Thread 16736586

Any knowledgeable /sci/ anons here who know if I could get my hands on an UV-level spectrometer for cheap and if possible then how "cheap" are we talking? I looked around and it seems like one can build a custom spectrometer using cheap webcam and materials for visible light but I need something that can detect radiation accurately in the ~149nm range (specifically nitrogen, which is 149.262nm, AFAIK). Also I need this thing to be portable.

>>16736586 (OP)
Probably need to give up on portability since you need a decent vacuum to even detect the emission before it's absorbed in the air, that's why most spectrometers only go down to 190 nm.

>>16736601
These emissions, if they truly are even there, are alleged to propagate in the atmosphere for miles. Now as you know, I'm not a physicist or too well versed in physics in general, so I don't know how wild this kind of claim is, but I'm very suspicious and curiosity led me to create this thread because I'm curious if this is actually something a layman like myself with small budget could actually experimentally verify.

why are you wanting to look into this?
what have you been reading/listening to/watching that made you suddenly want to measure this particular frequency?

>>16736607
I was listening to https://open.spotify.com/episode/4aeD4stC8Ha4cXm0vUfgIa and the people interviewed in this podcast make pretty wild claims. I'm currently looking into used ocean optics spectrometers on ebay but none of these go below 180nm...

>>16736627
i'm not giving that the benefit of a listen
what claims are they making that makes you want to buy scientific instruments that you have no knowledge of or experience with?

>searches for https://open.spotify.com/episode/4aeD4stC8Ha4cXm0vUfgIa
>that link appears in /x/ tier discussions
no thanks.

>>16736634
Well you asked so I posted the link. They claim that the propulsion systems used by UFO's cause this kind of radiation spectra. I'm obviously very skeptical of this so I'd like to reach some scientific conclusion whether or not this sounds realistic at all. I can find stuff like https://www.simtrum.com/WebShop/ProductList5.aspx?pid=693 but this is obviously meant to be installed in a lab environment and exceeds my budget anyways. So I'm just hopeful if some chinese company or something is able to produce spectrometers for my little spectroscopy curiosity.

>>16736642
I asked this here because my question of whether or not this is sensible at all is purely scientific.

>>16736643
kiddo, do yourself a favor and stop listening to that trash
also, pay attention to your bullshit meter because it appears to be working. it will save you a lot of money

>>16736653
Did you look into it at all or do you simply assume it to be trash? I assumed so for 6 months until today, I was bored and gave it a listen and it feels like soft disclosure of something that's been gatekept somehow for ages. But yes, I am incredibly skeptical, it just tickled my interest because the jargon they use in this podcast seems consistent. There's people such as Larry Forsley talking in that podcast, who you can find works on Lattice Confinement Fusion, for example in here: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science/lattice-confinement-fusion/ - All in all these are scientists talking about this incredible stuff, for a reason I don't understand, which is why I want to look into the credibility of all of this closer. Now if a spectrometer like this exists and costs more than 500€'s, I'll certainly drop my idea, but it doesn't hurt to ask here if someone knows if someone in china manufactures something that can possibly measure what I'd like to measure.

>>16736586 (OP)
I used to work at a Spectroscopy company.

You're going to need a Vacuum Ultra-violet Spectrometer 100-240 ish nm.

You're looking at a spectral range that practically ionizes everything. The emissions you're trying to record are in the range that compounds in the air will be ionized, so your sample/ reference you're trying to measure would also need to be in a vacuum of inert gas.

This is extremely niche, with only a few manufacturers. I'm pretty sure there's only one manufacturer of a "portable" bench-top spectrometer, unless you gamble on a random Chinese brand.

I did a quick look and found exactly one used VUV spec of any kind. There's one bench top unit I saw for 30k used.

I'm not sure what application you are trying to do, or what you're trying to discover, but this range is considerably difficult to study as well as beyond the scope of almost every industry, meaning the demand and support are also low.

What are you trying to measure? What sparked your interest in this region and maybe someone can give you answers without you needing to start a small independent lab.

>>16736702
Ignore the retard alert for post name, I promise I'm not completely retarded all the time.

>>16736704
>I promise I'm not completely retarded all the time.
then try reading the other posts in the thread

>>16736586 (OP)
https://www.instructables.com/UV-VIS-Arduino-UNO/

>>16736643
>They claim that the propulsion systems used by UFO's cause this kind of radiation spectra
Let's say you put a bunch of money down and get a device that works exactly as you envisioned?
Then what?

Do you plan to go UFO hunting hoping to see something strange in the sky that you can point this thing at?
Let's say you do find this signal. What would it prove? Are you sure there's no natural origins of that particular wavelength?

>>16736706

There's not a single sentence about what is being measured, and I'm not going to listen to an almost 3-hour podcast full of ideas to try to figure out which one OP is explicitly interested in.

Maybe a timestamp for what the claim is would be great.

If OP is trying to confirm UFO propulsion spectra, then they would also need a vacuum chamber large enough for the whole propulsion device, otherwise, any VUV emission will just ionize oxygen in the atmosphere.

This is why there are 0 free space coupled bench-top VUV spectrometers.

>>16736586 (OP)
You're not going to be able to observe anything in that range without a vacuum system and a very expensive sensor.

>>16736735
There is, as I recall, a narrow bandwidth in the 150-175 nm range that can propagate without getting absorbed by atmospheric oxygen or nitrogen, but it would still be subject to heavy scattering and OP would still have no way of detecting it without an obscenely expensive spectrometer or some kind of bandpass filter/sensor setup.

>>16736586 (OP)
What is it about this particular range that's so important? Is the idea that your alium battlecruiser or whatever is making radiation at this one particular energy? Because if that's the case you don't need a spectrometer, you just need a VUV narrow bandpass filter you can slap over a sensor. If the important part is that nitrogen is being ionized, there are a few sets of visible and near infrared lines you could look for instead, but it wouldn't distinguish what caused the nitrogen to be excited, it would just confirm that it was.

maybe i should get into the business of selling fraudulent lab equipment to rubes

>>16736770
And it's morally justified because they're polluting /sci/

>>16736775
>asking a scientific question
>polluting /sci/
Okay buddy.

>>16736742
Some wavelengths propagate through nitrogen and are weakly absorbed by oxygen, however, it's never 0. There's also water vapor, and plenty of other airborne molecules to worry about.

This is true for photons from the sun as well, so OP would need unbelievably precise measurements of the background radiation right before they then happened upon a stationary UFO.

If there's enough intensity to reach the ground and not be blown out by background radiation, then the source is probably ionizing the air around it and creating superheated plasma anyway.

>>16736777
I appreciate this discussion here and it seems like the claim these guys are making in this podcast, which is that this should be easily verifiable as long as you can spot an actual UFO, is bullshit. Anyways, I'm off for a shower, I'll respond in more detail later but basically if what's been said here is true, then this is not realistic at all, unless I've misunderstood something and the wavelength they suggest to measure is something else, but they specifically mentioned "broadband spectrometer" and "nitrogen lines".

>>16736800
air is almost opaque to those wavelenghts basically, i think totally opaque at 150

>>16736775
i was thinking of this exact device when i posted

>>16736800
A broadband spectrometer is completely different than a VUV spectrometer.

Generally broad broadband refers to a spectrometer designed for 190nm - 1000nm or so, covering UV, visible, and Near infrared. Those are much cheaper,

Nitrogen spectral lines also technically exist from like 1.9nm to well over 5000nm, so you might want to relisten.

Ok fuck it I'm gonna listen to the podcast, will reply with findings and timestamps if its bearable

>>16736777
>>16736603
>>16736742
This is literally the most attenuated wavelength in air. The mean free path for absorption is only 100 um.
>>16736800
All of the lines for nitrogen are in the VUV and wouldn't propogate to ground level https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/ASD/lines1.pl?composition=N%3A100&mytext%5B%5D=N&myperc%5B%5D=100&spectra=N0-2&low_w=100&limits_type=0&upp_w=1000&show_av=2&unit=1&resolution=1000&temp=1&eden=1e17&maxcharge=2&min_rel_int=0&int_scale=2&libs=1
Either way there are tons of things that cause this emission, like ionization from all of the high energy particles precipitating along open field lines at the polar caps

>>16736860
Ok timestamp for OP starts at 40:40

>>16736586 (OP)
also looking for info on spectrometers. I am not willing to spend the cash for the ocean optics USB ones, but something like that is perfect for what I want to do.

would a mid-range performance spectrometer be able to measure the mineral concentrations of water used in a hydroponic system? I want to be able to get +-20ppm or so for measuring nutrient uptake during different growth conditions. I will still need a filter and cuvette setup, but I just really don't want to have to do titrations every day to get the measurements. nor do I want to do a standard conductivity measurement on the water, it is too broad a measurement.

I have seen a few "research papers" where a fiber optic cable is used as a probe in some water to do this, but nothing of the actual measurements and accuracies.

>>16736702

?
>>16736903

>>16736896
wanna summarize?

>>16736924
so fkin boringm the begining sounds like AI, i dozed off and started playing rimworld. Their science is sounds but its all just about the stupid "orbs" videos that's just fucking parallax. They take them for granted (wich is stupid) but try and develop real tests that could further identify them (wich is clever). Their whole assumption is that our science is proper but not our engineering, so they belive the "orbs" use lattice confinement fusion as an energy source, and speculate that you could detect the effects in different ways. One of them is via the stupid thing OP wants to do, but even then you would still need to be near the ufo, they are talking about mounting it on planes/military vehicles.
TLDR total waste of time

Hey OP, do you own a military aircraft? I'm impressed.

>>16737005
The beginning really sounds like AI, but I guess it's not. Someone also verified with email that one of the speakers is who he is. That's why I originally listened to the podcast, because contrary to my initial reaction, it seemed genuine. Now I'm simply interested if what they suggested is feasible and sensible, not in terms of going out there and hoping to find an UFO, but in terms of the required equipment.

>>16736586 (OP)
jesus christ I feel like everyone replying to you is a bot

so look, you're going to need either a diffraction grating or a prism made out of a UV transparent material, and youre going to need a phosphor. you wont be able to have a digital readout but you will be able to physically measure the wavelength of whatever source youre using. and there are many obvious ways to improve the accuracy of these setups

all of the gaslight is truly bewildering, who are these human beings that think air actually is opaque to high frequency photons? how the fuck do all you retards think xrays are possible? OP didnt say they were trying to fucking measure sources from fucking outer space

>>16737217
Shut up, Brian.

>>16737230
>all of the gaslight is truly bewildering, who are these human beings that think air actually is opaque to high frequency photons?
I knew faggots like you were too dumb to read, but apparently you're also too dumb to look at pictures >>16736863 even at an inch away 150 nm light will be attenuated by a factor of 10^110, have fun detecting that.

>how the fuck do all you retards think xrays are possible?
Low energy X-rays are in fact, also strongly absorbed in air https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/ComTab/air.html
>OP didnt say they were trying to fucking measure sources from fucking outer space
If you'd actually bother to read the thread, he *is* in fact trying to detect UFOs which are the same order of magnitude distance away

At least I can tell you're not a bot since a bot wouldn't even be making these basic mistakes in 2017.

>>16737217
yes, their science is mostly correct, they are proper scientists.
Imho the problem is in their stupid assumptions that the orb videos are real when its so clearly parallax. They even say it, any attepmt to further detect them in any kind of sensors has been futile, so they are developing increasingly crazy ideas/instruments to prove they are indeed some kind of extremely advanced technology. I don't think that's a bad thing, sure go ahead and do it but nobody is gonna find anything. The idea of NHIs that close to us is just stupid to me, but I'll be the first to congratulate them if they find anything.
Following your OP, no, you CANNOT do what they are propossing on a 500 bucks budget. You'll need at the very least 20-30k of equipment, most likely in the range of 50-100k, a lot od specialized knowledge on how to operate the equipment, and on top of all you need to be close to a ufo to find the trace emissions they are talking about. Its feasible for the DOD but not for an individual. In any case, ignore the schizos in the thread, this board is shit and your post is nice

>>16737345
>you cant read
>well actually you can read but im gonna post a link to make it seem like im not stupid
>bro is so illiterate he doesn't even know what an experiment is because OP definitely didnt say he was pointing this thing at space
but even if he did youre still pretending like photo-muiltipliers don't exist and all he wants is a fucking spectrometer and not an imager you fucking faggot

you're a glowie aren't you? please get back to work on arresting pedos please because trying to make people retarded is a waste of your time