I'm not sure a second opinion is called for. I really haven't seen any evidence second opinions are even effective. Most studies show that fewer than 23% of second opinions are even useful.
-Weaver Joe Street wrote: > Better get a second opinion, I don't think the cure 'took'. > > j;) > > Mike Weaver wrote: > >>I cured myself of scepticism using a Rife machine. >> >>Joe Street wrote: >> >> >> >>>I Tom; >>> >>>I was thinking more on this after I posted and realized just what you >>>are saying. I asked myself ok what if heterodynes >>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodyne> were generated >>>in some object smaller than a micron and I was looking at it with a >>>conventional microscope. I suppose that I would see a light source >>>but I wouldn't be able to resolve it's shape due to the limitations of >>>the optics. More comments below... >>> >>> >>>Thomas Kelly wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>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. >>>> >>>> >>>Exactly. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I am curious about the "harmonic mixing" you refer to. >>>> The monochromatic light sources .... laser generated? >>>> >>>> >>>They could be although they wouldn't have to be monochromatic. A broad >>>band light source containing spectral components that are suitably >>>spaced to create the difference frequency we need ( in the visible >>>spectrum) would work fine. So then I asked myself why I have never >>>seen anything curious like this. We were talking about mixing two UV >>>wavelengths (due to the ability of the short wavelengths to offer >>>superior resolution) but if harmonic mixing could take place as we are >>>talking about it could happen with wavelengths from any part of the >>>visible or invisible spectrum. Your typical optical scope uses a >>>halogen bulb which is a heavy radiator in the infrared. Harmonic >>>mixing of sub visible spectra should result in heterodynes (sum >>>frequencies) up in the visible. I mean light from the infrared end ( >>>say 900 nm) could mix with light from the UV end ( say 400 nm) to >>>result in a difference frequency of 450 THz which would have a >>>wavelength of 660 nm right in the red wavelength area of the visible >>>spectrum. So why has no-one noticed this? The answer is probably due >>>to switching speed. In a semiconducting junction pairs of charge >>>carriers are formed when a current flows. When the wave polarity >>>reverses these charge carriers have to move to prevent current flow in >>>the opposite direction ( this is the essence of the switching action >>>which IS the non linearity which creates the heterodyne effect) If the >>>charge carriers cannot move fast enough in the material to perform >>>this function then the material will not act as a harmonic mixer. >>>Switching speeds would have to be exceedingly fast to heterodyne >>>light. For example for a 500nm wavelength ( mid visible spectrum) the >>>frequency of this light wave would be 600 e12 Hz! (THz) The fastest >>>semiconductors manufactured are about 10 000 times slower than this >>>(60 Ghz to maybe 100 Ghz). Superconducting josephson junctions are >>>touted to be about ten times faster than conventional semiconductors >>>but that still only gets us up to 1 THz. I was initially wondering if >>>something in a DNA strand could act as a switch at these frequencies >>>but of course if it were possible we would see the colours of the >>>rainbow emmanating from some points in the cell nucleus which would be >>>too small to resolve. The world would probably look quite different if >>>harmonic mixing of light was happening anywhere! >>> >>> >>> >>>> Only two wavelengths generated? .... one the sum and one the >>>>difference of the original wavelengths .... No heat? >>>> >>>> >>>Some heat would be dissipated as there are always losses in >>>materials. The amount would equal the energy in the incoming spectra >>>minus the energy in the radiated spectra. >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> >>>No the radiated light would only be the result of mixing of components >>>in the incomming spectra. It would be continuous if the lamp was on >>>continuously. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> "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? >>>> >>>> >>>Now that I have thought about it more I guess the answer is no. >>> >>>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/ >> >> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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/
