I have a Mark 2 Prototype design for the enamometer, a design dictated by the shape of the Photomultiplier detector mentioned earlier.
The detector head (called a photocathode) is not much bigger than a pen (5mm diameter). A paste from that site :
START OF PASTE
The Channel photomultiplier’s active areas are circular end-window types. The photocathode is deposited as a semitransparent layer directly on the inside of the window. The 5 mm diameter active area type is designed for use in diffuse and directly coupled light source applications as well as for photon counting and laser light detection.
Window Material. The optical transmission of the window influences the spectrum of light reaching the photocathode. The window material is particularly important when measuring UV light. Photomultipliers are manufactured with the following window materials, whose transmission properties are given in Figure 2 :
• Borosilicate glass. This is suitable for incident light of wavelength >300 nm.
• UV glass. The UV cutoff is ~185 nm.
END OF PASTE
We need both of those glass windows for the suspected 200-600ish or 700ish nm range.
So, the new design of the emanometer could be a copper tube of internal diameter about 6mm for the photocathode to slip into. The thickness of the copper of the tube should be *at* *least* 1/2-1".
The tube should be about 9" long (so that it can hold and screen the photocathode. The tube should be sealed at the other end.
Expt 1 : Two pinches of lactose sugar (what pills are made of) into the tube, slip photocathode in, seal the ending, and switch on. No photons.
Shake the lactose out of tube. Crush two high-potency Hom medicine pills with a spoon and drop powder into the copper tube, slip photocathode in again and seal, and measure again.
Hey presto! Photons. Our first milestone.
See more on that website using search :
Channel Photomultiplier Operation
The site I am referring to is first on the search list.
We probably wouldn't need such a fancy photomultipler - an older one would probably do the job just as well.
Anyone got a photomultiplier.
[ 18. June 2003, 16:37: Message edited by: Timokay ]
Mind the Gap
This discussion is about a significant but scientifically unproven property of water, also associated with all other polar solvents. There is a mass of evidence to support the existence of this physical property, including many unexplained phenomena, water crystal forms, a medical system involving millions of people, but it has remained unproven Scientifically.
The Scientists most closely suited to address this issue are the physicists, particularly those involved in Electricity & Magnetism or Quantum Theory of Magnetism. Why have they failed to discover the phenomenon?
Those who laid the foundation stones of physics in the area of Electricity and Magnetism in the 19th century, e.g. Faraday ????, studied the subject from the very beginning, from first principles. This began as tinkering with wires and simple electric currents, observing what happened, developed theories for what was happening, making ingenious modifications to test their theories, some of which later became laws.
It is difficult for Scientists today to understand that Science began with tinkering like this - "most Unscientific, but in Science something was out there that needed to be explained, and they accomplished it, to become the most senior proponents of their field - true Scientists - because they fulfilled the need to understand it.
Suppose there was a need, today, for somebody to do research like this again, from scratch. Could any SDcientist today be able do it?
After Faraday's and others work, and Maxwell's Equations, had formed the foundations of this subject, Physics built upon this work, developing into many subdivisions, and eventually into the Science it is today, with Physicists ever more speciaalized in one field or abnother.
Faraday's work on electricity and magnetism did not extend to liquids for several reasons. Firstly, there was no unexplained phenomenon like this known to exist in liquids. Secondly, being liquids, the Chemists not the Physicists would be expected to address the research, because there is a general demarcation line between Physics and Chemistry in which the Chemists address liquids and Physics addresses physical properties of solids. But who should really address the physical properties of liquids?
[ 20. June 2003, 13:05: Message edited by: Timokay ]
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Electronic Reactions||Timokay||Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy||11||21st October 2008 01:41 PM|
|Work under construction||Timokay||Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy||14||9th July 2003 10:33 AM|
|The BIG questions||Timokay||Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy||59||12th May 2003 05:17 PM|