electrospinning +15kV and -4kV = 19kV

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:gsr7oehd4mimfv3qi63g9g03kq4ht87omq@4ax.com:

On 19 Sep 2019 13:19:33 -0700, Winfield Hill
winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote...

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

(Of course they got the "current flow" backwards)

Nope. Anode is positive. Electron beam moves from negative to
positive. That angled plate in the tube in that diagram is the
anode... is the metal target of the e-beam. Is the positive
node.

This ain't hole flow.

They could have labeled the drawing electron flow,
rather than current flow.

I've met techs who learned "electron flow" in the military, and
then
later switched to conventional current notation. It wrecked them
for
life.

It doe not come from 'the military'. It was J. J. Thomson, the man
who 'discovered' the electron.

It stems from decades of vacuum tube science, and being old enough
to have been taught through that hardware before solid state. Solid
state ushered in more 'facts'.

Some lightning does move from earth to sky, but is is *very* rare.
Most leaves a charged sky (cloud), and 'sinks' into a 'fully
grounded' Earth.

More negative... less negative... Some charge remains... The
event is over until the next charge level gathers and gets released.

What is this... leyden jar stuff?

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4f959a17-8ccb-4d72-b53e-b05152280071@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:10:44 AM UTC-7,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:9847oeldtng5n72gd26ahde4l5scsr5as3@4ax.com:

It's still line-of-sight xray photons. No focussing optics, no
chromatic effects, just pure geometry. Acceleration voltage has
almost no effect on image quality.


Oh but there most certainly is focussing optics.

X-rays are focused by Aluminum lenses.

Not in any useful way, they aren't.

That *must* be why they actually do it. Since it is so non-useful.

 

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:30:18 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:sef7oeptsgloti2d21fcmb36k8sv5q0krf@4ax.com:

But the spectrum out of an xray tube doesn't change much with
voltage. I can't see how a bit of ripple could matter.


It is not about "the spectrum". It is about the purity of the
stream.

What does that mean?

The e beam striking the emissive target. Call it 'sputtering' if
you need to get a grasp on what happens.

Do you sputter the xray tube anode? How long does it last, being
splattered onto the glass?

Clean, pure e-beam...
clean pure x-ray flux... cleaner imagery.

Noisey e-beam... noisey imagery.

Makes no sense. The image is made of random xray photons. It doesn't
matter how "pure" they are.

Known fact. Sorry. I cannot really explain the mechanism.

Uh, right.

 

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:71q9oe9c9g4p97p96u73ji4lmj4fn2c113@4ax.com:

Makes no sense. The image is made of random xray photons. It
doesn't
matter how "pure" they are.

Maybe the difference is that of a single exposure and that of live
imagery.

It would not affect single exposures as they are a function of
exposure time and dosage level.

It would affect frame by frame live imagery because the exposure is
so short lived that the frame data gathered is affected. Maybe that
is where it is.

You tell us, crazy Mr. Spectrumboy. (thank you, Adam).

Then there are 'quantum noise' affects with x ray realm as well.
Are you familiar with those?

Now you will come back stating how it is not related. I never said
it was.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:39:16 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:gsr7oehd4mimfv3qi63g9g03kq4ht87omq@4ax.com:

On 19 Sep 2019 13:19:33 -0700, Winfield Hill
winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote...

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

(Of course they got the "current flow" backwards)

Nope. Anode is positive. Electron beam moves from negative to
positive. That angled plate in the tube in that diagram is the
anode... is the metal target of the e-beam. Is the positive
node.

This ain't hole flow.

They could have labeled the drawing electron flow,
rather than current flow.

I've met techs who learned "electron flow" in the military, and
then
later switched to conventional current notation. It wrecked them
for
life.



It doe not come from 'the military'.

Then I guess I imagined those people.

Then why did I pay them?

 

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news84aoepim349b8cskm9phmvk7asicelji9@4ax.com:

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:39:16 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:gsr7oehd4mimfv3qi63g9g03kq4ht87omq@4ax.com:

On 19 Sep 2019 13:19:33 -0700, Winfield Hill
winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote...

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

(Of course they got the "current flow" backwards)

Nope. Anode is positive. Electron beam moves from negative
to
positive. That angled plate in the tube in that diagram is the
anode... is the metal target of the e-beam. Is the positive
node.

This ain't hole flow.

They could have labeled the drawing electron flow,
rather than current flow.

I've met techs who learned "electron flow" in the military, and
then
later switched to conventional current notation. It wrecked them
for
life.



It doe not come from 'the military'.

Then I guess I imagined those people.

Then why did I pay them?

You met 'techs' and that is where *they* learned it, but that does
not mean that is where the paradigm came from.
'
You say stupid shit, then follow up with retarded shit. I guess
that makes you dumber than dogshit.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 10:58:11 AM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news84aoepim349b8cskm9phmvk7asicelji9@4ax.com:

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:39:16 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:gsr7oehd4mimfv3qi63g9g03kq4ht87omq@4ax.com:

On 19 Sep 2019 13:19:33 -0700, Winfield Hill
winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote...

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

(Of course they got the "current flow" backwards)

Nope. Anode is positive. Electron beam moves from negative
to
positive. That angled plate in the tube in that diagram is the
anode... is the metal target of the e-beam. Is the positive
node.

This ain't hole flow.

They could have labeled the drawing electron flow,
rather than current flow.

I've met techs who learned "electron flow" in the military, and
then
later switched to conventional current notation. It wrecked them
for
life.



It doe not come from 'the military'.

Then I guess I imagined those people.

Then why did I pay them?



You met 'techs' and that is where *they* learned it, but that does
not mean that is where the paradigm came from.
'
You say stupid shit, then follow up with retarded shit. I guess
that makes you dumber than dogshit.

That's unkind ot dogshit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 12:58:22 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:30:18 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:sef7oeptsgloti2d21fcmb36k8sv5q0krf@4ax.com:

But the spectrum out of an xray tube doesn't change much with
voltage. I can't see how a bit of ripple could matter.


It is not about "the spectrum". It is about the purity of the
stream.

What does that mean?

Short term variations in the intensity of the beam translate into variations in intensity from one pixel to the next. The "image" is created by array of pixels, where the information is contained in the variations in intensity from one pixel to the next.

Short term variations in the intensity of the beam as it moves from pixel to pixel show up as noise on the image.

The e beam striking the emissive target. Call it 'sputtering' if
you need to get a grasp on what happens.

Do you sputter the x-ray tube anode? How long does it last, being
splattered onto the glass?

Quite a while. The atoms that get "sputtered" off the target condense back onto it.

Clean, pure e-beam...
clean pure x-ray flux... cleaner imagery.

Noisey e-beam... noisey imagery.

Makes no sense. The image is made of random xray photons. It doesn't
matter how "pure" they are.

Their "purity" isn't the issue. The number of x-ray photons associated with each pixel is. The item being scanned influences the number of x-ray photons associated with each pixel.

That's your signal. The intensity of the beam at each point in the scan also influences the number of photons associated with each pixel in a way that has nothing to do with the nature of the object being imaged. That's noise.

Known fact. Sorry. I cannot really explain the mechanism.

Uh, right.

He shouldn't have needed to. It's pretty obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:bcd11e83-67c1-408c-9805-4cdb6f1c18e4@googlegroups.com:

Do you sputter the x-ray tube anode? How long does it last, being
splattered onto the glass?

Quite a while. The atoms that get "sputtered" off the target
condense back onto it.

At 45 degree angle of incidence, no atoms glean off. Xray flux,
however, does.


The idiot is using the term sputter in the wrong context.

Not unusual for this dork. Sadly, he probably did it on purpose.

Even more sad... It is probably the right term. He just chose the
wrong definition. Par for his course through this.

He is so stupid that he thought I was referring to vaporizing a
metal onto a surface in a vacuum chamber. We ain't coating DVD
platters here. Though something seems to have been deposited in his
brain cavity. Mucking up his vision.

I referred to 'other than absolutely clean DC'. Noisey HVDC
'sputters' like an old badly running car trying to do its job.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 20/9/19 6:55 pm, Martin Brown wrote:

On 19/09/2019 23:26, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 19/9/19 7:17 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/09/2019 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
AoE, at a mere 1170 pages, doesn't devote much time to Signals and
Systems; there are bits here and there. Any scientist should get a
separate outline of that.

The corresponding Swiss army knife of computing for scientists,
numerical analysis and basic signal processing is "Numerical Recipes"
by Press, Flannery, Teukolsky and Vettering which isn't a bad
practical introduction (although some of their code doesn't quite
work and some algorithms are obfuscated by FORTRAN array starts at 1
indexing). The bibliography is fine though specialist newer texts are
better.

Anything more than that and you are into university signal processing
texts like Digital Signal Processing by Prokalis & Manolakis (sp?) etc.

I've started on Lyon's book "Understanding Digital Signal Processing"
and like it. The explanations are more intuitive, less abstract math
(though still a primarily mathematical subject of course).
Dunno. I tend towards very mathematical treatments since I was mostly
working on the borderline between applied maths and theoretical physics.

The book is mathematical, just not exclusively so. It augments the math
with diagrams to help give an intuitive understanding. Pretty hard to
explain quadrature signals and negative frequency without the math, but
the pictures help understand the math.

Clifford Heath

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 3:50:25 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:39:16 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:gsr7oehd4mimfv3qi63g9g03kq4ht87omq@4ax.com:

On 19 Sep 2019 13:19:33 -0700, Winfield Hill
winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote...

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

(Of course they got the "current flow" backwards)

Nope. Anode is positive. Electron beam moves from negative to

positive. That angled plate in the tube in that diagram is the
anode... is the metal target of the e-beam. Is the positive node.

This ain't hole flow.

They could have labeled the drawing electron flow,
rather than current flow.

I've met techs who learned "electron flow" in the military, and then later switched to conventional current notation. It wrecked them for life.

It doe not come from 'the military'.

Then I guess I imagined those people.

Then why did I pay them?

You take you fantasies seriously?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

I had an interview in a auditorium before ten veteran trainers, ten systems engineers, three managers, and a emeritus VP of Engineering, to get that X=Ray job. The interview was competitive, and I was the last of five to go. Anyone working in the division could come, watch my presentation, and ask questions. Quite a few did.

I did a ten minute lesson on a topic of my choice, and then was grilled on my knowledge of teaching techniques, physics, detectors, noise, servo systems, for forty five more minutes.

Then there was the second interview, setting at a CT with the covers pulled and manuals out. I was the only one of the perspective employees who could explain how a resolver worked when presented with one. And I assure you most CTs have a massive resolver imbedded in the rotor.

I was offered the job over several experienced senior engineers because I knew the physics, and because I lugged in a one hundred pound switching laser power supply and test equipment, on a cart, and used them in my demo lesson.

I resent the implication that I do not know my X-ray physics. I was part of a seven person teaching team that trained thirty FSEs on the system, from the ground up, on a sixty day course. Not only did we do CT, but we sat in on ultrasound, other clinical X-ray systems, and comparative courses on other manufacturer's hardware, including inspection systems. I had sixteen machines of different vintage to maintain in one teaching hall alone. At any time I could be sent out in the field in an emergency, on an actual medical system.

Funny thing about clinical X-ray, competitors do maintain each others systems in parts of the world where the competitor has a presence and the principal manufacturer did not. So you could say I faced outside review of my teaching. Plus I sat all the exams on the system three times.

Not to mention diagnosis was readying around 4000 lines of commented commands going to and from the rotor on CANBUS per rotation. So I have a damn good idea of what the PSU and detector was doing. The detector returned data at 5.6 gigabytes per second over an array of free space laser diodes into a RAID array.
The detector team came in and gave us lectures, so we could make new lessons for the students. The local R and D team used the training machines for their tests of new hardware, and ANY part I needed was shipped in over night or supplied from the warehouse next door within 24 hours. This let us put faults in any part of the system or let the students blow a board.

So you geniuses can read up on Dual Spectrum X-Ray, Helical Scan, forth and sixth gen CT, Bremsstrahlung and Characteristic Radiation, K line, MaS, detector adsorption profiles, Edge Filters, Filter Wheels, and independent setting of tube current irrespective of tube voltage, because I lived it for twelve hour days, six days a week. Because the Junior trainer was the one who had to come in on Saturdays and oversee the students who were behind, and test every machine in the hall.

In classical tube terms, the tube was actually a Pentode, Two cathodes, a focus cup, a deflection electrode, and an anode.

Because five years later, I can still remember how to uncrate, position, and align the damn machine in my sleep, and diagram the phantom and its adsorption curves. I know about the anode, because I can still quote the HU numbers. Not a one of you has mentioned tube conditioning, and why the anode is heated before scans to stabilize its spectrum across the spot and to clean up the vacuum before a PT run.

I had to profile all the aluminum in the path to align it, I have a damn fine idea of what x-ray lenses can and can not do.

I used to love SED, but I get real tired of people shouting off on systems they do not have a clue on.



Steve

 

sroberts6328@gmail.com wrote in news:55761669-fad9-4543-b7ce-
6ecfed94be39@googlegroups.com:

> I resent the implication that I do not know my X-ray physics.

OK, this is bullshit.

I never made any such statement or inferrence.

The only thing I rufuted is your blanket statement that Aluminum is
not used to "focus" and "shape the x-ray flux stream.

It is, in SOME designs.

Obviously not your CT scanners.

But even a simple web search shows that they indeed are used in
other systems for that very purpose.

So maybe you 'learned' it way back in a day of older hardware, and
or, your exposure to the entire gamut of devices and technology in
use was limited to CT.

But no, dude. I know you are smart. I do not see you doing the
same things as Larkin and some others with the moniker thing.

You iterate facts. I never disputed that.

 

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 04:41:06 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:bcd11e83-67c1-408c-9805-4cdb6f1c18e4@googlegroups.com:

Do you sputter the x-ray tube anode? How long does it last, being
splattered onto the glass?

Quite a while. The atoms that get "sputtered" off the target
condense back onto it.

At 45 degree angle of incidence, no atoms glean off. Xray flux,
however, does.


The idiot is using the term sputter in the wrong context.

Not unusual for this dork. Sadly, he probably did it on purpose.

Even more sad... It is probably the right term. He just chose the
wrong definition. Par for his course through this.

He is so stupid that he thought I was referring to vaporizing a
metal onto a surface in a vacuum chamber. We ain't coating DVD
platters here. Though something seems to have been deposited in his
brain cavity. Mucking up his vision.

I referred to 'other than absolutely clean DC'. Noisey HVDC
'sputters' like an old badly running car trying to do its job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputtering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

 

sroberts6328@gmail.com wrote in
news:55761669-fad9-4543-b7ce-6ecfed94be39@googlegroups.com:

I used to love SED, but I get real tired of people shouting off on
systems they do not have a clue on.

OK fucker. YOU 'shouted off" about YOUR CT crap.

THIS discussion was NOT about your CT scanner's set-up, and
decidedly, your CT device is not the only configuration used in x ray
generation.

I do not know about your fucking CT scanners and never said I did
or that you didin't.

WHAT I SAID was that Aluminum is used to focus x rays.

Apparently it is only on those generation devices that DO SO, which
obviously does not include yours. But you discounting the entire
gamut based on your CT machine experience is dumb at best, because
not every x ray emission generating device does so in the manner your
CT scanner does.

Obviously so, because the guy scanning the gas pipes in Boston
certainly knows that noise in the HVPS affect image quality in his
system. They do not CT scan gas pipes. Not all x ray systems are
medical in nature. Sheesh.

Get over it dude. I know you are smarter than anyone in the group
about this. I never stated otherwise. You did/do look kind of dumb
though for discounting the claim. Aluminum 'lenses' are used in beam
forming x ray flux in those systems where it is. Obviously that was
not the case in your system, but that does not mean all devices
operate as yours does.

How can you not see that?

 

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:qvccoe5fvr9u3b77n02rft4p0at1p9lb84@4ax.com:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputtering

NO, you RETARDED FUCK. It is NOT THAT definition. NOT wiki,
dipshit! USE A DICTIONARY, YOU PATHETIC WORM.

GOD DAMN BOY YOU ARE STUPID!!!

 

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:qvccoe5fvr9u3b77n02rft4p0at1p9lb84@4ax.com:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

Yeah, another retarded term Johnny seems to like a LOT, except that
you choosing the wrong definition is YOU tossing up a STUPID SALAD
into the group.

It does not get more stupid than John Larkin when he is wrong and
dances about trying to escape from everyone seing it.

Your fucking brain is sputtering worse than an old, out of tune
Model T.

Johnny has a problem with words and has a very limited vocabulary
as a result.

Good job, Johhny... NOT!!!

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4f959a17-8ccb-4d72-b53e-b05152280071@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:10:44 AM UTC-7,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

X-rays are focused by Aluminum lenses.

Not in any useful way, they aren't.

That *must* be why they actually do it. Since it is so non-useful.

Getting an aluminum surface smooth enough to refract X-rays, and getting more
'focus' intensification than absorption-of-beam attenuation, are an unlikely
pair of achievements.

I'm not sure what 'they actually do', but it isn't focusing.

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cd6ca8f3-fb87-48a9-8fbc-faff22f37c8e@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-7,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4f959a17-8ccb-4d72-b53e-b05152280071@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:10:44 AM UTC-7,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

X-rays are focused by Aluminum lenses.

Not in any useful way, they aren't.

That *must* be why they actually do it. Since it is so
non-useful.

Getting an aluminum surface smooth enough to refract X-rays,

It does not require optical surface quality.

And the refraction is very weak, so they do not have the shape you
would seemingly expect.

and
getting more 'focus' intensification than absorption-of-beam
attenuation, are an unlikely pair of achievements.

Since Al is transparent to x rays, there is very little
attenuation. Your grasp of it is (apparently) an unlikely singular
achievement. Other materials are used as well, such as Beryllium.

Quoted:

"The weak refraction of hard x rays in matter requires the radius of
curvature R of the individual lenses to be small. The spherical
approximation holds only for lenses with an aperture 2R0 that is much
smaller than the radius of curvature R. Since for most x-ray lens
designs the aperture 2R0 is comparable to or larger than the radius
of curvature R, the spherical approximation no longer holds.
Therefore, for high quality imaging applications, parabolic
(aspherical) lenses need to be made."

I'm not sure what 'they actually do', but it isn't focusing.

When one uses optics to sharpen and manipulate visible spectrum
light, refractive media must be used. It shapes the incoming
"light". The manipulation is referred to as "focussing". The lens
shapes and formulae are familiar to many modern day scientists, among
which you seem to number. However...

With x rays and extremely small refractive indexes the suitable
mediums required means that your normal perception of what
"focussing" is has to be opened up a bit (apparently).

I found no problem accepting this information years ago when I
received it, and even had no problem conceiving what "less
refractive" means. I do not know why you are having a difficult time
with it.

 

On Monday, 23 September 2019 10:26:26 UTC+1, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org

There is a simple reason why it may be important to keep a stable
accelerating voltage. In order to get a sharp image the spot size
where the electron beam hits the target needs to be as small as
possible. It is very likely that the focus of the electron beam
will be affected by anode voltage, so if there is substantial ripple
the average spot size will increase, reducing the sharpness of the
final image.

John