Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
David, surely that's a mistake in their abstract:
"The rate was measured as a function of the light intensity at steps of 12.5 nanometers which approximates the length of the leaflet used."
Those are awfully small leaves!!!
|
Yes, whoever wrote the abstract mangled that. It should read something like
"The rate was measured as a function of the light intensity at steps of 12.5 nanometers which approximates the
wavelength spread over the length of the leaflet used."
From page 2 of the text:
"
Wave Length Range and Resolution.
The wave length limits of the flux incident on a leaf 125 mm long will be X + (D X 1/2) and X - (D X 1/2) where X = wave length at the center of the leaf, D = dispersion (Table I) and 1 = leaf length. For X = 500 nm
one edge is at 507.1 nm and the other at 492.9 nm. With a slit width of 25 mm, a magnification of 2.32, and a dispersion of 0.114 nm/mm, the range of the wave length falling at each point on the leaf will be 25.0 mm X 2.32 x 0.114 nm/mm = 6.6 nm"