Ed Wesly wrote:He clearly states that he was misquoted, and if you follow the two included links you will see that he was dissing the “holograms” from the start! I do not know if the NPR broadcast is archived.
If it was published in the Chicago Tribune, it was published nowhere else. I don't believe that the whole world reads the Chicago Tribune - despite Chicagoans belief to the contrary. The point was not that he was misquaoted. The point is that when his original quote was published none of the holographers mady any kind of statement concerning the error.
Ed Wesly wrote:And in another hard-hitting investigative reporting act, when and where did you have the conversation with Denisyuk about your “resonance” hologram? “I also at one time created an optical amplifier using holographic principles. It basically exploited optical resonance between two sets of Bragg planes.No one believed it. Not even Joy who actually took measurements and could see that more ight was coming out of the hologram than went in.” Isn’t this perpetual motion?
No, it isn't. That was the feeling amongst a lot of people. Only Yuri saw that it was physically possible. The whole point of an amplifier is that it amplifies, however amplifiers don't violate entropy. It depends on how you define "amplify". Any resonant system will amplify because the Q value goes up, not the total energy. Your radio is a resonant circuit with amplification. You seem to have missed the fact that this was an optical resonant circuit. The response function, in the limit, approximates to a Dirac delta function whose integral is unity, even though the amplitude is infinity. When and where? Well, it was off the main conference hall in San Jose, when SPIE took place in San Jose.
Ed Wesly wrote:Then you state that you had thought of using them as early as 2003. How would you record a hologram using these nanotubes?
Define "record". You can however use them as resonant chambers. My idea was to place a series of nanotubes inside a matrix at regular intervals, let's say at n*lambda/2 inside a matrix of m*lambda. Then you block off the ends. Inside the nanotube, the solution would be a Bessel Function, since, by virtue of it being a nano-tube, the diameter is less than lambda for vis. This would create a series of Bessel function index variations deispersed in a regular array iin the matrix. By appropriate use of the Bessel coefficiants, you could create a Bragg structure.
Ed Wesly wrote:And don't think I am busting your b**ls unfairly. It rankles my educator training to see someone who stretches or fabricates reality to make themselves into something they really aren't. Someone needs to keep you on the straight and narrow
Perhaps if you learned a bit of elementary mathematics and physics you might understand me better! You don't seem to understand resonanance phenomena (besides googling "resonance"!), you don't seem to undertsand the value of Bessel functions in an optical communication system (besides googling "Bessel") and you certainly have a layman's understanding of "Perpetual motion" since you probably don't understand "entropy" (besides googling "entropy!) All you're doing is stirring it up for your own reasons and your own ego. You have no idea what I have. If you do have a physics degree, perhaps you might let us know what university and post a copy of any technical paper you've published. This stirring it up does nothing more than damage the integrity of the forum and I have tried hard accomodate it politely, but still you persist.
So, one more time, resonance does allow amplification. Yuri was a dam sight more of a physicist than you are (assuming you've actually done some physics). You can use nanotubes as resonant standing wave structures - as you would know if you actually studied physics.
What I have depends on what I decide to spend in which place. There are a number of antique shows in San Diego. I, at least, have the means to throw thousands of dollars at something I want without a second thought. So, you're statement that I don't have a wheatstone is yet another barb at me personally. Being an educator has nothing to do with whatever problem you seem to have with me.
We can continue this on and on and on. Your choice. Let me re-iterate. I am a physicist. I have degrees from King;s College London in a joint honour BSc in Physics and Mathematics. I have an MSc in Quantum Electronics, I have a DSc from Imperial College, London in Theoretical Physics under Professor Abdus Salaam. have another MSc from Birkbeck College in Fundemantals of Quantum Field Theory under Prof David Bohm (yes, that Bohm). Whether you "believe" this or not is no concern of mine. I have a lab with over half a million dollars in equipment, none of it from any bank loan, it's all ours free and clear. I spend a lot of time doing my own research. Some of it is mathematical; right now I'm looking at generalising Kogelnik into a generalised coordinate system. None of this and the work I've done in the past will ever get published. I don't have the massive ego you seem to have! For your information I have an email from Hiroshi where he states that he was impressed by my research when he visited me . Luckily for me I don't have a giant ego like you.
In conclusion, I am not a display holographer, like you. I'm a scientist. As a scientist, I can debate science and physics with other scientists, not overt personal barbs simply to air a massive ego!
This does the forum no service, but I'm prepared to continue this as far as you want. Googling "Resonance" or "Dirac delta" or "entropy" will only get you so far. You seem to have no idea what my personal wealth is and how much I have invested in antiques, so you have no basis to decide what kind of an antique collection I have. Again, an obvious and egotisitical barb with no evidence whatsoever! This latest barb originated with you and only you. You seem not to understand resonance or Bessel functions. So, if somehow Ahmet thinks it's all my douing and wants me off this forum, it's his prerogative. Ahmet, I hope you realise that this barb was unfounded, ignorant in its accusations and purely personal. It's your (and the rest of the forum's choice).
" hard-hitting investigative reporting act" If your investigative skills are like your educating skills, I feel sorry for your students! They must only learn the unsubtle Wesley technique of throwing vitriol around to those who don't worship him!
A lot of people seem to think I originate these arguments. I think it;s now fairly clear that you come from ignorance of my financial and educational status and proceed from there. But, if the forum members think this is my fault, I'd be happy to retire.
I think the forum members need to get involved here and make themselves heard or these vitriolic attacks (and I'm not fooled by this statement about breaking my parts!) will simply continue every time I post something and I'm not one to take it lying around, as no doubt some of the Wesley victims have done!