View previous topic | View next topic

Radium

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

ficklefiend
35197.  Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:26 pm Reply with quote

samivel wrote:
Or they used a thicker syrup


Yews, brainiacs are notorious for their complete disregard of constants in experiments *sighs a scientist sigh*

I like rough science best, there is something brilliant about how it manages to portray the scientists as very clever but not pretentious.

 
djgordy
35198.  Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:32 pm Reply with quote

ficklefiend wrote:


I like rough science best, there is something brilliant about how it manages to portray the scientists as very clever but not pretentious.


I like Rough Science too. But then I've got the hots for Kathy Sykes and Kate Humble!

 
Flash
35201.  Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:47 pm Reply with quote

I've posted elsewhere about the University of Minnesota project which we quoted, and how it seems to me to be a better source than Brainiac.

 
JumpingJack
35251.  Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:42 pm Reply with quote

Kathy Sykes is wonderful.

There is a question based on her briilliant work at AtBristo in the QI DVD ...priced at 18.99 inc postage and packing and available at the QI online bookshop!!

 
laidbacklazyman
35294.  Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:04 am Reply with quote

JumpingJack wrote:
Kathy Sykes is wonderful.

There is a question based on her briilliant work at AtBristo in the QI DVD ...priced at 18.99 inc postage and packing and available at the QI online bookshop!!


Is that a nylon wig, kipper tie, and K-Tel Top of the Pops with Pans people advert I see before me?

 
JumpingJack
35296.  Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:13 am Reply with quote

The very same, lblm.

The global marketing push for this coveted item is gathering pace.

The QI guerilla viral publicity machine powered into Wantage yesterday and cunningly moved WH Smith's entire stock of QI DVDs* from the bottom shelf near the fire exit to the Two-For-26.99 bestseller rack by the front door.

Expect a massive lift in sales.





*both of them

 
laidbacklazyman
35301.  Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:36 am Reply with quote

selling lifts as well as books and DVDs now.

You want to get either these people or this lot on your team, they work wonders

 
gerontius grumpus
35302.  Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:38 am Reply with quote

Anyway, back to the subject of Radium:

Radioluminescent paint contained Radium226 with Zinc sulphide as the phosphor.
Radium 226 emits alpha particles at 4783.34 keV and 4601 keV
and gamma rays at 186 keV.

I have been unable to find an energy value for the light emitted by zinc sulphide, but visible light is in the range of 2 to 3 eV.

It is therefore quite clear that even with the inevitable energy loss in conversion, the intensifying power of the phosphor is huge.

Yes I might be nit picking, but what else can I do when I am told I am mistaken?

 
laidbacklazyman
35309.  Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:17 am Reply with quote

Just coming in on the whole radium thing, I tend to ignore I'm right and you're wrong debates but it strikes that a lot of what you said in post 34874 is contradictory to what you have been saying.

Correct me if I'm misreading the post but the only constant in the equation is the radium yet you say that the show is wrong to say that radium fluoresces. The phosphor is the thing that is changing yet you are insistant that this is the cause of the effect.

If that were the case why doesn't glass fluoresce naturally. If it is the phosor causes the glow then surely it follows that the glow comes from the phosphor and it should always glow.

Unless of course it is the reaction with the radium that causes the glow in which case what exactly is the problem?

 
gerontius grumpus
35314.  Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:29 am Reply with quote

No it's much simpler than that, the Radium causes the phosphor to fluoresce which is the point I was making from the start.

I thought it would be quite interesting to discuss.

I'll try to remember to switch off the growl.

 
laidbacklazyman
35435.  Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:49 pm Reply with quote

So just for the record here then, you pulled up the shows researchers by saying what they said was correct.

 
Rory Gilmore
35438.  Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:54 pm Reply with quote

No, what Gerontius grumpus is saying is that it's not the radium itself that glows, but the air and reacted radium which surrounds it.

 
dr.bob
35701.  Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:38 am Reply with quote

gerontius grumpus wrote:
Also radiation from nuclear fuel stored under water causes the water to fluoresce.


This is actually a Quite Interesting phenomenon. It is caused by subatomic particles emitted by the radioactive material entering the water so fast that they actually find themselves travelling faster than the speed of light in that medium.

(N.B. nothing can travel faster than "light in a vacuum", but the speed of light in water is considerably slower than the speed of light in a vacuum)

The result of a particle travelling faster than light is to excite the water atoms in such a way that is produces a particular form of coherent blue light. This is known as Cherenkov Radtiation.

Guess it's too late to include that in the 'C' series

 
Celebaelin
35711.  Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:07 am Reply with quote

It's worth squirreling away for another time though. Faster than light in water, Cherenkov Radiation, *opens mental file*.

Fantastic, thanks.

 
Flash
35726.  Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:57 am Reply with quote

Quite right. Duly squirreled.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group