swansont Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Beta particles through a peice of parafin wax can make Gamma particles too Technically, no. Gammas come from nuclear interactions. Betas being slowed down will emit Bremsstrahlung X-rays. Doesn't need to be wax - just about anything will do. Slamming energetic electrons into metal is a standard way to make X-rays.
YT2095 Posted June 29, 2004 Author Posted June 29, 2004 agreed, as in the X-Ray cathodes or Roetogen(sp) ray apparatus. actualy to find out a bit more, look up a guy called Chadwick and/or Rutherford, both of these guys messed around with these kind of ideas and methods for years, much of it is very interesting work too!
budullewraagh Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 ack, i said am-241 was a beta source??? bah! i meant alpha. i know alphas knock neutrons out of be.
TheMadHatter0 Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 [url']http://winn.com/bs/atombomb.html[/url] You guys have too much time on your hands. While this next link should probably go in the mechanics section (or even astronomy), I thought it would be most appropriate here, due to the subject matter of these e.mails Lawnchair Larry Make sure you guys also check out the guy that played Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic pistol, and the JATO Man Enjoy! -Ian
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 Or just visit the whole http://www.darwinawards.com website and read them all.
Rakdos Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 GAMMAS AREN'T PARTICES THEY ARE WAVES Beta particles through a peice of parafin wax can make Gamma particles too
Rakdos Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 It just makes me really mad that everyone gets that wrong (except wave-particle duliaty but that is not the point)
timo Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 GAMMAS AREN'T PARTICLES THEY ARE WAVES Funny statement for someone with that nick
Rakdos Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Funny statement for someone with that nick it is the truth
arivero Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 GAMMAS AREN'T PARTICES THEY ARE WAVES Gammas are Force fields, while electrons etc are Matter fields. Force fields are usually offshell, while matter happens to be usually onshell. But gamma has the peculiarity of having null mass, so it is easy for them to be on shell, then we call it electromagnetic radiation.
Sayonara Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 I think rather than saying what gammas are, the point was just that they aren't particles.
swansont Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 GAMMAS AREN'T PARTICES THEY ARE WAVES (volume turned down by me) Gammas are photons from nuclear interactions. They are waves if you look at wave properties, they are particles if you look at particle properties. Gammas can create electron-positron pairs if of sufficient energy; they can cause the photoelectric effect and undergo Compton scattering. Since we were talking about a quantum of energy produced in an interaction, there is really nothing terribly wrong with saying "gamma particle," quasi-redundant though that might be. Certainly nothing so egregious as to elicit your response.
Rakdos Posted July 2, 2004 Posted July 2, 2004 read post # 84 (volume turned down by me) Gammas are photons from nuclear interactions. They are waves if you look at wave properties' date=' they are particles if you look at particle properties. Gammas can create electron-positron pairs if of sufficient energy; they can cause the photoelectric effect and undergo Compton scattering. Since we were talking about a quantum of energy produced in an interaction, there is really nothing terribly wrong with saying "gamma particle," quasi-redundant though that might be. Certainly nothing so egregious as to elicit your response.[/quote']
Rakdos Posted July 2, 2004 Posted July 2, 2004 thank you some one agrees with me I think rather than saying what gammas are, the point was just that they aren't[/i'] particles.
YT2095 Posted July 2, 2004 Author Posted July 2, 2004 particles, rays, waves... whatever, it`s a side issue and certainly off topic
arivero Posted July 2, 2004 Posted July 2, 2004 In any case, the real serious matter is the H-bomb. As for A-bombs goes, even conventional explosives are already in the range.
YT2095 Posted July 2, 2004 Author Posted July 2, 2004 true, the americans have one called the MOAB, I`ve forgotten its exact stats, but it`s the biggest non nuclear device ever made. it`s also affectionately known as the Mother Of All Bombs (MOAB).
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 28, 2004 Posted July 28, 2004 No it isn't the biggest. Grand Slam is. From WWII.
ed84c Posted July 28, 2004 Posted July 28, 2004 are these bigger than the largest 'daisy cutter' type bomb which claimed to be the biggest non nuclear device in the film 'outbreak'. Grandslam was a 10,000 pounder right? used all the time in WW2; for that reason i suggest it might not be the biggest. Does a V3 exist? or other such IRBMs
ed84c Posted July 28, 2004 Posted July 28, 2004 anyway- homemade reactor; how about americum from a smoke alarm?
Sayonara Posted July 28, 2004 Posted July 28, 2004 anyway- homemade reactor; how about americum from a smoke alarm? Glad to see you read the thread.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now