Joe,
You wrote:
"This would produce harmonic mixing and would result in the generation of
two new wavelengths which are the sum and difference frequencies of the
original light sources."
I don't plan to try it at home, but I don't doubt this to be true.
I can't see how stimulating an organism to emit light would get around the
difficulties of resolution at magnifications necessary to see viruses ....
alive or not.
Organisms that emit light naturally are still subject to the limitations
nature seems to have imposed on our various light microscopes. Fluoroscopic
techniques .... binding fluorescent antibodies to cells ... allows for
ID/sorting of cells including microbes, but the glowing cells can only be
magnified to about 1000X (light microscope) 1400X with UV microscopes.
I am curious about the "harmonic mixing" you refer to.
The monochromatic light sources .... laser generated?
Only two wavelengths generated? .... one the sum and one the difference
of the original wavelengths .... No heat?
I ask about the heat because the brightness of the field of view of a
microscope is inversely proportional to the magnification. At 6000X a very high
illumination, or emission of light would be necessary in order to see anything.
Heat could be bad.
Would the object continue to emit light after the sources were stopped (a
la glow in the dark frisbees ... electrons doing quantum leaps)? Would there
be pulses or continuous flow?
"This would require that both the source waves be focused onto a point
whch has the property of a semiconducting junction ."
The points we are referring to are microscopic ..... a trillion viruses in
a period (New Times Roman 12) at the end of a sentence.
I'm only asking, Joe .... Is it reasonably possible to achieve harmonic
mixing on a microscope slide and would it somehow allow for magnifications,
using glass lenses, that are not achievable w/o it?
"I have an environmental SEM capable of operating at higher pressures which are
less damaging to tissues and also negating the need to coat the sample with
gold in order to mitigate surface charging but the high energy electron beam
would still kill living organisms."
In the context of high magnification, I drifted towards Transmission
rather than Scanning Electron Microscopes.
Saying that electron microscopes kill organisms seems to me like saying
ovens kill chickens. Just as the environment of a hot oven would bring about
the demise of a chicken, the environment of electron microscopes, would, in
fact, kill most organisms. Typically, however, the demise occurs during
preparation. Saying that electron microscopes kill organisms may just be poor
wording, but it reinforces my suspicions that there are serious flaws in the
article.
The whole concept may work for all I know. I don't understand the Rife
Machine, and would not dismiss it out of hand. I simply find myself distracted
by what I see as little red flags popping up ..... I could be wrong.
Don't want to be argumentative ... certainly not w. you. I wouldn't
want to cramp D's style either. As I have said .... I follow his posts w.
interest and often print and re-read them.
Best wishes
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Street
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Curing Cancer with the Rife machine
Thomas Kelly wrote:
I'm having some problems with the Rife Machine .... Universal
Microscope .... "Cancer virus" ..... conceptual problems.
I'm familiar with UV microscopes: limits of magnification ~1,400X.
Phase contrast microscopes allow for observing living, unstained
organisms, but also have a limit of about 1000X.
Scanning and Transmission electron microscopes: magnifications from
single digits to 100,000s.
The nature of light itself is what limits the resolving power of light
microscopes, whether the light is in the visible spectrum or uses the smaller,
wavelength, UV. As I understand it, at some point (1000X for visible light and
1400X for UV) very small objects become fuzzy and indistinct. Very small
objects, very close to each other, do not allow light waves to pass between
them (UV light is of smaller wavelength and so allows for some increased
magnification) and a mass of individual particles appears as a blob i.e. lacks
resolution.
I'm trying to imagine if this limitation could be overcome if the
organism itself could be induced to emit light. Even organisms that
phosphoresce fall within the same limits of magnification stated above.
The idea of frequency mixing is that two frequencies when combined in a
nonlinear fashion produce other frequencies which are the sum and difference of
the two original frequency components. So for example if we select two light
sources which are above the visible spectrum ( smaller wavelength) but the
difference in frequency between them falls within the visible spectrum we could
see the product of mixing the two original wavelengths. This would require
that both the source waves be focused onto a point whch has the property of a
semiconducting junction . That is to say that electrically the object conducts
in a non linear fashion, typically this means it conducts better in one
direction of the oscillation of the waves than the other. For this to happen
the subject would also have to be capable of operating in this nonlinear
fashion ie switching states at least as fast as the half period of the
impingent light waves. This would produce harmonic mixing and would result in
the generation of two new wavelengths which are the sum and difference
frequencies of the original light sources. The sum would be obviously way
higher than the visible spectrum but the difference would be visible and would
appear to emanate from the subject under illumination. Whether there is
something in a virus which can act as a non linear device ie a diode capable of
switching at terahertz frequencies I have no idea but if so the idea could work.
Limits of resolution are also a function of the lenses. A microscope
that costs 52 EUR might boast a magnification up to 1000X, while a 500 EUR
microscope may only have 400X as its uppermost magnification .... the extra
cost and higher quality is payment for greater resolving power (clarity).
Electron microscopes use a beam of electrons of incredibly small
wavelength which will "fit" between small objects that are very close to each
other ----> high resolution at high magnification i.e each small object is
seem as an individual object rather than blurred together into a blob.
Electrons, like UV light, are invisible. Images are seen on a screen;
photographs capture images.
"Modern electron microscopes instantly kill everything beneath them,
viewing only the mummified remains and debris."
Electron microscopes do not kill the organism being viewed. A vacuum
must be maintained within the tube of the microscope in order for the electron
beam to move from anode to cathode. Because of the need to maintain a vacuum,
any object to be viewed must be desiccated, fixed, stained with a heavy metal.
No glass slides, no glass lenses (would block the beam). Magnification is
achieved with magnetic fields.
I have an environmental SEM capable of operating at higher pressures which
are less damaging to tissues and also negating the need to coat the sample with
gold in order to mitigate surface charging but the high energy electron beam
would still kill living organisms.
Joe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
