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

David, your post.

Expand Messages
  • michael1@midcoast.com
    The world’s top nano CEO speaks out. Link is http://www.rense.com/general82/SNR_articlesourceengFINAL.pdf ‘K.S.’ is Karl Swartz. ‘snips’ below.
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The world’s top nano CEO speaks out. Link is

      http://www.rense.com/general82/SNR_articlesourceengFINAL.pdf

      ‘K.S.’ is Karl Swartz. ‘snips’ below.

      snip
      ***************************
      K.S. The US system is dominated by the major corporations and
      entrepreneurial efforts are quashed (or blocked) if they are stepping on
      the wrong toes. Our process is years ahead of any known competitor. We
      have met with many of the corporate giants and they are not at the level
      we are. The US is also lagging way behind the EU and China in
      commercialization of nanotechnology. Research is valuable but if one
      cannot commercialize it, it is not that valuable.
      We relocated to the EU to commercialize and also to make sure that this
      science is available to all of mankind and not under the control of major
      US corporations.
      S.K. You seem to have a world view regarding this science that goes far
      beyond the typical US policies that foreigners are accustomed to. Can you
      state why because you do not sound like the typical American technology
      executive.
      K.S. I guess in a way I am not a typical American. I have had the
      discussions with some policy makers in America and they think they can
      rule the world with intellectual property and outsource production to
      cheap labor markets. That might work for making mass consumer goods for
      WalMart or Target Stores but that is not going to cut it in
      nanotechnology. The skill levels alone defy this globalist mindset of
      exploiting cheap labor markets.
      I got very agitated one day at the arrogance of a US bureaucrat and told
      them “Your policies must have been developed by complete morons and here
      is why I say that. The US does not hold the patents on brains,
      determination, nor does the US hold the patents on mathematics, physics,
      quantum mechanics, chemistry, medicine, nor does the US own all of the
      natural resources that will power the nanotechnology growth. If you think
      you can wave your patents in the air while producing nothing, you people
      are even dumber than I thought you were. Talk about intellectual arrogance
      of yet another failed US policy.”
      To this day, the US has not implemented any coherent plan to develop
      nanotechnology like has happened in China (2000), Russia (2007) and most
      of the EU nations….”
      End snip
      Another snip:
      “S.K. Some of our local contacts told us, and showed us an article you
      wrote, about H5N1 bird flu being a US devised bioweapon to expand US
      exports of poultry. Is any of your R&D directed at military applications?
      http://www.rense.com/general78/gene.htm
      K.S. It is a devised bioweapon but treatable and they are trying to
      penetrate and expand in beef and pork exports too. We are not in the
      defense or weapons business in the sense of use as a weapon against any
      peoples or nations. Our R&D in that area is more in the nature of
      countermeasures to negate or neutralize such weapons. Said another way,
      anything devised by man can be beaten by another man with better
      technology. Our approach is more one of making
      such weapons useless and a waste of time and money, not to mention brain
      power needed for far more important issues confronting this planet….”
      End snip.
      And from the other link:
      snip
      · Dangerous practices in US labs, some approaching intent of genocidal
      harm to non-Americans from a nation that pretends it is on some moral high
      ground

      · H7N3 outbreak in Canada (first bird flu in Western Hemisphere). Not
      really, they just kept the first one (H5N1 in November 2005) pretty quiet
      in Canada and another one in the United States very quiet because it was
      human-to-human variant of H5N1 in July 2005.

      I sent the map you can see at this link and below to Jeff Rense and it is
      posted on his website.

      http://www.rense.com/general78/mpp.htm
      (map insert)
      snip continued
      “…What does that map suggest? Based on what I know it suggests that bird
      flu, the H5N1 that they keep harping about is in all probability a blunt
      force bio-weapon to open up the third word and closed nations for America
      in many different market sectors.

      That map is a war map. ………………………….”
      End snips.

      David,
      You stated: (to Spandan)(quote) “…I can agree with
      mistakes in the past by some physicists but as one myself I cannot
      personally take responsibilty for the acts of those who destroyed
      those two cities in Japan….” (unquote).
      Well, at least you were good enough to sign ‘cynic’. Overlooking Sec.
      Stimpson’s real motives at the very least you and I must take
      responsibility of the continuation of six decades of disinformation
      regarding how issue ‘resolved’. I do take responsibility. I have lived
      through two nuke ‘close calls’. Once as a boy and 84. Was invited to a
      meeting prior to christening of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan where 84 was
      referred to in a manner that went over most heads by all speakers, Edwin
      Meese, Jean Kirkpactrick etc.
      One man’s (was at that meeting) real power was in keeping the real danger
      of the secret non-use nuke deals in mind. He would only talk to those ‘in
      the know’. No ‘personality’ and most wonder where his power came from.
      He was kept as a ‘reminder hedge’. He would as soon throw a wrench at you
      as talk. From time to time a naval officer might snarl, ‘Who is that
      grease covered monkey? Get him the hell out of here.’. ‘Sir, that’s
      Admiral Rickover’. ‘Oh, make sure he gets everything he needs.’
      What is the worst place conceivable for a nuclear reactor? Put one on a
      warship?!!! Good God. But no matter, secret deals. There was even
      discussion as to if the masses would fall for it. Tested reactions with
      just a ‘science sub’. (No ‘name’ given here) But at the same meeting was
      the guy who made the final effort to get rid of Rickover. His favorite
      quote is a twist on Lord Acton’s dictum: “Power corrupts. Ultimate power
      is really neat.”
      David, you and I are responsible for buying into this baloney. Freedom of
      Speech can from need to talk honestly about military matters. Nano is a
      military matter. Code in early sailors was ‘Pass & Stow’, or pass on and
      stow (remember). Real reason why corporation that holds Liberty Bell is
      called ‘Pass & Stow’.
      David, if push comes to shove those already misusing nano will take your
      suggestions and follow them as a diversion/cover so that the entirety of
      the issue still not aired.
      But yes, aside from above I can see real thought you have given to the
      problem.
      Michael
    • david lyndel
      Hi Michael, I cannot change the fact that those that control funding not only own the train but also are the conductor. Nothing would please me more than if
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Michael,
        I cannot change the fact that those that control funding not only
        own the train but also are the conductor. Nothing would please me
        more than if love made the world go around. Unfortunately it is money
        if we ignore Kepler. Yes I have read the Schwartz contributions to
        truth exposure. I agree many of his intentions and observations but
        not some of his rhetoric and conclusions. I think calling the CDC
        what he did is way off base. As cover-ups go everyone everywhere
        seeks to save their own ass-ets. I know DARPA drives the train to a
        great degree. The late-US president Dwight D. Eisenhower in his
        farewell address to Congress warned about the dangers and
        ramifications of the marriage between industry and the military
        complex. Oddly or tellingly no president has given a farewell adress
        to Congress since or I cannot recall such. There is much more
        surrounding Eisenhower(when he was missing for an extended period as
        you recall) but I'll leave that to another forum. In many ways the
        coupling of the military and the industrial complex is 'fall out'
        from the exercise and aftermath of WWII.
        Before I could extend full acceptance to Schwarz's comments I would
        have to know if he has a personal ax to grind other than the obvious.
        I may have already wrote in prior post but the US lagging in direct
        applications in nanotechnology is symptomatic reflected in the
        nation's failure to spend dollars on alternative energy. While other
        nations are implementing new power sources from wind, ocean waves,
        solar tiled buildings, etc. the US continues to prop up Big Oil with
        billions in subsidies. By the way over $18 billion of those funds are
        set to expire and be used for energy research. Stunningly in their
        arrogance Big Oil came before Congress with hat in hand begging for
        continuing the subsidy. We all know the record profits they are
        making.
        If anyone thinks governments do not lie and misinform the people
        then they are on la-la pills. The first rule of any government is to
        maintain itself and usually this means by any means necessary. There
        are 12,000 wealthy (not necessarily the wealthiest) families in the
        US that are linked in a mindset to a common goal: financial
        domination. The same ones behind NAFTA. It is not necessarily an
        organized conspiracy but it does exist in isolated conclaves.
        As for DARPA they are having problems filling the positions they
        have. They are in desperate need of program managers. Why? Several
        reasons but I'll spare you my speculation. Increasingly agencies and
        corporations are waiting outside the doors of high schools
        (figuratively...literally they are visiting high schools) to find
        fresh raw meat unspoiled by others. In this way there are fewer bad
        habits to get rid of. It also takes less detergent for cerebral
        cleansing.
        I cannot change anything but I am a seeker of truth. In an old
        Greek story in the 20th book of the Odyssey a lines reads: "The Sun
        has been obliterated from the sky and an unlucky darkness invades the
        world." As a recent journal paper attempts to prove with a timeline
        that this refers to an actual eclipse. If so then just maybe the Sun
        will shine again and the darkness will flee from the light.
        Best regards,
        David


        --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, michael1@... wrote:
        >
        > The world's top nano CEO speaks out. Link is
        >
        > http://www.rense.com/general82/SNR_articlesourceengFINAL.pdf
        >
        > `K.S.' is Karl Swartz. `snips' below.
        >
        > snip
        > ***************************
        > K.S. The US system is dominated by the major corporations and
        > entrepreneurial efforts are quashed (or blocked) if they are
        stepping on
        > the wrong toes. Our process is years ahead of any known competitor.
        We
        > have met with many of the corporate giants and they are not at the
        level
        > we are. The US is also lagging way behind the EU and China in
        > commercialization of nanotechnology. Research is valuable but if one
        > cannot commercialize it, it is not that valuable.
        > We relocated to the EU to commercialize and also to make sure that
        this
        > science is available to all of mankind and not under the control of
        major
        > US corporations.
        > S.K. You seem to have a world view regarding this science that goes
        far
        > beyond the typical US policies that foreigners are accustomed to.
        Can you
        > state why because you do not sound like the typical American
        technology
        > executive.
        > K.S. I guess in a way I am not a typical American. I have had the
        > discussions with some policy makers in America and they think they
        can
        > rule the world with intellectual property and outsource production
        to
        > cheap labor markets. That might work for making mass consumer goods
        for
        > WalMart or Target Stores but that is not going to cut it in
        > nanotechnology. The skill levels alone defy this globalist mindset
        of
        > exploiting cheap labor markets.
        > I got very agitated one day at the arrogance of a US bureaucrat and
        told
        > them "Your policies must have been developed by complete morons and
        here
        > is why I say that. The US does not hold the patents on brains,
        > determination, nor does the US hold the patents on mathematics,
        physics,
        > quantum mechanics, chemistry, medicine, nor does the US own all of
        the
        > natural resources that will power the nanotechnology growth. If you
        think
        > you can wave your patents in the air while producing nothing, you
        people
        > are even dumber than I thought you were. Talk about intellectual
        arrogance
        > of yet another failed US policy."
        > To this day, the US has not implemented any coherent plan to develop
        > nanotechnology like has happened in China (2000), Russia (2007) and
        most
        > of the EU nations…."
        > End snip
        > Another snip:
        > "S.K. Some of our local contacts told us, and showed us an article
        you
        > wrote, about H5N1 bird flu being a US devised bioweapon to expand US
        > exports of poultry. Is any of your R&D directed at military
        applications?
        > http://www.rense.com/general78/gene.htm
        > K.S. It is a devised bioweapon but treatable and they are trying to
        > penetrate and expand in beef and pork exports too. We are not in the
        > defense or weapons business in the sense of use as a weapon against
        any
        > peoples or nations. Our R&D in that area is more in the nature of
        > countermeasures to negate or neutralize such weapons. Said another
        way,
        > anything devised by man can be beaten by another man with better
        > technology. Our approach is more one of making
        > such weapons useless and a waste of time and money, not to mention
        brain
        > power needed for far more important issues confronting this
        planet…."
        > End snip.
        > And from the other link:
        > snip
        > · Dangerous practices in US labs, some approaching intent of
        genocidal
        > harm to non-Americans from a nation that pretends it is on some
        moral high
        > ground
        >
        > · H7N3 outbreak in Canada (first bird flu in Western Hemisphere).
        Not
        > really, they just kept the first one (H5N1 in November 2005) pretty
        quiet
        > in Canada and another one in the United States very quiet because
        it was
        > human-to-human variant of H5N1 in July 2005.
        >
        > I sent the map you can see at this link and below to Jeff Rense and
        it is
        > posted on his website.
        >
        > http://www.rense.com/general78/mpp.htm
        > (map insert)
        > snip continued
        > "…What does that map suggest? Based on what I know it suggests that
        bird
        > flu, the H5N1 that they keep harping about is in all probability a
        blunt
        > force bio-weapon to open up the third word and closed nations for
        America
        > in many different market sectors.
        >
        > That map is a war map. …………………………."
        > End snips.
        >
        > David,
        > You stated: (to Spandan)(quote) "…I can agree with
        > mistakes in the past by some physicists but as one myself I cannot
        > personally take responsibilty for the acts of those who destroyed
        > those two cities in Japan…." (unquote).
        > Well, at least you were good enough to sign `cynic'. Overlooking
        Sec.
        > Stimpson's real motives at the very least you and I must take
        > responsibility of the continuation of six decades of disinformation
        > regarding how issue `resolved'. I do take responsibility. I have
        lived
        > through two nuke `close calls'. Once as a boy and 84. Was invited
        to a
        > meeting prior to christening of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan where 84
        was
        > referred to in a manner that went over most heads by all speakers,
        Edwin
        > Meese, Jean Kirkpactrick etc.
        > One man's (was at that meeting) real power was in keeping the real
        danger
        > of the secret non-use nuke deals in mind. He would only talk to
        those `in
        > the know'. No `personality' and most wonder where his power came
        from.
        > He was kept as a `reminder hedge'. He would as soon throw a wrench
        at you
        > as talk. From time to time a naval officer might snarl, `Who is
        that
        > grease covered monkey? Get him the hell out of here.'. `Sir,
        that's
        > Admiral Rickover'. `Oh, make sure he gets everything he needs.'
        > What is the worst place conceivable for a nuclear reactor? Put one
        on a
        > warship?!!! Good God. But no matter, secret deals. There was even
        > discussion as to if the masses would fall for it. Tested reactions
        with
        > just a `science sub'. (No `name' given here) But at the same
        meeting was
        > the guy who made the final effort to get rid of Rickover. His
        favorite
        > quote is a twist on Lord Acton's dictum: "Power corrupts. Ultimate
        power
        > is really neat."
        > David, you and I are responsible for buying into this baloney.
        Freedom of
        > Speech can from need to talk honestly about military matters. Nano
        is a
        > military matter. Code in early sailors was `Pass & Stow', or pass
        on and
        > stow (remember). Real reason why corporation that holds Liberty
        Bell is
        > called `Pass & Stow'.
        > David, if push comes to shove those already misusing nano will take
        your
        > suggestions and follow them as a diversion/cover so that the
        entirety of
        > the issue still not aired.
        > But yes, aside from above I can see real thought you have given to
        the
        > problem.
        > Michael
        >
      • zeynep meric
        hello everyone ¹f you have any paper any idea about terahertz radiaiton please let me know what is terahertz radiaiton advantage disadvantage where do we use
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 4, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          hello everyone
          �f you have any paper any idea about terahertz radiaiton please let me know
          what is terahertz radiaiton advantage disadvantage where do we use etc...




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • david lyndel
          Hi Z, As far as we know at this point, terahertz radiation is safe unlike x- rays. it is very much along the lines of vibrations of biomoleculars in
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 4, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Z,
            As far as we know at this point, terahertz radiation is safe unlike x-
            rays. it is very much along the lines of 'vibrations' of biomoleculars
            in biosystems. it can be used to characterize composites, elctrical and
            vibrational properties of all 3 main phases of matter. however it
            cannot penetrate water or metallices. it is helping technologies in
            wave-based applications. it has a wide use in medical imaging and
            checking quality of medicines and food. it can penetrate most packaging
            except metal containers.
            there has been limits imposed due to inaability to generate enough
            energy to produce them in usuable amount. its a wide open 'spectrum'
            needing alot more research.

            maybe check out:
            http://www.rpi.edu/~zhangxc/index.htm

            also i took liberty of sending you a pdf file with some current
            research observations. i think its a good paper but i'll let you
            determine for yourself.

            It use in photonics and biophotonic could be near limitless. when we
            have a pulsed wave that has a central frequency to both the optical
            band and spectral width in that range it can be converted or stepep-
            down to a terahertz pulse of radiation.

            i'd guess you know about the second-order nonlinear coefficient
            medium producing the polarization density 2dE^2(t). this has a second
            harmonic generator term which is 2w.0 (here "w" is a subscript.
            you also need to consider the optical rectification as i'd also
            guess you likely are aware of. w.0 is central frequency.
            so essentially the pulsed wave optically speaking is the total of
            monochromatic waves. those waves are frequencies that are in the band
            aound the central frequency.

            You can write me either public or private to discuss optical.
            rectification further if you wish.

            unfortunately we can use it for deep-tissue in a human body. but it
            will have uses otherwise. the Zhang group has claimed to have overcome
            the limits of 1 THz at the millimeter limits imposed by it. or as old
            school: microns. :)

            David
            --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, zeynep meric <zeyno_ms@...> wrote:
            >
            > hello everyone
            > ¹f you have any paper any idea about terahertz radiaiton please let
            me know
            > what is terahertz radiaiton advantage disadvantage where do we use
            etc...
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • michael1@midcoast.com
            David, What an astute reply! Okay, I walk to your left. I will end with a quote from General Eisenhower that applies directly to you. So you know- I have
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 5, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              David,
              What an astute reply! Okay, I walk to your left.
              I will end with a quote from General Eisenhower that applies directly to
              you. So you know- I have spent much time on your other post regarding
              conceptual relationship between interferometry and X-ray diffraction.
              That is taking some time to comprehend and I am still trying to research
              that.
              When you spoke of snatching kids at high school age it brought much to
              mind. We have been dumbed-down in the United States. I had a strange
              upbringing and can see this. Let us see how this applied to nano. In any
              discussion of nano we must look squarely that nano is also a gun. It is a
              gun far bigger than nukes as it also has built in deniability. There must
              now be ongoing serious discussions at high levels. This is the major
              aspect that I think upset Swartz. Would that realization also leave in
              its path some ‘axes to grind’? Most probably.
              As a young boy I had to carefully read both the New York Times and the
              Tribune every day. And, Lord in heaven, was I ever in deep doo doo if I
              did not have an atlas not just handy but open while I was reading. And
              historic atlases within reach. In the late eighties I was excited to
              learn that there was a store that dealt in nothing but maps and atlases
              in Cambridge just outside of Harvard. I visited and fell over. After
              poking around confused I asked where the historical section was. They
              didn’t have one!!!! Anything of any value is missing from all libraries
              also! What is this? There is a giant but very above-public reaction to
              South Korea. Nano is the underlying issue. It is of major concern as it
              is a peninsula flare-up. I was taught as a child, in fact axiomatic,
              that any peninsula flare-ups are indicative of much more. This was basic
              stuff, for example a few lines from a long poem, (China Talks), about
              history of naval intelligence. First ‘Pass & Stow’ is an old sailor code
              meaning ‘serious military info- pass on and stow it’. Real reason why
              Pass & Stow is the name of the Pennsylvania corporation that cares for
              the Liberty Bell. No stigma saying ‘Jap’ for ‘Japanese’ here either:
              “…
              Pass & Stow told of Korea,
              Leg of Han and Yellow race.
              Tap a Jap and see Sicilian.
              And Korea Calabrese.
              …”

              Rome and Sicily have always been at odds. Calabria, the boot of Italy,
              always caught between, could see both sides. Both Rome and Sicily would
              say don’t pay attention to them, they are stupid and/or crazy –
              ‘Calabrese’. Same with Korea caught between Japan and China. Peninsula
              flare-ups can indicate something serious and in this case, with South
              Korea, world-wide and nano. To make the point the demonstrators now
              wear surgical masks, signs in English read ‘And we don’t need your troops
              either’. (And they are right – you can Google Admiral Dennis C. Blair,
              former Pacific Command who should have been JCS over General Meyer, and
              find and old speech given in Monterey.) I could see the New York Times
              reacting this week but would pass over public head. To hell with the
              blah-blah article, look at their detailed maps of world-wide agricultural
              tariffs. You mention NAFTA and they see a giant problem there stemming
              from South Korea and wonder how it will spread.
              Jawaharlal Nehru is now resurrected. His ‘non aligned nations’, after
              being forgotten for many years, met just last year in Havana with almost
              all world nations attending. Nano had to be high on that agenda. He
              had to have seen the secret non-use of nuke deal. His remarks would be
              way prior to his non-aligned speech to Bandung Conference Political
              Committee, 1955 . I do not know if this remark was in a speech, a remark
              to a reporter, or what. I do remember the word ‘brown’ used. Could have
              been a translation confusion but I doubt it. Caused too much concern
              here. It was something to the effect, “I see, so now they will only use
              nukes on brown races.” That would place it after China crossed the Yalu,
              November 1950. Went through good chronology of Nehru’s relationship with
              Dr. Homi Bhabha too but can still not get a make on date.

              David, you mentioned a period when Ike went missing. I know of one but
              also might have been time when we used Fortune Magazine to prove to Stalin
              that Ike was not commander and chief so that the secret non-use-of-nuke
              deal would go through. (Check index – Fortune Magazine/Ike – Vol II
              Elsner’s History of Time Inc.) Or some other. But he was also missing
              days, perhaps week, just prior Operation Vulture. As a child I lived
              through that horror, how close we came to using a nuke. I never read
              Prados’ ‘The Sky Would Fall’ until a few years ago!!!! With General Gap
              so dug in dad did maps showing even massive B-29 missions would fail. Why
              I have quoted John Foster Dulles’ remark to Ambassador Bidault- “And if I
              gave you two atomic bombs for Dien Bien Phu?” on the cover.
              http://www.midcoast.com/~michael1/aspyintime.htm
              Jawaharlal was mentored by Ghandi. Will give favorite Ghandi quote as
              applies to nano but first explain that ‘they’ to Ghandi was different. He
              never saw people or states as ‘enemy’ even in South Africa. He focused on
              real underlying issues, in many cases the British use of triangular trade.
              He does not rely on speeches but simply walks to the sea and makes salt.
              Better than 10,000 speeches he sits down and spins his own cloth. We
              should take ‘they’ in that manner. I am thinking of that old comic strip
              ‘Pogo’. “We have met the enemy and ‘they’ are ‘us’.” And applicable to
              your role here, David. Will fit in below.
              Mahatma Gandhi: (quote) “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.
              Then they fight you. Then you win.”
              As an American on an open international forum concerning a ‘hidden gun’
              what you think and say matters deeply. It is wonderful that your mind is
              so broad.
              Why does it matter? Perhaps another childhood lesson first. I also had
              to read every week Time’s received letters-to-the-editor. They were
              published in-house and dad would bring a huge mimeographed stack every
              week with some earmarked for reading. What was impressed on me was that
              the letters that had the most effect were almost never published. They
              were those that had the editors go, “Oh, damn…, they know.”
              Schultz’s accusations are backed up by such as Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz,
              who was with Harvard’s Public Health in ‘Emerging Viruses’ and many
              others. Nano makes this gun giant. At the very-very-very minimum it can
              be agreed that serious accusations are being made. This is difficult to
              emotionally process and therefore easier to sideline into some little
              ‘rational’ box that borders on ‘dismissal’. At the very-very-very minimum
              it can be reasoned that these accusations may well have some validity. I
              could add things like Dr. Kelly, microbiologist and the 20 or so other
              microbiologist around him who seemed to die under strange circumstances…,
              or Plumb Island…, or more…, whatever. But here I am just stating what
              should be agreed at minimum.
              At this time there are many signs of change regarding how to handle the
              nuke situation. Peter Pace hung on for some time even after he was far
              more insubordinate to the president speaking out from Jakarta than
              MacArthur ever was to Truman. (Just revearsed!) I am a personal friend
              of Katherine Pollard Miller who single-handedly got rid of Rummy. Known
              on Internet as “Kay Griggs” as her videos held back for many years after
              she changed back to maiden name. The guy who made them was terrified. Her
              former husband was Rumsfeld’s longtime Princeton roommate. I overheard two
              guys back from Iraq speak of her. Last week I met a young enlisted,
              active Marine back from Iraq. I asked him if he heard of her. His reply
              in exact quote: “Kay Griggs? Are you kidding? Every grunt in Iraq knows
              who she is.” At the time videos made she did not know of secret nuke
              deal. That is why she appears ‘anti-Jewish’ with some statements. A
              secret deal must have some checking mechanism. As Jewish state fairly new
              at that time, with many international connections, that ‘higher Mossad’
              and above was in reality a combination CIA/KGB and others ‘in-on-it’.
              This is why Ahmadinejad seems so ‘two faced’ in that area. “I have no
              problem with Israel,” on one hand, “They are evil,” on the other.
              Ahmadinejad knows of this secret deal and is the unnamed ‘big card’ he
              says he is holding. Russia and China hold to the letter of the deal only.
              Approve only useless sanctions against Iran in SC on one hand, help them
              on the other. Behind all this rethinking stands macro-gun Nano. Nano has
              upped the ante in this game exponentially. Everything must be rethought.
              Schultz emphasized how profit thinking stupefies. Example: US backs
              Kosovo and Russia backs the ‘Serbians’. The US: “We can quietly own
              infrastructure…,” blah, blah, blah. Russia laughs their tail off. (As
              does India also backing the ‘Serbians’.) There is no place that is
              ‘Serbia’. Never was. And there never will be. Militarily the Serbians
              have never been defeated. Alexander the Great was a Macedonian. Would he
              march north? “Hell no, I’m not nuts. We will conquer the world. Where
              is Persia?” Serbia is an altitude. Most anyplace in the Balkans at a
              certain altitude you are Serbian – ‘high ground’. For centuries caught
              between three families, Osmolis, Hapsburgs and Romanovs. Caught between
              two near they align themselves with the one further away: Russia. Just
              look at the maps. But here there are none! This is like you, David,
              falling on hard times and having to teach high school chemistry to make
              ends meet. But you are not allowed to refer to the Periodic Table.
              You are an American and leading on this open and international nano list.
              At minimum you hold an important thread at the head of the string. My
              favorite quote from General Eisenhower is about leadership:
              “You can’t push a string. You can only pull it.”
              Your words are more influential than you can imagine. And, referring to
              letters-to-editor as above, more important than you may ever know.
              Perspective with nano is difficult. On one hand we need constantly remind
              ourselves that nano is a gun. On the other hand I love the quote from
              Voltaire: “God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.”
              But from that altitude it could be: “Tee hee, they took wrong turn. Find
              another specie and we start over.”
              Shultz’s article, knowing Joint Forces Command operates here like some
              sort of SS sans the jack boots, (lightly alluded to in this week’s New
              Yorker by Hersh but more strongly by Lt. General Van Riper but now wiped
              from Internet), and such at times gives me the feeling that I am in
              Germany in the thirties and think of the musical describing that
              pre-horror era:

              “No use permitting some prophet of doom
              To wipe every smile away.
              Come hear the music play.
              Life is a Cabaret, old chum.
              Come to the Cabaret.”

              That over and out I can get back to my nano thoughts. (Hate tacking
              ‘-technology’ onto nano as it almost diminishes and limits the vast
              implications.)

              As stated my interest is in geometry and am taken by the dodeca-fullerene
              DNA connection. I now feel freer to mention more of the connections I am
              seeing. The geometry relates to the work of the former head of the
              Department of Astronomy at Boston U, Dr. Gerald Hawkins. Real short,
              to-the-point, interview here:
              http://www.shareintl.org/ARCHIVES/crop_circles/cc_ml-music-spheres.htm
              Remember this is a hard-nosed, stick-to-facts, scientist and crack
              mathematician. I am seeing even more. Some of this was on my mind when I
              posted the email to Spandan regarding the 8 / 16 geometry connection and
              holography with the quote. Just then ‘pop’ with two absolutely related in
              Germany and then an exact splash down of that in someplace called Liberec
              north of Prague June 30th.
              Hawkins mentions “…only in birds and whales….”. What is it with dogs,
              just that they bark and don’t sing? There are so many reports of dogs
              going off when people moving. They are forced to move anyway, sometimes
              more than 200 miles. A few weeks later, all bedraggled, the dog show up.
              What was the navigation? Spandan brought up NEXT. Harvard trained
              neurologist Jill Taylor’s ‘Stroke of Insight’ is also very popular.
              Through a stroke she gets stuck with only right-brain activity working and
              describes it. Most people reading it see just the ‘oneness’ aspect of it.
              However she also describes other forms of logic and reasoning at work,
              very advanced, and I see also geometrically related. And back to
              fullerenes. But I am weak in chemistry and that is holding me up.
              Connection with crystal symmetry limit. Ordered five “simplified” books
              on the subject and all gave less than a page and a half and jumped into
              X-Ray diffraction. Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz, Loll, CDT are seeing discrete
              “atoms” of spacetime in the micro direction. In another way brings in
              Professor Assem Dief, Department of Math at Cairo University. I am
              plodding along like a snail here with usually more than five Wikipedia
              pages open at a time.
              David, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
              Michael

              > Hi Michael,
              > I cannot change the fact that those that control funding not only
              > own the train but also are the conductor. Nothing would please me
              > more than if love made the world go around. Unfortunately it is money
              > if we ignore Kepler. Yes I have read the Schwartz contributions to
              > truth exposure. I agree many of his intentions and observations but
              > not some of his rhetoric and conclusions. I think calling the CDC
              > what he did is way off base. As cover-ups go everyone everywhere
              > seeks to save their own ass-ets. I know DARPA drives the train to a
              > great degree. The late-US president Dwight D. Eisenhower in his
              > farewell address to Congress warned about the dangers and
              > ramifications of the marriage between industry and the military
              > complex. Oddly or tellingly no president has given a farewell adress
              > to Congress since or I cannot recall such. There is much more
              > surrounding Eisenhower(when he was missing for an extended period as
              > you recall) but I'll leave that to another forum. In many ways the
              > coupling of the military and the industrial complex is 'fall out'
              > from the exercise and aftermath of WWII.
              > Before I could extend full acceptance to Schwarz's comments I would
              > have to know if he has a personal ax to grind other than the obvious.
              > I may have already wrote in prior post but the US lagging in direct
              > applications in nanotechnology is symptomatic reflected in the
              > nation's failure to spend dollars on alternative energy. While other
              > nations are implementing new power sources from wind, ocean waves,
              > solar tiled buildings, etc. the US continues to prop up Big Oil with
              > billions in subsidies. By the way over $18 billion of those funds are
              > set to expire and be used for energy research. Stunningly in their
              > arrogance Big Oil came before Congress with hat in hand begging for
              > continuing the subsidy. We all know the record profits they are
              > making.
              > If anyone thinks governments do not lie and misinform the people
              > then they are on la-la pills. The first rule of any government is to
              > maintain itself and usually this means by any means necessary. There
              > are 12,000 wealthy (not necessarily the wealthiest) families in the
              > US that are linked in a mindset to a common goal: financial
              > domination. The same ones behind NAFTA. It is not necessarily an
              > organized conspiracy but it does exist in isolated conclaves.
              > As for DARPA they are having problems filling the positions they
              > have. They are in desperate need of program managers. Why? Several
              > reasons but I'll spare you my speculation. Increasingly agencies and
              > corporations are waiting outside the doors of high schools
              > (figuratively...literally they are visiting high schools) to find
              > fresh raw meat unspoiled by others. In this way there are fewer bad
              > habits to get rid of. It also takes less detergent for cerebral
              > cleansing.
              > I cannot change anything but I am a seeker of truth. In an old
              > Greek story in the 20th book of the Odyssey a lines reads: "The Sun
              > has been obliterated from the sky and an unlucky darkness invades the
              > world." As a recent journal paper attempts to prove with a timeline
              > that this refers to an actual eclipse. If so then just maybe the Sun
              > will shine again and the darkness will flee from the light.
              > Best regards,
              > David
              >
            • zeynep meric
              thank you very much David ¹ also search the spectroscopy but ¹ confused ¹maging and spectroscopy are the same thing, can we say that? [Non-text portions of
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 5, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                thank you very much David
                � also search the spectroscopy but � confused �maging and spectroscopy are the same thing, can we say that?




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Spandan Pandya
                How is it different from colorimetry in terms of usage. ... From: nanotech@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nanotech@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of zeynep meric Sent:
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 5, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  How is it different from colorimetry in terms of usage.

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: nanotech@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nanotech@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                  Of zeynep meric
                  Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:20 PM
                  To: nanotech@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [nanotech] Re: terahertz radiaiton

                  thank you very much David
                  ¹ also search the spectroscopy but ¹ confused ¹maging and spectroscopy are
                  the same thing, can we say that?




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                  ------------------------------------

                  The Nanotechnology Industries mailing list.
                  http://www.nanoindustries.com
                  Nanotechnology: solutions for the future.Yahoo! Groups Links




                  No virus found in this incoming message.
                  Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                  Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.5/1535 - Release Date: 04/07/2008
                  05:03 م
                • david lyndel
                  Hi Djay Spandan, We know an image is the appearance of a real object usually in the form of some sort of picture. It is reflected from mirror or thru a lens.
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 6, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Djay Spandan,
                    We know an 'image' is the appearance of a real object usually in
                    the form of some sort of picture. It is reflected from mirror or thru
                    a lens. We all know that. Sometimes light may go through some image
                    and this is a 'real image' like those made with cameras. A 'virtual'
                    cannot be projected via a flat mirror. Beamsplitters can either
                    combine or divide amouts of light. Images are possible through
                    different devices that may reveal different things about our target.
                    Computer programs are used to fill in the gaps of data but this
                    should be used in caution. One or more teams of researchers have had
                    to withdraw papers due to too much 'tweaking' and 'gap-filling' in
                    imagery. This is especially true in biotech and materials science.
                    Without beating dead horses too much we know red is at 700nm, green
                    at ~546 nm and blue is about 435.8 nm. (Roy G. Biv) If we know both
                    the surface reflectance and source distribution their product gives
                    us the defined C(lamda-wavelength) and the weights of XYZ in 3-d and
                    in a slightly different way the weighted 2-d of XYZ.
                    Cromacity fgives us info on a specific color and we use the color
                    differential formula to find the distance between two colors. Color
                    is basically the visible range in colormetrics. In radiometry a
                    specific color isn't important but it is used to measure light in any
                    area of the spectrum. Photometry is the measurement of visible light.
                    As you know color is the wavelength of emiited or reflected light.
                    For those new to an interest in spectroscopy, optics and the like our
                    visible range whereby the human eye is sensitive to is between 400 to
                    700nm. Colrs are often classed using the Munsell method. It
                    classifies light by the dominant wavelength , saturation and
                    intensity.
                    Lasers are used to generate a substances population inversions
                    coherent emission to further determine wavelenghts of materials.
                    Different lasers cover different spectral ranges. The rendered
                    wavelength is a narrow band of spectra. Tunable lasers are growing in
                    use that offer tunability to allow more than one narrow band by
                    changing the pressure or wavelegth varying of pump bands.
                    To get into 'gas chromotography' we look at carrier gases and
                    consider things like molecular weight, density, thermal conductivity
                    and a few other things.
                    Keep in mind that spectrometers devices analyze emitted light
                    composition. The elements in the source determines its chemical make-
                    up. The spectrum of energies are not always electromagnetic in
                    nature.
                    Spectroscopy is simply the study of spectra. I'm including basics
                    for as one song goes, "I don't know what you don't know,". In
                    spectroscopy we look at the associated molecules and atoms in the 3
                    main phases of matter we all know and love. It is used to find
                    unknown elements also. Using different spectroscopic means we can
                    study molecular vibrations, adjacent atomic nuclei interactions,
                    clusters, isolations, how different particulates absorb energy and
                    other factors.
                    Science isn't cheap and neither is spectroscopy. Of course
                    microscopes are high quality and reasonably priced.
                    Spandan when you get into line spectra you Angstrom units(10^-10m)
                    to give the wavelengths. Then there are atomic transition
                    probabilities and available info is often focused on single-ionized
                    spectra. But there is alot of good data on neutral species as well.
                    As with most things along this line...start with the element
                    hydrogen. Understand it and move on from there. From there move into
                    electron and proton affinities and polarizabilities.
                    An old but goody book in biochemistry is Data for Biochemical
                    Research by R.M.C. Dawson published by Oxford Press in the mid-
                    eighties. I cannot find my copy or I'd give you the ISBN. I may have
                    donated it to a school...I knew I'd find time to regret it. :)

                    If you will be engaged in the analysis of surfaces then this
                    normally will require vacuum conditions and a high one at that.
                    This allows us(the collective 'we') to interactions and our incoming
                    beam. We measure chemical and physical attributes of the radiation to
                    render qualitative results. Every kind of spectroscopy requires a
                    certain minimum amount and type of material to get good results.
                    Depth and lateral spatial resolves are important. Plus among other
                    things is the input/output radiation.

                    Not only is there many kinds of spectroscopy but experimental
                    physicists and other researchers are investigating new ways to use
                    different types together. Some are also modifying ewxisting devices
                    to push the limits or overcome limits.

                    I have used AFM, Laser Ioninization Mass Spect., SALI, FTIR and
                    been around some others. However I have not ever used Raman
                    spectroscopy. Its used for crystal and molecular vibrational
                    analysis. Along that same line never used CARS either. But I've read
                    all I can on both.

                    XRD (x-ray diffraction is used to study single crystals and
                    powders. It helps identify structures of a crystallographic-kind and
                    elementally useful. Has a few limitations in low Z.

                    As you know I usually look at neuronal slices(mostly mammilian),
                    molecular composites and crystals at home. For now I cannot access
                    higher resolution means. Sometimes I fire them up with small
                    energies...the neurons that is. All in vitro and ex vivo unless you
                    wish to volunteer for in vivo...lol
                    Its been over a year since I have had access.

                    Maybe one short answer is spectroscopy, microscopy, imaging, optics
                    and color analysis are related and thus complement one another.

                    Best regards,
                    David




                    --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "Spandan Pandya" <djay_spooky@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > How is it different from colorimetry in terms of usage.
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: nanotech@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nanotech@yahoogroups.com] On
                    Behalf
                    > Of zeynep meric
                    > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:20 PM
                    > To: nanotech@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [nanotech] Re: terahertz radiaiton
                    >
                    > thank you very much David
                    > ¹ also search the spectroscopy but ¹ confused ¹maging and
                    spectroscopy are
                    > the same thing, can we say that?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > The Nanotechnology Industries mailing list.
                    > http://www.nanoindustries.com
                    > Nanotechnology: solutions for the future.Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > No virus found in this incoming message.
                    > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                    > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.5/1535 - Release Date:
                    04/07/2008
                    > 05:03 ã
                    >
                  • michael1@midcoast.com
                    Dear David, Your posts have been sterling. In all the range of issues. I am going through the last post on overall wave/(some particle) imaging. What a mind.
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 9, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear David,
                      Your posts have been sterling. In all the range of issues.
                      I am going through the last post on overall wave/(some particle) imaging.
                      What a mind. Few can see such complexities and simplify areas that need
                      it. However, I am still fixed on a prior post sentence of yours regarding
                      terahertz: “…It (terahertz) is very much along the lines of 'vibrations'
                      of biomoleculars in biosystems. it can be used to characterize
                      composites, elctrical and vibrational properties of all 3 main phases of
                      matter. however it cannot penetrate water or metallices….”

                      You have me so focused on “…cannot penetrate water…”.

                      Please understand I was drawn here kicking a screaming because of the
                      dodecahedral plates of fullerenes. I have only another ‘angle’ on
                      geometry that is all, (and with a weak education in chemistry). From what
                      I now understand we wrongly visualize 3-D forms. In any crystal we see
                      the facets/stella and forget that the plates that formed each one extend
                      out. Example would be a known experiment of Bucky Fuller. Dyes were
                      placed in a liquid in a balloon. Balloon was vibrated and shapes
                      appeared, in one case a tetrahedron. But it wasn’t. There were the four
                      plates extending to the sides of the balloon. Tetrahedron was the
                      recognized concept so that was put out. In my view of a 3-D geometry this
                      is not splitting hairs.

                      Things coming to mind: Kepler’s ‘Reflections on the Six Cornered
                      Snowflake’. (Common denominator in a sense).

                      First is the ability with geometry to greatly lower the freezing
                      temperature of water. AND that simply stirring the water reverts it back
                      to normal.

                      Work of Alexander Golod. (These findings are now accepted/proved again
                      and again)
                      (quote)…
                      “…2. Even at –40° C regular water does not freeze inside the Pyramid
                      Several plastic bottles with regular water were placed inside the Pyramid
                      and their state was observed within a period of three winter months. The
                      water was not freezing and had all the properties of a liquid during this
                      whole period. The lowest air temperature inside the Pyramid was –40°C.
                      Measuring water temperature inside the bottles showed that it was the same
                      as the temperature of the air (i.e. the water was not freezing even when
                      its temperature was –40°C).
                      However, it was noted during this research, that if a bottle of this water
                      was shaken or hit, a crystallization process was beginning inside and the
                      water was turning into ice within 3-20 seconds (depending on the degree of
                      water super cooling). …”
                      http://www.rexresearch.com/golod/golod.htm
                      (unquote)
                      (Do not let work ‘pyramid’ throw you. We are talking of giant machines,
                      22 now inside Russia and the Ukraine. One use is greatly reducing risk of
                      cancer. Media there is very much behind the project.)
                      Now going to what I see as confusion when we went from X-Ray diffraction
                      to the 230 crystal symmetry conditions. Feel something was overlooked.
                      Back to water: radio waves have trouble in water, etc. This might seem
                      like quite a zigzag but then comes in Kepler again and his odd polyhedron
                      machine pictured in every physics textbook. Why was it ‘just in the
                      ballpark’? (Feel it relates to CDT)
                      Here is a guy just using NASA figures and getting more out his pc than the
                      Hubble. I think he will be a Tycho Brahe to the next Kepler: John
                      Martineau.
                      http://www.halexandria.org/dward116.htm
                      Essentially he adds more geometry and gets the basic concept down into
                      99.9% range.
                      No ‘theory’ just ‘coincidence’.
                      I am getting a feeling that when we classify as ‘crystal’ vs ‘amorphous’
                      we overlook something. Is liquid water still ‘amorphous’ because it
                      ‘un-froze’? Perhaps the geometric patterns suddenly became
                      ‘?faster/more-complex/non-measurable?’ ?
                      And that this is true with ALL substance but water has a more basic
                      characteristic of being able to enter more of the geometry. This is sort
                      of like houses and us. Inside you can dance around, do as you like,
                      bothered only by the position of the walls. Same for your neighbor. Out
                      on the street you must follow other rules, (cross at crosswalks), but the
                      limitation of walls has gone. Imagine a ‘snap’ where the walls of all the
                      houses ‘snap’ to a bigger house and that because of the geometry it is a
                      simplification of all house walls. All you then see is dancing in the
                      streets your insides being unfroze. But you still follow some rules as
                      does water.
                      We know we cannot compare an atom to a solar system. CDT gives us the
                      appearance of space-time as varying between an ‘atom’ on the Quantum with
                      somewhat fractalish in the middle and some odd shape as everything. How
                      is ‘causal’ defined in CDT? It seems to be a combination. Dominos
                      tipping over in sequence are often used as description. But some small
                      dominos can start a cycle that tips over one big domino stopping bigger
                      sequence and one big one can crash out a whole bunch of small sequences.
                      CDT seems to have combined all this. I am thinking here of the major
                      difference between Quantum and ‘other’.
                      Here I think of time as we normally do. The atom seems far more lasting.
                      One carbon to another, “Weren’t you part of Alexander the Great’s shoe”.
                      “Hummm, some memory but I would need check my macro-diary.” Not so with
                      other stuff. I feel solar systems ‘desire’ to Quantum-atize but can’t.
                      They keep trying but something jumps in starting a whole new complex of
                      perturbations and they keep trying. Still, as with Martineau above, some
                      sort of geometric patterns keep emerging in the process.
                      I do not know the correct term, but at least in some sense, it is basic in
                      science that ‘cause’ does not have one center/origin. Creation, the
                      creation process, to us personally seems limited. We can do some things
                      but get thwarted in others. Almost like a learning process,
                      ‘creators-in-training’. Cause is then coming from many sources/locations
                      on various levels of proficiency.
                      Not so with atoms. They last a long time. Finding the fundamentals of
                      the creative process they can ‘limit’, (quanta-tize), to those actions
                      that will work, sort of superimpositions, in just those areas. They know
                      what cooperative actions will not interfere with others. “Hey, Hydro,
                      want to dance with Oxy a bit and play ‘water’?” “Why not?”
                      Nanoscience (best term, thanks, David) is in area not only between quanta
                      and normal mechanical but in area where ‘cause/creators’ last most then
                      going to area where it starts to have problems surviving. More potential
                      here for all science.
                      Pulsed terahertz might have some of the same oddities as pulsed
                      microwaves. When micros pulsed they turn to kinetic energy when hitting
                      an object. It was found early, over twenty years ago, that it would
                      therefore (at right range) rock the head of a human separately from the
                      thorax. Therefore it rocked the bone armature that produces hearing. It
                      was first thought, such as on naval ships, it could be put in as sound
                      warning if you were too close to micro. Then it went underground,
                      perfected, and you could put music and voices in a person’s head. Many
                      horrid experiments in the prison system. But in that same sense could
                      terahertz look at what we call amorphous material and see ‘moving
                      crystal-like’ patterns? A sort of XRD of amorphous?
                      Back to terahertz blocked by water and metal: And switching type of
                      vibration to sound.
                      An oddity of sound is reported in the standard Handbook of Physics and
                      Chemistry done by Bell Labs in the 50s. Sound travels much faster in some
                      gases, (if memory serves metal gases), than in other gases which are much
                      heaver. Does not fit normal, ‘motor boat sound is louder when you put
                      your head under water’ common sense. In the sense that metals can be
                      conductors (but perhaps not in same fashion) the alignments in what looks
                      like amorphous pass the sound quicker. I don’t think anything vibrates
                      ‘at random’. Back to terahertz I see water and metal blocking in two
                      different ways. 1- metals have a specific pattern that interrupts
                      terahertz. Water has more of ‘all-pattern’ (still not amorphous) and
                      therefore enough of the metal pattern.
                      There has been yet another request for simplified information in the form
                      of a nanoscience book on this list. I think the market would be more
                      giant and long lasting than publishers realize. But it would be a
                      difficult project. At first one would think that because nanoscience
                      combines so much high-end science you would need to start at a high level.
                      Why? This is combining math/biology/physics/chemistry anyway. I would
                      aim toward eighth grade and with nanoscience start teaching all together.
                      At first that seems daunting. However, done right it would work. Good
                      science books do level. Start with concept and divide it into
                      beginning/middle/advanced. Read one level through to comprehension and go
                      to next level. For these sorts of projects you would want the writers and
                      graphics people not to be too educated in the field and in the process of
                      learning also. There is where good simplification comes in. ‘Editorial’
                      would be far more work than normal, at least three go-rounds for each
                      little section. The expertise would come more from the editorial
                      standpoint that is directing too. Done right and updated it would do very
                      well. As a strange forerunner go down and look at kid’s toys. Popular
                      now are erector types sets that cannot do shapes such as boxes- they just
                      fall apart. But dodecahedrons, tetrahedrons and such are a cinch and kids
                      build them naturally. This is for 5 year olds. Put two kindergarten kids
                      together and they are popping out fullerenes. There is also for 2 and 3
                      year olds a very popular elastic toy that is very cheap and I have seen
                      them all over. It is an expandable icosahedron with little sticks that
                      show all the golden mean relationships. Parents love them. Kids love
                      them. Neither knows what they are. Preparation?
                      Michael
                    • david lyndel
                      hi Michael, You certainly are a philosopher and heavy thinker. I enjoyed the site and will return to it. First as to terahertz radiation(so-called T-rays): A
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jul 10, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        hi Michael,
                        You certainly are a philosopher and heavy thinker. I enjoyed the
                        site and will return to it.
                        First as to terahertz radiation(so-called T-rays): A Harvard group
                        led by Federico Capasso have electrically pumped terahertz at room
                        temperature. So far experiments prior to this have been limited to
                        cryogenic-cooled systems. Researchers from the Swiss Federal Inst. of
                        Technology and Texas A&M were involved. Trhe new methodology uses
                        quanrtu cascade lasers(QCLs). The technique stacks alternaing
                        semiconductor layers within a waveguide parameter forming an optical
                        cavity. A quote from the work says, "As charge carriers cascade down
                        to induced stepped potential well of the layers emitting photons..the
                        individual transitions between the layers are low-energy jumps [and]
                        the photons are typically in the mid- or even far-infrared." I'm
                        hopeful this will stimulate more thought from your perceptive mind.
                        They found it was critical to create a single quantum cascade laser
                        that operates at two closely spaced frequencies. Nonlinear
                        interaction within the interior of the QCL cavity allows two waves
                        that are mixed and generate "a new frequency at the difference
                        between the two- which turns out to be in the terahertz range."
                        They grew layers of InGaAs and InAlAs(not surprising given InGaAs
                        very versatile attributes). GaInAs served as a spacer between the
                        alternating layers of the previouly mentioned materials.
                        The Capasso laboratory at Harvard School of Engineering and Applied
                        Sciences has more details. This is a rather recent development.
                        In nonlinera optics things such the coupled wave equation, Born
                        approximation, nonlinera Schrodinger and wave mixing as it is a
                        photon interaction process comes into play. Of course this process of
                        wave-mixing includes the energy exchange among any interacting
                        waves. When we consider the Schrodinger in this instance we get into
                        a graded-index waveguide. But it goes a bit further. In the case of
                        Capasso and team's work the modulation of the cross phase wasn't
                        problematic. Indeed it was conducive to their efforts to emit
                        optimized frequencies at both 80 Kelvin and 300nW at room
                        temperature. Personally I think this is a p[retty important
                        breakthrough. It overcomes therestrictions of using some additional
                        equipment.
                        The QCLs uses a single carrier usually which is the electron. Each
                        of the electrons creat many photon. I'll spare the details but the
                        electron is injected into band. The biase of the wells aids the
                        process. If I'm not mistaken there were some other room temperature
                        experiments using arrays. All this should help in the areas of
                        chemical sensors, spectroscopy and as you mention analyzing gases.

                        I'm trying to think of the word or phrase you are searching for.
                        maybe it is a sort of transformational topological transition. I
                        dunno. I'll reread and ponder. Its almost a gauge field thing. I
                        think it would help alot of research to think more in terms of
                        vibration and oscillations as well as fields and waves. As one
                        science author, who I cannot remember, sees things as a history of
                        processes. Many miht 'wave' this off as 'oh yea i know what you
                        mean.' But I believe it deserves more than fleeting thoughts.

                        The Pyramid is an interesting form. The preservation phenomenon is
                        very intriguing. Since my train of thought just left the station I'll
                        stop here.
                        Have a good one and I look forward to further conversation.
                        David

                        -- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, michael1@... wrote:
                        >
                        > Dear David,
                        > Your posts have been sterling. In all the range of issues.
                        > I am going through the last post on overall wave/(some particle)
                        imaging.
                        > What a mind. Few can see such complexities and simplify areas that
                        need
                        > it. However, I am still fixed on a prior post sentence of yours
                        regarding
                        > terahertz: "…It (terahertz) is very much along the lines
                        of 'vibrations'
                        > of biomoleculars in biosystems. it can be used to characterize
                        > composites, elctrical and vibrational properties of all 3 main
                        phases of
                        > matter. however it cannot penetrate water or metallices…."
                        >
                        > You have me so focused on "…cannot penetrate water…".
                        >
                        > Please understand I was drawn here kicking a screaming because of
                        the
                        > dodecahedral plates of fullerenes. I have only another `angle' on
                        > geometry that is all, (and with a weak education in chemistry).
                        From what
                        > I now understand we wrongly visualize 3-D forms. In any crystal we
                        see
                        > the facets/stella and forget that the plates that formed each one
                        extend
                        > out. Example would be a known experiment of Bucky Fuller. Dyes
                        were
                        > placed in a liquid in a balloon. Balloon was vibrated and shapes
                        > appeared, in one case a tetrahedron. But it wasn't. There were
                        the four
                        > plates extending to the sides of the balloon. Tetrahedron was the
                        > recognized concept so that was put out. In my view of a 3-D
                        geometry this
                        > is not splitting hairs.
                        >
                        > Things coming to mind: Kepler's `Reflections on the Six Cornered
                        > Snowflake'. (Common denominator in a sense).
                        >
                        > First is the ability with geometry to greatly lower the freezing
                        > temperature of water. AND that simply stirring the water reverts it
                        back
                        > to normal.
                        >
                        > Work of Alexander Golod. (These findings are now accepted/proved
                        again
                        > and again)
                        > (quote)…
                        > "…2. Even at –40° C regular water does not freeze inside the Pyramid
                        > Several plastic bottles with regular water were placed inside the
                        Pyramid
                        > and their state was observed within a period of three winter
                        months. The
                        > water was not freezing and had all the properties of a liquid
                        during this
                        > whole period. The lowest air temperature inside the Pyramid was –40°
                        C.
                        > Measuring water temperature inside the bottles showed that it was
                        the same
                        > as the temperature of the air (i.e. the water was not freezing even
                        when
                        > its temperature was –40°C).
                        > However, it was noted during this research, that if a bottle of
                        this water
                        > was shaken or hit, a crystallization process was beginning inside
                        and the
                        > water was turning into ice within 3-20 seconds (depending on the
                        degree of
                        > water super cooling). …"
                        > http://www.rexresearch.com/golod/golod.htm
                        > (unquote)
                        > (Do not let work `pyramid' throw you. We are talking of giant
                        machines,
                        > 22 now inside Russia and the Ukraine. One use is greatly reducing
                        risk of
                        > cancer. Media there is very much behind the project.)
                        > Now going to what I see as confusion when we went from X-Ray
                        diffraction
                        > to the 230 crystal symmetry conditions. Feel something was
                        overlooked.
                        > Back to water: radio waves have trouble in water, etc. This might
                        seem
                        > like quite a zigzag but then comes in Kepler again and his odd
                        polyhedron
                        > machine pictured in every physics textbook. Why was it `just in the
                        > ballpark'? (Feel it relates to CDT)
                        > Here is a guy just using NASA figures and getting more out his pc
                        than the
                        > Hubble. I think he will be a Tycho Brahe to the next Kepler: John
                        > Martineau.
                        > http://www.halexandria.org/dward116.htm
                        > Essentially he adds more geometry and gets the basic concept down
                        into
                        > 99.9% range.
                        > No `theory' just `coincidence'.
                        > I am getting a feeling that when we classify as `crystal'
                        vs `amorphous'
                        > we overlook something. Is liquid water still `amorphous' because it
                        > `un-froze'? Perhaps the geometric patterns suddenly became
                        > `?faster/more-complex/non-measurable?' ?
                        > And that this is true with ALL substance but water has a more basic
                        > characteristic of being able to enter more of the geometry. This
                        is sort
                        > of like houses and us. Inside you can dance around, do as you like,
                        > bothered only by the position of the walls. Same for your
                        neighbor. Out
                        > on the street you must follow other rules, (cross at crosswalks),
                        but the
                        > limitation of walls has gone. Imagine a `snap' where the walls of
                        all the
                        > houses `snap' to a bigger house and that because of the geometry it
                        is a
                        > simplification of all house walls. All you then see is dancing in
                        the
                        > streets your insides being unfroze. But you still follow some
                        rules as
                        > does water.
                        > We know we cannot compare an atom to a solar system. CDT gives us
                        the
                        > appearance of space-time as varying between an `atom' on the
                        Quantum with
                        > somewhat fractalish in the middle and some odd shape as
                        everything. How
                        > is `causal' defined in CDT? It seems to be a combination. Dominos
                        > tipping over in sequence are often used as description. But some
                        small
                        > dominos can start a cycle that tips over one big domino stopping
                        bigger
                        > sequence and one big one can crash out a whole bunch of small
                        sequences.
                        > CDT seems to have combined all this. I am thinking here of the
                        major
                        > difference between Quantum and `other'.
                        > Here I think of time as we normally do. The atom seems far more
                        lasting.
                        > One carbon to another, "Weren't you part of Alexander the Great's
                        shoe".
                        > "Hummm, some memory but I would need check my macro-diary." Not
                        so with
                        > other stuff. I feel solar systems `desire' to Quantum-atize but
                        can't.
                        > They keep trying but something jumps in starting a whole new
                        complex of
                        > perturbations and they keep trying. Still, as with Martineau
                        above, some
                        > sort of geometric patterns keep emerging in the process.
                        > I do not know the correct term, but at least in some sense, it is
                        basic in
                        > science that `cause' does not have one center/origin. Creation, the
                        > creation process, to us personally seems limited. We can do some
                        things
                        > but get thwarted in others. Almost like a learning process,
                        > `creators-in-training'. Cause is then coming from many
                        sources/locations
                        > on various levels of proficiency.
                        > Not so with atoms. They last a long time. Finding the
                        fundamentals of
                        > the creative process they can `limit', (quanta-tize), to those
                        actions
                        > that will work, sort of superimpositions, in just those areas.
                        They know
                        > what cooperative actions will not interfere with others. "Hey,
                        Hydro,
                        > want to dance with Oxy a bit and play `water'?" "Why not?"
                        > Nanoscience (best term, thanks, David) is in area not only between
                        quanta
                        > and normal mechanical but in area where `cause/creators' last most
                        then
                        > going to area where it starts to have problems surviving. More
                        potential
                        > here for all science.
                        > Pulsed terahertz might have some of the same oddities as pulsed
                        > microwaves. When micros pulsed they turn to kinetic energy when
                        hitting
                        > an object. It was found early, over twenty years ago, that it would
                        > therefore (at right range) rock the head of a human separately from
                        the
                        > thorax. Therefore it rocked the bone armature that produces
                        hearing. It
                        > was first thought, such as on naval ships, it could be put in as
                        sound
                        > warning if you were too close to micro. Then it went underground,
                        > perfected, and you could put music and voices in a person's head.
                        Many
                        > horrid experiments in the prison system. But in that same sense
                        could
                        > terahertz look at what we call amorphous material and see `moving
                        > crystal-like' patterns? A sort of XRD of amorphous?
                        > Back to terahertz blocked by water and metal: And switching type of
                        > vibration to sound.
                        > An oddity of sound is reported in the standard Handbook of Physics
                        and
                        > Chemistry done by Bell Labs in the 50s. Sound travels much faster
                        in some
                        > gases, (if memory serves metal gases), than in other gases which
                        are much
                        > heaver. Does not fit normal, `motor boat sound is louder when you
                        put
                        > your head under water' common sense. In the sense that metals can
                        be
                        > conductors (but perhaps not in same fashion) the alignments in what
                        looks
                        > like amorphous pass the sound quicker. I don't think anything
                        vibrates
                        > `at random'. Back to terahertz I see water and metal blocking in
                        two
                        > different ways. 1- metals have a specific pattern that interrupts
                        > terahertz. Water has more of `all-pattern' (still not amorphous) and
                        > therefore enough of the metal pattern.
                        > There has been yet another request for simplified information in
                        the form
                        > of a nanoscience book on this list. I think the market would be
                        more
                        > giant and long lasting than publishers realize. But it would be a
                        > difficult project. At first one would think that because
                        nanoscience
                        > combines so much high-end science you would need to start at a high
                        level.
                        > Why? This is combining math/biology/physics/chemistry anyway. I
                        would
                        > aim toward eighth grade and with nanoscience start teaching all
                        together.
                        > At first that seems daunting. However, done right it would work.
                        Good
                        > science books do level. Start with concept and divide it into
                        > beginning/middle/advanced. Read one level through to comprehension
                        and go
                        > to next level. For these sorts of projects you would want the
                        writers and
                        > graphics people not to be too educated in the field and in the
                        process of
                        > learning also. There is where good simplification comes
                        in. `Editorial'
                        > would be far more work than normal, at least three go-rounds for
                        each
                        > little section. The expertise would come more from the editorial
                        > standpoint that is directing too. Done right and updated it would
                        do very
                        > well. As a strange forerunner go down and look at kid's toys.
                        Popular
                        > now are erector types sets that cannot do shapes such as boxes-
                        they just
                        > fall apart. But dodecahedrons, tetrahedrons and such are a cinch
                        and kids
                        > build them naturally. This is for 5 year olds. Put two
                        kindergarten kids
                        > together and they are popping out fullerenes. There is also for 2
                        and 3
                        > year olds a very popular elastic toy that is very cheap and I have
                        seen
                        > them all over. It is an expandable icosahedron with little sticks
                        that
                        > show all the golden mean relationships. Parents love them. Kids
                        love
                        > them. Neither knows what they are. Preparation?
                        > Michael
                        >
                      • michael1@midcoast.com
                        David, Have spent days pouring over your replies. Wrote something but now, after another day of googling nanotechnology areas worry that I might be off. Was
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jul 17, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David,
                          Have spent days pouring over your replies. Wrote something but now, after
                          another day of googling nanotechnology areas worry that I might be off.
                          Was focused on wave vs. original oscillation. Answered but am holding off.
                          Heavily struck by your suggestion that we focus more on oscillation.
                          Errors were made in XRD, wondered if error applies in such as tetrahertz
                          but can't go further until I have a general picture of how 'small' you can
                          measure.
                          I have a picture in my mind of strands of DNA arranged in form of
                          dodecahedron to start with question. Your expertise seems to be in
                          imaging.
                          In what area is data/imaging useful, possible. You can image DNA. Can
                          you image the area where atoms attach?. That is very small, as to
                          electron, spheres/rings. Can you just give a statement as to how small
                          imaging, (more 'direct' data reflection) can go?
                          I have completely rethought the last part of a post concerning how to
                          explain and simplify nanotech for public. I was off center there. Could
                          be even simpler.
                          Rephrase question.
                          What, and how, to we get images of area where atoms attach?
                          Michael

                          > hi Michael,
                          > You certainly are a philosopher and heavy thinker. I enjoyed the
                          > site and will return to it.
                          > First as to terahertz radiation(so-called T-rays): A Harvard group
                          > led by Federico Capasso have electrically pumped terahertz at room
                          > temperature. So far experiments prior to this have been limited to
                          > cryogenic-cooled systems. Researchers from the Swiss Federal Inst. of
                          > Technology and Texas A&M were involved. Trhe new methodology uses
                          > quanrtu cascade lasers(QCLs). The technique stacks alternaing
                          > semiconductor layers within a waveguide parameter forming an optical
                          > cavity. A quote from the work says, "As charge carriers cascade down
                          > to induced stepped potential well of the layers emitting photons..the
                          > individual transitions between the layers are low-energy jumps [and]
                          > the photons are typically in the mid- or even far-infrared." I'm
                          > hopeful this will stimulate more thought from your perceptive mind.
                          > They found it was critical to create a single quantum cascade laser
                          > that operates at two closely spaced frequencies. Nonlinear
                          > interaction within the interior of the QCL cavity allows two waves
                          > that are mixed and generate "a new frequency at the difference
                          > between the two- which turns out to be in the terahertz range."
                          > They grew layers of InGaAs and InAlAs(not surprising given InGaAs
                          > very versatile attributes). GaInAs served as a spacer between the
                          > alternating layers of the previouly mentioned materials.
                          > The Capasso laboratory at Harvard School of Engineering and Applied
                          > Sciences has more details. This is a rather recent development.
                          > In nonlinera optics things such the coupled wave equation, Born
                          > approximation, nonlinera Schrodinger and wave mixing as it is a
                          > photon interaction process comes into play. Of course this process of
                          > wave-mixing includes the energy exchange among any interacting
                          > waves. When we consider the Schrodinger in this instance we get into
                          > a graded-index waveguide. But it goes a bit further. In the case of
                          > Capasso and team's work the modulation of the cross phase wasn't
                          > problematic. Indeed it was conducive to their efforts to emit
                          > optimized frequencies at both 80 Kelvin and 300nW at room
                          > temperature. Personally I think this is a p[retty important
                          > breakthrough. It overcomes therestrictions of using some additional
                          > equipment.
                          > The QCLs uses a single carrier usually which is the electron. Each
                          > of the electrons creat many photon. I'll spare the details but the
                          > electron is injected into band. The biase of the wells aids the
                          > process. If I'm not mistaken there were some other room temperature
                          > experiments using arrays. All this should help in the areas of
                          > chemical sensors, spectroscopy and as you mention analyzing gases.
                          >
                          > I'm trying to think of the word or phrase you are searching for.
                          > maybe it is a sort of transformational topological transition. I
                          > dunno. I'll reread and ponder. Its almost a gauge field thing. I
                          > think it would help alot of research to think more in terms of
                          > vibration and oscillations as well as fields and waves. As one
                          > science author, who I cannot remember, sees things as a history of
                          > processes. Many miht 'wave' this off as 'oh yea i know what you
                          > mean.' But I believe it deserves more than fleeting thoughts.
                          >
                          > The Pyramid is an interesting form. The preservation phenomenon is
                          > very intriguing. Since my train of thought just left the station I'll
                          > stop here.
                          > Have a good one and I look forward to further conversation.
                          > David
                          >
                          > -- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, michael1@... wrote:
                          >>
                          >> Dear David,
                          >> Your posts have been sterling. In all the range of issues.
                          >> I am going through the last post on overall wave/(some particle)
                          > imaging.
                          >> What a mind. Few can see such complexities and simplify areas that
                          > need
                          >> it. However, I am still fixed on a prior post sentence of yours
                          > regarding
                          >> terahertz: "…It (terahertz) is very much along the lines
                          > of 'vibrations'
                          >> of biomoleculars in biosystems. it can be used to characterize
                          >> composites, elctrical and vibrational properties of all 3 main
                          > phases of
                          >> matter. however it cannot penetrate water or metallices…."
                          >>
                          >> You have me so focused on "…cannot penetrate water…".
                          >>
                          >> Please understand I was drawn here kicking a screaming because of
                          > the
                          >> dodecahedral plates of fullerenes. I have only another `angle' on
                          >> geometry that is all, (and with a weak education in chemistry).
                          >>From what
                          >> I now understand we wrongly visualize 3-D forms. In any crystal we
                          > see
                          >> the facets/stella and forget that the plates that formed each one
                          > extend
                          >> out. Example would be a known experiment of Bucky Fuller. Dyes
                          > were
                          >> placed in a liquid in a balloon. Balloon was vibrated and shapes
                          >> appeared, in one case a tetrahedron. But it wasn't. There were
                          > the four
                          >> plates extending to the sides of the balloon. Tetrahedron was the
                          >> recognized concept so that was put out. In my view of a 3-D
                          > geometry this
                          >> is not splitting hairs.
                          >>
                          >> Things coming to mind: Kepler's `Reflections on the Six Cornered
                          >> Snowflake'. (Common denominator in a sense).
                          >>
                          >> First is the ability with geometry to greatly lower the freezing
                          >> temperature of water. AND that simply stirring the water reverts it
                          > back
                          >> to normal.
                          >>
                          >> Work of Alexander Golod. (These findings are now accepted/proved
                          > again
                          >> and again)
                          >> (quote)…
                          >> "…2. Even at –40° C regular water does not freeze inside the Pyramid
                          >> Several plastic bottles with regular water were placed inside the
                          > Pyramid
                          >> and their state was observed within a period of three winter
                          > months. The
                          >> water was not freezing and had all the properties of a liquid
                          > during this
                          >> whole period. The lowest air temperature inside the Pyramid was –40°
                          > C.
                          >> Measuring water temperature inside the bottles showed that it was
                          > the same
                          >> as the temperature of the air (i.e. the water was not freezing even
                          > when
                          >> its temperature was –40°C).
                          >> However, it was noted during this research, that if a bottle of
                          > this water
                          >> was shaken or hit, a crystallization process was beginning inside
                          > and the
                          >> water was turning into ice within 3-20 seconds (depending on the
                          > degree of
                          >> water super cooling). …"
                          >> http://www.rexresearch.com/golod/golod.htm
                          >> (unquote)
                          >> (Do not let work `pyramid' throw you. We are talking of giant
                          > machines,
                          >> 22 now inside Russia and the Ukraine. One use is greatly reducing
                          > risk of
                          >> cancer. Media there is very much behind the project.)
                          >> Now going to what I see as confusion when we went from X-Ray
                          > diffraction
                          >> to the 230 crystal symmetry conditions. Feel something was
                          > overlooked.
                          >> Back to water: radio waves have trouble in water, etc. This might
                          > seem
                          >> like quite a zigzag but then comes in Kepler again and his odd
                          > polyhedron
                          >> machine pictured in every physics textbook. Why was it `just in the
                          >> ballpark'? (Feel it relates to CDT)
                          >> Here is a guy just using NASA figures and getting more out his pc
                          > than the
                          >> Hubble. I think he will be a Tycho Brahe to the next Kepler: John
                          >> Martineau.
                          >> http://www.halexandria.org/dward116.htm
                          >> Essentially he adds more geometry and gets the basic concept down
                          > into
                          >> 99.9% range.
                          >> No `theory' just `coincidence'.
                          >> I am getting a feeling that when we classify as `crystal'
                          > vs `amorphous'
                          >> we overlook something. Is liquid water still `amorphous' because it
                          >> `un-froze'? Perhaps the geometric patterns suddenly became
                          >> `?faster/more-complex/non-measurable?' ?
                          >> And that this is true with ALL substance but water has a more basic
                          >> characteristic of being able to enter more of the geometry. This
                          > is sort
                          >> of like houses and us. Inside you can dance around, do as you like,
                          >> bothered only by the position of the walls. Same for your
                          > neighbor. Out
                          >> on the street you must follow other rules, (cross at crosswalks),
                          > but the
                          >> limitation of walls has gone. Imagine a `snap' where the walls of
                          > all the
                          >> houses `snap' to a bigger house and that because of the geometry it
                          > is a
                          >> simplification of all house walls. All you then see is dancing in
                          > the
                          >> streets your insides being unfroze. But you still follow some
                          > rules as
                          >> does water.
                          >> We know we cannot compare an atom to a solar system. CDT gives us
                          > the
                          >> appearance of space-time as varying between an `atom' on the
                          > Quantum with
                          >> somewhat fractalish in the middle and some odd shape as
                          > everything. How
                          >> is `causal' defined in CDT? It seems to be a combination. Dominos
                          >> tipping over in sequence are often used as description. But some
                          > small
                          >> dominos can start a cycle that tips over one big domino stopping
                          > bigger
                          >> sequence and one big one can crash out a whole bunch of small
                          > sequences.
                          >> CDT seems to have combined all this. I am thinking here of the
                          > major
                          >> difference between Quantum and `other'.
                          >> Here I think of time as we normally do. The atom seems far more
                          > lasting.
                          >> One carbon to another, "Weren't you part of Alexander the Great's
                          > shoe".
                          >> "Hummm, some memory but I would need check my macro-diary." Not
                          > so with
                          >> other stuff. I feel solar systems `desire' to Quantum-atize but
                          > can't.
                          >> They keep trying but something jumps in starting a whole new
                          > complex of
                          >> perturbations and they keep trying. Still, as with Martineau
                          > above, some
                          >> sort of geometric patterns keep emerging in the process.
                          >> I do not know the correct term, but at least in some sense, it is
                          > basic in
                          >> science that `cause' does not have one center/origin. Creation, the
                          >> creation process, to us personally seems limited. We can do some
                          > things
                          >> but get thwarted in others. Almost like a learning process,
                          >> `creators-in-training'. Cause is then coming from many
                          > sources/locations
                          >> on various levels of proficiency.
                          >> Not so with atoms. They last a long time. Finding the
                          > fundamentals of
                          >> the creative process they can `limit', (quanta-tize), to those
                          > actions
                          >> that will work, sort of superimpositions, in just those areas.
                          > They know
                          >> what cooperative actions will not interfere with others. "Hey,
                          > Hydro,
                          >> want to dance with Oxy a bit and play `water'?" "Why not?"
                          >> Nanoscience (best term, thanks, David) is in area not only between
                          > quanta
                          >> and normal mechanical but in area where `cause/creators' last most
                          > then
                          >> going to area where it starts to have problems surviving. More
                          > potential
                          >> here for all science.
                          >> Pulsed terahertz might have some of the same oddities as pulsed
                          >> microwaves. When micros pulsed they turn to kinetic energy when
                          > hitting
                          >> an object. It was found early, over twenty years ago, that it would
                          >> therefore (at right range) rock the head of a human separately from
                          > the
                          >> thorax. Therefore it rocked the bone armature that produces
                          > hearing. It
                          >> was first thought, such as on naval ships, it could be put in as
                          > sound
                          >> warning if you were too close to micro. Then it went underground,
                          >> perfected, and you could put music and voices in a person's head.
                          > Many
                          >> horrid experiments in the prison system. But in that same sense
                          > could
                          >> terahertz look at what we call amorphous material and see `moving
                          >> crystal-like' patterns? A sort of XRD of amorphous?
                          >> Back to terahertz blocked by water and metal: And switching type of
                          >> vibration to sound.
                          >> An oddity of sound is reported in the standard Handbook of Physics
                          > and
                          >> Chemistry done by Bell Labs in the 50s. Sound travels much faster
                          > in some
                          >> gases, (if memory serves metal gases), than in other gases which
                          > are much
                          >> heaver. Does not fit normal, `motor boat sound is louder when you
                          > put
                          >> your head under water' common sense. In the sense that metals can
                          > be
                          >> conductors (but perhaps not in same fashion) the alignments in what
                          > looks
                          >> like amorphous pass the sound quicker. I don't think anything
                          > vibrates
                          >> `at random'. Back to terahertz I see water and metal blocking in
                          > two
                          >> different ways. 1- metals have a specific pattern that interrupts
                          >> terahertz. Water has more of `all-pattern' (still not amorphous) and
                          >> therefore enough of the metal pattern.
                          >> There has been yet another request for simplified information in
                          > the form
                          >> of a nanoscience book on this list. I think the market would be
                          > more
                          >> giant and long lasting than publishers realize. But it would be a
                          >> difficult project. At first one would think that because
                          > nanoscience
                          >> combines so much high-end science you would need to start at a high
                          > level.
                          >> Why? This is combining math/biology/physics/chemistry anyway. I
                          > would
                          >> aim toward eighth grade and with nanoscience start teaching all
                          > together.
                          >> At first that seems daunting. However, done right it would work.
                          > Good
                          >> science books do level. Start with concept and divide it into
                          >> beginning/middle/advanced. Read one level through to comprehension
                          > and go
                          >> to next level. For these sorts of projects you would want the
                          > writers and
                          >> graphics people not to be too educated in the field and in the
                          > process of
                          >> learning also. There is where good simplification comes
                          > in. `Editorial'
                          >> would be far more work than normal, at least three go-rounds for
                          > each
                          >> little section. The expertise would come more from the editorial
                          >> standpoint that is directing too. Done right and updated it would
                          > do very
                          >> well. As a strange forerunner go down and look at kid's toys.
                          > Popular
                          >> now are erector types sets that cannot do shapes such as boxes-
                          > they just
                          >> fall apart. But dodecahedrons, tetrahedrons and such are a cinch
                          > and kids
                          >> build them naturally. This is for 5 year olds. Put two
                          > kindergarten kids
                          >> together and they are popping out fullerenes. There is also for 2
                          > and 3
                          >> year olds a very popular elastic toy that is very cheap and I have
                          > seen
                          >> them all over. It is an expandable icosahedron with little sticks
                          > that
                          >> show all the golden mean relationships. Parents love them. Kids
                          > love
                          >> them. Neither knows what they are. Preparation?
                          >> Michael
                          >>
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.