How? You do realize the xenon isn't the only particle inside a xenon bulb, right?
I didn't say it was. But it's the only gas, and hence the only element in the plasma.
How about tungsten or any of the other impurities present in such a bulb?
Tungsten is not an impurity. It's the electrode material. Do you not get the difference between the electrode and the gas/plasma?
You're citing *ONE* scenario where *MANY* elements are actually present and ignoring the fact that other elements are also present in that bulb.
Well, no. There are three elements we have mentioned: xenon, tungsten, and thorium. Two of those are in the electrode. One of them is in the plasma. Guess where the light comes from? The plasma.
Now if only you could make them move at relativistic speeds you might have an argument.
What an ignorant comment. How fast do I need them to move? Well, I want visible light, so I need kinetic energies on the order of the energies in visible light. And how do I obtain such kinetic energies? Why, in something that's hot enough to glow in the visible spectrum, obviously. Is that relativistic? It doesn't actually matter, but no, it isn't.
BS. From your own link:
All modern xenon short-arc lamps use a fused quartz envelope with thorium-doped tungsten electrodes.
Yes, Michael, the
electrodes are doped with thorium. But the light doesn't come from the electrodes, it comes from the plasma. Which is (drumroll, please)....
xenon. Do you know why they add thorium? You highlighted the reason: it improves the
electron emission of the
electrodes. It doesn't go into the plasma, and it doesn't change the
photon emission of the plasma.
So.....
You're ignoring the impurities that were *ADDED INTENTIONALLY* to the xenon bulb.
And I'm also ignoring the silicon and oxygen that encase the bulb. Can you guess why, Micheal? Because they
don't emit the light we observe. Neither does the Tungsten or thorium.
You ignore the pressure differences between the 25 ATM in a xenon bulb and your extremely light photosphere.
Not at all. That helps shorten the optical depth of the xenon plasma and increase the luminous efficiency, but it doesn't change the fact that we've still got a plasma which is emitting at wavelengths
other than the atomic spectral lines. Which brantc and you said was impossible. But which does in fact happen.
You ignore the fact you can't get synchrotron light from anything without electricity.
Um... there's no synchrotron light involved here. But now I see why you made that ridiculous comment earlier: you don't understand how electrons could emit radiation other than synchrotron.
You ignore the fact that hydrogen and helium are not the same as xenon in terms of the emissions they generate.
I never claimed they were the same. But if xenon can emit at wavelengths other than its atomic lines (and it does), then why can't hydrogen? The answer: it can. Optical depths are longer when you go off emission lines, but they are still finite.
Let's look at the emission lines for elements
http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/xenon.html
Notice all those different lines at different locations?
Yup. Notice the gap at 460 nm? No, you didn't. Notice that xenon arc lamps emit at 460 nm? No, you didn't.
Don't you figure that the whole reason they use xenon inside of a xenon bulb rather than helium and hydrogen has something to do with the "white light" that xenon emits?
Optical depth, Michael. Xenon plasma has a much shorter optical depth than helium or hydrogen. That makes it a much more
efficient gas to use.
Did you read that part about how they doped the electrode?
I did indeed. Too bad you've got no clue about why they did that.
Do you notice that the xenon gas has very *specific wavelengths* that it actually generates?
Indeed. So why is it emitting at 460 in the arc lamp when there's no emission line at 460? If you ever figure out the correct answer, it will be a major epiphany.
!
