```X-Message-Number: 19398
From: "Brett Bellmore" < var s1 = "bellmore"; var s2 = "tir.com"; var s3 = s1 + "@" + s2; document.write("<a href='mailto:" + s3 + "'>" + s3 + "</a>"); >
Subject: Re: CryoNet #19391
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 05:54:28 -0400

"Allows me a small computation: From memory, the Sun has a magnitude near
-26 (between minus 26 and minus 27). Adding five magnitudes divide energy by
100 in round numbers. Now the solar constant is 1.3 kJ per second per sq.
meter at the Earth's orbit distance. Typical optical photons have an energy
of 3 electron-volts and 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joule, that is, the Sun light is
a shower of 1300/(3 x 1.6 x 1O^-19) = 2.7 x 10^21 photons per sq. meter per
second.
>
Take a 4th magnitude star as an example, this is 30 mag. under the Sun or 6
x
5, as 5 mag divide the number of photons by 100,  30 mags. divide it by
10^12. So, a 4th magnitude star send us a shower of 2.7 x 10^9 photons by
sq.
meter by second. The Narrabri interferometer light collectors was 7 m in
diameter or 38 sq. m. So they collected something as 100 billions photons
per
second from a 4th magnitude star.
>
With a sampling rate of 100 Ghz, there would be one photon per bin, this is
the most efficient way to detect bunching. Beyond that frequency indeed we
would gain nothing as all bunch would be resolved. So I maintain what I have
said: for a typical ii observation a 100 Ghz sampling rate is not only
possible, it is too the best possible.
>
Sorry, I like computing and giving definite values :-)
>
Yvan Bozzonetti"

Granted, but I was thinking in terms of the technique's use for brain
scanning. We're an intelligent lot, by and large, but not THAT bright...

Brett Bellmore

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19398

```