41–50 of 54 posts
Wonder if one could use muography to detect passing submarines
https://thedebrief.org/darpas-secretive-new-neutrino-detecto...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know it's related to a muon?
I'd think it's pretty much any high-energy ionizing radiation that causes those streaks - probably very few of which are muons. There are "local" sources of ionizing radiation pretty much everywhere. And if [0] is correct about the approximate muon flux - being that "about one per second passes through a volume the size of a person’s head.", the volume of a the CCD sensor that it would have to interact with is so muc…
You would expect ap to 2-3 muons per minute to pass through a typical sensor but you might not capture all of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know it's related to a muon?
I'd think it's pretty much any high-energy ionizing radiation that causes those streaks - probably very few of which are muons. There are "local" sources of ionizing radiation pretty much everywhere. And if [0] is correct about the approximate muon flux - being that "about one per second passes through a volume the size of a person’s head.", the volume of a the CCD sensor that it would have to interact with is so muc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd think it's pretty much any high-energy ionizing radiation that causes those streaks - probably very few of which are muons. There are "local" sources of ionizing radiation pretty much everywhere. And if [0] is correct about the approximate muon flux - being that "about one per second passes through a volume the size of a person’s head.", the volume of a the CCD sensor that it would have to interact with is so muc…
It doesn't have to hit the sensor, it needs to pass through it, so the thinness of it doesn't matter as much as the orientation; it's a matter of flux density. You would expect ap to 2-3 muons per minute to pass through a typical sensor but you might not capture all of them.
And as muons don't interact often, the can pass through a lot of matter without anything noticing - that's the reason why they can pass through the atmosphere to still be detected on the ground - or even deep underground, as many imaging detectors are used, to avoid other radiation sources that could cause noise while still penetrating the rock you want to image. Compared to hundreds of metres of rock in a deep mine, a fridge and roof is nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd think it's pretty much any high-energy ionizing radiation that causes those streaks - probably very few of which are muons. There are "local" sources of ionizing radiation pretty much everywhere. And if [0] is correct about the approximate muon flux - being that "about one per second passes through a volume the size of a person’s head.", the volume of a the CCD sensor that it would have to interact with is so muc…
Not a lot of local radiation can make it to a sensor inside a camera inside a fridge, though.
I’m already using the €235,999 Harbor Freight version for my bridge tests
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a lot of local radiation can make it to a sensor inside a camera inside a fridge, though.
Radioactive isotopes are everywhere , in the air, in the plastic box you put the camera in, in the camera frame itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radioactive isotopes are everywhere , in the air, in the plastic box you put the camera in, in the camera frame itself.
I guess that by far the most likely local source would be potassium-40 which is a gamma emitter and relatively abundant in organic stuff. Due to the low penetration of alpha and beta radiation, the source would have to be inside the camera to even have a chance of hitting the sensor, limiting the rate of such events.
[0] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carefully and purposefully Oxidising Bridges with Rust.
That is a use of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering_steel , actually!
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering_steel
I laser cut and help press about half the cladding at MONA near Hobart, a gallery owned by professional gambler David Walsh.
If you haven’t been, go!
It’s an underground art gallery, complete with wind tunnel reminiscent of a vacuum cleaner tube, and a permanent installation of a digesting shit machine, amongst other subservience adult Disneyland weirdness.
https://www.discovertasmania.com.au/things-to-do/museums/mon...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't have to hit the sensor, it needs to pass through it, so the thinness of it doesn't matter as much as the orientation; it's a matter of flux density. You would expect ap to 2-3 muons per minute to pass through a typical sensor but you might not capture all of them.
It has to interact , otherwise it wouldn't be visible at all, as it's the interactions that the CCD detects. And as muons don't interact often, the can pass through a lot of matter without anything noticing - that's the reason why they can pass through the atmosphere to still be detected on the ground - or even deep underground, as many imaging detectors are used, to avoid other radiation sources that could cause noi…
In open air at sea level, you would expect 1 muon to pass through any square cm of ground every minute, on average. With a sensor measuring 2-3 sq cm, oriented correctly, and exposing for a long enough time you would certainly expect to catch a few.
Unlike x-rays or gamma radiation, muons can pass through several km of dense matter and penetrate deep inside the earth before they decay. They can pass through solid lead. Direct particle collisions are rare but more likely when passing through large amounts of dense matter. The ionisation process can also reduce the speed and trajectory. Muon tomography works by comparing how much the muon count has been reduced compared to an expected background level.
The practice of capturing muons on camera is quite well established, see for example https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10220736/