"lossless" optical waveguide

[jim bell]

    On Sunday, September 8, 2019, 02:45:53 PM PDT, jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:  
 
  

    On Sunday, September 8, 2019, 01:48:17 PM PDT, jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:  

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:39 PM, Punk<punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 18:35:34 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at 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





 
    
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 10799 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20190908/2cd430b4/attachment.txt>