Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Utter nonsense.

Ever hear "The poison is in the dose"?

There is some amount of every element in your body, including mercury,
plutonium, arsenic and anything else you care to name.

Hmmm, number 2 element shouldn't be in anyone's body. It is an
artificially produced element, and if it does enter the body, it's
characteristics make the consequences are particularly nasty. And it
doesn't take much at all to produce that nastiness.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Want to bet if you can find an instrument that can see a single atom in
a body you won't find at least one atom of every element in most people's
bodies?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Jim wrote,
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Utter nonsense.

Ever hear "The poison is in the dose"?

There is some amount of every element in your body, including mercury,
plutonium, arsenic and anything else you care to name.

Hmmm, number 2 element shouldn't be in anyone's body. It is an
artificially produced element, and if it does enter the body, it's
characteristics make the consequences are particularly nasty. And it
doesn't take much at all to produce that nastiness.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Want to bet if you can find an instrument that can see a single atom in
a body you won't find at least one atom of every element in most people's
bodies?

--
Jim Pennino


It's a mistake to conclude there is at least one atom of every element in
most people's bodies without experimental proof. This is getting
dangerously close to a you-cain't-prove-it-ain't type of argument.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tdonaly wrote:

Jim wrote,

Want to bet if you can find an instrument that can see a single atom in
a body you won't find at least one atom of every element in most people's
bodies?

--
Jim Pennino


It's a mistake to conclude there is at least one atom of every element in
most people's bodies without experimental proof. This is getting
dangerously close to a you-cain't-prove-it-ain't type of argument.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Since there 59 of the elements measurable with current (as of 1998)
technology, I think this would be a pretty sure bet.

See http://web2.iadfw.net/uthman/elements_of_body.html for a pretty good
list.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Dave Platt wrote:
There was a running gag over in rec.audio.high-end a few years ago,
about the ultimate speaker cables: mercury-filled surgical rubber
tubing.

That's exactly what I thought of when I saw this subject line. For
those who missed it in 1987:

http://tinyurl.com/ywjd8

My favorite response in that 17-year-old thread:

I can see the review by Anthony Cordesman now:

"This wire lends a liquid transparency to strings. The fluid quality
of horns has to be heard to be believed. There is a silvery
quality to the brass, with no sign of the hard-edged, coppery
sound normally associated with speaker cable...

73,

John NU3E

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:28:07 -0400, John DeGood wrote:

Dave Platt wrote:
There was a running gag over in rec.audio.high-end a few years ago,
about the ultimate speaker cables: mercury-filled surgical rubber
tubing.

That's exactly what I thought of when I saw this subject line. For
those who missed it in 1987:

http://tinyurl.com/ywjd8

My favorite response in that 17-year-old thread:

I can see the review by Anthony Cordesman now:

"This wire lends a liquid transparency to strings. The fluid quality
of horns has to be heard to be believed. There is a silvery
quality to the brass, with no sign of the hard-edged, coppery
sound normally associated with speaker cable...

A fine example of what Herb Caen, in the SF Chronicle, used to
refer to as "the prismatic luminescence school of wine critics".

Has anyone actually tried it yet?

Considering only a drop in a neon sign or vapor lamp makes the
difference between not working at radiating a tremendous amount of
energy, it's worth a few careful experiments.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:29:20 GMT, wrote:
A fine example of what Herb Caen, in the SF Chronicle, used to
refer to as "the prismatic luminescence school of wine critics".
A wonderful columnist.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:42:02 -0400, Bob wrote:

Has anyone actually tried it yet?

Considering only a drop in a neon sign or vapor lamp makes the
difference between not working at radiating a tremendous amount of
energy, it's worth a few careful experiments.

haha, good joke.

Advertizing Yagi "Neon" tube arrays as STEALTH antennas.
Your are beating my own inventions of crazy antenna designs.

Won't work too well actually, at least not for reception, because the
irregular flickering of the plasma will induce a very large amount
of noise.

w.
--
On the Internet nobody knows that I am a dog.

I was not suggesting using an entire neon sign or vapor lamp as an
antenna. I was pointing out 'the presence of a tiny drop of mercury' is
required for these devices to work. A catalyst perhaps?

Therefore, let's say our antenna was a piece of wire or metal tubing was
inside another non-metallic tube, and a small amount of mercury was also
in the tube. Would the mercury have a desirable effect? Remember, we're
not talking about tremendous amounts of power here. Your typical 4'
fluorescent tube is a 32 to 40 watt device, and there are much lower
output tubes as well. The primary excitation inside the tube is due to
high voltage, not high current.

So, it may not be too far fetched to build a few designs and see what
performance is observed.

Bob wrote:
I was not suggesting using an entire neon sign or vapor lamp as an
antenna. I was pointing out 'the presence of a tiny drop of mercury' is
required for these devices to work. A catalyst perhaps?

Therefore, let's say our antenna was a piece of wire or metal tubing was
inside another non-metallic tube, and a small amount of mercury was also
in the tube. Would the mercury have a desirable effect? Remember, we're
not talking about tremendous amounts of power here. Your typical 4'
fluorescent tube is a 32 to 40 watt device, and there are much lower
output tubes as well. The primary excitation inside the tube is due to
high voltage, not high current.

So, it may not be too far fetched to build a few designs and see what
performance is observed.

Both neon and fluorescent lights work in basically the same way; something
is ionized with high voltage and low pressure and glows.

Neon lights produce light directly from the gas. The color is determined by
the gas. Common gases are neon, argon and krypton.

Fluorescent lights have mercury vapor in them which glows in the
ultraviolet. The inside of the tube is coated with a phosphor which
glows in the visible region when excited by the UV.

Black lights are fluorescent lights without the phosphor.

In either case, the voltage is high and the current is low, meaning the
resistance is high; hardly a good canidate for an antenna element.

Not to mention the small problem that your antenna would contain a
spark gap...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.