Talk:X-ray/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

inconsistent information

The following figures "10 to 0.01 nanometers, corresponding to frequencies in the range 30 PHz to 30 EHz." seem to not be consistent, since frequency is the inverse of wavelength. 69.117.88.126 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the "Units of measure and exposure" section it says: ---Medical X-rays are a significant source of man-made radiation exposure, accounting for 58% in the United States in 1987, but since most radiation exposure is natural (82%), medical X-rays only account for 10% of total American radiation exposure.[10]

Almost immediately after that in the "Sources" section it contradicts that: ---In 2006 in the United States the environment (outer space and the earth) and medical imaging accounted for nearly 50% of exposure each.[19]

So, first: Environment=82% and Medical=~10% (in 1987) Then: Environment=~50% and Medical=~50% (in 2007) It seems one of those sources are inaccurate. If they are both accurate the first should be removed anyway, it's misleading and maybe outright false at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.98.223.132 (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

X-rays are not defined by their energy !

I speak from a radiation oncology background... x-rays are electromagnetic radtion defined by their source, not their energy. They have typical energies, but theoretically, they can be produced at any energy. In diagnostic radiology, x-rays are produced with low energies, in the kilo-electron-voltage range. In radiotherapy, however, x-rays can be produced by linacs, in the MEGA-electron-volatage range. If a 6 MeV beam is produced by a linear accelerator, x-rays of energies from 0 to 6 MeV is produced, with an average energy of 2 MeV.

A gamma ray comes from the nucleus of an atom. An x-ray comes from outside an atom, eg characteristic radiation, bremmstrahlung radiation, pair production. Some people think gamma rays have higher energies that x-rays. This is not true. They have higher energies than x-rays which are TYPICALLY USED IN DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.43.146.219 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is true. Both X-Rays and Gamma rays are photons with different energies. Given 2 beams, by your definition one could not tell if they were either an x-ray or a gamma-ray. Perhaps this is your viewpoint from medical use of x-rays but from a physics standpoint I do not believe there is a difference. Photon emmision is photon emmision. I'm changing the section on "Physics" to "Medical application physics" as it does not seem to have any bearing on non medical physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.187.230 (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Xrays are not distinguished from gamma rays by their energies. An x-ray and a gamma ray are physically identical if they are emmited at the same energy. Their interaction with matter is identical. An xray is emmited by the electron shell and a gamma is emmited by the nucleus but after emmission they are identical. With conventional technology x-rays are produced by firing high energy electrons at a metal (often tungsten) target. This results in a spectrum of photon energies rather than a discrete energy. On the other hand, radioactive elements emit one or several characteristic energy photons. For example Tc99m emits a 140KeV photon. This is identical to a 140KeV x-ray if you could isolate one. Many elements emit photons which fall well into the diagnostic x-ray range. This is not an esoteric idea to be debated but rather a fundamental error in this article. It is embarrassing that it has not been corrected. R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwmshopping (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone considered what the implication of this new definition of X-ray would be? It is that all photons originating from the electron shell would be X-rays. That would include everything from visible light to radio waves. Pretty much everything would be an x-ray then. ykhan (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the article may not express this clearly, the definition is that the energy range above 120 eV (10 nm) is considered a combined x-ray/gamma ray spectrum. Photons in this range are classified as x-rays or gamma rays depending on their origin. So only photons above 120 eV that come from the electron shell are x-rays. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if this sounds patronising, but it is deeply wrong to claim that the definition of a photon as "X-ray" or "gamma-ray" should depend on its origin... A photon of unknown origin would be what then? And what about a photon which gets accelerated by some dispersion mechanism? The only parameter a photon has, and thus the only one you can use to classify it, is its energy (conversely, its frequency or its wavelength). It is certainly true though that the limits between x and gamma (as the limits between, for example, far-infrared and microwaves) are arbitrary, and certainly admit discussion. Fsoto1969 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

The definition X-ray: electron cloud, gamma-ray: nucleus is generally accepted in nuclear physics (see text books or also the Encyclopedia Britannica (www.britannica.com)). If you do not know the origin of a photon, call it a "photon of unknown origin". Since the properties of that photon do not depend on origin, but on it's energy, it does not matter anyway. 207.42.135.25 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) E. Buxbaum

Reading this discussion (and interpreting it from a Physics background) I agree with the following points:

• X-rays are considered to be photons originating from electron energy shedding
• Gamma rays are considered to be photons originating from excited/unstable nucleii
• Cosmic rays are considered to be photons of cosmic origin
• Photons are "photons" until a source can be determined
• photonic "Ionising radiation" is the part of the spectrum energy higher than UVC and is delineated more or less as the smallest energy required to remove an electron from an atom (cause an ionisation event)

I believe any number of quality references to the above general points have already been included in this discussion. The issue now comes to making changes to the wiki description. The first paragraph (and the image to the right of this paragraph) gives the mistaken impression that the ionising part of the spectrum is divided into X-rays in the low energy region, gamma rays in the middle region and cosmic rays in the high energy region. May I suggest that: a) the definition inferred by paragraph 4 (appropriately re-worded)should be the primary definition and it should be moved to paragraph 1. b) the discussion about early historical definitions of x-rays should be relegated to paragraph 4 as a historical footnote. A.Barber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.191.30 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Old

The third line on the physics paragraph refers to gamma rays as "low energy" when they are instead the highest energy region of the spectrum. I just wanted to bring up this point and let someone with better writing skills modify that paragraph.

A previous entry claimed to quote from Tesla's speech and gave him precedence in discovering x-rays. The actual speech found online says: "The taking of these photographic impressions by means of Crooks bulbs brought freshly to my mind the experiments of Lenard, some features of which, particularly the action on a sensitive plate..."

"...which made me temporarily forget my projects. I had hardly finished the work of reconstruction and resumed the course of my ideas when the news of Roentgen's achievement reached me. Instantly the truth flashed upon my mind. I hurried to repeat his incompletely reported experiments, and there I beheld the wonder myself. Then — too late — I realized that my guiding spirit had again prompted me and that I had failed to comprehend his mysterious signs. . . .But while I have failed to see what others in my place might have perceived..."

So he first claims that Lenard did it before him and then admits he didn't understand it. Rmhermen 04:59, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Lenard's finding that electrons produced by a cathode ray tube can penetrate through thin glass and extend out into the air, causing a glow. This resembles x-ray effects, and in hindsight we can see that they have a different cause.

---

Ivan Pulyui experimented with X-rays years before Tesla and Roentgen. It is hard to claim who invented the X-ray tubes, as the technology was there throughout Europe. However, there is evidence that Pulyui's work was technically superior to Roentgen's at the same time, in terms of equipment as well as the quality of images produced. Coincidentally, Roentgen was introduced to the work by Pulyui himself, who had demonstrated the photographic images of a broken arm and other objects and introduced the term X-ray in his manuscripts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pulyuy

---

Some quotes on Tesla's priority over Roentgen ...

1892 Tesla discovers x-ray radiation while experimenting with HV and evacuated tubes

http://205.243.100.155/frames/tesla.html

Tesla opened a new laboratory. By 1897, he had carried out investigations in the field of X-ray

http://members.aol.com/k3bu/tesla73.htm

In April 1887, he established his own laboratory, where he experimented with shadowgraphs similar to those involved in the discovery of x-rays

http://www.frank.germano.com/nikolatesla.htm

The Electrical Review in 1896 published X-rays of a man, made by Tesla, with X-ray tubes of his own design. They appeared at the same time as when Roentgen announced his discovery of X-rays. Tesla never attempted to proclaim priority. Roentgen congratulated Tesla on his sophisticated X-ray pictures, and Tesla even wrote Roentgen's name on one of his films. He experimented with shadowgraphs similar to those that later were to be used by Wilhelm Rontgen when he discovered X-rays in 1895.

http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm

After a difficult period, during which Tesla invented but lost his rights to an arc-lighting system, he established his own laboratory in New York City in 1887, where his inventive mind could be given free rein. He experimented with shadowgraphs similar to those that later were to be used by Wilhelm Röntgen when he discovered X-rays in 1895.

http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/TESLA_BIO.html

There are plenty of other sources on tesla and his work on x-rays before Roentgen - reddi 22:38, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes he and several others worked on x-rays. However it was Roentgen who figured it out. He "discovered" it. Rmhermen 00:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just some links ...

He also took the first x-ray photographs. - http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_hifreq.html

The Electrical Review in 1896 published X-rays of a man, made by Tesla, with X-ray tubes of his own design. They appeared at the same time as when Roentgen announced his discovery of X-rays. - http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm

Photos of Tesla's image and news articles - http://www.teslasociety.com/xray.gif

Lecture. Tesla's independent discovery of X-Ray - http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/more/351ntl.htm

He experimented with shadowgraphs similar to those that later were to be used by Wilhelm Röntgen - http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/tesla.htm and http://www.qsl.net/dominiondx/tesla.htm

---

Tesla was not aware of certain characteristics of x-rays. X-rays were not discovered yet. He was just working on unknown effect of phosphorescent light and admits in the article we both quote that he did not understand it. Also you have presented no evidence that Tesla took any human photographs before Roentgen or that he ever sent any photograph to him, much less before the publication of Roentgen's work. Also "1896 in the Electrical Review" is after 1895 when Roentgen published. Rmhermen 13:32, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Tesla's human x-ray photos before Roentgen: In "Tesla: Master of Lightning" by Cheney and Uth there is a very clear x-ray shadowgraph of a high-laced shoe containing a human foot, with visible bones, nails in the sole, etc. The authors state that this photo was made by Tesla accidentally. They also state that it was one of the few things recovered from the rubble of Tesla's 5th Ave laboratory fire. That fire took place many months before Roentgen's first public announcement. So, at the very least, Tesla made an accidental shadowgraph of a human body part. Perhaps at the time of the fire he hadn't yet determined how it happened? --Wjbeaty 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The discussion on cathode rays is pretty confusingly written and even seems to imply that cathode rays were X-rays. It needs writing clearly explaining that Cathode rays (which perhaps merit their own page) were originally thought to be rays and were only later found to be streams of electrons. High energy cathode rays can create X rays when they hit something. BozMo(talk)

---

Are there no articles on X-ray optics; parabolic/hyperbolic kirkpatrick baez /wolter telescopes and the like on wikipedia? :o( --Deglr6328 03:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Röntgen or Roentgen

In 2003, the German language was formally changed to use oe in preference to ö. This change hasn't yet eprcolated through society, and newspapers are still printing Schröder rather than Schroeder, but oe is being taught in schools in preference to ö. Since the wiki entry is Willhelm Röntgen, and the majority of the references in the article were Röntgen, I have changed oe to ö in this article. However, I believe that considering that the official norm in German is now to prefer oe to ö, the wiki should move over to the English spelling of German names. This is, after all, an English wiki, and ö is not an English character. PhilHibbs 13:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"In 2003, the German language was formally changed to use oe in preference to ö."

Never heard of that and indeed it doesn't look like it's being followed. Liked to read about it. The ministers of education, who decide what's taught in schools, continue to use it. http://www.kmk.org/index1.shtml

I don't believe that any such change was made in the neue deutsche Rechtschreibung. It also seems somewhat unlikely that the spelling of names would be altered. Hence it remains, as before, Goethe but Schröder. The question of whether names should be Anglicised is a more complex issue. In that sense, certainly, "oe" is at least preferable to just "o" (no umlaut).144.213.253.14 04:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"This is, after all, an English wiki, and ö is not an English character."

You are free to write "oe" instead of "ö", but would it not be better to stick with the original name? It is likly that most people who understand "oe" also understand "ö". The others will not care anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.177.112 (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The characters are offered when editing, probably to encourage their use in names that have them. --217.230.123.70 10:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I am an Austrian user, and nobody (in Austria, Germany or Switzerland) is using oe instead of ö - except for describing those "Umlaut"s in other language. Since you guys don't have an "ö" on your keyboard, I believe it's ok to use "oe" instead in the title. In the article, though, i would stick with the correct german version... -- Mnolf 07:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition, please don't translate first names into english, will you? Eugen Goldstein is NOT called Eugene. snottily 11.09.2005

Hi, I am German and have to say (as others stated before): PhilHibbs is perfectly wrong. In the past two days, there were edits which proposed Röentgen, this is even worse than Roentgen or Rontgen. (If you are able to type an ö, why misspell the name?) I reverted them. I think, you should stick to Röntgen, see the article about Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen. --GrGr 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if there was such a rule (ö -> oe) which is definitely not (there is just a DIN rule, which tells to do ö->oe on systems where ö itself is not available) this would not apply here. "Röntgen" is a proper name, and spelling rules like this do not apply. If you start such nonsense you could even translate "Einstein" to "Onestone".... --Cálestyo (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Visible x-rays?

In my opinion, the 'visible' x-rays represent phosphorescence of structures within the eye-ball, rather than truly visible x-rays. I have requested peer review. Axl 14:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• If I recall correctly I'm the one who added the majority of the information on X-rays being visible. I am confident that the information I provided in the paragraph at the end of the "Detectors" section is factually and historically accurate (see here:[1]) however, I share your uncertainty about the actual mechanism which makes them visible. The question being, are the X-rays inducing phosphorescence in the retina or aqueous humor itself or are the X-rays directly exciting neurons in the retina OR are they exciting (and destroying?) rhodopsin molecules in the retina conventionally and causing visual signals to be sent? I would guess that because no one is going to be repeating these crazy experiments with X-ray beams on thier eyeballs anytime soon we probably have no real way of knowing for sure so we might just add a mention of this controversy on in the article. X-rays are indeed visible, but HOW and what is our definition of "visible"?--Deglr6328 22:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Okay, that's a sensible solution. Axl 11:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why not change to x-rays is percievable by the eyeNiklar (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

bragg

how about mentioning all the x-ray stuff the braggs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Bragg did on crystals. --ssam

Propose move to "X-rays"

The article is currently under the name "X-ray", I would like to propose it be moved to "X-rays" instead. The term "X-ray" most often refers to the image taken of an object using X-rays. Thoughts?--Deglr6328 02:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No - first, given that X-ray photographs (i.e. X-rays) are taken using X-rays, I can't see why the page title needs to change. But anyway, pages are generally listed in the singular, unless the plural is the predominant usage. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right, this is why I think it should be moved. The article is firstly about the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum not the medical imaging technique and the term "X-rays" is the plural, predominant usage. Just like Gamma rays, cosmic rays etc.--Deglr6328 00:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But gamma ray, cosmic ray are both at the singular. There is already a separate article on radiography. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Propose spelling change to "x-ray"

Why is this being spelled with uppercase X in the article??? DIV 128.250.204.118 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In astrophysics the capital X is the preferred form for X-ray/X-rays. Although I can't tell you why that form is used, I would say the article should retain the uses of capital X. Strickdk 15:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Journals such as the Physical Review series use x ray. That is: lower case and no hyphen.

Medical Affects/Early History

Does anyone have better information about the adverse health affects of x-rays, especially during the early evolution of the technology? Several scientists have developed x-ray burns or cancer, sometimes leading to death. Also, according to the History Channel, some scientists early on believed that they could use x-rays to change the skin tone of black people. In short, I think there could be better information about the early experimentation associated with the technology. Tkessler 00:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see a section on health effects too. When were the hazards of x-rays realized and radiographers first start to take precautions? The photo of early x-ray experimenters shows them using no protection at all. Did doctors in the early 1900s who took hundreds of x-rays without shielding die of cancer? What was the dosage of early x-ray radiographs, and particularly fluoroscopy procedures? What are the current national and international dosage limits? --Chetvorno^TALK 13:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Generation of x-rays

I question the phrase: "The basic production of X-rays is by accelerating electrons in order to collide with a metal target (tungsten usually)", specifically the "usually tungsten" part. In my experience, it is rather "usually copper", although this is largely useless information, since the target varies with the application. Therefore, I propose the removal of the remark, or introduction of a list of common targets in its place. However, I must admit I have never encountered a tungsten target. Therefore I ask is this a historical fact, or a target in common use for a particular, specialised application? 144.213.253.14 01:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

?? X-ray TUBES virtually always use tungsten targets because of its high Z and high melting point and heat capacity. --Deglr6328 01:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, which seems reasonable. Perhaps I should clarify my position. In the course of my work on x-ray crystallography, I have overwhelmingly encountered (in both personal experience and the literature) the use of Cu and Co targets, with occasional mentions of Mo. Maybe you could mention in which field W is commonly used, since it is certainly not in (modern) diffractometers... In my field, the material is chosen according to the characteristic wavelengths of x-ray it produces, rather than the properties you mention. Indeed, as you can see in the table of common x-ray wavelengths (which admittedly I introduced to the article), W is not even present. You also highlight a further deficiency of the phrase by emphasising that it applies only to x-ray TUBES, ignoring, for example, synchrotron x-ray production.210.235.63.243 23:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it should only then be said that MEDICAL X-ray tubes use W anodes. Here [2] is an example of a device using W-Rh anode connected to a Mo-C rotor (Mo-C for its high heat tolerance but low thermal conductivity. Here [3] is another site saying "usually W", and another [http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:h6Hz1pV9ppwJ:hsc.csu.edu.au/physics/options/medical/3017/PHY962netdraft.html+x-ray+tube+%22usually+tungsten%22&hl=en[.....--Deglr6328 02:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the crystallography comment. From what I gathered, copper is often used in power/single crystal diffraction studies, and the copper K-alpha peak always seems to be referenced in all the crystallography texts I've read. Perhaps the article could read "...collide with different metal targets, such as copper, in the crystallographic/physics fields, and tungsten, in medical applications." (O.K., that's perhaps a little awkward, but something like that.) Also, if tungsten is used quite often, shouldn't its characteristic spectra be listed in the table to the right? perardi 02:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Synchrotrons

The article says nothing about using synchrotrons to produce high intensity flows of X-rays. David.Monniaux 09:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I added a sentence on synchrotrons to the 'Medical physics' section. --Chetvorno^TALK 07:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Angstroms to nanometers

can the article be switch to the convention of nanometers (SI) than the out of date angstroms.

Characteristic X-Ray

This article states, "each element had a characteristic X-ray." What does this mean? Can someone who knows please edit the article to clarify? David 19:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Characteristic x-rays are x-rays produced by electronic transitions in atoms. They're called "characteristic" because they can often be used to uniquely identify materials. I think this topic is important enough that it deserves to have its own entry; it is a process that is at least as important as bremsstrahlung and should be covered separately. When that article is posted, rather than describe what they are here it can simply be linked to from this page. I haven't changed the entry here since I don't know anything about the discovery of characteristic x-rays. Wilson 6500 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Visibility to the Human Eye

Moved question from the article to here. Perhaps someone can answer it for 24.22.58.165. --BillC 20:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is commonly thought that X-rays are invisible to the human eye, and for almost all everyday uses of X-rays this may seem true; however, very strictly speaking, it is actually false. In special circumstances, X-rays are in fact visible to the "naked eye". An effect first discovered by Brandes in experimentation a short time after Röntgen's landmark 1895 paper; he reported, after dark adaptation and placing his eye close to an X-ray tube, seeing a faint "blue-gray" glow which seemed to originate within the eye itself.[1] Upon hearing this, Röntgen reviewed his record books and found he in fact, also saw the effect. When placing an X-ray tube on the opposite side of a wooden door Röntgen saw the same blue glow seeming to emanate from the eye itself, but thought his observations were spurious due to the fact that he only saw the effect when he used one type of tube. Later he realized that the tube which created the effect was the only one which produced X-rays powerful enough to make the glow plainly visible and the experiment was thereafter repeated readily. The fact that X-rays are actually faintly visible to the dark-adapted naked eye has largely been forgotten today is probably due to the lack of desire to repeat what we would now see as a recklessly dangerous and harmful experiment with ionizing radiation. It is not known what the exact mechanism in the eye is which produces the visibility and it could be due to either conventional detection (excitation of rhodopsin molecules in the retina), direct excitation of retinal nerve cells, or secondary detection via, for instance, X-ray induction of phosphorescence in the eyeball and then conventional retinal detection of the secondarily produced visible light.

(Query: Is this not the same thing as Cherenkov radiation?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.58.165 (talk • contribs)

No, x-rays are not charged particles. they can not produce cherenkov radiation except possibly through the production of high energy electrons via compton scattering. this mechanism is not intense enough to be relevant in conventional x-ray sources.--Deglr6328 06:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says, "it is not known what exact mechanism in the eye produces the visibility" and that the "blue-gray" glow could be due to fluorescent photons. If that were the case, then it's not the X-rays that are visible. The only references are to very old publications, and the modern interpretation given in the article alomst seems like original research. There is too much uncertainty about this topic, and it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.51.172 (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not removed. If the definitive "it exists" statements are now considered wrong this should be clarified and the history of the topic, given that Röntgen himself was one of the ones to spot it, retained.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree on not removing this section. I have myself experienced "seeing" this when I had a head x-ray 25 years ago, I have since then asked all the medics and Physicist I met that works in the field about what I experienced, if I got an answer, it was mostly that it is impossible.... Thanks again wikipedia for helping out. /Nic

Photographic plate detector

As far as I can tell, this is nonsense:

"For some procedures, the contrast can have a syrupy consistency, which can be thinned by warming, and is introduced with a power injector, such as the Nemoto Injector."

I left it for now because it seems like it might be saying that contrast can be improved by warming the plate. If that's true, that's what it should say. The rest simply doesn't make sense to me (what is introduced?), and the syrup metaphor is carried unscientifically far ("thinned"), making me think the whole statement is a ruse. If there's no dissent, I (or someone else) will delete it. -- 131.111.100.48 08:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is nonsense or not, either way I was of the opinion that this line was either out of context, badly explained or possibly incorrect. In an effort to improve the readability of the article i have erased it 129.78.208.4 08:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In the section about digital detectors, the following statement is made: "Since photographic plates are sensitive to X-rays, they provide a means of recording the image, but they also required much X-ray exposure (to the patient),..." That would be better stated as "but they also required relatively larger X-ray exposures (to the patient)." Also, the author is switching between discussing the newer digital detectors and the older photographic plates, which may be confusing for some readers. Clarifying that with a modifier, such as "Since the _older_ photographic plates..." would make this more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.213.117 (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading x-rays an art.

Well, we have just built a state of the art hospital, the year 2006, and new equipment.

I have already heard of two people whose x-rays were incorrectly read, in the negative fashion.

Continued problems led these people to have x-rays taken again, with older equipment, and perhaps more skilled technicians who were able to diagnose a breakage in bones.

So it should be mentioned to people that x-rays, MUST BE READ, by a skilled person, to ensure that they are interperted correctly.

A very, very important element to x-rays; the human element of reading them.

I might suggest a column to emphasis that x-rays must be read, and that the conclusions are not definite as in some other tests.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's proberbly quite universal. One needs to do the homework enough such that one understand the task at hand. Or else failure will happen. I hope people doesn't need it explicitly pointed out that X-Ray diagnosis from a person without a medical degree in radiology + experience is highly doubtful. Electron9 18:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Squitti's comment is important, but more relevant to the radiology or radiography articles. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers.

Can someone explain what is so hard to understand in the article? Else the tag should be removed. Electron9 18:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article seems perfectly clear to me. - Anon reader, Indiana.

The section on the 20th century is confusing because the dates don't line up. sometime in the 1920s is followed by a sentence saying "two years later..." and says the person won a nobel prize in 1917! How can 1917 be two years after sometime in the 1920s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.227.245 (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there 69696969... right below Cu on the table?

I think this should be removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.190.27.127 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

While on the subject of corrections, the table of targets needs attention. The last line is 'Me', this needs correction but I don't know which element you intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.182.23.10 (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The First X-Ray

Nikola Tesla has X-ray shadowgraphs of a foot in a shoe that pre-date Roteogen's supposed first X-rays of a human body part. The Electrical Review in 1896 published X-rays of a man, made by Tesla, with X-ray tubes of his own design. They appeared at the same time as when Roentgen announced his discovery of X-rays. Tesla never attempted to proclaim priority. Roentgen congratulated Tesla on his sophisticated X-ray pictures, and Tesla even wrote Roentgen's name on one of his films. He experimented with shadowgraphs similar to those that later were to be used by Wilhelm Rontgen when he discovered X-rays in 1895. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.69.213 (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The first x-ray was not taken of Albert von Kölliker's hand, but of Wilhelm Röntgen's wife (Anna Bertha), hence the great big wedding ring!! the x-ray also as appears as his wife's on the article Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen and later in the same article!!!

... I think I will change it......

Update! I have changed the text but donot know how to rename the image philb 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wedding rings can be used also by men. And the famous image of his wife's hand was much worse. [4]. It was also surprising to me. Miraceti 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

is the a separate article for x-rays relating to medicine?

Wondering if there is a separate article for x-rays relating to medicine. Tkjazzer 03:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. There are articles about Radiology, etc., but the use of X-rays in medicine is so important that I think that there should be a separate article about this. If there is no separate article about X-rays in medicine, then this article's section about the use of X-rays in medicine should be expanded to cover the standard projections (posteroanterior, lateral, etc.), and other important aspects of the use of X-rays in medicine. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Diamonds

Can typical medical X-rays pass through small diamonds? Will they show up on an X-ray? Skittle 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC) X-ray can pass through diamonds, but to see some results of inclusions, you need to use a microfocus X-ray tube with a small focal spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.213.138 (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly sexist.

The name "Curie" does not appear a single time in this article. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.171.118 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 18 August 2007

Nor does X-ray appear in the Marie Curie article.... Perhaps because the two topics are not related - you may be confusing "X-ray" with "Radioactivity" (which is related). -- MarcoTolo 17:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a section in Marie Curie dealing with radiography, though. Possibly the point at issue is that, although she was preparing radioactive sources for use in radiography as part of the war effort, she did not make any contribution to the development of X-rays. It's not relevant to this article on X rays. --Old Moonraker 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original post. Marie Curie was known at the time when x-ray technology was developing for isolating many pure elements emitting radioactivity which is of course the source for x-ray technology. Due to her research and actual delivery of the these elements, x-ray technology was both utilized widely during WW1, and therefore establishing the technology for future medical advancement. This approach to disregard the main contributor whom enabled the the technology to take hold is suspect. She was aware of the use of the material and fully supported this by supplying the purified material for use. How much more "proof" do you need than this? Not having a formally submitted paper explicitly outlining the virtues of the application of her radioactive material should not exclude her from the group of scientist credited with the development of x-ray technology. No radioactive source = No x-ray technology.99.112.164.41 (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)SL

A never knew that "oversight" was synonymous with "Incredibly sexist", what a break though! --Hypo Mix (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Detection by Photgraphic Plate

The article claims that photographic plates are, "not generally sensitive to X-rays". There are many holidaymakers who could provide an arguement to that statement when airport x-ray scanners used higher levels of x-rays than they do now. I have done industrial radiography, and after the film is extracted to process it, all you are left with is the opaque paper envelope and a thin lead image enhancement screen (bounces the x-rays back to pass through the film again, doubling the sensitivity). There is certainly no phosphorescent screen. Industrial x-ray material is generally the same as medical material - there being no requirement for any difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20.133.0.14 (talk) 09:26, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Proseline tag on History section.

Reading Wikipedia:Proseline#How does one spot proseline?: the emphasis there seems to be on one-sentence paragraphs...bulleted lists [or] sentences within the same paragraph start with a date or year. The section complained of does not meet any of these criteria (although there is a slight tendency towards the last, albeit in separate paragraphs). I propose to revert the tag shortly. --Old Moonraker 13:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Done--Old Moonraker 11:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Penetrative power of X-rays

Could someone please describe the penetrative power through matter of the different wavelengths of X-rays? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.16.139 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

The X-ray article shows the first radiograph of Anna Bertha Ludwig's hand while the article of Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen shows the exact same picture entitled radiograph taken by Röntgen of Albert von Kölliker's hand. One radiograph was taken in November 1895 the other early 1896 but which one is shown in this image? The google search gives more blured images stating that they were taken of Anna Bertha Ludwig's hand. Can anybody help with this problem?--Stone (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This picture of the first x-ray (linked from Talk:X-ray#The First X-Ray above) shows a different image (larger ring) for Anna Bertha's hand. Most online sources show the picture at present adorning this article as Albert von Kölliker's hand, as indeed did its caption here until recently. To add to the confusion, the image on WP commons is entitled "Roentgen-x-ray-von-kollikers-hand" but described in the text as "the hand of [Röntgen's] wife". The picture should be changed for a copy of the real first image. This version is from NASA and probably copyright-free for WP use but, as Stone points out, it is a bit blurry. To avoid further confusion, the von Kölliker image should be kept as well. I propose doing this in due course, after leaving a period for other editors' observations. Old Moonraker (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Old Moonraker, and also with Miraceti in the section The First X-Ray earlier on this talk page. The blurry picture looks more like his first effort with Frau Roentgen's hand, especially since it doesn't even include her thumb. Two months later when he gave a public lecture and made an image of Professor Kolliker's hand, he would have had time to improve his technique. And it is certainly logical that he would have published the image of better quality rather than the first one.

The argument over the correct identification of the sharper photo has however been going on for a long time and pre-dates Wikipedia. See for example the (second) letter Whose Hand? in this January 2002 issue of American Physical Society News. Since both images are historically important, I agree with Old Moonraker that both should appear in Wikipedia, at least in the Roentgen article which is more historical. The X-ray article which is more general could have only one, correctly identified of course. Dirac66 (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image changed, with citation. I will consider having both on Roentgen's page, to minimise confusion. Old Moonraker 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Also done. --Old Moonraker 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Pulyui working independently

Yesterday I placed a {{who}} tag on Pulyui's "reputed" donation of his x-ray lamp to Roentgen, admitting that I hadn't been able to find any references to this in English. Thanks, than, to Silin2005 who has just posted this link on Talk:Ivan Pulyui, which throws a little light on the question. He/she also recommends the version on German Wikipedia. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference is still missing, but some of the material has been promoted to the lede. In the meanwhile, why is some of Pulyui's Mechanical equivalent of heat apparatus illustrated here? Removing image, reinstating {{who}} tag. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Astrophysics

If x-ray is spelled upper case only in astrophysics, a general article on x-rays should be lower cased. Can someone elaborate with references on this spelling? I've studied some astrophysics, but don't recall a capital x. I'm wondering if it's British or something? Anyone know more? it's awkward having to capitalize. --Blechnic (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Physics content isnt so scientific...

A lot of the content in the physics section sounds like it should be in the radiography article, not in an area that would logically describe the physical properties of x-rays. I thought it would be prudent to discuss this first before deleted/moved a good portion of that section. Thoughts? cisco_teen (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"X-Rays are a hoax"

I'm not sharing Kelvin's "humorous case of hindsight" here. Could someone please explain?--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm deleting this impenetrable joke. Please put it into context, with a reference, if you bring it back. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fourth finger"

Pressed "save" before I was ready, sorry. What I would have written was that the "third finger" caption was correct: the ring finger is surely the "fourth digit". Having said that, do we actually need the finger described at all? It can be seen perfectly easily: nobody needs to be told where to look. Again, apologies to User:Britney901 for the "fat finger edit". --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

keeping information accessible to non-physicists

Hello. I'd love it someone could include info on the frequency and wavelength of X-rays in the intro section in units that the lay person can more readily understand. I tried to fix this but the edit was reverted by Gail Wilson. Who this person is, and why she wants to keep the article confusing, I do not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.88.126 (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed an excellent idea, particularly since exa is an uncommon prefix and "P" is non-standard for pico. Anonymous IPs get routinely reverted even when their edits are correct or excellent ideas. Hopefully someone will come along and fix this for you, as you raised an appropriate and excellent point for the quality and accessibility of this article. --Blechnic (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi 69.117.88.126! I apologize if you were offended by my reversion of your edit. Here are my reasons:

1. Your last edit left the article in a state which did not make sense. Take a look at [5]. The text in parentheses reads "(wavelengths range between 10 mn and )". I assume this was a mistake on your part, which you intended to correct afterwards. However, I would recommend you to use the Preview button before saving in order to catch these mistakes beforehand.
2. Although you left an edit summary for your first edit, you did not do so for subsequent edits. It would be better if you leave a short edit summary for each edit you make.
3. The wavelengths you were trying to add were already given at the beginning of the sentence. I don't understand why you felt that they should be repeated.
4. By changing "P" to "pico", you introduced a factual error. As Blechnic noted, "P" does not stand for "pico", but for "peta", which is completely different.

If you have any further clarifications you would like me to make, please don't hesitate to drop me a note on my talk page. Have a nice day! Gail Wilson (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the abbreviated units (PHz/EHz) to the full word, and added the scientific notation form in parentheses. I don't know if that's much more helpful, but at least you can read the units now without looking up the high prefixes, I guess? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

X-ray paper

I stumbled upon this promotional video of a "X-ray paper" apparently invented in China, but not available in the market yet. is this a hoax? Anwar (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a hoax. Probably a "blue screen"-paper (like in some TV-weather reports) is used and the "X-ray" is a digital projection. When the person lifts his arms, the bones in the shoulders in the "X-ray" do not move at all... 26 Oct 2009, Arndt Last (see x-ray-optics.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.170.79 (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewording

I reworded the lead a little, and I think editors of the article should take two things into account:

• "X-rays" is the more commonly used term, but "X-radiation" really makes more sense when referring to the concept as a whole (e.g., you talk about "ionizing radiation", not "ionizing rays"). The article can use "X-rays" by default, but be conscious that the other term exists.
• "X-ray" refers metonymically to both the radiation and the images produced by it. Be careful to keep the distinction clear (another reason why "X-radiation" would be a better term to use).

—Werson (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

links

Hi, this is my first every contribution on wiki so please excuse me for any possible mistakes, I saw that one of the links is to an artist working with x-rays, I'd like to contribute by giving the following link toward my own work, also x-rays that are modified by etching into them, I hope that this link might be accepted, if not then please forgive me for taking up your time. ps: if it is accepted could someone place the link for me? I really don't know how to do this yet. the link is : http://www.benkruisdijk.com/rontgen.html - Benkruisdijk (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the was no reply I've gone ahead and placed a link, if anybody disagrees please let me know or remove it themselves. Best regards, Ben - Benkruisdijk (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The policy regarding external links is here and the WP:COI and WP:SOAP pages also seem relevant. Taken together, they may suggest that this addition (and the similar link just preceding) isn't encyclopedic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Old Moonraker, thanks for making that clear, I've removed my link, I first thought that perhaps the following link would perhaps be better http://www.cultcase.com/2008/08/rntgen-etchings-treated-x-ray-photos-by.html , but I've decided that you are right in that it isn't encylopedic. Best regards Benkruisdijk (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck with the project. For the sake of fairness, I've now removed the other link to an x-ray artist's site. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Hittorf have any role in discovery?

Under History, there is a section on Johann Hittorf, but it doesn't say anything about his role in discovering x-rays. It only says the blue fluorescence given off by the glass envelopes of Crookes tubes are due to low energy x-rays in the glass. A lot of scientists were experimenting with Crookes tubes; if every one is credited as a 'codiscoverer' of x-rays the list will be in the dozens. I think Hittorf should be removed, and only experimenters who noticed effects of x-rays outside of the Crookes tubes (such as fogged photographic plates) should be included. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead shielding no longer the most popular

Lead is the most common shield against X-Rays because of its high density (11340 kg/m3), ease of installation and low cost.

I just started a periodontics perio program at Columbia and during orientation, we were subjected to many boring introductory courses -- the one exception being Radiation safety. The professor giving the seminar explained how lead is actually no longer the material of choice for shields because of its high cost relative to materials such as, perhaps, aluminum, and because it's just so darn heavy. I will try to touch base with the department and get some sources, but I think lead is either on its way out or already out. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Podcast as source

I reverted this edit as it was sourced from a podcast, compared to the two print sources previously cited (there are more sources in the Wilhelm Röntgen article, but I don't want to overcrowd this). The podcast seems to be discussing cell phones (which don't emit x-rays) as a cause of brain tumors, but if any editor wants to add the exact location in the piece (minutes and seconds in) I'll be glad to check it again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Effectiveness of shielding

The shielding section does not give the degree of attenuation or protection afforded by each of the recommended minimum thicknesses of lead. Any ideas ? Rod57 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rsinnet, 8 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the first paragraph, there is a program with plurality. X-radiation is listed used as a singular verb and then later used as a plural verb in the same sentence. Proposed change follows:

In many languages, X-radiation is called Röntgen radiation, after Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, who is generally credited as its discoverer, and who had named it X-radiation to signify an unknown type of radiation.

Rsinnet (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong photo

It would appear that the "hand with ring"-photo is not the one that Roentgen took, check out the article about him.

You are right: someone's changed it. I'll change it back.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In the news

This page has received 1,472,173 page views in the month of Nov I assume do to the issues over X raying of people in airports. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

name of picture file seems to contain patient name

hi the name of the file of the "female chest x-ray" seems to contain the patient name. That's terrible (and illegal presumably). I don't know how to change that though.

thanks Krthie (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this person gave her permission for her name to be used and thus it is neither terrible nor illegal. BTW if you do wish to change the image discussion for that would take place on Wikimedia Commons. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ivan Pulyui - lead

I removed the sentence about Ivan Pulyui from the lead. Of course he was among the first ones who worked with X-rays, but he did not discovered them before Röntgen. He worked indeed with Cathode rays before Röntgen's discovery of the X-rays, but thats a difference. He built a device, called Pulyui lamp, which was was (accidently) some kind of primitive X-ray tube (which he didnt recognized), but it was not until Rönten published his works, that he discovered the potential of it. This is also that what the source is saying. There is some more information about that on the German wikipedia. There is also no "recently uncovered archival evidence ", claims that he was first came already from the sixties, but there was never any real evidence. Pulyui himself acknowledged Röntgen as the discoverer and never challenged that. So still it was Röntgen who discovered X-rays first, thats why i removed the part about Pulyui from the lead per undue weight (he still has his part in the article). StoneProphet (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

new book to add

Albert Einstein didn’t prove that the photon exists. He did theorize the quantum effect and received the Nobel Prize in 1921 for the photoelectric effect. Arthur Compton did the experiment to prove that the photon exists in 1923. In 1927 is when he received the Nobel Prize for proving the existence of the photon. Read the Nobel Prize paper in which Arthur Compton mentions for the first time the photon as a particle and the experiment that proves it. The book X-rays and electrons An outline of recent X-ray theory By Arthur H. Compton Ph. D. Copyright 1926 By D. Van Nostrand Company This book includes papers from 1923 on and uses the word photoelectrons for the one particle and electrons for the other. He shortened the word photoelectrons to photon by eliminating electro. The new particles thus became the photons from a shortening of photoelectrons. Read the book. The term’s used for electrons from the many papers are: • photoelectrons • recoil electrons • beta rays The term’s used for photons from the many papers are: • x-rays • x-ray quantum • light • light darts • electromagnetic waves • radiation • radiation quanta • radiation quantum • quantum He used photoelectrons a lot for the electrons but for the photons there was no common term. 68.171.143.254 (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing sources of x-rays

I feel that the Sources of x-rays section should include some mention of the other sources. Natural and man made. Cosmic, solar perhaps others deserve mention. Synchroton radiation is mentioned later but not in the Source section. Not sure where the cold thermal generators fit in but they have also been left out. [Cool-X] Idyllic press (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Moon in x-rays.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Moon in x-rays.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Relative hazard of X-rays to infants

The "Health risks" section at the end has this statement:

"Fathers exposed to diagnostic X-rays are more likely to have infants who contract leukemia, especially if exposure is closer to conception or includes two or more X-rays of the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract or lower abdomen."

My question is- how much more likely? Not being a stats-dude I can't edit this with any confidence. Can someone with some knowledge in the area add a modifying word such as "marginally", "slightly", "significantly", "OMG this is so bad" etc? Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

S-Rays?

Anyone else ever encounter this term? (Unless it's a typo), I suspect that it was coined as a synonym for "soft X-ray". The cite:

Margolis, Art (1969). "Chapter 1: Getting the Jump on Repairs". In Bowers, Frank (ed.). The Practical Handbook of TV Repairs. Practical Workshop Library. Rockville, Maryland: Fawcett Publications. p. 15. ISBN 0668020571. OCLC 53350. Safety First…X-Rays: While most of the rumors about X-Rays emanating from color TV sets are exaggerated there is the possibility of some S-Ray activity taking place. If it is, the danger spots are around the high voltage regulator tube, the high voltage rectifier tube and the face of the picture tube.

We read elsewhere in the book that, at the time, black and white TV high voltage was up to 20KV, and color TV was up to 26KV. So that tells you the upper end of the energies involved. AHMartin (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

X-ray tube energy limit

In an x-ray tube, the voltage on the anode times the charge on the electron yields the energy with which each electron strikes the anode, 80 electron volts for an eighty volt x-ray tube. The energy of each electron is the upper limit of the x-ray energy that the tube can emit. This elementary fact was properly explained with correct abbreviations until the edit which I will now revert. Fartherred (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Röntgen USUALLY credited as its discoverer ?

quote "Wilhelm Röntgen,[1] who is usually credited as its discoverer"

is it me (i'm not a native speaker of English) or does it imply that sometimes others get credited for the discovery (and if so who?)? or is it disputed that Rontgen discovered the x-rays ? 134.3.76.108 (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"he was the first to systematically study them" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.76.108 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The "History" section has a good description. Before Rontgen wrote his 1895 paper, a few researchers such as Pulyui and Hittorf had observed that something coming from Crookes tubes could make dark marks on covered photographic plates. However Rontgen was first to research them, so he should get credit as discoverer. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

kV as unit for photon energy?

In the section Sources after the short description of Bremsstrahlung there is the sentence:

The voltages used in diagnostic X-ray tubes, and thus the highest energies of the X-rays, range from roughly 20 to 150 kV.

Well, I'm not a nativ speaker, but this sounds to me, like the highest energies of the X-ray is a voltage. And as far as I know, the energy of the X-rays is the total of the energies of the photons in it. So if I'm right, here should be written something like:

The voltages used in diagnostic X-ray tubes range from roughly 20 to 150 kV and thus the highest energies of the X-ray photons range from roughly 20 to 150 keV.

194.94.93.93 (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone may wish to correct this information as x rays are regularly generated at up to 300keV for the purposes of radiography, a quick check on Andrex Smart or Phillips x ray sets can easily confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.154.89 (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the keV thing, but couldn't find a x-ray source for medical imaging with higher voltage than 150 kV. 58.7.154.89 can you give a reference or a model number for a source with higher voltage? Ulflund (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements

When reading this article I found a few things I think could be improved. I will implement these suggestions when I get time if no one else does it before me or protests here.

• The first image should focus more on x-rays and less on radio waves.
• The first section, "Units of measure and exposure", seems totaly out of place. It should be removed or at least moved to the end of the article.
• A section on x-ray interaction with matter would be a better start. That could contain some information about photo absorption and compton scattering and possibly a graph of the x-ray penetration depth in e.g. water as function of photon energy.
• The second section, "Human exposure", contains much of the same information as the section "Adverse effects". Maybe these could be merged.
• The section on sources could maybe give some more space for synchrotrons and maybe even mention XFELs and astronomical x-ray sources.
• Most of the text in the section "Photographic plate" has nothing to do with photographic plates.
• The "Detectors" section could separate spatially resolving detectors from "single-pixel" detectors such as Geiger-Müller counters.
• These detector types deserve to be mentioned: scintillators coupled to CCD or CMOS detectors, photon counting detectors, x-ray spectrometers, and dosimeters.
• The "other uses" section should maybe also mention Industrial CT scanning, coherent diffraction imaging, scanning x-ray probe microscopy, X-ray phase-contrast imaging, small-angle X-ray scattering, and Ptychography.

Ulflund (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Move X-ray detectors to its own article

This article is starting to get quite long and the detectors section is in my opinion taking a to large part of it. Why not move this information to a new article named X-ray detectors and leave a summary here instead? Ulflund (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Right now, the article's length is only borderline long and it probably doesn't really need splitting, but I've watched you make some really nice additions these past several days, and I presume that you have plans for more. I have some experience splitting articles. There are rules that need to be followed so as to preserve history (see Wikipedia:Splitting), but splitting is otherwise a pretty straightforward process. Give me a day or two before I find time to perform the split. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, boy, there are ISSUES with the move. Within seconds of my creating the new page, a bot flagged the page for copyright violation, indicating that the content was copied from http://www.jpihealthcare.com/digital-x-ray/x-ray-detectors

The entire section on Detectors was then deleted by another editor.

Looking over the page in question, I suspect that http://www.jpihealthcare.com/digital-x-ray/x-ray-detectors may be a plagiarism of Wikipedia rather than the other way around. This needs some investigation.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We had the content here on Wikipedia before they did per http://www.seologs.com/dns/domain-check.html and looking at the history. The pictures also come from use and where uploaded by different users as early as 2005. Maybe someone need to bring this to their attention. I will call them tomorrow. http://www.jpihealthcare.com/digital-x-ray/contact-us Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You've saved me a lot of research time! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That was a lot quicker than I had expected, thanks Stigmatella aurantiaca. Yes, my plan is to continue improving the article, and I will probably start by expanding the now very short detectors summary. Ulflund (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about leaving the summary so short, but I had originally expected the split to take no more than ten minutes... Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

X-rays are not defined by their energy !

Note: The portions of this thread which date before 2011 have been moved to the 2007 – 2010 archive Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Cosmic rays are considered to be photons of cosmic origin" - No, cosmic rays are not photons; they're matter such as protons and electrons. See this NASA webpage.Gsparky (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a gamma-ray spectroscopist. If you look at usage in my field: (1) the distinction between x-rays and gammas is fuzzy, not sharp; (2) energy is one criterion; (3) the source may in some cases be another criterion, but if so is much less important than the energy. When a nucleus emits a 30 keV photon, we call it an x-ray, not a gamma. The only evidence I can think of for using the source as a criterion is that we do habitually refer to "K-shell x-rays," never to "K-shell gamma rays," even in cases like uranium, where the energy of 85 keV puts it near the fuzzy boundary between x-rays and gammas. The radiation oncologist 203.43.146.219 may or may not be describing the best usage in his/her own field , but this is certainly not considered correct usage among physicists. Absolutely nobody in physics would ever refer to a 2 MeV photon as an x-ray.--207.233.88.250 (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? It seems to me the article is compatible with your point of view; it defines x-rays with an energy range, but says in the fuzzy boundary between x-rays and gammas the rays are often classified according to their origin. The existing explanation is well sourced. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Do you have a source for this?" Yes, the sources given at the end of the final paragraph of the lead are fine; they simply don't support the highly distorted picture presented in that paragraph. The definitions are fuzzy, and are based on two different criteria. Any good source will give both criteria. But the final paragraph of the lead is total nonsense. It gets the historical situation completely backwards. Historically, the terms x-ray and gamma originated as arbitrary labels for phenomena whose origins were unknown. Nobody knew that they were both forms of electromagnetic radiation. What was known was that their sources were different. As time went on, it became clear that distinguishing them by wavelength was more reasonable, since they were otherwise identical. The sources do not support the claim they are being used to support. For example, page 2-5 of vol I of the Feynman lectures gives a correct explanation of the historical, practical, and physical distinction -- which bears no resemblance to the description given in the sentence that cites it.--75.83.70.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

I've added an expert-subject template to the article. The issue here is the distinction between x-rays and gamma-rays. The problems are as follows: (1) The lead overemphasizes the properties of the source as a defining characteristic and underemphasizes the wavelength. (2) The lead garbles and reverses the historical sequence. (3) The lead fails to explain that the use of the source as the distinguishing characteristic is purely historical, dating to a period when it was not known that x-rays and gamma rays were both forms of electromagnetic radiation. (4) The sources 5, 7, 8, and 9 do not support the garbled and distorted picture presented in the lead.--75.83.70.28 (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the paragraph discussing (paragraph 3) the distinction between X-rays and gamma rays to better reflect the references and this talk page. It previously stated that the distinction based on the origin was historical although the four references did not call the definition historical and they where all newer than the single reference for a distinction based on photon energy.

Most editors (but not all) in this discussion (including the archived parts Talk:X-ray/Archive_1#X-rays_are_not_defined_by_their_energy_.21) seems to agree with me and most of the references in the article that the common distinction uses the source of the radiation. Ulflund (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a divisive issue. Those arguing for a source-dependent distinction between x-rays and gamma rays (i.e. x-rays result from Bremsstrahlung, synchroton radiation, and K-shell emission, while gamma rays result from nuclear processes) neglect the fact that gamma rays may be produced by processes such as Compton scattering (for instance in the accretion disks of black holes), Bremsstrahlung, and synchrotron radiation (for instance gamma ray bursts, lightning strikes, etc.) which are not nuclear processes, while nuclear processes can emit photons in the x-ray range. So it is best to mention that alternate methods exist for distinguishing between the two types of radiation without attempting to favor one classification scheme over the other. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there are complications with definition based on the origin of the photons, but still think that is the most common. That is the definition used in X-ray physics and medical imaging courses I have taken and the one used by four out of five references in this article. Since I do not have any statistics on the number of fields using each definition I am content with your modification. Ulflund (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)