Roentgen Rays and Phenomena of the Anode and Cathode.Thompson, Edward P. (Edward Pruden)
History
Roentgen Rays and Phenomena of the Anode and Cathode.
Thompson, Edward P. (Edward Pruden)
X-rays
“When the glass walls, instead of receiving cathode rays, are pierced
only by the true Roentgen rays from the disk in the middle, no evidence
is afforded by my photograph that the glass under these circumstances
acts as a source. It is well that it does not, for its only effect would
be a blurring one. § 91. With focus tubes, the glass phosphoresces under
the action of the X-rays as anything else would phosphoresce, but its
phosphorescence is not of the least use. It is a sign that a tube is
working well, and that the rays are powerful; but if by reason of
fatigue (§ 58) the glass ceases to phosphoresce strongly, the fact
constitutes not the slightest detriment.”
[Illustration]
X-RAY UNINFLUENCED BY A MAGNET. SEVERE TEST.—His first experiment on
magnetic deflection, the sciagraph of a magnet with a background of wire
gauze, only showed that if there were any shift by reason of passage of
rays between the poles it was very small; but he definitely asserted, as
in accompanying diagram, that a further experiment has been made which
effectually removes the idea of deflectibility from his mind, and
confirms the statement of Professor Roentgen. § 79. A strong though
small electro-magnet, with concentrated field, had a photograph of its
pole-pieces taken with a couple of wires, A and C, stretched across them
on the further side from the plate—nearer the source—and a third wire,
B, also stretched across them, but on the side close to the plate. These
three wires left shadows on the plate, of which B was sharp and
definite, while A and C were blurred. Two sciagraphs were taken by Mr.
Robinson, one with the magnet on, and one with the magnet reversed. On
subsequently superposing the two plates, with the sharp shadows of B
coincident, the very slightest displacement of shadows A and C could
have been observed, although those shadows were not sharp. But there was
absolutely no perceptible displacement, the fit was perfect.
Consequently the hypothesis of a stream of electrified particles is
definitely disproved as no doubt had already been effectively done in
reality by Professor Roentgen himself. But it must be noted, he stated,
that the hypothesis of a simple molecular stream—not an electrified
one—remains a possibility. The only question is whether such an
unelectrified bombardment would be able to produce the observed effects.
It must be remembered, Dr. Lodge stated, that Dr. Lenard found among his
rays two classes as regards deflectibility—some much deflected, others
less deflected; and it must be clearly understood that his deflections
were observed, not in the originating discharge tube, where the fact of
deflection is a commonplace, but outside, after the rays had been, as it
were, “filtered” through an aluminum window. He did not, indeed, observe
the deflection in air of ordinary density; it was in moderately rarefied
air that he observed it, § 72_a_, but he showed that the variation of
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account