons can travel through solid materials. In fact that’s how CDs work. Speaking of quantum mechanics. 🤗
Has to be said
Hi,
i been reading most sites and the little arguments about this and that about making audio in this case be more pleasent ot better to any individual. and have to say upfront that if "you" believe its better to you than it is in fact true to you and you only. we are just reletive respondants to each other and therefore nature and the universe.
many of the subjects that come up as to improving ones audio system tend to go into little details that may or may not have "real" affects on most of us. and also be provable with phsics,math,medical studies etc.many musicians and many humans can distinguish alot of these aspects. and they are ALL quantifiable and measureable very easilly. from 1800 till today FFT and resonance,sound perfiliration has been well adjustable from the totally acoustic pipe organs to the music halls 100s of years ago with out electronic fixes, and all these new snake oil gagets on the market. many are always big commenters here on this site.
Its totally true you can "fix" and sound wave with free rocks,walls,chambers, etc. so go for it at a cost of zero dollars. and adbandon all these marketing hacks.
Ive been well into sound,RF,Radioation, Electron manulipation, Audio,phsics etc all my life and all my relatives aslso . I dont need to justify my opinions yet am dignified by holding 8 international patents,2 doctrets and my dad with similar fields.
one crazy obvious thing no one even bothers to mention is the way off standard of 440hz shifted 8hz the earths standard resonance. while all the 1000s of years 432hz was based on real natural happenings before electronics. dont you all care everything you listen to is 8hz off tune and therefore wrong, but you will bicker about a few microvolts noise from an ocslittating wire with parallell wire hanging off a standoff. itf too funny to me.
yes all digital except one source tunes their DAC math to 435hz to be more correct to Verdi and other great composers.
ive got tuning forks over the audio and above spectrum and tune my panios violins etc to them 432 hz
and need to say again. yes please do everything Analoge
to correct your sound system, its been done in churches,music halls,the great pyrmids, with instruments themselves.
but do not chase the rabbit down the money hole to fix apparent physhoacoustics in your listening area.
ps the spelling and writing is horrid cause ive got a brain injury2 years ago and under go EEG,ehthesographs and neuro studies constantly. where various frequency sweeps are put thru me and studied by the medical and commercial fields.
Im off for now to play my bass thru 50000watts total. and resonate the neighborhood at 8.2 HZ....
i been reading most sites and the little arguments about this and that about making audio in this case be more pleasent ot better to any individual. and have to say upfront that if "you" believe its better to you than it is in fact true to you and you only. we are just reletive respondants to each other and therefore nature and the universe.
many of the subjects that come up as to improving ones audio system tend to go into little details that may or may not have "real" affects on most of us. and also be provable with phsics,math,medical studies etc.many musicians and many humans can distinguish alot of these aspects. and they are ALL quantifiable and measureable very easilly. from 1800 till today FFT and resonance,sound perfiliration has been well adjustable from the totally acoustic pipe organs to the music halls 100s of years ago with out electronic fixes, and all these new snake oil gagets on the market. many are always big commenters here on this site.
Its totally true you can "fix" and sound wave with free rocks,walls,chambers, etc. so go for it at a cost of zero dollars. and adbandon all these marketing hacks.
Ive been well into sound,RF,Radioation, Electron manulipation, Audio,phsics etc all my life and all my relatives aslso . I dont need to justify my opinions yet am dignified by holding 8 international patents,2 doctrets and my dad with similar fields.
one crazy obvious thing no one even bothers to mention is the way off standard of 440hz shifted 8hz the earths standard resonance. while all the 1000s of years 432hz was based on real natural happenings before electronics. dont you all care everything you listen to is 8hz off tune and therefore wrong, but you will bicker about a few microvolts noise from an ocslittating wire with parallell wire hanging off a standoff. itf too funny to me.
yes all digital except one source tunes their DAC math to 435hz to be more correct to Verdi and other great composers.
ive got tuning forks over the audio and above spectrum and tune my panios violins etc to them 432 hz
and need to say again. yes please do everything Analoge
to correct your sound system, its been done in churches,music halls,the great pyrmids, with instruments themselves.
but do not chase the rabbit down the money hole to fix apparent physhoacoustics in your listening area.
ps the spelling and writing is horrid cause ive got a brain injury2 years ago and under go EEG,ehthesographs and neuro studies constantly. where various frequency sweeps are put thru me and studied by the medical and commercial fields.
Im off for now to play my bass thru 50000watts total. and resonate the neighborhood at 8.2 HZ....
232 responses Add your response
Miller and GK arguing about physics ... I have to give the win on this one almost completely to GK, even his use of glass was suitable as this was how x-rays were discovered. Miller, You are correct bremsstrahlung is the predominant mechanism, but what you describe below is not bremsstrahlung but characteristic x-rays. Bremsstrahlung would be caused by the accelerated electrons bouncing off predominantly nuclei (and electrons) and rapidly decelerating and releasing broad-spectrum x-rays related to their accelerated energy, ie 100kev. That is why you can "tune" an x-ray to any potential you want, and get a broad spectrum of x-rays that corresponds to that energy potential. A mark of 8/10 goes to GK. 1 mark off for not stating that collisions with electrons can also release "breaking" radiation, and 1 mark off for putting this as the 2nd mechanism as opposed to the 1st or primary. Sorry Miller, 0/10 as you did not describe this at all. On the characteristic radiation, which is a secondary mechanism in an x-ray generator, 5/10 to miller for explaining part of the mechanism properly, and 3/10 to GK for partially explaining what happens. The correct answer is an electron-electron collision can knock an inner shell electron out of the shell. That will allow an outer shell higher energy electron to drop to the lower energy shell and consequently release a photon at a very specific energy for the material be it tungsten or glass. With 11/20 the win goes to GK, easily beating Miller and his score of 5/10. The reaction we are mainly concerned with here happens in the electron shell. Collision energy causes electrons in one shell to increase in energy to the next higher level shell. Think of it as pushing them into a higher orbit. But electrons in their shells balance protons in the nucleus, so this is an unstable situation. But to fall back where it "belongs" is a lower energy state and so to balance the equation the tungsten atom releases a photon. A very high energy photon we call an x-ray. |
Here’s how most Physicists view electron movement, between energy states, now-a-days(duality/sans the, "leap"): https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/06/18/how-can-an-electron-leap-between-atomic-levels-without-passing-through-all-the-space-in-between/ Yep(then, there’s those photons): https://web.phys.ksu.edu/vqm/tutorials/hydrogen/hyd9.html |
| Post removed |
atdavid, I actually like many of your posts, but on this thread no so much: If you can’t keep up, don’t insult others. Just because you have to run to wikipedia to understand the words being used, does not mean that others do.Actually, there are probably a lot of us who would have to run to Wikipedia to understand the words being used. Fortunately, I think most of us don't give a rat's as* in this thread enough to bother. Reading what you and GK are droning on and on about to show you knowledge is like listening to two people who insist on speaking French during a Spanish class and think they are smart for doing so. On the other hand, Hemigreg rocks and is really interesting. |
The second way x-rays are produced is result of the moving Cathode electron penetrating deep inside the glass atom — and hitting the the atom’s tiny nucleus. They're not paying me anywhere near enough for this. But as an X-ray tech I just can't let the lunacy go on without at least trying to set the record straight. Every once in a while a sane person comes along and so this way at least there'll be something worth reading. The only glass involved in the production of x-rays is the glass vacuum tube. Electrons generated by a filament (much like a light bulb) at the cathode end stream across the tube at high speed, because being electrons they are negative and strongly attracted to the positively charged anode end. The voltages involved are all in the kilovolts, typically 120kV for a chest x-ray, and the tube is a vacuum, so the electrons get going pretty damn fast. At the anode end is a target. Both the target and the filament are made of tungsten, used because its high atomic number means it has a lot of electrons, which is really important as you will soon see. Its also metal, malleable, heat resistant, etc etc. So electrons go streaming across the tube so fast they hit the tungsten at the other end with so much energy they start a whole chain of reactions, chiefly bremsstrahlung, German (since it was Germans who discovered this) for "braking". Much like the brakes on a race car get hot and glow red radiating braking energy, the tungsten gets hot and glows x-rays. The reaction we are mainly concerned with here happens in the electron shell. Collision energy causes electrons in one shell to increase in energy to the next higher level shell. Think of it as pushing them into a higher orbit. But electrons in their shells balance protons in the nucleus, so this is an unstable situation. But to fall back where it "belongs" is a lower energy state and so to balance the equation the tungsten atom releases a photon. A very high energy photon we call an x-ray. This is actually pretty basic 100 level physics. Okay I'm old, grade inflation, call it 200 level now. Whatever. Point is, you got a guy pretending to be a physicist, can't get it right even about something this basic. And he's actually pretty good compared to the other one. Oh, I'm always saying DYODD so.... https://www.radiologycafe.com/radiology-trainees/frcr-physics-notes/production-of-x-rays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung |
| Post removed |
atdavid ... A simple apology to "clearthink" instead of deleting your post would have been sufficient. And by the way, I don't report offensive posts to the mods. Well, with the exception of one, which was a snarky, insulting post directed toward me that revealed personal information by a member other than you.
Yes, atdavid ... it must be a real chore for you, in your gloriously superior, self-important mindset, to associate with us, the great unwashed, here on A'gon. <Sheesh!> Frank |
| Post removed |
millercarbon Forest for the Trees has a whole website devoted to his alternate universe. A world of Morphic Fields ruled by the Nimbus Sub Hertz Platform, the Firestone 16-wheeler air bag, springs, and rocks. I worry you think I might be kidding. http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina24.htm http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina43.htm Yes teleportation. For only several hundred dollars he will call you on the phone and wherever you are in the world you will hear your system improve all thanks to his telepathic use of pebbles, er I mean W.C. er I mean Morphic Fields. Forest for the Trees occasionally makes the mistake of trying to disembowel me. What looks like a sword to you looks like word salad to me. If there were any sense to be made of it I would let you know. Like the CD thing. He got that right. Give the man credit. Anything else? Let you know when I find it. Don’t hold your breath. Forest for the Trees loves to quote physicist Feynman. But notice its always the quote meant to put you in your place. If I could explain it to you it wouldn’t be worth the Nobel Prize. Uses that one so much he has it all ready to cut and paste. At least I figure that has to be it. Because when I cut and paste *his version* into a browser all that comes up are his posts. Its never what Feynman actually said, which is worded a bit differently. More to the point, its contrary to another thing Feynman said, that if you really understand then you can explain it to anyone. Feynman’s famous for being able to explain the most complicated puzzles in a way that just about anyone can understand. >>>>>You get so emotional 😭 Your non-stop ranting perfectly highlights the problem that Einstein and Feynman and others oft experienced when trying to explain their theories to the average Joe Blow on the street. They sometimes met with extremely rude and Neanderthal reactions. That’s why Einstein’s most iconic photo shows him sticking his tongue out to reporters. 😛 There is very blurry line between Classical physics and quantum mechanics any more. My advice would be relax and enjoy the ride. I’m not trying to set the world on fire, just start a flame in a few hearts. 💕 |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
What are X-rays? atdavid got interrupted. 😬 The point of X-rays, in the context of this discussion, is that photons of sufficient energy can penetrate deep within solid material. “The first way x-rays are produced is the result of the collision between the traveling electrons from the Cathode and the electrons in the glass atoms. When the fast moving Cathode electrons crash into the glass atom’s electrons, they can knock-off an electron — similar to the way a white billiard ball knocks-off a colored, stationary billiard ball. This collision causes the atoms to emit high-energy photons, which are the X rays. The second way x-rays are produced is result of the moving Cathode electron penetrating deep inside the glass atom — and hitting the the atom’s tiny nucleus. The nucleus is a thousand times denser than the layers of electrons surrounding it, so this collision resembles a collision between something like a SmartCar or a Mini Cooper and a reinforced concrete wall. The electron crashes into the nucleus and is immediately slowed down: all the kinetic energy it has is transferred to the nucleus, which emits high-energy photons. The X rays emitted by this 2nd mechanism is called ‘Breaking X Ray radiation’. In both cases, then, the result is not a radiation composed of physical particles — as in the case of Cathodic Rays — but an electromagnetic radiation, similar to visible light or Radio waves — except X-rays have a lot more energy.” |
atdavid"You hypothesis about penetration depth is based on one method of attentuation hence you make wrong assumptions about radio waves and water." It is so funny to see a user such as this who's entire technical and scientific education is confined to Wikipedia and the latest issue of Popular Science. |
Classically x-rays were products of excited accelerated electrons hitting targets. Got interrupted in my post. You hypothesis about penetration depth is based on one method of attentuation hence you make wrong assumptions about radio waves and water. To millercarbons point you remember what you read but depth of knowledge is lacking and hence every problem is a nail and you keep using the same hammer. Longer wavelengths penetrate much farther in water as the mechanism for absorption is much different from an energetic photons. Ditto typical radio wave frequencies and building materials. All very easily researched to show I am correct. The dominant attenuation mechanism is much different from high energy gamma/x/cosmic wave attenuation. Your "model" of photons in a conductor is rudimentary and outdated. You may want to research why virtual photons are the current preferred model and why that is required by the uncertainty principle ... You could do some research or keep posting wrong things. |
Almost everything you just wrote is wrong. To whit, X-rays are not electrons. They’re photons, just like any other form of electromagnetic waves. That’s why EM waves travel at light speed - they ARE light, just not visible light. That’s gold, Jerry, gold! Photons in conductors are the same as photons in water or any material - they’re real photons. I’m gathering your QM theory and EM theory is self taught. 😀 |
Wrong again. May want to research penetration depth in water of radio waves. Longer waves penetrate further. They are the lowest energy. Classical x-rays are accelerated electrons. They are not em waves. They do penetrate higher at higher energies but we were talking photons and less energetic photons generally penetrate water further. High energy photons in radio waves are easily stopped by thin conductors but again, low frequency radio waves penetrate through solid materials much easier than high frequencies. That is why 900mhz radio passes through walls fairly easily, 2.4ghz not as well, and 5ghz is attenuated even more through walls. GK, just stop while you are well behind. |
Obviously high energy photos like those in the audio signal, radio waves and X-rays travel through solid objects and low energy photons don’t travel very far in water. In a CD player the scattered light isn’t required to have the same amplitude of the primary reflected signal. But it does have to fit into the bandwidth of the detector, I.e., anywhere from about 650 nm to 850 nm. In any case, they’re not (rpt not) virtual photons. |
Sometimes he is right, and sometimes wrong. You know when he is wrong when he fights the hardest and deflects the most, like now. Google search photon energy. Easily done. The equation I posted E = h*f is readily known, easily understood, and not disputed. Light has a much higher f (frequency) versus the long radio waves used for submarine communication versus the very long wavelengths of Schmuman resonances. Therefore the laser light photons are the most energetic by far. So in that instance GK was completely wrong. Similarly, the fact that a CD player is a "cavity" where laser light bounces around has nothing to do with Schuman resonances. The CD player "cavity" is but a box with reflections. It could be any size. The speed of light is meaningless in the discussion. Schuman resonance frequency is very specific due to the diameter of the Earth and height of the ionosphere and the speed of light. That defines the frequency. To say the two are the same .... is wrong. To say that Schuman resonances are photons is correct. That is simply wave/particle duality from quantum mechanics and they are waves and particles, i.e. photons. To say it is a "field" is not correct, though an oscillating field is induced as it moves. All these things are easily researched.
|
jetter, GK uses his knowledge of things unknown to a number of us as a sword to disembowel anyone who disagrees with him. And I kind of wonder if he knows what he is talking about or not. In all seriousness, he does every once in a while post something that makes me wonder. Like, he sure seems to understand the details of CD pit and land and how CD is really an analog medium. There might even be a couple more like this where he gets something right. Out of 18,000.... Year or so ago when I first started coming here Forest for the Trees took me to task over the word, electromagnetic. Notice now its okay to say electromagnetic. Never fear, it will probably return to being sophomoric again now that I've mentioned it. Forest for the Trees has a whole website devoted to his alternate universe. A world of Morphic Fields ruled by the Nimbus Sub Hertz Platform, the Firestone 16-wheeler air bag, springs, and rocks. I worry you think I might be kidding. http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina24.htm http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina43.htm Yes teleportation. For only several hundred dollars he will call you on the phone and wherever you are in the world you will hear your system improve all thanks to his telepathic use of pebbles, er I mean W.C. er I mean Morphic Fields. Forest for the Trees occasionally makes the mistake of trying to disembowel me. What looks like a sword to you looks like word salad to me. If there were any sense to be made of it I would let you know. Like the CD thing. He got that right. Give the man credit. Anything else? Let you know when I find it. Don't hold your breath. Forest for the Trees loves to quote physicist Feynman. But notice its always the quote meant to put you in your place. If I could explain it to you it wouldn't be worth the Nobel Prize. Uses that one so much he has it all ready to cut and paste. At least I figure that has to be it. Because when I cut and paste *his version* into a browser all that comes up are his posts. Its never what Feynman actually said, which is worded a bit differently. More to the point, its contrary to another thing Feynman said, that if you really understand then you can explain it to anyone. Feynman's famous for being able to explain the most complicated puzzles in a way that just about anyone can understand. That's the difference between knowing, and memorizing. He's memorized, that's for sure. But what does he really know? |
| Post removed |
But I do want to know whether GK or atdavid are correct in their understanding of the above discussion. Only because GK uses his knowledge of things unknown to a number of us as a sword to disembowel anyone who disagrees with him. And I kind of wonder if he knows what he is talking about or not. He is so clueless not even Alicia Silverstone could do him justice. Peter Sellers. Maybe. |
Actually, as I have mentioned several times, I am a certified public accountant specializing in corporate taxes. Headed the tax department of the largest electric utility in Vermont (small by most other states). I don't understand sh*t about electricity or anything discussed above. You want to discuss the Internal Revenue Code or Treasury Regulations thereof ok. But I do want to know whether GK or atdavid are correct in their understanding of the above discussion. Only because GK uses his knowledge of things unknown to a number of us as a sword to disembowel anyone who disagrees with him. And I kind of wonder if he knows what he is talking about or not. |
atdavid, you can never find the truth being argumentative. You are blinded by science! 😎 You’re as stubborn as an old mule. I can prove my CD laser theory whereas you can’t prove I’m wrong. It’s a win win for me. 🤗 By the way, the energy of the photons is a red herring. The rest of you so called counter arguments are obviously grasping for straws. You know, the “sky is blue” argument you’ve become famous for. |
Way to miss the point. It doesn’t matter HOW the frequencies are defined. The point is that the cavities both fills up with light. AND that the light particles move at light speed. They’re waves! They’re particles! The laser output is a wave, that’s how CDs work. He-loo! It’s because the CD transport cavity fills up with waves of photons that scattered CD LASER light is a problem. |
Ironically the trough between the earth’s surface and the ionosphere that contains the Schumann “resonance” is analogous to the inside of the CD transport. The only difference is the photons inside the CD transport, the so-called scattered laser light, are much less energetic than the Schumann “light.” In both cases the space is all lit up. You just can’t see it because the photons aren’t in the visible part of the spectrum. Light is a wave. Light is particles. It’s not complicated. This is not some new fangled science. It’s the same for submarines, the photons for the extremely low frequency communications, which is very akin to the Schumann resonance, must eventually travel through water, which absorbs and scatters the photons. But photons will definitely travel through some water. They just have to be high energy photons. |
hemigreg OP geoffkait: MIT. I’ve heard of MIT. What have I heard about it? I’ve heard it’s very hard to get into but easy to get out of. how many years you spend thers?????? >>>>Fortunately, none. Looks like I dodged a bullet. |
millercarbon Everyone else: Forest for the Trees is a prime example of the difference between memorizing words and understanding concepts. Understanding concepts you can actually explain them so others understand them as well. Memorizing words all you can do is correct (when you shouldn’t) people actually using correctly the words you never were able to understand yourself. >>>>God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. There is a big gap between English majors and science types and the Twain shall never meet. 🔛 That’s what Feynman was referring to when said, “If I could explain it to the average bozo 🤡 they wouldn’t have given me the Nobel prize.” |