h a l f b a k e r yNo serviceable parts inside.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
I want this to view the clear night stars . The diffuser would be a shallow 1m dish on the ceiling . If the diffuser was removed and the room blacked out then the starlight would play all around the room . Good for romantic dinners . |
|
| |
I was wondering, since light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, could a travelling wave tube be use to amplify the impulses received to gain a better projection . Of course this implementation would have to be plugged in and switched on . There would also be the big kink in the camera obscura to hide . |
|
| |
I hadn't imagined any amplification, as part of the goal was to take advantage of natural light. If electric or similar energy were used to increase the light it would (in my opinion) defeat the purpose; you might as well use an electronic camera and screen or projector. |
|
| |
The prospect of amplifying light in the manner you suggest sounds interesting; I gather such things are done in fibre optics, using laser-like principles. |
|
| |
I may be wrong but a travelling wave tube wouldn't raster/pixelate like an electronic camera . The light waves would be all natural but increased . |
|
| |
I may also be wrong, but a travelling-wave tube seems to take a single modulated RF input, and amplify it; to amplify an image would require an array of them, so the image would be pixelated. I also can't find evidence that it would work with visible light. Maybe you could create a cosmic microwave background radiation 'sky' skylight. In that case, the large wavelengths might make pixellation a non-issue. |
|
| |
Sorry my bad . I was imagining(hopeful) a travelling wave tube that could handle the visible range (400–790 terahertz) . |
|
| |
Wikipedia stated that the range was a broadband as high as 3 octaves . Doesn't that mean it will amplify all the RF frequencies in that range . If the TWT can do a band of frequencies then possibly only one is needed, no pixellation . |
|
| |
A cosmic background skylight might look abit like a mathmos light but maybe bit slower . |
|
| |
Over my head... But, what I see happening is a projection of the natural overhead light, birds and all, right into the room. Which is cool. But, I can't actually see most of the birds anyways when I go outdoors, whats the point? I need a computer to look for birds, find them, focus on them, and project their light into my room for big bird action! Thanks! |
|
| |
I don't feel like waiting another most of a month. |
|
| |
I did some calculations, and if we assume: 1. a collecting lens diameter of
100 mm, 2. a medium sunlight illuminance of 40 klx, 3. an optical efficiency
of 60% (CandlePowerForums rule of thumb for flashlight optics—might be a bit
high for this), and 4. a 1 m diameter circular diffuser, then the diffuser will
be illuminated at 240 lux, but maybe only half of that (depending on
material) will be diffused in the direction of the room, so you'd get about a
120 lux image, which would probably be somewhat visible indoors even with
the lights on. At night, you'd need the lights off, and you might need a bigger
collecting lens for it to be really good. |
|
| |
// If the TWT can do a band of frequencies then possibly only one is needed,
no pixellation . // |
|
| |
How do you conclude that? Having a high bandwidth in temporal frequencies
doesn't imply the same in spatial frequencies. |
|
| |
// A cosmic background skylight might look abit like a mathmos light but
maybe bit slower . // |
|
| |
There's that word again! Wiktionary is still only defining it as a nickname for
mathematicians, and that doesn't make sense here. |
|
| |
I imagined the workings of such a device today, but alas, here it is 15
years ago. Sigh. |
|
| |