From: Jonathan Kirwan
Subject: Re: Make infrared goggles inexpensively (like $10!!!)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:35:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:35:19 GMT
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:49:24 GMT, "Don K"
>"Jonathan Kirwan" wrote in message
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:00:47 +0100, "Prai Jei"
>> >No comprendo. If you can see it, it is (by definition) not IR.
>> Yes. The only possibility I could imagine here was anti-Stokes
>> fluorescence with up-conversion phosphors. Unlikely.
>> I think his argument on principle is that "very loud" 30kHz can be
>> heard. Which isn't anywhere close to a valid analogy, regardless.
>Why not? You can undoubtedly make plots of the minimum
>discernable sensed stimuli (MDSS) vs. frequency for both
>light and sound.
>At each frequency, slowly increase the power level until you reach
>the MDSS. This should be somewhat below the level where your
>skin begins to burn or your cells disolve.
He reason it is NOT a valid analogy is simply because light stimulus
is based on QED while sound stimulus is based on subtle time
variations in material density (mechanical vibration.) There is a
quantum effect in the light involved in sight, none such in hearing.
Any analogy between them doesn't hold well.
But I'm talking about scotoptic and photoptic vision, not molecular
heating interactions. In any case, sensitivity curves of human eyes
have been well tested this century.