Talk:High-energy X-rays
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Comments
[edit]the X-ray page does not quite describe the same thing and is rather a very conventional view. nowadays, this field developed so strongly, that other articles in this field are justified. merging the High energy X-rays page with X-ray would need a fully reconsideration of the latter. I rather prefer to develop the new article, which can be done by the community.
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
High energy X-rays → High-energy X-rays – Looks weird without the hyphen, especially for non-physicists. Required by the major style guides plus WP:MOS. Authoritative sources have it, such as NASA and J Med Phys, no less. Tony (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Don't know that it necessarily looks weird without it, but usage of the hyphen is quite common across sources (see this search for confirmation.) Dohn joe (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
"Hard" X-ray
[edit]Should Hard X-ray/Hard X-rays redirect here? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
More detail needed
[edit]The long bullet lists are a little too telegraphic.
"Access to diffuse scattering." -- What is the defintion of diffuse scattering, and why is it important?
"This is absorption and not extinction limited at low energies " -- What is the difference between absorption and extinction? They both sound like exponential decay as you penetrate the material.
"volume enhancement" -- undefined term.
2601:644:400:500:249E:EDFC:9CF:23C0 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- The bullet lists need to be filled out. It's almost unreadable. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Absorption vs extinction
[edit]According to one source (STELLAR ATMOSPHERES, http://astrowww.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/stellatm/atm5.pdf):
- extinction = absorption + scattering
- Scattering: instantaneous re-emission at same frequency in a new angular direction
- Absorption: conversion to some other form of energy such as "heat", i.e. vibrational, rotational or translational energy of atoms or molecules
It would be nice for this to better explained or referenced in the article. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
conventional
[edit]The article mentions that they are higher energy than conventional X-rays. As I understand it, from actual data sheets, airport scanners now run up to 160keV. That seems to get them into this article. At this energy, they can see through more materials and yet, amazingly, have less effect on photographic film. In any case, if more systems are moving to these energies, there may be more reason to merge articles. That is, if 160keV is now conventional. Gah4 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Gah4: The article uses "conventional" to refer to "conventional" x-ray sources for lab based x-ray diffraction experiments. It is very much focused on X-ray energies required for crystallography experiments. High-energy x-rays in this context then refer to the hard x-rays produced by modern synchrotron sources. Clearly this does not apply to medical or airport scanning technology so some sort of merge or renaming of this article may be needed. The section X-ray#Energy_ranges could be expanded to discuss the energy ranges of medical/airport scanners. Polyamorph (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Synchrotron sources are special in a number of ways, such as polarization and pulse length. I haven't thought about the optimal energies for diffraction experiments recently. It seems not so hard to make the higher energy sources, presumably at lower currents. Lower energies might be better at separating bone from flesh. I did find it interesting that scanners were going up to these energies. Gah4 (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this should probably be moved to a less ambiguous title or merged somewhere more appropriate.Polyamorph (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- It seems that above about 9MeV that you can knock neutrons out of some atoms. That causes extra shielding requirements, so scanners try to stay below that. That might be a good place to make a distinction. Also, synchrotron sources should have their own page. Gah4 (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this should probably be moved to a less ambiguous title or merged somewhere more appropriate.Polyamorph (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Synchrotron sources are special in a number of ways, such as polarization and pulse length. I haven't thought about the optimal energies for diffraction experiments recently. It seems not so hard to make the higher energy sources, presumably at lower currents. Lower energies might be better at separating bone from flesh. I did find it interesting that scanners were going up to these energies. Gah4 (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)