Talk:X-ray
|
|
The third line on the physics paragraph refers to gamma rays as "low energy" when they are instead the highest energy region of the spectrum. I just wanted to bring up this point and let someone with better writing skills modify that paragraph.
A previous entry claimed to quote from Tesla's speech and gave him precedence in discovering x-rays. The actual speech found online says:
"The taking of these photographic impressions by means of Crooks bulbs brought freshly to my mind the experiments of Lenard, some features of which, particularly the action on a sensitive plate..."
"...which made me temporarily forget my projects. I had hardly finished the work of reconstruction and resumed the course of my ideas when the news of Roentgen's achievement reached me. Instantly the truth flashed upon my mind. I hurried to repeat his incompletely reported experiments, and there I beheld the wonder myself. Then — too late — I realized that my guiding spirit had again prompted me and that I had failed to comprehend his mysterious signs. . . .But while I have failed to see what others in my place might have perceived..."
So he first claims that Lenard did it before him and then admits he didn't understand it. Rmhermen 04:59, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Some quotes on Tesla's priority over Roentgen ...
1892 Tesla discovers x-ray radiation while experimenting with HV and evacuated tubes
Tesla opened a new laboratory. By 1897, he had carried out investigations in the field of X-ray
In April 1887, he established his own laboratory, where he experimented with shadowgraphs similar to those involved in the discovery of x-rays
The Electrical Review in 1896 published X-rays of a man, made by Tesla, with X-ray tubes of his own design. They appeared at the same time as when Roentgen announced his discovery of X-rays. Tesla never attempted to proclaim priority. Roentgen congratulated Tesla on his sophisticated X-ray pictures, and Tesla even wrote Roentgen's name on one of his films. He experimented with shadowgraphs similar to those that later were to be used by Wilhelm Rontgen when he discovered X-rays in 1895.
After a difficult period, during which Tesla invented but lost his rights to an arc-lighting system, he established his own laboratory in New York City in 1887, where his inventive mind could be given free rein. He experimented with shadowgraphs similar to those that later were to be used by Wilhelm Röntgen when he discovered X-rays in 1895.
There are plenty of other sources on tesla and his work on x-rays before Roentgen - reddi 22:38, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Yes he and several others worked on x-rays. However it was Roentgen who figured it out. He "discovered" it. Rmhermen 00:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Just some links ...
- He also took the first x-ray photographs. - http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_hifreq.html
- The Electrical Review in 1896 published X-rays of a man, made by Tesla, with X-ray tubes of his own design. They appeared at the same time as when Roentgen announced his discovery of X-rays. - http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm
- Photos of Tesla's image and news articles -
- Lecture. Tesla's independent discovery of X-Ray - http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/more/351ntl.htm
- He experimented with shadowgraphs similar to those that later were to be used by Wilhelm Röntgen - http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/tesla.htm and http://www.qsl.net/dominiondx/tesla.htm
Tesla was not aware of certain characteristics of x-rays. X-rays were not discovered yet. He was just working on unknown effect of phosphorescent light and admits in the article we both quote that he did not understand it. Also you have presented no evidence that Tesla took any human photographs before Roentgen or that he ever sent any photograph to him, much less before the publication of Roentgen's work. Also "1896 in the Electrical Review" is after 1895 when Roentgen published. Rmhermen 13:32, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
Image please? Sure everyone's seen hospital x-rays, but it would still make this article cooler.
The discussion on cathode rays is pretty confusingly written and even seems to imply that cathode rays were X-rays. It needs writing clearly explaining that Cathode rays (which perhaps merit their own page) were originally thought to be rays and were only later found to be streams of electrons. High energy cathode rays can create X rays when they hit something. BozMo(talk)
Also anyone mind if I change the link under "10 nanometers" to the nanometers link? It seems far more likely people would follow it looking for a definition which they can only get to by following the nm link in the linked page? --(talk)BozMo 11:46, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Are there no articles on X-ray optics; parabolic/hyperbolic kirkpatrick baez /wolter telescopes and the like on wikipedia? :o( --Deglr6328 03:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Röntgen or Roentgen
In 2003, the German language was formally changed to use oe in preference to ö. This change hasn't yet eprcolated through society, and newspapers are still printing Schröder rather than Schroeder, but oe is being taught in schools in preference to ö. Since the wiki entry is Willhelm Röntgen, and the majority of the references in the article were Röntgen, I have changed oe to ö in this article. However, I believe that considering that the official norm in German is now to prefer oe to ö, the wiki should move over to the English spelling of German names. This is, after all, an English wiki, and ö is not an English character. PhilHibbs 13:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"In 2003, the German language was formally changed to use oe in preference to ö."
Never heard of that and indeed it doesn't look like it's being followed. Liked to read about it. The ministers of education, who decide what's taught in schools, continue to use it. http://www.kmk.org/index1.shtml
"This is, after all, an English wiki, and ö is not an English character."
The characters are offered when editing, probably to encourage their use in names that have them. --217.230.123.70 10:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I am an Austrian user, and nobody (in Austria, Germany or Switzerland) is using oe instead of ö - except for describing those "Umlaut"s in other language. Since you guys don't have an "ö" on your keyboard, I believe it's ok to use "oe" instead in the title. In the article, though, i would stick with the correct german version... -- Mnolf 07:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Visible x-rays?
In my opinion, the 'visible' x-rays represent phosphorescence of structures within the eye-ball, rather than truly visible x-rays. I have requested peer review. Axl 14:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly I'm the one who added the majority of the information on X-rays being visible. I am confident that the information I provided in the paragraph at the end of the "Detectors" section is factually and historically accurate (see here:[1] (http://www.orau.org/ptp/articlesstories/invisiblelight.htm)) however, I share your uncertainty about the actual mechanism which makes them visible. The question being, are the X-rays inducing phosphorescence in the retina or aqueous humor itself or are the X-rays directly exciting neurons in the retina OR are they exciting (and destroying?) rhodopsin molecules in the retina conventionally and causing visual signals to be sent? I would guess that because no one is going to be repeating these crazy experiments with X-ray beams on thier eyeballs anytime soon we probably have no real way of knowing for sure so we might just add a mention of this controversy on in the article. X-rays are indeed visible, but HOW and what is our definition of "visible"?--Deglr6328 22:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, that's a sensible solution. Axl 11:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
bragg
how about mentioning all the x-ray stuff the braggs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Bragg did on crystals. --ssam
Propose move to "X-rays"
The article is currently under the name "X-ray", I would like to propose it be moved to "X-rays" instead. The term "X-ray" most often refers to the image taken of an object using X-rays. Thoughts?--Deglr6328 02:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No - first, given that X-ray photographs (i.e. X-rays) are taken using X-rays, I can't see why the page title needs to change. But anyway, pages are generally listed in the singular, unless the plural is the predominant usage. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Right, this is why I think it should be moved. The article is firstly about the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum not the medical imaging technique and the term "X-rays" is the plural, predominant usage. Just like Gamma rays, cosmic rays etc.--Deglr6328 00:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- But gamma ray, cosmic ray are both at the singular. There is already a separate article on radiography. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Medical Affects/Early History
Does anyone have better information about the adverse health affects of x-rays, especially during the early evolution of the technology? Several scientists have developed x-ray burns or cancer, sometimes leading to death. Also, according to the History Channel, some scientists early on believed that they could use x-rays to change the skin tone of black people. In short, I think there could be better information about the early experimentation associated with the technology. Tkessler 00:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)