Free Electron Lasers, Conjugate mirrors and the Entangement paradox
Ian Parker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser#cite_note-8
It should be noted that only one pass is possible beyond the vacuum
ultraviolet. At optical NIR a resonator is possible.
As far as getting round QM is concerned what you say is a little bit
misleading. A laser is essentially a QM device. It should be
appeciated that QM refers to an overall system that might or might not
be relatvistic.
The opponents of Relativity frequently point to Quantum Entanglement.
The claim is that entanglement allows FTL information transfer. It is
clear to me that it does not, but why not still requires careful
thought. The FE decice (synchrotron radiation) we view in classical
relativistic terms. To actually get AMPLIFICATION you need a quantum
inversion. A synchrotron does indeed provide for this. If we
understand how it does this we are on our way to understanding the
entanglement paradox. Relativity insists that we can view the
experiment in whatever FOR we choose. Mirrors can be regarded as
moving close to c. The mirror at c - a little, gives us insight into
entanglement.
With regard to SDI the target were not cooperating - true, but only
one was being engaged at a time. If you know approximate range you can
calculate the phase shift of each Doppler component.
Let us suppose that we beat and get :-
Sigma (c(n) exp(iqnt)) i=√-1 To be my field. (t -> -x to +x) and q=Pi/
x
To extrapolate to time y we need to say Sigma (c(n) exp(iqny)) we are
adding a phase of qny
If you work out this sum for all Doppler frequencies you will hit the
plane in its new position. This involves considerable computation. Can
this be done with an optical computer. Yes it can in theory be done
with non linear materials.
The point though that I am making is that if you decide to do this wit
anything other than a general purpose computer you are, in effect,
creating a new computing paradigm. Your computing is NOT in fact being
done on the surface of the material, you are transmitting and
subsequently computing. My instinct tells me two things.
1) That one should try to make approximations and simplify the
mathematics as much as possible.
2) That optical computation is not obviously the best solution. It may
well be that the best solution might be a chip working not with light
but with sound waves. It may well be that once you have made
approximations a conventional computer might do the job.
The approximation you will make is to assume that where the relative
Doppler shifts < Lambda/4 you do not do a separate computation.
- Ian Parker
Willie...@gmail.com
I am beginning to wonder about your sanity. Really, you are missing
the point and stirring up irrelevant crap in a way that obscures a
fair and clear exposition of what's possible., Why? one has to ask
that. Obviously you care a lot about this subject. One wonders why
the hell you don't take the trouble to actually read the references
you site with some small modicum of understanding.
As I said before, very dispiriting...
On Aug 19, 7:24 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the Wikipaedia source for the Free Electron Laser
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser#cite_note-8
Yes, and please read the following from the first paragraph;
A free-electron laser, or FEL, is a laser that shares the same optical
properties as conventional lasers such as emitting a beam consisting
of coherent electromagnetic radiation which can reach high power, but
which uses some very different operating principles to form the beam.
Unlike gas, liquid, or solid-state lasers such as diode lasers, in
which electrons are excited in bound atomic or molecular states, FELs
use a relativistic electron beam as the lasing medium which move
freely through a magnetic structure, hence the term free electron.[1]
The free-electron laser has the widest frequency range of any laser
type, and can be widely tunable, currently ranging in wavelength from
microwaves, through terahertz radiation and infrared, to the visible
spectrum, to ultraviolet, to soft X-rays.
It can't be any clearer than that.
The electrons become the medium - it has nothing whatever to do with
QM, or relativity - and you still need a fabrey perot cavity - a
lasing cavity within which the electrons operate in order to fix the
phase of the photons to do the conjugate optics tricks - sheez.
>
> It should be noted that only one pass is possible beyond the vacuum
> ultraviolet.
You are quoting from the physorg article that targeted fat for body
sculpting with lasers?
Clearly,you are over-generalizing when you imply that the mode of
operation of this particular laser for this particular purpose acts as
a model for free electron lasers generally. First off, look at the
size of the damn thing. They're not using electrostatics, they're
using electromagnetics and they're getting their shortwave system by
increasing electron speed. They're targeting the sculpting of body
fat - which requires a particular wavelength.
> At optical NIR a resonator is possible.
Near IR you mean. We've done some interesting stuff with
electrostatic wigglers, as I've pointed out - using electrets we've
made. Obviously you are clueless when it comes to basic
understanding, so its plainly impossible for you to infer correctly
what's feasible and not feasible from reading news articles and
popular descriptions of lasers. I mean you haven't gotten the fact
that Maxwell's equations not Quantum Mechanics is the best way to
estimate performance - haha..
> As far as getting round QM is concerned what you say is a little bit
> misleading.
No its not read the first paragraph in the reference on Free Electron
Lasers you've provided
Unlike gas, liquid, or solid-state lasers such as diode lasers, in
which electrons are excited in bound atomic or molecular states, FELs
use FREE ELECTRONS! hence their name.
QM descrbes bound atomic and molecular states, Maxwell's equations
describes free electrons accelerated through a wiggler.
.
> A laser is essentially a QM device.
NO IT IS NOT! READ THE FREAKING INTRODUCTION DUDE! LOL!
> It should be
> appeciated that QM refers to an overall system that might or might not
> be relatvistic.
QM and relativity are two different things. Relativistic electrons
are not required for free electron lasers - FELs are used to get
around the limitations imposed by bound states in atoms and molecules
- haha - QM was specifically devised to describe these bound states!!
haha.. you freaking moron.
> The opponents of Relativity
Who said anything about opposing relativity? I certainly did not!
lol. You freak! This is very disheartening. Either you're a
freaking lunatic, or you're going out of your way to inject hyperbole
into a rather simple proposition to obscure it. So lets restate that
proposition.
Namely, you can use sunlight to make laser light fairly efficiently on
orbit, with low mass systems, and then tune that laser light to
efficiently drive solar panels already operating on the ground, to
increase the efficiency of those solar panels 16x !!!
> frequently point to Quantum Entanglement.
Which is another whole subject having nothing whatever to do with free
electron lasers or solar power satellites that use them.
> The claim is that entanglement allows FTL information transfer.
Which is yet another totally independent subject having nothiing
whatever to do with the subject of Free Electron Lasers and their
usefulness in making efficient solar power satellite power
distribution systems.
> It is
> clear to me
IT IS CLEAR TO ME YOU'RE FULL OF BOGUS BULLSHIT!
> that it does not,
SO? The fact that you think these subjects are the same subject as
the one we're discussing clearly disqualifies ANY opinion you have as
being BOGUS!
> but why not still requires careful
> thought.
What is required is that you go back to the basics and actually read
up on the topics you're posting about here. SHEEZ!
> The FE decice (synchrotron radiation)
Synchotron radiation is A TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC! Check it out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchotron_radiation
While both rely on the acceleration of free electrons to produce
radiant energy, synchotron radiation is not laser energy. Synchotron
radiation doesn't control the phase of the light to the same degree
lasers do. In fact this is the distinguishing feature of laser
systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry_Perot
This is clearly further indication of your abject lack of
understanding of this subject matter. One wonders what the purpose of
your opinions are. I mean, someone who is obviously as interested in
this subject as you are, should be expected to take enough interest in
it to actually know a thing or two about it - don't ya think? haha -
you freaking moron!!
But you don't know a damn thing about it - so why are you posting
bullshit that obscures the simple fact that solar powered free
electron lasers have the potential to provide cost efficient solar
power satellite operation?
> we view in classical
> relativistic terms.
The electrons are going fast,the energy is sufficient to change their
mass slightly - this doesn't change the fact that the laser output is
described by Maxwells equations that you need to get control of the
phase of the photons you're making this way. sheez.
> To actually get AMPLIFICATION you need a quantum
> inversion.
Right the A in laser that's what you're telling yourself right? lol.
Invesion of WHAT exactly? You freaking moron!
You're totally lost now. Totally - you freak. Admit it!
Remember the first paragraph describing FELs you cited - you're free
of bound atomic and molecular states - inversions are features of
bound moleular and atomic states. Obviously when you don't have bound
states, you can't have inversions. hmm.. then how do you get
amplification? haha - confusing isn't it?
While light amplification is certainly achieved by inverting
populations of atoms and molecules with energy and then hitting them
with photons, in a lasing cavity, to amplify the photons in phase
withi one another - it is obviously NOT the method used with free
electron lasers designed to overcome the limitations of bound states -
as described in the reference you gave. sheez.
Electrons are wiggled - and the structure of the wiggler determines
the phase of things. Nothing is stimulated, nothing is amplified -
but if properly done - in a lasing cavity - laser like phase control
is achieved - without the limitations of the bound states and
inversion requirements and so forth.
So,while QM is useful in comuting the energy levels of bound states of
molecules and atoms of conventional lasers - QM is not useful at all
in computing energy rand spacing and so forth - of FELs. Maxwell's
equations are useful here NOT QM.
> A synchrotron does indeed provide for this.
What a load of tripe!
Dude!
A synchotron circulates charged particles through a circle. To move a
particle in a circle requires a constant acceleration toward the
center. Thus, you have an accelerated charge! Biot-Savart law is
most appropriate here, along with Maxwell again- again despite
relativistic electrons or particles! lol. The photons aren't in
phase - as in a laser or a FEL - they radiate in all directions around
the circle - depending on the spacing of the charges. sheez.
>If we
> understand
Obviously you understand nothing NOTHING! - - N O T H I N G ! - -
sheez.
> how it does this
The synchtron is not a free electron laser,- there are no inverted
populations of anything in either the FEL or synchotron - so, there is
clearly no need to understand something that doesn't occur.
THERE IS A NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE SAYING THE BOGUS BULLSHIT
YOU ARE HOWEVER!
Do you really care about this subject matter? Then why the hell don't
you trouble yourself to understand the basic physical principles
involved before posting bogus bullshit? God damn!
> we are on our way to understanding the
> entanglement paradox.
Like I said, this is a totally different subject from the operation of
free electron lasers.
>Relativity
Is a totally different topic from any of the other topics. QM, FEL,
Relativity, Double Slit Experiment - ALL DIFFERENT TOPICS HAVING
NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER.
> insists that we can view the
> experiment in whatever FOR we choose.
This is a totally bullshit statement you freaking idiot!
> Mirrors can be regarded as
> moving close to c.
??? Clearly you are free associating words that you are fond of
saying regardless the total lack of meaning the resulting sentence -
Jesus!
> The mirror at c - a little, gives us insight into
> entanglement.
No it doesn't you freak!
> With regard to SDI
??? SDI is a totally different topic as well. Again, you are clearly
free associating words for no objectively valid reason having anything
to do with reality.
> the target were not cooperating - true,
SDI used conjugate optics, which have nothing to do with the subjects
you have written about. SDI's lasers had areal energy densities 1,000
to 1,000,000 more intense than the highest I've proposed here. The
wavelengths were in the x-ray range. The lasing mechanism was either
chemical lasers or driven by a nuclear reaction.
I mentioned SDI because I'm using the same technique for controlling
and steering my beam. SDI has nothing whatever to do with any of the
items you mentioned above - and none of those items have anything to
do with each other in the context of this discussion.
>but only
> one was being engaged at a time.
No, as Edward Teller concieved of it, SDI was to be implemented by a
CW chemical laser illuminating a region of space and a conjugate
optical window with a frequency doubling coating on it. When someone
decided there were enough targets to detonate the device, a nuclear
weapon was detonated, and a short wave pulse of super strong light was
sent through the window, which directed the bulk of it simultaneously
to ANY NUMBER OF ILLUMINATED TARGETS.
So, it was far from one target at a time. It had nothing to do with
anything you've brought up to confuse the issue.
Now, the only reason this is relevant is that the same conjugate
optical technique of controlling powerful laser beams can be adapted
to the low energy situation of beaming IR energy to bandgap matched
silicon receivers at 1/1000 to 1/100000000th the energy proposed for
SDI.
Yet, SDI proved a number of beam steering technologies using conjugate
optics. Including;
1) many targets simultaneously tracked
2) leading targets with phase and doppler and pulse correction
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7075015
Which teaches how to do the same thing with power beaming.
> If you know approximate range you can
> calculate the phase shift of each Doppler component.
The light coming from the target gives you a range figure (delay of
pulse - lidar) a velocity figure (doppler lidar) and a precise
direction (phase information) and precise distortion (also phase
information) so that you can fire a powerful return pulse precisely at
the target and be certain that nearly all the energy at the emitter
arrives at the target.
SDI used shorter wavelengths and more powerful pulses. But SDI proved
that it was possible to track many targets simultaneously, illuminate
those targets accurately even when they're moving at orbital
velocities, and illuminate those targets efficiently - Obviously
adapting this capacity of conjugate optical beam steering to power
transfer lasers with cooperating receivers - is the way to go.
> Let us suppose that we beat and get :-
>
> Sigma (c(n) exp(iqnt)) i=–-1 To be my field. (t -> -x to +x) and q=Pi/
> x
>
> To extrapolate to time y we need to say Sigma (c(n) exp(iqny)) we are
> adding a phase of qny
This is meaningless gobbledy gook because you got so much of the
basics wrong -
> If you work out this sum for all Doppler frequencies you will hit the
> plane in its new position.
What's disheartening is that at this point I think you know you're
full of it, and you're just taking up space knowing that you are
confusing and obscuring the rather simple point I was making before
namely that;
1) sunlight can be converted to IR laser energy efficiently with
extremely low mass systems on orbit and
2) IR laser energy can be delivered simultaneously to a large number
of receivers very efficiently
3) IR laser energy chosen to match the bandgap of a common PV material
like silicon and be near one of the IR windows of Earth's atmosphere,
efficiently allows satellite power to be used by receivers anywhere,
whether stationary or in motion.
> This involves considerable computation.
You don't know the basics, let alone the equations that describe the
basics, or how to compute them. Fact is, a nonlinear material changes
its refractive index with light intensity. This allows two inphase
beams to interfere in that medium, and create a dynamic diffraction
grating. This is the way holograms work - a reference beam and an
image beam interfere in a photographic medium to create a diffraction
grating. Illuminate the grating with the reference beam, and you get
the whole - image hologram - that retains all the image information -
rendering a 3 dimensional image that you can rotate and look around
things in. The same process in a nonlinear optical medium, occurs,
except the optical material responds dynamically, instead of
permanently. What happens here, is that the diffraction grating
created by the adding and subtracting of light intensity caused by in
phase and out of phase light crossing in the two beams - produce a
dynamically changing diffraction grating. This causes the power beam
to be directed along the path of the arriving pilot beam - but
travelling in the oppisite direction The pilot beam is diffracted
along the line of the arriving power beam, but it too is travelling in
the opposite direction. These beams are called conjugate to the beams
that formed them. Since four beams are involved this is called the 4
wave mixing process - and creates conjugate beams to the incoming
beams..
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/gloss.htm
Compare this to making a hologram
http://original.britannica.com/eb/art-88729/Holography-uses-no-camera
Except for the medium - photographic film instead of nonlinear optical
window - the processes are very similar.
> Can
> this be done with an optical computer.
There are tricks you can do with the nonlinear materials - given in
the osti paper reference - to process doppler (velocity terms) and
pulse delay (range terms) to introduce phase adjustments that lead or
lag a target depending on the value of those terms so that a beam
reliably remains on a moving and accelerating object. You don't need
to compute a damn thing - except when you're designing the meta-
material you're making the optical window out of.
NOTE: Beam steering is totally independent of your power source,
wavelength and method of producing your laser beam. SDI was using an
X-ray laser made with a nuclear blast delivering trillions of watts
per sq cm. I'm using an IR laser powere by sunlight delivering
fractions of a watt to hundreds of watts per sq cm.
> Yes it can in theory be done
> with non linear materials.
It has been done in practice with nonlinear materials - meta materials
- which I pointed to previously for you - and which you didn't read.
You don't need to make a computer - all you need to do is understand
the basics of conjugate optics,and the variations introduced by delay
and doppler shifts.
> The point though that I am making is that
You don't understand the fundamentals of what you're talking about.
> if you decide to do this wit
> anything other than a general purpose computer you are, in effect,
> creating a new computing paradigm.
Bullshit! Fact is it is already being done! It has been done in a
variety of contexts. Sheez
> Your computing is NOT in fact being
> done on the surface of the material,
No one said anything about surfaces - so why did you bring it up?
We're talking about windows of nonlinear materials that are thick
enough to produce efficient diffraction effects to allow the formation
of power beams conjugate to arriving pilot beams from any number of
receivers - and adjusting the phase or dwell slightly to account for
velocity and acceleration of the receivers if they happen to be moving
wrt the transmitter.
You have introduce a load of bogus bullshit so deep, so thick, and so
pervasive, as to render ANYTHING you say totally and absolutely
USELESS! sheez.
> you are transmitting and
> subsequently computing.
REad the freaking references that actually describe how a hologram is
made, then read the references of how a conjugate beam is formed.
read up on diffraction. understand the basics before trotting out
bogus bullshit that does nothign but confuse the issue.
> My instinct tells me two things.
Only two? Your commentary tells me one thing. That you don't know
what the hell you're talking about. You've gotta know this. No one
can say the bullshit you say and keep a straight face. So, I gotta
wonder what is motivating you to piss all over this topic.
> 1) That one should try to make approximations and simplify the
> mathematics as much as possible.
first off, the mathematics you quoted have nothing whatever to do with
the mathematics of conjugate optics - secondly, the mathematics of
conjugate optics is well developed and accurate. thirdly, conjugate
optics is in regular use today - and easily adapted to the application
I've described for it.
Namely, a thin film concentrator illuminates a multi-junction pv
device which drives a highly efficient free electron laser. This
laser illuminates a window of nonlinear optical material - a meta
material - and passes through a lens that initially illuminates the
entire visible hemisphere of Earth from GEO. Receivers on the ground
detect this probe pulse, and use this to syncrhonize a pilot pulse
produced at the receiver array. The pilot pulse arrives at the
nonlinear optical window and interferes with the power beam
illuminating the surface of the Earth creating a diffraction pattern
in the nonlinear material. A portion of this energy is directed
conjugate to the arriving pilot beam by this diffraction effect,
illuminating the reciever. Material properties of the metamaterial
are chosen to adjust phase slightly based on pulse delay and frequency
variation so that moving targets are accurately illuminated despite
the distance and their motion. The wavelengths used are in the
Infrared window of the atmosphere, and energy is efficiently
communicated to the surface, and wavelengths are near the bandgap of
the PV material used at the reeiver, so energy is efficiently
converted to electrical potential. In this way the value of solar
panel arrays are increased 16x by the addition of light weight power
sats that only double the cost of the solar panel system.
>
> 2) That optical computation is not obviously the best solution.
bogus bullshit based on bullshit understanding of the basics.
> It may
> well be that the best solution might be a chip working not with light
> but with sound waves.
hahahahaha! Absolute rot!
> It may well be that once you have made
> approximations a conventional computer might do the job.
You don't understand the question, obviously you are incapable of
understanding the solution and that the solution already exists.
> The approximation you will make is to assume
you know absolutely nothing about the topic to which you're posting.
> that where the relative
> Doppler shifts < Lambda/4 you do not do a separate computation.
You're trying to sound important again - but once again - you have GOT
to know you are trying to fool everyone - the trouble is you are
proving yourself to be totally clueless by your lame brain bullshit.
> - Ian Parker
I'm ready to throw you into the same bin with Guthball Ian - you are a
total lunatic, or you are willfully attempting to say and do anything
to derail any honest discussion of this topic. In either case SHAME
ON YOU you freaking lunatic! lol.
God bless
Tom Roberts
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser
> Yes, and please read the following from the first paragraph;
>
> It can't be any clearer than that.
Hmmm. You seriously missed the basics. So it probably could be clearer
than that....
> The electrons become the medium - it has nothing whatever to do with
> QM, or relativity - and you still need a fabrey perot cavity - a
> lasing cavity within which the electrons operate in order to fix the
> phase of the photons to do the conjugate optics tricks
This is just plain wrong. There is no Fabry-Perot cavity in any FEL I
know of, because it is not possible to put one there (its mirrors would
destroy the electron beam coherence), and because there are no mirrors
for the most useful wavelength range of FELs -- X-rays. These FELs are
one-pass devices, but still useful energy gains and coherence can be
achieved with careful design.
And you most definitely do need relativity to understand the emission
characteristics of the synchrotron radiation which is the basis of the
FEL. Without such understanding, and careful design based on that
understanding, it would be impossible to get one to work, as they are
VERY finicky devices.
> QM descrbes bound atomic and molecular states, Maxwell's equations
> describes free electrons accelerated through a wiggler.
Actually, I believe QED is needed to accurately design a FEL. Maxwell's
equations don't include the stimulated emission which is the hallmark of
a laser. But yes, a material laser (solid, liquid, gas) achieves a
population inversion in the material; an FEL achieves it in the electron
beam inside the undulator (a particular type of wiggler).
>> A laser is essentially a QM device.
>
> NO IT IS NOT!
You use a rather too limiting meaning of "QM". QED is relativistic
quantum mechanics, and is the relevant theory here.
> QM and relativity are two different things.
Yes they are. One needs both to understand an FEL.
> Relativistic electrons
> are not required for free electron lasers
Yes, they are. The crucial requirement is that the electrons be
relativistic enough so their synchrotron radiation is closely collimated
forward along the beam.
> Synchotron radiation is A TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC!
No. It is the basis on which an FEL is built. The undulator in an FEL
generates precisely-tuned synchrotron radiation, which initially aligns
the electrons in time MUCH better than the RF of the accelerator [#], so
that the front of the beam can present the required population inversion
to radiation coming from the back of the beam. It is this self-alignment
in time that permits the extremely short pulses of an FEL; undulators
and wigglers are also used in synchrotron light sources, but they have
considerably longer pulse widths, and considerably wider wavelength
spreads. The light pulse from synchrotron radiation is about as wide as
the electron bunch is long; the light output of an FEL is several orders
of magnitude narrower than the bunch length.
[#] This is the basis of Self Amplified Stimulated Emission.
> synchotron radiation is not laser energy. Synchotron
> radiation doesn't control the phase of the light to the same degree
> lasers do. In fact this is the distinguishing feature of laser
> systems
Yes.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry_Perot
There is no such resonant cavity in any FEL I know of.
> The electrons are going fast,the energy is sufficient to change their
> mass slightly
You need to learn about SR, and quantitative physics. In the FLASH FEL
the electrons have an energy of 700 MeV -- almost 1,400 times their rest
mass. Such a factor is nowhere close to "slightly"!
[Though physicists don't normally speak of this as
"changing their mass".]
>> To actually get AMPLIFICATION you need a quantum
>> inversion.
>
> Invesion of WHAT exactly?
Of the population of potential radiation emitters. This is required
because if there is a transition high->low that emits a laser photon,
there is ALWAYS a corresponding transition low->high that absorbs one.
Amplification can only occur if more of the first occur than the second,
which requires more potential emitters to be in the high state than in
the low state -- that's what "population inversion" means.
Normal thermal processes make the population in the low
state be larger than in the high state. In material
lasers the material must be "pumped" in a carefully
designed way so the inversion occurs. A ruby laser is
pumped by a Xe flash tube; a He-Ne laser is pumped by
the electrical discharge; chemical lasers are pumped
by chemical reactions; pumping material lasers is a
subtle topic.... An FEL is pumped by the accelerator,
the undulator, and the resulting synchrotron radiation.
> While light amplification is certainly achieved by inverting
> populations of atoms and molecules with energy and then hitting them
> with photons, in a lasing cavity, to amplify the photons in phase
> withi one another - it is obviously NOT the method used with free
> electron lasers designed to overcome the limitations of bound states -
> as described in the reference you gave.
You are making unwarranted conclusions. For an FEL to work there must
indeed be a population inversion in the electron beam, but it's much
more subtle than in an atomic system.
He-Ne lasers require a Fabry-Perot cavity to achieve many passes through
the medium, because their population inversion is rather low. A
well-designed FEL achieves considerable amplification in one pass.
> Electrons are wiggled - and the structure of the wiggler determines
> the phase of things. Nothing is stimulated, nothing is amplified -
Not true in an FEL. Without stimulated emission the coherence of the
light would be lost; without amplification there would not be sufficient
intensity to see the laser beam above the background (uncorrelated
emission from the very same electron beam).
If you look at a He-Ne laser tube from the side, you'll see
the characteristic red glow from uncorrelated emission that
does not contribute to the laser beam. In a well-designed
He-Ne laser, some 70-80% of the light output is in the beam.
I don't know what efficiency an FEL can achieve, but I
suspect it is considerably lower.
> A synchotron circulates charged particles through a circle. To move a
> particle in a circle requires a constant acceleration toward the
> center. Thus, you have an accelerated charge!
But that is NOT what drives an FEL. For an FEL one must place an
undulator along the beamline where the FEL operates. The synchrotron is
just used to generate the relativistic electron beam. For instance, JLab
is building an FEL, but does not have a synchrotron.
> The photons aren't in
> phase - as in a laser or a FEL - they radiate in all directions around
> the circle - depending on the spacing of the charges.
No. Synchrotron radiation is HIGHLY focused in the forward direction --
a direct and important consequence of relativity. The FEL output is even
more focused.
> The synchtron is not a free electron laser,- there are no inverted
> populations of anything in either the FEL or synchotron
Hmmm. Yes, a synchrotron has no population inversion and is not a laser.
But an FEL has a population inversion and is a laser.
> [... rest unread; seems too much like the above]
[As should be obvious, I am not an expert on FELs, and I
suppose it is possible there is more variance in the
subject than I know of; there is certainly more detail.
My knowledge is basically from reading about FLASH --
http://vuv-fel.desy.de and a few brief discussions
with people from JLab.]
Tom Roberts
Willie...@gmail.com
> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser
> > Yes, and please read the following from the first paragraph;
> > [basic, fairly accurate description of an FEL]
>
> > It can't be any clearer than that.
>
> Hmmm. You seriously missed the basics.
Are you talking to me? lol.
> So it probably could be clearer
> than that....
Ouch, you ARE talking to me. Alright Tommy, bring it! lol.
>
> > The electrons become the medium - it has nothing whatever to do with
> > QM, or relativity - and you still need a fabrey perot cavity - a
> > lasing cavity within which the electrons operate in order to fix the
> > phase of the photons to do the conjugate optics tricks
>
> This is just plain wrong.
What part?
> There is no Fabry-Perot cavity in any FEL I
> know of, because it is not possible to put one there (its mirrors would
> destroy the electron beam coherence),
Nonsense.
While FEL can be operated in spontaneous emission mode, it cannot be
operated efficiently that way. It is well known that phase matched
power goes up as the square of the number of particles bunched in the
undulator (the electron coherence you're talking about) while the un-
matched light output goes up as the number of particles.
So electron bunching in the undulator is desireable that is in phase
with the physcial size required. EM waves within a resonant cavity
increases this bunching - or electron coherence..(Maxwell's
equations)
In systems where the laser energy is emitted transverse to the
electron beam direction, a Fabry Perot interferometer causes in phase
radiation to interact with the electrons in the undulator to enhance
bunching and enhance in phase power output. This has been proven at
SLAC as long ago as 1995 and those research results have influenced my
experimental program.
I've indicated that I use electret base undulators that produce IR
light transverse to the beam direction. My system uses electret based
undulators which are TRANSPARENT to the IR radiation produced, and
easily formed into such a transverse resonant cavity that accentuates
the bunching we're talking about. Thus I have a very compact tunable
IR source.
.
> If you look at the details
You will find that most popular descriptions of FELs speak of
spontaneous in phase emission only to make the popular descriptions
accessible to the greatest audience, while highly technical
descriptions include a detailed analysis of electron coherence, and as
in the cases of SLAC where radiant energy is emitted transverse to the
electron beam line, there are detailed discussions of using EM
resonators to greatly enhance upon the spontaneous in phase emissions
native to FEL operation.
> and because there are no mirrors
Nonsense - while spontaneous in phase emission can occur by
inerrupting the beam to induce bunching in phase with the undulator
spacing - this is not the preferred method in efficient systems.
Undulators made of materials that are transparent to the rardiant
energy desired, that emit radiation transverse to the electron beam
line are routinely equipped with a resonant cavity to induce bunching
within a CONTINUOUS beam vastly improving the ratio of coherent output
relative to incoherent output without reducing energy efficiency -
which is what you want in a power aplication.
> for the most useful wavelength range of FELs -- X-rays.
Who said X-rays were the most useful in this application? We're
using it to beam energy to silicon receivers on the ground through the
atmosphere! haha - I've said throughout the wavelengths are near
1,100 nm - at these wavelengths, Fabry-Perot resonant cavities have
been used at places like SLAC to
a) improve in phase output and
b) improve beam efficiency
> These FELs are
> one-pass devices,
So? Since I'm making 1,100 nm wavelength light - that is what I'm
concerned about.
I mean you've GOT to know you're setting up a false choice here. On
the one hand a person who posts says only microwaves will work because
of clouds. Well, hell's bells, to penetrate clouds efficiently we're
talking about centimeter scale wavelengths! That means to form a 1
km wide beam from GEO you need a 1 km wide emitter!! REDUCING THE
WAVELENGTH to 1/10,000th this size, reduces the size of the emitter
and spot to only 10 meters!! Also using infrared radiation which
routinely is present at high intensity when the sun shines, does not
present the same environmental risks as microwaves which are not
present in any quantity naturally.
Now, in response to this simple observation people wrongly state you
can't efficiently make IR radiation from sunlight. Then in response
to a detailed technical discussion others wrongly say you can't safely
and reliably control that radiation. Then in response to even more
detailed technical discussion you come along and tell me the ony
useful sort of FEL is X-ray? HAHAHA! This is manifestly not true!
Why is it microwave or x-ray? What's the big freaking hold up on
IR? The sun emits most of its energy in IR, nature receives IR
daily. FELs *like* to produce IR. Electret based undulators are
transparent to IR. What is your freaking problem Tom! lol. Why are
you trying to confuse everyone with your BS?
> but still useful energy gains and coherence can be
> achieved with careful design.
I'm not building a medical X-ray system to take X-ray holograms. I'm
not building X-ray lasers to detonate fusion targets. I'm not
building X-ray lasers for the military. I'm making simple solid state
devices that produce tunable efficient INFRARED laser enregy to power
silicon receivers at power densities ranging from 0.4 W/cm2 at the
outset, and rising to 650 W/cm2 when most mature in this generation of
products. 0.4 W/cm2 will be used on pre-existing silicon solar panel
installations. 650 W/cm2 will be used on mobile applications. There
are not technical roadblocks, and no open technical issues that remain
for this system I'm proposing. I am happy to answer reasonable
questions about it, but you and Ian, Tom are so far clueless.
> And you most definitely do need relativity to understand the emission
> characteristics of the synchrotron radiation which is the basis of the
> FEL.
<sigh> While devices may be inserted in synchotron beam lines to
easily construct free electron lasers, it needs to be emphasized that
synchotron radiation is not a free electron laser. The basic
properties of charged beam transport and the theory of accelerators
with radiative damping is primarily an application of Maxwell's
equations, not relativity. The characteristics of synchrotron
radiation sources are analyzed in terms of radiative transport not
relativity. The conceptual and technological problems associated with
the discovery of compact sources has nothing to do with relativity
(non-relativistic electrons with electret based undulators enhanced
with EM interferometer). Within this framework, the role played by
free electron laser devices is besed understood as an application of
Maxwell's equations - NOT relativity or Quantum Mechanics.
> Without such understanding, and careful design based on that
> understanding, it would be impossible to get one to work, as they are
> VERY finicky devices.
They can be finicky devices yes especially if poorly designed. To the
extent you use relativistic beam lines, the energetics certainly an
understanding of relativity. However, the basic mechanism of
radiative damping, electron coherence (bunching) and EM enhancement is
best understood in terms of Maxwell, not Einstein.
> > QM descrbes bound atomic and molecular states, Maxwell's equations
> > describes free electrons accelerated through a wiggler.
>
> Actually, I believe QED is needed to accurately design a FEL.
You may believe that, but you would be wrong.
> Maxwell's
> equations don't include the stimulated emission which is the hallmark of
> a laser.
HAHAHA! What are your stimulating you nimrod? Tommy Tommy Tommy -
and I thought you had something smart to say. Sheez. You're as
clueless as freaking Ian. Listen, the electrons in the beam line are
unbound. They're damped when they are accelerated laterally.
Inserting a device in a beam line to increase this damping effect,
increases the brightness of the source. Nothing is bound, QM need not
apply. Now, to get phase coherence in the beam - you carefully design
your undulator. This gives you spontaneous coherent emission. By
interrupting your beam line to create bunches of electrons - that have
the same spacing as your undulator - you can enhance coherent
emissions - at some cost to efficiency. By arranging to emit
radiation perpendicular to the beam line - and erecting a resonant
cavity to control the phase of this radiation - you can have the
radiation interact with the charges in the beam line so as to CAUSE
bunching without switching the beam on and off. This naturally
AMPLIFIES the coherent output - WITHOUT STIMIULATING A DAMN THING!
haha - as i said this is best described by Maxwell, Lorenz, and
Faraday - not Bohr or Schrodinger or Einstein! lol.
> But yes, a material laser (solid, liquid, gas) achieves a
> population inversion in the material;
Well at least you got that right.
> an FEL achieves it in the electron
> beam inside the undulator (a particular type of wiggler).
Correct - but what is stimulated in the FEL then if there are no
atoms? The electrons CAN respond to EM fields but flying free of a
bound state they only have kinetic energy or potential energy.
External EM fields that cause a uniform stream of free-flying
electrons to bunch up is possible. Provided the EM field is a
constant phase relationship to the beam line. One requires a resonant
cavity for that to happen - and that cavity is called a Fabry Perot
cavity or lasing cavity. The interaction of the electrons with the EM
field - is best described by Maxwell - no Bohr or Einstein - and you
do have a FEL with a lasing cavity.
Now, FELs can have light beams parallel to the electron beam lines,
and FELs can use spontaneous coherent emissions to produce a low grade
sort of coherence - but such systems are typically seeking to produce
x-rays or gamma rays and are not overly concerned with efficiency. My
system on the other hand, being a component of a power link, is
vitally concerned with overall system efficiency - and for that
reason, seeks to avoid losses associated with relativistic operation,
and intermittent switching.
> >> A laser is essentially a QM device.
>
> > NO IT IS NOT!
>
> You use a rather too limiting meaning of "QM". QED is relativistic
> quantum mechanics, and is the relevant theory here.
<sigh> QED is not QM and neitehr are Wigner-Ville Distributions!
Wigner distributions are the meat and potatoes of free electron laser
design and describe the sorts of interactions we're talking about
within a free electron laser. .
Wigner distributions are a special type of quasi-probability
distribution. It was introduced by Eugene Wigner in 1932 to study
quantum corrections to classical statistical mechanics. The goal was
to supplant the wavefunction that appears in Schrödinger's equation
with a probability distribution in phase space.
Got it? Weyl didn't want to deal with Schrodinger's equation, so
created his own quantization distribution for free charge flows.
Wigner distributions map on the quantum density matrix in the map
between real phase-space functions and Hermitian operators introduced
by Hermann Weyl in 1927, in a context related to representation theory
in mathematic.
haha.. Weyl quantization is not Quantum Electrodynamics! lol or
Quantum Mechanics.. It was developed to get around the limitations of
Schrodinger's Equations!!! lol.
In effect, it is the Weyl-Wigner transform of the density matrix, so
it is the realization of that operator in phase space. It was later
rederived by J. Ville in 1948 as a quadratic (in signal)
representation of the local time-frequency energy of a signal.
Bunching of electrons in this case.
In 1949, Moyal, who had also rederived Wigner distrbution
independently, recognized it as the quantum moment-generating
functional, and thus as the basis of an elegant encoding of all
quantum expectation values, and hence quantum mechanics, in phase
space (cf Weyl quantization). It has applications in statistical
mechanics, quantum chemistry, quantum optics, classical optics and
signal analysis in diverse fields such as electrical engineering,
seismology, biology, speech processing, and engine design.
Now, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is a relativistic quantum field
theory of electrodynamics. QED was developed by a number of
physicists, beginning in the late 1920s. It describes some aspects of
how electrons, positrons and photons interact. QED mathematically
describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles
interacting by means of exchange of photons. It accurately predicts
quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, and the
Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.
In technical terms, QED can be described as a perturbation theory of
the electromagnetic quantum vacuum.
Obviously this is not the same as a simple Weyl distribution used to
design FEL.
> > QM and relativity are two different things.
>
> Yes they are.
I'm glad to hear you say that.
> One needs both to understand an FEL.
No one needs to understand Wigner distributions which are a totally
different thing.
I mean, to someone who only knows how to add and subtract numbers,
algebra, the calculus and differential equations might all seem to be
the same sort of thing. haha.. They're not. Even though you can
construct a differential equation that follows algebraic rules -
algebra is not diff eq, and even though diff eq deals with change as
does calculus, a differential equation is distinctly different than
the calculus.
Its the same here. If you know what you're doing and you do it every
freaking day, its irritating to have someone who clearly doesn't know
SHIT from SHINOLA telling you you don't know what you're talking about
when you're trying to explain to them something simple.
> > Relativistic electrons
> > are not required for free electron lasers
>
> Yes, they are.
No they're not! In fact there are entire symposia dedicated to the
topic! lol.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/7530/20500/00947224.pdf?arnumber=947224
You really do yourself a serice by actually reading up on a topic
before posting on it. Sheez you freaking moron.
> The crucial requirement is that the electrons be
> relativistic enough so their synchrotron radiation is closely collimated
> forward along the beam.
Nope. This isn't critical at all - in certain designs.
http://vant.kipt.kharkov.ua/ARTICLE/VANT_2007_3/article_2007_3_265.pdf
>
> > Synchotron radiation is A TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC!
>
> No.
YES! Synchotron radiation is NECESSARILY incoherent. haha - does
that sound like a lser to you? haha.. You've got to insert some
sort of device in the beam to take energy out of the beam in a way
that introduces coherence, and when possible, amplifies coherence with
a resonating cavity.
Ever hear of first generation sources? second generation sources?
third generation sources? fourth generation soufces? haha.. You
seem to be stuck somewhere back in the 1970s - they called and want
their synchotron back! lol. Even first generation sources required
the insertion of devices to convert synchotron beam energy into
COHERENT radiation.
Think about it this way, you needed a synchotron for the early FELs -
just like you need a high voltage power supply for a gas laser. But a
high voltage power supply isn't a gas laser is it? And a synchotron
is not a free electron laser, even though you wiggle its beam line to
damp the energy in a way that produces coherent light.(and even though
the synchotron itself radiates light all by itself due to the
electrons circulating round and round and round. lol.
> It is the basis on which an FEL is built.
A synchotron without a device inserted in its beam line is incpable of
producing coherent beams of radiant energy.
> The undulator in an FEL
is a device that's inserted in the beam line of a synchotron. Yes.
THAT produces coherent radiation. The synchotron while it can
radiate light - is not a free electron laser all by itself.
> generates precisely-tuned synchrotron radiation,
No no no - the electrons loop around and around the synchotron - this
means they are accelerated toward the center of the loop to maintain
their circular motion - this causes radiation to be emitted since the
electrons are being accelerated. Without inserting something into
the beam to cause the unform beam line to bunch up, or wiggle or both
- you cannot have coherent radiation which is the definition of laser
energy. Sorry. Synchotron radiation is not the same thing as FEL
emission.
,
> which initially aligns
> the electrons in time
A continuous beam line with the electrons uniformly spread along the
circle in a synchotron - is a source of incoherent light. You can
intorduce devices in the beam line to cause the electrons to bunch up,
to create coherent beams of synchotron radiation - those are the
earliest sources. You can wiggle the beam line to get coherent beams
of totally different wavelengths than the fundamental one of the
synchotron. You can coherently bunch electrons in a wiggler to
increase coherent intensity. You can cause resonant EM waves to
interact with the beam line wiggler to increase efficiency. You can
even get rid of the freaking synchotron altogether and work with non-
relativistic electrons to further increase efficiency.
got it? Synchotron radiation is emitted by a free stream of
electrons circulating in a synchotron. Free electron lasers produce
coherent radiation in a structured device that accelerates a
structured beamof free electrons - either relativistic or no..
>MUCH better than the RF of the accelerator [#], so
> that the front of the beam can present the required population inversion
You are totally clueless TOTALLY. Do you even KNOW what an inverted
population is? You can't have an inverted population of free
electrons dude! haha..
In statistical mechanics, a population inversion occurs when a group
of atoms or molecules exists in state with more members in an excited
state than in lower energy states. The concept is of fundamental
importance in conventional laser science because the production of a
population inversion is a necessary step in the workings of a
conventional laser.
To understand the concept of a population inversion, it is necessary
to understand some thermodynamics and the way that light interacts
with matter. Free electron lasers deal only with electrons and
radiation - not populations of molecules or atoms with electrons bound
to them.
To understand population inversion thinkof a simple assembly of atoms
forming a laser medium having two distinct energies - a ground state
for the atom - and an excited state for the atom. This means that the
electrons bound to the atom are either in one state or another.
The medium is pumped by some external energy source so that all the
bound electrons are in the higher state. Conventional laser action
occurs when spontanous light emission is reflected through a lasing
cavity to maintain coherence,and that spontaneous emission stimulates
coherent emission from all the excited states. This is how a
conventional laser works.
This is not how a free electron laser works.
A free electron laser accelerates FREE electrons - not bound ones - by
some means to produce coherent radiation of any frequency without the
electrons being bound to atoms or molecules. There can be therefore
NO inverted populations! lol.
> to radiation coming from the back of the beam.
You've got it all wrong.
> It is this self-alignment
> in time that permits the extremely short pulses of an FEL; undulators
> and wigglers are also used in synchrotron light sources,
Wait a minute, you said before that synchotron light was the same as
FEL - now they're different? haha. SEE? You don't know what the
heck you're talking about. You really don't. You can't see the
difference between QM, QED and Wigner Weyl calcualtions, you can't see
the difference between FEL and Synchotron radiation, and you think
that somehow unbound free flying electrons can have an inverted
population, of what you don't know - and you can't see that FELs can
be easily built with non-relativisitc electrons, or that lasing
cavities improve coherence and beam stability - haha -- but here you
are telling me off and al I'm doing is sticking up for what I said
originally - namely, that we can build light weight solar power
satellites that efficiently drive solar receivers from space -
hahaha..
> but they have
> considerably longer pulse widths, and considerably wider wavelength
> spreads.
You are totally clueless - you don't have the basics right - so, all
this gobbledy gook isn't going to save you.
> The light pulse from synchrotron radiation is about as wide as
> the electron bunch is long; the light output of an FEL is several orders
> of magnitude narrower than the bunch length.
Well you've finally managed to say something right. But its at odds
with the other stuff you've said and agrees with everything I said..
I see now how you've managed to say something coherent here - but even
you can see can't you that there is a clear distinction between
synchotron radiation and laser radiation in this statement? Yet
earlier you were bitching about synchotron radiation WAS laser
radiation! haha.. Fact is, you cut and pasted crap, without even
checking it for consistency, or troubling yourself to read it - before
making your erroneous statements above.
Fact is, this statement supports the idea that synchotron radiation is
not laser radiation - admit that, and you are admitting you're cutting
and pasting stuff that sounds good to you - but which you haven't a
clue about really..
> [#] This is the basis of Self Amplified Stimulated Emission.
Careful with your mixing and matching what you copy. Recall you said
it was IMPOSSIBLE to have a Fabry Perot cell in a FEL remember? How
are you doing your self amplified stuff? And remember, free electron
lasers use free electrons. WHAT are you stimulating, what are you
amplifying and what are you doing all that with?
haha.. you are totally clueless TOTALLY - you're in over your head,
and you haven't even troubled yourself to really understand what
you're posting about. electrons bound to atoms or molecules can be
stimulated to emit light and light output can be amplified. FREE
ELECTRONS not bound to atoms, cannot be stimulated in this way. FREE
ELECTRONS can be caused to bunch up as I've already described - but
this is merely coherent electro magnetic waves inducing coherence in a
beam of electrons - the coherent EM waves are created by reflecting
the EM waves through a resonant cavity - like a Fabry Perto
interferometer. lol.
> > synchotron radiation is not laser energy. Synchotron
> > radiation doesn't control the phase of the light to the same degree
> > lasers do. In fact this is the distinguishing feature of laser
> > systems
>
> Yes.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry_Perot
>
> There is no such resonant cavity in any FEL I know of.
That doesn't surprise me - and it doesn't change the fact that FEL
routinely support such devices.
> > The electrons are going fast,the energy is sufficient to change their
> > mass slightly
>
> You need to learn about SR,
Do I now? haha..
> and quantitative physics. In the FLASH FEL
Riiight - and Weyl quantization along with Wigner distributions -
that's not needed at all! haha.
Dude, I've BUILT free electron lasers. sheez.
ASSHOLE
> the electrons have an energy of 700 MeV -- almost 1,400 times their rest
> mass. Such a factor is nowhere close to "slightly"!
The energy of a photon is
E = hc/lambda
I'm dealing with 1,100 nm wavelengths thats 1.1e-6 m
h = 6.626e-34 and c= 3e8 m/sec
E = 6.626e-34 * 3e+8 / 1.1e-6 = 1.807e-19 Joules
That's 1.128 eV - about 1 billionthe the energy you're talking about
and produced by electrons that are not relativistic at all.
Travelling at 1/3 light speed electrons have about 50 keV of energy.-
a typical CRT power supply - they're not relativistic at all! Yet
they have 50,000x as much energy as an 1,100 nm photon! A single
electron could dump 10% of its energy in a wiggler moving at this
speed and produce 5,000 photons of this wavelength!
> [Though physicists don't normally speak of this as
> "changing their mass".]
I'll keep that in mind when I want to pretend to be a physicist. lol.
> >> To actually get AMPLIFICATION you need a quantum
> >> inversion.
>
> > Invesion of WHAT exactly?
>
> Of the population of potential radiation emitters.
Those potential radiation emitters are also known as ATOMS and
MOLECULES you fucking moron!
See? You don't know the fuck you're talking about you freaking
moron. And then you're such a HUGE ASSHOLE you gotta advise me to
learn about special relativity! haha. Jesus fucking christ tommy, you
are a tool a real tool lol.
> This is required
In a conventional laser.
> because if there is a transition high->low that emits a laser photon,
In a conventional laser yes. A free electro laser accelerates free
flying electrons to produce laser energy independent of bound atomic
and molecular states - as was stated at the outset.
> there is ALWAYS a corresponding transition low->high that absorbs one
Riiiight - in a conventional laser you freak.
.
> Amplification can only occur if more of the first occur than the second,
In a conventional lasing medium this is correct. When the electrons
are bound to atoms and molecules. A free electron laser is something
different. You oughta look into it before you start posting you
freak.
> which requires more potential emitters
also known as atoms and molecules to which electrons are bound in a
conventional lasing medium yes.
> to be in the high state than in
> the low state -- that's what "population inversion" means.
Yes very good - that's very good - unfortunately this has nothing
whatever to do with free electron lasers you moron. (and it requires a
Fabry Perot cavity to implement! haha - something you said FELs
couldn't have! haha)
>
> Normal thermal processes make the population in the low
> state be larger than in the high state.
You're cutting and pasting again without any clear understanding of
what you're doing. if you actually read the stuff you might not look
like such a goddamned fool tommy. Population of what? potential
emitters. you've GOT to know these are atoms and molecules to which
electrons are bound - right?
hahaha.
> In material
> lasers
Which is what you're talking about here - we've stopped talking about
free electron lasers pages ago
> the material must be "pumped" in a carefully
> designed way
oh so careful - in a lasing cavity called a Fabry Perot interferometer
- you oughta look into it. asshole!
> so the inversion occurs.
yes - see, you were feeling rather squemish about those 'potential
emitters' but now that you're talking about atoms and molecules you
feel better now don't you? you freaking moron.
> A ruby laser is
> pumped
It has nothing to do with free electron lasers that can be made to
efficiently emit 1,100 nm wavelengths with greater than 90% efficency
-
> by a Xe flash tube;
Which is woefully inefficient and also shares the distinction of
having nothing whatever to do with free electron lasers.
> a He-Ne laser
is also NOT a free electron laser.
> is pumped by
> the electrical discharge;
Very inefficiently, and since the electrons are bound to the molecules
and atoms which compose the lasing medium, the range of coherent light
- so inefficiently produced,is constrained to a narrow band given by
the difference in energy between the ground state and excited state.
hmm.. wouldn't it be nice if we could free those electrons from that
bound state and accelerate them freely so that we could effiicently
generate coherent wavelengths of any frequency we liked?? That would
be something wouldn't it? You think we could do that tommy? you
think that might be possible?
They're called free electon lasers you moron - look into it before
lecturing me about it. lol.
> chemical lasers are pumped
> by chemical reactions;
very inefficiently as well
> pumping material lasers is a
> subtle topic....
So sublte it has escaped your understanding obviously you moron..
> An FEL is pumped by the accelerator,
here's a topic to google - BEAM DAMPING - you oughta look into it
A free electorn laser is characterized by electrons not bound to any
molecules or atoms. The electrons are free moving. The kinetic
energy in the electrons is converted to coherent radiant energy by
accelerating the electrons in a coherent way. This device is called
an undulator or wiggler. By radiating the coherent light energy
transverse to the electron beam, within a tuned interferometer - the
electrons can be caused to bunch up in the undulator device increasing
the efficiency with which the undulator makes coherent light.
> the undulator,
Has nothing whatever to do with excited or ground states, nor does it
have anything to do with stimulated emissions and all that stuff you
talk about with conventional lasers.
> and the resulting synchrotron radiation.
Synchotron radiation is by definition incoherent. you have to insert
a device into the synchotron to create a coherent light source. first
generation devices structured the uniform ring of electrons along the
path to create coherent light. Second generatoin devices wiggled or
undulated the beam to increase brightness and efficiency. Third
generation devices did both - fourh generation devices used a resonant
cavity with an undulator to increase efficiency and brightness and
coherency even further.
> > While light amplification is certainly achieved by inverting
> > populations of atoms and molecules with energy and then hitting them
> > with photons, in a lasing cavity, to amplify the photons in phase
> > withi one another - it is obviously NOT the method used with free
> > electron lasers designed to overcome the limitations of bound states -
> > as described in the reference you gave.
>
> You are making unwarranted conclusions.
No I'm not.
> For an FEL to work there must
> indeed be a population inversion
No, there CANNOT BE a population inversion in a population of free
flying electrons. A population inversion requires that there be a
ground state and an excited state - and these are characteristics of
an electron bound to an atom or molecule. That is, you are describing
a conventional lasing medium. You can't see that because you don't
know what you're talking about you moron.
> in the electron beam,
Free flying electrons can't be in a ground state or excited state all
by themelves. These states are the result of an electron being bound
to an atom or molecule.
> but it's much
> more subtle than in an atomic system.
Riiiight - so subtle it doesn't exist you freak! lol.
Look, its very simple. you've got Faraday's law of induction right?
nabla cross _E = - partial _B / dt
The curl of the electric field is equal to the negative change in
magnetic field. That means you accelerate an electron and you get an
electro-magnetic wave - now if the electrons are BOUND to atoms
they're in a stationary state - they're not radiating - that's
explained by QM - any particular stationary state has associated with
it an energy level. Move fromone energy level to another in one of the
BOUND STATIONARY STATES - and you are either absorbing or emitting
photons.
A FREE FLYING ELECTRON - is not bound. Yet, when it is accelerated by
an external magnetic or electrical field, it is capable of emitting a
photon as well. There can be no inverted population since there's no
bound state and no stationary state to move from or to.
You have kinetic energy and you can convert that kinetic energy to
photons by accelerating the electron appropriately.
>
> He-Ne lasers require a Fabry-Perot cavity
Yes they do, but this is not a free electron laser.
> to achieve many passes through
> the medium,
No, to achieve coherence of output. sheez.
> because their population inversion is rather low.
Their efficiency is low and their frequency of operation is fixed by
the stationary states available to the medium. FREE ELECTRON LASERS
ARE NOT CONSTRAINED IN THIS WAY - do you know why tommy boy?
BECAUSE THERE ARE NO STATIONARY STATES! Guess what? No stationary
states means no inverted population no stimulated emissions and all
that rot.
haha.. you are totally clueless dude.
> A
> well-designed FEL
Is a total mystery to you.
> achieves considerable amplification in one pass.
amplifcation of what? You are a lunatic who doesn't know they don't
know. Take a deep breath and realize you don't know what the hell
you're talking about. You've made a complete ASS of yourself. Relax
accept that, and LISTEN!
You got electrons moving with considerable kinetic energy - even
nonrelativstic electrons have thousands of times more energy than
contained in say 1,100 nm photons. Okay, so these electrons are
moving in a straight line - there's a megnetic field associated with
that - because they aree charged. Now, with magnetic fields or
electrostatic charges - you cause the electrons to aceelerate from
their stratight line motion. They wiggle or undulate. This causes by
Faraday's law EM fields to be produced - light is radiated away - the
energy comes from the kinetic energy of the electrons.
THATS IT!
No inveted populations.
Now, you want COHERENT light?
Well, then you've got to understand about the coherence of the beam,
and the coherence of the wiggler. You CAN use the emitted light
itself, to reliably bunch the electrons in the beam - so that coherent
output increases. No problem, but this requires that you have a
resonant cavity for the radiation - a fabry perto interferometer.
Even though the cavity interact with the electrons passing through the
wiggler to efficiently bunch them up - this is not the same as a
population of electrons in an energetic stationary state in a
conventional lasing medium.
> > Electrons are wiggled - and the structure of the wiggler determines
> > the phase of things. Nothing is stimulated, nothing is amplified -
>
> Not true in an FEL.
You're wrong sponge bob - live with it. you got beam energy damped to
produce coherent light energy. If the electrons are free they're not
bound - which means you don't have stimulation of bound states from
low energy to high energy. You really should learn about a subject
before posting on it.
> Without stimulated emission the coherence of the
> light would be lost;
In a conventional lasing system using a conventional medium this is
true. Coherence is achieve differently in a free electron laser. you
started out your discussion here by asserting wrongly that there are
no resonant lasing cavities in a free electron laser- while it is true
a FEL can exhibit spontaneous coherent emission in a well designed
wiggler, structuring the beam within the wiggler improves that.
causing the light to resonate in a cavity enhances natural bunching of
the electron beam to increase efficiency of coherent emission.
> without amplification there would not be sufficient
> intensity
in a conventional lasing medium true - you've got to store energy in
the atoms pumping energy into the stationary state - and then
releasing it coherently
In a free electron laser all the energy comes from the kinetic energy
of the free fling electrons. The trick with a free electron laser is
to damp this energy by accelerating the electron stream in space so as
to maintain coherence. You are totally confused on this subject and
really understand neither free electron lasers or conventional lasers
despite all you've written..
> to see the laser beam above the background (uncorrelated
> emission from the very same electron beam).
you do need to structure the beam so that it passes through the
wiggler in groups - this is assisted by a resonant cavity operating in
conjunction with the wiggler as i've descrbed previously.
> If you look at a He-Ne laser tube from the side, you'll see
that it is not a free electron laser.
> the characteristic red glow from uncorrelated emission
which also is not a free electron laser.
> that
> does not contribute to the laser beam.
being woefully inefficient.
> In a well-designed
> He-Ne laser,
all the electrons are bound in a stationary state, so the wavelengths
are fixed.
> some 70-80% of the light output is in the beam.
HeNe lasers are 30% efficient.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/optmod/lasgas.html
> I don't know what efficiency an FEL can achieve,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/3/23084/01072750.pdf?arnumber=1072750
Unconstrained by the considerations typical of conventional lasers,
free electron lasers have the potential to be nearly perfectly
efficient. The goal of my research proram is to achieve 90%+
efficiency for 1,100 nm wavelength FEL.
> but I
> suspect it is considerably lower.
You would be wrong sponge bob - while relativisitc x-ray FELs are very
low efficiency - this is not true of longer wavelengths using
nonrelativistic electrons.
> > A synchotron circulates charged particles through a circle. To move a
> > particle in a circle requires a constant acceleration toward the
> > center. Thus, you have an accelerated charge!
>
> But that is NOT what drives an FEL.
That's right, which is why synchotron radiation isnot FEL radiation.
> For an FEL one must place an
> undulator along the beamline
Correct again - which means that synchotron radiation is not FEL
radiation which is what i'm saying and have said throughout. Although
you can create a coherent synchotron source by bunching the electrons
along the beam this way - without an undulator this was the earliest
form of FEL- but even though it was the same base frequency as
synchotron radiation - it was still different since you had to put
something in the beam line to cause th bunching.
> where the FEL operates. The synchrotron is
> just used to generate the relativistic electron beam.
that's right - which i said previsouly, and I'm saying here and stands
in stark contrast to what you said reviously.
> For instance, JLab
> is building an FEL, but does not have a synchrotron.
Very good sponge bob - now why did you say synchotron radiation WAS
laser radiation then? hmm? you're not being consistent. you're
not being consistent because you don't understand what you're talking
about.
> > The photons aren't in
> > phase - as in a laser or a FEL - they radiate in all directions around
> > the circle - depending on the spacing of the charges.
>
> No. Synchrotron radiation is HIGHLY focused in the forward direction --
you said earlier synchotron radiation was fel radiation - now you're
saying they're different - you don't know what the hell you're saying
> a direct and important consequence of relativity.
Relativisitc effects are important, but synchotron radiation is just a
fancy antenna with an electron beam replacing a wire.
Electrons are accelerated to high speeds in several stages to achieve
a final energy that is typically in the GeV range. The electrons are
stored in an ultrahigh vacuum ring on a closed loop and thus circle
the ring a vast number of times. The electrons are forced to travel in
a closed loop by strong magnetic fields. The magnets also need to
repeatedly recompress the Coulomb-exploding space charge electron
bunches. The change of direction is a form of acceleration and thus
the electrons emit radiation at GeV frequencies.
This is similar to a radio antenna,
The difference that the relativistic speeds introduce are;
Changes in the observed frequency due to the Doppler effect by a
factor γ.
Relativistic Lorentz contraction bumps the frequency by another factor
of γ,
multiplying the GeV frequency of the resonant cavity that accelerates
the electrons into the X-ray range.
Another dramatic effect of relativity is that the radiation pattern is
also distorted from the isotropic dipole pattern expected from non-
relativistic theory into an extremely forward-pointing cone of
radiation.
This makes synchrotron radiation sources the brightest known sources
of X-rays. The planar acceleration geometry makes the radiation
linearly polarized when observed in the orbital plane, and circularly
polarized when observed at a small angle to that plane.
> The FEL output is even
> more focused.
Depends on the details of construction.
> > The synchtron is not a free electron laser,- there are no inverted
> > populations of anything in either the FEL or synchotron
>
> Hmmm. Yes,
EXCELLENT! So you finally get it... a conventional laser organizes
electrons in bound states to produce coherent light, a synchotron does
not produce coherent light,but by introducing a device into the beam
line,the kinetic energy of the electron beam can be made to emit a
coherent light - having nothing to do with the bound states associated
with conventional lasers.
> a synchrotron has no population inversion
and neither does a free electron laser -
> and is not a laser.
Right so your comments earlier about free electron laser energy being
equal to synchotron radiation is wrong.
> But an FEL has a population inversion
no it does not.
> and is a laser.
its a highly coherent light source yes - the electrons are free flying
however, and are not bound to any atom or molecule, so there are no
statoinary states to move from or to.
> > [... rest unread; seems too much like the above]
I've taken 3 hours to respond to your bullshit - i hope you appreciate
the effort.
> [As should be obvious, I am not an expert on FELs,
That is absolutely obvious.
> and I
> suppose it is possible there is more variance in the
> subject than I know of;
Getting the basics right would be nice.
> there is certainly more detail.
You know you're full of shit then - thanks fo rtelling me now sponge
bob.
> My knowledge is basically from reading about FLASH --
> http://vuv-fel.desy.deand a few brief discussions
> with people from JLab.]
Too bad you didn't read it with understanding.
>
> Tom Roberts
Sheez.
srp...@gmail.com
> On Aug 19, 9:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser
> > > Yes, and please read the following from the first paragraph;
> > > [basic, fairly accurate description of an FEL]
>
> > > It can't be any clearer than that.
>
Hi.
You obviously understand FEL operation (and Maxwell).
I have a question that I never could get a figure for by
exploring sites.
Do you happen to know the highest frequency coherent
beam produced with currently active FELs.
Thanks
André Michaud
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/7530/20500/0094...
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/3/23084/0107275...
> > http://vuv-fel.desy.deanda few brief discussions
Willie...@gmail.com
> On 20 août, 03:16, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 9:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser
> > > > Yes, and please read the following from the first paragraph;
> > > > [basic, fairly accurate description of an FEL]
>
> > > > It can't be any clearer than that.
>
> Hi.
>
> You obviously understand FEL operation (and Maxwell).
>
> I have a question that I never could get a figure for by
> exploring sites.
>
> Do you happen to know the highest frequency coherent
> beam produced with currently active FELs.
>
> Thanks
>
> André Michaud
>
My center of attention has been to produce 1,100 nm wavelengths at
high efficiency with a simple low cost compact lightweight solar
pumped system - and I leave the short wavelength stuff up to the
military and others who might need it.
However, inspecting the usual suspects online, I find 80 nm is near
today's upper limit - this with a very very high energy accelerator
http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/l02/PAPERS/TH202.PDF
and low efficiences - but having the short wavelengths you seek.
80 nm is Ultra-violet where each photon possesses 15.5 eV - 5x as
energetic as blue-green light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Edward Teller said he thought he could make X-ray lasers with shaped
atomic blases, which caused Ronald 'raygun' Reagan to initiate SDI.
Unfortunately, underground tests were not conclusive and support for
the program as originally concieved waned.
I felt this test was an effort to shape the decision making process
against SDI by ideologically motivated scientists within the weapons
community, and it is quite obvious that since X-ray and gamma ray
blasts occur from atomic explosions, shaping the blast wave and
sending it through the right material -X-ray and gamma ray lasers seem
doable. Had Teller been a younger man, he likely would have succeeded
and we'd have SDI planetary sheild today
In principle there is no limit.to what's possible - photon cost will
always be a problem at the extreme edge.
srp...@gmail.com
Thanks for your info and the pertinent refs.
High energy coherence however may be way more useful than
military use.
I found that there is theoretical reason to believe that producing
beams of coherent photons in the 1.022 MeV range could result
in massive quantities of protons and neutrons to be produced
when aimed at proper targets.
Practically free (relatively) unlimited reaction mass being produced
from very little (relatively again) energy in fact.
From the 80 nm wavelength you mention as the current approximate
limit, I see we still have a long way to go.
The LHC could possibly store sufficiently highly relativistic electron
streams to drive a FEL into that range.
The future will tell.
Thanks again
André Michaud
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
thanks for the kindnesses - but I am having trouble understanding your
comment about reaction mass. Massenergy is the same thing. In fact,
taking energy and producing mass out of it is one of the least
efficient ways to go with today's or near term tomorrow's technology.
Making protons and antiprotons - along with electrons and positrons -
may be interesting - because you can store the anti-matter and use it
in a rocket.
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=88073
Very energetic gamma rays,- make photon rockets possible that have
high thrusts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_photonic_rocket
But energy density limits limit present day methods to very low
thrusts - excepting laser light sails -
srp...@gmail.com
Ok, I'll explain further.
Extracting energy from mass is actually what has been traditionally
attempted and has shown to be very inefficient. Making mass from
energy
however has never been considered exploitable, besides the lab
curiosity of being able to produce electron-positron pairs from
destabilizing 1.022 MeV photons.
There is however sound theoretical ground to conclude that a
further step can be taken, which can most probably be controllable
and end up providing us with more energy than we can possibly need.
There is ground to conclude that quarks up and down (the only
scatterable elementary particles ever detected within nucleons)
may simply be relativistically accelerated positrons and
electrons.
It was hypothesized in the 1940's that metastable threesome systems
of electron-electron-positron or electron-positron-positron could
be even less stable than positronium metastable systems. But no
further research was carried out for lack of adequate equipment
to produce sufficient amounts of both types of particles in the
thermal range, in high enough concentration for them to associate
in significant amounts as these threesome systems. The idea was
then simply forgotten.
Since both types of particles are elementary, they cannot split
into smaller particles (proven out of any doubt by 100 years of
countless confirming experiments), if such a system destabilizes,
the three particles can only accelerate towards each other until
they can get no closer due to stable and well established
electromagnetic equilibrium radii, which can only be those of
proton and neutron, or their antiparticles.
There you have your gain. A proton mass (mostly relativistic, but
stable) from 3 electron initial mass particles, plus three highly
energetic bremmstrahlung photons being emitted as the triad settles
at its final translation radius, that will presumably immediately
split themselves into further electron-positron pairs due to
closeness to the just formed nucleon.
Stable mass gain through acceleration. Acceleration is the key.
You can use the produced protons (hydrogen nuclei, really) in a
variety of ways, simply burn it as fuel, or use the mass produced
as reaction mass to drive spacecrafts, and whatever other use
one can think of.
André Michaud
Willie...@gmail.com
I don't know if that will help. lol. Its pretty clear to me you've
made a few fundamental errors which I've tried to point out to you.
> Extracting energy from mass is actually what has been traditionally
> attempted and has shown to be very inefficient.
Energy and mass are the same thing. They're related by the constant
c^2 - the speed of light squared. In consistent units that means that
1 kg of mass is the same as 300 million meters per second square - or
90,000 million million joules. - 90 quadrillion joules per kg.
> Making mass from
> energy
requires at least 90 quadrillion joules per kg, and given the low
efficiency of ultra-high energy particle accelerators, tack on a
factor of 1,000 to 1,000,000 to that -
> however has never been considered exploitable,
for what? Energy is a high value commodity. Protons are not.
> besides the lab
> curiosity of being able to produce electron-positron pairs from
> destabilizing 1.022 MeV photons.
Eugene Sanger (of the Sanger antipodal bomber) proposed the use of
postrons for propulsion in 1953
Positrons are made routinely. It might be done efficiently, and you'd
get 3% to 15% of the energy you started with as anti-matter. This has
a huge advantage in that anti-matter is a very compact way to store
energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/Papers/NASA_anti.pdf
> There is however sound theoretical ground to conclude that a
> further step can be taken,
??? You make these grand sounding statements that signify nothing.
What sound theoretical ground? haha.. specifically what are you
talking about? When I see this I know something weird is coming down
the pike because you're ego is being inflated with this word hash.
'sound theoretical ground to conclude that a further step can be
taken' - says absolutely nothing concrete.
you've replaced all the specifics in a logical statement with
adjective clauses - with no referents! For example, 'sound
theoretical grounds' could equal for example, 'carnot efficiency of
heat engines' or 'entendue limits in optical systems' 'further step
can be taken' could equal for example, limits the efficiency of heat
engines for example or limits the field of view of solar
concentrators... in which case the statement
'carnot efficiency restrict gas mileage in automobiles
or
entendue limits field of view of solar concentrators
see?
> which can most probably be controllable
haha.. you haven't said anything and now have added that the further
steps are controllable? haha - this is just gobbledy gook - you
haven't said anything yet.
> and end up providing us with more energy than we can possibly need.
How? You start out with energy and make positrons and electrons -
maybe 3% of the energy you start out with ends up as positrons and
electrons. Now you combine the positrons and electrons and get about
90% of the energy back - say 2.7% overall.
How does this get you more energy than you can possibly need?
You need a primary source of energy - to MAKE positrons in the first
place. to get MORE energy out than yuou put in violates the first law
of thermodynamics.
Why don't you know this?
> There is ground to conclude that quarks up and down (the only
> scatterable elementary particles ever detected within nucleons)
> may simply be relativistically accelerated positrons and
> electrons.
Well, you've added a real statement to a meaningless tag line here.
What grounds? specifically? See? You're also saying something
that is demonstrably false, which means your meaningless statement has
no possible referent.
You'r not backing up by anything - so, it just looks ignorant.
Obviously there is no grounds at all to say that positrons and
electrons have anything to do with quarks. In fact, bosons and
fermions are two different kinds of things - one has quarks in groups
of three - and form protons and neutrons - the other are forms of
electrons and have no quarks.
> It was hypothesized in the 1940's
by whom? what theory? the fact is you cannot cite a paper that
proves your statement because it flies in the face of the actual
history of quark theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#History
Murray Gell Mann proposed in 1964 the quark idea. It was confirmed in
1968. It applies only to hadrons - which do not include electrons.
> that metastable threesome systems
> of electron-electron-positron or electron-positron-positron could
> be even less stable than positronium metastable systems.
You are making this shit up out of whole cloth aren't you? haha -
this is so different from the real history of the concept of quarks
that it is an obvious construction. Why are you saying it then?
Just to test me? lol. sheez.
> But no
> further research was carried out for lack of adequate equipment
references? Murray Gell Mann first used the word quark to explain
hadron populations in 1964 - it was based on a word he read in James
Joyce's play Finnegans Wake - published in 1939 - but even though the
word 'quark' was used by Joyce in 1939 - it wasn't until Murray Gell-
Mann that it was applied to the physics of hadrons.
> to produce sufficient amounts of both types of particles in the
> thermal range,
What drugs are you taking? haha.. you're not making any sense
whatever. It is so obvious you do not know the first thing about what
you're talking about - its painful to read - really - and I'm ashamed
I took any effort at all to speak with you about anything. It really
is THAT dumb!
> in high enough concentration for them to associate
> in significant amounts as these threesome systems.
blah blah blah blah - these words are worse than signifying nothing -
they signify a deep seated ignorance that appears to be inpenetrable.
Fact is quark theory of hadrons was not even uttered until 1964 - and
no one believed it until 1968
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~acosta/phy3101/quarks/sld020.htm.
> The idea was
> then simply forgotten.
You really ought to read up on quark theory and its creator, nobelist
Murray Gell Mann before posting such tripe. Its really embarassing.
> Since both types of particles are elementary, they cannot split
> into smaller particles (proven out of any doubt by 100 years of
> countless confirming experiments),
You're just making shit up. One thing you should think about doing.
> if such a system destabilizes,
what's a sytem and why does it destabilize? Please don't answer this
- I'm asking it rhetorically to illustrate to you that you are saying
nothing, and where you are saying something its wrong wrong wrong
wrong - embarassingly so.
> the three particles can only accelerate towards each other until
so the systems are particles - why can they only accelerate toward
each other? You are making no sense.
> they can get no closer
why can they get no closer? haha.. you are just running off at the
mouth saying nothing whatever.
> due to stable and well established
> electromagnetic equilibrium radii,
hahahaha.. idiot.
> which can only be those of
> proton and neutron, or their antiparticles.
why? again this is rhetorical - there is so much wrong at so many
levels so much ignorance so densely packed - it would take VOLUMES to
sort through every few words - you are truly clueless - totally
clueless - when it comes to this sort of physics.
The question I have is that you apparently care enough to write on
this subject. Why don't you care enough to check your facts? To
really understand a thing that you care about? Obviously, anyone who
really did care, would take the trouble to know a thing or two or
three about a subject. You don't care - plainly - you are engaged in
some sort of game - to obscure sound scientific analysis with bogus
bullshit.
> There you have your gain.
No you don't.
> A proton mass (mostly relativistic, but
> stable) from 3 electron initial mass particles, plus three highly
> energetic bremmstrahlung photons
this is the first time you mentioned bremmstralung photons - so
talking like they're part of the process you've described is rank
insanity.
> being emitted as the triad settles
> at its final translation radius,
this is just a bund of meaningless words. You MUST know this. You
cannot not know this. So, one wonders what is your motivation to shit
all over this discssion with this smelly mess.
> that will presumably immediately
> split themselves into further electron-positron pairs due to
> closeness to the just formed nucleon.
utter rot.
> Stable mass gain through acceleration. Acceleration is the key.
bullshit.
> You can use the produced protons (hydrogen nuclei,
No you can't.
> really) in a
> variety of ways,
not at all.
> simply burn it as fuel, or use the mass produced
wait a minute - lol - you are advocating taking a particle
accelerator, and using it to generate a proton and anti proton pair -
by converting 3% of the energy spent in the accelerator into a proton
and anti-proton pair rest mass -costing 2.7 million million million
joules per kg of product and then taking the half kilogram of hydrogen
and burning it with oxygen to produce 0.143 million joules of heat
energy, ignoring the 45,000 million million joules of energy contained
in the anti-protons.
So, we start out with 2.7 million million million joules and end up
with 0.143 million joules. only one part in 18 trillion is returned
after spending billions of dollars per megawatt of capacity. hmm..
you are not only clueless, you are INSANE!
> as reaction mass to drive spacecrafts, and whatever other use
> one can think of.
You don't know what you're talking about. After spending 2.7 million
million million joules per kg of product, take the half kg of anti-
matter and recover the 45,000 million million joules in a compact
form. You don't get more energy out, but the anti-matter driven
system is compact and lightweight and capable of extreme
temperatures.
> André Michaud
>
You are proven yourself to be a freaking idiot - and I'm embarassed
that I took you seriously. Sheez.
>
> > Making protons and antiprotons - along with electrons and positrons -
> > may be interesting - because you can store the anti-matter and use it
> > in a rocket.
>
> >http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=88073
>
> > Very energetic gamma rays,- make photon rockets possible that have
> > high thrusts.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_photonic_rocket
>
> > But energy density limits limit present day methods to very low
> > thrusts - excepting laser light sails -
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -