otherhealth.com  

Go Back   otherhealth.com > Homeopathy > Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 17th June 2003, 06:45 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Hampshire, England
Posts: 204
Timokay
Post

http://paul-ashley.com/copboxchesla.html

or this

http://www.noisyboy.com/fn3204.html

http://www.tigerlily.com/tlcbx489.htm

http://www.sensorsmag.com/articles/0300/38/main.shtml

OT,

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 Photocathode

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.

http://www.ibh.co.uk/products/products.htm

http://www.ibh.co.uk/products/system...5000acc_08.htm

[ 18. June 2003, 16:37: Message edited by: Timokay ]
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 19th June 2003, 06:09 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Hampshire, England
Posts: 204
Timokay
Angry

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 ]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:28 PM.



The information contained on OtherHealth.com arises by way of discussion between contributors and should not be treated as a substitute for the advice provided by your own personal physician or other health care professional. None of the contributions on this site are an endorsement by the site owners of any particular product, or a recommendation as to how to treat any particular disease or health-related condition. If you suspect you have a disease or health-related condition of any kind, you should contact your own health care professional immediately. Please read the BB Rules for further details.
Please consult personally with your own health care professional before starting any diet, exercise, supplementation or medication program.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2005-2012 otherhealth.com
For books in the UK visit our sister site Dealpond.com

SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2