It wasn't believed back then to be very harmful. Hell, in those days, Superman used X-ray vision to heat stuff, he didn't have heat vision until x-rays became politically incorrect.
I'm sure everyone will be pleased to hear that my feet haven't fallen off from having used those machines.
--
$109,000,000 in income! Capitalism works GREAT for Billary...
...why does she want Marxism for us?
I got some of those ! 11 watt rated.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
The x-rays are produced by the electron beam hitting the metal. One characteristic of metals is that they have loosely bound outer electrons. That's why metals conduct electricity. Hit the metal atom hard enough, and one of the electrons in the inner shell gets knocked out. The outer electron falls inward to replace the displaced electron, emitting x-rays in the process.
Got a reference page from whatever Wiki you were reading that says phosphors emit x-rays when pounded on by electrons?
I don't do any extra work for anyone spewing vague denunciations without substantiation. If you claim your "Wiki" reference is more accurate than mine, kindly supply the URL and applicable quotes.
This article has a fairly simple explanation of x-ray production from a Scientific American article:
I have the original article somewhere in my pile of books.
True. I picked the first reference that someone of your limited intelligence can understand. Got anything better or more recent?
I do have one simple question. Why do you feel it necessary to add insults to your comments? It doesn't add anything of value and certainly doesn't improve your credibility.
Late 1960's. I was working in a hi-fi and TV repair shop. A few weeks after I plasted the CRT with Polaroid film, one of the techs nearly died when he grabbed the anode lead of a similar TV. Digging around the guts of an old TV without first discharging the tube is a really bad idea.
For you, nothing ever does.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Also the 1B3 rectifier tube. They never did really solve the problem. Instead, they buried the Hi-V rectifier in a double lead plated steel cage for shielding. A double shielding was necessary to provide non-overlapping ventilation holes, where there was no direct path between the x-ray source and the outside. They also added circuitry that shut down the Hi-V if the voltage regulation failed (which would cause the voltage to increase dramatically and produce even more x-rays. The problem was eventually solved with semiconductor Hi-V rectifiers.
Nope. No helium nuclei were produced. They have little penetration and wouldn't go through a sheet of toilet paper. Bombarding metals with electrons produces dangerous x-rays, which go through all but the most dense materials.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Uh huh. Yeah.
Please review your quantum physics.
That's much closer to correct.
If you've ever seen the size of a fluorescent backlight for an LCD you'd realise that scrapping even a few hundred of them produces three fifths of seven sixteenths of bugger all mercury.
Yes, something about mercury here
martin
I'm not much of a fizzixist. Where did I go wrong? Digging... According to my understanding of the Neils Bohr model of the atom, the emitted wavelength is: Wavelength = 1240 Electron-Volt-NanoMeters / (Energy difference between orbits)
Oops. I'm wrong. The wavelength is not the distance travelled. It's proportional to the difference in orbital energy levels, not the distance travelled.
Unless there are some losses involved that I don't know about, the energy of the emitted radiation is exactly the difference between orbital energies.
-- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us # http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
That's exactly why my head is telling me it was alpha; I remember thinking how silly this all was when the radiation probably wouldn't penetrate the wood beneath the chassis. I would have thought that if it was beta, some of it would penetrate wood, and of course gamma would go right through. But then, I wasn't paying careful attention, and I could certainly be wrong.
--
$109,000,000 in income! Capitalism works GREAT for Billary...
...why does she want Marxism for us?
Apparently, a VERY HOT iron would:
Cheers! Rich
Which is, in turn, about the same level of threat to the environment, as lead in solder ... d;~}
Arfa
Invalid link.
Long before "flux chars" (and no, not all fluxes would be the same), it would liquefy (change phase) and volatize (evaporate in our atmosphere).
Other fluxes would behave differently as well.
The vapor pressure of a vat of lead at 500 C would certainly have a specific vapor pressure.
Are you sure that the Lead / Tin alloy that solder is would have the same vapor pressure?
Also, there are no irons for the electronics industry I am aware of that operate at 932F.
The search engine string "lead toxicology" should help find the rest if the interesting information.
Wow, that was amazingly informative considering the moderate length of the article.
I'm very concerned about mercury, having had all my mercury (dentists call it "amalgam") fillings replaced, and as a result noticing huge improvements in my ability to mentally focus and concentrate on tasks for extended periods.
I've been adverse to fluorescent lamps for a long time, not just because of the mercury. But last year, I read that CFL bulbs have only about 20 mg of mercury each, and due to the power savings, even if the mercury from the new CFL bulbs were released into the environment, it be less than that of a coal-fired power plant while generating the difference in power between a CFL and its incandescent equivalent.
Following that, I was advised that the best ambient lighting to have for doing digital image editing was 6500K (daylight- balanced) fluorescent lights, so I decided to give it a try. That got me hooked, and now practically every bulb around here is a CFL! And I am _wondering_, was that info regarding the mercury savings at the power plant actually for real, or was it mostly mind-control (marketing, "public relations" type of stuff)? It's just too easy for corporations to spin the facts to their marketing advantage, and then spread the deceptions into the media, to be later passed around by people ... er, like me! I am suspicious.
The next part of the story is that one day I was changing a CFL bulb to try out a different brand for comparison, and I dropped it about 5 feet onto a carpeted floor, and ... wait for it ... IT BROKE! I looked down, realized what I just did, and laughed to myself that in spite of all my concern, I'd just given myself my dose of mercury. I assume that the mercury in the bulb is mostly in vapor form, and that the rest of it evaporated and I suppose I ended up breathing at least some of it. I didn't find any little drops of mercury anywhere.
But at least it was I, the one who chose to purchase the bulb, who was affected the most, and first, with the consequences. There's good justice in that, which I fully accept. I'll be a lot more careful in the future.
I am using CFLs for now, hoping that there will be a better daylight-balanced choice (LEDs...) by the time the bulbs need changing. And also, I hope that by that time, I will be able to give the CFLs to a recycling center.
Jay Ts
-- To contact me, use this web page: http://www.jayts.com/contact.php
these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and last 50,000 hours.
Cheers Terry
Yeah, and they're only $145 each:
So we can learn to be more Chinese, one country, two systems.
And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890 lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math! No way.
Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself. And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite no-go.
I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent, daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless" startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.
Jay Ts
-- To contact me, use this web page: http://www.jayts.com/contact.php
and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in it?
CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.
they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that alters the C-B calcs substantially.
its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few years.
the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.
Cheers Terry
The State of Maine did some research on the handling of broken CFL lamps to avoid mercury poisoning. Basically, let the mercury vapor dissipate before cleaning up the mess. See:
I did some Googling for how much mercury is found in CFL lamps. The numbers vary from 2.5mg to 10.0mg depending on size. Several manufacturers advertise low or reduced mercury content in their CFL bulbs. Methinks 20mg is far too high, unless it's a very large bulb.
You might find this analysis of interest:
"Mercury is a toxic metal associated with contamination of water, fish, and food supplies, and can lead to adverse health affects. A CFL bulb generally contains an average of 5 mg of mercury (about one-fifth of that found in the average watch battery, and less than 1/100th of the mercury found in an amalgam dental filling). A power plant will emit 10mg of mercury to produce the electricity to run an incandescent bulb compared to only 2.4mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same time. The net benefit of using the more energy efficient lamp is positive, and this is especially true if the mercury in the fluorescent lamp is kept out of the waste stream when the lamp expires."
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.