Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Some basic questions:

Expand Messages
  • jayennseth
    Some basic questions: Been pouring over again and again article in Russian Magazine by Karl Swartz on nanotechnology. Blown away by him stating not only most
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 20, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Some basic questions:
      Been pouring over again and again article in Russian Magazine by Karl
      Swartz on nanotechnology. Blown away by him stating not only most
      physics out, (they are more into `electric universe'), but they expect
      even that to be temporary, that they will keep on needing to alter
      concepts and that new types of math important. Been for a number of
      years working on a new form of geometry in which there are no lines or
      points, (so no such thing as `sphere' or `cube' etc.), and am seeing
      relationships to, (I consider `misunderstood'), fullerenes.
      I have some very basic questions regarding nano. They might sound
      very stupid on a group such as this therefore at bottom brief
      explanation as to why.

      Question one: I can't find it again and might be completely WRONG.
      However, I thought I saw something about the placement of molecules
      regarding the many fullerenes where molecules are not placed in
      corners but center of planes/ `plates', (mainly interested in
      dodecahedron orientated faces). 'No' will do, but if `Yes' would love
      some sort of reference.

      Question two: Fairly well read in new developments in physics. Most
      all known theories such as Relativity, Quantum are out and it is even
      expected that `electric universe' will be replaced soon. Know `heat
      resistance' and such important in nano. I have seen nothing so far
      disagreeing with the Laws of Thermodynamics. True?

      Question three: I read that nonotubes are used for filtering. And
      have been looking at structure. Hexagon `plates' are common but not
      the only type. Hexagon plated tubes also `spiral' in two directions.
      If you put these in, for example a liquid, what produces the
      filtering? It is hard to imagine all the tubes locked together so
      that the liquid must flow through. Is there `spiraling' that draws
      the liquid through?

      Question four: Swartz emphasized that fractals important in nano. He
      meant 3-D fractals, right?

      Michael Donovan, Camden, ME, USA
      **********************************
      Why stupid questions:
      (Although it is also important that `stupid general public' have at
      least a basic concept of what is going on in nano.)

      64 year old male. Could pass tests with ease except if I had to write
      and it came out `scrambled letters'. Massive dyslexia was never
      diagnosed in school. Somehow I was even accepted into a college.
      Math department did everything to save me to no avail. Can write fine
      now with computer aid.

      1974: Became very interested in a new form of geometry, (`balls'),
      that must be worked in 3-D. Different from `sphere-packing' as must
      assume motion and that some balls `pass through' another type. Built
      models. Saw `possible' relationship to `odd/new' physics being
      developed in Czechoslovakia wherein `secret in geometry' was not given
      out, (Chapter 28 of very old book, Psychic Discoveries Behind Iron
      Curtain). Only had possible very basic understanding: possible `main
      thread'. Wrote IBM. They had an interest and had exchange of letters
      with head of `Math Intake', (Mandelbrot), who about a year or so later
      started to become famous for fractals. In last letter he suggested
      that I get, (and he used plural), my `lawyers'. Was living with a
      `starving actress' in Greenwich Village so did not know what to do.
      No matter, was just a `possible main thread' anyway.

      1976 or 77: Attended a lecture at United Nations building on
      holographic theory. Was handed a copy of Tetrahedral Physics by C.W.
      Cho by guy who invited me. Very impressed as what appears as
      tetrahedron very basic to holography. C.W. Cho's work has loose
      relationship to string-theory, but different too, as made 12 a basic
      division.

      1983: Obtained help from a retired mathematician who had worked for
      Arthur D. Little research out of Cambridge, MA. He wrote to the navy.
      Underwater Systems Command took what I had, again very little. This
      mathematician was very aware of how arbitrary most of our math is.
      Gave me suggestions as to how to develop. Felt it was like being told
      to count grains of sand on a beach and put off for years.

      1993: Followed the directions, did not take as long as I thought and
      made some progress.

      2007: Started working on this again and found major aspect of thread
      missing. Started a book which will have many diagrams which I am
      doing just black and white in Corel Draw. If of any value `real'
      mathematicians will need to take over.

      Another, possibly stupid, question not as important as above but is
      crossing my mind:
      Goethe, 1810, and his work with light:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours

      Usually we think of the spectrum as yellow in sort of center, blue to
      one side, red to the other. Goethe demonstrated that as light
      decreases at one very low intensity through a prism red is more
      center, (discrete jump), and with an even lower intensity blue. Is it
      conceivable that prisms can be constructed nano? If so would these
      discrete alterations of sequence be: 1- more pronounced, and 2- seen
      more to center of light intensity?
    • david lyndel
      Hi MD, I would think Swartz is referring to the Dirac sea, QED and the Maxwell equations. Electromagnetisn as you well know is central to our current
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 22, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi MD,
        I would think Swartz is referring to the Dirac sea, QED and the
        Maxwell equations. Electromagnetisn as you well know is central to
        our 'current' understanding of both the classical and quantum worlds.
        There are some semi-classical and quantum-classical ideas floating
        about you may wish to look into. QED is very well established by much
        experimental evidence. QCD is much less so and very complex. Many
        pretent to understand QCD but at best they understand parts of it.
        Also it is not established via experimental evidence. That's not to
        say it doesn't have some merit. String theory is accepted by most
        physicist and works well in high-energy physics. Yet it has yet to
        fulfill promises of unificationn to iclude gravity. Further it raises
        unobservables and exotics yet to be confirmed beyond mathematical
        formalisms. Maybe LHC will fulfill some of string theory's promise.
        Q1-i dunno
        Q2-if any theory violates the second law..i'd humbly suggest throwing
        it out and starting over
        Q3-are you speaking of filtering as to separating CNTs as to
        funtionality as a means of characterization or the CNTs acting as a
        sort of filtering device?

        One recent interesting development report of locating quantum dots )
        QDs) in carbon nanotubes. Also there has been some success in
        controlling the apparent random 'blinking' of QDs by another group.
        As far as liquid separation goes it seems WFU, Rice U and another
        group has achieved this. If you ever need a nano-ton of information
        please let me know by writing me at bodhitreekey@...
        typing 'nanotech' in the suject header.okay?

        If you wish to concentrate in one area of nanoscience it might be
        nice to let me know where your interest lie in this area, e.g.,
        nanoelectronics, nanomedicine, quantum computing, nanostructures, etc
        etc.

        i have not read the Swartz article for i do not read Russian. But
        fractals are now being used to explain the nonmaterial spatial of
        space or subspace. That's to say the vacuum is much like the bumps we
        see in say the Winter Olympic's sport where skiers negotiate the
        mogul. According to the theory, space or subspace is discretized. It
        is a triangular-like. This theory attempts to reconcile relativity,
        quantum theory and quantum gravity. QG attempts to explain space at
        its most small scales. Nanotech exist at the bizarre realm between
        quantum and classical physics. I'd think, if I'm recalling correctly
        for I just woke up, that the next scale down is femto- then atto-
        scales. The fraactals you refer to are 4-d but can also degenerate
        into 2-d . In both cases we are referring to an emerging dynamical
        system. It is saying that spacetime moves from a smooth structure to
        some sort fractal. This isn't like foam-subspace as purported by the
        late and great Dr. John Wheeler who recently passed away. This new
        theory is more in line to thoughts I've had whereby individual nodes
        or units of spacetime settle into their positions much like molecules
        in a crystal. The idea is put forth by J. Amdjorn, et al,.
        Basicaly this concept says a quantum object's state is the
        superposition summation of all pssible classical states. I have yet
        to peruse the mathematics behind this new conjecture.
        I do agree with the foundation we must all cease and desist of
        thinking of an electron and for that matter an atom as some mini-
        solar system. We should think more along the lines of fluctuating
        fields and wavelets. For the record there is a theory out there that
        holds that what we see as 'particles' is really the event point of
        standing waves. That's to say 'space' in and of itself manifests or
        creates matter. As strange as it may sound imagine the waves in the
        ocean wherein the crest of the waves are particles and hence matter
        revealed. Of course there is more to it but it is part of wave
        structure matter theory.
        The prevailing theories that attempt to explain it all are string
        theory(two main form) both with 10 spatial and one of time. I've
        worked out a theory that reveals 16 as well as revealing exotic
        materials and gravity as a vibrating string much like the others in
        regards to the latter. The main thing is any theory must display
        stabilty w/o degeneration at the subspace level.
        Hawking's elucidation on euclidean QG does not to this. I think he
        has revised himself on this in past few years. But he is still one
        great thinker. Many stand on loop quantum gravity. its a contender
        but has yet to be proven much like the elusive higgs particle and
        field. LQG incorporates general relativity.
        My pet peeve is when scientists and particularly physicists fail
        to be able to distinguish between general and special relativity.
        The new kid on the block is causal dynamical triangulations. it
        has great merit but one or two holes. as I said I still have yet to
        see the math behind it but will soon. it takes on the form, as i
        understand andread, four-simplices as 3-d tetrahedra that produce a 4-
        d spacetime. supposedly the triasngular shape is only an
        approximation for our monkey-peoplw minds. the discretized building
        strucure blocks in and of themselves have no real meaning according
        to its proponents.
        The theory utilizes 'universality' as a center-piece which is an
        insensitivity to various subspace-scale details. This theory does
        include perturbative considerations which is good in my mind.
        The model also includes ideas of diffusion which i have worked on
        ad nauseum. the 3-d manifest at larger scales than quantum spacetime.
        hope this helps a bit...now for that first cup of coffee.
        guten morgen,
        David




        --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "jayennseth" <michael1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Some basic questions:
        > Been pouring over again and again article in Russian Magazine by
        Karl
        > Swartz on nanotechnology. Blown away by him stating not only most
        > physics out, (they are more into `electric universe'), but they
        expect
        > even that to be temporary, that they will keep on needing to alter
        > concepts and that new types of math important. Been for a number of
        > years working on a new form of geometry in which there are no lines
        or
        > points, (so no such thing as `sphere' or `cube' etc.), and am seeing
        > relationships to, (I consider `misunderstood'), fullerenes.
        > I have some very basic questions regarding nano. They might sound
        > very stupid on a group such as this therefore at bottom brief
        > explanation as to why.
        >
        > Question one: I can't find it again and might be completely WRONG.
        > However, I thought I saw something about the placement of molecules
        > regarding the many fullerenes where molecules are not placed in
        > corners but center of planes/ `plates', (mainly interested in
        > dodecahedron orientated faces). 'No' will do, but if `Yes' would
        love
        > some sort of reference.
        >
        > Question two: Fairly well read in new developments in physics.
        Most
        > all known theories such as Relativity, Quantum are out and it is
        even
        > expected that `electric universe' will be replaced soon. Know `heat
        > resistance' and such important in nano. I have seen nothing so far
        > disagreeing with the Laws of Thermodynamics. True?
        >
        > Question three: I read that nonotubes are used for filtering. And
        > have been looking at structure. Hexagon `plates' are common but not
        > the only type. Hexagon plated tubes also `spiral' in two
        directions.
        > If you put these in, for example a liquid, what produces the
        > filtering? It is hard to imagine all the tubes locked together so
        > that the liquid must flow through. Is there `spiraling' that draws
        > the liquid through?
        >
        > Question four: Swartz emphasized that fractals important in nano.
        He
        > meant 3-D fractals, right?
        >
        > Michael Donovan, Camden, ME, USA
        > **********************************
        > Why stupid questions:
        > (Although it is also important that `stupid general public' have at
        > least a basic concept of what is going on in nano.)
        >
        > 64 year old male. Could pass tests with ease except if I had to
        write
        > and it came out `scrambled letters'. Massive dyslexia was never
        > diagnosed in school. Somehow I was even accepted into a college.
        > Math department did everything to save me to no avail. Can write
        fine
        > now with computer aid.
        >
        > 1974: Became very interested in a new form of geometry, (`balls'),
        > that must be worked in 3-D. Different from `sphere-packing' as must
        > assume motion and that some balls `pass through' another type.
        Built
        > models. Saw `possible' relationship to `odd/new' physics being
        > developed in Czechoslovakia wherein `secret in geometry' was not
        given
        > out, (Chapter 28 of very old book, Psychic Discoveries Behind Iron
        > Curtain). Only had possible very basic understanding: possible
        `main
        > thread'. Wrote IBM. They had an interest and had exchange of
        letters
        > with head of `Math Intake', (Mandelbrot), who about a year or so
        later
        > started to become famous for fractals. In last letter he suggested
        > that I get, (and he used plural), my `lawyers'. Was living with a
        > `starving actress' in Greenwich Village so did not know what to do.
        > No matter, was just a `possible main thread' anyway.
        >
        > 1976 or 77: Attended a lecture at United Nations building on
        > holographic theory. Was handed a copy of Tetrahedral Physics by
        C.W.
        > Cho by guy who invited me. Very impressed as what appears as
        > tetrahedron very basic to holography. C.W. Cho's work has loose
        > relationship to string-theory, but different too, as made 12 a basic
        > division.
        >
        > 1983: Obtained help from a retired mathematician who had worked for
        > Arthur D. Little research out of Cambridge, MA. He wrote to the
        navy.
        > Underwater Systems Command took what I had, again very little.
        This
        > mathematician was very aware of how arbitrary most of our math is.
        > Gave me suggestions as to how to develop. Felt it was like being
        told
        > to count grains of sand on a beach and put off for years.
        >
        > 1993: Followed the directions, did not take as long as I thought and
        > made some progress.
        >
        > 2007: Started working on this again and found major aspect of thread
        > missing. Started a book which will have many diagrams which I am
        > doing just black and white in Corel Draw. If of any value `real'
        > mathematicians will need to take over.
        >
        > Another, possibly stupid, question not as important as above but is
        > crossing my mind:
        > Goethe, 1810, and his work with light:
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours
        >
        > Usually we think of the spectrum as yellow in sort of center, blue
        to
        > one side, red to the other. Goethe demonstrated that as light
        > decreases at one very low intensity through a prism red is more
        > center, (discrete jump), and with an even lower intensity blue. Is
        it
        > conceivable that prisms can be constructed nano? If so would these
        > discrete alterations of sequence be: 1- more pronounced, and 2- seen
        > more to center of light intensity?
        >
      • david lyndel
        hi, You may also wish to refer to another Russian researcher by the last name Kanphil. He has some good work freely available online. He is also looking at
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          hi,
          You may also wish to refer to another Russian researcher by the
          last name Kanphil. He has some good work freely available online. He
          is also looking at nanocomposites to build fusion-containment
          chambers.Dr. Kanphil is very sharr intellectually and has the wisdom
          that comes with his age.
          David

          --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "jayennseth" <michael1@...> wrote:
          >
          > Some basic questions:
          > Been pouring over again and again article in Russian Magazine by
          Karl
          > Swartz on nanotechnology. Blown away by him stating not only most
          > physics out, (they are more into `electric universe'), but they
          expect
          > even that to be temporary, that they will keep on needing to alter
          > concepts and that new types of math important. Been for a number of
          > years working on a new form of geometry in which there are no lines
          or
          > points, (so no such thing as `sphere' or `cube' etc.), and am seeing
          > relationships to, (I consider `misunderstood'), fullerenes.
          > I have some very basic questions regarding nano. They might sound
          > very stupid on a group such as this therefore at bottom brief
          > explanation as to why.
          >
          > Question one: I can't find it again and might be completely WRONG.
          > However, I thought I saw something about the placement of molecules
          > regarding the many fullerenes where molecules are not placed in
          > corners but center of planes/ `plates', (mainly interested in
          > dodecahedron orientated faces). 'No' will do, but if `Yes' would
          love
          > some sort of reference.
          >
          > Question two: Fairly well read in new developments in physics.
          Most
          > all known theories such as Relativity, Quantum are out and it is
          even
          > expected that `electric universe' will be replaced soon. Know `heat
          > resistance' and such important in nano. I have seen nothing so far
          > disagreeing with the Laws of Thermodynamics. True?
          >
          > Question three: I read that nonotubes are used for filtering. And
          > have been looking at structure. Hexagon `plates' are common but not
          > the only type. Hexagon plated tubes also `spiral' in two
          directions.
          > If you put these in, for example a liquid, what produces the
          > filtering? It is hard to imagine all the tubes locked together so
          > that the liquid must flow through. Is there `spiraling' that draws
          > the liquid through?
          >
          > Question four: Swartz emphasized that fractals important in nano.
          He
          > meant 3-D fractals, right?
          >
          > Michael Donovan, Camden, ME, USA
          > **********************************
          > Why stupid questions:
          > (Although it is also important that `stupid general public' have at
          > least a basic concept of what is going on in nano.)
          >
          > 64 year old male. Could pass tests with ease except if I had to
          write
          > and it came out `scrambled letters'. Massive dyslexia was never
          > diagnosed in school. Somehow I was even accepted into a college.
          > Math department did everything to save me to no avail. Can write
          fine
          > now with computer aid.
          >
          > 1974: Became very interested in a new form of geometry, (`balls'),
          > that must be worked in 3-D. Different from `sphere-packing' as must
          > assume motion and that some balls `pass through' another type.
          Built
          > models. Saw `possible' relationship to `odd/new' physics being
          > developed in Czechoslovakia wherein `secret in geometry' was not
          given
          > out, (Chapter 28 of very old book, Psychic Discoveries Behind Iron
          > Curtain). Only had possible very basic understanding: possible
          `main
          > thread'. Wrote IBM. They had an interest and had exchange of
          letters
          > with head of `Math Intake', (Mandelbrot), who about a year or so
          later
          > started to become famous for fractals. In last letter he suggested
          > that I get, (and he used plural), my `lawyers'. Was living with a
          > `starving actress' in Greenwich Village so did not know what to do.
          > No matter, was just a `possible main thread' anyway.
          >
          > 1976 or 77: Attended a lecture at United Nations building on
          > holographic theory. Was handed a copy of Tetrahedral Physics by
          C.W.
          > Cho by guy who invited me. Very impressed as what appears as
          > tetrahedron very basic to holography. C.W. Cho's work has loose
          > relationship to string-theory, but different too, as made 12 a basic
          > division.
          >
          > 1983: Obtained help from a retired mathematician who had worked for
          > Arthur D. Little research out of Cambridge, MA. He wrote to the
          navy.
          > Underwater Systems Command took what I had, again very little.
          This
          > mathematician was very aware of how arbitrary most of our math is.
          > Gave me suggestions as to how to develop. Felt it was like being
          told
          > to count grains of sand on a beach and put off for years.
          >
          > 1993: Followed the directions, did not take as long as I thought and
          > made some progress.
          >
          > 2007: Started working on this again and found major aspect of thread
          > missing. Started a book which will have many diagrams which I am
          > doing just black and white in Corel Draw. If of any value `real'
          > mathematicians will need to take over.
          >
          > Another, possibly stupid, question not as important as above but is
          > crossing my mind:
          > Goethe, 1810, and his work with light:
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours
          >
          > Usually we think of the spectrum as yellow in sort of center, blue
          to
          > one side, red to the other. Goethe demonstrated that as light
          > decreases at one very low intensity through a prism red is more
          > center, (discrete jump), and with an even lower intensity blue. Is
          it
          > conceivable that prisms can be constructed nano? If so would these
          > discrete alterations of sequence be: 1- more pronounced, and 2- seen
          > more to center of light intensity?
          >
        • protn7
          I have been working on materials for fusion reactors myself. Can you give me contact information for contacting Dr. Kanphil? Neil Farbstein President, Vulvox
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I have been working on materials for fusion reactors myself. Can you
            give me contact information for contacting Dr. Kanphil?

            Neil Farbstein

            President, Vulvox Nanobiotechnology Inc. http://vulvox.tripod.com
            <http://vulvox.tripod.com> protn7@... <mailto:protn7@...>


            --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "david lyndel" <bodhitreekey@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > hi,
            > You may also wish to refer to another Russian researcher by the
            > last name Kanphil. He has some good work freely available online. He
            > is also looking at nanocomposites to build fusion-containment
            > chambers.Dr. Kanphil is very sharr intellectually and has the wisdom
            > that comes with his age.
            > David
            >
            > --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "jayennseth" michael1@ wrote:
            > >
            > > Some basic questions:
            > > Been pouring over again and again article in Russian Magazine by
            > Karl
            > > Swartz on nanotechnology. Blown away by him stating not only most
            > > physics out, (they are more into `electric universe'), but they
            > expect
            > > even that to be temporary, that they will keep on needing to alter
            > > concepts and that new types of math important. Been for a number of
            > > years working on a new form of geometry in which there are no lines
            > or
            > > points, (so no such thing as `sphere' or `cube' etc.), and am seeing
            > > relationships to, (I consider `misunderstood'), fullerenes.
            > > I have some very basic questions regarding nano. They might sound
            > > very stupid on a group such as this therefore at bottom brief
            > > explanation as to why.
            > >
            > > Question one: I can't find it again and might be completely WRONG.
            > > However, I thought I saw something about the placement of molecules
            > > regarding the many fullerenes where molecules are not placed in
            > > corners but center of planes/ `plates', (mainly interested in
            > > dodecahedron orientated faces). 'No' will do, but if `Yes' would
            > love
            > > some sort of reference.
            > >
            > > Question two: Fairly well read in new developments in physics.
            > Most
            > > all known theories such as Relativity, Quantum are out and it is
            > even
            > > expected that `electric universe' will be replaced soon. Know `heat
            > > resistance' and such important in nano. I have seen nothing so far
            > > disagreeing with the Laws of Thermodynamics. True?
            > >
            > > Question three: I read that nonotubes are used for filtering. And
            > > have been looking at structure. Hexagon `plates' are common but not
            > > the only type. Hexagon plated tubes also `spiral' in two
            > directions.
            > > If you put these in, for example a liquid, what produces the
            > > filtering? It is hard to imagine all the tubes locked together so
            > > that the liquid must flow through. Is there `spiraling' that draws
            > > the liquid through?
            > >
            > > Question four: Swartz emphasized that fractals important in nano.
            > He
            > > meant 3-D fractals, right?
            > >
            > > Michael Donovan, Camden, ME, USA
            > > **********************************
            > > Why stupid questions:
            > > (Although it is also important that `stupid general public' have at
            > > least a basic concept of what is going on in nano.)
            > >
            > > 64 year old male. Could pass tests with ease except if I had to
            > write
            > > and it came out `scrambled letters'. Massive dyslexia was never
            > > diagnosed in school. Somehow I was even accepted into a college.
            > > Math department did everything to save me to no avail. Can write
            > fine
            > > now with computer aid.
            > >
            > > 1974: Became very interested in a new form of geometry, (`balls'),
            > > that must be worked in 3-D. Different from `sphere-packing' as must
            > > assume motion and that some balls `pass through' another type.
            > Built
            > > models. Saw `possible' relationship to `odd/new' physics being
            > > developed in Czechoslovakia wherein `secret in geometry' was not
            > given
            > > out, (Chapter 28 of very old book, Psychic Discoveries Behind Iron
            > > Curtain). Only had possible very basic understanding: possible
            > `main
            > > thread'. Wrote IBM. They had an interest and had exchange of
            > letters
            > > with head of `Math Intake', (Mandelbrot), who about a year or so
            > later
            > > started to become famous for fractals. In last letter he suggested
            > > that I get, (and he used plural), my `lawyers'. Was living with a
            > > `starving actress' in Greenwich Village so did not know what to do.
            > > No matter, was just a `possible main thread' anyway.
            > >
            > > 1976 or 77: Attended a lecture at United Nations building on
            > > holographic theory. Was handed a copy of Tetrahedral Physics by
            > C.W.
            > > Cho by guy who invited me. Very impressed as what appears as
            > > tetrahedron very basic to holography. C.W. Cho's work has loose
            > > relationship to string-theory, but different too, as made 12 a basic
            > > division.
            > >
            > > 1983: Obtained help from a retired mathematician who had worked for
            > > Arthur D. Little research out of Cambridge, MA. He wrote to the
            > navy.
            > > Underwater Systems Command took what I had, again very little.
            > This
            > > mathematician was very aware of how arbitrary most of our math is.
            > > Gave me suggestions as to how to develop. Felt it was like being
            > told
            > > to count grains of sand on a beach and put off for years.
            > >
            > > 1993: Followed the directions, did not take as long as I thought and
            > > made some progress.
            > >
            > > 2007: Started working on this again and found major aspect of thread
            > > missing. Started a book which will have many diagrams which I am
            > > doing just black and white in Corel Draw. If of any value `real'
            > > mathematicians will need to take over.
            > >
            > > Another, possibly stupid, question not as important as above but is
            > > crossing my mind:
            > > Goethe, 1810, and his work with light:
            > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours
            > >
            > > Usually we think of the spectrum as yellow in sort of center, blue
            > to
            > > one side, red to the other. Goethe demonstrated that as light
            > > decreases at one very low intensity through a prism red is more
            > > center, (discrete jump), and with an even lower intensity blue. Is
            > it
            > > conceivable that prisms can be constructed nano? If so would these
            > > discrete alterations of sequence be: 1- more pronounced, and 2- seen
            > > more to center of light intensity?
            > >
            >




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • david lyndel
            Hi Neil, Dr. Kanphil s email comes up on a search of his name. I had it in my address book but I wanted to make sure it was public before posting publically.
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Neil,
              Dr. Kanphil's email comes up on a search of his name. I had it in
              my address book but I wanted to make sure it was public before
              posting publically.

              kanphil@...

              It has een sometime since he and I exchanged emails. But Kanphil
              has quite a bit of work available in english.
              Best regards,
              David

              --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "protn7" <protn7@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > I have been working on materials for fusion reactors myself. Can you
              > give me contact information for contacting Dr. Kanphil?
              >
              > Neil Farbstein
              >
              > President, Vulvox Nanobiotechnology Inc. http://vulvox.tripod.com
              > <http://vulvox.tripod.com> protn7@... <mailto:protn7@...>
              >
              >
              > --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "david lyndel" <bodhitreekey@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > hi,
              > > You may also wish to refer to another Russian researcher by the
              > > last name Kanphil. He has some good work freely available online.
              He
              > > is also looking at nanocomposites to build fusion-containment
              > > chambers.Dr. Kanphil is very sharr intellectually and has the
              wisdom
              > > that comes with his age.
              > > David
              > >
              > > --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "jayennseth" michael1@ wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Some basic questions:
              > > > Been pouring over again and again article in Russian Magazine by
              > > Karl
              > > > Swartz on nanotechnology. Blown away by him stating not only
              most
              > > > physics out, (they are more into `electric universe'), but they
              > > expect
              > > > even that to be temporary, that they will keep on needing to
              alter
              > > > concepts and that new types of math important. Been for a
              number of
              > > > years working on a new form of geometry in which there are no
              lines
              > > or
              > > > points, (so no such thing as `sphere' or `cube' etc.), and am
              seeing
              > > > relationships to, (I consider `misunderstood'), fullerenes.
              > > > I have some very basic questions regarding nano. They might
              sound
              > > > very stupid on a group such as this therefore at bottom brief
              > > > explanation as to why.
              > > >
              > > > Question one: I can't find it again and might be completely
              WRONG.
              > > > However, I thought I saw something about the placement of
              molecules
              > > > regarding the many fullerenes where molecules are not placed in
              > > > corners but center of planes/ `plates', (mainly interested in
              > > > dodecahedron orientated faces). 'No' will do, but if `Yes' would
              > > love
              > > > some sort of reference.
              > > >
              > > > Question two: Fairly well read in new developments in physics.
              > > Most
              > > > all known theories such as Relativity, Quantum are out and it is
              > > even
              > > > expected that `electric universe' will be replaced soon. Know
              `heat
              > > > resistance' and such important in nano. I have seen nothing so
              far
              > > > disagreeing with the Laws of Thermodynamics. True?
              > > >
              > > > Question three: I read that nonotubes are used for filtering.
              And
              > > > have been looking at structure. Hexagon `plates' are common but
              not
              > > > the only type. Hexagon plated tubes also `spiral' in two
              > > directions.
              > > > If you put these in, for example a liquid, what produces the
              > > > filtering? It is hard to imagine all the tubes locked together
              so
              > > > that the liquid must flow through. Is there `spiraling' that
              draws
              > > > the liquid through?
              > > >
              > > > Question four: Swartz emphasized that fractals important in
              nano.
              > > He
              > > > meant 3-D fractals, right?
              > > >
              > > > Michael Donovan, Camden, ME, USA
              > > > **********************************
              > > > Why stupid questions:
              > > > (Although it is also important that `stupid general public'
              have at
              > > > least a basic concept of what is going on in nano.)
              > > >
              > > > 64 year old male. Could pass tests with ease except if I had to
              > > write
              > > > and it came out `scrambled letters'. Massive dyslexia was never
              > > > diagnosed in school. Somehow I was even accepted into a college.
              > > > Math department did everything to save me to no avail. Can write
              > > fine
              > > > now with computer aid.
              > > >
              > > > 1974: Became very interested in a new form of geometry,
              (`balls'),
              > > > that must be worked in 3-D. Different from `sphere-packing' as
              must
              > > > assume motion and that some balls `pass through' another type.
              > > Built
              > > > models. Saw `possible' relationship to `odd/new' physics being
              > > > developed in Czechoslovakia wherein `secret in geometry' was not
              > > given
              > > > out, (Chapter 28 of very old book, Psychic Discoveries Behind
              Iron
              > > > Curtain). Only had possible very basic understanding: possible
              > > `main
              > > > thread'. Wrote IBM. They had an interest and had exchange of
              > > letters
              > > > with head of `Math Intake', (Mandelbrot), who about a year or so
              > > later
              > > > started to become famous for fractals. In last letter he
              suggested
              > > > that I get, (and he used plural), my `lawyers'. Was living with
              a
              > > > `starving actress' in Greenwich Village so did not know what to
              do.
              > > > No matter, was just a `possible main thread' anyway.
              > > >
              > > > 1976 or 77: Attended a lecture at United Nations building on
              > > > holographic theory. Was handed a copy of Tetrahedral Physics by
              > > C.W.
              > > > Cho by guy who invited me. Very impressed as what appears as
              > > > tetrahedron very basic to holography. C.W. Cho's work has loose
              > > > relationship to string-theory, but different too, as made 12 a
              basic
              > > > division.
              > > >
              > > > 1983: Obtained help from a retired mathematician who had worked
              for
              > > > Arthur D. Little research out of Cambridge, MA. He wrote to the
              > > navy.
              > > > Underwater Systems Command took what I had, again very little.
              > > This
              > > > mathematician was very aware of how arbitrary most of our math
              is.
              > > > Gave me suggestions as to how to develop. Felt it was like being
              > > told
              > > > to count grains of sand on a beach and put off for years.
              > > >
              > > > 1993: Followed the directions, did not take as long as I
              thought and
              > > > made some progress.
              > > >
              > > > 2007: Started working on this again and found major aspect of
              thread
              > > > missing. Started a book which will have many diagrams which I am
              > > > doing just black and white in Corel Draw. If of any value `real'
              > > > mathematicians will need to take over.
              > > >
              > > > Another, possibly stupid, question not as important as above
              but is
              > > > crossing my mind:
              > > > Goethe, 1810, and his work with light:
              > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours
              > > >
              > > > Usually we think of the spectrum as yellow in sort of center,
              blue
              > > to
              > > > one side, red to the other. Goethe demonstrated that as light
              > > > decreases at one very low intensity through a prism red is more
              > > > center, (discrete jump), and with an even lower intensity blue.
              Is
              > > it
              > > > conceivable that prisms can be constructed nano? If so would
              these
              > > > discrete alterations of sequence be: 1- more pronounced, and 2-
              seen
              > > > more to center of light intensity?
              > > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.