Skipjack wrote:Not sure if I understood you right Chris, but at a 1000 layers and a centimeter per Layer, you would get 10 meters, not 100 meters.
In Chris' defense, there was never a statement of 1000 layers. Merely that the gap was 1000x as thick as the foil. Thus to get "a few inches" of lead (few = 4?) you would need 4000 inches of space which is very close to 100m. And even if a few = 2, your still on the ORDER of 100m.
Of course, I'm not sure where the 10um for the foil thickness came from.
Has anyone looked up the patent? Do we know about how many layers, how thick the foil or how far between layers?
Do we know anything past that there are layers?
For all we know, each layer and insulator is vapor or sputter deposited and is a tiny fraction of a micron thick.
It is essentially an X-Ray antenna. Any EE's here want to tell us what such an antenna ought to look like? Don't the dimensions have to be keyed to the wavelength to work best?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
I am not smart enough to discuss with you on a technical level, just want to point out that FF should not be evaluated on DD performance alone:
Heavier Gases: D + He + N, and shorter electrodes
The sixth goal is to confirm LPP’s theory that heavier gases will lead to higher compression and to thereby achieve gigagauss field. This will involve running with combination of D, He and perhaps N and will also involve replacing the electrodes with shorter ones, which they predict will be optimized for the heavier gases. These experiments are more complex and will be more time-consuming.
No worries. As long as the truth outs in the end, I'm happy.
On the subject of which, let's just be clear on what the FF patent says;
"The present invention also includes an x-ray energy converter for directly converting x-ray emissions into electrical energy having one or more capacitors in electrical communication with one or more electron emitter layers and one or more electron collector layers. The one or more electron emitter layers adsorb the x-ray and emit electrons that are then adsorbed by the one or more electron collector layers. The x-ray energy converter may be a series of one or more x-ray energy converter positioned to collect x-rays of different energy levels. For example, the one or more x-ray energy converter may be one or more electron emitter layers and one or more electron collector layers nested concentrically to collect x-rays of different energy levels. Similarly, one or more electron collector layers may be a series of one or more electron collector layers positioned to absorb emissions of different energy and one or more electron emitter layers may be a series of one or more electron emitter layers. Generally, each of the one or more electron collector layers are separated by a voltage of between about 15 and about 25% relative to the next electron collector layer; however, the electron collector layers may be separated by a voltage of between about 10 and about 30% relative to the next electron collector layer depending on the particular application. "
If that ain't technobabble I don't know what is.
I don't really think this patent will be defensible. It is one thing to get a patent, it is another for it to actually mean something in Court. Maybe he's got something with his 'twist' on the old idea of the DPF, but this X-ray stuff just won't hold water. I think it shouldn't've been granted, really, because anything that needs extensive research before it is practicable isn't meant to be granted. But anyhow there is a 'little' more detail;
"FIG. 9 is a schematic of the energy conversion of x-rays. The x-ray pulse 38 can be converted at high efficiency to electricity via the photoelectric effect. The converter is essentially a capacitor with multiple layers of thin metal films. One type of film, type A film 40 serves as the emitter of one or more electrons 42, converting the energy from the x-ray 38 to that of multi-keV electrons 42. The type A film 40 also serve as the ground electrodes of the capacitor. A second type of film, type B film 44, serves to collect the emitted electrons 42 and act as the cathode electrodes 46 of the capacitor. In a single layer, x-rays 38 impinge on metal type A film 40, causing the emission of electrons 42 with a range of energies. These electrons 42 travel through a series of very thin type B film 44, which are initially charged to an ascending series of voltages by an external circuit. When the electrons 42 approach an electrode 46 charged to a greater voltage V than their energy in electron volts, they turn back and are absorbed by the next lower electrode 46. For high efficiency in converting the energy of the x-rays 38 into the energy of the electrons 42, the converter design must ensure that nearly all the x-rays 38 are absorbed in type A film 40 and that very little of the electrons energy is absorbed before leaving type A film 40. In addition, x-ray absorbance in thin type B film 44 must be minimized by suitable choice of material. FIG. 10 is a schematic of the overall x-ray collector. The x-ray collector 46 includes one or more metal layers 48a-48i separated by interstitial layers 50a-50h. The composition of the one or more metal layers 48a-48i may vary depending on the specific embodiment. For example, metal layers 48a, 48b and 48c contain aluminum, metal layers 48d and 48e contain copper, while metal layers 48e, 48f and 48g contain tungsten. Similarly, the composition of the interstitial layers 50a-50h may vary depending on the specific embodiment. For example, interstitial layers 50a, 50b and 50c may be aluminum or beryllium, while 50g is tungsten. Although the skilled artisan will recognize the above examples are intended for illustrative purposes and that other metals may be used and in different orders and compositions. "
Sorry, Eric, 'fraid I don't agree that there are skilled artisans in the field of x-ray photo-electric cells.
Incidentally, this is all it says. Patents are meant to contain complete and sufficient 'enablements' that the thing they are describing can be made by someone sufficiently skillled, and that after building it then it will work. I just don't see how this general-fluff-description qualifies for this.
chrismb wrote:No worries. As long as the truth outs in the end, I'm happy.
On the subject of which, let's just be clear on what the FF patent says;
"The present invention also includes an x-ray energy converter for directly converting x-ray emissions into electrical energy having one or more capacitors in electrical communication with one or more electron ...............
Thanks for the info. Whether the patent is defensible or not is not important. What is at issue is if it can work, and with reasonable dimensions.
I don't know. Though mention of a few thousand volts between metal layers, suggests that the two intervening layers would need to withstand these voltages. Fairly thin films will do this, depending on their composition. Mylar, for example can resist (insulate) several thousand volts per 1/1000th of an inch of thickness (Um... ~ 25 microns thickness) so I'm guessing that the intervening layers between metal sheets might be in the neighborhood of 25-100 microns. If the metal foil layers are thin enough, an estimate of each complete layer might be ~100 microns, or 0.1 mm. If a thousand layers was needed to efficiently capture most of the X-ray spectrum present, then a total thickness of ~ 10 cm may suffice. This is of course based on a lot of assumptions and may be overly optomistic.
If it works, I wonder if this design would make a good X-ray spectrometer. If so, has anyone ever built one?
If it was possible to generate electricity with x-rays, then it is possible to sense them. Why would you go to the effort of evacuating a tube and generating several hundred volts to apply acros it to detect x-rays, if all you have to do is pick up an electrical signal generated between a couple of bits of foil?
chrismb wrote:If it was possible to generate electricity with x-rays, then it is possible to sense them. Why would you go to the effort of evacuating a tube and generating several hundred volts to apply acros it to detect x-rays, if all you have to do is pick up an electrical signal generated between a couple of bits of foil?
Knowledge and material gap from 1910 to present date could be a good answer....
Giorgio wrote:
Knowledge and material gap from 1910 to present date could be a good answer....
"Although the skilled artisan will recognize the above examples are intended for illustrative purposes and that other metals may be used and in different orders and compositions."... so why are GM tubes still the order-of-the-day for x-ray detectors if skilled artisans can figure this stuff out?
If GM tubes are still the order of the day it is probably because they are cheaper to manufacture, but I am not an expert on this field to be sure this is the reason.
Patents are designed to be generic and vague, and a similar phrase is common in most patents I have read.
Actually, from someone who has filed for a patent himself, this is not true, at least not here in Europe.
They should be worded in such a way that the aparatus and method can be reproduced by a 3rd party.
Patents are designed to be generic and vague, and a similar phrase is common in most patents I have read.
Actually, from someone who has filed for a patent himself, this is not true, at least not here in Europe.
They should be worded in such a way that the aparatus and method can be reproduced by a 3rd party.
I see, my experience with patents has been limited to chemical processes, so I might as well be completely mistaken on this point.
In chemical patents I always found that reagents amounts for chemical reactions was described with wide ranges instead that with exact stoichiometric amounts, and all the process steps was summarized, not detailed.
The patents conclusion was similar far all: "The one skilled in the process shall understand the way of application of the above process". In reality none of our chemists was ever able to replicate the process until they had full production data from the process holders.
Again, this might just be a peculiarity of chemical processes patents.
Giorgio, I think the issue here is the type and intent of the patent. In the chemical industry, you are applying primarily for design patents, and so there is a requirement for as much precision in the patent as possible. In most instances like the x-ray converter, one is instead applying for a utility patent, which is much broader in scope. It is not patenting a specific single application as it would come to market but rather, the general notion of an x-ray converter based upon the principle of photoelectric effect and general geometry of layers.
There's nothing wrong with the working above in the patent. It was granted because this is normal for utility patents. If you're an EE with specialization in things like antenna work, you can from this patent build one of these devices but you will certainly need the requisite skill.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis