What's a grazer vs a laser?
All the News
laser and a grazer?
Chris
Mike W
Mike W
Josh Norton
<boe...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>Subject line kinda says it all, what is the difference between a
>laser and a grazer?
According to at least one of the HH books -- can't find exactly where,
at the moment -- a grazer is a gamma ray laser.
Josh
Qui me amat, amat et canem meum. -- St. Bernard of Clairvaux
Josh Norton -- browe at one dot net
Catherine Howat
All the News <boe...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote in message
news:8ir1l9$ui9$1...@news.sysnet.net.tw...
> Subject line kinda says it all, what is the difference between a
> laser and a grazer?
>
>
>
All the News
> One's a cow, the other's a car :)
Cute... really. :)
Actually, I want to thank those who replied. Am I
correct in assuming that the Graser (Gamma Ray)
is supposed to be more powerful than the laser?
(I seem to remember from intro physics that Gammas
radiation is particularly nasty.)
If this is the case, than it would follow that the laser
has _some_ advantage over the graser. If not, why
would anyone use a laser instead of a the graser?
So, in that line of thinking, does a laser have a longer
range? Use less power? More costly?
Thanks,
Chris
Loren Pechtel
L = light
GR = gammy ray
Loren Pechtel
>correct in assuming that the Graser (Gamma Ray)
>is supposed to be more powerful than the laser?
>(I seem to remember from intro physics that Gammas
>radiation is particularly nasty.)
It's not so much more powerful as more penetrating.
>If this is the case, than it would follow that the laser
>has _some_ advantage over the graser. If not, why
>would anyone use a laser instead of a the graser?
>So, in that line of thinking, does a laser have a longer
>range? Use less power? More costly?
The laser is a lot smaller, simpler piece of equipment.
David Hulme
These weapons achieve the same effect, but require different pieces of
equipment to get there. To wit:
Gamma rays and light are the same thing. Gamma rays are photons of
extremely short wave length, orders of magnitude shorter than x-rays. In
English this means that a) gamma rays are a 'color' (as are radio waves,
but they're very *long* wavelengths) and, b) gamma rays have
astoundingly high energies, which means they have greater penetrating
and destructive potential than say, visible light.
To give you an idea of the energies involved, the contemporary ideas
floating around for actually creating a graser beam start with a
controlled detonation of a hydrogen bomb. To my knowledge no one has
actually achieved a grasing effect yet, even on a small scale in a lab.
Of course, I'm a few years out of date, so don't take that to the bank
In his books the TMWW often describes a missile's detonation with the
phrase 'bomb-pumped x-ray lasers'. This is a similar deal, but with an
atomic bomb supplying the power for a 'regular' laser. The idea that in
the future we will possess the ability to repeatedly fire a fixed weapon
like a graser is quite sobering. And as a practical matter, I sure
wouldn't want to be the fella standing next to the thing when it goes
off...it wouldn't take too many stray photons to cook your insides.
Lasers *and* grasers are destructive because the light is emitted in a
coherent form (all of the waves/photons are in phase and tightly
focused). Methods of focusing the different beams would be profoundly
different. In at least one book, DW seems to imply that grasers use
some sort of gravity-based lens (intense gravity bends space-time) to
direct the beams.
Anybody want to ask what lidar is????? <g>
- David
Pat Mullet
<961F141E0218F98D.24087C07...@lp.airnews.net>,
I'd lean towards "electromagnetic radiation" more than photons. Photons
have always denoted a narrow band of the EM spectrum, i.e the visible
and *near* visible light band. Otherwise, you could say that the FM
band emmisions are long wave photons.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
All the News
"David Hulme" <david...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:961F141E0218F98D.24087C07...@lp.airnews.net...
> Glad this thread got started....
>
> These weapons achieve the same effect, but require different pieces of
> equipment to get there. To wit:
<< Sniped for space >>
Cool.. You seem pretty knowledgable about the whole thing
and the information was very useful.
> Anybody want to ask what lidar is????? <g>
Well, I may regret it, but...
What is a lidar?
Chris
Chris Fortin
> Glad this thread got started....
>
> These weapons achieve the same effect, but require different pieces of
> equipment to get there. To wit:
>
> coherent form (all of the waves/photons are in phase and tightly
> focused). Methods of focusing the different beams would be profoundly
> different. In at least one book, DW seems to imply that grasers use
> some sort of gravity-based lens (intense gravity bends space-time) to
> direct the beams.
Am I wrong to have my eye twitch whenever anyone mentions "focusing"
a laser? I mean, you have coherent wave packets traveling together,
any attæmt to focus them would destroy the coherence, right?
Of course, aiming them is different.
Chris
--
Christopher S. Fortin, Ph.D. Scientist@BBN <par...@theelders.org>
When it doesn't work, it's because you did something wrong.
Try to do it the right way, instead.
Chris Fortin
> In article
> <961F141E0218F98D.24087C07...@lp.airnews.net>,
> David Hulme <david...@excite.com> wrote:
> "Gamma rays are photons of extremely short wave length"
>
> I'd lean towards "electromagnetic radiation" more than photons. Photons
> have always denoted a narrow band of the EM spectrum, i.e the visible
> and *near* visible light band. Otherwise, you could say that the FM
> band emmisions are long wave photons.
Which would be absolutly correct. *ALL* em is carried by photons. ULF-->gamma.
--
Christopher S. Fortin, Ph.D. Scientist@BBN <par...@theelders.org>
"We are either doing something, or we are not.
'Talking about' is a subset of 'not'."
Loren Pechtel
>a laser? I mean, you have coherent wave packets traveling together,
No, you still use lenses to focus lasers. A lens will *NOT*
destroy the coherence. The problem is that while the beam is
coherent, it's got a slight divergence to it. This is inherent
because the laser itself is of finite size. At the usual terrestial
ranges we use lasers, it doesn't matter for most laser types.
(LED-based lasers, however, need a lens no matter what. Their beam
spread is like 15 degrees! It's normally built into the lasing
crystal, though, you don't see it.)
David Hulme
correct and to my knowledge the term 'photon' has never been applied to a
specific range of wavelengths. Photons are discrete phenomenon that 1)
travel at fixed speed, 2) have quantized momenta, and 3) have various
properties of pure waves and pure particles (i.e. a little of both). The
momentum of given photon can be accurately described with a wavelength
variable.
I personally don't like the term electromagnetic radiation, especially in
casual conversations, because it's a very scary sound word for such an
everyday thing. I think that the general public has a tendency to be a
little intimidated when such big words are thrown around. As a working
scientist, I attempt to demystify whenever I can. My own experience is that
when people hear the word 'radiation', hackles begin to rise. Case in
point: the (to date unfounded) concerns that cell phones or police radar
cause brain cancers. Simply put, anything that is 'electromagnetic
radiation' is light of some color (visible or not).
BTW, electromagnetic radiation is number two on the list of obfuscating
technical jargon . Number one is the physics term 'dielectric', which is a
hoyty-toyty way of saying 'insulator'.
-Dave
Pat Mullet wrote:
> In article
> <961F141E0218F98D.24087C07...@lp.airnews.net>,
> David Hulme <david...@excite.com> wrote:
> "Gamma rays are photons of extremely short wave length"
>
> I'd lean towards "electromagnetic radiation" more than photons. Photons
> have always denoted a narrow band of the EM spectrum, i.e the visible
> and *near* visible light band. Otherwise, you could say that the FM
> band emmisions are long wave photons.
>
Pat Mullet
<D4ACB81A78BA2FDF.1FAF275A...@lp.airnews.net>,
Me, I'm just a Broadcast Engineer (or at least that's the way I was
trained--nowadays I'm just a glorified technical operator) and have
always thought in terms of EM radiation, i.e, radio waves.
My understanding has always been that the term "photon" was reserved for
the range of the EM spectrum from infra-red to ultra-violet--visible
and near visible light; the peculiar range where things acted as both
wave and particle.
Perhaps its my training, but I have a problem thinking of 60 cycle AC as
low frequency photons being shoved through copper wire.
As regards the term radiation and it's effect on the public psyche, I
have to agree. Power companies being sued because "stray voltage" from
power lines affect the milk production of a farmer's cattle, worries
that radiation sterilized food can cause radiation sickeness and cell
phones cause brain cancer? Luddite-ism lives!
Gee, I never had a problem with the word dielectric.
Pat Mullet
"All the News" <boe...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> What is a lidar?
>
LIght Detection And Ranging
as opposed to
RAdio Detection And Ranging (RADAR)
In other words, radar done with light rather than radio waves. And
while qualified to service the latter, I've never even seen a technical
article on the former.
Taki Kogoma
to alt.books.david-weber decree...
>Perhaps its my training, but I have a problem thinking of 60 cycle AC as
>low frequency photons being shoved through copper wire.
That's because the stuff that gets shoved around wires is electrons,
not photons.
Gym "The elctromagnetic field around the wires, on the other hand..." Quirk
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
-- Gene "spaf" Spafford (1992)
Michael R N Dolbear
Pat Mullet <pwmu...@compuserve.com> wrote in article
<8j2fi7$roc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article
> David Hulme <david...@excite.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > BTW, electromagnetic radiation is number two on the list of
> obfuscating
> > technical jargon . Number one is the physics term 'dielectric',
> which
> is a
> > hoyty-toyty way of saying 'insulator'.
> >
> > -Dave
>
>
> Me, I'm just a Broadcast Engineer (or at least that's the way I was
> trained--nowadays I'm just a glorified technical operator) and have
> always thought in terms of EM radiation, i.e, radio waves.
>
> My understanding has always been that the term "photon" was reserved
for
> the range of the EM spectrum from infra-red to ultra-violet--visible
> and near visible light; the peculiar range where things acted as both
> wave and particle.
Not really, since gamma-ray and X-ray photon is the usual way to put
it, eg when a electron meets a positron.
Don't know the longest wavelength at which 'photons' have been referred
to, but since all 'particles' have wavelengths . . .
The dielectric constant of a vacuum is needed from time to time and
when you have strange materials with negative dielectric constants
calling them insulators is hardly correct or useful.
--
Mike the D
Mike Bruner
Taki Kogoma wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:11:26 GMT, did Pat Mullet <pwmu...@compuserve.com>,
> to alt.books.david-weber decree...
> >Perhaps its my training, but I have a problem thinking of 60 cycle AC as
> >low frequency photons being shoved through copper wire.
>
> That's because the stuff that gets shoved around wires is electrons,
> not photons.
Maybe they were thinking of fiber optics? ;)
--
Mike Bruner...@delaware.infi.net
"Yes, I am a servant of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial".
Your hard drive is being attacked by the Honor System Virus. Please
forward this message to everyone you know and then delete all the files
from your hard drive. Thank you for your cooperation.
Peter Boyles
Pechtel) wrote:
> No, you still use lenses to focus lasers. A lens will *NOT*
>destroy the coherence. The problem is that while the beam is
>coherent, it's got a slight divergence to it. This is inherent
>because the laser itself is of finite size. At the usual terrestial
>ranges we use lasers, it doesn't matter for most laser types.
>(LED-based lasers, however, need a lens no matter what. Their beam
>spread is like 15 degrees! It's normally built into the lasing
>crystal, though, you don't see it.)
Also, stepping down the diameter of the beam through a lense focus set
can get a much tighter beam with a higher energy per area ratio hence
the ability to cut through objects faster. This is used in industry
for current laser cutters.
One way to look at it is a beam that would give your body a bad sun
burn if it is spread over your entire body could put a hole clear
through your heart if it is concentrated into a narrower beam.
Peter
Scott
<pwmu...@compuserve.com> wrote:
Light detection and ranging sounds like the laser stuff my radar detector
claims to encounter on the highway.
Scott
David Hulme
It's true that the particles that make up matter have a wavelength; the big
thing that separates them from photons is that photons must travel the
speed of light.
Pat alludes to a 'peculiar region' where light has particle and wave-like
properties. The reality is that light of *any wavelength* has these
peculiarities. It was these apparent paradoxes that led to the development
of quantum mechanics at the beginning of the last century as a way to
explain what people were measuring in the lab.
In fact all matter has a wave-particle duality, it's just that most of the
time, the effects are only noticeable when you're dealing with extremely
small distance scales (like the diameter of an atom).
>
> The dielectric constant of a vacuum is needed from time to time and
> when you have strange materials with negative dielectric constants
> calling them insulators is hardly correct or useful.
>
> --
> Mike the D
The opposite of an insulator is a conductor. Look, Mike, don't take my
word for it, check it out for yourself. Whip out the ol' freshman physics
textbook, or pop into one of the physics discussions and ask. When the
discussion turns to a subject like, say, capacitors, try replacing the term
'dielectric' with 'electrical insulator' and the topic will make just as
much sense, if not more.
Try this link to Encarta, I think it proves my point pretty well:
http://encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/23/02323000.htm?z=1&pg=2&br=1
-Dave
Loren Pechtel
>claims to encounter on the highway.
Actually, what you encounter on the highway is in the infrared.
It's laser-generated, though.
Loren Pechtel
>can get a much tighter beam with a higher energy per area ratio hence
>the ability to cut through objects faster. This is used in industry
>for current laser cutters.
>
>One way to look at it is a beam that would give your body a bad sun
>burn if it is spread over your entire body could put a hole clear
>through your heart if it is concentrated into a narrower beam.
I've encountered surgical lasers before. The total beam power is
less than a light bulb.
m.do...@lineone.net
<5E328D22132FBD3B.9219999C...@lp.airnews.net>,[snip]
> > The dielectric constant of a vacuum is needed from time to time and
> > when you have strange materials with negative dielectric constants
> > calling them insulators is hardly correct or useful.
> The opposite of an insulator is a conductor. Look, Mike, don't take
my
> word for it, check it out for yourself. Whip out the ol' freshman
physics
> textbook, or pop into one of the physics discussions and ask. When
the
> discussion turns to a subject like, say, capacitors, try replacing
the term
> 'dielectric' with 'electrical insulator' and the topic will make just
as
> much sense, if not more.
>
> Try this link to Encarta, I think it proves my point pretty well:
>
http://encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/23/02323000.htm?z=1&pg=2&br=1
Dielectric, or insulator, substance that is a poor conductor of
electricity and that will sustain the force of an electric field
passing through it.
So a vacuum is not a dielectric hey ?
The universe is not constained by the words we choose to use.
If I looked up a old text it would say "substances divide into
insulators and conductors" meaning we can't understand semiconductors
so leave them out at this level.
NOT a helpful or useful way to understand the world when things get
complex, but a useful 'lies-to-students' on the way to creating
understanding
Stuart Facherty
Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
and
Gamma Ray Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
So originally they should have been capitalised as acronyms but they have since
been "naturalised" into normal words with lower case and derived words like the
verb to "lase".
Stuart
Shawn Pepper
<snip>
> >
> > Me, I'm just a Broadcast Engineer (or at least that's the way I was
> > trained--nowadays I'm just a glorified technical operator) and have
> > always thought in terms of EM radiation, i.e, radio waves.
> >
> > My understanding has always been that the term "photon" was reserved
> for
> > the range of the EM spectrum from infra-red to ultra-violet--visible
> > and near visible light; the peculiar range where things acted as both
> > wave and particle.
>
> Not really, since gamma-ray and X-ray photon is the usual way to put
> it, eg when a electron meets a positron.
>
> Don't know the longest wavelength at which 'photons' have been referred
> to, but since all 'particles' have wavelengths . . .
Been awhile since I took quantum mechanics, but isn't 'photon' the name for
any quanta of energy? I thought that ever since the wave-particle theory,
it had
been established that the packet of enery has to have a 'location'.
>
> The dielectric constant of a vacuum is needed from time to time and
> when you have strange materials with negative dielectric constants
> calling them insulators is hardly correct or useful.
>
> --
> Mike the D
>
alexst...@my-deja.com
Pat Mullet <pwmu...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> In article <8ivp5m$cla$1...@news.sysnet.net.tw>,
> "All the News" <boe...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > What is a lidar?
> >
> LIght Detection And Ranging
>
> as opposed to
>
> RAdio Detection And Ranging (RADAR)
>
> In other words, radar done with light rather than radio waves. And
> while qualified to service the latter, I've never even seen a
technical
> article on the former.
>
As a historical side note I have heard that the first RADAR sets were so
named as a deliberate piece of war time disinformation. They didn't have
any ranging capability but the acronym was invented to suggest that they
did!
Emilio Desalvo
> recycle time than the grazer.
Those are S, not Z....
--
Emilio Desalvo
/\ mc4...@MAPS.mclink.it - smi...@MAPS.popweb.com
/<>\ +-----------------------------------------------------+
/____\ ! "Ms. Wolversham, you are authorized to return fire!"!
! LtCdr. Avshari, aboard HMS Bellerophon, RMN !
FNORD +----http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1566/-----+
You do not need MAPS to reach me...
Daniel
<smi...@MAPS.popweb.com> wrote:
>> Close. the lazer is going to use less energy and have a faster
>> recycle time than the grazer.
>
>Those are S, not Z....
>--
>Emilio Desalvo
Have pity, Emilio. I don't recall who wrote that originally, but it's
most likely one of our American cousins, who, as has been noted on
occasion, have horrible spelling skills. :-)
Daniel
--
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding
bureaucracy.
Charles Glasgow
"Daniel" <da...@REMOVETHIS.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
news:395ce775...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> On 30 Jun 2000 19:09:26 +0200, "Emilio Desalvo"
> <smi...@MAPS.popweb.com> wrote:
>
> >> Close. the lazer is going to use less energy and have a faster
> >> recycle time than the grazer.
> >
> >Those are S, not Z....
> >--
> >Emilio Desalvo
>
> Have pity, Emilio. I don't recall who wrote that originally, but it's
> most likely one of our American cousins, who, as has been noted on
> occasion, have horrible spelling skills. :-)
Oh *yeah*?
Then how do *you* spell "gray"? :-)
--
Chuckg
Taki Kogoma
to alt.books.david-weber decree...
>"Daniel" <da...@REMOVETHIS.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
>news:395ce775...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> most likely one of our American cousins, who, as has been noted on
>> occasion, have horrible spelling skills. :-)
>
>Oh *yeah*?
>
>Then how do *you* spell "gray"? :-)
My friends and acquaintances of British extraction occasionally complain
about how American English lacks both flavour and colour, and suffers
from a defficiency of honour and valour.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
Charles Glasgow
"Taki Kogoma" <qu...@swcp.com> wrote in message
news:8jj9tt$j...@boofura.swcp.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:27:02 GMT, did "Charles Glasgow"
<cgla...@hotmail.com>,
> to alt.books.david-weber decree...
> >"Daniel" <da...@REMOVETHIS.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:395ce775...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >> Have pity, Emilio. I don't recall who wrote that originally, but it's
> >> most likely one of our American cousins, who, as has been noted on
> >> occasion, have horrible spelling skills. :-)
> >
> >Oh *yeah*?
> >
> >Then how do *you* spell "gray"? :-)
>
> My friends and acquaintances of British extraction occasionally complain
> about how American English lacks both flavour and colour, and suffers
> from a defficiency of honour and valour.
On the other hand, American English isn't anywhere near as o-ful, either.
:-)
--
Chuckg
Charles Glasgow
"Charles Glasgow" <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yab75.29175$dF.11...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
And we Americans don't have to use as many u-phemisms just to get through a
sentence. :-)
--
Chuckg
JG Morrison
da...@REMOVETHIS.sympatico.ca.invalid says...
>
>On 30 Jun 2000 19:09:26 +0200, "Emilio Desalvo"
><smi...@MAPS.popweb.com> wrote:
>
>>> Close. the lazer is going to use less energy and have a faster
>>> recycle time than the grazer.
>>
>>Those are S, not Z....
>>--
>>Emilio Desalvo
>
>most likely one of our American cousins, who, as has been noted on
>occasion, have horrible spelling skills. :-)
>
>--
>The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding
>bureaucracy.
>
Cousins who continue to spell color with a u in it, just to be different and of
course their definitions, are simple proof that we got our act together.
Daniel
<cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Charles Glasgow" <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:yab75.29175$dF.11...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
>>
>> "Taki Kogoma" <qu...@swcp.com> wrote in message
>> news:8jj9tt$j...@boofura.swcp.com...
>> > On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:27:02 GMT, did "Charles Glasgow"
>> <cgla...@hotmail.com>,
>> > to alt.books.david-weber decree...
>> > >"Daniel" <da...@REMOVETHIS.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
>> > >news:395ce775...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> > >> Have pity, Emilio. I don't recall who wrote that originally, but it's
>> > >> most likely one of our American cousins, who, as has been noted on
>> > >> occasion, have horrible spelling skills. :-)
>> > >
>> > >Oh *yeah*?
>> > >
>> > >Then how do *you* spell "gray"? :-)
>> >
>> > My friends and acquaintances of British extraction occasionally complain
>> > about how American English lacks both flavour and colour, and suffers
>> > from a defficiency of honour and valour.
>>
>> On the other hand, American English isn't anywhere near as o-ful, either.
>> :-)
>
>And we Americans don't have to use as many u-phemisms just to get through a
>sentence. :-)
>--
>Chuckg
If you wanted a language that was easy, you made a mistake in choosing
English. :-)
Daniel
>In article <395ce775...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
>da...@REMOVETHIS.sympatico.ca.invalid says...
>>
>>On 30 Jun 2000 19:09:26 +0200, "Emilio Desalvo"
>><smi...@MAPS.popweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Close. the lazer is going to use less energy and have a faster
>>>> recycle time than the grazer.
>>>
>>>Those are S, not Z....
>>>--
>>>Emilio Desalvo
>>
>>Have pity, Emilio. I don't recall who wrote that originally, but it's
>>most likely one of our American cousins, who, as has been noted on
>>occasion, have horrible spelling skills. :-)
>>
>>Daniel
>>--
>>The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding
>>bureaucracy.
>>
> I disparage that, I spell quite well. However it is our English
>Cousins who continue to spell color with a u in it, just to be different and of
>course their definitions, are simple proof that we got our act together.
The English spell it wrong to be different? Wow, that's news to me.
It's the USA'ers who changed their dictionary.
Daniel
<cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Daniel" <da...@REMOVETHIS.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
>news:395ce775...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> On 30 Jun 2000 19:09:26 +0200, "Emilio Desalvo"
>> <smi...@MAPS.popweb.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Close. the lazer is going to use less energy and have a faster
>> >> recycle time than the grazer.
>> >
>> >Those are S, not Z....
>> >--
>> >Emilio Desalvo
>>
>> Have pity, Emilio. I don't recall who wrote that originally, but it's
>> most likely one of our American cousins, who, as has been noted on
>> occasion, have horrible spelling skills. :-)
>
>Oh *yeah*?
>
>Then how do *you* spell "gray"? :-)
>--
>Chuckg
"gray"? I spell it "gray". What is it? :-)
news.wyoming.com
>about how American English lacks both flavour and colour, and suffers
>from a defficiency of honour and valour.
So, is it Honour Harrington? Or maybe, Honour 'Arrington?
Frostie
Daniel
Well, no one said anything about Cockney. And I, for one, figure that
a person can make a name out of anything, if they want to -- even if
it does happen to be a word that doesn't exist. :-)