Beautiful, Beautiful, Page
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <6c07d9$d...@suriname.earthlink.net>
ro...@tlerll.earthlink.net (Tlerll) writes:
> So follow-up to sci.engr, now.
> --
> Sky Dayton, Charles G. Betty, Bob Johnson, Barry W. Hall,
> Ms. Carol Cross. Okay, but biotechnology is more appropriate
Well, the first is biotech and the second is engr.
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/File028.html
patent application on cancer work
by Archimedes Plutonium
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS
Washington, D.C. 20231
APPLICATION NUMBER FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
08/844,566 04/21/97 PLUTONIUM A
ATTY DOCKET NO.
18N2/1103 EXAMINER
ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM ALLEN, M
HB 6165 DARTMOUTH
HANOVER NH 03755
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1817
DATE MAILED: 11/03/97
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning
this application or proceeding.
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
PTO-90C (Rev. 2/95)
U.S. GPO: 1997-422-198/60031 2 Mail Copy
----------------------------
OFFICE ACTION SUMMARY
Application No. 08/844,566 Applicant(s) Plutonium
Examiner Marianne Allen Group Art Unit 1817
[] Responsive to communication(s) filed on -------------
[] This action is FINAL.
[] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for
formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance
with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11; 453 O.G. 213.
A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to
expire --3-- month(s), or thirty days, whichever is longer, from the
mailing date of this communication. Failure to respond within the
period for response will cause the application to become abandoned. (35
U.S.C. § 133). Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions
of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Disposition of Claims
[X]Claim(s) 1-4 ------------- is/are pending in the application.
Of the above, claim(s) -----------is/are withdrawn from consideration.
[] Claim(s) ---------------- is/are allowed.
[X] Claim(s) 1-4 ------------- is/are rejected.
[] Claim(s) --------------- is/are objected to.
[] Claim(s) -------------are subject to restriction or election
requirement.
Application Papers
[] See the attached Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review,
PTO-948.
[] The drawing(s) filed on ---------is/are objected to by the Examiner.
[] The proposed drawing correction, filed on --------is [] approved []
disapproved.
[] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
[] The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner.
Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
[] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35
U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d).
[] All [] Some* [] None of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority
documents have been
[] received.
[] received in Application No. (Series Code/Serial Number) ----------.
[] received in this national stage application from the International
Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
*Certified copies not received: ----------
[] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for domestic priority under 35
U.S.C. § 119(e).
Attachment(s)
[X] Notice of Reference Cited, PTO-892
[] Information Disclosure Statement(s), PTO-1449, Paper No(s). -------
[] Interview Summary, PTO-413
[] Notice of Draftperson's Patent Drawing Review, PTO-948
[] Notice of Informal Patent Application, PTO-152
---SEE OFFICE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES---
U. S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-326 (Rev. 9-95) Office Action Summary Part of Paper
No. 2
-------------------------
Serial Number: 08/844,566 Page 2
Art Unit: 1817
The application is objected to because of alterations which
have not
been initialed and/or dated as is required by 37 CFR 1.52(c). A
properly executed oath or declaration which complies with 37 CFR
1.67(a) and identifies the application by application number and filing
date is required.
Each page of the specification contains undated alterations.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of
the
disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical
disclosure
of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which
the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire
technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be
directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an
improvement in an old
apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should
include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain
patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the
process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract
should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof If the new
technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the
abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or
alternative.
The abstract should not refer to purported merits or
speculative
applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with
the prior art.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and
operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not
be
given.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an
abstract of the disclosure.
-------------------------
Serial Number: 08/844,566
Page 3
Art Unit: 1817
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited
to a
single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 250
words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 250 words in length
since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by
the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in
patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The
abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers
in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the frill patent
text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat
information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can
be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns,"
"The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes,"
etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is
embedded
within the specification at pages 2-3 and not on a separate sheet of
paper. The abstract should follow the claims. The abstract as written
fails to set forth the intended method steps of the claimed invention.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75© as being in improper
form
because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the
alternative only (e.g. "claim 1 or 2"). See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Currently, claim 3 refers to both claims 1 and 2.
Claims 1-4 provide for the use of DC and AC electric pulses and
the
use of radiology, but, since the claims do not set forth any steps
involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process
applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it
merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how
this use is actually practiced.
-------------------------
Serial Number: 08/844,566 Page 4
Art Unit: 1817
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the
process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results
in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See
for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical
Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
Applicant is advised that a method claim usually takes the
form, "A
method for treating XXX comprising administering or applying to a
patient in need thereof an effective amount of XXX."
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph,
as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification
in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains,
or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the
invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 appear to be directed to methods of treating
disease
by applying direct current (DC) or alternating current (AC) electric
pulses. The specification fails to disclose how these electric pulses
are to be applied (dosage, means of administration, location,
intensity, frequency, duration). The specification fails to demonstrate
that any disease state could be so treated and it would constitute
undue experimentation to determine how to apply DC or AC electric
pulses to achieve the desired effect, particularly as the effect
desired is not clear in the specification or the claims.
-------------------------
Serial Number: 08/844,566 Page 5
Art Unit: 1817
It cannot be determined from the specification what "virus
immunity"
and "DNA regenerative growth stimulation" mean. These are not
conventional phrases in this field. It is unclear whether these are
diseases to be treated or desired outcomes of treatment. The
specification sets forth no assays to determine when these states are
present or achieved. As such, these elements of the claims are not
enabled.
Claims 2-3 appear to be directed to methods of treating disease
by
applying photon or particle rays. The claims do not make clear if these
are to be applied as alternative choices or together. The specification
fails to disclose how these various rays are to be applied (dosage,
means of administration, intensity, frequency, duration, location). The
specification fails to demonstrate that any disease state could be so
treated and it would constitute undue experimentation to determine how
to apply photon or particle rays to achieve the desired effect,
particularly as the effect desired is not clear in the specification or
the claims. It is noted that there is no evidence that exposure to
sunlight (photon rays) is effective for treating Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's disease, and/or prion diseases. The examiner is aware of no
references in the literature where a beneficial effect has been
observed when patients suffering from these conditions are exposed to
sunlight.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, the specification does not
appear to
provide any guidance as to applying DC and AC electric pulses at the
same time as photon or particle rays. That is, no devices or protocols
where both are administered simultaneously appear to be disclosed.
-------------------------
Serial Number: 08/844,566 Page 6
Art Unit: 1817
Applicant is advised that the court held in In re Colianni, 195
USPQ
150, that claims to methods of treatment where the specification fails
to disclose methods and amounts of administration or how those skilled
in the art might select the appropriate parameters do not meet the
requirements of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. A general disclosure of
different forms of radiant energy does not overcome this deficiency.
The specification does not disclose how to convert or adapt any of the
devices mentioned for use in these therapeutic applications.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph,
as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 3-4 lack antecedent basis in claims 1 and 2 for the term
"application."
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of
35
U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section
made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless --
(b) the invention was patented or described in a
printed publication
in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this
country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent
in the United States.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated
by
Swartz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,269,302).
Swartz et al. discloses electroconvulsive therapy in which 140
bipolar
pulses/second of 1 msec width are applied to a patient. (See abstract,
claims, and column 1, lines 34-45.)
-------------------------
Serial Number: 08/844,566 Page 7
Art Unit: 1817
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated
by
Sandyk (U.S. Patent No. 5,470,846).
Sandyk et al. discloses a method of treating neurological
disorders by
application to the brain of the patient AC pulsed magnetic field.
Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease are specifically mentioned.
(See abstract, claims, figures, and column 7, lines 44-61.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated
by
Fishman (U.S. Patent No. 5,271,401).
Fishman discloses applying x-rays to patients for imaging
purposes.
Alzheimer's patients are specifically mentioned. (See abstract, claims,
and column 7, lines 11-20.)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) which forms
the
basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this
title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over
Sandyk (U.S. Patent No. 5,470,846) in view of Fishman (U.S. Patent No.
5,271,401).
Sandyk and Fishman are applied as above. Neither reference
teaches the
combination of applying DC and AC electric pulses in conjunction with
photon or particle rays. It is noted that the claim does not clearly
set forth a temporal relationship between these two treatments.
-------------------------
Serial Number: 08/844,566 Page 8
Art Unit: 1817
Therefore, it would have been obvious to treat an Alzheimer's
patient
with the AC pulsed magnetic field as taught by Sandyk and then apply
x-rays to patients for imaging purposes as taught by Fishman. One would
have been motivated to do so in order to monitor the effects of the
Sandyk treatment.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over
Sandyk (U.S. Patent No. 5,470,846) in view of the specification at
pages 18-19.
Sandyk et al. is applied as above and further teaches that
impaired
pineal function can be related to cancer. (See column 2, lines 46-50.)
The reference does not disclose radiology treatment of cancer diseases.
The specification admits on pages 18-19 that radiation therapy
for
cancer would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the
art.
It would have been obvious to treat a cancer patient where the
pineal
function is affected by combining the radiation therapy well known to
those of ordinary skill in the art with the treatment of Sandyk et al.
to improve impaired pineal function. It is well known in the art to
combine therapies for their complementary benefits. For example,
radiation therapy and chemotherapy are frequently combined to treat
cancer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier
communications
from the examiner should be directed to .... [deleted] ...
CANCER ALZHEIMER PARKINSON PRION DISEASE TREATMENTS
Inventor: Archimedes Plutonium
Assignees: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
Appl. No.: 08/844,566
Filing Date: 04/21/97
DRWGS: 0
TOT CL: 4
IND CL: 4
Related U.S. Application Data: CLONING ADULT HUMANS/ANIMALS:
TOTIPOTENT TECHNIQUES 08/772,300
REFERENCES CITED
{1} RADIOLOGY: An Illustrated History, Ronald Eisenberg, 1992.
{2} SCIENCE NEWS 1FEB97, page 72, titled "The latest salvo in the prion
debate."
{3} NATURE 11APR96 pp481-482, titled "Why don't plants get cancer?".
{4} The film STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR, 1936, Warner Brothers.
{5} DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC BIOGRAPHY, 1974, vol X, pp 350-416, Louis
Pasteur.
{6} Internet, posts to the Internet.
{7} SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, SEPT1996.
{8} SCIENCE NEWS, 27APR96, p261, titled "Hints of virus reemerge in
breast cancer"
{9} Encyclopedia Britannica 1992
{10} NATURE vol 380 7 March 1996, page 64.
{11} NATURE vol 385 27 February 1997, pages 810-813.
{12} MEDICAL ONCOLOGY 2nd ed., 1993, Calabresi & Schein, page 259
{13} INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY, BIOLOGY, PHYSICS,
1995, Mar 30; 31(5) pages 1093-1112 titled "Radiation response of the
central nervous system".
{14} EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1994; 30A(10), pages 1577-1583. Titled
"Prospects for proton-beam radiotherapy".
{15} CA: A Cancer Journal For Clinicians 1994 Mar-Apr; 44(2): pp96-108,
titled "Radiotherapy for brain tumors".
{16} ADVANCES IN CARDIOLOGY vol 38, 1996, titled "The Implantable
Defibrillator" L. Jordaens, page 137.
{17} A www site (and in this instance one of Hewlett-Packard)
{18} BUSINESS WEEK, 24 March 1997, page 34.
ABSTRACT
Cancer tumors and the many forms of cancer are fought by physics
radiology. Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease and prion diseases
are different forms of cancer. Cancer disease is uncontrolled
replication of cells. Alzheimer and prion diseases are uncontrolled
replication of proteins. Cancer, Alzheimer, prion and Parkinson are all
different forms of the same disease-- virus protein missiles. Various
protein sites in the cell are the sites for all of these diseases.
These protein sites go awry from a virus protein missile shot by the
virus to kill the host. Since cancer is treatable by radiology, then
treatment for all of these different forms of cancer is radiology.
Physics radiology consists of (1) photon rays such as ultraviolet rays
or x-rays or gamma rays, and (2) particle rays such as proton or
neutron or electron or pion rays or alpha particle rays. Now a new form
and function of radiology by means of DC and AC electrical pulses that
serves to immunize the cell and cell DNA from viruses and virus
missiles and to stimulate growth of cells and cell DNA is applied for.
DETAILED HISTORY OF THE INVENTION
X-rays were discovered by W. Roentgen 8NOV1895 of the acceleration
and deceleration of electrons in a Hittorf-Crookes tube.
Radioactivity was discovered 1MAR1896 by Becquerel from uranium salts
on photographic plates.
Therapeutic Radiology began circa 1896, and one case describes
treating a gastric carcinoma {1}, and other cases describe treating
acne simplex and ringworm etc.
Roughly a 100 years ago from the date of this patent application was
radiology started. But the theory behind this patent application was
started roughly 110 years ago with Pasteur circa 1886. And as far as I
can tell, Pasteur never wrote down this theory but I can assume that
the idea of this theory was in Pasteur' s mind.
The history of the theory of this invention starts, I am assuming,
with Louis Pasteur, but before I get to him I should outline my history
of the invention. Mine starts with prion disease and what is prion
disease and what is Alzheimer disease and what is Parkinson disease?
And the idea soon came to me that prion disease looks so much like
cancer, so similar to cancer in rarity and the consequences to the
organism and so I started to equate cancer with that of prion disease
in 1996. And I had known from reading journals about prion and
Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases that there was no consensus as to what
truly causes these diseases. Noone believed that Alzheimer and
Parkinson were virus in origin except me, and a few scientists believed
that prion disease was a virus in origin. Those few scientists would
start to be vindicated by early 1997 as the news reports of prion
disease yet no prion proteins present{2}, which implies prion diseases
are virus in origin. So, I had equated prion disease with cancer and I
knew that a few biologists believed prion disease is a virus in
origin. Thereby in 1996 I had equated cancer to prion disease to
viruses, in short I was working with this formula, Cancer = Alzheimer
= Parkinson = prion disease = virus. And since radiology is a good
treatment for cancer, implies that radiology offers a treatment for
Alzheimer, Parkinson, and prion diseases. My notes for a quick survey
of radiology equipment and dosage treatment I found in RADIOLOGY {1}
--- my notes from book RADIOLOGY ---
(a) Stanford linear accelerator 1 million volt x-rays
(b) General Electric equipment supplying 700,000-volt x-ray beam
(c) conventional 200,000-volt x-ray units
(d) gamma-ray beam from a 44 gram pack of radium
(e) cobalt-60 radiation therapy unit emitted gamma rays at two specific
energy levels 1.17 and 1.35 million volts
(f) Neutron beams were produced by Lawrence*s cyclotron at Berkeley.
It was shown that neutron ionization, in comparison with the effects of
x-rays, was far more localized and thus much more intense where it
occurred. Initial experiments showed that a dose of neutrons could kill
as many tumor cells as an x-ray dose four or five times greater. ..
effect on surrounding tissue ... should not be continued
(g) electron beam therapy... enormous quantities of 1.5 million-volt
electrons could readily be extracted from a Van de Graaff machine. ...
monoenergetic since they all carried approximately the same energy they
would produce ionization at approximately the same depth and spare
deeper tissues below. 40 million volts produced by betatrons and
linear accelerators showed advantages of electron radiation include
easy manipulation, convenient adjustment of the depth of penetration of
radiation, absence of increased bone dose, and satisfactory dose
distribution in most cases. disadvantages limitation of field size to
24 x 24 cm and problems in setting up multiple fields without hot
spots, cold spots and overlapping . Frequent severe skin reactions
which could be reduced by using pulsed-scanning beams. Electron beam
therapy is currently used in some centers in situations not
satisfactorily managed by photon beam therapy alone, such as the
irradiation of large areas of potentially infiltrated skin, in
laterized lesions to spare destruction of the opposite side.
--- end of my notes from book RADIOLOGY ---
I had read an article{3} about plants not getting cancer; I asked
myself what is it with plants that they do not get cancer? Is it some
structural phenomenon that is cancer? So I asked myself what is
structurally different with plants from that of animals and the answer
I found was that plants have few proteins whereas animals are chock
full of proteins. Are proteins necessary to animals for mobility sake?
And are cancers structural weaknesses in animal proteins? Thus I came
to the stage in my theoretical development that cancer was a protein
structure failure, and that somewhere in the DNA is a weakness, a site
where proteins go awry and that structural failure is the cause of a
specific cancer.
And I read this article about plants seldom getting cancer and had
to explore this idea.
--- quoting in part NATURE 11APR96 pp481-482 ---
Cell Cycle: Why don't plants get cancer?
Extra cells in an animal are dangerous because they usually turn
into tumours, but in plants any extra cells can simply be incorporated
into normal tissues. In fact, plants as a group are remarkably
resistant to neoplastic transformation -- the common plant tumours
arise only as a result of complex interactions with specialized
pathogens such as Agrobacterium or gall-forming insects. They are
unscathed by their constant exposure to high levels of ionizing
radiation in the form of ultra-violet light, which in animals leads to
DNA damage and eventually cancer. Such a striking disparity with
animals may indicate that this resistance is built into the way plants
develop. Although the molecular basis for this apparent difference is
undoubtedly multifactorial, . . .
Control of cell growth and division in plants ought, you would
think, to be a crucial determinant of the final size and shape of
leaves, shoots, stems and roots, whose structures under the microscope
record the history of past divisions. But the experiments of Doerner
et al . . . in transgenic plants, . . .
Doerner et al. managed to increase the number of cells in the roots
of their transgenic Arabidopsis plants by tampering with the expression
of B-cyclin, one of a family of proteins that act in conjunction with a
group of phosphorylating enzymes known as CDKs (for cyclin-dependent
kinases) to alter the activity of key proteins responsible for the
division of plant and animal cells (see figure). Expression of B-cyclin
genes in plants normally occurs only during a very brief period just
before cell division. Doerner et al. inserted extra copies of gene
encoding B-cyclin into the genome of Arabidopsis where its expression
was artificially boosted by a promoter that is active in all normally
proliferating cells. They found that the number of cells in the roots
was significantly increased: the roots were longer, but otherwise
looked entirely normal.
...... Whatever the mechanism by which they arise, the fate of these
extra cells is informative-- the plant incorporates them into its
normal body plan and carries on regardless, except faster. This is
probably due to the way in which plants develop: they undergo extensive
postembryonic organ formation from undifferentiated proliferative zones
called meristems. As cells leave the meristematic region, division
rates decline, and cell identity is determined almost entirely by the
position of one cell relative to its neighbours, rather than by its
genealogy.
--- end quoting NATURE in part ---
Comparing the percentage of proteins in plant organisms to animal,
the nitrogen fixing plants, legumes and beans have the highest
proportion of proteins in plants and they are the most susceptible to
cancer galls.
Anyway, a definition of protein goes somewhat like this. A protein
is a polymer of amino acids. There are approximately 20 different amino
acids. So for a string of 10 amino acids there are 10^20 different
proteins. But a string of 10 amino acids is a very small protein. On
average, proteins have lengths of 100 amino acids, such as for example
insulin.
A plant like other living organisms is mostly water, about 70%. Yet
viruses have no water. A plant is mostly water with cellulose which is
a starch and then there is carbohydrate. Thus organisms are mostly
water with some carbohydrate and then some proteins. What is the
fraction of carbohydrate to proteins in mammals versus plants?
Only the bean family as I remember have a lot more proteins than
other plants. Do beans get cancers or gall growths more often than
other plants? That is, are the high protein content plants more
susceptible to cancers?
How much of the human body is protein content?
But on deeper research, since it is known for sure that some
cancers are directly caused by viruses, I realized that viruses have a
connection with cancer, and this connection is perhaps not just some
specific cancers but for all cancers. So then the idea that cancer is a
protein site gone awry became more generalized to say that cancer is
prion disease is a virus attack. By attack I mean sort of like a
missile, where the virus fires a missile of perhaps its protein coat or
some strand of its RNA or DNA which sabotages the host organisms DNA
and causes it to go cancerous. And reviewing the history of disease,
especially with Pasteur in book and encyclopedia and even in movie from
the film STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR {4} where the actor-Pasteur says words
to the effect.
"....Almost all diseases are caused by some microorganism."
Having watched the movie STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR, I wanted to quote
Pasteur' s exact words where he speculated the extent of disease caused
by microorganisms but the best I could do was words to the effect in
the film " that almost all diseases are caused by microbes." I would
appreciate if a historian of Pasteur would locate for me Pasteur' s
best quote on the idea " that almost all diseases are caused by
microorganisms." And I suspect there are no Pasteur quotes to that
effect because I suspect that Pasteur may have had the idea in his mind
but never wrote it down. So I am going to assume that Pasteur had this
idea-- ... Almost all diseases are caused by some microbe.
I have made a search in the literature for such a Pasteur quote and
was unsuccessful but the following quotes{5} are instructive.
--- quoting in parts Dictionary of Scientific Biography 1974 vol X, pp
350-416---
Louis Pasteur b 1822 ... d 1895 ... crystallography, chemistry,
microbiology, immunology.
No one insisted more strongly than Pasteur himself on the degree to
which his pragmatic concerns grew out of his prior basic research. He
saw the progression from crystallography through fermentation to
disease as not only natural but virtually inevitable; he had been
"enchained," he wrote.....
Late in life, Pasteur indulged in similar speculation and expressed
regret that he had abandoned his youthful researches before fully
resolving the relationship between asymmetry and life.....
Pasteur and Medicine: The Background. Almost from the beginning of his
work on fermentation and spontaneous generation, Pasteur made frequent
references to its potential medical implications. Sharing the common
belief that fermentation and disease were analogous processes, he
naturally supposed that the germ theory could apply to disease as well
as to fermentation-- as Theodor Schwann, among others, had supposed
before him. In fact, in the late 1850's, when Pasteur began his study
of fermentation and spontaneous generation, the status of the germ
theory of disease paralleled almost precisely the status of the germ
theory of fermentation.
... The notion that tiny living agents could kill vastly larger
organisms struck many as absurd......
The Extension of the Germ Theory to Other Diseases.
...Pasteur' s work on the etiology of anthrax... In less than two
decades the microbial theory of disease was extended to tuberculosis,
cholera, diphtheria, typhoid, gonorrhea, pneumonia, cholera, and
plague... The vast majority of these pathogenic microorganisms were
isolated and studied by Koch and the German school.....
Pasteur pondered what were then known in France as the "virus
diseases." ... The strength of the "virus" (or poison) considered
responsible for each of these diseases was usually assumed to be fixed
and uniform fro any given species but variable from one species to
another....
.....Of the "virus" diseases that he studied, only rabies is a virus
disease in the modern sense; its agent is a filterable virus,
invisible under the ordinary microscope...
....Then, citing other evidence that microbes could produce substances
toxic to themselves (evidence that he had minimized while holding the
"exhaustion" theory),
Pasteur suggested that the virus might be composed of two distinct
substances, "the one living and capable of multiplying in the nervous
system, the other not living but nonetheless capable in suitable
proportion of arresting the development of the former."
--- end of quoting from Dictionary of Scientific Biography ---
I find it intriguing in some of the passages above how those old
ideas perhaps not fitting into Pasteur' s view of how disease worked,
yet still can fit into a new modern viewpoint. And vice versa, some of
the old ideas during Pasteur' s time which were accepted as true, e.g.,
that microbe diseases are external to the body, and yet in a modern
viewpoint, it is argued by me that the virus is not an external invader
but an integral part of the species genome and can come about through
spontaneous generation , i.e., a energetic photon stopped and turned
into a virus. What is fascinating about reading old science history is
that many ideas which were discovered to be true in those olden times
are not so true under modern inspection and that the ideas that were
discarded in olden times, e.g., spontaneous generation, that these
olden discarded ideas seem to bounce back in a different form in newer
ages. Pasteur helped to defeat the spontaneous generation theory, but
today we seem to have a newer form of spontaneous generation theory,
for in an 231Pu Atom Totality our observable universe is only the last
6 electrons and thus particles can come from the nucleus, seemingly out
of nowhere, but actually from the nucleus and be considered as
"spontaneous generation".
So I took those last steps and completed Pasteur's thoughts of circa
1886. I extended those thoughts by generalizing to the maximum. I am
saying that all diseases, provided we can reasonably define what a
disease is, is caused by a virus with its virus missiles. That a virus
is an integral part of a species genome and the purpose of viruses are
to act as a clock saying that the life of the host is soon to end.
Another theory that agrees with the above is that Mutation = viruses.
There are many theories that interact in this science.
My odyssey of this science started with looking for what prion
disease truly was after reading about the "mad cow disease" in England.
Later I realized that the bigger picture is to generalize Pasteur of
110 years ago. Why is it that so many in science do not go back in
history to the "sure geniuses of science" and try to generalize their
work or extend their work to see _first_ if there are any more truths
to be gleaned from the geniuses of the past? It surely would have been
easy to extend Pasteur' s work by saying Pasteur was correct and that
all diseases are microbes in origin and see just how far this
generalization could take you. Why did no scientist within those 110
years do that, instead of the in my opinion silly theories of prion
disease as a disease protein that changes good proteins into bad
proteins? Why did not anyone take Pasteur's idea to the maximum and say
prion disease was virus in origin and all cancers were virus in origin?
I did and this application and report is the result of that Pasteur
generalization coupled with a new breakthrough in cloning of mammals
from a mature cell line that offers a new form of radiology.
In 1996, I reviewed the most current literature on cancer and posted
many of those articles that I found to the Internet{6} which the below
article of Scientific American{7} was posted to the Internet.
> --- start quoting in part, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, SEPT96
> titled "What You Need To Know About Cancer" ---
> SIGNALING SYSTEMS GO AWRY
> ONCOGENES
> Genes for growth factors or their receptors
> PDGF Codes for platelet-derived growth factor, Involved in
> glioma (a brain cancer)
>
> erb-B Codes for the receptor for epidermal growth factor.
> Involved in glioblastoma (a brain cancer) and breast cancer
>
> erb-B2 Also called HER-2 or neu. Codes for a growth factor
> receptor. Involved in breast, salivary gland and ovarian
> cancers
>
> RET Codes for a growth factor receptor. Involved in thyroid
> cancer
>
> Genes for cytoplasmic relays in stimulatory signaling
> pathways
>
> Ki-ras Involved in lung, ovarian, colon and pancreatic cancers
>
> N-ras Involved in leukemias
>
> Genes for transcription factors that activate growth-
> promoting genes
>
> c-myc Involved in leukemias and breast, stomach and lung
> cancers
>
> N-myc Involved in neuroblastoma (a nerve cell cancer) and
> glioblastoma
>
> L-myc Involved in lung cancer
>
> Genes for other kinds of molecules
>
> Bcl-2 Codes for a protein that normally blocks cell suicide.
> Involved in follicular B cell lymphoma
>
> Bcl-1 Also called PRAD1. Codes for cyclin D1, a stimulatory
> component of the cell cycle clock. Involved in breast, head
> and neck cancers
>
> MDM2 Codes for an antagonist of the p53 tumor suppressor protein.
> Involved in sarcomas (connective tissue cancers) and other
> cancers
>
> TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENES
>
> Genes for proteins in the cytoplasm
>
> APC Involved in colon and stomach cancers
>
> DPC4 Codes for a relay molecule in a signaling pathway that
> inhibits cell division. Involved in pancreatic cancer
>
> NF-1 Codes for a protein that inhibits a stimulatory (Ras)
> protein.
> Involved in neurofibroma and pheochromocytoma (cancers of
> the peripheral nervous system) and myeloid leukemia
>
> NF-2 Involved in meningioma and ependymoma (brain cancers) > and schwannoma (affecting the wrapping around peripheral
> nerves)
>
> Genes for proteins in the nucleus
>
> MTS1 Codes for the p16 protein, a braking component of the
> cell cycle clock. Involved in a wide range of cancers
>
> RB Codes for the pRB protein, a master brake of the cell
> cycle. Involved in retinoblastoma and bone, bladder, small
> cell lung and breast cancer
>
> p53 Codes for the p53 protein, which can halt cell division
> and induce abnormal cells to kill themselves. Involved in a
> wide range of cancers
>
> WT1 Involved in Wilms' tumor of the kidney
>
> Genes for proteins whose cellular location is not yet clear
>
> BRCA1 Involved in breast and ovarian cancers
>
> BRCA2 Involved in breast cancer
>
> VHL Involved in renal cell cancer
>
> THE CLOCK IS STRUCK
>
> Current Treatments for Cancer
>
> Cancer is not a single disease. Rather it encompasses a
> large group of highly varied disorders that share certain key
> characteristics. Three of the features common to the many
> different cancers give rise to their most deleterious effects. > The first and most fundamental quality of cancerous tissue
> is its continued enlargement (often the cause of the patient's > symptoms) through the ability of cancer cells to proliferate > indefinitely. Associated with this uncontrolled cell growth
> and division is the invasion of the tumor into surrounding
> normal tissue. Lastly, there is the most feared aspect of
> cancer: its tendency to spread throughout the body when
> cancer cells break away from the primary tumor, voyage
> through the circulatory system and establish colonies at
> distant sites -- the process of metastasis.
>
> Treating Cancer with Radiation
>
> Clinical Linear Accelerators create intense x-rays for
> radiation therapy. Although the energy of the beam generated > by a linear accelerator can be enormous, modern machines
> are relatively compact units that can be maneuvered around a > patient without difficulty.
>
> . . . .
>
> Radiation therapy is preferable to surgery in many
> instances.
> With this method, powerful x-rays or gamma rays (delivered > by using an externally applied beam or, in some instances, by
> implanting tiny radioactive sources) irradiate the region of
> the patient's cancerous tumor. Radiation treatments act
> either by inflicting genetic damage sufficient to kill cells
> directly or by inducing cellular suicide, a process called
> apoptosis, which is deeply ingrained in mammalian cells.
>
> Because healthy tissues can recover from radiation
> exposure more readily than cancerous cells, radiation therapy > can preserve the anatomical structures that surround a
> cancerous growth, thus curing the cancer without sacrificing > the patient's ability to function.
>
> . . . Radiation can, for instance, destroy microscopic
> extensions of cancerous tissue around a tumor that a scalpel > might miss.
>
>. . . Another emerging technique in conformal radiotherapy
> treats brain tumors by using a special frame affixed directly > to the patient's cranium. By aiming the x-ray source with
> respect to the rigid frame, technicians can position the beam > extremely precisely during each treatment.
> Although x-rays and gamma rays are the mainstays of
> radiation therapy, protons and neutrons also work well.
> Protons target tumor-bearing sites better than x-rays do,
> and neutrons seem to have more potency against some
> cancers. It remains to be seen how effective these particles > will ultimately prove, but recent studies suggest real
> promise for treating certain types of cancer. Protons can, for > example, treat small tumors of the spine that lie near vital
> structures, and neutrons work effectively on salivary gland
> tumors.
>
> --- end quoting in part, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, SEPT96 titled > "What You Need To Know About Cancer" ---
What I was doing with many of those Internet posts was to keep track
of proteins implicated in cancers and trying to find identical protein
structures in viruses, in viral injection systems or viral coats or in
viral sequences. I was looking to correlate a cancer protein with that
of a virus part. So that I could point to a cancer and say that the
cancer protein was caused by this virus part, this virus missile.
{6,7,8}
SCIENCE NEWS 27APR96 p261 titled "Hints of virus reemerge in breast
cancer"
" cancerous breast cells often contain genetic sequences
characteristic of an infectious virus that triggers mammary tumors in
mice, reported virologist Beatriz G-T Pogo of Mount Sinai School of
Medicine in New York City and her colleagues at a cancer meeting this
week. "
In article <193303Z...@anon.penet.fi>
an10...@anon.penet.fi writes:
> Dear Plutonium,
>
> Regarding your Cancer=Prions=Proteins gone awry theory,
>
> Number 1:
>
> Are you aware of the fundamental thesis of molecular
> biology, that dna codes for the messenger rna which codes
> for proteins?
>
Work out the molecular proteins of virus coats, sacs, and injection
systems. See that the prion proteins or Alzheimer protein is a
derivative of virus protein coat, sac, or injection system.
> Number 2:
>
> Of course cancer is a disease with a basis in protein defects,
> this has been known for over 20 years and was expected
> before that. And now the defects in the proteins are being
> established and guess what, there are mutations in the genes
> that code for these proteins that are the cause of these
> defects. Proteins in general do the work of cells whatever
> that may be.
Nowhere in the literature is it claimed that the viral protein coats,
sacs or injection system left behind in the host is the cause of
cancer, prion, or Alzheimer's disease.
Nowhere in the literature is it claimed that Mutations = Virus. I
claim this theory and this theory makes the virus look like an
extension of a specific genome. The older theories made a virus look
like a invader, or attacker or parasite to the host. My theory makes a
virus an essential part of a genome for the virus is a mutation and it
lends plasticity, degrees of freedom of newness for the species. In
fact, I claim that sex originated from viruses in that their injection
system is the precursor of the male penis.
Mutations = Viruses (virus is an extension of the species genome)
A virus is not to be thought of as a foreign invader, a organism
separate from the species genome. Instead, a virus is to be thought of
as a part of the body itself.
Cancer is a protein disease. There are diseases of carbohydrates, and
diseases of lipids and diseases of nucleic acids. The future of biology
has a lot of work cut out for itself. There must be made a Linnaeus
type of classification of these broad organic molecules--- nucleic
acids, proteins, carbohydrates etc.
And many of the Internet posts on proteins were not confined to
cancer but to Alzheimer{9} and Parkinson and prion diseases.
--- Quoting in part from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 ---
. . .The disease was originally described in 1906 by Alois Alzheimer, a
German neuropathologist. . . .Alzheimer noted the presence in the brain
of two abnormalities. The first abnormal entities he noted were
neuritic plaques, structures that previously had been described in the
brains of elderly persons. It is now known that neuritic plaques are
composed of degenerating nerve terminals, reactive glial cells
(non-nervous cells present in nerve tissue), and fibrous material
called amyloid. The second abnormality noted by Alzheimer was the
neurofibrillary tangle, a fibrous structure within nerve cells, which
showed up heavily with the use of a silver stain. The neurofibrillary
tangle had not been described before, and it was principally this
abnormality that defined a new disease entity.
. . .Although the cause of the disease is unknown, the disease is
thought to be associated with a deficiency of the neurotransmitter
acetylcholine, which is decreased as much as 40 to 90 percent below
normal in some areas of the brain of Alzheimer's victims. Some research
has suggested the possible existence of a virus-type causative agent;
other studies have implicated abnormal concentrations of aluminum in
the brain tissue.
In the late 1980s researchers found evidence of a hereditary
component to the disease. They estimated that . . . Down's syndrome
adult developed the brain lesions typical of Alzheimer's disease.. . .
--- end quoting from Encyclopedia Britannica ---
And then starting in January of 1997 the debate as to the real
cause of prion diseases such as mad cow disease heated-up. Do viruses
cause prion{2} diseases?
--- quoting SCIENCE NEWS 1FEB97 in parts ---
The latest salvo in the prion debate
"Researchers Rule Out Proteins As Cause of 'Mad Cow' Disease" blazed
the headline in the Jan.17 Washington Post.
The Post story, and similar articles elsewhere, centered on an
unexpected experimental result described in the Jan. 17 SCIENCE. A
research group headed by .. Dormont of AEC.. France, ground up brains
of cows with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)... The scientists
then injected samples of the bovine brains into the brains of 30 mice.
After periods ranging from 368 to 719 days, all of the mice began
experiencing symptoms of a BSE-like neurological disorder. Yet when the
scientists searched the brains of those mice for prions, they found
none in 55 percent of them. That was surprising, since prions are now
thought by many scientist to be the infectious agent fro BSE. According
to this hypothesis, prions are malformed versions of a cellular protein
called PrP. Prions cause BSE by converting normal PrP proteins into
their own, misshapen form.
Once ridiculed, the prion hypothesis has slowly gained a following
among scientists (SN: 9/24/94, p. 202). Because they did not detect
these abnormal proteins in the brains of all the diseased mice,
however, Dormont and his group speculate that prions are not the agent
for BSE. ..
While a few researchers who argue that an undetected virus or
bacterium causes BSE...
Bruce argues that the work of Dormont's group does not shatter the
prion hypothesis, but she also remains undecided as to whether prions
or some infectious microbe causes BSE...
--- end quoting SN 1FEB97 in parts ---
Not until my formula of 1996, that--
Cancer = Alzheimer & Parkinson disease & prion diseases & nearly
all diseases & aging = VIRUS protein missiles fired into organisms that
either kills them or ages them
--has the idea that most every disease is a form of cancer and since
cancer is treatable by radiology that all the other forms are also
treatable by radiology.
And recently in medical history with the discovery in 1996 and 1997
of the cloning of mammals from a mature cell the use of electric
pulses{10,11} for DNA reprogramming. Specifically these reports where
the kV is kiloVolts and _u is microsecond :
" For activation a single DC pulse of 1.25 kV cm^-1 for 80 _u second
and for fusion an AC pulse of 3 V for 5 seconds followed by 3 DC pulses
of 1.25 kV cm^-1 for 80 _u second were applied " {10}
" Nuclear transfer was done according to a previous protocol1.
1. Campbell K.H.S., McWhir J., Ritchie W.A. & Wilmut I. Sheep cloned by
nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line. NATURE 380, 64-66 (1996). "
{11}
A pulsed DC and AC voltage reprograms DNA from pluripotent to that
of totipotent. There is proof of this in the Scotland Dolly sheep clone
as successfully performed. We know from the Dolly sheep clone that the
above application of electric pulses reprogrammed the DNA of at least
one sheep DNA. And in the future, the dosage of electric pulses can be
fine-tuned not only for sheep and cattle DNA but for human DNA.
This technique of electric pulsing when applied to a individual cell
DNA also grants temporary immunity from a particular virus and its
virus missiles. Thus the application of DC and AC voltages is
beneficial in the fight of cancer, Alzheimer, Parkinson, and prion
diseases and all other virus attacks.
Now in 1997 , in summary of this history of this formula--
Cancer = Alzheimer & Parkinson disease & prion diseases & nearly
all diseases & aging = VIRUS protein missiles fired into organisms that
either kills them or ages them
--and these theories listed by number.
(1) 231Pu Atom Totality
(2) Superdeterminism as coming from 231Pu Atom Totality and proved by
Bell Inequality with Aspect Experimental Results
(3) Mutation = viruses
(4) Cancer = Alzheimer + Parkinson + prion + nearly all diseases +
aging = virus protein missiles fired into organism designed to kill
(5) Viruses are integral part of a specific genome
(6) Photon/neutrino in motion = perfect DNA/RNA
(7) Energetic photon/energetic neutrino when come to rest can turn into
a live DNA or RNA (or transposons)
These theories 1-7 when assembled together imply that human viruses
or the viruses associated with humans are an integral part of the human
genome. And that we will never get rid of all the viruses for to do so
would mean that no more humans exist. And from theories 1 - 3, viruses
play an essential and important role for a species such as humans. The
implication is that viruses are the time clock of humans. That via
Superdeterminism, we all are fated to die at an exact time and place
and that the viruses are the time clock. The moment we are born, if we
do not die by physical means, we are set to die at an exact time as
preset by our genes in the perspective of all the other DNA and
viruses. The moment we are born, our genes are such that given the
background of viruses which our genes will encounter our time clock is
set for our precise time of future death. This is superdeterminism and
this theory opposes the Darwin evolution theory.
Thus, in recognition of all of the above, this patent application
realizes that there are no cures for cancer or Alzheimer or Parkinson
or prion diseases or aging or any disease with a virus origin. Rather
than a cure, there is relief, and treatment of any disease that is
viral in nature. And the treatment prolongs life, and that is the best
we can hope for. Never a cure, but treatment. By cure, I mean in the
future be able to take a human and to destroy all the viruses inside
that human leaving only the DNA and RNA of that human. Call this
virocide, the killing of all viruses inside an individual. Such a
future virocide is not possible according to theories 1-7 for as soon
as all the viruses of a human are disposed with, a new virus will
pop-up, either spontaneously by theories 6 & 7, or from an in-body
mutation of normal in-body DNA/RNA, theory 3. By treatment we are
giving individuals a longer lease on life, and that was superdetermined
also. Never a cure for virus diseases such as cancer, but a treatment
to prolong life.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
Note to the reader that it is standard practice in radiology for
the unit of absorbed radiation dose listed as Gy for Gray and 1Gy = 100
rads, and 1cGy = 1 rad. Checking for dosages of various cancers from
the reference book MEDICAL ONCOLOGY{12}, I quote:
" TABLE 20-2 Normal Tissue Tolerance (Estimated Doses for 5 and 50
Percent Incidences of Injury Secondary to X Irradiation without
Chemotherapy)
Organs Complication Gy Gy Whole or partial organ
field-size or length
Bone marrow 2.5 4.5 whole
30 40
segmental
Liver 25 40 whole
Stomach 45 55 100 cm^2
Intestine 45 55 400 cm^2
50 65 100
cm^2
Brain 60 70 whole
Spinal cord 45 55 10 cm
Heart 45 55 60%
70 80 25%
Lung 30 35 100 cm^2
15 25 whole
Kidney 20 25 whole
" end quoting{12}.
Checking for dosages from journals{13}, I quote:
" TABLE 2 Reports containing radiation myelopathy incidence data for
thoracic cord
Dose Survival
27 x 2.45 Gy 12 month minimum
1 x 7.6 Gy + 19 x 2.9 Gy 12 month minimum
10 x 4 Gy 7.9 month average
6 x 5.8 Gy 6 month minimum
TABLE 3 Reports containing radiation myelopathy incidence data for
cervical cord
Dose Survival
18 x 3 Gy 18 month minimum
2 x 9.5 Gy 24 month minimum
30 x 2 Gy 24 month minimum
40-45 Gy 12 month minimum
30 x 2 Gy 24 month minimum
Tolerance Doses
Clinical data .... Kramer (65) published a lower dose limit for the
thoracic level (45 Gy in 4-1/2 weeks) than for the cervical level (50
Gy in 5 weeks). However, this perceived difference in sensitivity
probably reflected the facts that a) the thoracic cord was often
irradiated using anterior and posterior fields in that they were
delivered on alternate days and b) the importance of the alternating
large and small fraction size (76) rather than the average fraction
size ... "
end quoting{13}.
Checking for dosages of proton-beam therapy from journals{14}, I
quote:
" The dose that can safely be delivered using conventional photon beam
radiotherapy is limited to about 55 Gy, and retrospective reviews
suggest that local control is about 35% at 3 years [20-24]. Proton
doses of 65-75 CGE using 1.8 CGE per fraction have been given and local
control probabilities of 91 and 83% reported for skull base
chondrosarcomas and 65 and 33% for chordoma [19,17]. Factors related to
the chance of recurrence were histology, tumour volume, site of disease
(skull base better than cervical spine) and tumour dose, recurrence
being most likely in areas of relative under-dosage. Treatment-related
morbidity appears to be low. " {14}
Checking for dosages on brain tumors from journals{15}, I quote:
" In 1991, the Medical Research Council published a randomized study
of 474 patients, comparing 45 Gy in 20 fractions to 60 Gy in 30
fractions. Two thirds of the patients were randomized to the 60-Gy arm.
Age distribution favored the lower-dose regimen, and when this was
adjusted for, the median survival improved from nine months to 12
months in the 60-Gy arm (P = 0.007). However, despite the improvement
in median survival, the curves became superimposed beyond the second
year.
In summary, median survival has improved modestly with conventional
doses of 60 Gy, but patient survival beyond two to three years has not
been influenced. Doses >60 Gy conventionally delivered have not
affected survival. "{15}
Use the various dosage treatments of cancer such as the instance of
reference{12} above Bone marrow 2.5 Gy applied for that of Alzheimer
disease, Parkinson disease, and the various prion diseases.
There exist many devices in medicine that administers electric
pulses such as defibrillators and heart pacemakers which are in common
use today. These devices can deliver electric pulses to organs or
tissues.
Quoting from " The Implantable Defibrillator...This device delivers
a truncated biphasic shock wave, each phase with a 3-ms duration, with
a variable leading edge voltage ranging from 10 to 400 V. " {16}
Quoting from HP's www site. " Hewlett-Packard's current
state-of-the-art Defibrillators, the 43100 series, as well as all past
models use Kilovac proven high quality medical relays.
The 43100 series defibrillator is equipped with two Kilovac custom
relays; modes KM-14/S33 and K43B-13. The KM-14/S33 is a double-pole
double throw gas filled "patient" relay The normally-closed contacts of
the relay are used to charge an energy storage capacitor with 450
Joules of energy which is then discharged through the patient via the
normally-open contacts of the relay A 60 Amp peak at 5kV is typical of
the output wave form. The contact arrangement permits complete
isolation of the patient from the high voltage charging circuit during
defibrillation. The gas-filled, arc-quenching insulating medium of the
relay reduces switching transients. In addition, four high frequency
inductive filters are connected to the relay terminals to provide
maximum switching transient suppression. The relay and the four filters
are assembled and encapsulated in a custom plastic package which also
provides means for mounting the package. All electrical connections on
the unit are provided with insulated leads terminated with appropriate
connectors to minimize installation labor. The K43B-13 is a single-pole
single-throw normally-closed safety discharge relay. This vacuum relay
employs state-of-the-art technology in ceramic-to-metal vacuum brazing.
The relay provides electrical safety to personnel by shorting the
output of the energy storage capacitor to prevent accidental charging
when the defibrillator is not in use. It is also used to reduce the
energy level stored in the capacitor upon request. Rated for operating
voltage of 5 kVdc and test voltage of 11 kVdc, both relays fully meet
or exceed U.S. and foreign regulatory approval agency requirements and
provide reliabilities in excess of 99.9% at 10,000 operations. "{17}
Quoting from a magazine about a Parkinson disease treatment of a
physical device which administers electric pulses " Medicine: A Jolt Of
Relief From Parkinson's Disease: Medtronic's pacemaker-like brain
implant stops the shaking. "{18}
Build devices, such as the pacemaker the defibrillators or parallel
plate capacitors and others, which can deliver both DC and AC Electric
pulses. The pulsing range for sheep DNA is this and I quote from
NATURE{10} " For activation a single DC pulse of 1.25 kV cm^-1 for 80
microsecond and for fusion an AC pulse of 3 V for 5 seconds followed by
3
DC pulses of 1.25 kV cm^-1 for 80 microsecond were applied "
The AC/DC pulsing range for human cells, organs or tissue should not
be far from that range as quoted above since the sheep DNA is not that
drastically different from human DNA.
It is well known that ultraviolet radiation affects DNA.
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.med.
radiology,sci.bio.technology,sci.bio.misc
Subject: Are ultraviolet rays the best killer of DNA ? Re: CANCER
ALZHEIMER PARKINSON PRION DISEASE TREATMENTS
Date: 17 Apr 1997 01:06:51 GMT
Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation
Lines: 21 Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5j3t3b$jtc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (5j3k4n$a2j$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(5j3l2e$f7g$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (5j3t3b$jtc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> In article (5j3l2e$f7g$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes
> Plutonium) writes:
> > Question: does ultraviolet rays have any *special*
> > connections with DNA?
>
> Yes I believe it does from the 275-290 nanometers the ring
> compounds that make-up the side group bases of DNA absorb
> UV
>
> UV used to kill insects and bacteria
>
> I believe I am getting closer to principles of viricide. By
> this I mean ways of killing viruses wholesale yet leaving the
> cell DNA intact and undamaged. Perhaps UV is so intimately
> connected to the DNA that it is the key to _both_ making DNA
> immune to viruses and concomitantly killing viruses.
>
> UV should have its *equivalency in a AC/DC electric pulse*.
> This AC/DC pulse will vary with different viruses and is the
> porthole at getting at viruses. Via this electric pulse, one
> can administer a viricide deep within the body where it is
> most needed. {6}
Build devices that can administer a range of various dosages
centered around the dosage of a single DC pulse of 1.25 kV cm^-1 for 80
_u second and a AC pulse of 3 V for 5 seconds followed by 3 DC pulses
of 1.25 kV cm^-1 for 80 _u second. Remember the kV is kilovolts and the
_u second is microsecond. We can change various numbers above since the
DNA of sheep is different from the DNA of humans. And that pluripotency
as opposed to totipotency of a cell is the time clock marker of the
sugar-phosphate chain of DNA, so that when a AC/DC pulse is applied
there is a optimum range at which the electrical pulses benefit a cell
DNA for growth and virus immunity.
These AC/DC pulses are equivalent to a ultraviolet wave and as the
ultraviolet wave affects a DNA so does the AC/DC pulse in like manner
affect the DNA. But ultraviolet waves cannot penetrate deep inside a
human body, whereas the AC/DC pulse can access the deep interior cells
of the human body. So we send AC/DC pulses into deeper reaches of the
internal body and these pulses are the electrical equivalent of the
ultraviolet wavelength and frequency that optimizes the energy
transition of human DNA. Ultraviolet wavelengths and frequencies , like
no other wavelength and frequency optimizes beneficial effects upon DNA
in the reprogramming of the DNA time clock that is set within the
sugar-phosphate chains of DNA.
--- quoting in parts McGraw-Hill SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 1992 "Ultraviolet
radiation (biology)" ---
... Radiations between 200 and 300 nm are selectively absorbed by
organic matter, and produce the best-known effects of ultraviolet
radiations in organisms.
... All life activities are shown to be affected by ultraviolet
radiation, the effect depending upon the dosage. Small dosages activate
unfertilized eggs of marine animals, reduce the rate of dell division,
decrease the synthesis of nucleic acid, especially in the nucleus,
reduce the motility .. and of contractile vacuoles, and sensitize cells
to heat. Large dosages increase the permeability of cells to various
substances, inhibit most synthetic processes, produce mutations, stop
division of cells, decrease the rate of respiration, and may even
disrupt cells....
Despite their damaging effects, ultraviolet radiations are used as
tools in biological research because they stop certain cell activities
selectively without introduction of extraneous chemicals. They have
been found especially useful in the production of mutations in
microorganisms.
Action spectra. Some wavelengths of ultraviolet radiations are more
effective than others. More bacteria are killed by a given dosage of
ultraviolet radiation at 260 nm than by the same dosage of radiation at
300 nm. When the bactericidal effectiveness of each of a series of
wavelengths is plotted against the wavelength, the resulting curve is
an action spectrum for the bactericidal effect (see illus.).. Each
action spectra is postulated to represent the absorption spectrum of
the substance in the cell that is responsible for the particular
effect. For the bactericidal effect, production of mutations, and
retardation of cell division, the action spectrum suggests absorption
by nucleoproteins of nucleic acid....
Mechanism. The effect of a given dosage of ultraviolet radiation upon
protozoan cells is greater when the radiation is flashed than when
continuous, that is, if a period of radiation is followed by a period
of darkness....
Action upon deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), present in large amounts in
chromosomes, consists primarily of the formation of pyrimidine dimers,
chiefly between adjacent thymine residues on a strand. They interfere
with replication of the DNA.
Photoreversal. The action of ultraviolet radiation on cells can be
reversed to a considerable degree by simultaneous or subsequent
exposure of the irradiated cells to short wavelength visible, violet
and blue, or long wavelength ultraviolet light. This process has been
called photoreversal or photoreactivation. Thus, nucleic acid
synthesis, inhibited by ultraviolet radiation, is resumed after
exposure to visible light. At the same time, cell division, previously
inhibited or retarded, is resumed. It appears that those effects of
ultraviolet radiation having a nuclear site are most readily
photoreversed.
Photoreversal consists of breaking of the thymine dimers into
monomers, so reconstituting DNA in its original form. For this purpose
a photoreactivating enzyme, which attaches itself to the dimers, is
required as well as light.
--- end quoting McGraw-Hill SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ---
The AC/DC pulses serve as beneficial treatment because these pulses
reset the DNA time clock making the DNA immune to further attack by the
virus and its virus missiles. The AC/DC pulses serve as virus
immunology. Therefore, administering AC/DC pulses to organs or tissues
of humans such as the brain for Alzheimer disease or Parkinson disease
or prion diseases or even for aging process, is beneficial treatment.
PRIOR METHODS
Prior methods used radiology on cancer and cancer tumors. No prior
method used radiology of x-rays, gamma rays, protons, neutrons,
electrons, pions, alpha particles on Alzheimer disease, Parkinson
disease or prion diseases. No prior method used AC/DC pulses for cell
virus immunity and DNA growth.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
It is asserted that Alzheimer, Parkinson, and prion diseases are
forms of cancer and that the 100 year old science application of
radiology treatment for cancer and cancer tumors can be applied to
Alzheimer, Parkinson and prion diseases. In addition to applying
radiology treatment to Alzheimer, Parkinson and prion diseases, the
application of a prescribed AC/DC pulse to stimulate the growth of
cells, organs and tissues and to make those cells, organs and tissues
immune to viruses and viral missiles is applied for. A prescribed AC/DC
pulse treatment is also beneficial for all forms of cancer.
CLAIMS FOR THE INVENTION
I claim:
1. The use of DC and AC electric pulses as a form of disease
treatment, virus immunity, and DNA regenerative growth stimulation.
2. The use of radiology of photon rays of ultraviolet or x-rays or
gamma rays, and particle rays of proton rays or neutron rays or
electron rays or pions or alpha particles for treatment of Alzheimer
disease, Parkinson disease, and all the various forms of prion (brain
spongiform encephalopathy) diseases.
3. The application according to claims 1 and 2 wherein the DC/AC
electrical pulse is provided in conjunction with the radiology
treatment of Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, and all the forms of
prion (brain spongiform encephalopathy) diseases.
4. The application according to claim 1 wherein the DC/AC electrical
pulse is provided in conjunction with the radiology treatment of cancer
diseases.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.med.radiology,sci.engr,sci.bio.misc,sci.bio.technology,
sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics
Subject: Re: CANCER ALZHEIMER PARKINSON PRION DISEASE TREATMENTS
(part 3 of 3)
Date: 18 Apr 1997 21:45:23 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 37
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5j8q1j$7a2$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (5j8e8a$e7$3...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (5j8e8a$e7$3...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> dosage of a single DC pulse of 1.25 kV cm^-1 for 80
> _u second and a AC pulse of 3 V for 5 seconds followed by 3 DC pulses
> of 1.25 kV cm^-1 for 80 _u second. Remember the kV is kilovolts and the
> _u second is microsecond. We can change various numbers above since the
> DNA of sheep is different from the DNA of humans. And that pluripotency
> as opposed to totipotency of a cell is the time clock marker of the
> sugar-phosphate chain of DNA, so that when a AC/DC pulse is applied
> there is a optimum range at which the electrical pulses benefit a cell
> DNA for growth and virus immunity.
> These AC/DC pulses are equivalent to a ultraviolet wave
I had a good reason to post so much of that patent application. The
reason is that there must be a way to make physical equivalencies
between the above DC/AC electrical pulses and that of UV waves.
So, I ask the question in physics. How to equate
single DC pulse of 1.25 kV cm^-1 for 80 microsecond and a AC pulse of 3
V
for 5 seconds followed by 3 DC pulses of 1.25 kV cm^-1 for 80
microsecond
to that of a ultraviolet wave?
And then I want to research sheep DNA to see why that UV wavelength
is so special to sheep DNA. For the answer will probably lead me to the
mechanism that makes cell differentiation work. And perhaps will lead
me to what wavelength of UV and how much time administered in order to
optimize sheep cloning. Success of 1 in 277 attempts is a poor record.
If I can find the precise wavelength of UV and for how much time
administered, I should get the cloning success rate higher from that of
1 in 277 to something say 1 in 3.
I am looking for a physicist that can correlate a electric pulse with
a specific ultraviolet wavelength or frequency and the time
administered.
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/File029.html
Sonoluminescence engineering to make
a Mother-Nature-Natural accelerator or
fusion cavity
by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.engr
Subject: Patent: new accelerator and Sonoluminbubble fusion
Date: 29 Aug 1997 00:08:49 GMT
Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation
Lines: 1064
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5u53uh$mq1$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
SONOLUMINBUBBLE PLUS NOVA PLUS MUONS PLUS NEUTRONS
Inventor: Archimedes Plutonium
Assignees: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
Ser. No.: 08/922,106
Filing Date: 09/02/97
Related U.S. Application Data: none
REFERENCES CITED
{1} STARPOWER, Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology. Subcommittee on Energy Research and
Development. Title: OTA magnetic fusion report "Starpower" : hearing
before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development and the
Subcommittee on International Scientific Cooperation of the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, One
Hundredth Congress, first session, October 28, 1987. Imprint:
Washington : U.S. G.P.O. : For sale by the Supt. of Docs.,
Congressional Sales Office, U.S. G.P.O., 1988.
{2} SCIENCE, 30MAY97, vol 276, pp 1348-1349 and 1398-1401
{3} USENET
{4} WEB
{5} NEW SCIENTIST, 16AUG97, pp34-37
ABSTRACT
To achieve fusion energy the joining of four separate
technologies
into one unit is accomplished. The first technology of sonoluminescence
provides the housing of a mother-nature-natural accelerator and a
confinement cavity with high temperatures resulting from the collapsing
sound waves. The second technology of NOVA Inertial Confinement lasers
at Sandia National Laboratory is modified to a NOVA-like equipment that
provides more acceleration to collapsing sound waves in the sonobubble
cavity created by sonoluminescence. The third and fourth technologies
of either muon catalyzed fusion or neutron enrichment, or both, offers
the sonobubble mix a richer fusion result so as to achieve maximum
fusion.
DETAILED HISTORY OF THE INVENTION
I refer the interested reader to the government issued book STARPOWER
{1}. That book will give an overview of hot plasma tokamak fusion
attempts and a brief discussion of Sandia Inertial Confinement laser
fusion attempts. It is hard to find accurate data research into many of
the various hot fusion programs, some because of security reasons.
Extrapolating from STARPOWER the claim that tokamak hot fusion has been
ongoing since 1950 with never any beneficial surprises along the way
and having spent 25 billion dollars worldwide. The laser inertial
confinement fusion program has been ongoing since 1970 with never any
beneficial surprises along the way and having spent 10 billion dollars
worldwide. Sonoluminescence on the otherhand has been ongoing since
1989 as a source for fusion energy with almost zero public money spent
on its research and already by the year 1990 with Gaitan and Crum {2}
has yielded a beneficial surprise.
I am the proponent of the idea that big science projects in order to
keep public funding for their research and development must show
beneficial surprising results along the way towards engineering of the
desired phenomenon and if not, then cut the project.
--- begin quoting from USENET {3} ---
Subject: World's first Fusion Generator; world's first Electric Motor
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1997/07/10
Message-Id: (5q3ike$7up$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,
sci.chem
Briefly allow me to outline my history leading up to the world's first
Fusion Machine. As you can tell I am supremely confident of the success
of this engineering.
Around 1989 was news of Fleischmann & Pons with test tube cold fusion
by running electricity in heavy water. I would have no engineering
patents until 1991. In fact, I would have no science or engineering
until after 7Nov1990 with the Atom Totality theory.
After 7Nov1990 with the Atom Totality theory, the first of my
engineering patent applications would start. It started in 1991 with
Radioactive Spontaneous Neutron Materialization , RSNM. RSNM was the
means by which Atom Totalities grow and RSNM was Dirac's
radioactivities as per his book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS.
So, in 1991 I attempted to link RSNM with the cold fusion of test
tube cold fusion. However, the cold-fusion experiments could not verify
that the phenomenon existed. And thus, sometime around the middle 1990s
I put RSNM, and fusion and related issues on the back-burner of my
patent projects. In the middle 1990s I was more interested and deeply
absorbed in biology patent engineering, especially that of *cloning*.
Then in July of 1996 I saw the cover of NATURE with the news that the
solid Earth core spins faster than the rest of the Earth. This news
rekindled my search of engineering a machine that reveals or uses RSNM.
I could see in that July 1996 front cover of the Earth core that the
Earth is an Electric Motor itself. And what was different between the
Earth as an Electric Motor and other electric motors, such that the
inner core (the rotor) spins faster than the remainder parts? So, I
suspected that there was a Faraday Cage built into the Earth that
caused this faster spin. I reserved the one year time to file patent
application of this Faraday Cage incorporated into an Electric Motor
which would use or display RSNM. That application was due by 22 July
1997, just twelve days from today. But in the tinkering around and the
reading-up and researching and the talks with professionals, I came to
the situation that it did not work in either using RSNM or displaying
RSNM. So as June came and gone and the first days of July I was feeling
bad about this patent application. And I said to myself, write it up
anyway, even if it does not work for there may be something in it, if
modified that will make it work.
In the first days of July, I was beginning to feel slightly depressed
because , quite literally, I live for these patent applications. These
are my first and highest priorities. And I fight to the teeth on each
one of them. And here I was getting into the mood of _abandoning_ this
application. But my reflects to a situation like this, or to other
similar situations in my life like this, is to do a strong-man-turn, a
strong man-about-face. It is when caught in a lost situation is to
strengthen the situation. Like my mechanical objects, or clothes, or
bicycle for instance. Say some components of the bicycle fail, then I
replace them with superior upgraded components. I replace with
something of higher quality than before. I turn a loss into a victory.
Thus, in the last of June and early July, I was looking for
something superior to the Faraday Cage Electric Motor. And I could
plainly see that Sonoluminescence, unlike cold fusion, was a verified
phenomenon. Sonoluminescence was a real science that noone doubted. And
years ago, in 1994, and perhaps even in 1991 (Usenet has many of those
posts for accurate dates) I helped to support RSNM by claiming that
sonoluminescence was RSNM.
So, in early July I was moving away from Faraday Cage Electric Motor
but I needed something bigger and better. And here was the point in
time in my mind where I put sonoluminescence in the center stage of
this patent work and to combine Electric Motor with Sonoluminescence.
Forget about RSNM for the time being. Although it was RSNM that brought
me to this stage of looking only at Electric Motor and Sonoluminescence
and to go as far as possible with only Electric Motor and
Sonoluminescence. (Never give up on RSNM for it may be in there yet.)
So, in early July, I said to myself, how can I combine to the
maximum these two of sonoluminescence and Electric Motor?
I saw an article in the last page of SCIENCE NEWS talking about a
SCIENCE article on sonoluminescence.
I had posted to the Net to another poster about mercury being in the
liquid core and inner core. Soon after that post, somehow my mind
remembered back on the world's first Electric Motor of Michael Faraday
in the film THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE.
And once I remembered Faraday's first electric motor of a bowl of
mercury with a needle going around and around and around with sparks, I
realized that sonoluminescence or a form of it EM-luminescence could be
built inside an Electric Motor itself. And then I realized I had the
world's first Fusion Generator, a modified electric motor.
I am confident that this new mercury luminescence electric motor will
work. And as I review the above, what amazes me the most is why it took
so long for such a simple idea. Why did it take from 1991 until now
1997 to make such a simple adjustment in an idea? It is simpleton to
see that mercury is a liquid and can replace water, and that the
sonoluminescence of sound waves can also be replaced by the EM waves of
an electric motor. Often, simple ideas take a roundabout path and many
years before they are discovered. And once discovered, many people
raise their hands and exclaim, how simple, I should have seen that.
Today I reviewed two episodes of THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE. And I
remember one of those episodes talked about the elder Ampere before
being guillotined remarking that it was a wise economy to have
furnished his son Ampere with books and gadgets of learning. Indeed it
was a wise economy to have furnished the young Ampere with the best
teaching devices of his time. As it was also a wise economy that I
bought for in the name of the Plutonium Atom Foundation the laser disks
of THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE, for if I had not, perhaps I would not have
remembered that bowl of mercury for which Michael Faraday had made the
world's first electric motor. And now I am searching for where in the
literature does it state precisely what Faraday's first electric motor
was constructed of? And probably, the Royal Institute possesses, still,
Faraday's first electric motor (I am guessing).
And I am guessing that Faraday had mercury in his first electric
motor. I doubt that some form of water , salt water could be used by
Faraday. Is mercury the only liquid to be used to make an Electric
Motor? Question.
So, today I saw again Faraday's world's first electric motor.
--- quoting from episode 29 The Electric Field, THE MECHANICAL
UNIVERSE, CalTech 1985 ---
In 1821, Faraday set aside his work in chemistry. In that year
Oersted discovered the effect electric current has on magnets. And
while that effect can be seen clearly now. In 1821, it was still a
great scientific mystery. Indeed, why would the compass needle line-up
perpendicular to the electric current.
Sparked by curiosity to begin with, and asked by an editor to write
an article that would end the scientific confusion, Faraday set-out to
solve the mystery for himself.
Faraday saw the possibility of harnessing the force of an electrical
current, and invented a device to do it. That device happened to be the
first electric motor.
[Picture of scientific equipment, a device, which has a metal needle
going around and around and around with sparks inside a bowl of liquid
mercury.]
How did Michael Faraday manage that?!
Perhaps, because, being unable to analyze them mathematically, Faraday
was able to take these circular magnetic forces at face value. In any
case, to Michael Faraday, electricity as well as magnetism, applied
real forces in space. And he began his study of them with a number of
assumptions.
--- end quoting from episode 29 The Electric Field, THE MECHANICAL
UNIVERSE, CalTech 1985 ---
--- quoting Dr. Goodstein in episode 47 Entropy --
The science of thermodynamics is based on 4 fundamental postulates or
axioms which are called the Four Laws of Thermodynamics.
Of these 4 laws, the second was discovered first. First law was
discovered second. And the 3rd to be discovered was called the Zeroth
law. And the 4th law is called the 3rd law. And all of that makes
perfect sense because thermodynamics is the most implacably logical of
all the sciences.
Let me tell you briefly what these four laws are. The 0th law just
says the idea of temperature makes sense. 1st law is the conservation
of energy. 2nd law is the entropy principle. And the 3rd law says that
there is a temperature so low that it can never be reached.
From these four laws, people have deduced not only the properties of
matter, but the ultimate fate of the universe itself.
--- end quoting Dr. Goodstein in episode 47 Entropy --
Subject: Re: World's first Fusion Generator; world's first Electric
Motor
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1997/07/11
Message-Id: (5q6f19$ptu$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,
sci.chem
[deleted]
AP: I suspect someone in a lab of sonoluminescence work can easily get
a container of mercury and observe whether mercury sonoluminesces. If
mercury sonoluminens as well as water does then that will be big news.
Then someone will look to find if mercury needs doping for maximum
luminescence.
MP: Might be a little difficult to tell if mercury sonoluminesces,
considering that it's an opaque metal. How do you propose to do this?
Good question. It is probably the opacity of mercury that kept all
scientists away from researching mercury as a Fusion test tube device
of EM-luminescence. Often in science a technique is transferable to
other materials. There was never a restriction the luminescence should
occur only in water solutions. Due to the opacity of mercury is
probably why noone bothered to check it out.
Mercury luminescence will be studied by scientists and they will
bring all sorts of elaborate equipment to examine what happens. This is
science and not business. What is important for business is to see if
mercury luminescence yields excess heat.
Thus, it really does not matter if we can not see mercury
luminescence for the practical engineering is concerned only with heat
calibrations. If a Faraday Electric Mercury Motor of EM-luminescence
produces excess heat. Well, break out the champagne. I love sweet
bubbly champagne.
The most important thing to find out first is if this new invention
yields excess heat. Then the hard work of finding out all the details
follows. So, in answer to the question, I am not concerned on how to
observe whether a gas bubble luminesced in mercury. I am more concerned
in finding out whether the Electric Motor seems to HEAT UP! Once I find
out, then I will look for the details.
And I was curious over another issue that my memory fetched this
morning. I remember circa 1970-1974 my father replaced the light
switches on our house with silent mercury switches. I do not see
mercury switches anymore? Anyone know why? The reason I am curious is
because, perhaps, just perhaps some of those switches overheated. And
the reason they did so was not because of electricity problems, but it
just might be the case (I am only farfetchedly guessing) that some of
those mercury switches may have sonoluminesced, built up heat and went
bad? Perhaps , if that is true, the old mercury switches some of them
experienced the first sonoluminescence, unknowingly to its owners or
manufacturer.
Subject: Re: World's first Fusion Generator; world's first Electric
Motor
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1997/07/11
Message-Id: (5q4hj1$p9r$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.engr,
sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
How would a successful Fusion Generator history go? Well it may go like
this. Of course I outlined the device and invention to Internet as of 7
July 1997. Since I do not have any liquid mercury ( and be mighty
careful with liquid mercury for there have been many deaths due to
mercury poisoning).
I suspect someone in a lab of sonoluminescence work can easily get a
container of mercury and observe whether mercury sonoluminesces. If
mercury sonoluminens as well as water does then that will be big news.
Then someone will look to find if mercury needs doping for maximum
luminescence.
And someone can find out if mercury is the best or if some salt water
will function. But I am supposing that only mercury can make the
Faraday electric motor and that salt water is too weak of a conductor.
And someone will find to see if other waves instead of sound waves
can cause the phenomenon. Specifically, can EM waves from the electric
motor itself cause the sonoluminescence? Or can a electric motor which
stirs the mercury, stirs it like a ship propeller stirs water to cause
the sonoluminescence.
If all of this is found out to be true and workable then a Faraday
electric motor is built to incorporate the maximum EM-luminescence out
of the mercury.
All of the above is relatively easy and straightforward. A scientist
in a lab with all the equipment could find out the answers in a week's
time. A good experimental physicist could find out in a day.
So, why has noone checked mercury for sonoluminescence? I am guessing
that noone ever thought to check it because noone had any extended use
for a sonoluminescing mercury. And besides, water is clear and is easy
to spot whether it luminesces but with mercury, to detect whether any
luminescence occurred would be difficult unless you had special
equipment.
Like I say, I do not have mercury available and am not trained in
working with such a poison.
And I have the feeling that my new invention will meet violent
resistance from the establishment physicists working with hot plasma
fusion and laser fusion. Their threat is obvious. For if my Sonolumin
Electric Motor Generator is correct, then it puts them out of a job.
The USA alone spends what, close to a billion dollars a year on hot
plasma and laser fusion programs. To shelve all of those jobs almost
overnight by a simple Electric Motor design that delivers fusion energy
would cause quite a violent raucous storm in many quarters of physics
research.
And if my Electric Motor Fusion Generator is true and delivers the
power. Then I should sit down with the world and give the world some
Moral lectures of why and how they went wrong for those 50 years of
trying to engineer hot plasma. I should give the world a long moral
type lecture. What is the moral theme if my Motor pans out? I suppose
the moral theme is that when you are confronted with a physics quest
for which you know little about and do not know if it is possible to
engineer, then the most prudent path of action is to not make a big
project of it. Sort of like the Big Bertha tanks and cannons that got
stuck in the mud compared to the nimble Russian tanks.
In engineering like in life, there is a premium for speed as compared
to size. When you get too big, the little fast competitors eat you up
all around you and by the time you make a move, you are obsolete. Face
it, hot plasma fusion has had no success news of worthy note since its
beginnings. This fact alone should have told the spenders of this
project that it was a money loser. And Laser fusion also had no
success. So, the moral theme is quite clear, when unsure and uncertain
of success, keep the project small. If some signs of success appear
then stay with it and make it big only if a surprise big success comes.
Invest big only on a big surprise success.
If it comes back that mercury sonoluminesces better than does water,
then invest big in the Faraday Electric Motor Generator. Only something
surprising and big warrants a big project investment. And in all of
those years of Tokamak hot fusion and Laser inertial confinement
fusion, in all of those years there was never a big surprise success,
but rather, it was difficult for those projects to even meet their
minimal requirements.
Subject: FUSION ENGINEERED MERCURY EM-(SONO)LUMINESCENCE ELECTROLYSIS;
patent application
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1997/07/12
Message-Id: (5q8gmh$pkh$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.engr,
sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
I am amazed I still refer to my old text book that I wrote on the
Atom Totality theory back in 1994, 6th edition, and have abandoned
since 1994. My Websites have become that textbook. The 1st edition was
copyrighted 1990 and by 1994 the last edition, 6th edition , I
abandoned it and have sought to make my websites the Atom Totality
textbook.
I bring this up because this morning I have to post about Mercury
Cold Fusion and I needed to review the characteristics of platinum and
palladium. All of the big fuss back in 1989 through about 1993 when
cold fusion was abandoned for most part. And the price of palladium,
especially in 1989 skyrocketed.
Element 46, palladium, Pd, is a silvery white metal, lusterous,
malleable, ductile. Palladium at room temperature has the unusual
property of absorbing-up to 900 times its own volume of hydrogen.
Hydrogen readily diffuses through heated palladium and this provides a
means of purifying the gas. Palladium is used as a catalyst. Palladium
is used in electrical contacts, dentistry, surgical instruments.
Element 78, platinum, Pt, is a silvery white metal, lusterous,
malleable, ductile. Platinum-cobalt alloys have magnetic properties
almost twice that of Al-Ni-Co. Platinum is a widely used industrial
metal for catalyst purposes. As a catalyst, Pt is used in
hydrogenation, dehydrogenation, isomerization, cyclization,
dehydration, dehalogenation, and oxidation reactions.
Element 80, mercury, Hg, is a liquid silver white metal. Methyl
mercury is very toxic to humans and animals, and all mercury compounds
are toxic. Mercury is less abundant in the Earth's crust than silver or
platinum but it is found in highly concentrated deposits and so is
readily available. Hg alloys with gold, silver, platinum, uranium,
copper, lead, sodium and potassium to form an amalgam, but it does not
react with iron, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and silicon. Mercury metal
and mercury compounds are all diamagnetic because of the electron
configuration 5d10. Hg(a) is superconductive below 4.154 K; Hg(b)
3.949 K. Uses of mercury: as a liquid contact material for electrical
switches; in vacuum technology as the working fluid of diffusion pumps;
as mercury vapor-rectifiers; thermometers; barometers; tachometers;
thermostats; and mercury vapor lamps as a source for ultraviolet
light. Large amounts of mercury are used as the electrode material for
the electrolysis of aqueous solutions of alkali halides to produce
chlorine and sodium hydroxide. Some mercury is utilized in the
preparation of pharmaceuticals and in agriculture as a fungicide.
I am not going to review that large, extensive history of Cold
Fusion. Suffice it to say that in the early part of this century and as
recent as 1989 it was still thought that Cold Fusion could be
engineered and by the most direct route.
That route was to use the best hydrogen absorbers of palladium and
platinum and to run electric current through the hydrogen as the
hydrogen is packed closest together. That Cold Fusion failed, perhaps
not a total failure, but this much we can be sure of. It failed so much
that it was not reproducable.
So, now, I am offering a new method of Cold Fusion.
Forget the fusion of hydrogen.
I want the fusion of any gas, and it can be mercury itself in gaseous
form, or a Noble gas such as argon doped water in sonoluminescence.
Forget the hydrogen packing of palladium.
Instead, use the method of (Sono)luminescence. And let us not be
restricted to just sound waves. Let us look through the entire spectrum
of waves. Let us use EM waves or sound waves or mechanical waves. We
will use the full spectrum of all possible waves to create
(Sono)luminescence bubbles.
So, this new Cold Fusion device is in many respects similar to the
Palladium-water-electrolysis devices. We have a container of mercury in
which we send EM-luminescence waves, be they with electric current or
sound or other waves. And we create bubbles that emit thermonuclear
fusion. The container of mercury heats-up and this excess heat is
utilized for Power Generation.
I reserve the full one year time of patent application on this new
cold fusion devices. I have till 12JUL98. Thank you. You are welcome.
Subject: Wave-Luminescence Periodic Table; Mercury Sonoluminescence
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1997/07/16
Message-Id: (5qj8o2$6kv$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.engr,
sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
> Tell me, would Dupont even have any scientists who can >check-out sonoluminescence on mercury?
Perhaps the liquid state is not necessary for Luminescence
Thermonuclear Fusion. But I am thinking that it is, and will precede
under that assumption.
Now we will need a new Chart of the Chemical Isotopes that gives the
following data.
(1) temperature range for which the isotope is a liquid
(2) type of wave --- sound, EM, mechanical, other for which the liquid
(sono)Luminescence to the maximum.
(3) frequency or wavelength of maximum Luminescence
(4) doping; whether it increases Luminescence
This is something that the CRC publishers will be doing in the future.
And it will not stop with just the elements and isotopes but with
liquid compounds such as water or some of the many carbon liquid
compounds. Once we get going on fusion energy, a whole entire subject
field is born. And the amassing of huge amounts of data. Because all of
this data is important.
Now, I do not have the equipment or mercury to experiment on. Mercury
is a poison so it should be experimented with by those who are poison
trained.
But I am going to offer my best guesses in my mind how the
experiments will go and be conducted. Experimental mind guesses.
Mercury sound luminescence will not be like water sonoluminescence.
Mercury has the characteristic of globules when dropped and not the
polar molecule behavior of water. So, it may come to pass that the
mercury luminescence is not a sound wave luminescence but instead a
shorter wavelength of some EM waves. Perhaps some radio waves?
And , I am guessing that when the mercury is in a state of maximum
Luminescence the mercury that is in this state trys to form a shape of
being a ball. That is, in maximum Luminescence, a test tube of mercury
or a beaker of mercury, the mercury will try to form the shape of a
ball, one big bubble.
Liquid iron, at what temperature ranges is iron liquid? Liquid tin,
what temperature ranges? Liquid argon, what temperature ranges? All
elements in the liquid state and all liquid compounds must be
researched for their Wave-Luminescence
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.
accelerators,sci.physics.electromag,sci.engr
Subject: Combining NOVA Laser fusion with that of SonoLuminescence
Date: 3 Aug 1997 15:23:11 GMT
Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5s27ov$88q$2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (5s27dd$88q$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> And also, Sonofusion, if it exists is either directly related >to Laser fusion, in that the collapsing bubble is the laser >driver. Or, Sonofusion, on the remote chance could be a tiny >*supernova-physics*.
> What I am implying above is that Sonofusion is combinable >with Nova Laser type fusion. Instead of the pellet to be fused >with Lasers. Stick the Sonobubble in the center of the Lasers >and help the Sonobubble along with achieving fusion. But we
>need to know what the best liquid is and doping is.
There is nothing stopping me from taking the very best
Sonoluminescence and making that the pellet fuel, or whatever type of
fuel that Shiva or Nova uses. Stick the best Sonoluminescence
phenomenon as the center-fuel of NOVA and hope that the two achieve
Fusion Energy.
Now, Use as doping instead of argon for water, use another doping of
deuterium or tritium and put the NOVA lasers in synch with the bubble
collapse. Perhaps the two technologies in common will achieve the
world's first breakeven fusion energy device.
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.
accelerators,sci.physics.electromag,sci.engr
Subject: Re: Combining NOVA Laser fusion with that of SonoLuminescence
Date: 3 Aug 1997 15:30:16 GMT
Organization: PAF
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <5s2868$88q$3...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: <5s27dd$88q$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<5s27ov$88q$2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
[lines deleted]
Yes, come to think of it, this is probably the direction that all
fusion research will end with. It is a machine that is a hybrid of both
the plasma confinement but is boosted with Lasers to get it over the
hurdle.
The Sonobubble will be the perfect confinement chamber. And the NOVA
lasers will add the extra implosion needed to give fusion energy. Here,
perhaps the best Sonobubble will be those that can confine hydrogen or
deuterium or tritium.
Yes, I am very optimistic that this is where fusion energy is heading
for, the combination of these two. Why, even the sonoluminescence makes
laser light.
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.
accelerators,sci.physics.electromag,sci.engr
Subject: NOVA Laser inertial confinement plus SonoLuminescence yields
Fusion; patent application
Date: 3 Aug 1997 19:01:04 GMT
Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation
Lines: 25
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5s2khg$fqc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Summary: patent application ; one full year period of submission from
3AUG97 until 3AUG98
I have the one full year of patent application for the design of a
nuclear fusion device that incorporates both Shiva and Nova Laser
Inertial Confinement technique with that of Sonoluminescence technique.
The Sonobubble will be the target for the Lasers and will boost the
temperatures and act as a accelerator making the already collapsing
sono bubble that much more in acceleration. The result is thermonuclear
fusion. Quite simple of a design, for it is merely the combination of
the two techniques, one helping the other to achieve fusion.
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.
accelerators,sci.physics.electromag,sci.engr
Subject: Re: NOVA Laser inertial confinement plus SonoLuminescence
yields Fusion; patent application
Date: 3 Aug 1997 22:22:07 GMT
Organization: PAF
Lines: 35
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5s30af$ala$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (5s2khg$fqc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
I do not know what band of EM radiation would be most effective for
say a water medium doped with argon. To fuse argon would be more
difficult than to fuse hydrogen gas. What EM frequency accelerates
hydrogen atoms the most?
A comment on this idea of uniting the Laser inertial confinement
technique to that of Sonoluminescence technique. I had this idea in my
mind about a week ago. Saying to myself that sonoluminescence has many
of the features that SHIVA laser inertial confinement has. Funny how a
week ago I did not combine those two into one technique. Often in a
quest for engineering, we do not take the immediate direct next steps,
but instead circle off or go off on a tangent only to later see that
the direct step was missed, and then we plunge head-long into that
direct step. About a week ago I saw the similarities between
Sonoluminescence and SHIVA laser fusion, but I did not join those two
into one experiment, one engineering design.
And perhaps the sonolight coming off say argon in water may be all
the clue one needs for what laser frequency is needed to fuse argon
atoms. Perhaps EM waves or photons are not what is needed, and instead,
more sound waves. A SHIVA or NOVA type device that emits sound waves,
not laser EM waves and which further causes sonobubbles to collapse
even faster.
From: Rick Spielman (rbs...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Laser inertial confinement plus SonoLuminescence
yields Fusion; patent application
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 21:31:09 +0000
Organization: rbspiel
Lines: 33
Message-ID: (33E64A...@worldnet.att.net>
References: (5s2khg$fqc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(5s30af$ala$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(5s5j5o$2...@rebecca.its.rpi.edu>
As to the various comments in recent posts trying to connect
sonoluminescence and laser-driven ICF in some strange fashion I have
only a few comments.
1. The SHIVA laser at LLNL was shut down more than a decade ago. Thus,
there is no SHIVA laser.
2. The 40-kJ NOVA laser is still operational and should remain so for
another year until it is shut down for the NIF laser.
3. In any sonoluminescence scheme the acoustic bubble is suspended
inside some liquid - no high intensity laser can propagate through such
a liquid.
4. Even if it could do so, what and where would the laser heat? Why
would a laser propagate freely through a liquid and then deposit its
energy at either 1. a liquid-gas interface, 2. a gas-filled cavity, or
3. an unknown density plasma located at the core of the bubble?
5. Sonoluminescence is being considered as an exotic fusion alternative
by credible scientists, and yes, even potentially funded through DOE.
Such concepts were discussed in detail (not often seen in this news
group) with real data at the Marina del Rey Workshop on Alternative
Fusion Concepts earlier this spring. I think the ideas presented in
this newsgroup are interesting and stimulating but please let's keep
the technical level at least at the college level.
Dr. Rick B. Spielman
Sandia National Laboratories
rbs...@worldnet.att.net
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.engr,sci.physics.
accelerators
Subject: Re: NOVA Laser inertial confinement plus SonoLuminescence
yields Fusion; patent application
Date: 5 Aug 1997 11:14:52 GMT
Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation
Lines: 89
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5s71vc$hm6$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (5s2khg$fqc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(5s30af$ala$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> (5s5j5o$2...@rebecca.its.rpi.edu>
<33E64A...@worldnet.att.net>
In article (33E64A...@worldnet.att.net>
Rick Spielman (rbs...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> 1. The SHIVA laser at LLNL was shut down more than a decade >ago. Thus, there is no SHIVA laser.
>
But is the machine still in existence? For it can be easily
retrofitted to various EM energies. Perhaps I need microwaves or radio
waves or something else. I may not need the lasers that Shiva used, and
if the setup is still there, be able to retrofit it with whatever beams
I do need.
> 2. The 40-kJ NOVA laser is still operational and should >remain so for another year until it is shut down for the NIF >laser.
>
What specific EM waves does NOVA use?
> 3. In any sonoluminescence scheme the acoustic bubble is >suspended inside some liquid - no high intensity laser can >propagate through such a liquid.
>
That is contrary to my understanding. Lasers go through water quite
easily. And although not as easily and undiminished as through air,
water is quite a suitable medium for lasers. And perhaps water of all
liquids may be best for the combination of both Lasers plus
Sonoluminescence.
> 4. Even if it could do so, what and where would the laser >heat? Why would a laser propagate freely through a liquid and >then deposit its energy at either 1. a liquid-gas interface, 2. a >gas-filled cavity, or 3. an unknown density plasma located at
>the core of the bubble?
>
The most simple explanation arises as such. The Sonobubble is a
collapsing wavefront. This Collapse generates both heat and
acceleration to atoms of the Sonobubble. The NOVA whether EM or even
some other energetic rays (I am not restricting myself to just the EM
spectrum but considering energetic alpha particle rays, ions etc)
contributes to the heat and the acceleration of the Sonobubble-Atoms.
Thus, taking the contributions of heat and acceleration by the
SonoLuminescence and _add-on_ the contributions of heat and
acceleration by the NOVA Inertial Confinement Implosion. We seek to
make the center (or near center) of the Sonobubble a Fusion plasma.
That is the most simple explanation, a imploded fusion. Both the
SonoLuminescence and the NOVA working in conjunction to yield fusion.
Both contributing in (1) Confinement (2) stability (3) implosion and
collapsement (4) regularity of Sonoluminescence and regularity of laser
type technology of NOVA (5) acceleration towards a plasma center (6)
increased temperature and heat providing favorable probability of more
fusion
> 5. Sonoluminescence is being considered as an exotic fusion >alternative by credible scientists, and yes, even potentially >funded through DOE. Such concepts were discussed in detail >(not often seen in this news group) with real data at the >Marina
del Rey Workshop on Alternative Fusion Concepts >earlier this spring.
[lines deleted]
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.engr,sci.physics.
accelerators
Subject: Re: NOVA Laser inertial confinement plus SonoLuminescence
yields Fusion; patent application
Date: 5 Aug 1997 11:35:32 GMT
Organization: PAF
Lines: 52
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5s7364$miv$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (5s2khg$fqc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(5s30af$ala$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> (5s5j5o$2...@rebecca.its.rpi.edu>
<33E64A...@worldnet.att.net> <5s71vc$hm6$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
[lines deleted]
I will need to know what liquid medium for Sonoluminescence is the
very best for using with NOVA. Here it may be that the hot liquids,
that of liquid steel alloys or liquid iron, or liquid carbon (can there
be a liquid carbon buckyball? if so it could be of help in cavity
confinement?).
And I do not know what rays to use for NOVA, whether the present
Lasers or some other frequency or even some other rays. Perhaps, here,
also, the sonoluminescence light given off by the bubble is a indicator
of what type of ray to use in NOVA to arrive at maximum implosion. The
light coming off of sonobubbles my be the key to the answer as to what
type of NOVA ray to use.
So, I do not know the liquid medium , the doping, nor the NOVA rays.
Three very big variables. The world science community , sooner or later
will find out.
When I compound NOVA with SonoLuminescence, it could well be that
the hot liquids of iron or carbon will achieve maximum fusion rather
than superfluid helium or cyrogenic liquids for the Sono medium. And
then there is the question of what dopings to use. The natural choice
would be hydrogen or deuterium or tritium, applied into or near the
Sonobubble. Quite a technology feat for liquid carbon or liquid iron
(but none of these feats are as indomitable as the engineering of
breakeven tokamaks).
In fact, the set up of NOVA plus Sonoluminescence, if the worldwants
to do it, can be done in 24 hours. But to setup ITER at the same world
speed would take no less than several years.
From: Rick Spielman
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.engr,
sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: Re: NOVA Laser inertial confinement plus SonoLuminescence
yields Fusion; patent application
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 22:08:34 +0000
Organization: rbspiel
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <33E8F5...@worldnet.att.net>
References: <5s2khg$fqc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<5s30af$ala$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <5s5j5o$2...@rebecca.its.rpi.edu>
<33E64A...@worldnet.att.net> <5s71vc$hm6$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> In article <33E64A...@worldnet.att.net>
> Rick Spielman writes:
>
> > 1. The SHIVA laser at LLNL was shut down more than a
> > decade ago. Thus, there is no SHIVA laser.
> But is the machine still in existence?
--- NOPE
> For it can be easily retrofitted to various EM energies.
> Perhaps I need microwaves or radio waves or something else. > I may not need the lasers that Shiva used, and if the setup is > still there, be able to retrofit it with whatever beams I do
> need.
> > 2. The 40-kJ NOVA laser is still operational and should
> > remain so for another year until it is shut down for the NIF > > laser.
> What specific EM waves does NOVA use?
The NOVA laser is a "laser", it generates optical photons at 1.06
microns in the fundamental and frequency doubled at .53 microns and
frequency tripled at .353 microns.
> > 3. In any sonoluminescence scheme the acoustic bubble is
> > suspended inside some liquid - no high intensity laser can
> > propagate through such a liquid.
> That is contrary to my understanding. Lasers go through
> water quite easily.
Not true at the high intensities of focused lasers with power densities
> 10^14 W/cm2. Such lasers will not even propagate through air.
> And although not as easily and undiminished as through air,
> water is quite a suitable medium for lasers. And perhaps
> water of all liquids may be best for the combination of both
> Lasers plus Sonoluminescence.
> > 4. Even if it could do so, what and where would the laser
> > heat? Why would a laser propagate freely through a liquid
> > and then deposit its energy at either 1. a liquid-gas
> > interface, 2. a gas-filled cavity, or 3. an unknown density
> > plasma located at the core of the bubble?
> The most simple explanation arises as such. The Sonobubble > is a collapsing wavefront. This Collapse generates both heat > and acceleration to atoms of the Sonobubble. The NOVA
> whether EM or >even some other energetic rays (I am not
> restricting myself to just the EM spectrum but considering
> energetic alpha particle rays, ions etc) contributes to the
> heat and the acceleration of the Sonobubble-Atoms.
> Thus, taking the contributions of heat and acceleration by the
> SonoLuminescence and _add-on_ the contributions of heat
> and acceleration by the NOVA Inertial Confinement Implosion. > We seek to make the center (or near center) of the
> Sonobubble a Fusion plasma.
This paragraph raises a number of issues difficult to address in this
limited space. The great mystery and excitement of SonoLuminescence is
the fact that the phenomenon does not "apparently" utilize
electromagnetic fields. Thus, your statement of collapsing wavefronts
has no proven meaning in an E&M sense. Let's separate electromagetic
auxillary drivers from particle beams for now. E&M drivers must, repeat
must, operate with wavelengths significantly smaller than the SL
phenomenon in order to locally heat the fusion plasma. This restricts
one to wavelengths shorter then the IR at 10 microns. Wavelengths much
shorter than 1 nm will simply propagate through the plasma. In any
event the power density requirements to heat the plasma to fusion
conditions are independent (to first order) of wavelength. Thus, going
from the IR to the x-ray region does not reduce the power requirements
nor the magnitude of the electric and magnetic fields. This is the
Poynting Vector. Any of these E&M fields at high power density values
will break down the liquid and fail to reach the SL bubble. This is a
fact not wishful thinking!
Particle beam heating (elementary particles such as electrons and
atomic nuclei such a alpha particles) have not been focused to the
required intensities for this application. In fact Sandia has recently
decided that the ion approach will have to await improved understanding
of plasma physics and pulsed power technology and has put the ion beam
program on hold.
E&M radiation or ion beams do not just heat plasmas. The absorption
physics is complex. It will be difficult or impossible to heat the
"right" portion of the SL bubble without heating the "wrong" part of
the bubble.
> That is the most simple explanation, a imploded fusion.
> Both the SonoLuminescence and the NOVA working in
> conjunction to yield fusion. Both contributing in (1)
> Confinement (2) stability (3) implosion and collapsement (4) > regularity of Sonoluminescence and regularity of laser type
> technology of NOVA (5) acceleration towards a plasma center > (6) increased temperature and heat providing favorable
> probability of more fusion
> > 5. Sonoluminescence is being considered as an exotic fusion > > alternative by credible scientists, and yes, even potentially > > funded through DOE. Such concepts were discussed in detail > > (not often seen in this news group) with real data at e
> > Marina del Rey Workshop on Alternative Fusion Concepts
> > earlier this spring.
[deleted]
> Realize that setting off fusion bombs could not even be
> practical and engineered. Why had not all of those scientists > who pushed tokamak hot fusion ever told the US Senators and > Representatives who okay that budget, told them that
> "Senator, yes we have hydrogen fusion bombs, we have
> thousands of them in existence and they all work, but , No,
> Senator, we cannot engineer those fusion bombs to make
> electricity"
> "Well, if you cannot string those bombs together to make
> electricity, why in the world would you think you can make >electricity from a huge Tokamak machine."
[lines deleted]
From: Rick Spielman
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Laser inertial confinement plus SonoLuminescence
yields Fusion; patent application
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 22:33:36 +0000
Organization: rbspiel
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <33EA4D...@worldnet.att.net>
References: <5s2khg$fqc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<5s30af$ala$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <5s5j5o$2...@rebecca.its.rpi.edu>
<33E64A...@worldnet.att.net> <5s71vc$hm6$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<33E8F5...@worldnet.att.net> <5sd91a$17$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Okay, then build NOVA lasers close to the Sonobubble.
Maybe I did not make myself clear. High intensity lasers (I ~> 10^14
W/cm2) will not propagate though even short distances of a liquid such
as water. Even one mm is too much. Once absorption starts the liquid
heats and ionizes and the resulting plasma, whose electron density is
greater than the critical density for that frequency of laser,
reflects, refracts, or possibly absorbs the laser light.
> > There is an IAEA meeting on alternative fusion concepts in > > Pleasanton, CA in the fall. If you have done your homework
> > you will be welcome.
[lines deleted]
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NOVA Laser inertial confinement plus SonoLuminescence
yields Fusion; patent application
Date: 8 Aug 1997 17:23:58 GMT
Organization: PAF
Lines: 131
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <5sfkne$sf9$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: <5s30af$ala$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<5s5j5o$2...@rebecca.its.rpi.edu> <33E64A...@worldnet.att.net>
<5s71vc$hm6$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <33E8F5...@worldnet.att.net>
<5sd91a$17$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <33EA4D...@worldnet.att.n>
In article <33EA4D...@worldnet.att.net>
Rick Spielman writes:
> Maybe I did not make myself clear. High intensity lasers (I ~> > 10^14 W/cm2) will not propagate though even short
> distances of a liquid such as water. Even one mm is too much. > Once absorption starts the liquid heats and ionizes and the
> resulting plasma, whose electron density is greater than the > critical density for that frequency of laser, reflects,
> refracts, or possibly absorbs the laser light.
The clarity was my fault. But your above is even better than your
first. Let me try to make clear once more my position.
I really do not intend to duplicate exactly the engineering of NOVA.
I intend to use NOVA as a framework. You need this for NOVA-- high
intensity lasers (I ~> 10^14 W/cm2) and probably a lot more. I need
only a resonant frequency of some type of waves (rays) that boosts the
resonant frequency of a Sonobubble.
Rick, I believe we are talking past each other, or arguing past each
other like ships at night.
I only need the *technique* of the NOVA setup. I do not want your
high intensity lasers. Your present NOVA program needs high intensity
lasers, I do not. Can you understand that?
A crystal glass will break only at its resonance frequency but is
unaffected by high intensity or lower than resonant.
I only need the general idea of NOVA, the framework of NOVA
engineering. I can play with all sorts of waves, ion waves, alpha
particle waves, neutron waves, the entire spectrum of EM waves. And
they can be low intensity or high intensity depending, _depending_
upon what specific frequency boosts the *resonant frequency of a
Sonobubble*
I can play with all the elements in liquid form for the Sonobubble
all chemical compounds in liquid form for the Sonobubble
all the doping agents for the Sonobubble
From which I must find the *resonant frequency* for all of the above
should a resonant frequency exist.
Then, I can play with all the forms of waves for a NOVA apparatus and
search for a resonant frequency that boosts the acceleration of the
Sonobubble resonant frequency.
So, Rick, I think you can see that your high intensity is of little
use to me, just as a high intensity will not break a crystal glass,
only its resonant frequency.
Let me get specific with a known case:
I do know in fact that a resonant frequency exists for water and
argon gas as a dope for Sonobubbles, and many researchers have found
this , namely Gaitan and Crum and others. But I do not know whether a
resonant frequency exists for some specific wave that can be designed
into a NOVA apparatus. This NOVA wave of a resonant frequency will be
aimed at the Sonobubble of water with argon doping. Hopefully there
exists a type of wave that will accelerate the water Sonobubble into
collapse, much faster than if the NOVA were not augmented. Thus, this
NOVA apparatus will boost the acceleration of the water argon
sonobubble. What is the wave type that will boost water bubble
collapse? What is the frequency that will boost the Sonobubble?
Rick, you are talking about NOVA with the old sold fuel pellets or
whatever. I am talking about a modified NOVA for fuel that is a
Sonobubble. For the Sonobubble, I do not know the liquid nor the
doping, and for the NOVA I do not know what type of wave, whether ions,
alpha particles, neutrons, perhaps even electrons, or any of the EM
spectrum. And I do not know whether low or high intensity. I have only
a few facts to go by at this stage.
And Rick, you also mentioned in another post that the NOVA on a
sonobubble would help one part of the sonobubble but destroy other
parts of the bubble simultaneously. That is true for your setting-up of
the NOVA of old. But for my modified NOVA, I do not need to implode the
sonobubble , whereas you with the old NOVA needs to make a symmetrical
implosion of a fuel, with my sonobubbles, I am not held to those
constraints. I can modify NOVA for an asymmetrical booster blast.
Your old NOVA design was all aimed for _implosion_. My new modified
NOVA design is aimed for booster. I can boost with a asymmetrical
blast at the sonobubble.
You see Rick, it seems as though we are arguing different things.
> 2. Los Alamos and Sandia (Z Division at the time) were
> operated by the University of California just after the war.
> Sandia was managed by AT&T from a time a few years after
> the war until just recently. Los Alamos and Livermore are
> still operated by the UC.
[lines deleted]
From: Rick Spielman
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.engr,sci.
physics.accelerators
Subject: Re: NOVA Laser inertial confinement plus SonoLuminescence
yields Fusion; patent application
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 22:47:36 +0000
Organization: rbspiel
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <33EBA2...@worldnet.att.net>
References: <5s2khg$fqc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<33E8F5...@worldnet.att.net> <5sd91a$17$1...@dartvax.dartmoue
<5sfl1v$sf9$2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<5sfubi$m...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>
[lines deleted]
> >Rick, could you please describe what the fuel is for NOVA.
> >Is it a solid fuel, or what is it that is blasted by the NOVA
> >Lasers?
> Glass spheres containing fuel in gaseous form.
Greg is right although capsules designed to achieve significant fusion
burn would have to be low-Z materials such as beryllium or plastic.
Frozen DT would have to be used to achieve high gain burns.
Rick Spielman
Sandia National Laboratories
--- end quoting from USENET {3} ---
--- begin quoting from WEB {4} ---
http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN08-01-97/zmachine_story.html
Closer to high-yield fusion Sandia's inertial confinement approach uses
massive bursts of electricity to superheat a miniature oven, called a
hohlraum, that is about the size of a sugar cube. Numerical figures on
Z's achievement are necessarily approximate because a change in any
factor influences the others. But it could be said that Z now produces
approximately 20 percent of the energy, 40 percent of the power, and 33
to 50 percent of the temperature to achieve high-yield fusion - a state
in which much more energy is created than used. Of particular
importance is temperature, because the pressure that drives the basic
reaction increases as the fourth power of the temperature. While
temperature is the hardest quantity for the Z accelerator to increase,
"By optimizing the configuration of the hohlraum further, we believe we
can increase its temperature still more," Cook says. "If all goes well
with these tests on Z over the next several months -- and so far, we
have exceeded all milestones -- at 1.7 million degrees, we will submit
a formal request, first to design and then to build the next-generation
X-1 accelerator."
The next-generation machine's energy, power, and temperature outputs
would be sufficient to create the fusion energy required to start the
reaction in the accelerator.
"In X-rays, this new machine would yield 1,000 terawatts of power, 16
megajoules of energy, 2 million to 3 million degrees Centigrade, and
cost about $300 million," Cook says.
One eventual use of the Z technique may be for a rocket propulsion
system, says Sandia researcher Rick Spielman. "Z generates tremendous
pulsed thrusts from a portion of the machine an inch high." Every time
one drive pellet is burnt up, another would be dropped into place and
lit.
Why the breakneck breakthrough pace?
The first breakthrough came when Sandia scientists realized that a
nearly discarded forty-year-old technique -- the passage of a huge
electric current through a wire cage the size of a thimble -- could
produce dramatically more power in the form of X-rays if scientists
greatly increased the number of thimble-wires -- from 30 to 300 --
through which the current passes. Within limits, the more wires
available, the more uniform the magnetic field. The field evenly
collapses at tremendous speed as the wires vaporize and become plasma.
Atoms caught within the collapsing field speed up and then are braked
suddenly to a stop -nowhere to go - as the uniformly shrinking magnetic
field reaches a diameter about the thickness of a mechanical pencil
lead. The sudden stoppage generates heat, much like the tires of a
fast-moving car get hot when suddenly braked. While tire heat is
generated at frequencies in the infrared range, the much faster
deceleration of plasma in the shrinking magnetic field produces heat at
higher radiation frequencies -- as it happens, in the X-ray range.
While tweaking input energies and wire arrays could boost output even
further than the 1.5 million degrees, the present arrangement is not
certain to achieve fusion temperatures, says Cook. But by putting a
very thin-walled gold cylinder inside the wire cage, Cook anticipates
heat of approximately 1.7 million degrees, because of the heating
effects of the imploding magnetic field and plasma striking the
three-microns-thick walls of the cylinder. Says Cook, "The temperature
goes up as the radiation container size decreases." If that works,
"We'll want to do experiments to show we can get symmetry in produced
X-ray flux -- adequate symmetry to drive a high-yield fusion reaction
when scaled up to X-1 levels." Symmetry is important because without
it, not all the energy arrives at the same location at the same time,
thus diluting the impact. Successful conclusion of these experiments
would mean that every contingency has been examined on the Z machine
and found to be working correctly.
At that point, a request to actually build the X-1 machine will be
submitted to DOE. If granted, the Sandia team will move ahead on the
road to fusion.
http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN08-01-97/zmachine_story.html
http://www-phys.llnl.gov/N_Div/sonolum/sonolum_paper.html
--- end quoting from WEB {4} ---
[rest deleted]
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.engr
Subject: Re: Patent: new accelerator and Sonoluminbubble fusion
Date: 29 Aug 1997 01:01:18 GMT
Organization: autobio
Lines: 115
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5u570u$nnk$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (5u53uh$mq1$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (5u53uh$mq1$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> SONOLUMINBUBBLE PLUS NOVA PLUS MUONS PLUS NEUTRONS
There are three technologies that I want to concentrate on and have a
major role in. All the rest I consider as whipped cream and cherry on
top. Those three being fusion, superconductivity, and cloning. And
although my role in those three may not be the direct hands on
experimentation or the assemblage of the superconductor or minibomb
fusion power plant, my role is key in the guidance of the path towards
having these technologies here and now. It seems that of those three
when I started in 1993 on the Net and that cloning was the easiest of
the three and is almost here awaiting for the announcement of the
world's first human clone, and that as of the summer of 1997 that
fusion electricity was here all along just waiting for someone to build
a minibomb fusion power plant. So the hardest or most difficult of
those three was superconductivity.
But I have the hunch that after someone builds the fusion minibomb
plant that this experience will offer insights into superconductivity.
I am still of the belief that fusion and superconductivity are related.
Related in terms of what is common to both phenomenon, the electron
neutrino. Once we get a minibomb fusion reactor going and learning all
sorts of new things from this reactor we will bridge, it is my hunch,
bridge the mechanisms of what makes superconductivity work. Fusion is
related to superconductivity.
I am playing a key role in human cloning in holding to the theory
that cloning success is mostly in the electric pulses and that
different species require different frequencies and electric pulses.
The Scotland researchers posit that the quiescence technique made
cloning successful. I do not argue that quiescence is important for
successful cloning. I am saying that the important issue in cloning
lies in that electric pulsing and a specific frequency is necessary for
different species. It is the electric pulses that transforms the DNA
back to its primal totipotency and sheds it of its remnant
pluripotency.
I am playing the key role in fusion power engineering by saying that
we already had fusion back in 1950s or 1960s in the form of fusion
bombs. And although these are a mix of fission and fusion, the hydrogen
bomb already exists and is here to tap into. So the pragmatic course of
action is to not spend billions on a pipedream of *pure fusion* energy
but to take what has already been given us, a fission fusion mix. This
_intermediate step_ of building a minibomb fusion reactor was bypassed
in the 1960s for reasons that I can only guess at -- fear of a bomb
power plant and security; fear that bomb knowledge will be stolen by
foreign enemies or terrorists; fear of environment. And in an issue of
such there are many many complex ties and connections and fears,
whether justified or not. There is a good saying in Japanese, a
stinging bee will sting a crying child's face -- meaning that issues
are often more complex than what is seen and apparent, and not so
obvious.
My proposal to build a minibomb fusion power reactor is also fraught
with international law now, which did not exist in the 1960s and that
of USA and Russia with their ban of fusion weapons. Thus, it may occur
that another country, a freer country on this issue, will build the
first fusion power plant.
And my proposal of a minibomb fusion power plant was conceived in the
1950s shortly after the creation of the hydrogen fusion bomb. Dr.
Edward Teller often spoke of building a reactor to harness the fusion
energy but whether Dr. Teller gave specifics or details is unknown to
me at this time. He wrote several books and perhaps in one of those
books he elaborates on his minibomb power plant. I do not know.
Recently I came up with the theory that pure fusion may never be
engineered by any machine less than the scale of the smallest shining
star. I perhaps am the first to seriously consider that pure fusion as
quested by tokamaks or ICF or muon catalyzed will never be practical.
The theory briefly says that all machines designed to capture a
physical phenomenon must have a limiting small size. We can build very
tiny electric motors but where is the limit in small size? Is it 10^10
atoms? Along this reasoning, pure fusion as found in the sun may have
its lower limit of numbers of atoms to make a pure fusion machine to be
exactly the number of atoms that go to compose the smallest shining
star. And hence if true, no machine that any human is ever going to
build will capture pure fusion, unless humanity begins to make small
stars.
So the importance of that theory and the importance of building a
minibomb fusion power plant is that we need to learn the intermediate
steps, for if the theory is correct, no tokamak will ever deliver
electricity. And if we find out in the minibomb fusion reactor that no
reactor of such can be as efficient as a pure fission reactor of which
the world already has a 1,000 or more in operation, if this hybrid
fission-fusion minibomb reactor is less efficient than a pure fission
reactor will also teach us that the theory is probably true.
Armed with those ideas, you can see why I would say the most
sensible plan of attack on harnessing fusion is to indefinitely
postpone ITER and all tokamak designs. To keep ICF going because ICF is
really a fusion bomb without the explosion and its research is
auxiliary to that of a minibomb fusion reactor. And the most urgent
step in fusion research is to start a program to build a minibomb
fusion reactor. To make up ground for all of those years missed from
1960 when the fusion programs should have done the intermediate step of
a fission fusion bomb reactor. We are making up for lost ground now in
1997 when we should have done this in the 1960s. I believe that in all
areas of science, when you bypass or shortcut or ignore the
intermediate steps that sooner or later you will have to go back and do
it. Having skipped the fission-fusion reactor was sloppy science.
As for my role in superconductivity, I still stick with the idea that
superconductivity is a neutrino science. In normal conductivity it is
light that signals electrons to move and light is scattered and
resisted, but neutrinos are not scattered or resisted. I am hopeful
that some experimentalists will soon report that strangely, their
experiments on superconductivity involved neutrinos. Once the science
community gets neutrinos involved in superconductivity will immense
progress in that technology take place. I am hopeful and patiently
waiting.
I am happy with my patent situation. A rough count is that after next
year, 1998 I will have filed close to 15 patents if all goes to plan.
But as I mentioned, I care mostly for these 3 patents of these key
technologies of fusion, superconductivity, and cloning. I should have
the second fusion patent mailed in the next month.