Yes, a typo kind of error.

2011/10/29 Mattia Rizzi <mattia.ri...@gmail.com>

>   Oh, only a small error  you think?
> Energy =~ 1/wavelength
> You said Energy =~  wavelength
>
>  *From:* Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 29, 2011 5:36 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does
> seem to be a permit.
>
> You are picking up on small things. Just exchange "wavelength" to "energy"
> in the quoted part and all is right, I was only talking about photon energy,
> anyway.
>
> 2011/10/29 Mattia Rizzi <mattia.ri...@gmail.com>
>
>>   What are you talking about? You said that gamma rays had longest
>> wavelength then visibile light (“The gamma ray can have a small wavelength
>> such that it could almost fit in the range of visible light”, quoted).
>> That’s absurd.
>> Yeah, you can say that a 75keV is gamma as you can say that a 2Mhz
>> Radiofrequncy is HIGH FREQUENCY, but truely it’s near the “medium-to-high”
>> frequency limit (actually is medium frequency).
>> If you say that a common visible light source it’s a gamma ray source, you
>> are crazy.
>>
>>  *From:* Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 29, 2011 5:17 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there
>> does seem to be a permit.
>>
>>   I just provided you with examples which are not the case. For example,
>> the isomer 180m1
>> Ta is very stable, but when it decays, it emits at an energy of 75KeV,
>> which is within the range of x-rays, that is, below 120KeV.
>>
>> 2011/10/29 Mattia Rizzi <mattia.ri...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>   >The gamma ray can have a small wavelength such that it could almost
>>> fit in the range of visible light
>>>
>>> I think you need to read some physics books. Gamma rays have smaller
>>> wavelength then X-Rays and visible light. And a re more powerful and
>>> hazards.
>>>
>>>  *From:* Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 29, 2011 5:00 PM
>>>  *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does
>>> seem to be a permit.
>>>
>>> Gamma rays may have a subjective definition.You can say that Gamma Rays
>>> are photons emitted by state transitions of the nucleus and X-Rays are
>>> photons that comes from electrons. X-Ray machines emits what would be
>>> otherwise consider gamma rays, around 140KeV. For example,
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99m
>>>
>>> The gamma ray can have a small wavelength such that it could almost fit
>>> in the range of visible light, such as
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_thorium#Thorium-229m
>>>
>>>
>>> If you consider a gamma ray as photons originated by decays of excited
>>> decays of the nucleus, you can have wave lengths near the visible spectrum,
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/10/29 Peter Heckert <peter.heck...@arcor.de>
>>>
>>>> Am 29.10.2011 16:32, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
>>>>
>>>> Mattia Rizzi <mattia.ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>   How can rossi had a permit if inside the nuclear site there isn’t
>>>>> even a SINGLE “Nuclear Warning” panel?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. I have not seen his application or permit. You have a good
>>>> point. It might be prudent to set up some signs. I am not sure where you
>>>> would put them, or how far away people should stay. Bianchini set up
>>>> detectors and found nothing, so they did pay some attention to this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Still, as far as anyone knows, cold fusion never generates dangerous
>>>> radiation.
>>>>
>>>> In contradiction to this, Rossi says the heat is made from soft gamma
>>>> rays. Some 100 kW of gamma rays are dangerous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  So it is a little silly to apply the safety standards of fission or
>>>> plasma fusion to it. This is like saying that hydrogen airships can 
>>>> explode,
>>>> so we should take extreme precautions when working with helium balloons.
>>>>
>>>> No it is like saying a helium Zeppelin is dangerous, because the
>>>> inventor says, it is filled with hydrogen ;-)
>>>>
>>>>  - Jed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to