Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

190 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

cancer? (4, Funny)

tritonman (998572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471723)

does this mean that x-mas gifts can give you cancer?

Re:cancer? (5, Funny)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471767)

No, just that it makes it easier to guess what's inside the gift wrapping!

Re:cancer? (4, Funny)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471991)

Only if someone is giving you a vacuum cleaner, apparently...

=Smidge=

Re:cancer? (5, Funny)

The Fun Guy (21791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472087)

Just remember, in space, no one can hear you clean.

Only if someone is giving you a vacuum cleaner... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25472233)

Or a pony.

In which case the pony-shaped wrapping and the labored breathing give it away.

Re:Only if someone is giving you a vacuum cleaner. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25472433)

I see you got to your pony on xmas faster than I did.

Re:cancer? (4, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471771)

Depends. Do you open your gifts in the vacuum of space?

Re:cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25471777)

does this mean that x-mas gifts can give you cancer?

No you need to read the article and see that the only way to produce the x-rays is to perform the operation in a vacuum.

However sometimes I feel some people just live in a vacuum.

Re:cancer? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25472501)

To be honest, my vaccuum is way too small for me to fit in, and really, all the dust inside it would probably stick all over the tape making the whole process worthless

Re:cancer? (5, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472549)

[...] my vaccuum is way too small [...] all the dust inside it [...]

Vacuum physics knowledge FAIL.

Re:cancer? (5, Funny)

hesiod (111176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472907)

Sense of humor FAIL.

Jack Frosty claims another victim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25471803)

does this mean that x-mas gifts can give you cancer?

No, and if you'd read the article instead of scrambling for FP you'd know that it only works in a vacuum. Actually, that bit's even in the summary...!

Re:Jack Frosty claims another victim (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471999)

So I should avoid opening Christmas presents too close to the Hoover...check.

See, this is why I read Slashdot: useful tips like this one. My wife always runs the vacuum around the Christmas tree before we go to bed on Christmas Eve, and often she just leaves it there right by the tree. Luckily, my kids have developed gift opening techniques that somehow manage to rip the wrapping paper into several hundred small pieces without ever disengaging the tape, so they probably haven't been exposed to too much radiation thus far, but we'll have to be sure to put the vacuum back in the closet before going to bed from now on.

Re:Jack Frosty claims another victim (0, Redundant)

Vagnaard (1366015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472129)

From the summary :

you'll need to peel your tape in a vacuum

I hope they don't open their presents in the vacuum cleaner.

Re:cancer? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471925)

No more so than the fruit cake.

Re:cancer? (1)

techess (1322623) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471985)

Yes, but that is only because you keep asking for asbestos sweaters.

Re:cancer? (5, Funny)

nevillethedevil (1021497) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472767)

Only in the state of California...*ducks*

I'm ready (4, Funny)

flanksteak (69032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471731)

The catch: you'll need to peel your tape in a vacuum

I've been practicing this for years. I knew it would come in handy some day.

Vacuum (4, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471743)

The catch: you'll need to peel your tape in a vacuum, and have the x-ray film at the ready.

Sounds like a job for....

THE GLOVEBOX!!!

No, not that [wikipedia.org] glovebox, this [wikipedia.org] glovebox. What do you think this is, a redneck [wikipedia.org] website?

Red Green show a redneck show? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25473403)

Not so! The Red Green show shows the hoser [wikipedia.org] stereotype, not the redneck [wordpress.com] stereotype.

Can the article example serve as prior art? (4, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471759)

The claims for the patent are, of course, not really indicated, but since the article itself states

Actually, more than 50 years ago, some Russian scientists reported evidence of X-rays from peeling sticky tape off glass.

I hope that either they've invented something truly novel to do with this effect or they get a big, fat denied letter in the mail from the USPTO.

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471823)

If you have a hamster in a glass box, with scotch tape on its back, it'll white out an airport X-Ray machine?

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (5, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471895)

What are you doing taking a hamster on vacation?

On second thought, don't answer that.

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25472385)

What are you doing taking a hamster on vacation?

On second thought, don't answer that.

Look on the brightside at least he had the hamster in a glass box. He could have been trying to Richard Gere a hamster through security.

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (2, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472459)

"What are you doing taking a hamster on vacation?"

It's to feed the snake.

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (2, Funny)

SleptThroughClass (1127287) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472725)

"What are you doing taking a hamster on vacation?" It's to feed the snake.

You have that much trouble finding a hotel with rats?

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (1)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471935)

No, the article itself will not be able to be used as prior art. If the Russians wrote down their findings somewhere though, THAT potentially can be used.

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472307)

Publishing "Peeling transparent tape in a vacuum produces x-rays" is not the same as patenting "A mobile x-ray device with no power requirements, with x-rays being generated by peeling transparent tape"

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25473341)

No they're not the same thing but the first should result in the second failing to get a patent.

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (3, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473651)

the first should result in the second failing to get a patent

No, it really shouldn't. There's a difference between describing a physical phenomenon and coming up with an application for it. Just because tape produces x-rays does not mean that it is intuitivly obvious how to create a portable x-ray machine out of it. Ask yourself if you could knock one together in your garage this weekend, knowing only that x causes y.

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (3, Insightful)

shotgunefx (239460) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473481)

I'm not big on patents but seems to me they've taken a process, added a novel and non-trivial addition and made a "potentially" very practical invention. This is the kind of things patents were made for. If it were that obvious, wouldn't someone have done something with it in the last half of a century?

Now there may be other things that might speak to it's novelty, but from the article, seems fair to me.

Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473545)

I was curious because the article didn't expand on what novel addition they had added. It sounds like they simply determined why/how the tape emitted x-rays, but that the actual discovery of the effect is more than 50 years old. Creating a viable, reproducible c-ray source based on their findings may be the answer, but it doesn't sound like they've gotten that far. Interesting, yes. New, no.

In other news... (2, Funny)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471779)

...EVERYTHING in the universe is radioactive to some degree. Except for iron. Meh. And /. trolls. They're flammmmming.

=Smidge=

Re:In other news... (2, Insightful)

MiKM (752717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472035)

You're probably thinking of black body radiation, which is decidedly different from this. For a black body to emit enough X-rays to do any useful work, it'd have to be pretty damn hot (something glowing red-hot is around 1000K). In other words, this seems to be an interesting discovery.

Re:In other news... (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473917)

No, he's talking about how all heavy particles will eventually decay down to iron, which doesn't decay further on its own without energy input.

Re:In other news... (3, Informative)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 5 years ago | (#25474131)

...EVERYTHING in the universe is radioactive to some degree. Except for iron.

To be radioactive you have to have nuclei. 96% of the Universe is Dark Matter and Dark Energy that does not contain any nuclei. Of the remaining 4% the vast majority is in stable isotopes of hydrogen and helium and so is not radioactive. Additionally there are radioactive isotopes of iron. Iron-56 may be the most stable atomic nucleus but there are many other isotopes [nist.gov] of iron some of which are radioactive.

I paid $75 for an x-ray machine at Goodwill (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25471785)

It was cleverly disguised as a malfunctioning computer monitor.

Getting your face and eyes hit by needlepoints of pain isn't an experience I care to repeat. It's fun for about the first 15 seconds after that no so much.

Re:I paid $75 for an x-ray machine at Goodwill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25472015)

Quit your whining, now you have superpowers. Unless that's your superpower.

Re:I paid $75 for an x-ray machine at Goodwill (0, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472049)

What's stupider: irradiating yourself with hazardous rays or paying that much for a computer monitor at Goodwill? Last I checked there, 19" CRT monitors go for $25-30 bucks.

Oh, you must've meant after Bushie sent the value of the dollar into the shitter. *Ba-DUM PISH!* Thank you, I'll be here all night.

Re:I paid $75 for an x-ray machine at Goodwill (0, Redundant)

imyy4u3 (1290108) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472195)

What's even more stupid is the fact that "stupider" isn't a word.

Re:I paid $75 for an x-ray machine at Goodwill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25472749)

This was a long time ago. $75 was market value for a used working monitor of that make and model. It worked fine as long as you didn't stand in front of it for more than a few seconds.

Yes I'm the same AC who bought the monitor/x-ray machine.

Re:I paid $75 for an x-ray machine at Goodwill (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25472163)

Um, X-rays don't hurt. Stupid-rays do, though. That's probably what you were feeling.

Re:I paid $75 for an x-ray machine at Goodwill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25473265)

Maybe they were cosmic rays or high-intensity UV. Whatever they were they felt like needles.

Yes, I'm the AC who bought the monitor.

Re:I paid $75 for an x-ray machine at Goodwill (2, Informative)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473949)

Please see a psychiatric professional for these imagined pains you have been feeling. It is far more likely that it has to do with abandonment issues than with some broken old CRT.

Re:I paid $75 for an x-ray machine at Goodwill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25474017)

HAHAHA disregard that, i suck cocks

sounds dirty (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471813)

The catch: you'll need to peel your tape in a vacuum

Oh trust me, I "peel my tape in a vacuum" all the time....

so many other options! (4, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472159)

You could have gone with:
"Hey baby, I'm gonna get some scotch tape cause I wanna see your insides."
-or-
"If I'm scotch tape and your the vacuum then why don't we go release some energy."
-or even-
"If you want rapid pulses, I'll give you 1.2 inches a second."

but instead you went with:

Oh trust me, I "peel my tape in a vacuum" all the time....

I'm sorry but I just can't accept that.

Re:so many other options! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25473363)

Only you can prevent word mangling.

The word "your" is entirely different than the phrase "you are" and its contraction "you're".

This English service announcement has been brought to you by the letter "e" and the number 7.

Re:so many other options! (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25474103)

So now we use digits for numbers less than ten in sentences? I hate grammar stasi.

Re:sounds dirty (1)

EvilGrin5000 (951851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472165)

The catch: you'll need to peel your tape in a vacuum

Oh trust me, I "peel my tape in a vacuum" all the time....

Ummm....sorry mate, but I'll have to give it the good ol' FAIL stamp! ....
PS>
http://failblog.org/ [failblog.org]

Re:sounds dirty (1)

EvilGrin5000 (951851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472259)

All in good humor, of course :)

I guess you have to have a low ID... (0)

IAmStrider (1391613) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471879)

...to have your post considered. I posted this at 11:48AM MST but I guess that doesn't matter?

Re:I guess you have to have a low ID... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25472131)

Quick, someone call a Waah-mbulance!

I'm sure I'm not the only one... (4, Funny)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471881)

I'm sure, almost certain, that the ripping sound you hear is the sound of a million geeks all pulling about 1.2 inches of tape off of their desktop dispenser.

Bonus points if it's now wrapped around your finger as a memento.

Another fun fact (4, Funny)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25471899)

Did you know that Brazil nuts are radioactive? And so is granite! There's radiation everywhere! Luckily, I have a hat.

Re:Another fun fact (3, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472193)

Light bulbs also emit radiation.

Most of that tends to be in the visible/infrared/ultraviolet depending on the specific bulb.

Re:Another fun fact (1)

vsny (1213632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472531)

Of course. Everything at a finite temperature emits radiation. Even a black hole. We are talking about ionizing radiation.

You must check out the 3M company museum... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25471969)

...in Lake Superior.

They have an exhibit of one of the first x-ray machines.

It consists of a 6' diameter dispenser roll of scotch tape inside an even larger vacuum chamber.

They'll even let your kids take a complementary souvenir floroscope picture of themselves.

Re:You must check out the 3M company museum... (2, Funny)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#25474175)

What is the museum doing under water?

Re:You must check out the 3M company museum... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25474253)

What is the museum doing under water?

That's how they advertise it to keep obnoxiously literal people from interrupting tours. ;)

Dang It! (1)

TheNecromancer (179644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472025)

There goes my plans for building the biggest ball of Scotch Tape!!!

Re:Dang It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25474317)

So go for the world's first scotch tape powered CT scanner!

Scotch Tape in space.... (2, Interesting)

EvilGrin5000 (951851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472093)

I wonder how this is going to affect items with similar properties (like good ol' duct tape) while at the space station.

"Hey! there's a leak on the outside wall but damn it, they wouldn't let us bring any duct tape!" :)

Re:Scotch Tape in space.... (1)

Narfubel (1391263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472187)

Since the inside of the space station isn't a vacuum...it won't.

Re:Scotch Tape in space.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25473325)

"on the outside wall"

Hmmmm .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472241)

Can anyone with more of a clue than I have about such things maybe give us a high-level summary as to exactly what mechanism is at play here?

I find myself having no idea of how this would work, and TFA doesn't really seem to say much about the mechanism. It just seems so damned bizarre.

Cheers

Re:Hmmmm .... (5, Informative)

treeves (963993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472361)

The article suggests Bremsstrahlung (note the 3rd paragraph of the linked article) [wikipedia.org] of the electrons jumping from the non-sticky surface to the sticky surface of the tape - I guess the air present in a non-vacuum situation lets the electrons slow gradually or maybe have lower initial velocity - that part is unclear from the article.

Re:Hmmmm .... (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473231)

Air gets in the way, the electrons have to interact with the oxygen and nitrogen so would not be able to accelerate to the same energy as if in a vacuum.

Re:Hmmmm .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25472995)

Triboluminescence [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hmmmm .... (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473081)

It is a case of triboluminescence [wikipedia.org] , but the photons emitted are in the x-ray spectrum.

Pablo? (1)

nih (411096) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472253)

Pablo, is that you?

2x Wheels instead of a roll of tape (2, Interesting)

xonar (1069832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472261)

A more practical approach might be to have two wide wheels, one covered in the substance, and the other with a smooth non-stick surface centered in a vaccum ball. The substance could be reapplied easily whenever need be, and be a little less ridiculous.

Oh, that's nothing... (1)

PagosaSam (884523) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472263)

My duct tape produces cold fusion!

Re:Oh, that's nothing... (2, Funny)

operagost (62405) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473489)

Don't let Red Green know or we'll have some really fast, radioactive van running around Canada.

What I want to know (2, Funny)

PearsSoap (1384741) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472289)

Will this lead to a wave of new sticky-tape-related superheroes?

No: (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472521)

X-rays and other radiation are no longer the superhero-creating mystery factor. It's genetic engineering now. Get with the times!

Re:What I want to know (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473077)

Will this lead to a wave of new sticky-tape-related superheroes?

Yes!

First up, The Great Scotch. He's Scottish, wears traditional Scottish garb including the plaid kilt, is constantly drunk off X-ray enriched Scotch from his secret distillery(some say it is the source of his powers), and fights crime with super-strong and seemingly endless strips of sticky tape that he pulls from underneath his kilt. He won't say where it comes from, which is good because nobody asks. His arch-nemesis is 3M corporation, who are constantly trying to sue him for trademark infringement. No relationship to The Great Scott, who is a transsexual from Transylvania who uses toilet paper as a weapon...

Next up, for 'urban' markets, The Gift Rapper! He swings around the city on lines of sticky tape that he shoots from his wrists. He disguises himself by covering his entire body in wrapping paper which he changes regularly, to match any nearby holidays for example. The Gift Rapper robs riches from crooked developers, organized criminals, drug lords, and cops on the take. He then delivers the riches to the poor children, gift-wrapped of course, and then performs a free-style rap that combines horrible puns and trite moral lessons about not being greedy, listening to parents, and staying in school for the decreasingly-grateful youngsters. Speculation abounds as to which no-name underground rapper-no-really-see-I-have-a-demo-tape is his secret identity.

And at this point one part of my brain is threatening the other part with an aneurysm if I don't stop, so I will.

Re:What I want to know (1)

PearsSoap (1384741) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473303)

Hockey could be the slightly sensitive, slightly upper class young sidekick. He turned away from his privileged roots to a life of crimefighting after being brutally beaten in the shins by a bunch of youths with staplers.
And what are their secret weaknesses? They're sensitive to high pressure [wikipedia.org] .

Latest Nigerian Spam . . . (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472435)

I used an old vacuum tube and high voltage.

Well, I don't necessarily endorse your kink, but if it provides a cost effective alternative to Viagra for you ...

Locked Away For 20+ Years (2, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472495)

The researchers and UCLA have applied for a patent covering such devices.

We will not see this technology being used to actually help people for 20+ years. The researchers have already been paid to discover this result in their salaries. Why should they be paid again on the backs of those who actually develop practical uses for this discovery? Of what benefit is it to society for this technology to be hoarded by a small few?

The patenting of scientific phenomena is a shameful institution that needs to be stopped. A university is not supposed to be a for profit institution.

Re:Locked Away For 20+ Years (3, Interesting)

leoval (827218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472705)

That is really interesting, in particular because Nature magazine (where the paper will appear) used to have a policy of not accepting submissions that are being or have been patented.

Re:Locked Away For 20+ Years (1)

meadowsoft (831583) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472857)

The patenting of scientific phenomena is a shameful institution that needs to be stopped. A university is not supposed to be a for profit institution.

You haven't heard of the University of Phoenix (www.phoenix.edu) then? Or how about ITT Tech? Any of this ringing a bell?

Re:Locked Away For 20+ Years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25474321)

You haven't heard of the University of Phoenix (www.phoenix.edu) then? Or how about ITT Tech? Any of this ringing a bell?

If the bell's size is proportional to the amount of research the institution does, then no, it's too quiet.

Re:Locked Away For 20+ Years (2, Interesting)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473503)

The researchers have already been paid to discover this result in their salaries.

And those salaries are lower than they would be had these researchers not had the option to make extra money from their research. So no, these researchers weren't already paid since part of their payment is the ability to patent things. So how do you feel about having your taxes go up?

Why should they be paid again on the backs of those who actually develop practical uses for this discovery?

Because they did the research to get these results and probably will work on the practical applications. The alternative is them publishing their results in an some journal and then forcing someone else to start from scratch to get any applications out of them.

Of what benefit is it to society for this technology to be hoarded by a small few?

What benefit is it so society that you are paid more than minimum wage for your work, wouldn't society be better off if they could invest those resources somewhere else?

The benefit is in multiple forms, it's on one hand an incentive to develop practical applications of research and to research in practical areas. It provides a larger potential profit for those who go into academic research which encourages more people to go into that field. It provides extra funding for universities which can then be reinvested into other research.

Re:Locked Away For 20+ Years (1)

chebucto (992517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25474201)

You're rationalizing the trend of profit-seeking in public universities after it's already become standard practice. The plain fact is that such universities are funded by the public and operate for the public good. If they feel they need more money, they should ask the public for it; if the public says no, and they still want it, then they should go into private business. The status quo is a distasteful pretense that eats away at the legitimacy of public universities.

Re:Locked Away For 20+ Years (1)

avandesande (143899) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473987)

People like to put patents on their CVs.

Patent bullshit... (-1, Troll)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472653)

physicists are announcing a startling discovery

.....

Who knew? Actually, more than 50 years ago, some Russian scientists reported evidence of X-rays from peeling sticky tape off glass.

.....

The researchers and UCLA have applied for a patent covering such devices.

Science is dead.

Limited to scotch tape only? (1)

meadowsoft (831583) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472825)

If not, we should add this to the list of uses for Duct-tape. I am also curious about if the stickiness factor were to increase, would the pulses or x-rays increase as well? What about other adhesive media?

I'm all for this path for science so long as the technology stays out of the hands of TSA agents.

but... (1)

rhiorg (213355) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472833)

Where am I gonna get a piece of tape in space...at this hour?

not bloody likely (4, Informative)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 5 years ago | (#25472881)

Typical X-ray machines use 50 to 200 kilovolts and milliamps of electrons slamming into a tungsten target. Nothing less will do.

It's kinda unlikely Scotch (brand) tape can bypass all the bottlenecks and emit copious X-rays.

It's much more likely they're getting electrostatic discharges in the film. The New Age loonballs call it "Kirlian Photography".

I'll be glad to eat a hat if this pans out. Until then I'll just wear it.

Re:not bloody likely (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473465)

You can generate x-rays with significantly less than that (both voltage and current). Why do you think there's so much lead in a CRT, Hmmmm? You can generate hard (penetrating) x-rays with as little as 12 keV.

Re:not bloody likely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25473885)

The target information is off as well. At least for metallurgical use of X-rays the target is typically copper emitting alpha peaks at 1.544390 and 1.540562 Angstroms. X-ray energy is 8.04keV

Re:not bloody likely (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473529)

You better prepare your hat, because your information on X-rays is incorrect.

Re:not bloody likely (1)

zboy (685758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473869)

I had an internship at a little R&D firm that had some pretty cool products.. one of which was an X-Ray generator powered by a 9V battery. NASA picked up a couple of those for the research labs..

This sounds similar to... (5, Interesting)

willoughby (1367773) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473167)

a phenomenon I learned about in photography class many years ago. Back in the days of film a roll of 35mm film was attached to the spool inside the canister by a small bit of tape. In the darkroom as you disassembled the canister to remove the film for processing, if you peeled this tape quickly the "peeling", or "stretching" adhesive would glow. We learned to peel the tape slowly because the glow from rapidly pulled tape was sufficient to fog film.

X-Rays emit 10Kv (2, Informative)

Toll_Free (1295136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473613)

With the work Ive done with high power vaccum tubes (> 30 Kilowatts output), it has become standard practice for Eimac and other manufacturers to list dangers for them.

eg., the 4-1000 tetrode, with > 12 KV on the anode, will emit xrays. As will almost ANY other tetrode or triode in existance.

I'd say the person who wrote the article didn't understand that He'd need THAT much anode voltage to get the tube to emit.

That being said, I'd almost have to say that the scotch tape being used to emit the XRays would be doing so because of a HUGE electrostatic (static electricity) charge.

Most of the tubes I work with are a quarter megawatt can be seen on my old website, http://www.bigradios.com/tollfree [bigradios.com]

--Toll_Free

Re:X-Rays emit 10Kv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25473905)

Actually any tube will emit X-rays but the energy of the X-rays will depend on the voltage, so at lower voltages the X-rays are not very penetrating and will not make it out through the glass or metal envelope. The energy is directly related to the voltage, eg each electron gets accelerated through a potential difference which is the voltage applied to the tube. So 10kV will give you 10keV Xrays, and so on. There was a bit of a panic back in the early days of colour TV when it was belatedly realised that the 25kV or so potentials being used were generating significant doses of X-rays.

"free" energy (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 5 years ago | (#25473741)

This kind of stupid thing is what gives me hope that we're going to figure out a relatively simple way to convert mass almost directly to energy without hugely complex and expensive machinery.

Re:"free" energy (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25474191)

There's a lot of mechanical energy involved in peeling tape. (Including creating and depositing the glue & tape film)

cold fusion from pulling duct tape on chest hairs (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25474161)

So it in a movie last year. Wink. Wink.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>