This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
the X-ray page does not quite describe the same thing and is rather a very conventional view. nowadays, this field developed so strongly, that other articles in this field are justified. merging the High energy X-rays page with X-ray would need a fully reconsideration of the latter. I rather prefer to develop the new article, which can be done by the community.
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 16:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
High energy X-rays →
High-energy X-rays – Looks weird without the hyphen, especially for non-physicists. Required by the major style guides plus WP:MOS. Authoritative sources have it, such as
NASA and
J Med Phys, no less.
Tony
(talk) 14:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Should Hard X-ray/ Hard X-rays redirect here? -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 06:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The long bullet lists are a little too telegraphic.
"Access to diffuse scattering." -- What is the defintion of diffuse scattering, and why is it important?
"This is absorption and not extinction limited at low energies " -- What is the difference between absorption and extinction? They both sound like exponential decay as you penetrate the material.
"volume enhancement" -- undefined term.
2601:644:400:500:249E:EDFC:9CF:23C0 ( talk) 19:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
According to one source (STELLAR ATMOSPHERES, http://astrowww.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/stellatm/atm5.pdf):
It would be nice for this to better explained or referenced in the article. 178.39.122.125 ( talk) 16:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The article mentions that they are higher energy than conventional X-rays. As I understand it, from actual data sheets, airport scanners now run up to 160keV. That seems to get them into this article. At this energy, they can see through more materials and yet, amazingly, have less effect on photographic film. In any case, if more systems are moving to these energies, there may be more reason to merge articles. That is, if 160keV is now conventional. Gah4 ( talk) 00:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
the X-ray page does not quite describe the same thing and is rather a very conventional view. nowadays, this field developed so strongly, that other articles in this field are justified. merging the High energy X-rays page with X-ray would need a fully reconsideration of the latter. I rather prefer to develop the new article, which can be done by the community.
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 16:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
High energy X-rays →
High-energy X-rays – Looks weird without the hyphen, especially for non-physicists. Required by the major style guides plus WP:MOS. Authoritative sources have it, such as
NASA and
J Med Phys, no less.
Tony
(talk) 14:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Should Hard X-ray/ Hard X-rays redirect here? -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 06:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The long bullet lists are a little too telegraphic.
"Access to diffuse scattering." -- What is the defintion of diffuse scattering, and why is it important?
"This is absorption and not extinction limited at low energies " -- What is the difference between absorption and extinction? They both sound like exponential decay as you penetrate the material.
"volume enhancement" -- undefined term.
2601:644:400:500:249E:EDFC:9CF:23C0 ( talk) 19:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
According to one source (STELLAR ATMOSPHERES, http://astrowww.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/stellatm/atm5.pdf):
It would be nice for this to better explained or referenced in the article. 178.39.122.125 ( talk) 16:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The article mentions that they are higher energy than conventional X-rays. As I understand it, from actual data sheets, airport scanners now run up to 160keV. That seems to get them into this article. At this energy, they can see through more materials and yet, amazingly, have less effect on photographic film. In any case, if more systems are moving to these energies, there may be more reason to merge articles. That is, if 160keV is now conventional. Gah4 ( talk) 00:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)