So I just took a bold step...
-
-
If you can make me a mind control app or an x-ray vision app, I'll buy one too... :laugh:
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time -
If you can make me a mind control app or an x-ray vision app, I'll buy one too... :laugh:
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the timeTrust me, X-Ray vision is a lie :sigh: - go for the mind control :thumbsup:
Geek code v 3.12 GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Trust me, X-Ray vision is a lie :sigh: - go for the mind control :thumbsup:
Geek code v 3.12 GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
den2k88 wrote:
Trust me, X-Ray vision is a lie
I don't know, I seem to recall that I saw a commercial for x-ray glasses[^] in a Magazine some 40 years ago. Are you telling me that they were not real?
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time -
den2k88 wrote:
Trust me, X-Ray vision is a lie
I don't know, I seem to recall that I saw a commercial for x-ray glasses[^] in a Magazine some 40 years ago. Are you telling me that they were not real?
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the timeTotally. A glasses-size generator how much could shoot? 10 Watts at most? Consider that to inspect olives without the kernel we need 40 kV * 7 mA = 280 Watts. BUT, most of all, we have a generator on one side AND a detector on the other, which mean that we collect the "passing through" X-Rays, that amount to something like 90% of the emitted rays. With a glass that works both as a generator and as receiver you would have only 10% of the rays due to scattering, so 1 Watt in the hypotesis of 10-Watt generators. Not only that, but scattered rays would have unpredictable trajectory, making so that a small surface like a glasses lens would receive only a small fraction of the already scarce X-Rays. But there is more: X-rays power decreases with the square of the distance, so you must be very clese to the target, in order to see... a B/W image of the (density*depth) product of the target where darker pixels mean there is more "material". With a decent amount of time (several seconds for a single inspection area) and a powerful and versatile generator you could obtain a mass spectrometry of the inspected target, knowing the percentuals of known materials it contains. Like what is done in airports to detect C4 in luggage. But you couldn't read a newspaper in reverse, or look at naked girls ;) Edit: typos
Geek code v 3.12 GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Totally. A glasses-size generator how much could shoot? 10 Watts at most? Consider that to inspect olives without the kernel we need 40 kV * 7 mA = 280 Watts. BUT, most of all, we have a generator on one side AND a detector on the other, which mean that we collect the "passing through" X-Rays, that amount to something like 90% of the emitted rays. With a glass that works both as a generator and as receiver you would have only 10% of the rays due to scattering, so 1 Watt in the hypotesis of 10-Watt generators. Not only that, but scattered rays would have unpredictable trajectory, making so that a small surface like a glasses lens would receive only a small fraction of the already scarce X-Rays. But there is more: X-rays power decreases with the square of the distance, so you must be very clese to the target, in order to see... a B/W image of the (density*depth) product of the target where darker pixels mean there is more "material". With a decent amount of time (several seconds for a single inspection area) and a powerful and versatile generator you could obtain a mass spectrometry of the inspected target, knowing the percentuals of known materials it contains. Like what is done in airports to detect C4 in luggage. But you couldn't read a newspaper in reverse, or look at naked girls ;) Edit: typos
Geek code v 3.12 GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
Actually, there were cameras years ago that picked up certain frequencies of light that made it so you could see through clothing. Motorola I seem to recall. :^)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Actually, there were cameras years ago that picked up certain frequencies of light that made it so you could see through clothing. Motorola I seem to recall. :^)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Well those are not X-Rays, for sure. Some frequences of light, considering UV and IR may be able to pass through the first tenths of millimiter of solid, opaque matter - Just looking at IR temperature maps is "looking through clothing". With high wavelenght ( = low frequencies) you may measure the interference with the whole mass of the body not counting clothing which would be too thin to perturbate that wavelength, obtaining a monochromatic image of the depth of the target in each point. I would check all the links and names you gave me but Internet at work is severely locked, I battled 2 years to access CP...
Geek code v 3.12 GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Well those are not X-Rays, for sure. Some frequences of light, considering UV and IR may be able to pass through the first tenths of millimiter of solid, opaque matter - Just looking at IR temperature maps is "looking through clothing". With high wavelenght ( = low frequencies) you may measure the interference with the whole mass of the body not counting clothing which would be too thin to perturbate that wavelength, obtaining a monochromatic image of the depth of the target in each point. I would check all the links and names you gave me but Internet at work is severely locked, I battled 2 years to access CP...
Geek code v 3.12 GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
