I am going to add the following commentary to daltonium.comAny comments or suggestions? DO YOU WANT SINGLE-MODE OPTICAL FIBER WITH A LOSS OF 0.001 DB/KILOMETER? DON'T BE AFRAID TO SPEAK UP!!! For nearly 40 years, optical fiber companies have been making single-mode silica fiber waveguide, with the best loss about 0.16 db/kilometer. This allowed a maximum distance between amplifiers of 125 kilometers, which is fairly good. But it did not get appreciably better. You wanted more, although you didn't know how it could be done. Which is strange, because from about 1970 to the early 1980's fiber went from about 100 db/kilometer to 0.16 db/kilometer in a tour-de-force of purification, a factor of about 600 in loss. So, why didn't the industry continue to improve, going from 0.16 db/km to 0.016 db/km, to 0.0016db/km, and even to 0.00016db/km, another factor of 1000 reduction in loss? If fiber had a loss of 0.016 db/km, signals could travel 1250 kilometers without an amplifier, nearly 1/4 of the way across America. If fiber had a loss of 0.0016 db/kilometer, signals could travel 12,500 kilometers, and that's about 1/3 of the way around the world. If fiber had a loss of 0.00016 db/kilometer, signals could travel 125,000 kilometers, about three times around the Earth, needing no amplification. But that's impossible, right? 40 years ago, before many people in your industry were even born, scientists got the materials put into fibers so pure and refined, and for some odd reason they never got losses substantially smaller than 0.16 db/kilometer. They brought iron and other transition metal contamination down to parts-per-billion levels, and might have tried parts per trillion, and for some odd reason the loss simply hovered at 0.16 db/km. They developed a process to chlorinate the silica soot, dramatically reducing the hydroxyl content. And it worked, mostly. Eventually, they even soaked the fiber in deuterium, to substitute the hydroxyls with deuteroxyls, and developed low-water-peak fiber. As if by magic. But what should have frustrated the fiber optic scientists and engineers was fiber's persistant hold on that loss of 0.16 db/kilometer. I believe I've solved that problem. I asked the question, "What remains in the fiber when you take out all the contaminants you know of?" The answer? You still have the contaminants you DON'T know of. And that sounds like a strange statement, because what remains in the fiber, and especially the core? If you think like a chemist, you realize there is silica and germania, and very little else. But that's not a complete answer. You also have to think like a physicist. Elements like silicon, germanium and oxygen are an incomplete description. Silicon in nature consists of silicon-28, silicon-29, and silicon-30 isotopes. Germanium in nature consists of germanium-70, germanium-72, germanium-73, germanium-74, and germanium-76. Oxygen in nature consists of oxygen-16, oxygen-17, and oxygen-18. Learn more at WebElements Periodic Table » Germanium » isotope data | | | | WebElements Periodic Table » Germanium » isotope data Mark Winter, University of Sheffield and WebElements Ltd This WebElements periodic table page contains isotope data for the element germanium | | | If you took chemistry in high school, or even college, you might have learned that the difference between isotopes of the same element are the number of neutrons present in the nucleus. Silicon-28 has 14 protons and 14 neutrons. Silicon-29 has 14 protons and 15 neutrons, And silicon-30 has 14 protons and 16 neutrons. But their weight isn't the only difference. If a nucleus has an odd (not evenly divisible by 2) number of neutrons, that nucleus has an unpaired neutron, which causes that nucleus to wobble a bit. And the rest of the nucleus (which is positively charged, from all the protons) wobbles around the center of mass, which amounts to a tiny loop of electric current that never ceases. So, that nucleus behaves as if it was a tiny magnetic dipole, which of course it is. Silicon-29 and Germanium-73 have an odd number of neutrons, so they both have a small magnetic field associated with the nucleus. And silicon-29 is about 4.44% atom/atom of natural-isotope silicon. And germanium-73 is about 7.8% of natural-isotope germanium. Light consists of an electric field and a magnetic field, at right angles to each other, both at right angles to the direction of the motion of the light. Light | | | | | | | | | | | Light Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually re... | | | When optical fiber companies make their fibers, they almost always use the elements the way they get them from nature, including the isotopic distribution which is normally seen in nature. "Why shouldn't we?", you might hear they'll say if you asked the question. They didn't know there was a difference. But I believe that when they use that Si-29 isotope, and that Ge-73 isotope, the passing light torques, or kicks, the atoms that have magnetic fields associated with their nuclei. And this converts a very tiny amount of energy from light (infrared) to a mechanical vibration, called a 'phonon': A phonon is like a sound wave, but in this case it's at a far-higher frequency, the same frequency of the photon which caused it, about 200 terahertz for a photon of wavelength 1500 nanometers. And those phonons eventually show up as a tiny amount of heat in the fiber itself, but not enough so that anybody would notice. But what you DO notice is a small loss in signal, about 0.16 db/kilometer. I think that the vast majority of that residual 0.16 db/km loss in natural-isotope silica optical waveguide is due to Si-29 and Ge-73 isotope atoms in the silica and germania making up the fiber. There may very well be almost no other sources of loss from any other component. So, I believe that reducing the proportion of Si-29 and Ge-73 in the chemicals making up the fiber will dramatically reduce the fiber's optical loss. Fortunately, nearly-isotopically-pure silicon-28 already exists. It was made for the Silicon Kilogram Project. Kilogram: Silicon Spheres and the International Avogadro Project They made silicon-28 with an isotopic purity as much as 99.9995%, but that's extreme overkill for optical fiber. They could do the same thing for germanium, separating out the Ge-73 isotope. And if a fiber is made from nearly-Si-29-free isotope silicon, and the core is doped with nearly Ge-73-free isotope germanium, I predict that the overall loss will drop in proportion to the reduction in these isotopes. A reduction in Si-29 content by a factor of 100, and a reduction in Ge-73 content by a factor of 100, ought to reduce the loss by a factor of 100: So, that 0.16 db/km loss will go to 0.0016 db/km. And that's over twice as much an improvement needed to be able to create a fiber that will allow signals to go from New York City to Ireland with no EDFA amplifiers needed. None at all.. And since those amplifiers cost maybe $1 million each, that's a serious savings. | | | | | | | | | | | Kilogram: Silicon Spheres and the International Avogadro Project Though measurement scientists chose the Planck constant as the basis for redefinition, other constants of nature... | | | Is your company interested? Because, the other ones will be!!! Jim Bell
The world still has many flying pigs left to discover. Big oinks out to those who find them :)
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:39 PM, Punk<punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 18:35:34 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe I've solved that problem.
Did you make any experiments, have any real proof for your claim or is it just theoretical speculation? _-------------------------------------------- So far theoretical speculation only. Backed by granted patents.
On Sunday, September 8, 2019, 01:48:17 PM PDT, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:39 PM, Punk<punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 18:35:34 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe I've solved that problem.
Did you make any experiments, have any real proof for your claim or is it just theoretical speculation?
So far theoretical speculation only. Backed by granted patents.
I should mention that I am not implying that a granted patent is somehow a guarantee an invention is "new, useful, and unobvious of one skilled in the subject of the invention", the general three requirements for patentability. If a patented invention does not "work", then it isn't "useful", and the patent can be challenged on that basis. But if it doesn't work, it becomes functionally irrelevant anyway. The US Patent Office doesn't have the time to verify that inventions 'work'. In order to evaluate this as a proposed idea, a physicist would consider: 1. The loss of manufactured optical waveguides did indeed hit an unexplained 'floor' in the early 1980s, about 0.16 db/kilometers of loss.2. The manufacturers and users of such fibers have had a very powerful motivation to figure out how to lower their loss to well below 0.16 db/kilometers, for nearly 40 years.3. Nothing has yet been found, or it would have been employed.4. Photons do indeed possess an oscillating magnetic field.5. A nucleus of an isotope with 'spin' does indeed behave as magnetic dipole.6. Such a nucleus should be mechanically affected by the passage of light.7. Energy should be transferred from that light to the nucleus, and thus the atom, as the light passes.8. Removing most or all atoms with an electromagnetic 'spin' should remove this loss mechanism, in proportion to the amount of such isotopes remaining. Do you have any other ideas as to how that loss is manifested?
In order to evaluate this as a proposed idea, a physicist would consider: 1. The loss of manufactured optical waveguides did indeed hit an unexplained 'floor' in the early 1980s, about 0.16 db/kilometers of loss.2. The manufacturers and users of such fibers have had a very powerful motivation to figure out how to lower their loss to well below 0.16 db/kilometers, for nearly 40 years.3. Nothing has yet been found, or it would have been employed.4. Photons do indeed possess an oscillating magnetic field.5. A nucleus of an isotope with 'spin' does indeed behave as magnetic dipole.6. Such a nucleus should be mechanically affected by the passage of light.7. Energy should be transferred from that light to the nucleus, and thus the atom, as the light passes.8. Removing most or all atoms with an electromagnetic 'spin' should remove this loss mechanism, in proportion to the amount of such isotopes remaining. Do you have any other ideas as to how that loss is manifested?
Does this suggest, then, that glass can be purified by passing it through a magnetic field. Perhaps during the extruding process? Mark
On Sunday, September 8, 2019, 03:06:08 PM PDT, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
In order to evaluate this as a proposed idea, a physicist would consider: 1. The loss of manufactured optical waveguides did indeed hit an unexplained 'floor' in the early 1980s, about 0.16 db/kilometers of loss.2. The manufacturers and users of such fibers have had a very powerful motivation to figure out how to lower their loss to well below 0.16 db/kilometers, for nearly 40 years.3. Nothing has yet been found, or it would have been employed.4. Photons do indeed possess an oscillating magnetic field.5. A nucleus of an isotope with 'spin' does indeed behave as magnetic dipole.6. Such a nucleus should be mechanically affected by the passage of light.7. Energy should be transferred from that light to the nucleus, and thus the atom, as the light passes.8. Removing most or all atoms with an electromagnetic 'spin' should remove this loss mechanism, in proportion to the amount of such isotopes remaining. Do you have any other ideas as to how that loss is manifested?
Does this suggest, then, that glass can be purified by passing it>through a magnetic field. Perhaps during the extruding process? Mark Optical waveguide is not extruded. It is draw at high temperature, where silica is soft. This video talks about multi-mode fiber, which is slightly different than single-mode fiber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liKOYbgIC_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CqT4DuAVxs
I don't think that drawing this with a magnetic field would assist with anything. Jim Bell
On Sunday, September 8, 2019, 02:45:53 PM PDT, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: On Sunday, September 8, 2019, 01:48:17 PM PDT, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:39 PM, Punk<punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 18:35:34 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe I've solved that problem.
Did you make any experiments, have any real proof for your claim or is it just theoretical speculation?
So far theoretical speculation only. Backed by granted patents.
I should mention that I am not implying that a granted patent is somehow a guarantee an invention is "new, useful, and unobvious of one skilled in the subject of the invention", the general three requirements for patentability. If a patented invention does not "work", then it isn't "useful", and the patent can be challenged on that basis. But if it doesn't work, it becomes functionally irrelevant anyway. The US Patent Office doesn't have the time to verify that inventions 'work'. In order to evaluate this as a proposed idea, a physicist would consider: 1. The loss of manufactured optical waveguides did indeed hit an unexplained 'floor' in the early 1980s, about 0.16 db/kilometers of loss.2. The manufacturers and users of such fibers have had a very powerful motivation to figure out how to lower their loss to well below 0.16 db/kilometers, for nearly 40 years.3. Nothing has yet been found, or it would have been employed.4. Photons do indeed possess an oscillating magnetic field.5. A nucleus of an isotope with 'spin' does indeed behave as magnetic dipole.6. Such a nucleus should be mechanically affected by the passage of light.7. Energy should be transferred from that light to the nucleus, and thus the atom, as the light passes.8. Removing most or all atoms with an electromagnetic 'spin' should remove this loss mechanism, in proportion to the amount of such isotopes remaining. Do you have any other ideas as to how that loss is manifested?
This article https://spie.org/samples/PM135.pdf claims: "As will be elucidated in some detailin Chapter 2, many if not most of the IR materials transmitting beyond 2 µm havea theoretical loss that is much less than silica. In fact, when the KRS-5 fiber wasdeveloped by HRL it was realized that the intrinsic or fundamental losses for thiscrystalline material could be as low as 10−3 dB/km at approximately 6 µm. This isthe minimum theoretical loss for this material, but there are hundreds of other IRoptical materials including glasses that have similar low losses. The key issue hereFigure 1.2 Articulated arm composed of tubes, mirrors, and movable joints for thedelivery of CO2 laser radiation. [From Haser Mechanisms, Inc.]4 [and] "Chapter 1is that silica fibers have a theoretical minimum attenuation of about 0.14 dB/kmat 1.55 µm, or about 100 times higher than KRS-5 or many other IR materials. " Saying that silica fibers "have a theoretical minimum attenuation of about 0.14 dB/km" implies that there is a 'theory' which 'explains' this value. I suspect that no such theory ever existed, at least not one that considered the effect of the presence of the Si-29 isotope. If it did, scientists would have tried to use Si-29-free silica, and we'd have been able to read about it, either as a failure or as a patent and a marketing success. Most likely, the engineers who built these fibers simply noticed that they were asymptotically approaching a value of 0.140 dB/km as they improved their processes. "Therefore, if a fiber could be made with a loss this low, then it would be possible to construct telecommunications links thousands of kilometers in length without repeaters. In particular, the U.S. government funding agency DARPA started aprogram in the late 1970s called the Clear Day Program to fund development ofultralow-loss fibers for undersea applications. The idea was that a submarine couldbe in constant contact with its base station by paying out an ultralow-loss fiber asit traveled under water." This sounds analogous to the FOG-M (Fiber Optic Guided Missile). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-157_EFOGM I suppose it is conceivable that the US Navy has already implemented this invention using MY fiber. Where are my royalty checks, dammit!In the alternative, if they haven't, they are gonna be SOOOOO embarrassed!!! "Because the fiber had such a low loss, “On a clear day youcan see forever.” Unfortunately, no IR fiber was ever developed with a loss lowerthan silica, much less near its intrinsic loss." Soon, soon. A reduction in loss of a factor of 1000, caused by reducing the Si-29 component of silicon from 4.44% to 0.004%, would allow signals to be transmitted for 1000x 125 kilometers, or 3 times around the world. " This is still a long-term goal, but atleast it remains a theoretical possibility even though there are enormous challengesto overcome before it becomes a reality." Not nearly as "enormous" as you think!!! Jim Bell
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 21:27:36 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you have any other ideas as to how that loss is manifested?
Well, your theory sounds plausible...to me, but I'm hardly an expert haha. That's why I asked if you had tried to test it somehow. You know the proof of the pudding... Now I'm really curious, wondering if nobody thought about your proposed solution for 40 years. It would be kinda strange if that's the case. Then again, billions of stolen money are used by govcorp for 'research' in ways that are less than ideal and efficient...so, maybe.
I should mention that I am not implying that a granted patent is somehow a guarantee an invention is "new, useful, and unobvious of one skilled in the subject of the invention",
As a side note, as you should know, 'patents' are a completely criminal and anti-libertarian device, especially patents 'granted' by the americunt empire. I wouldn't brag about an US patent... Anyway, If you get rich thanks to state granted privileges, will you use the money against govcorp or what? =)
participants (4)
-
\0xDynamite
-
grarpamp
-
jim bell
-
Punk