The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Technology
  4. Can a vacuum be used to create a faster radiation warning system?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Can a vacuum be used to create a faster radiation warning system?

  • 3 Replies
  • 3670 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline McKay (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
Can a vacuum be used to create a faster radiation warning system?
« on: 21/05/2014 08:49:01 »
We cant make have a signal bout EM radiation danger that arrives to us before the radiation itself.. or can we?
Obviously, we cant have have a signal traveling faster thn c, BUT the fact that we live in atmosphere means tht radiation propagates slower than c.
So, perhaps, we can have a, basically, vacuum pipe  closed with a seal that is transculent to whatever we want to detect, facibg outward with the detector qt the closest end. The radiation will travel faster trough the pipe than trough air. I calculate that for a 10 meter pipe/ distance there would be a lag of 970 microseconds (almost a milisecond). For 100m that would be almost 10 ms.
That sure aint much, but I am wondering, could anything benifit from such a warning system? Perhaps its enough time to prepare some systems for a EMP, flicking a switch or soething.
Particle radiation would be even slower..
« Last Edit: 04/06/2014 11:44:24 by Georgia »
Logged
 



Offline McKay (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Early warning for radiation
« Reply #1 on: 21/05/2014 09:02:20 »
Sorry, im off by a factor - it is 970 microseconds for 100 meters
Logged
 

Offline evan_au

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11035
  • Activity:
    9%
  • Thanked: 1486 times
Re: Early warning for radiation
« Reply #2 on: 21/05/2014 13:08:21 »
Electromagnetic radiation travels at around 3x108 m/s in a vacuum.
According to my calculations, this works out at 0.3us per 100m= 100m/3x108 m/s.

The refractive index of air is 1.000277, which means that a burst of light will travel through air at a speed of 3x108/1.000277, which will arrive later over 100m by 0.1 ns =0.0001us = 100m/3x108 m/s x (1.000277-1)

0.1ns is not a lot of time to shut down equipment.
What is worse, this giant vacuum tube will allow a blast of dangerous radiation to penetrate your bunker, quickly followed by a burst of particles which have not been slowed or absorbed by the atmosphere.

During early atomic bomb testing, scientists wanted to measure the spectrum of radiation produced by the blast, so they built an airtight tube, several kilometers long and filled with Hydrogen (if I  remember correctly). This was apparently on the theory that the relatively simple atomic structure of hydrogen would create the least distortion of the spectrum. But I guess they knew when the explosion was going to happen, so they weren't so interested in early warning.
Logged
 

Offline McKay (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Early warning for radiation
« Reply #3 on: 21/05/2014 14:01:48 »
Ah, yes, sorry again. My calculations are WAY of. Whatwas I thinking?
Hmm, ok, so a 0.1ns - not much indeed
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.516 seconds with 36 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.