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.

Can the article example serve as prior art?

[Overzeetop]

The claims for the patent are, of course, not really indicated, but since the article itself states

Actually, more than 50 years ago, some Russian scientists reported evidence of X-rays from peeling sticky tape off glass.

I hope that either they've invented something truly novel to do with this effect or they get a big, fat denied letter in the mail from the USPTO.

I paid $75 for an x-ray machine at Goodwill

[Anonymous Coward]

It was cleverly disguised as a malfunctioning computer monitor.

Getting your face and eyes hit by needlepoints of pain isn't an experience I care to repeat. It's fun for about the first 15 seconds after that no so much.

You must check out the 3M company museum...

[Anonymous Coward]

...in Lake Superior.

They have an exhibit of one of the first x-ray machines.

It consists of a 6' diameter dispenser roll of scotch tape inside an even larger vacuum chamber.

They'll even let your kids take a complementary souvenir floroscope picture of themselves.

Scotch Tape in space....

[EvilGrin5000]

I wonder how this is going to affect items with similar properties (like good ol' duct tape) while at the space station.

"Hey! there's a leak on the outside wall but damn it, they wouldn't let us bring any duct tape!" :)

2x Wheels instead of a roll of tape

[xonar]

A more practical approach might be to have two wide wheels, one covered in the substance, and the other with a smooth non-stick surface centered in a vaccum ball. The substance could be reapplied easily whenever need be, and be a little less ridiculous.

Re:Locked Away For 20+ Years

[leoval]

That is really interesting, in particular because Nature magazine (where the paper will appear) used to have a policy of not accepting submissions that are being or have been patented.

This sounds similar to...

[willoughby]

a phenomenon I learned about in photography class many years ago. Back in the days of film a roll of 35mm film was attached to the spool inside the canister by a small bit of tape. In the darkroom as you disassembled the canister to remove the film for processing, if you peeled this tape quickly the "peeling", or "stretching" adhesive would glow. We learned to peel the tape slowly because the glow from rapidly pulled tape was sufficient to fog film.

Re:Locked Away For 20+ Years

[Rakishi]

The researchers have already been paid to discover this result in their salaries.

And those salaries are lower than they would be had these researchers not had the option to make extra money from their research. So no, these researchers weren't already paid since part of their payment is the ability to patent things. So how do you feel about having your taxes go up?

Why should they be paid again on the backs of those who actually develop practical uses for this discovery?

Because they did the research to get these results and probably will work on the practical applications. The alternative is them publishing their results in an some journal and then forcing someone else to start from scratch to get any applications out of them.

Of what benefit is it to society for this technology to be hoarded by a small few?

What benefit is it so society that you are paid more than minimum wage for your work, wouldn't society be better off if they could invest those resources somewhere else?

The benefit is in multiple forms, it's on one hand an incentive to develop practical applications of research and to research in practical areas. It provides a larger potential profit for those who go into academic research which encourages more people to go into that field. It provides extra funding for universities which can then be reinvested into other research.

Re:not bloody likely

[kesuki]

'It's kinda unlikely Scotch (brand) tape can bypass all the bottlenecks and emit copious X-rays.'

it's not about the length of the pulse, but the power of the pulse. if you only need one billionth of a second of x-rays, then scotch tape, in a vacuum is for you. the key point here is that rather than generating x-rays for a full second, you're getting a single pulse a billionth of a second in duration. this is plenty long to expose a very sensitive x-ray detector.

"Rapid pulses of X-rays, each about a billionth of a second long, emerged from very close to where the tape was coming off the roll."

tfa said the pulse only lasted 1 billionth of a second long, meaning that indeed the static charge build up is creating a usable, but very short pulse of x-rays.

'It's much more likely they're getting electrostatic discharges in the film. The New Age loonballs call it "Kirlian Photography".

I'll be glad to eat a hat if this pans out. Until then I'll just wear it.'

this is not kirlian photography, the fact of the matter is they took an x-ray of the guys finger with a single pulse of x-rays at 1 billionth of a second of duration. i suggest you gets some ketchup for you are eating hat tonight.

Re:not bloody likely

[oodaloop]

There are walk-through scanners being tested right now for airports that detect the incredibly small amount of X-rays given off by the human body (the recent discovery of which prompted said scanners). The scanners are highly sensitive and passive, revealling everything, from metal weapons to plastic to *ahem* body parts. Seems plausible this type of source of X-rays, combined with a more sensitive detector could result in a less-power intensive alternative to traditional X-ray machines.