Slashdot Mirror


X-Rays Emitted From Ordinary Scotch Tape

Maximum Prophet writes "When I was in High School, I built an X-Ray machine that (probably) didn't produce any X-Rays. I used an old vacuum tube and high voltage. Little did I know that simple triboluminescence would have enough energy to do useful work." The catch: you'll need to peel your tape in a vacuum, and have the x-ray film at the ready.

6 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Re:In other news... by MiKM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're probably thinking of black body radiation, which is decidedly different from this. For a black body to emit enough X-rays to do any useful work, it'd have to be pretty damn hot (something glowing red-hot is around 1000K). In other words, this seems to be an interesting discovery.

  2. Re:Another fun fact by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Light bulbs also emit radiation.

    Most of that tends to be in the visible/infrared/ultraviolet depending on the specific bulb.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  3. Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Publishing "Peeling transparent tape in a vacuum produces x-rays" is not the same as patenting "A mobile x-ray device with no power requirements, with x-rays being generated by peeling transparent tape"

  4. Locked Away For 20+ Years by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The researchers and UCLA have applied for a patent covering such devices.

    We will not see this technology being used to actually help people for 20+ years. The researchers have already been paid to discover this result in their salaries. Why should they be paid again on the backs of those who actually develop practical uses for this discovery? Of what benefit is it to society for this technology to be hoarded by a small few?

    The patenting of scientific phenomena is a shameful institution that needs to be stopped. A university is not supposed to be a for profit institution.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  5. Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No they're not the same thing but the first should result in the second failing to get a patent.

  6. Re:Can the article example serve as prior art? by shotgunefx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not big on patents but seems to me they've taken a process, added a novel and non-trivial addition and made a "potentially" very practical invention. This is the kind of things patents were made for. If it were that obvious, wouldn't someone have done something with it in the last half of a century?

    Now there may be other things that might speak to it's novelty, but from the article, seems fair to me.

    --

    -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.