Okay, this is probably baloney, but I need some help explaining

>>57011573
No, they don't. The light is caused by electrons hitting the phosphor, causing a photon to be emitted.

Also, there is no way in hell it was so dark in any part of the ship there was a complete abundance f photons.

>>57011573
You are confusing it with Lasers which works on stimulated emission.

Often, touching the tube will help it to start when you are grounded.

OP here.

I'm thinking that maaaaaaybe it's possible that the inductive kick from a degraded/aged starter might not be quite enough to get the bulb lit, and the excitation caused by my light on the gas could have helped it complete the process? maybe? maybe maybe maybe?

I am absolutely certain that I provided some sort of external stimuli, and it wasn't me jostling it or something like that.

>>57012228
Moving a grounded source nearer to it will also trigger it in some cases. That can be a stimulus, but it is not likely your light caused it. Does your iPod and flashlight have metallic casing? That might be a reason.

>>57011573
Maybe someone's having a laugh and installed a light-dependent switch in the circuit.

OP here.

"Moving a grounded source nearer to it will also trigger it in some cases."

if you're referring to inductive coupling / "ghost voltage" these things are surrounded by other energized cables so i really doubt it.

I honestly believe it has something to do with the excitation of the gas in the bulb. I do know that cold bulbs take much longer (like, observable by a human without a watch) to light up. Maybe the light I added had a similar effect?

"Also, there is no way in hell it was so dark in any part of the ship there was a complete abundance f photons."

The doors between compartments of subs are designed to block light out, so that a person looking through a periscope doesn't need to adjust their eyes (and therefore minimizes periscope exposure time above the water), and a "light leak" doesn't project out of the periscope. The same type of doors are used between berthing and the control spaces.

Complete absence? no way. But severely light-starved? definitely.

Also, the human eye can detect the presence of a single photon. Some of these spaces were fuckin' DARK.

what an interesting phenomenon

>>57014885
>the human eye can detect the presence of a single photon

When you look at an object, what you're actually looking at is the reflection of the light from a source (bulb, sun, etc) onto the object and back onto your eye.

If you took a flash light and shined it from your left and looked at what should be the "beam", you'd see light, but only from reflections off dust particles. Single photons, or just random photons, would be essentially impossible to see that same way.

Also, all objects (all normal objects, I'm not going to get more complicated than that) emit some form, or wavelength, of light. You emit infrared light and heat, and so do all objects. It's impossible to be in a room without any photons.

>>57014964
different anon, you could still create an environment that had a relatively small amount of photons couldn't you? to the point that whatever this guy is saying applies? just in the same way that we cant create total vacuums or reach 0k, we can still get close, right?

I have an alarm clock next to a fluorescent lamp and when the alarm goes off, the clock flashes the display and buzzes, and the fluorescent tube has sympathetic flashes in time with the clock display

File: 600_CDMTT70_Street.jpg (13KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 600x600px

>>57011573
Fluorescent bulbs start using electron emission from a cathode.

However, as for photons, some metal halide bulbs do in fact use a little UV lamp to get things started, just like that little bulb in this pic.

It is possible that the phosphor glows from the iPod light and starts it up causing the gas to ionize.

>>57015006
I forgot that submarines were vacuums with temperatures near absolute zero and had completely black carbon walls on them. Thanks for reminding me.

Everything in your room right now is emitting heat. This situation is impossible under any environment circumstance because OPs body is emitting heat, and therefore light. The environment couldn't be built because OP wouldn't be alive to tell the story.

What probably happened was that the extra photons increased the chance for the gas to start ionizing (or start the reaction). This isn't a common problem for others, as far as I know, so it sounds like that solution isn't right.

>>57011573
Perhaps a static charge would be enough to jump start it?

>>57015196

OP here

he was expressing a test of concept, just as a thought exercise.

To the point- this was not universal. AAAAAnd I can't recall whether changing the bulb, ballast, or starter fixed it. It was common enough that other guys had noticed it and were doing it independently of me. I am definitely am not the only person who had noticed this.

Imagine you going into the dark-assed berthing area for your toothbrush or whatever, you click on the light, it's fucked, and in frustration you use the glow from you iPod to grope around.

Pull it out, and boom! the light comes on.

>>57012572
(not OP)
Would a hand do?
Some of the florescent tubes in our house when switched on only glow a bit near the ends. Only when I wave my hand across it does it light up fully. Additionally it usually only happens later in the evening. Early on things are fine.

Unconnected fluorescent bulbs will glow brightly in a strong static field. Maybe your device was emitting enough rf or something to kick-start the plasma circuit.

>>57011573
Reminds me of a certain brand of electronic organ that relied on NE-2 negative-resistance oscillators. Once assembled and tested they refused to work. Only when a small lamp was introduced into the case would the neons fire.
The same with those old orange displays in the first IBM ATMs. They had radio-active Niobium in the display so that the plasma would fire.