Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Hi from Puttenham Private Observatory

DarkAntenna

By DarkAntenna
in Welcome

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
DarkAntenna

DarkAntenna

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm going to risk being rude but I call shenanigans until I understand the science behind this.

trollface.jpg

We

Hi DarkAntenna, I am again puzzled by your post. A lot of big words here, but the do not seem to connect up. In particular "Quentessence astro geometric formations, platonic solids." is meaningless to me.

It's logical to question results. This is the purpose of science yes? I also use nano doped optics so it's not just a radio scope. Anyone can make nano structures with a 12 v DC car battery charger. It's not rocket science.

As far as hypothetical astrophysics, well I just started reading about it and I'm sure it sounded stupid...so Touche' I talk too much sometimes but

I'm a real Geek and I'm honestly trying though. This project was an accident anyway. It came about while researching RF treatments for Muscular Dystrophy- which my step-son has. As I have stated before I'm an amatuer so forgive me if I sound ignorant but...that's because I am. But consider this...most all great discoveries were accidental...so does that always mean they fully understood what they discovered?...of course not, that may take a little time. Like I said before, the two pages of verbosity may come close to describing it from what Iv'e read so far. I have nearly one thousand natural color photos since June of 2012. From what 'appears to be' NEAR asteroids to deep space exoplanets. Coronagraphs from the 1950's were finding exoplanets..so why is that technology still not being used? Part of our system uses photonic wood-pile diffraction coronagraphic techniques.

So this is why I called Harvard last week to help maybe explain it's function in more detail. Everyone should be back from the ALMA, San Pedro de Atacama and Santiago, Chile meeting by last Friday I believe. We should start sharing notes this week I hope.

It is possible that this system will revolutionize astronomy. There are papers online which refer to that possibilty.

I'm not tryin to mislead anyone at all. But I'm also not going to divulge crucial details of a new invention that I don't fully understand yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael.h.f.wilkinson

michael.h.f.wilkinson

Posted
Posted

I still cannot make head or tail of this. MAKING WORDS BIGGER does not help, please refrain from that. Nano-doped optics? What does this mean? Crystalline structures have structure at nano scales, and I can make them in a jam jar. Could you give me a link to those papers you mention (I trust they are in ArXiv.org). I am not asking you to divulge anything that you do not want to, just the online material would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarkAntenna

DarkAntenna

Posted
  • Author
Posted

IF this is what I'm working with, I think it is close...here is something that might make things clearer. Imagine a Pyramidal Horn Antenna made out of special crystal... A crystal radio antenna... A Novel Idea I think.

this is a work in progress by the way. Came here for help in identifying targets and locations, maybe hook up with others in alternative astronomy.

doped crystal lenses for diffraction in Gamma range

http://www.cesr.fr/~pvb/lentille_gamma/L_spa_e.html

http://www.cesr.fr/~pvb/lentille_gamma/L_pot_e.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t25l75q222204v4j/

http://www.cesr.fr/~pvb/MAX/publis/C_SPIE_2002.pdf

Wood-Pile Photonics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_crystal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonics

Holographic heads-up display of asteroids, planets, and other solid low radiation targets VIA cupric oxide crystals (which are also natural soalr panels), graphite, crushed natural quartz and a few other rare earths...this is the accidental part.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.201004547/abstract

Band limited Coronagraph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronagraph

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarkAntenna

DarkAntenna

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks, I will have a look.

My spell checker is not working BTW....Seriously though I'm all up for any constructive crtique.

But get this. At first I thought it only worked in the daytime focusing the sunlight like a coronagrph. But then I tried it at night in moonlight. It works at night also. Maybe it's flicker noise...pink white noise etc. I'm looking for my tesla plasma generator for a test to see about that. It may be that certain types of photonic or Light ipnputs may activate the crystal to collimate or combine the full electromagnet spectrum data so it can be dispersed via the laser light beam...after amplification in a crystal tube. (sonoaccoustics and light seem to act the same in a crystal tube it seems) See Harvard article on Crystal Tubes and Time Travel and other applications. Quite interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarkAntenna

DarkAntenna

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm thinking that's not gonna happen any time soon.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

I'll see what I can do for you as far as pics. You seem genuinely excited and disappointed and that just bites

It's not like a normal telescope though. Just crystals shaped like antennas so you get the best of both worlds...optics and non-optic wavelengths. The crystal part diffracts light into wavelengths from what I understand.

But it's not just light since the 'shape' of the crystal is also designed to absorb Radio and other frequencies. So they all get mixed together and spit out into a laser projection. This is projected into another crystal substrate where it takes on its 3-D holographic characteristics via lithographic dispersment. One photograph of this data will yield at least 40 plus seperate studies since it is so Dense with 3-D information. From what I hear NASA invented the digital camera. A digital camera is a crystal based photonic device. It is the last stage in our system, taking Crystal Photographs of the crystal induced image. Thus it is as close to perfection as one can get today, bypassing metals (bad for astronomy- metal destroys data) a staying inline with crystal based system or optic based system...no bottlenecking or distortion of data. Similar to our fiber optic telephone system...avoid metal go crystal/accrylic etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarkAntenna

DarkAntenna

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Oh now...do you call shenanigans on everything you don't understand?

Or just some things? :p I'm just saying there are many things I don't understand...like how fish and an entire ecosystem will appear in pond or lake after digging it within a couple years or less. Even though you didn't put fish in it. Is that Pleomorphism? and if so then Louis Pastuer was doin shenanigans and Antoine' Bechamp was right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael.h.f.wilkinson

michael.h.f.wilkinson

Posted
Posted

DarkAntenna: the mix of excitement and scepticism you sense is perhaps correct. Scientists tend to exhibit both emotions when confronted with spectacular claims. Spectacular claims are exciting, but at the same time, spectacular claims require spectacular proof, hence the scepticism (as a scientist, I am paid to be sceptical, after all). At the same time, we have to keep an open mind about things (but not let our brains fall out ;)), so I would like to give you some suggestions of how to convince a scientific audience how good your apparatus is. I review papers for many journals so I know what is expected when people make claims that their method/machine is better than anything we have. I reject countless papers which only contain pretty pictures, but do not perform a proper, preferably quantitative comparison with existing methods.

So what are the important ingredients that I would expect from a paper presenting a new imaging device?

(i) proof of accuracy (do I get the same results as others on known calibration targets).

(ii) proof of sensitivity (as a function of wavelength)

(iii) proof of precision (reproducibility)

For the moment I assume you have visual to radio coverage of the spectrum. To prove the value of your method in terms of each of the points listed above I would do the following

(i) Take images of well-known objects. Even if absolute fluxes of photons as a function of wavelength might be hard to reproduce exactly, you should end up with images that show the same structures as in known images. If your images of, e.g., M42, cannot show the structures we can see through our scopes (in the case of refractors, no metal is in the light path so your assertion that metal distorts information does not hold), how can we trust the structures your system does show? If you are more sensitive than existing techniques, you must be able to pick up the bright structures more easily than our antiquated equipment can. You should do this for radio as well as visual, if your instrument is as flexible as you claim.

(ii) Any system gain sensitivity by increasing exposure time. For sources of given magnitudes, you need to show how much faster you can obtain an image of a given signal-to-noise ration (S/N)/

(iii) You need to show how much noise your system produces, by repeating measurements of sources which are known not to fluctuate, and examining the differences between them.

For scientific review you will also need to show exactly how you obtain the data, and how you process them. Even if you do not fully understand the machine, you must describe it in sufficient detail for someone else to reproduce it.

I quite understand you do not want to disclose things you might first want to patent (though there is surprisingly little money to be made in radio astronomy (spent YES, made, NO ;) ). However, if you want to publish your findings in a scientific journal, you will have to provide the kind of measurements and description I outlined above.

BTW, I disagree that most inventions are accidental: most are the result of hard work and deep understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarkAntenna

DarkAntenna

Posted
  • Author
Posted

DarkAntenna: the mix of excitement and scepticism you sense is perhaps correct. Scientists tend to exhibit both emotions when confronted with spectacular claims. Spectacular claims are exciting, but at the same time, spectacular claims require spectacular proof, hence the scepticism (as a scientist, I am paid to be sceptical, after all). At the same time, we have to keep an open mind about things (but not let our brains fall out ;)), so I would like to give you some suggestions of how to convince a scientific audience how good your apparatus is. I review papers for many journals so I know what is expected when people make claims that their method/machine is better than anything we have. I reject countless papers which only contain pretty pictures, but do not perform a proper, preferably quantitative comparison with existing methods.

So what are the important ingredients that I would expect from a paper presenting a new imaging device?

(i) proof of accuracy (do I get the same results as others on known calibration targets).

(ii) proof of sensitivity (as a function of wavelength)

(iii) proof of precision (reproducibility)

For the moment I assume you have visual to radio coverage of the spectrum. To prove the value of your method in terms of each of the points listed above I would do the following

(i) Take images of well-known objects. Even if absolute fluxes of photons as a function of wavelength might be hard to reproduce exactly, you should end up with images that show the same structures as in known images. If your images of, e.g., M42, cannot show the structures we can see through our scopes (in the case of refractors, no metal is in the light path so your assertion that metal distorts information does not hold), how can we trust the structures your system does show? If you are more sensitive than existing techniques, you must be able to pick up the bright structures more easily than our antiquated equipment can. You should do this for radio as well as visual, if your instrument is as flexible as you claim.

(ii) Any system gain sensitivity by increasing exposure time. For sources of given magnitudes, you need to show how much faster you can obtain an image of a given signal-to-noise ration (S/N)/

(iii) You need to show how much noise your system produces, by repeating measurements of sources which are known not to fluctuate, and examining the differences between them.

For scientific review you will also need to show exactly how you obtain the data, and how you process them. Even if you do not fully understand the machine, you must describe it in sufficient detail for someone else to reproduce it.

I quite understand you do not want to disclose things you might first want to patent (though there is surprisingly little money to be made in radio astronomy (spent YES, made, NO ;) ). However, if you want to publish your findings in a scientific journal, you will have to provide the kind of measurements and description I outlined above.

BTW, I disagree that most inventions are accidental: most are the result of hard work and deep understanding.

Thanks Michael for the advice and observations. Conversion of frequencies seems to occur only with direct moonlight or sunlight. I guess the radiation levels are enough from the moon to cause the diffraction process. It may work with no optical input also I have not check that yet. So the next clear night with good moonlight I'll take my optical telescope out for some comparing. As far as metallic and non-metallic substances I was referring to a paper on advanced electrical engineering & materials. The authors of the papers stated that soon most large, bulky, expensive telescopes would become obsolete. Perhaps the doom of the Hubble Space Telescope is related to this new research. I will try to find and post that link. I meant no disrespect to anyone's telescope my apologies for not mentioning my sources on that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.