Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Hal Murray]

bro...@pacific.net said:
> Isotopes of an element differ in the number of neutrons.  The chemical
> reactions of an element are governed by the  electrons, which are the same
> for all isotopes, so chemical means can not be used to separate the
> isotopes. 

That needs a qualification, maybe inserting something like "easily".

Some chemical reactions depend slightly on mass.  I was at a talk recently 
where the speaker was using isotope ratios to investigate the source of lead 
and mercury as pollutants.  The key is that the technology for measuring 
isotope ratios in now very good.  1E4 is common, at least in research labs 
focusing on this area.



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Bill Hawkins]

Good questions.

The one that bothers me is the magnetic levitation required to compare
the standard to anything. You can't put other materials inside the
vacuum bell with the standard. I looked up the paper, but it's behind a
$40 pay-wall.

Electromagnets will levitate permanent magnets, but the effect is not
stable, with the free magnet sliding out of the field. 
Diamagnetic materials will be stable, but the effect is so weak it would
require superconducting electromagnets. Quartz, as it happens, is
diamagnetic.

Now the problem is to apply identical levitation to dissimilar
materials. This would seem to require identical superconducting magnets
and identical levitated platforms. Identical currents can flow in the
levitating magnets simply by connecting them in series. In order for the
platforms to be identically levitated, they have to be an identical
distance from the levitating magnet. Measuring that to the required
precision could be a challenge.

Machining physical parts can be done to 10 E-6. That's not enough, so
the mechanism will require calibration. I suppose they could compare it
to the present platinum standard. Then there's the question of
calibration interval, and what to use as the standard. Counting
oscillations of atoms would be so much easier.

I think Rick's three points make this a non-starter. It's a case of
experts in metrology not having enough expertise in quarts resonators.

In answer to why they can't use 10 grams, the comparison has to be 100
times more accurate than that for 1000 grams.

Hope I haven't strayed too far off topic, and wasted my time.

Bill Hawkins


-Original Message-
From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Richard
(Rick) Karlquist
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 4:11 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement; Bob kb8tq
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

On 4/22/2018 10:20 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:

>> Do we know anybody in the quartz business who needs a really cool 
>> research project ?
> 
> You could put it on the list with the 1 Kg quartz resonator proposal
...
> 
> https://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2638.pdf 
> 
> 
> Also an offshoot of people thinking about the implications of all this
as it relates to resonators.
> 
> 
> Bob
> 

The cited article "must be true" because of its authors, I guess, but it
makes no sense to me.  They seem to be assuming that the resonant
frequency is inversely proportional to mass?  We all know three things:

1.  Frequency is inversely proportional to thickness.  Not mass.

2.  Frequency aging is affected by stress relaxation in well built
resonators.  The old idea that mass is gradually evaporating from the
resonator to the enclosure (glass enclosures) or mass is gradually
evaporating from the enclosure (metal enclosures) to depositing on the
resonator is simply obsolete in terms of current technology.
Thus again frequency is not a proxy for mass.

3. Resonators can "jump" in frequency without jumping in mass.

Given these facts, I am lost as how this is supposed to work.
Surely, the authors are well aware of the 3 items above.

Also, why does the resonator have to be a whole kilogram anyway.
If it weighed exactly 10 grams, couldn't you still compare it to a
kilogram using 100:1 leverage?

Can anyone straighten me out?

Rick
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

Quartz ball yes. It’s a fused quartz (as opposed to crystalline quartz) ball …..
Fused quartz is a lot easier to work with. In order to be piezoelectric, it must
be crystalline. The piezo properties are what lets you make a resonator out of 
it.  

Bob

> On Apr 22, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Brooke Clarke  wrote:
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I found a perfect quartz ball.  It took Stanford many decades to make it.
> https://einstein.stanford.edu/TECH/technology1.html
> 
> -- 
> Have Fun,
> 
> Brooke Clarke
> http://www.PRC68.com
> http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html
> 
>  Original Message 
>> Hi:
>> 
>> Isotopes of an element differ in the number of neutrons.  The chemical 
>> reactions of an element are governed by the electrons, which are the same 
>> for all isotopes, so chemical means can not be used to separate the isotopes.
>> There are a number of ways of making the separation, for Uranium see:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Engineer_Works#Facilities
>> 
>> It's not clear to me how the isotopes of water are accounted for in it's 
>> physical properties.  Have these been refined and defined for each isotope?  
>> This may be important since the properties of water show up a lot as the 
>> basis for other definitions.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_oxygen
>> 
>> PS One of the names of the company I worked for was FEI Microwave. There was 
>> a rumor that the funder of that company had a bunch of very special quartz 
>> in the vault and that crystals cut from that material had better phase noise 
>> than off the shelf crystals hence he had an advantage over other vendors.
>> http://prc68.com/I/Aertech.shtml#Names
>> 
> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Brooke Clarke]

Hi:

I found a perfect quartz ball.  It took Stanford many decades to make it.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/TECH/technology1.html

--
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
http://www.PRC68.com
http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html

 Original Message 

Hi:

Isotopes of an element differ in the number of neutrons.  The chemical reactions of an element are governed by the 
electrons, which are the same for all isotopes, so chemical means can not be used to separate the isotopes.

There are a number of ways of making the separation, for Uranium see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Engineer_Works#Facilities

It's not clear to me how the isotopes of water are accounted for in it's physical properties.  Have these been refined 
and defined for each isotope?  This may be important since the properties of water show up a lot as the basis for 
other definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_oxygen

PS One of the names of the company I worked for was FEI Microwave. There was a rumor that the funder of that company 
had a bunch of very special quartz in the vault and that crystals cut from that material had better phase noise than 
off the shelf crystals hence he had an advantage over other vendors.

http://prc68.com/I/Aertech.shtml#Names



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

If you get into “temperature nuts” territory, the triple point of water varies 
with the isotope 
“mix” in the standard. The “correct” mix turns out to be “mid continent deep 
well water”. 

If you make a resonator that is very thick, you also need to make it very wide. 
If you don’t, 
the width to thickness ratio gets into things. You start having “modes” that 
couple and that 
messes things up. Since we are already into the area that this matters on a 5 
MHz 3rd in 
modern packages ….. you make it thicker and you increase the mass. 

As you drop the frequency of a resonator, the acoustic loss goes down. To the 
degree that
limits your resonator Q ( back to things like thickness to diameter) the Q 
would be much higher
on a (say) 500 KHz SC than it is on a 5 MHz device. Q goes up and ADEV 
improves. Yes, that
assumes that temperature fluctuations (or something weird)  don’t get in the 
way. 

How you get an single isotope / zero contaminant quartz crystal - not at all 
clear. You have both
silicon and oxygen involved. You have to grow the crystal in some sort of 
solution. You also 
have to ultimately start from a natural quartz seed ( you may be generations 
removed from it, 
but that’s still the starting point), 

Just for reference, your 5 MHz third is about a half inch in diameter. A 5 MHz 
5th would be a bit
larger in diameter to work well. Scale the third to 500 KHz and you are at 5” 
in diameter. 
Does it weigh 1 Kg yet? It would have to be a bit over an inch thick for that 
to be true. That’s about 
10X to thick…… By the time you get to 200 KHz things are well over the target. 
Somewhere in the 
250 to 400 KHz range (depending on a lot of things) would likely be the net 
result. 

Bob

> On Apr 22, 2018, at 5:29 PM, Brooke Clarke  wrote:
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Isotopes of an element differ in the number of neutrons.  The chemical 
> reactions of an element are governed by the electrons, which are the same for 
> all isotopes, so chemical means can not be used to separate the isotopes.
> There are a number of ways of making the separation, for Uranium see:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Engineer_Works#Facilities
> 
> It's not clear to me how the isotopes of water are accounted for in it's 
> physical properties.  Have these been refined and defined for each isotope?  
> This may be important since the properties of water show up a lot as the 
> basis for other definitions.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_oxygen
> 
> PS One of the names of the company I worked for was FEI Microwave. There was 
> a rumor that the funder of that company had a bunch of very special quartz in 
> the vault and that crystals cut from that material had better phase noise 
> than off the shelf crystals hence he had an advantage over other vendors.
> http://prc68.com/I/Aertech.shtml#Names
> 
> -- 
> Have Fun,
> 
> Brooke Clarke
> http://www.PRC68.com
> http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html
> 
>  Original Message 
>> Single isotope diamond is 50% better  thermal conductivity of normal 
>> diamond.   It has been  used in laser optics and thermal transfer 
>> applications (semiconductor heatsinks).   I think the highest reported 
>> thermal transfer rate used isotopically pure diamond etched with 
>> micro-fluidic channels fed with coolant.   GE makes the diamond material... 
>> it was developed as part of Reagan's Star Wars project.
>> 
>> Isotopically pure silicon has 60% better thermal conductivity than natural 
>> silicon.
>> 
>> Isotopically pure platinum has been used in RTD temperature sensors.
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>> 
> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 4/22/2018 10:20 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:


Do we know anybody in the quartz business who needs a really cool
research project ?


You could put it on the list with the 1 Kg quartz resonator proposal …..

https://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2638.pdf 


Also an offshoot of people thinking about the implications of all this as it 
relates to resonators.


Bob



The cited article "must be true" because of its authors, I guess, but it
makes no sense to me.  They seem to be assuming that the resonant
frequency is inversely proportional to mass?  We all know three things:

1.  Frequency is inversely proportional to thickness.  Not mass.

2.  Frequency aging is affected by stress relaxation in well built
resonators.  The old idea that mass is gradually evaporating from
the resonator to the enclosure (glass enclosures) or mass is gradually
evaporating from the enclosure (metal enclosures) to depositing
on the resonator is simply obsolete in terms of current technology.
Thus again frequency is not a proxy for mass.

3. Resonators can "jump" in frequency without jumping in mass.

Given these facts, I am lost as how this is supposed to work.
Surely, the authors are well aware of the 3 items above.

Also, why does the resonator have to be a whole kilogram anyway.
If it weighed exactly 10 grams, couldn't you still compare it
to a kilogram using 100:1 leverage?

Can anyone straighten me out?

Rick
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Brooke Clarke]

Hi:

Isotopes of an element differ in the number of neutrons.  The chemical reactions of an element are governed by the 
electrons, which are the same for all isotopes, so chemical means can not be used to separate the isotopes.

There are a number of ways of making the separation, for Uranium see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Engineer_Works#Facilities

It's not clear to me how the isotopes of water are accounted for in it's physical properties.  Have these been refined 
and defined for each isotope?  This may be important since the properties of water show up a lot as the basis for other 
definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_oxygen

PS One of the names of the company I worked for was FEI Microwave. There was a rumor that the funder of that company had 
a bunch of very special quartz in the vault and that crystals cut from that material had better phase noise than off the 
shelf crystals hence he had an advantage over other vendors.

http://prc68.com/I/Aertech.shtml#Names

--
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
http://www.PRC68.com
http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html

 Original Message 

Single isotope diamond is 50% better  thermal conductivity of normal diamond.   
It has been  used in laser optics and thermal transfer applications 
(semiconductor heatsinks).   I think the highest reported thermal transfer rate 
used isotopically pure diamond etched with micro-fluidic channels fed with 
coolant.   GE makes the diamond material... it was developed as part of 
Reagan's Star Wars project.

Isotopically pure silicon has 60% better thermal conductivity than natural 
silicon.

Isotopically pure platinum has been used in RTD temperature sensors.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] 1 kg standard (was:Re: Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?)

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

A neophyte question about this topic:  Since we know that 0.001
cubic meter of water displaces 1 liter, and that it weighs 1 kg,
and meters are based on wavelengths of light, why
do we need a separate artifact of mass?  Also, can we measure
the mass of the artifact in Paris based on water substitution?

Articles about this topic are always presented as if the answers
are obvious.

Don't they base 0 degree Celsius on the triple point of water?
What's wrong with that?


Rick

On 4/22/2018 10:20 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:

Hi



On Apr 22, 2018, at 12:19 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp  wrote:

Silicon comes in a number of isotopes but 95% of it is Silicon-28.

When you make pure mono-crystaline silicon, you get 50-60% better
thermal conductivity if you only use Silicon-28 atoms.

Yes, you read that right:  50-60% improvement for removing the
remaining 5% other silicon isotopes, and for this and other reasons,
sorting silicon atoms by isotope is now a thing, which amongst other
side effects have made the Advogardo Project possible.

I can't help wonder if there may be similar interesting effects in
quartz crystals, if they were monoisotopic ?

Several relevant mechanisms can be imagined, lower internal damping,
higher stiffness etc. etc.

We know a LOT about quartz and have a very good theory for its
behaviours, but i find no signs anybody has ever touched monoisotopic
Quartz.

The obvious experiment is not rocket-science, nor does it demand
inordinate resources for amateurs, see for instance from 03:35:

https://archive.org/details/59554KrystallosCF

But it is clearly beyond what I have time to persue.

Do we know anybody in the quartz business who needs a really cool
research project ?


You could put it on the list with the 1 Kg quartz resonator proposal …..

https://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2638.pdf 


Also an offshoot of people thinking about the implications of all this as it 
relates to resonators.


Bob




Poul-Henning

--
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi

> On Apr 22, 2018, at 1:46 PM, jimlux  wrote:
> 
> On 4/22/18 9:19 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> Silicon comes in a number of isotopes but 95% of it is Silicon-28.
>> When you make pure mono-crystaline silicon, you get 50-60% better
>> thermal conductivity if you only use Silicon-28 atoms.
>> Yes, you read that right:  50-60% improvement for removing the
>> remaining 5% other silicon isotopes, and for this and other reasons,
>> sorting silicon atoms by isotope is now a thing, which amongst other
>> side effects have made the Advogardo Project possible.
>> I can't help wonder if there may be similar interesting effects in
>> quartz crystals, if they were monoisotopic ?
>> Several relevant mechanisms can be imagined, lower internal damping,
>> higher stiffness etc. etc.
>> We know a LOT about quartz and have a very good theory for its
>> behaviours, but i find no signs anybody has ever touched monoisotopic
>> Quartz.
>> The obvious experiment is not rocket-science, nor does it demand
>> inordinate resources for amateurs, see for instance from 03:35:
>>  https://archive.org/details/59554KrystallosCF
> 
> 
> A note the cigarette in the guy's hand - trace contaminants probably increase 
> the yield 
> 
> I've looked into "garage manufacture" of crystals, although I was looking 
> more at Cr and Ti doped alumina. The movie looks like it's using the 
> "solution" approach (which has also been used to grow synthetic emeralds) 
> which is similar to how it happens in nature.  These days, I wonder whether  
> continuous pulling from a melt like silicon boules might not be a better 
> strategy.

If you are after a quartz crystal, pulling is not an option. You grow them from 
solution under high pressure
and moderate temperature.

Bob


> 
> 
> 
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Mark Sims]

Single isotope diamond is 50% better  thermal conductivity of normal diamond.   
It has been  used in laser optics and thermal transfer applications 
(semiconductor heatsinks).   I think the highest reported thermal transfer rate 
used isotopically pure diamond etched with micro-fluidic channels fed with 
coolant.   GE makes the diamond material... it was developed as part of 
Reagan's Star Wars project.

Isotopically pure silicon has 60% better thermal conductivity than natural 
silicon.

Isotopically pure platinum has been used in RTD temperature sensors.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[djl]

Darn. maybe not grain boundaries, but dislocations? or both?
Don

On 2018-04-22 10:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

Silicon comes in a number of isotopes but 95% of it is Silicon-28.

When you make pure mono-crystaline silicon, you get 50-60% better
thermal conductivity if you only use Silicon-28 atoms.

Yes, you read that right:  50-60% improvement for removing the
remaining 5% other silicon isotopes, and for this and other reasons,
sorting silicon atoms by isotope is now a thing, which amongst other
side effects have made the Advogardo Project possible.

I can't help wonder if there may be similar interesting effects in
quartz crystals, if they were monoisotopic ?

Several relevant mechanisms can be imagined, lower internal damping,
higher stiffness etc. etc.

We know a LOT about quartz and have a very good theory for its
behaviours, but i find no signs anybody has ever touched monoisotopic
Quartz.

The obvious experiment is not rocket-science, nor does it demand
inordinate resources for amateurs, see for instance from 03:35:

https://archive.org/details/59554KrystallosCF

But it is clearly beyond what I have time to persue.

Do we know anybody in the quartz business who needs a really cool
research project ?

Poul-Henning


--
Dr. Don Latham
PO Box 404, Frenchtown, MT, 59834
VOX: 406-626-4304

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[jimlux]

On 4/22/18 9:19 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

Silicon comes in a number of isotopes but 95% of it is Silicon-28.

When you make pure mono-crystaline silicon, you get 50-60% better
thermal conductivity if you only use Silicon-28 atoms.

Yes, you read that right:  50-60% improvement for removing the
remaining 5% other silicon isotopes, and for this and other reasons,
sorting silicon atoms by isotope is now a thing, which amongst other
side effects have made the Advogardo Project possible.

I can't help wonder if there may be similar interesting effects in
quartz crystals, if they were monoisotopic ?

Several relevant mechanisms can be imagined, lower internal damping,
higher stiffness etc. etc.

We know a LOT about quartz and have a very good theory for its
behaviours, but i find no signs anybody has ever touched monoisotopic
Quartz.

The obvious experiment is not rocket-science, nor does it demand
inordinate resources for amateurs, see for instance from 03:35:

https://archive.org/details/59554KrystallosCF




A note the cigarette in the guy's hand - trace contaminants probably 
increase the yield 


I've looked into "garage manufacture" of crystals, although I was 
looking more at Cr and Ti doped alumina. The movie looks like it's using 
the "solution" approach (which has also been used to grow synthetic 
emeralds) which is similar to how it happens in nature.  These days, I 
wonder whether  continuous pulling from a melt like silicon boules might 
not be a better strategy.




___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[djl]

Interesting indeed!  Seems as if there ought to be info about drawing 
crystals mono vs poly isotopic somewhere out there. Also some info about 
crystal grain boundaries that might be generated in a zone furnace 
drawing by isotope inclusions. Seems the boundaries are responsible for 
the sudden frequency shifts? My solid state physics is evanescent, but 
there ought to be a TN with some info...

Don


On 2018-04-22 10:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

Silicon comes in a number of isotopes but 95% of it is Silicon-28.

When you make pure mono-crystaline silicon, you get 50-60% better
thermal conductivity if you only use Silicon-28 atoms.

Yes, you read that right:  50-60% improvement for removing the
remaining 5% other silicon isotopes, and for this and other reasons,
sorting silicon atoms by isotope is now a thing, which amongst other
side effects have made the Advogardo Project possible.

I can't help wonder if there may be similar interesting effects in
quartz crystals, if they were monoisotopic ?

Several relevant mechanisms can be imagined, lower internal damping,
higher stiffness etc. etc.

We know a LOT about quartz and have a very good theory for its
behaviours, but i find no signs anybody has ever touched monoisotopic
Quartz.

The obvious experiment is not rocket-science, nor does it demand
inordinate resources for amateurs, see for instance from 03:35:

https://archive.org/details/59554KrystallosCF

But it is clearly beyond what I have time to persue.

Do we know anybody in the quartz business who needs a really cool
research project ?

Poul-Henning


--
Dr. Don Latham
PO Box 404, Frenchtown, MT, 59834
VOX: 406-626-4304

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Bob kb8tq]

Hi


> On Apr 22, 2018, at 12:19 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp  wrote:
> 
> Silicon comes in a number of isotopes but 95% of it is Silicon-28.
> 
> When you make pure mono-crystaline silicon, you get 50-60% better
> thermal conductivity if you only use Silicon-28 atoms.
> 
> Yes, you read that right:  50-60% improvement for removing the
> remaining 5% other silicon isotopes, and for this and other reasons,
> sorting silicon atoms by isotope is now a thing, which amongst other
> side effects have made the Advogardo Project possible.
> 
> I can't help wonder if there may be similar interesting effects in
> quartz crystals, if they were monoisotopic ?
> 
> Several relevant mechanisms can be imagined, lower internal damping,
> higher stiffness etc. etc.
> 
> We know a LOT about quartz and have a very good theory for its
> behaviours, but i find no signs anybody has ever touched monoisotopic
> Quartz.
> 
> The obvious experiment is not rocket-science, nor does it demand
> inordinate resources for amateurs, see for instance from 03:35:
> 
>   https://archive.org/details/59554KrystallosCF
> 
> But it is clearly beyond what I have time to persue.
> 
> Do we know anybody in the quartz business who needs a really cool
> research project ?

You could put it on the list with the 1 Kg quartz resonator proposal …..

https://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2638.pdf 


Also an offshoot of people thinking about the implications of all this as it 
relates to resonators.


Bob


> 
> Poul-Henning
> 
> -- 
> Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Better quartz crystals with single isotope ?

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

Silicon comes in a number of isotopes but 95% of it is Silicon-28.

When you make pure mono-crystaline silicon, you get 50-60% better
thermal conductivity if you only use Silicon-28 atoms.

Yes, you read that right:  50-60% improvement for removing the
remaining 5% other silicon isotopes, and for this and other reasons,
sorting silicon atoms by isotope is now a thing, which amongst other
side effects have made the Advogardo Project possible.

I can't help wonder if there may be similar interesting effects in
quartz crystals, if they were monoisotopic ?

Several relevant mechanisms can be imagined, lower internal damping,
higher stiffness etc. etc.

We know a LOT about quartz and have a very good theory for its
behaviours, but i find no signs anybody has ever touched monoisotopic
Quartz.

The obvious experiment is not rocket-science, nor does it demand
inordinate resources for amateurs, see for instance from 03:35:

https://archive.org/details/59554KrystallosCF

But it is clearly beyond what I have time to persue.

Do we know anybody in the quartz business who needs a really cool
research project ?

Poul-Henning

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.