Green Xenon

Why would it be a bad thing? If I had the money, I would actually like to make this change to my body.

Hi: Let's say all the keratin molecules in/on my body were to become as lipophilic as possible. What symptoms would I experience? Thanks, Green Xenon

Hi: Is it possible to make a covalent [non-ionic] compound consisting of xenon only? Di-Xenon? Tri-xenon? Poly-xenon? If so, what is the maximum amount of xenons present in molecule made up of covalent bonds of xenons? How many xenons is needed in a molecule to make it liquid at 70 Fahrenheit in atmospheric pressure similar to that of earth? What would be the medical/biological effects of di-xenon, tri-xenon, or poly-xenon? What colors would these xenons be? Poly-xenon is a covalent molecule consisting of more than 3 xenon atoms. Thanks a bunch, GX

Hi: What would happen to my body if it were subjected to genetically-engineering to focus on cellular maintenance as opposed to cellular reproduction/growth? In this theoretical situation, none of the cells of my body die unless exposed to physical injury from external sources -- such as cuts, burns, toxins. However, none of these cells reproduce or grow either. Also, in this possible-but-unlikely scenario, no part of my body experiences any inflammatory response to any circumstance. From the molecular to the cellular to the systemic level there is never any inflammation to any extent no matter how irritated any cell/tissue is. To make matters more interesting, there is no amount of scarring even in the most serious of burns or other trauma that would otherwise cause it. The mechanisms involving scarring -- of any tissue -- are completely absent. Also, my blood not clot unless it leaves a blood vessel during any injury. If all of the above were to somehow happens [perhaps using some extreme high-tech bioengineering], how would I feel? Would my quality of life be better than that of the average human? Thanks, Green Xenon

Hi: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiol#Acidity "Relative to the alcohols, thiols are fairly acidic" Does this mean all thiols have a pH below 7? Thanks, Green Xenon

True but that is only the case with electric signals. At the same frequency, an optical signal will generate less heat than an electric signal. So when all-optical CPUs are the norm, 400 nm is the sweet spot between high speed and human safety. Lasers are better than LEDs in terms of signal-clarity, because laser light is coherent, while LED light isn't.

1. 400 nm is the shortest wavelength that is safe for human handling at perceptible intensities. Shorter than this and risk of cancer increases. 2. Why choose the shortest safe wavelength? Shorter-wavelengths equates to higher-frequency which equates to greater bandwidth capabilities. 3. I'm asking about photonics because I was hoping for some THz clock rates or even higher. Electric signals at such high-frequencies require massive cooling systems -- else they may start a fire. 4. Serial, because it is more efficient. Parallel systems tend to be affected by disorderly slew rates. HDDs, for example use to be parallel IDEs, now they are serial SATAs. Over parallel devices tend to be bulkier and more power hungry than their serial counterparts.

Would an optical processor be able to run safely at a significantly higher-frequency than an electronic processor? Lets say the optical CPU uses 400-nm-wavelength lasers in place of electronic signals, what is the max clock rate that can be performed by this theoretical CPU without experiencing any physical damage?

Hi: What is the maximum physically-possible clock rate [measured in Hz] of a 1-bit-per-cycle, single-core, purely-serial processor? Thank a bunch, Green Xenon

I'm very sorry for the annoyance. From now on, I will think a *lot* more before I make any future post. I will keep my dreams to myself as they are a nuisance to others.

1. Where do I get pure oxygen from? I wish I knew. 2. Why is my idea better than that in the link? It isn't. I'm just pondering about hypothetical technology. Speaking of which, I'd like to make another change to this device: let's use oxyhydrogen instead of natural gas. Let's also make sure there is no excess hydrogen. Excess oxygen is okay so long as it doesn't damage any of the equipment.

Okay, I would like to make one change to my hypothetical radiant heater: use oxygen instead of helium so that there is no unburned fuel at all. There maybe more changes as I think things through. Why is it is impractical to use the flame directly as an infrared emitter? Don't all hot objects -- including fire -- emit IR?

Hi: I’m thinking of hypothetical purely-natural gas fired radiant heater in which the significant emitter of thermal radiation is the flame itself. What would be the disadvantages of this heater? The fuel is purely-natural gas. By “purely natural”, I mean it is the raw, unprocessed, and unrefined natural gas straight from the marshes. In terms of oxidant/fuel ratio, the flame is stoichiometric. Oxygen [O2] is the only oxidant to burn the fuel. Each and every molecule of the fuel is fully-oxidized by the oxygen but without there being any excess of oxygen. There are 6 sides to this radiant heater. Left, right, back, front, up, and down. The height of the left, right, front and back are the same. The top and bottom are shorter in length than the heights of the aforementioned. However, the top and bottom are of the same width as the widths of the left and right. The front of the heater is what faces the object intended to be heated. The front consists of eco-friendly material that is completely transparent to all EM radiation from 100,000 nm to 300 nm. The interior of the back of the heater consists of eco-friendly material that completely reflects all wavelengths of EM radiation from 100,000 nm to 300 nm. The interiors of the left and right of the panel also consist of eco-friendly material that totally reflects wavelengths of EM radiations from 100,000 nm to 300 nm. The bottom of the panel is where the flame is emitted. The length of the flame is almost as long as the bottom of the panel. The top of the panel is where hot gases from the combustion escape – this is the exhaust and is as long as the flame. The material on the front of this heater has a low-enough heat conduction coefficient that it remains perceptibly cool even though it allows thermal radiation to escape outward. There are two pipes attaches to the bottom of this heater. One carries the fuel, while the other carries a stoichiometric amount of oxygen. This infrared heater is air-tight prior to combustion. Also, prior to combustion, the only gas present in the heater is helium. Helium is an easy-to-transport, non-reactive gas. There is a sufficient amount of helium [but not more] such that the air pressure inside the heater equates to the air pressure outside the heater – this is to prevent any damage to the heating panel caused by pressure differences. Just before ignition of the fuel, the correct amount of helium is removed such that the high-temperature of the flame does not raise the internal air pressure to the point of damage. Also, the ignition is smooth and completely non-explosive. Just prior to the ignition, an adequate amount of fuel and oxygen are discharged into the heater in the slow, smooth, continuous manner. Now, when the amount of fuel [and stoichiometric amount of oxygen] is enough for ignition and self-sustaining combustion, an electric spark is discharged which causes the fuel to catch fire. The amount of flame is adjustable in terms of height and width – however the length is constant. At the lowest setting there is just enough flame for the blue to be visible. At the highest setting the flame nearly fills up the entire heating panel. I’m thinking of two applications for this radiant heater: 1. Use mild versions of the heater in cold parts of the world in outdoor public places to keep citizens warm – such as in the bus stops in Northern Europe, where the climate is often cold and wet. 2. More intense versions of this heater can be used to cook food. Think charred pork that’s bloody red on the inside. Thanks, Green Xenon

Hi: I have two favorite wavelengths [colors] of visible light. These two wavelengths of light [when emitted monochromatically and perhaps together as well]: 1. Cause the least amount of stimulation [hopefully none] of the rods of the average human retina 2. Cause the least amount of stimulation [hopefully none] of the blue cones of the average human retina Wavelength-1 is reddish-green while wavelength-2 is greenish-red. Both wavelengths [even if view separately] will stimulate both red and green retinal cones, hence the terms “reddish green” and “greenish red”. However, reddish-green causes more stimulation of green cones than red cones, while greenish-red causes more stimulation of red cones than green cones. Therefore, when viewing wavelength #1, the average human will likely express perception of green. However, when viewing wavelength #2, the average human will likely express perception of red. What wavelength of light most closely fits wavelength #1? What wavelength of light most closely firs wavelength #2? Thanks, Green Xenon

I yearn for the day when each subpixel of a monitor is an individual inorganic LED and compatible with indoor use. Most current inorganic LED displays are for outdoor use. For still images -- such as most office work [majority of which is text-based] -- LCDs clobber plasmas. For movies, however, you're absolutely right. LCDs just aren't meant for hi-speed movement of images. On the other hand, an indoor-compatible screen [in which each subpixel is an inorganic LED] is my dream display. ILED massacres OLED, LCDs, and plasmas.

Hi: Is it possible for helium to be negatively-charged? If so, to what extent? Thanks, Green Xenon

Just out of curiosity, lets say there is a hypothetical environment in which the only gas is nitrogen. What will be the non-thermal effects if EM radiation [at a frequency best absorbed by nitrogen but least absorbed by entities other than nitrogen] is emitted into that environment? Since the only gas is nitrogen, there is no chance of producing NOx, ozone or other toxic compounds.

Let's say there is a flame that uses a stoichiometric amount of oxygen and hydrogen -- i.e. there is a sufficient amount of oxygen to completely oxidize each and every molecule of hydrogen but no more than that amount. Would this flame emit a significant amount of IR-C radiation? Enough to be used in radiant-heating applications?

Hi: My favorite flame is sound-free [i.e. completely silent], char-free, soot-free, smoke-free, odor-free, ember-free, waste-free, tar-free, toxin-free, non-caustic, and ash-free. No CO2 or H20-vapor either. This flame does not emit any sonic or mechanical energy to any extent at any frequency. It is also not affected by wind or air at all. The flame does not emit any form of energy/matter other than infrared-c radiation. This flame emits IR light not out of incandescence but due to specific quantum jumps. UV and visible light can be emitted by non-incandescent sources – so can IR. The temperature of this flame is not much different from its surroundings so incandescence wouldn't occur anyway. This flame feels warm due to the EM radiation it emits, despite the fact that it's temperature isn't any higher than the surroundings. The flame emits coherent light [as a result of specific quantum jumps] at all wavelengths of the middle-zone* of infrared-c radiation with equal intensities [intensity = photons-per-second-per-square-meter] with steady attenuation outside of the middle-zone, finally reaching zero at the ends of the IRC spectrum *Let's say the infrared-c spectrum (3,000-100,000 nm) is divided in to 3 equally-wide zones. The first zone has the longer-wavelengths of IR-C [100,000 nm being the longest], the third zone contains the shorter-wavelengths of IRC [3,000 nm being the shortest]. My IR flame emits mostly in the second [i.e. middle] zone of the IRC. If the spectral emission of this hypothetical IR fire were graphed, the emission would peak as a flat-top in the middle-zone. However, from the short-wave end of the mid-zone to 3,000 nm there is a linear slant of attenuation from the max at the short-wave end of the mid-zone to 3,000 nm [where the intensity is 1-photon-per-second-per-square-meter]. There would also be the exact same attenuation of light-intensity from the long-wave end of the mid-zone to 100,000 nm. At 100,000 nm the intensity is 1-photon-per-second-per-square-meter, as you go in the right direction, the line [indication intensity] goes up until it reach the mid-zone. The 1st and 3rd zones of emission of the flame would look like equally big right-angle triangles while the 2nd would look like a square [or rectangle depending on perspective] connecting the two triangles. The EM radiation is coherent in the sense that any one photon will be in phase with another photon of the same wavelength. The IR flame is completely safe. The maximum intensity of EM radiation it emits is low-enough not to cause any injury, discomfort [physical or psychological], or damage to any part of any living organism. The shape and movement of this flame closely-resembles that of bituminous-coal flame in an environment with: 1. An atmospheric pressure similar to that of Earth. 2. Gravity as strong as the sun. 3. Just enough oxygen for the bituminous-coal to emit a non-flickering flame. 4. No wind at all. 5. Just enough combustion for the flame to be self-sustaining [opposite of the gushing flame one gets from a Bunsen burner**] 6. Nitrogen being replaced by a hypothetical gas this is similar to nitrogen except it is completely non-reactive and inert. **From a Bunsen burner, the flame is like a "jet flame" and hence, has enough pressure to produce that round cone-shaped flame when the gas is ignited and running. By contrast, a bituminous coal [like most solid fuels] emits low pressure flammables when ignited [hence there is no cone or "mushrooming" at all]. The shapes and movements of my infrared flame are similar to that which would occur if the bituminous coal was releasing its flammables at the minimum pressure required for there to be a non-flickering flame. I am stating the IRC flame has shapes similar to what a bituminous coal flame would have if the bituminous coal flame were under the above 6 conditions. I am not saying the IRC flame is actually in those above conditions. Obviously, since this flame emits IR-only [invisible to unaided human eyes], a device that converts IR to visible light will be necessary in order to see this flame. Given all of the above, what physically-possible flame most closely resembles my hypothetical IRC flame? Thanks, Green Xenon

Plasmas use up a lot more power than LCDs. As an eco-friendly consumer, I'd definitely take LCDs over plasmas.

Ok but what is the advantage of using organic as opposed to inorganic?

Any of them for indoor use?

Just out of curiosity, why does the display use OLED as opposed to regular LED?

1. Are most LED-backlit LCDs designed to do what you stated? 2. Even if they were, wouldn't the theoretical purely-LED screen I described still be more energy efficient than the currently-available LED-backlit LCDs?

Hi: I’m thinking of a hypothetical monitor for a TV/computer. This display does not use plasma, LCD, or a backlight to any extent. Instead it relies purely on LEDs for emission of light, colors, and images. As with most screens, each pixel contains a red, green, and blue subpixel. However, in this hypothetical monitor, each subpixel consists of a single LED. Each pixel – and its respective subpixels – are as small as physically-possible given the state of today’s technology. The screen contains as many pixels per area physically-possible with today’s technology. These specs ensure that highest possible image resolution. What would be the disadvantages of this purely-LED monitor – besides the cost? Would refresh rate apply to this type of monitor? If so, what would be the maximum refresh-rate possible with this monitor? I think this type of display is the most energy-efficient possible considering today’s technology. Am I right? LED kicks LCD’s butt anyday. These so-called “LED TVs” in the current market as simply LCDs with LED backlights. These evil marketers are so manipulative and the customers who fall for them are so unwise. LCDs reek. When an LCD monitor is turned on, it required more watts to stay dark than to be bright. My hypothetical LED monitor does the exact opposite and is more eco-friendly because it doesn’t waste energy using a backlight. My LED screen totally kills both plasma and LCD technology. Any chance of my theoretical LED display appearing in department stores in the next year? Thanks, Green Xenon