"Why in the world are you posting that?"
"What do you mean?"
"It's a yappy little dog. We don't like yappy little dogs."
"True enough, but it's a picture of a yappy little dog in the infrared, and that's pretty cool."
"I don't think it's all that cool. You should take pictures of me in the infrared. I'd look much cooler than that dog."
"I don't doubt that, but I don't have a heat-sensitive infrared camera, and I can't really justify spending thousands of dollars on one just to take pictures of you for filler posts on my blog."
"Maybe. I'm skeptical. How about a visible-light picture, at least?
"Well, OK."
"See, that's more like it."
"Whatever."
(Infrared Zoo link via Betseeeey.)
Physical Science
Comments
# 1 | Anon | April 18, 2008 8:04 AM
I really hope that is a chew-toy...
# 2 | Chad Orzel | April 18, 2008 8:12 AM
Yes, that's a chew toy. A heavy-duty Kong, to be precise.
# 3 | CCPhysicist | April 18, 2008 8:16 AM
I assume Emmy didn't actually visit that web site, or the conversation would surely reflect that "rusty9_ir" (2nd IR picture in the first column) provides stunning evidence that yappy dogs are possessed by evil spirits. You can see the emanations!
# 4 | Kate Nepveu | April 18, 2008 10:14 AM
Skeptical dog!
# 5 | David Owen-Cruise | April 18, 2008 2:20 PM
You're thinking about taking the Kong away aren't you? She can tell. Don't lie to the Queen. She knows you're after the Kong, and she will not be fooled by your "clever" primate tricks. You see this face, this is her "I'm on to you face."
Wait! Infrared Bunnies?
So, has Emmy discovered the interesting noises you can make dropping a Kong down the stairs at 3 am?
# 6 | Kate Nepveu | April 18, 2008 2:24 PM
The Queen reposes in her crate overnight, and therefore has not dropped her Kong down the stairs at 3 in the morning--I believe she's done it once or twice during the day, but not on purpose.
# 7 | MLE | April 18, 2008 3:41 PM
Actually, the CCDs in most digital cameras are fairly IR sensitive, hence the reddish-hued filters visible on many cell phone camera lenses. The filters can be removed in some cases and viola -- an inexpensive IR camera. See for example this article.# 8 | terry | April 18, 2008 4:18 PM
Nice looking pooch. I must say that kongs of that size tend to last about 10 minutes with my dog and then I get to note remains for the next several days with the whining that goes with passing them. Is there anything short of rocks--which are really bad for their teeth-- which a Lab will not chew apart?
# 9 | Charles | April 18, 2008 4:25 PM
I note that the hottest parts of the IR image are also the yappiest parts of the yappy little dog.
# 10 | Neil B. | April 18, 2008 5:36 PM
As I suspected, the two images don't match up. The IR image looks like a Pekingese type dog, not your mini-redneck-type dog as in the visible pic. They aren't the same dog! Whatever.
BTW, MLE, wouldn't a simple filter that *absorbed* near IR at least (assuming a simple curve) be greenish blue, but if that's the reflection type then reddish tint (like on some binoculars for more comfortable sunny-day viewing) makes sense. In any case, near IR sensitivity (like 800-1200 nm) doesn't really get much input from body temperature, you need a hot clothes iron to get enough in that band. Then again, with enhanced sensitivity you could maybe pick up enough from cooler bodies in long exposure.
The last query leads me to ask this question about thermodynamics: IIRC, the BB radiation equations for emission per wavelength don't have precise cut offs, they die off gradually from the peak, "indefinitely" in ideal mathematical form. Now I don't expect even a few X-ray photons from ice cubes, but can we push the limit and get e.g. enough visible light outliers from room-temperature bodies for a time exposure? I haven't heard about this subject of the limits of the BB radiation curve in real practice, but find it very interesting.
# 11 | Aaron | April 19, 2008 11:15 AM
Hey, who said they could take IR pictures of my dog without offering to take one of me? They also bleached him...how cruel.
# 12 | B | April 21, 2008 4:27 AM
Most digital camera CCDs only have sensitivity to light of less than about 1 micron wavelength. This is infrared compared to the human visible range (to 700 nm), but barely infrared to an astronomer. The near infrared is about 0.9-1 micron to 3-4 microns, and the IPAC pictures are in the thermal infrared which is about 10 microns and longer. Those pictures may have been taken with a 10 micron camera. For fairly apparent reasons, if you want to do imaging of thermal emission from room temperature objects, you need a cooled camera, and that gets elaborate.