On Oct 14, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner
Question and comment:
... mixed with an electron transport gas, like argon.
Why are you calling argon an "electron transport gas" ? Is there a
mechanism
you are suggesting that is non-ionizing? (capacitive?)
I'm not sure why I wrote that - just a mental hitch I guess. It was
not a transported gas I had suggested earlier. A negative argon is
metastable, and not a likely transport candidate alone. However, it
may indeed be effective in combination with another electron
transporting gas in this dual application because argon has an
affinity for negative ions, and could increase the Casimir effect by
sustaining such an attachment prior to the transported electron
reaching the electron acceptor plate.
Comment #1
Timothy Boyer was apparently the first to show that the geometry of
two tiny
hemispheres causes a repulsive force, not an attractive one; and later
Evgeny Lifshitz provided a theory of how the repulsive force
occurs, and it
is in liquids most often. That seems to have been confirmed:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7226/abs/nature07610.html
The above abstract states: "Quantum fluctuations create
intermolecular forces that pervade macroscopic bodies. At molecular
separations of a few nanometres or less, these interactions are the
familiar van der Waals forces4. However, as recognized in the
theories of Casimir, Polder and Lifshitz, at larger distances and
between macroscopic condensed media they reveal retardation effects
associated with the finite speed of light. Although these long-range
forces exist within all matter, only attractive interactions have so
far been measured between material bodies. Here we show
experimentally that, in accord with theoretical prediction, the sign
of the force can be changed from attractive to repulsive by suitable
choice of interacting materials immersed in a fluid. The measured
repulsive interaction is found to be weaker than the attractive.
However, in both cases the magnitude of the force increases with
decreasing surface separation. Repulsive Casimir–Lifshitz forces
could allow quantum levitation of objects in a fluid and lead to a
new class of switchable nanoscale devices with ultra-low static
friction."
Note that the above refers to the liquid as the *medium* in which the
negative Casimir force can occur, i.e. in which the bodies that
mutually exert a negative Casimir force are immersed. I think the
existence of a negative Casimir force has been confirmed I'm not
sure but I think it can be estimated a priori for *atoms* where the
electric and magnetic atomic polarizabilities are known, but AFAIK it
takes experiments to quantify the force for sure. I noted earlier
that Mostepanenenko and Sokolov provide that the van der Waals
retarding interaction U(r) at distance r between two individual
*atoms* with electric and magnetic polarizabilites a1E, a2E, a1M, and
a2M, is:
U(r) = C/r^7
where:
C = (-23/Pi) ( (a1E a2E)(a1M a2M) + a1M a2M) + (7/(4 PI)) ((a1E
a2M) + (a2E a1M))
and that the Casimir force is similar in nature but the value of C
must be determined experimentally. At close range, which is what
matters here, i.e. at points of contact, I gather the two force are
one and the same. I should also note the above formula varies from
the force between larger Casimir objects. A formula for the Casimir
force F2s between two zero K temperature perfectly metallic spheres
of radius R1 and R2 is:
F2s(z,R1,R2) = -(Pi^3 h_bar c)*((R1 * R2)/(R1 + R2)) / (360 z^3)
These formulas are dimensionally the same, but differ at differing
distances. The former applies in the Casimir Boiler concepts.
If the close range force as seen in liquids is repulsive,
I am fairly sure the Casimir force it is not repulsive in all
liquids, especially liquids held together by the van der Waals
forces, which is all that is relevant to the Casimir boiling concept.
Hydrogen bonding and other forces might be very relevant to the Dry
Pile, but it is the Casimir boiling concept that I suspect has the
greatest chances for robust applications.
then that might
counter some of the assumptions underlying any proposal for phase
change BUT
it might be put to benefit in "boiling" if I understand what you are
suggesting.
I think you might be confusing the liquid with its Casimir effect on
the solid bodies.
If a van der Walls force binding gas with a negative Casimir force
could actually be found, the stacked Casimir Boiler concept would
still work fine, only the plates have to be flipped over, so the
Casimir cavities assist in the condensation, and the boiling occurs
from underneath, thus turning the Casimir Boiling stack into a
Casimir refrigeration stack. As I'm sure we all know, no matter how
you violate the Second Law, free energy can thus be obtained.
There is so little real data that it is hard to tell.
Yes, lots of theory, little data. I suggested only molecules or
atoms which liquify with van der Waals forces. I think these have
attractive Casimir forces in gas form.
Comment #2
A special "lens" of a kind that can negatively alter, or reverse
the focus
of the attractive CF and convert it into a repulsive force has been
considered by Prof Ulf Leonhardt and Dr Thomas Philbin:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/30670
Such a lens would be made from a material that is engineered to have
negative index of refraction - meaning that it bends light in the
opposite
direction to an ordinary material. The technology to make such optical
lenses is only a few years old and Philbin says it's already good
enough to
produce lenses that can convert the Casimir attraction between
objects into
repulsion.
This concept is outside my scope of the understanding of the zero
point field, which is of course very limited. In my understanding the
zero point field is *not* light. It is *not* made up of photons.
The article refers to virtual photons as photons as if there is no
difference. The zero point field consists of waves in the
polarizable vacuum. At any given frequency omega, the energy i the
vacuum at that frequency is non-zero, it is the energy of a zero-
point oscillation E = h_bar omega /2. The energy distribution is
cubic with respect to frequency. Due to the wave-particle duality,
these waves can be viewed as the linear flowing packets of momentum,
which are virtual photons. Virtual photons are the messenger
particles of the EM force. The flux of virtual particles between
magnets is what exerts the force between them, for example. Placing
a lense between two magnets will not have much of an effect. This is
my understanding, so the article does not make much sense to me.
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/19240/?a=f
To reverse the Casimir force, it would seem that a perfect lens
will have to
work at very short wavelengths - corresponding to nanometer
distances and
below; and photons in the UV range are generally absorbed and not
reflected,
so how can they be focused? Would virtual photons be different?
Despite the
seemingly authoritative source or this story, I am skeptical - but
it might
be worth consideration.
Jones
I can only say I have no idea what it is all about. I've seen one or
more patents that supposedly generated thrust by focusing the ZPF,
one using spherical nano-beads, but to my knowledge nothing like that
has worked.
I think the biggest problem with my ideas along these lines is the
cavities have to be very very small, almost molecular in size to be
very effective. The cavities have to be small enough to exclude from
the critical atomic interactions a significant fraction of the
frequencies that the effect Casimir force involved those
interactions, and that is very difficult. The anodizing technique I
mentioned may not be effective. Nanotube growing surfaces may be the
only things that can provide adequately small cavities. Fortunately,
carbon nanotubes are very conductive.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
