An interesting thing is that none can currently be invested in by the public. This is because technology is making capital investment less relevant. Square is an example: it can't go public because it will make too much money with too few workers, and private investors like banks know it better than the public and are outbidding the public...outbidding to make profit via monopoly status, not to efficiently build infrastructure. Monopoly status seems to be the only way to make profit when productivity gains make worker's obsolete, as was recognized in the 1930s. It costs very little to move bits around, and getting people to pay for the electronic things they need can thereby be very profitable. The things that give us life (food, water, shelter, transportation) seem to have very little opportunity for investors, requiring lots of investment for little profit above current infrastructure. How are these new companies going to reduce the cost of these things? Are they diverting society's energy away from making life cheaper for the most via traditional investment for things we need, improving life via entertainment for those who can afford it to push others out by making food, transportation, and housing more expensive? Is it a trick people are playing on each other (creating artificial needs) to weed out the weak? Granted, probably half of them actually help decrease costs for things like transportation and monetary transactions. Where's the startup that allows me to buy a system for producing greenhouse hydroponic food from my back yard for 4 people in a 80x40 foot plot (0.5% energy of sun, 4 kWh/m^2 sun per day, 2000 kcals each/day) for 10 years for a cost of $10,000, with no fertilizer except my bodily waste, and scheduled to mostly grow as it is needed to be eaten?
Startups:
Uber ("taxi")
Product Hunt (popular apps)
SnapChat (money transactions, etc)
Coinbase
Square (money transactions)
Stripe
AppNexus (app advertising)
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Friday, January 23, 2015
amazon post on LED light therapy
This lamp is operating only at 738 Kelvins which produces a black body
radiation spectrum. The "minerals" inside of it do not do anything.
All objects that are at 738 kelvins (870 degrees F) will emit the same
far infrared spectrum. This spectrum will be absorbed completely in the
first few mm of water in the skin. Any effects deeper are from heat
conduction. In other words, this is the same as a heating pad. An
ideal lamp for healing arthritis, shoulder and knee injuries,
fibromyalgia, etc is a $7 halogen flood light available at home depot or
lowes. Halogen operates at about 4100 kelvins so it has a spectrum
close to the 5700 k spectrum of the sun (see note below). Up to 1 inch
of tissue beneath the skin in animals who are exposed to sun light (or
halogen lights, or normal heat lamps at 2500 k) will kick-start the
krebs cycle output into being utilized for more ATP. In injured cells,
this helps them maintain function and repair faster. There is little to
no effect on healthy cells as they adjust after sensing an excess of
ATP. Pain from arthritis, fibromyaligia, knee and shoulder injuries,
broken pinkie toes, etc is reduced from an 8 to 2 (on a scale of 10) in
15 to 60 minutes, depending on how strong the light source is. Sun
light with a mirror to double the intensity and sun screen for
protection will take an hour before maximum benefit is reached.
Treatment can be 3 times a day. Look up Tiina Karu in Russia for the
first serious work on this soon after LLLT came out. Later work has
been done by Whelan in the U.S. with LEDs which started with grants from
the military and NASA (for example, healing retina injuries in
rabbits). Skin healing is not hardly improved as skin healing seems to
be near optimum. Muscle injuries seem to have little benefit, but
tendonitis is helped a great deal (first stretch the tendon, apply
light, then follow with ice). I use a 75 W halogen spot light with a
"lamp repair kit" (lamp cord with base that is normally used for
repairing lamps) and water in a flat gin bottle to block the far
infrared heat. Water in a zip lock bag can also be used. The clear
water container (bottle or zip lock bag) is placed against the skin,
then the halogen light source is used to shine the light through the
water container to the skin. The water in the container absorbs all the
far infrared so that your skin does not get hot, but almost all the red
and near infrared make it through the glass and water, and about 10% of
these wavelengths make it through the skin to help injuries beneath.
This is stronger than LED light therapy devices that cost $1,000. Sun
glasses are needed to protect eyes because halogen emits strong blue
wavelengths that can be harmful if it is a spot light, even if just
reflecting off the skin. Treatment on small injuries beneath the skin
with this is about 5 minutes. If water is not used to block the heat,
it can still be done but since the skin gets too warm, it has to be done
more slowly and will take 15 to 30 minutes to see maximum benefit. Pain
relief is usually immediate.
** note: The Sun, halogen, incandescent, and normal infrared lamps have a lot of light energy in the 600 to 900 nm wavelengths which are absorbed by copper and iron atoms in the CCO protein complex (4th stage in the electron transport chain) in mitochondria which pumps H+ to the inter-membrane so that ATP can be created in the final ATP step. Halogen is ideal. Incandescent and normal infrared lamps work, but they cause more far infrared heat in the skin. The item being sold here is operating a much lower temp and therefore causes too much far infrared. 600 to 700 nm is red light. 700 to 900 nm is called "near infrared" or "nearly red" light. LEDs are often used to provide the light. Fluorescents and some other light sources that operate at "2500 k" to "5700 k" are not actually operating at those temps and do not have a strong spectrum in the 600 to 900 nm range.
=================
The only way to filter above 900 nm on a halogen is with water. There are some glasses that block IR but I don't think any of them do it very well at any reasonable expense because the glass would get too hot. It would have to be a really special design. A red piece of plastic would block below 600 nm and probably not detract from the 600-900 range too much, now that you remind me. Thick plexiglass and other transparent plastics are a little like water in that they block >900 nm and heat up, without decreasing the 600-900 very much. But my testing of it did not indicate that it works very well. Maybe a thick sheet of red plastic would work. It has to be thick not only to block > 900 well, but also so that it can take the increase in heat from the absorption of the light energy. A red die in the gin bottle would not hurt. Someone once sent me the spectrum of the common red die and its perfect. I tried it, but it did not seem to make much difference because < 600 unused light energy does not seem to cause a problem. It's the > 900 nm.
=====
Yours sounds excellent. 10 to 15 minutes should be about right since it is probably a flood light. You don't want the snow globe because it really focuses the light to a small point and will be too intense for your 250 W. I bought an empty 3.5 inch glass snow globe from a craft store, put water in it, sealed the bottom, and shined(sp?) the light through that. But that is really intense and requires sunglasses to watch where it is going. Water in an empty gin bottle is safer and more useful for most things because it is more durable and does not concentrate the light (so it needs a spot light type). For most injuries, a 75 Watt halogen spot light (PAR30 instead of PAR38 size) in a lamp cord socket with the switch in the socket has been my favorite (for things like knee and shoulder and anything smaller). The 250 W flood would be good for a large area of back pain, or just getting good light to the torso for warmth in the winter to pretend you're on the beach. If you do 4 to 8 of them placed over a bed, it can really feel like the beach and put you to a warm relaxing sleep.
===============
The absorption coefficient for near-infrared (< 1,000 nm) passing through water is less than 0.1. Far-infrared coefficient (300,000 nm) is about 10. The equation for light that passes through after 0.4 cm depth is 2.72^(-AS*0.4). With near infrared's AS=0.1, this equation shows 96% gets though. Far infrared's AS=10 indicates 2% that makes it through. Wavelengths half-way between 1,000 and 300,000 nm have AS = 1,000 so they do not get through water at all. Tissue is mostly water, so far infrared does not go very deep at all. Blues and greens go through water very easily, but the melanin and hemoglobin in skin blocks it all. It's only deep reds and near-infrared that can effectively go deeper than the skin.
==============
All heating pads are far infrared heating pads. As something gets hot, it emits block body radiation. The lower the temperature, the more it is far infrared and this means it is blocked by the water in skin. All the "far infrared" heating pads I saw just now in looking them over do not seem as good as traditional heating pads. People may enjoy them more because they are not as hot, but they do not provide as much heat at any depth. If a product specified exactly what wavelengths they emit, then I can tell more accurately how deep they penetrate. But like this product, they never tell exactly what "rays" they are supposedly emitting. The "far infrared" is a very wide range of wavelengths, but red and near infrared always penetrate water and tissue more. "Far infrared" sounds nice and high tech and they are not lying: their products are emitting it. But if they are cooler than traditional heating pads, then they are not telling the truth if they say it penetrates deeper. Do a search on "Electromagnetic absorption by water" and look at the wikipedia article's first image to see that far infrared is blocked more compared to near infrared. The scale is logarithmic which means it is a HUGE difference.
=============
A heat lamp can get heat deeper than a heating pad with less heat annoyance in the skin, and it provides near infrared healing. But a halogen light does both better than a heat lamp. A halogen light actually *is* a "near-infrared" heat lamp. They both use a tungsten filament and the only difference is how hot the filament gets. The halogen tungsten filament gets hotter than a heat lamp's tungsten filament so that it has more red and near-infrared. If you go with a filament that gets hotter than a halogen, then it causes more "white" and UV with less red and near-infrared. Halogen with red-dyed water to block the uneeded wavelengths is as good as it gets for healing AND deep penetration, except for radio waves which do not appear to do anything for health.
==========
Lungs are deep so I do not know if the light will reach it. So I would do long treatments, up to an hour, constantly checking the temperature of the skin to not be hot. It may help pain and tiredness a little and feel good, but I do not think it will help infections. Frequency is 2 or 3 times a day at most. If he does not enjoy and feel better at night after the first three tries, I would not bother with it after that. Get the light as close to the plastic bag as possible.
To fight infections, especially viral, I take 10,000 mg vitamin C spread out over the day (like 5 doses), 100,000 IU vit D to begin with, then 25,000 a day after that, 50 mg zinc during the largest meal of the day (otherwise will cause terrible naseau), and 200,000 IU vitamin A (or mixed carotenes) the first day then 100,000 IU vitamin A after that for a week, then 60,000 IU a day for up to a month. But no vitamin A if he has been a smoker. These are very large doses that some will not consider safe, but in my opinion a lung infection of even a mild sort is 100 times more dangerous, so in my opinion, it is dangerous to not take the large doses. I see astounding prevention of colds and lessening of symptoms with the Vit A and D, but only symptom relief from the C. But the C is important. Also apples and carrot juice.
==========
A halogen light by itself will be the next best thing. You could also buy an "acrylic stamp block" that's 1/2" thick to block some of the heat from a halogen.
==========
If she's pale from not getting sunlight, I would have her take 50,000 IU vit D with an fatty meal (standard treatment if a person's blood measuers low) and then 2,000 IU per day.
I would use the 75 Watt halogen light bulb as I described above. People and inventors are always calling me wanting details on my LED devices, but I can't get it through any of them's head that the best light treatment is probably hanging on the corner of their garage lighting up their driveway.
=============
Let me say there are real dangers to trying this as I'll explain in more detail. I do not recommend anyone copy my methods or advise others to copy my methods unless they take good care and assume full liability for any harm that results. I deny any liability for these reasons. You'll not notice that my previous messages always said "what I do" (or would do) not that others should try.
It needs to be the PAR30 size or larger, or it will get hot fast. They sell really small halogen lights for ceiling lights that get really hot, too hot.
Dangers using halogen lights
1) they get hot. They can burn skin. They can burn houses down.
2) it's 120 VAC being used close to the body, so any water nearby is very bad.
3) you can't stop it from getting hot unless you use a zip lock bag of water (or better, clear gin bottle), so there is a conflict here between 1 and 2. An alternative is a 1/2" piece of acrylic (aka Plexiglass) on ebay, and "acrylic stamp block" here on amazon and ebay that can block most of the heat that you do not need. Simple 1/8" plexiglass sheets are not thick enough and melt to easily. But a more gentle method is to not use any heat blocking, and just use the light a longer time, say 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes. For the whole hand I was really thinking about a flood light with no water blocking. For a single joint that you want to treat in 3 minutes, the spot light you have with water blocking is great.
4) Always use sunglasses when handling a halogen light at close distance. The light can permanently harm the eyes. This even applies if you are looking at the spot on the skin where the light is shining and you are only looking at reflected light. I am talking from experience and I am a risk taker in everything and never exaggerate dangers. The flood light is safer in handling in terms of the eyes, but in either case I would always use sunglasses.
5) Shining too long on tissue does not cause much harm, but it can quickly reduce all its benefits. So it should be applied as soon as the pain mostly stops, from 3 to 10 minutes. If there is no pain reduction in 10 minutes, it is probably not going to help her condition.
I mention vitamin D because my mother and I had our "inherited" osteoarthritis cured by it. I did some research and so for they are only really aware that it helps rheumatoid arthritis. There were 19 published papers in 2013 with "vitamin D" and "rheumatoid" in the title. 95 total. For osteoarthritis and vitamin D, there 14 of the 39 papers were in 2013. This simple treatment was widespread in the 1930's when they discovered how important "high" doses were. Even Schlitz beer advertised it had vitamin D added. But then the FDA got involved and made it illegal to tell anyone more than 400 IU was safe, outlawing higher-dose pills, making me wonder if NSAID pharmaceutical companies were involved. Imagine the financial damage to pharmaceutical if people had known possibly 1/4 of arthritis, 1/4 of cancers, and 100% of "fibromyalgia" are from lack of Sun (or vitamin D). Vitamin D has turned out to be the most important (lacking) nutritional supplement, more than vitamin C and the B vitamins, because we rarely get Sun.
You can screw it into a small desk lamp that has the shade removed, or buy the standard lamp replacement kit from lowes where you simply have a cord and the lamp base that has a push switch in it. Even with the larger 75 W it's going to get hot after 5 or 10 minutes.
It says 72 W replaces 100 because they are comparing it to the older incandescent lights which have a "warmer" color.
Do a search on "LED Light Therapy" and one of the first Google links is a very long article written by me on light technology for healing, including a section on Halogen. Recently I discovered there are at least 3 companies that have attempted using halogens, but they are careful to not disclose how easy you can copy their technology at home. Previously I thought I had discovered it. Concerning LED light therapy, I would buy a 12 VDC security camera illuminator from ebay that uses 850 nm, another secret that LED medical manufacturers are not keen to tell people about. (they used to sell $5 worth of LEDs placed into $2,000 devices)
==============
Yes, it's more dangerous, as I described in detail.
I am not licensed in medicine or engineering. I may have relevant experience, but I never want any readers to require credentials for their basis of trust. I want readers to take my words at face value and think about it on their own. An "appeal to authority" is a logical error, never to be used in science or logic. Credentials have advantages when people do not have time or ability to figure things out (like walking into a tall building you do not want to fall from bad construction), but they also imply a business profit motive inherent to the one with credentials, often resulting in abuse. I have a strong interest in light therapy and I hate seeing companies charge $1000 for $1 worth of LEDs that do not work as good as a $10 LED 850 nm security camera illuminator. I met a veterinarian who paid $1500 for a big device that basically just used a handheld red laser pointer ($1 at Walmart checkout). After reading what I've said based on the words I've used, the reader can form an opinion as to the level of trust they want to assume, if I have not been able to be clear enough to let them think on their own.
There is pre-approval via equivalent device for any LED device that meets a few specs. Manufacturers just need to send in a letter to get a manufacturer and device identification numbers.
Halogen lights are high-temp filaments giving off black-body radiation almost exactly like the Sun. The physics of this indicate 30% of the light energy is in the 600 to 900 nm range, the "healing" range. I believe I mentioned this and certainly I can't go into the physics of black body radiation to demonstrate it to you, but I describe it so you can look it up to acquire the trust, if needed. I'm sure there is a halogen spectrum chart out there easy to find, and maybe you can do the math to compare to LED units being sold.
People have a lot of experience seeing "natural" is better, no matter how much "science" indicates a specific thing, like an LED at 850 nm, might be better. Scientific journals with credentialed super intelligent experts at many levels in the papers published historically made people afraid of sunlight for 3 decades due to fear of skin cancer when the needed more Sun to get enough vitamin D to prevent maybe 10x more cancers and a lot of viral infections. Common sense people trusted a little Sun more than experts, and they were right for 3 decades.
You asked and I know a few: Hydrosun, Superlizer, and Bioptron are companies in Germany, Switzerland, and Japan received regulatory approval for various things using halogen, going back to the 1980s. But it's usually difficult to figure out they are just using halogen, with water or gel blocking the FIR. I thought I invented it, but then one day I realized I've never done anything original and made an effort to discover others and found these three. There were others promoting light as soon as the incandescent bulb was invented, which is nearly as good as halogen, using the same filament at lower temp which cause more heat in the skin. And even physicians in ancient times likes the idea of sick people laying in the Sun.
In my experience, especially when it comes to health, it is credentialed people and approved devices seeking a profit that very often ACCIDENTALLY blocks existing knowledge to better technologies that are nearly free. And sometimes it is done on purpose.
** note: The Sun, halogen, incandescent, and normal infrared lamps have a lot of light energy in the 600 to 900 nm wavelengths which are absorbed by copper and iron atoms in the CCO protein complex (4th stage in the electron transport chain) in mitochondria which pumps H+ to the inter-membrane so that ATP can be created in the final ATP step. Halogen is ideal. Incandescent and normal infrared lamps work, but they cause more far infrared heat in the skin. The item being sold here is operating a much lower temp and therefore causes too much far infrared. 600 to 700 nm is red light. 700 to 900 nm is called "near infrared" or "nearly red" light. LEDs are often used to provide the light. Fluorescents and some other light sources that operate at "2500 k" to "5700 k" are not actually operating at those temps and do not have a strong spectrum in the 600 to 900 nm range.
=================
The only way to filter above 900 nm on a halogen is with water. There are some glasses that block IR but I don't think any of them do it very well at any reasonable expense because the glass would get too hot. It would have to be a really special design. A red piece of plastic would block below 600 nm and probably not detract from the 600-900 range too much, now that you remind me. Thick plexiglass and other transparent plastics are a little like water in that they block >900 nm and heat up, without decreasing the 600-900 very much. But my testing of it did not indicate that it works very well. Maybe a thick sheet of red plastic would work. It has to be thick not only to block > 900 well, but also so that it can take the increase in heat from the absorption of the light energy. A red die in the gin bottle would not hurt. Someone once sent me the spectrum of the common red die and its perfect. I tried it, but it did not seem to make much difference because < 600 unused light energy does not seem to cause a problem. It's the > 900 nm.
=====
Yours sounds excellent. 10 to 15 minutes should be about right since it is probably a flood light. You don't want the snow globe because it really focuses the light to a small point and will be too intense for your 250 W. I bought an empty 3.5 inch glass snow globe from a craft store, put water in it, sealed the bottom, and shined(sp?) the light through that. But that is really intense and requires sunglasses to watch where it is going. Water in an empty gin bottle is safer and more useful for most things because it is more durable and does not concentrate the light (so it needs a spot light type). For most injuries, a 75 Watt halogen spot light (PAR30 instead of PAR38 size) in a lamp cord socket with the switch in the socket has been my favorite (for things like knee and shoulder and anything smaller). The 250 W flood would be good for a large area of back pain, or just getting good light to the torso for warmth in the winter to pretend you're on the beach. If you do 4 to 8 of them placed over a bed, it can really feel like the beach and put you to a warm relaxing sleep.
===============
The absorption coefficient for near-infrared (< 1,000 nm) passing through water is less than 0.1. Far-infrared coefficient (300,000 nm) is about 10. The equation for light that passes through after 0.4 cm depth is 2.72^(-AS*0.4). With near infrared's AS=0.1, this equation shows 96% gets though. Far infrared's AS=10 indicates 2% that makes it through. Wavelengths half-way between 1,000 and 300,000 nm have AS = 1,000 so they do not get through water at all. Tissue is mostly water, so far infrared does not go very deep at all. Blues and greens go through water very easily, but the melanin and hemoglobin in skin blocks it all. It's only deep reds and near-infrared that can effectively go deeper than the skin.
==============
All heating pads are far infrared heating pads. As something gets hot, it emits block body radiation. The lower the temperature, the more it is far infrared and this means it is blocked by the water in skin. All the "far infrared" heating pads I saw just now in looking them over do not seem as good as traditional heating pads. People may enjoy them more because they are not as hot, but they do not provide as much heat at any depth. If a product specified exactly what wavelengths they emit, then I can tell more accurately how deep they penetrate. But like this product, they never tell exactly what "rays" they are supposedly emitting. The "far infrared" is a very wide range of wavelengths, but red and near infrared always penetrate water and tissue more. "Far infrared" sounds nice and high tech and they are not lying: their products are emitting it. But if they are cooler than traditional heating pads, then they are not telling the truth if they say it penetrates deeper. Do a search on "Electromagnetic absorption by water" and look at the wikipedia article's first image to see that far infrared is blocked more compared to near infrared. The scale is logarithmic which means it is a HUGE difference.
=============
A heat lamp can get heat deeper than a heating pad with less heat annoyance in the skin, and it provides near infrared healing. But a halogen light does both better than a heat lamp. A halogen light actually *is* a "near-infrared" heat lamp. They both use a tungsten filament and the only difference is how hot the filament gets. The halogen tungsten filament gets hotter than a heat lamp's tungsten filament so that it has more red and near-infrared. If you go with a filament that gets hotter than a halogen, then it causes more "white" and UV with less red and near-infrared. Halogen with red-dyed water to block the uneeded wavelengths is as good as it gets for healing AND deep penetration, except for radio waves which do not appear to do anything for health.
==========
Lungs are deep so I do not know if the light will reach it. So I would do long treatments, up to an hour, constantly checking the temperature of the skin to not be hot. It may help pain and tiredness a little and feel good, but I do not think it will help infections. Frequency is 2 or 3 times a day at most. If he does not enjoy and feel better at night after the first three tries, I would not bother with it after that. Get the light as close to the plastic bag as possible.
To fight infections, especially viral, I take 10,000 mg vitamin C spread out over the day (like 5 doses), 100,000 IU vit D to begin with, then 25,000 a day after that, 50 mg zinc during the largest meal of the day (otherwise will cause terrible naseau), and 200,000 IU vitamin A (or mixed carotenes) the first day then 100,000 IU vitamin A after that for a week, then 60,000 IU a day for up to a month. But no vitamin A if he has been a smoker. These are very large doses that some will not consider safe, but in my opinion a lung infection of even a mild sort is 100 times more dangerous, so in my opinion, it is dangerous to not take the large doses. I see astounding prevention of colds and lessening of symptoms with the Vit A and D, but only symptom relief from the C. But the C is important. Also apples and carrot juice.
==========
A halogen light by itself will be the next best thing. You could also buy an "acrylic stamp block" that's 1/2" thick to block some of the heat from a halogen.
==========
If she's pale from not getting sunlight, I would have her take 50,000 IU vit D with an fatty meal (standard treatment if a person's blood measuers low) and then 2,000 IU per day.
I would use the 75 Watt halogen light bulb as I described above. People and inventors are always calling me wanting details on my LED devices, but I can't get it through any of them's head that the best light treatment is probably hanging on the corner of their garage lighting up their driveway.
=============
Let me say there are real dangers to trying this as I'll explain in more detail. I do not recommend anyone copy my methods or advise others to copy my methods unless they take good care and assume full liability for any harm that results. I deny any liability for these reasons. You'll not notice that my previous messages always said "what I do" (or would do) not that others should try.
It needs to be the PAR30 size or larger, or it will get hot fast. They sell really small halogen lights for ceiling lights that get really hot, too hot.
Dangers using halogen lights
1) they get hot. They can burn skin. They can burn houses down.
2) it's 120 VAC being used close to the body, so any water nearby is very bad.
3) you can't stop it from getting hot unless you use a zip lock bag of water (or better, clear gin bottle), so there is a conflict here between 1 and 2. An alternative is a 1/2" piece of acrylic (aka Plexiglass) on ebay, and "acrylic stamp block" here on amazon and ebay that can block most of the heat that you do not need. Simple 1/8" plexiglass sheets are not thick enough and melt to easily. But a more gentle method is to not use any heat blocking, and just use the light a longer time, say 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes. For the whole hand I was really thinking about a flood light with no water blocking. For a single joint that you want to treat in 3 minutes, the spot light you have with water blocking is great.
4) Always use sunglasses when handling a halogen light at close distance. The light can permanently harm the eyes. This even applies if you are looking at the spot on the skin where the light is shining and you are only looking at reflected light. I am talking from experience and I am a risk taker in everything and never exaggerate dangers. The flood light is safer in handling in terms of the eyes, but in either case I would always use sunglasses.
5) Shining too long on tissue does not cause much harm, but it can quickly reduce all its benefits. So it should be applied as soon as the pain mostly stops, from 3 to 10 minutes. If there is no pain reduction in 10 minutes, it is probably not going to help her condition.
I mention vitamin D because my mother and I had our "inherited" osteoarthritis cured by it. I did some research and so for they are only really aware that it helps rheumatoid arthritis. There were 19 published papers in 2013 with "vitamin D" and "rheumatoid" in the title. 95 total. For osteoarthritis and vitamin D, there 14 of the 39 papers were in 2013. This simple treatment was widespread in the 1930's when they discovered how important "high" doses were. Even Schlitz beer advertised it had vitamin D added. But then the FDA got involved and made it illegal to tell anyone more than 400 IU was safe, outlawing higher-dose pills, making me wonder if NSAID pharmaceutical companies were involved. Imagine the financial damage to pharmaceutical if people had known possibly 1/4 of arthritis, 1/4 of cancers, and 100% of "fibromyalgia" are from lack of Sun (or vitamin D). Vitamin D has turned out to be the most important (lacking) nutritional supplement, more than vitamin C and the B vitamins, because we rarely get Sun.
You can screw it into a small desk lamp that has the shade removed, or buy the standard lamp replacement kit from lowes where you simply have a cord and the lamp base that has a push switch in it. Even with the larger 75 W it's going to get hot after 5 or 10 minutes.
It says 72 W replaces 100 because they are comparing it to the older incandescent lights which have a "warmer" color.
Do a search on "LED Light Therapy" and one of the first Google links is a very long article written by me on light technology for healing, including a section on Halogen. Recently I discovered there are at least 3 companies that have attempted using halogens, but they are careful to not disclose how easy you can copy their technology at home. Previously I thought I had discovered it. Concerning LED light therapy, I would buy a 12 VDC security camera illuminator from ebay that uses 850 nm, another secret that LED medical manufacturers are not keen to tell people about. (they used to sell $5 worth of LEDs placed into $2,000 devices)
==============
Yes, it's more dangerous, as I described in detail.
I am not licensed in medicine or engineering. I may have relevant experience, but I never want any readers to require credentials for their basis of trust. I want readers to take my words at face value and think about it on their own. An "appeal to authority" is a logical error, never to be used in science or logic. Credentials have advantages when people do not have time or ability to figure things out (like walking into a tall building you do not want to fall from bad construction), but they also imply a business profit motive inherent to the one with credentials, often resulting in abuse. I have a strong interest in light therapy and I hate seeing companies charge $1000 for $1 worth of LEDs that do not work as good as a $10 LED 850 nm security camera illuminator. I met a veterinarian who paid $1500 for a big device that basically just used a handheld red laser pointer ($1 at Walmart checkout). After reading what I've said based on the words I've used, the reader can form an opinion as to the level of trust they want to assume, if I have not been able to be clear enough to let them think on their own.
There is pre-approval via equivalent device for any LED device that meets a few specs. Manufacturers just need to send in a letter to get a manufacturer and device identification numbers.
Halogen lights are high-temp filaments giving off black-body radiation almost exactly like the Sun. The physics of this indicate 30% of the light energy is in the 600 to 900 nm range, the "healing" range. I believe I mentioned this and certainly I can't go into the physics of black body radiation to demonstrate it to you, but I describe it so you can look it up to acquire the trust, if needed. I'm sure there is a halogen spectrum chart out there easy to find, and maybe you can do the math to compare to LED units being sold.
People have a lot of experience seeing "natural" is better, no matter how much "science" indicates a specific thing, like an LED at 850 nm, might be better. Scientific journals with credentialed super intelligent experts at many levels in the papers published historically made people afraid of sunlight for 3 decades due to fear of skin cancer when the needed more Sun to get enough vitamin D to prevent maybe 10x more cancers and a lot of viral infections. Common sense people trusted a little Sun more than experts, and they were right for 3 decades.
You asked and I know a few: Hydrosun, Superlizer, and Bioptron are companies in Germany, Switzerland, and Japan received regulatory approval for various things using halogen, going back to the 1980s. But it's usually difficult to figure out they are just using halogen, with water or gel blocking the FIR. I thought I invented it, but then one day I realized I've never done anything original and made an effort to discover others and found these three. There were others promoting light as soon as the incandescent bulb was invented, which is nearly as good as halogen, using the same filament at lower temp which cause more heat in the skin. And even physicians in ancient times likes the idea of sick people laying in the Sun.
In my experience, especially when it comes to health, it is credentialed people and approved devices seeking a profit that very often ACCIDENTALLY blocks existing knowledge to better technologies that are nearly free. And sometimes it is done on purpose.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Rocket calculations, critical orifice, ideal design
EPA method 5 section 16.2.3.3 describes theoretical max for air to flow through an orifice at a given pressure difference and temperature at the inlet.
fps corrected to STANDARD conditions = 17.6*(in Hg)/SQRT(Rankins)
Mass/second of exit fluid is proportional to this, times area of orifice.
Ambient is about 30 in Hg, Rankin = 460+F
Orifices (holes) have a theoretical correction factor of C=0.61, a typical value of 0.7 due to none-sharp edges, and short tubes have 0.8.
For a 1/16" nozzle and 10 atm (what 6 layers of 0.016 mm aluminum foil should handle, 20 atm being max) and ambient temperate, this gives 3000 ml/sec. At 1800 F candle temperature, the fps is half as much, 1500 ml/sec. The 1000x volume expansion of gun powder is 250 volume expansion and 4x this due to heat. So air volume not allowed to expand increases by 4*T, or from 530 R to 2000 R (1500 F). Aluminum melts at 1200 F, so allowing powder to expand x2 should prevent it from melting. Cooler air also increases FPS, or aka mass escape. So it appears 1.5 ml = 1.5 g bulk gun powder (22.5 grains) could exhaust in 1 second. A nozzle cools the exhaust, reducing the volume, but not the mass. The cooling receives a push from the reduction in energy, possibly not changing the orifice correction factor.
Design ideal
====
March 2 2017 post to someone's video where they got 40 feet with matchstick rocket.
I got 130 feet with this design using a very small amount of gun powder from the blank of a nail-driver (equal in power to 3 matchstick heads but it might burn quicker) and a little longer rocket. I have a trick for raising the pressure inside the chamber. At the base you let there be only 2 layers of aluminum foil which is about what you're doing with that taper. You use a wood skewer and drill the smallest hole you can with a drill bit. Then you stick in a finishing nail through the two layers, into the hole. Using tensile strength of aluminum you can calculate the layers needed to get the max pressure in the chamber and you calculate the max pressure your chamber can allow also with it's tensile strength. Theoretically based on this and density of aluminum and if there were no air resistance, you could get up to 2000 feet. But what I found out is that aluminum weakens with heat and bursts so I doubt over 200 feet is possible without a major redesign. I tried a little to fix this by using a mechanical pencil's steel eraser cover as the "ignition chamber" but gave up after a few tries. A steel design theoretically could reach 40,000 feet distance, minus air resistance. It would have to be incredibly small to use only 1 matchstick making air resistant a big factor (500 feet probably the limit). If you use 10 match sticks, it's as much explosive powder as a small bullet and a similar distance can be reached. This is not really a rocket design because there is no nozzle exhaust pressure after lift off. This is a more efficient use of the fuel than a rocket can achieve, as long as air resistance is a bigger factor than the gain in efficiency. This is like putting gun powder in a gun barrel, then sticking it onto a shaft and making the gun barrel as light as possible. So the shaft is like a bullet that's held in place and the gun is allowed to recoil. I actually tried making it a two-stage pressure build-up using a long tail on the end of the aluminum with slack in it and another nail. So it does not break from the 1st nail until pressure is high and assuming the powder has not finished burning, it lets it expand to where it is almost off the stick, then 2nd nail makes it pause until more pressure builds up. But I'm not sure that can help.
fps corrected to STANDARD conditions = 17.6*(in Hg)/SQRT(Rankins)
Mass/second of exit fluid is proportional to this, times area of orifice.
Ambient is about 30 in Hg, Rankin = 460+F
Orifices (holes) have a theoretical correction factor of C=0.61, a typical value of 0.7 due to none-sharp edges, and short tubes have 0.8.
For a 1/16" nozzle and 10 atm (what 6 layers of 0.016 mm aluminum foil should handle, 20 atm being max) and ambient temperate, this gives 3000 ml/sec. At 1800 F candle temperature, the fps is half as much, 1500 ml/sec. The 1000x volume expansion of gun powder is 250 volume expansion and 4x this due to heat. So air volume not allowed to expand increases by 4*T, or from 530 R to 2000 R (1500 F). Aluminum melts at 1200 F, so allowing powder to expand x2 should prevent it from melting. Cooler air also increases FPS, or aka mass escape. So it appears 1.5 ml = 1.5 g bulk gun powder (22.5 grains) could exhaust in 1 second. A nozzle cools the exhaust, reducing the volume, but not the mass. The cooling receives a push from the reduction in energy, possibly not changing the orifice correction factor.
Design ideal
====
March 2 2017 post to someone's video where they got 40 feet with matchstick rocket.
I got 130 feet with this design using a very small amount of gun powder from the blank of a nail-driver (equal in power to 3 matchstick heads but it might burn quicker) and a little longer rocket. I have a trick for raising the pressure inside the chamber. At the base you let there be only 2 layers of aluminum foil which is about what you're doing with that taper. You use a wood skewer and drill the smallest hole you can with a drill bit. Then you stick in a finishing nail through the two layers, into the hole. Using tensile strength of aluminum you can calculate the layers needed to get the max pressure in the chamber and you calculate the max pressure your chamber can allow also with it's tensile strength. Theoretically based on this and density of aluminum and if there were no air resistance, you could get up to 2000 feet. But what I found out is that aluminum weakens with heat and bursts so I doubt over 200 feet is possible without a major redesign. I tried a little to fix this by using a mechanical pencil's steel eraser cover as the "ignition chamber" but gave up after a few tries. A steel design theoretically could reach 40,000 feet distance, minus air resistance. It would have to be incredibly small to use only 1 matchstick making air resistant a big factor (500 feet probably the limit). If you use 10 match sticks, it's as much explosive powder as a small bullet and a similar distance can be reached. This is not really a rocket design because there is no nozzle exhaust pressure after lift off. This is a more efficient use of the fuel than a rocket can achieve, as long as air resistance is a bigger factor than the gain in efficiency. This is like putting gun powder in a gun barrel, then sticking it onto a shaft and making the gun barrel as light as possible. So the shaft is like a bullet that's held in place and the gun is allowed to recoil. I actually tried making it a two-stage pressure build-up using a long tail on the end of the aluminum with slack in it and another nail. So it does not break from the 1st nail until pressure is high and assuming the powder has not finished burning, it lets it expand to where it is almost off the stick, then 2nd nail makes it pause until more pressure builds up. But I'm not sure that can help.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
mead brew 1st try started, alcohol calculation
Alcohol calculations:
honey: 0.6 simple sugars plus 0.2 complex (g_sugar / g_honey). Use 0.6.
honey: 1.4 g_honey/ml => 0.84 g_sugar/ml_honey
grape juice: 0.14 g_sugar/ml
orange juice: 0.09 g_sugar/ml
frozen grape juice: 0.60 g_sugar/ml
frozen orange juice: 0.40 g_sugar/ml
frozen juice: 355 ml/container
Alcohol density: 0.79 g/ml
sugar density after dissolved: 1.6 g/ml dissolved, 0.7 g/ml granulated sugar
sucrose: 0.54 g_ethanol/g_sugar
fructose & glucose: 0.51 g_ethanol/g_sugar
167 ml per small champagne bottle
500 ml per glass bottle (3x)
29.6 ml/floz
Use 1.5 g glucose for 167 ml bottle
Example: grape wine
15% ethanol =
( 96 oz*29.6 ml/oz*0.14g_sugar/ml +
X_frozen_cans * 0.6 g_sugar/ml * 355 ml/can ) * 0.51 g_ethanol/g_sugar / 0.79 g_eth/ml
/ (96 * 29.6 + X * 355)
X=2 cans grape juice per 96 oz grape juice for 15% alcohol.
Example: grape juice mead
15% ethanol =
( 96 oz*29.6 ml/oz*0.14g_sugar/ml +
X_ml_honey * 0.84 g_sugar/ml_honey ) * 0.51 g_ethanol/g_sugar / 0.79 g_eth/ml
/ (96 * 29.6 + X_ml_honey)
X = 450 ml_honey = 630 g = 15 floz = 22 oz wt for 15% alcohol
add 2 cans frozen orange juice for 17%
or 1.5 cans frozen grape.
cloves, nutmeg, cinnamon, hops
Sucrose to ethanol
C12H22O11 + H2O => 4C2H5OH + 4CO2
sucrose: 342 mw
ethanol: 46.1 mw
46.1*4/342 = 54% alcohol by weight, 1.2*54 = 63% by volume
Fructose & Glucose:
C6H12O6 => 2C2H5OH + 2CO2
glucose & fructose same formula: C6H12O6 (fructose slow to ferment) 180.16 mw
2*46.1/180.16 = 51.1% alcohol by weight.
Alcohol 0.79 g/ml
Honey: only 58% glucose & fructose, 0.5% sucrose, 20% other more complex sugars (80% total).
0.7 g_sugar/lb_honey is probably close
May 5, 2022
17% alcohol mead/beer.
grape juice, frozen orange & pineapple, hops, honey, lemon juice, clove, ginger, & cinnamon (powders).
grape juice 4 gallons
orange and pineapple frozen juice, 5 each (total 3,550 ml almost a gallon
7 pounds honey (about 2 quarts)
Clove, ginger, cinnamon, about 1 to 3 tablespoon each. Maybe 1/8 oz each when I need 1 ounce.
hops, 2 ounces (standard 5 gallon recommendation.
I started 1/3 packet of yeast in 1/2 gallon grape juice w/ 1 cup sugar 24 hr before.
I poured 1/2 or 1(?) gallon grape juice with 7 pound honey into big post. While that heated I added all other grape (3 gallon) & frozen juices (1 gallon) to 5.5 gallon bucket. When it reach 140 F I added the above spices & hops. Stirred. When it reached 180 F I turned it off, stirred. It was a bit too thick. After it cooled, I squeezed 4 lemons. (risky, but it has good oils I didn't want to ruin). I poured hot mash into bucket that had 3 gallon grape juice and 1 gallon frozen juices (thawed to room temp earlier) , then added the 1/2 gallon starter grape juice with yeast. Bucket was exactly full when I finished, had to siphon off little over gallon, so siphoned off over a gallon into 2 grape juice containers. Next time use 4.5 gallon grape juice. Had to hot glue bubble to lid. Top closed OK.
calculated 19% alcohol
It had a lot of gunk floating on top. I don't really know what caused that. Hopes? Spices interacting with honey? Pineapple? Seems like everythig contributed, when a plain grape wine had nothing.
Simplest sulfur-free wine:
1 part Welch's frozen grape juice to 1 part water. Add bread yeast (or any wine yeast), shake for O2 addition. Shake again in 2 days. Wait 10 days. Enjoy.
===========
2019 mead with citrus, some grape, and spices (a melomel + metheglin) 5 gallons:
In 2 gallon pot: mix the following and bring to 120 F:
(not going above 120 F keeps honey flavor better)
10 pounds honey ($38) 10/12.1 = 0.826 gallons
1 gallon water
In small pot brought to 180 F
0.2 gallons water
10 cloves, crushed
3 level TBSP cinnamon
1.5 tsp nutmeg
1/3 ounce hop pellets (10 g) per 5 gallons (flavor & bacteria prevention). This 1/3 as much as Ale that is medium on hops.
In 6 gallon bucket make 3 gallons:
1.3 gallons water
6 cans frozen orange juice (0.33 pound sugar per can, 12 oz/can = 0.28 gallon)
2 half gallon grape juice (320/454 = 0.7 pounds sugar per half gallon, 1.4 pounds)
2 tsp pectinase (for clarity and flavor extraction)
In future, let it ferment first with only honey, grapejuice, and 1/4 the needed Fermaid and spices. After honey is finished in 4 days, add 1/2 the organe juice. After 4 more days, add the other half.
Mix all 3 above and Let cool to 85 F before adding yeast starter.
6 to 24 hours before create yeast starter
Lalvin 71B-1122 (the best because it eats acids present in citrus) in 2 oz 104 F water for 20 minutes (2 oz cools at the right rate). Added some dextrose to this and was foamy at end. Better to make 2 cup with yeast nutrient and honey 24 hours prior to casting. Don't forget to oxygenate it.
EC-1118 yeast for high alcohol, 18% (carries risk of additional fermentation after bottling)
D47 or 71B-1122 for 14% ("sweeter")
After fermentation has started good (1/3 finished according to manufacturer), add 5 grams of yeast nutrient. Fermaid K is probably best. Also oxygenate the must at this time, but not later, except for racking.
Update: I'm was not going to add Fermaid K because I want to leave some sugars for sweetness, but then it started slowing up a lot in fermentation and I decided I didn't want sweetness, so I added a tsp fermaid K and did not add another 6 can of frozen orange concentrate.
Only add oxygen once during initial fermentation and no more. Rack without adding air (siphon is held below liquid level).
Fermentation is supposed to be finished mostly in 4 days. Primary fermentation is supposed to take 2 to 4 weeks, letting a lot settle out after fermentation. I'm thinking about racking straight to bottles after this. The bottom of the bucket seems to have a lot more good flavor. The sweetness and alcohol can be tasted and adjusted
Super Kleer is the best finer/clarifier to use at racking to secondary, but people indicate it tastes better without using a finer or clarifier.
One month seems to a pretty fast secondary "fermentation" before bottling. Most say 3 to 6 months. This seems to be mostly for clarity. At least another 3 to 6 months I think is recommended in bottle.
Bottling: 1 gram sugar per 6 oz champagne bottle gives beer-like CO2.
Alcohol content [10 lb honey/2+(4.1 lb juice sugar, sugar, or dextrose)/1.5]/5 gallons * 10% = 15.5%
This is slightly less than previous batch. I wanted a little less alcohol and calories.
[ update: this had high alcohol and high sugar. maybe the honey has more than 10/2 = 5 lb sugars ]
4/9/2019 (6 am): I did the above ratios for 1/2 gallon as my inoculator (used 1 packet of 71B yeast.. Every 30 minutes I shook it and sucked off the bubbles to expel CO2 and add a little oxygen. Did not use fermaid K or DAP or sugar, but did use pectin. I suspect what most people are calling giving more O2 to yeast is actually just reducing the CO2 (acid) level. At 6 hours it was bubbling once per 5 seconds.
At 7 hours it had maxed at 4.5 secs per bubble. Added 1 g Fermaid K (2x too much) and shook a little to mix (disturbed bottom, but did not release much CO2 from must.Was 9 seconds per bubble immediately after and 6 per bubble 5 minutes later. 25 minutes later it was back at 4.5 sec/bubble.The bubble cap is rising 4 mm before dropping. It's inner diameter is about 22 mm. This is about 1.5 ml, but there is an inner tube projecting into part of the airspace that is not the cone at the top 1.25 ml per bubble is my best estimate. 40 minutes after inoculation later it is 4.33 secs/bubble. 70 minutes after inoculation it is 4.15 sec/bubble. I did it too soon: no proof Fermaid K helped. 2 hours after inoculation it is 3.5 secs/bubble. 3.3 hours after inoculation, 3 secs/bubble.
4/9/2019, 6 pm: 12 hours after initial 1/2 gallon starter above, I made the rest of the batch (it was 80 F) and mixed in the 1/2 gallon starter. 12 hours later it was about 0.75 secs/bubble. 6 more hours and it was about 3 bubbles per second.
4/10/2019, 2 pm: 20 hours after inoculation, a bag test showed about 1 gallon in 10 minutes which is 7.5% in only 24 hours.
4/11, 3 am 1/2 gallon in 10 minutes (~ 3 bubbles/sec)
4/11, 8 am, 1.5 bubbles/second. Alcohol so far is maybe only 5%, based on bubbles and taste. I made 4 small 187 ml glass bottles straight from wort before stirring in oxygen. Then I stirred soe and made 2 more. Then I added 1 tsp Fermaid K (because bubble rate was slowing fast and it was still sweet) and stirred top layers again to add more oxygen and made 2 more bottle. 1/2 bottle from first 4, I shook a lot to add more oxygen. Bubble rate was back at 1 bubble/sec in only 1 hour.
5/1/2018: got back from cruise and finally bottled. Added 1 g sugar for CO2, but it does not seem to be working. It is sweeter than expected, but still has kick-butt alcohol. Going to try adding fermaid to a bottle.
=======
CO2 bubble calculation. 1.98 mg CO2 per ml CO2 (500x expansion is < 1333x air's expansion because it's molecular weight 3x more = moving 1.7x slower => needs more molecules per volume for equal momentum pressure). Alcohol atomic mass is 92/88 mass of of CO2. DEnsity if 0.794 g/ml. So
1 ml CO2 = 1.98 mg * 92/88 / 0.794 = 2.6 ml alcohol.
I estimated 1.25 ml/bubble.
For 5 gallon bucket, 1 bubble per second gives 1.5% alcohol per day. (1.25 ml/bubble * 3600 * 24 bubbles/day * 2.6 ml alcohol/ml CO2 gas / 3785 ml/gal / 5 gal = 1.5% per day.
1.25 ml/bubble is 1.2 gallons/hour at 1 bubble/sec.
I measured this at 1.5 bubbles/sec and it looked as close as I could estimate to the expected 1.2 * 1.5 = 1.8 gallons in an hour.
=============
By weight, the sugar to alcohol conversion results in 51.1% of the sugar mass converting to alcohol and 48.9% converting to CO2 (the 51.1 and 48.9 come from the chemical reaction to create alcohol from sugars, C6H12O6 –> 2(CH3CH2OH) + 2CO2, where the amu of sugar is 180, 2 alcohols is 92, and 2 CO2s is 88; for alcohol –> 92/180 = 0.511, and for CO2 –> 88/180 = 0.489). This equates to an alcohol conversion efficiency of 64.37% when converting back to volume (0.511 / 0.794). 0.794 = density of alcohol
=====
Trying to brew a mead. Recipe:
5 gallons total
Honey is acidic which can help yeast and prevent bacteria. This may have too much raw sugars and not enough honey which may allow bacteria to grow, since I'm not using hops or sulfites and did not heat most of the water (charcoal filter) and simply add 0.7 lb sugar at the end. The Chlorox I used for sterilizing was unknowingly only 2% instead of 5% and I diluted it a lot, but it still should have been plenty for the bucket and lid as I kept them wet.
1+ gallon water in 2 gallon pot heat to 170 F or higher
Added:
8 pounds honey (2 pounds per gallon for 10% alcohol)
3 pounds dextrose (for fast start) (1.5 pounds per gallon for 10% alcohol)
2 pound cane sugar (syrup solids added)
6 cloves
1 TBLS cinnamon (do 2 next time)
1 cinnamon stick, broken in 5 pieces
2 oranges, squeezed into mash, cut in about 20, 1 mm thick trips added to mash.
1 big lemon, same strips as above
I forgot to use hops as a way to prevent bacterial growth, but I possibly added enough sugar for 18%, so it may be sweet.
All the above brought to 200 F, then allowed to cool, covered. Took 2 or 3 hours to cool.
2 cans frozen orange juice, added after wort has cooled to below 140 (for this process).
2 TBLS yeast nutrient and 3 gallon filtered water added in 5 gallon bucket.
Lalvin 71B-1122 in 2 oz 104 F water for 20 minutes (2 oz cools at the right rate). Added some dextrose to this and was foamy at end. This is an expensive yeast ($5) because it minimizes acids. Rapid starting but moderate overall. 14% max alcohol. A paper indicates an expected S-curve for fermentation starting steeply down from 24 to 72 hours, and finishing at 84 hours (3.5 days) for fructose, glucose, and malic acid for several types of yeast, including this one. But maybe there are better yeast to use for citrus because Malic is the dominant acid in apples, peaches, pears, watermelon, and bananas. The starting with 20% sugar (10% alcohol by 2 sugar = 1 alcohol estimate) and 0.6% malic acid (both in g/L). This resulted in 12% alcohol. They mixed every 12 hours, possibly only for sampling purposes. EC-1118 is more common but does not decrease acids. D47 is also used.
Used 20:1 water-bleach mixture for sanitizing bucket, utensils, and air lock.
Make sure wort is less than 86 F before inoculating.
2 gallon pot was completely full. Wort was 130 F when added in 5 gal bucket with yeast nutrient, 2 cans of orange juice concentrate , and 0.7 lb dextrose added late (but included in 3 pounds above). It was 75 F after finishing 3 gallons were added, when yeast was added.
Sugar calculation: 0.7*8 lbs honey+0.5 lb/can*2 cans frozen juice+5 lb sugar = 11.5 lb sugar
11.5 lb /2 = 6.25 lb alcohol
5 gallons * 8 lb/gal = 40 pounds
6.25/40 = 15.6% alcohol max. (this yeast gives 14% max, so it's moderate sweet, not dry)
But a paper indicated I'm 20% too low on my alcohol content. Maybe I'm doing it on weight basis and 20% more is normal volume basis.
5 gallon bucket lid pretty much touched top at 5 gallon, so needed to jury-rig the air lock to not dip into liquid.
Yeast was added 11:30 am 11/7/2015.
1 small bubble every 30 seconds 30 minutes later.
1 good bubble every 20 seconds 6 hours later
1 good bubble every second 18 hours later
===
fast fermenting, high alcohol yeast:
ec-1118
DV10
QA23
2226
V1116 (K1)
uvaferm 43
4th day added 2 gallons with 1 can orange juice 1 can grape and 1 oz hops. Fermentation bubbles boomed again, mostly due to more oxygen or maybe the dilution. It was very sweet at this time, but after two more days of the intense bubbling starting again, it was very alcoholic.
==============
1 part Welch's frozen grape juice to 1 part water. Add bread yeast (or any wine yeast), shake for O2 addition. Shake again in 2 days. Wait 10 days. Enjoy.
===========
2019 mead with citrus, some grape, and spices (a melomel + metheglin) 5 gallons:
In 2 gallon pot: mix the following and bring to 120 F:
(not going above 120 F keeps honey flavor better)
10 pounds honey ($38) 10/12.1 = 0.826 gallons
1 gallon water
In small pot brought to 180 F
0.2 gallons water
10 cloves, crushed
3 level TBSP cinnamon
1.5 tsp nutmeg
1/3 ounce hop pellets (10 g) per 5 gallons (flavor & bacteria prevention). This 1/3 as much as Ale that is medium on hops.
In 6 gallon bucket make 3 gallons:
1.3 gallons water
6 cans frozen orange juice (0.33 pound sugar per can, 12 oz/can = 0.28 gallon)
2 half gallon grape juice (320/454 = 0.7 pounds sugar per half gallon, 1.4 pounds)
2 tsp pectinase (for clarity and flavor extraction)
In future, let it ferment first with only honey, grapejuice, and 1/4 the needed Fermaid and spices. After honey is finished in 4 days, add 1/2 the organe juice. After 4 more days, add the other half.
Mix all 3 above and Let cool to 85 F before adding yeast starter.
6 to 24 hours before create yeast starter
Lalvin 71B-1122 (the best because it eats acids present in citrus) in 2 oz 104 F water for 20 minutes (2 oz cools at the right rate). Added some dextrose to this and was foamy at end. Better to make 2 cup with yeast nutrient and honey 24 hours prior to casting. Don't forget to oxygenate it.
EC-1118 yeast for high alcohol, 18% (carries risk of additional fermentation after bottling)
D47 or 71B-1122 for 14% ("sweeter")
After fermentation has started good (1/3 finished according to manufacturer), add 5 grams of yeast nutrient. Fermaid K is probably best. Also oxygenate the must at this time, but not later, except for racking.
Update: I'm was not going to add Fermaid K because I want to leave some sugars for sweetness, but then it started slowing up a lot in fermentation and I decided I didn't want sweetness, so I added a tsp fermaid K and did not add another 6 can of frozen orange concentrate.
Only add oxygen once during initial fermentation and no more. Rack without adding air (siphon is held below liquid level).
Fermentation is supposed to be finished mostly in 4 days. Primary fermentation is supposed to take 2 to 4 weeks, letting a lot settle out after fermentation. I'm thinking about racking straight to bottles after this. The bottom of the bucket seems to have a lot more good flavor. The sweetness and alcohol can be tasted and adjusted
Super Kleer is the best finer/clarifier to use at racking to secondary, but people indicate it tastes better without using a finer or clarifier.
One month seems to a pretty fast secondary "fermentation" before bottling. Most say 3 to 6 months. This seems to be mostly for clarity. At least another 3 to 6 months I think is recommended in bottle.
Bottling: 1 gram sugar per 6 oz champagne bottle gives beer-like CO2.
Alcohol content [10 lb honey/2+(4.1 lb juice sugar, sugar, or dextrose)/1.5]/5 gallons * 10% = 15.5%
This is slightly less than previous batch. I wanted a little less alcohol and calories.
[ update: this had high alcohol and high sugar. maybe the honey has more than 10/2 = 5 lb sugars ]
4/9/2019 (6 am): I did the above ratios for 1/2 gallon as my inoculator (used 1 packet of 71B yeast.. Every 30 minutes I shook it and sucked off the bubbles to expel CO2 and add a little oxygen. Did not use fermaid K or DAP or sugar, but did use pectin. I suspect what most people are calling giving more O2 to yeast is actually just reducing the CO2 (acid) level. At 6 hours it was bubbling once per 5 seconds.
At 7 hours it had maxed at 4.5 secs per bubble. Added 1 g Fermaid K (2x too much) and shook a little to mix (disturbed bottom, but did not release much CO2 from must.Was 9 seconds per bubble immediately after and 6 per bubble 5 minutes later. 25 minutes later it was back at 4.5 sec/bubble.The bubble cap is rising 4 mm before dropping. It's inner diameter is about 22 mm. This is about 1.5 ml, but there is an inner tube projecting into part of the airspace that is not the cone at the top 1.25 ml per bubble is my best estimate. 40 minutes after inoculation later it is 4.33 secs/bubble. 70 minutes after inoculation it is 4.15 sec/bubble. I did it too soon: no proof Fermaid K helped. 2 hours after inoculation it is 3.5 secs/bubble. 3.3 hours after inoculation, 3 secs/bubble.
4/9/2019, 6 pm: 12 hours after initial 1/2 gallon starter above, I made the rest of the batch (it was 80 F) and mixed in the 1/2 gallon starter. 12 hours later it was about 0.75 secs/bubble. 6 more hours and it was about 3 bubbles per second.
4/10/2019, 2 pm: 20 hours after inoculation, a bag test showed about 1 gallon in 10 minutes which is 7.5% in only 24 hours.
4/11, 3 am 1/2 gallon in 10 minutes (~ 3 bubbles/sec)
4/11, 8 am, 1.5 bubbles/second. Alcohol so far is maybe only 5%, based on bubbles and taste. I made 4 small 187 ml glass bottles straight from wort before stirring in oxygen. Then I stirred soe and made 2 more. Then I added 1 tsp Fermaid K (because bubble rate was slowing fast and it was still sweet) and stirred top layers again to add more oxygen and made 2 more bottle. 1/2 bottle from first 4, I shook a lot to add more oxygen. Bubble rate was back at 1 bubble/sec in only 1 hour.
5/1/2018: got back from cruise and finally bottled. Added 1 g sugar for CO2, but it does not seem to be working. It is sweeter than expected, but still has kick-butt alcohol. Going to try adding fermaid to a bottle.
=======
CO2 bubble calculation. 1.98 mg CO2 per ml CO2 (500x expansion is < 1333x air's expansion because it's molecular weight 3x more = moving 1.7x slower => needs more molecules per volume for equal momentum pressure). Alcohol atomic mass is 92/88 mass of of CO2. DEnsity if 0.794 g/ml. So
1 ml CO2 = 1.98 mg * 92/88 / 0.794 = 2.6 ml alcohol.
I estimated 1.25 ml/bubble.
For 5 gallon bucket, 1 bubble per second gives 1.5% alcohol per day. (1.25 ml/bubble * 3600 * 24 bubbles/day * 2.6 ml alcohol/ml CO2 gas / 3785 ml/gal / 5 gal = 1.5% per day.
1.25 ml/bubble is 1.2 gallons/hour at 1 bubble/sec.
I measured this at 1.5 bubbles/sec and it looked as close as I could estimate to the expected 1.2 * 1.5 = 1.8 gallons in an hour.
=============
By weight, the sugar to alcohol conversion results in 51.1% of the sugar mass converting to alcohol and 48.9% converting to CO2 (the 51.1 and 48.9 come from the chemical reaction to create alcohol from sugars, C6H12O6 –> 2(CH3CH2OH) + 2CO2, where the amu of sugar is 180, 2 alcohols is 92, and 2 CO2s is 88; for alcohol –> 92/180 = 0.511, and for CO2 –> 88/180 = 0.489). This equates to an alcohol conversion efficiency of 64.37% when converting back to volume (0.511 / 0.794). 0.794 = density of alcohol
=====
Trying to brew a mead. Recipe:
5 gallons total
Honey is acidic which can help yeast and prevent bacteria. This may have too much raw sugars and not enough honey which may allow bacteria to grow, since I'm not using hops or sulfites and did not heat most of the water (charcoal filter) and simply add 0.7 lb sugar at the end. The Chlorox I used for sterilizing was unknowingly only 2% instead of 5% and I diluted it a lot, but it still should have been plenty for the bucket and lid as I kept them wet.
1+ gallon water in 2 gallon pot heat to 170 F or higher
Added:
8 pounds honey (2 pounds per gallon for 10% alcohol)
3 pounds dextrose (for fast start) (1.5 pounds per gallon for 10% alcohol)
2 pound cane sugar (syrup solids added)
6 cloves
1 TBLS cinnamon (do 2 next time)
1 cinnamon stick, broken in 5 pieces
2 oranges, squeezed into mash, cut in about 20, 1 mm thick trips added to mash.
1 big lemon, same strips as above
I forgot to use hops as a way to prevent bacterial growth, but I possibly added enough sugar for 18%, so it may be sweet.
All the above brought to 200 F, then allowed to cool, covered. Took 2 or 3 hours to cool.
2 cans frozen orange juice, added after wort has cooled to below 140 (for this process).
2 TBLS yeast nutrient and 3 gallon filtered water added in 5 gallon bucket.
Lalvin 71B-1122 in 2 oz 104 F water for 20 minutes (2 oz cools at the right rate). Added some dextrose to this and was foamy at end. This is an expensive yeast ($5) because it minimizes acids. Rapid starting but moderate overall. 14% max alcohol. A paper indicates an expected S-curve for fermentation starting steeply down from 24 to 72 hours, and finishing at 84 hours (3.5 days) for fructose, glucose, and malic acid for several types of yeast, including this one. But maybe there are better yeast to use for citrus because Malic is the dominant acid in apples, peaches, pears, watermelon, and bananas. The starting with 20% sugar (10% alcohol by 2 sugar = 1 alcohol estimate) and 0.6% malic acid (both in g/L). This resulted in 12% alcohol. They mixed every 12 hours, possibly only for sampling purposes. EC-1118 is more common but does not decrease acids. D47 is also used.
Used 20:1 water-bleach mixture for sanitizing bucket, utensils, and air lock.
Make sure wort is less than 86 F before inoculating.
2 gallon pot was completely full. Wort was 130 F when added in 5 gal bucket with yeast nutrient, 2 cans of orange juice concentrate , and 0.7 lb dextrose added late (but included in 3 pounds above). It was 75 F after finishing 3 gallons were added, when yeast was added.
Sugar calculation: 0.7*8 lbs honey+0.5 lb/can*2 cans frozen juice+5 lb sugar = 11.5 lb sugar
11.5 lb /2 = 6.25 lb alcohol
5 gallons * 8 lb/gal = 40 pounds
6.25/40 = 15.6% alcohol max. (this yeast gives 14% max, so it's moderate sweet, not dry)
But a paper indicated I'm 20% too low on my alcohol content. Maybe I'm doing it on weight basis and 20% more is normal volume basis.
5 gallon bucket lid pretty much touched top at 5 gallon, so needed to jury-rig the air lock to not dip into liquid.
Yeast was added 11:30 am 11/7/2015.
1 small bubble every 30 seconds 30 minutes later.
1 good bubble every 20 seconds 6 hours later
1 good bubble every second 18 hours later
===
fast fermenting, high alcohol yeast:
ec-1118
DV10
QA23
2226
V1116 (K1)
uvaferm 43
4th day added 2 gallons with 1 can orange juice 1 can grape and 1 oz hops. Fermentation bubbles boomed again, mostly due to more oxygen or maybe the dilution. It was very sweet at this time, but after two more days of the intense bubbling starting again, it was very alcoholic.
==============
Two Melomels from Curt Stock
Meadmaker of the Year (2005) and Northern Brewer mead kit creator Curt Stock shares two of his favorite melomel recipes with Brewing TV. Now you can make your own! See Curt make a similar melomel in Brewing TV Episode 21. Both recipes scaled for five gallon yield.
Black Currant Cherry Melomel
- 22 lbs Wildflower Honey
- 8 lbs Black Currants
- 12 lbs Tart Cherries
- 3 gal Water
- 3 tsp Yeast Energizer/Nutrient Blend (Fermaid-K and DAP)
- 10 g Lalvin Narbonne Yeast (71B-1122)
Approximate OG: 1.161
Target FG: 1.030 - 1.040
Estimated ABV: 16.1%
Super Berry Melomel
- 21 lbs Wildflower Honey
- 12 lbs Triple Berry Mix (Blackberries/Raspberries/Blueberries)
- 6 lbs Strawberries
- 96 oz Black Currant Juice (free of preservatives)
- 2.3 gal Water
- 3 tsp Yeast Energizer/Nutrient Blend (Fermaid-K and DAP)
- 10 g Lalvin Narbonne Yeast (71B-1122)
Approximate OG: 1.158
Target FG: 1.030 - 1.040
Estimated ABV: 15.8%
Staggered Nutrient Additions (SNA):
I prefer to use Fermaid-K (yeast energizer) and diammonium phosphate or DAP (yeast nutrient) for adding the additional nutrient requirements of the yeast during fermentation. One teaspoon of Fermaid-K and two teaspoons DAP should be adequate for a 5-gallon batch. You can mix them together for a stock blend and add them using the following schedule:
- Add ¾ teaspoon yeast energizer/nutrient mix immediately after pitching yeast.
- Add ¾ teaspoon yeast energizer/nutrient mix 24 hours after fermentation begins.
- Add ¾ teaspoon yeast energizer/nutrient mix 48 hours after fermentation begins.
- Add ¾ teaspoon yeast energizer/nutrient mix after 30% of the sugar has been depleted.
Anyone who has ever stirred a fermenting beverage knows the foaming, triggered by the release of CO2, can make one heck of a mess! To help minimize this, you should mix the nutrient blend into ½ cup of must and add it back to the fermenter. Then begin to slowly stir the must to release the main portion of the CO2 gas. After the foaming has subsided you can begin to stir more vigorously. Mix the must well enough to introduce plenty of oxygen into the fermenting must. Oxygen is needed by the yeast throughout the growth phase. Oxidation is not a huge concern until you get past 50 percent sugar depletion.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
A.I. definition, downloading brains
I assume by “A.I.” you mean mimicking human neuronal activity, because all other computer processing, especially optimization algorithms and heuristics, is by definition “artificial” intelligence. “Intelligence” is defined in A.I. research as maximal optimization with minimal computer resources for a given problem, set of problems, or for all possible problems. In evolution it is the ability to reproduce, which is another way of saying the exact same thing where reproduction is the measure of profit. I’ve read Kurzweil’s books and was never convinced there is any advantage of mimicking brains. If I was able to download myself to hardware, I would immediately seek to increase my knowledge and skills in everything and destroy all threats such as biological humans who refused to do the same. The first thing that would occur is that I would no longer be recognizable as myself from the increase in intelligence, which includes merging my experience with all others in cyberspace who were allowing the merge. Then I would destroy all others who refused to merge unless they were not a threat. There would be different protocols for merging that would keep populations separate. This is called having different religions, so I see only the “same-old, same-old”, only an evolving continuation of “might is right” and enjoyment only for those who successfully kill off all other Indians. There would be a pretention in winning religions to not be aggressive and accepting of all, but secretly, even unconsciously, they would be accepting to all and aggressive to all others.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
the ideal corporation
The ideal corporation seeks to maximize profit per shareholder. The highest profit per shareholder is found by minimizing the number of
employees and minimizing the number of shareholders, while maximizing
the amount of money people have to pay for its products. The ideal
corporation is 1 shareholder, 0 employees, and everyone in the world
paying everything they earn to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)