Talk:Image intensifier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.


This article is in need of illustrations.Ratsbew (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


As it wasn't linked, and not knowing this page existed, I wrote my own Generation list on the Night vision goggles page. They could possibly be combined. Tmaull 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless somebody has an objection, I am going to merge this page with Night Vision System. Anybody? Tmaull 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Re: Image Intensifier and Night Vision System The original article was moved to NVD (Night Vision Devices) and Merged, however both the IIT page and NVD page tended to create too much cross-over information.

I've re-created this page for Image Intensifier Tubes only, supporting other pages such as specific Night Vision Devices.

I've also delete the original discussion as that only pertains to material merged with NVD.

Within the NVD talk, you'll find comments that related IIT information to other areas has now disappeared, so I recreated this page.

So far I only have the history down, but additional material will cover specifics on all known types of tubes, cover medical and scientific aspects of IITs, deal with Gating and also list specific details of known IITs (eg, MX10160, MX9644 etc).

To this extent, I'll avoid discussing too many NVD (Night Vision Devices) aspects of IITs, except where historically appropriate. David kitson (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Reduction or oxidation?[edit]

While translating this article for the Dutch Wikipedia, I came across a very strange statement. Under Image intensifier#Generation 2 - The micro-channel plate it says "Reduction of the cesium to cesium oxide in later versions ...".

Well, I am a physicist, not a chemist. But I think I remember enough from earlier chemistry lessons to know that changing an element to its oxide is called oxidation, which is the opposite of reduction.

So I would suggest to change the text to "Oxidation of the cesium to cesium oxide in later versions ...".

HHahn (Talk) 14:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, you know, you have a point there. The word reduction was used in the original white paper that discussed the method above, but it was probably used incorrectly - I'll recheck the reference material and get around to changing that as needed - Thankyou - —Preceding unsigned comment added by David kitson (talkcontribs) 01:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

David kitson Yep, you're right - Thankyou - Corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Why green?[edit]

It would be interesting to include a short explanation why the color green was chosen for use in night vision goggles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. Conventional wisdom has it that green is the color we see best, however an evaluation of the phosphor properties seems to contribute to the reasons. In fact, Image intensifiers do come in different colors, even white now ( Photonis Onyx ) - I'll collect the reasons and add them, but it's not specifically science because the original reasons are lost to time. Even now, the US still don't make military intensifiers in other colors, but Europe does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David kitson (talkcontribs) 22:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Major Update in the works[edit]

Time I guess to do this - Expect a lot of changes over the next few months as I add technical content... I have probably left this far too long. Thanks, David Kitson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David kitson (talkcontribs) 15:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)