Use a radioactive eyepiece!

On Jan 30, 8:46*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 30, 5:22*pm, RichA wrote:

The Kodak Ektamate and Ektar lenses all use thorium glass. *Pretty
harmless just sitting around but I wouldn't want to press my eye to
one for any length of time.

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3759.html

There once were some World War II lenses that used radioactive glass,
but that is long gone. Any surplus from the days of digital Group III
fax machines would not use lenses made from that kind of glass -
because the glass isn't made any more.

I see that some radioactive glass was used even in the 1960s, so I'm
mistaken...

http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/LostS...adioactive.htm

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Jan 30, 8:46 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 30, 5:22 pm, RichA wrote:

The Kodak Ektamate and Ektar lenses all use thorium glass. Pretty
harmless just sitting around but I wouldn't want to press my eye to
one for any length of time.

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3759.html

There once were some World War II lenses that used radioactive glass,
but that is long gone. Any surplus from the days of digital Group III
fax machines would not use lenses made from that kind of glass -
because the glass isn't made any more.

I see that some radioactive glass was used even in the 1960s, so I'm
mistaken...

http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/LostS...adioactive.htm

John Savard
=================================================
Good that you can admit it, Savard. It's really quite painless, isn't it?
Nobody is going to beat you to death over it now. You are mistaken
about relativity, too, but that's because you are hopeless at algebra.
Your pal Bill Owen hasn't come to your rescue, either. He's gone away
to think about it. He's only been gone three weeks. Perhaps he's gone
away to forget about it.


"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
(begin quote)
At the end of Section 3 we find the transformation derived:

tau=beta(t-vx/c^2),
xi=beta(x-vt),
eta=y,
zeta=z,
where beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

With trivial algebraic manipulation we can derive the inverse
transformation:

t=beta(tau+v(xi)/c^2),
x=beta(xi+v(tau)),
y=eta,
z=zeta.
(end quote)
===============================================
Not only is Savard hopeless at simple algebra, he quotes the drool of some
unnamed moron who is equally hopeless.
Perhaps he can show, step-by-step, his trivial derivation, like this:
xi = beta(x-vt)
Divide both sides of the equation by beta
xi/beta = beta(x-vt)/beta
Since beta/beta = 1,
xi/beta = 1*(x-vt)
Add vt to both sides of the equation
xi/beta +vt = (x-vt)+vt
Since vt - vt = 0,
x = xi/beta +vt

Why is Savard multiplying xi by beta instead of dividing?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

On Feb 2, 4:03*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 30, 8:46*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

On Jan 30, 5:22*pm, RichA wrote:

The Kodak Ektamate and Ektar lenses all use thorium glass. *Pretty
harmless just sitting around but I wouldn't want to press my eye to
one for any length of time.

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3759.html

There once were some World War II lenses that used radioactive glass,
but that is long gone. Any surplus from the days of digital Group III
fax machines would not use lenses made from that kind of glass -
because the glass isn't made any more.

I see that some radioactive glass was used even in the 1960s, so I'm
mistaken...

http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/LostS...adioactive.htm

John Savard

That's a very interesting link about radioactive glass.

Of all the possible bad elements, it seems thorium exposure is among
the least dangerous, especially when encapsulated within glass..

On Feb 2, 7:03*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

I see that some radioactive glass was used even in the 1960s, so I'm
mistaken...

John Savard

I believe it was still available ( or t least listed in the Schott
catalog) in the 70s.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 30/01/2013 7:22 PM, RichA wrote:
The Kodak Ektamate and Ektar lenses all use thorium glass. Pretty
harmless just sitting around but I wouldn't want to press my eye to
one for any length of time.

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3759.html

What was the purpose of having a glass made of thorium? What was the
advantage?

Yousuf Khan

On Feb 3, 12:03*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 30/01/2013 7:22 PM, RichA wrote:

The Kodak Ektamate and Ektar lenses all use thorium glass. *Pretty
harmless just sitting around but I wouldn't want to press my eye to
one for any length of time.

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3759.html

What was the purpose of having a glass made of thorium? What was the
advantage?

* * * * Yousuf Khan

The heavier or more dense the glass the better, not to mention
offering a narrower bandpass that assisted the Kodak film to seem as
though offering a more visually identical result, instead of being
somewhat UV sensitive. Kodak film was already kinda IR tolerant by
simply not being sensitive to that longer wave spectrum because, even
deep reds (w/o special filters) didn't record all that well.

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:03:05 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

On 30/01/2013 7:22 PM, RichA wrote:
The Kodak Ektamate and Ektar lenses all use thorium glass. Pretty
harmless just sitting around but I wouldn't want to press my eye to
one for any length of time.

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3759.html

What was the purpose of having a glass made of thorium? What was the
advantage?

"In designing optical lenses, it is often desirable to employ glass
with a high index of refraction. The greater the index of refraction,
the greater the bending of the light. Since this reduces the necessary
curvature of the glass, the lens can be made thinner and lighter.
Unfortunately, glass with a high refractive index can also have a high
dispersion. By adding thorium to the glass, a high refractive index
(over 1.6) can be achieved while maintaining a low dispersion."

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/c...cameralens.htm

On Feb 3, 6:52*pm, Mark Sieving wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:03:05 -0500, Yousuf Khan

wrote:
On 30/01/2013 7:22 PM, RichA wrote:
The Kodak Ektamate and Ektar lenses all use thorium glass. *Pretty
harmless just sitting around but I wouldn't want to press my eye to
one for any length of time.

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3759.html

What was the purpose of having a glass made of thorium? What was the
advantage?

"In designing optical lenses, it is often desirable to employ glass
with a high index of refraction. The greater the index of refraction,
the greater the bending of the light. Since this reduces the necessary
curvature of the glass, the lens can be made thinner and lighter.
Unfortunately, glass with a high refractive index can also have a high
dispersion. *By adding thorium to the glass, a high refractive index
(over 1.6) can be achieved while maintaining a low dispersion."

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/c...cameralens.htm

Plus thorium tends to cut-off a certain amount of UV.

On Feb 1, 1:30*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

Thorium doesn't create weapons grade secondaries, so the Pentagon, DoD
and oligarchs invested in those are always 100% opposed to any use of
thorium that's also failsafe as well as the all-inclusive (birth to
grave) cost of its clean and/or environmentally friendly energy to the
end-use customers would not have to cost at most 10% of what we're
currently paying.

To get energy out of Thorium, you have to bombard it with neutrons to
make it into fissionable Uranium-233. It may be harder to make a bomb
out of that than from Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239, and so Thorium
reactors wouldn't be subsidized by strategic defense, but I see no
reason to imagine a conspiracy.

The Pentagon and the Department of Defense are good things, because
they protect Americans from ending up like the poor people in North
Korea.

John Savard

On Feb 7, 7:58*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Feb 1, 1:30*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

Thorium doesn't create weapons grade secondaries, so the Pentagon, DoD
and oligarchs invested in those are always 100% opposed to any use of
thorium that's also failsafe as well as the all-inclusive (birth to
grave) cost of its clean and/or environmentally friendly energy to the
end-use customers would not have to cost at most 10% of what we're
currently paying.

To get energy out of Thorium, you have to bombard it with neutrons to
make it into fissionable Uranium-233. It may be harder to make a bomb
out of that than from Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239, and so Thorium
reactors wouldn't be subsidized by strategic defense, but I see no
reason to imagine a conspiracy.

The Pentagon and the Department of Defense are good things, because
they protect Americans from ending up like the poor people in North
Korea.

John Savard

Spoken like a true global inflation redneck oligarch that’s public
funded and set for life.

When was the last time our government agencies didn’t obfuscate or lie
to us?

When was the last time our government didn’t help start or sustain a
proxy war?

Thorium only needs to be started with a neutron kicker that can be
safely secured or turned off once that Th232 takes off on its own,
whereas from that point on Th232 takes care of itself as long as
there’s a sufficient volume of hot Th232 to work with. That’s also
called a failsafe reactor.