Megacognito mentioned Longvida(R) form of curcumin helping and he said it had a study to back it up. I have been interested in curcumin because it is unique and therefore may have the possibility of helping in ways that are different from other methods, and therefore more likely to be additive in benefit. The problem is that curcumin is not bioavailable and has not been shown to help in the human brain in any condition at any dose. Many companies and people have been searching for ways around this, further indicating there is a consensus that it would be great if you can get it in the human brain. It appears C3 and Longvida are the main ones that the supplement industry has adopted and the best.
So I looked up the abstract, checked the article-publishing history of the authors (looked good, no conflict of interests except Longvida paid for the study), and I paid the $36 to get the pdf. The only potential drawback is that all 3 researchers are at Australia's Swinburn University. The Longvida company is in Indiana. The product is being incorporated in mainstream supplement lines (NOW foods being the cheaper one with Longvida), available anywhere like amazon, vitacost, and iherb. The trial was properly registered in Australia as ACTRN12612001027808 so you can see the study design in detail. The abstract is www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed...
Working memory and sustained attention were the things helped the most. Participants did NOT have dementia or Parkinsons. This was a study on healthy adults. Its mechanism of action may be merely another MAO-I that can increase dopamine, but for several reasons this natural method may be better than pharmaceuticals.
The reviews at Amazon are worth reading:
www.amazon.com/Curcumin-Lon...
But the NOW foods brand is cheaper.
But is this better than the older and more popular C3 curcumin when used with Bioperine? Bioperine is a popular brand of concentrated black pepper curcumin and other supplements include in their pills. It enables curcumin to remain in an active form in the blood.
A C3 curcumin study in AD patients did not show a benefit, but it did not use Bioperine to greatly (20x) amplify the curcumin and it was only 18 AD subjects that were treated. There has been more hope for curcumin in AD than PD.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed...
But generally curcumin has been receiving positive results in inflammation and arthritis.
This C3 study included bioavailability data and comparing this to a paper for longvida www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed...
I get that longvida free curcumin in the blood was 17 times better per mg dose. However, I can't tell if the mg dose in this 2nd paper was "as Curcumin" or "as longvida". If it was as Longvida, then the bioavailability was 85 times better than C3 of the Curcumin that was absorbed. I believe it is 85x better on a curcumin basis, not counting the effect of Bioperine (95% piperine) in either.
The least expensive brand with Longvida is $0.50 per pill containing 80 mg while the least expensive C3 brand (swanson or now) is $0.25 per pill containing 825 mg, so you get 20 times more per dollar for the C3 products. Also, they are not necessarily larger pills because the Longvida is 80% additives that help in absorption, but C3 can be 95% curcumin. The C3 products also often contain peperine which greatly increases curcumin bioavailability (20x more than curcumin alone) but that does not mean equal benefit will be seen with C3 and Longvida because they might be a similar mechanism as piperine for bioavailability. But it seems to be a different mechanism, so it should help with both, but I did not see bioperine mixed with any Longvida products. Five strong dashes of white or black pepper (0.1 g) will provide more piperine than the 2 to 5 mg Bioperine in C3 curcumin capsules.
Tumeric is 3% curcumin according to wiki, and I see you might be able to tolerate 2 to 4 grams turmeric in a ginger-turmeric tea. A website says you should add 3% black pepper to maximize turmeric absorption. This is a 1 to 1 ratio of black pepper to curcumin, whereas only 1% Bioperine (95% piperine from black pepper) to curcumin is needed in C3 pills. Black pepper is about 7% piperine, so 1 to 1 is about 3.5% piperine, so it's an even better ratio than the Bioperine used in pills. There are probably other things in turmeric that help in curcumin absorption, like oils that Longvida depends on, so it's possible turmeric is as good as Longvida needing only 7 times more (since turmeric is 3% curcumin and Longvida is 20% curcumin). C3 also seems like it is trying to copy what the inventors think are good in turmeric that helps curcumin absorb, being a complex of curcumins like turmeric instead of a single compound. At only 3% curcumin in tumeric, the absorption from a 3 gram turmeric tea (very strong, 1 teaspoon of turmeric powder) with 5 strong dashes of black pepper will have to absorb 4 times better than C3+bioperine to equal 1 C3 pill. This is definitely possible, and if it absorbs as well as longvida due to its complex mixture of oil, this tea is equal to 1 longvida pill.
It seems Longvida will work better (even on a cost basis) than C3 if you take it with 0.1 g black pepper.
Quercitin, coconut oil, silibirin and heat increase bioavailability:
www.turmericforhealth.com/g...
The amazon reviews for C3 and Longvida are both good, but it would take a lot of work to determine if the reviews really reflect benefit and not placebo. Nutritional supplements generally get excellent reviews.
Piperine reduces depression and improves cognition.
=====
comment on a review at amazon:
Longvida absorbs 85 times better than C3 on a curcumin basis, 7 times better on a cost basis using your data, but therefore 3 times worse than C3+bioperine on a cost basis. Four strong dashes of pepper (75 mg at 7.5% piperine in black pepper can offset this. A problem I have with the bioperine story: the only paper I could find on it was with curcumin, not C3 or Longvida. They used 20 mg piperine and 2 g curcumin, and the full 20 mg might be needed for a "threshold" effect. Even without this, it means they need to use 5 mg Bioperine instead of the typical 2 or 3 mg for 500 mg pills.
I wonder if both C3 and Longvida are merely trying to copy what you see in turmeric, both the oils and complex curcumins. Are the oils in plants nano-mixed with the active ingredients? How does C3's curcumin composition compare to turmeric?
I'm reading that heat and oils helps the active ingredients absorb, so that a hot turmeric tea with 1 teaspoon turmeric powder (7% curcumin+others?) and 0.1 gram black powder should work 20x (2000%) better than Longvida 500 mg pills and 7 times better than C3+bioperine.
Concerning the comparison between bioperine and black pepper, piperine is the "active" pungent ingredient of black pepper, so you can taste the potency. Bioperine is merely an extract, so it can only decrease bioavailability compared to the original spice. I just tasted 3 mg of bioperine from an opened C3 capsule and would say its pungency is equal to or less than 1 dash of black pepper (easily tolerable), indicating the 95% piperines is too high, or the 7% piperines estimate I used above for black pepper is too low, or Wikipedia's comments on the source of pepper pungency are wrong.
To what extent are these nutritional supplements up to the same games the Pharmaceuticals have been playing forever? You mention Bioperine as strongly supported via research, but my taste buds indicate it is not as good as a dash of pepper. Likewise C3 and Longvida are using the expectation of profit to fund research, but are we going to miss out on the obvious alternative of whole, cooked, turmeric from lack of funded research? Where's the turmeric paper that shows how much curcumin was in the blood after a meal using 4 grams of it?
==========
Post to PD forum and Dr Trutt in response to 2 articles by Dr Trutt:
http://truttmd.com/curcumin-caveat-emptor-not-all-brands-are-created-equal/
http://truttmd.com/curcumin-update-theracurmin/
Dr Trutt, the chart you got from youtube is from a Japanese study that was funded by the Japanese Theracumin company. Prior to their measurement of "curcumin", they used "1000 U beta-glucuronidase at 37 C for 1 hr to hydrolyze the curcumin conjugates" which sounds like they did not measure free curcumin. This correlates with your previous comments questioning a previous study's BCM-95's "free curcumin" data, since this study found a lot of "curcumin" in BCM-95. They never mention free curcumin or the conjugates in plasma.
The data are based on curcumin in the pills and BCM-95 has 17 times more per pill, so even Theracumin's paid researchers showing 10x better theracumin absorption are admitting BCM-95 per pill is 70% better. Theracumin is charging 30x more per curcumin, so at 10x better theracumin absorption per curcumin, BCM is still 3x less expensive per effectiveness. So, BCM-95 is 3x less expensive and you can take 3.5 pills instead of 6 to get the same effect.
Again, this does not seem to mean "free curcumin". But there seems to be only 1 study on longvida free curcumin, and I can't get the entire artilce
An indian study looked at their own formulation of 6% curcumin: "lipidic formulation of CRM (CRM-LF). CRM-LF consisted of CRM (6.17% w/w), Gelucire44/14 (16.46% w/w), Labrasol (5.76% w/w), Vitamin E TPGS (3.29% w/w), PEG 400 (55.55% w/w), ethanol (8.23% w/w), anhydrous citric acid (2.88% w/w) and HPMC E5 (1.64% w/w). CRM-LF forms the nanosized globules upon dilution with aqueous medium."
They got 1.3 uM/L free curcumin max when converted to a 2 g dose. They patented it and published in 2012 titled "Bioavailability of a Lipidic Formulation of Curcumin in Healthy Human Volunteers"
They did not have controls, so the complaint you made about BCM-95 might also be made here.
What do you think about people trying to mix turmeric or curcumin in a ultrasonic denture cleaner with heated lecithin to try to get a similar formulation?
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Monday, February 23, 2015
parkinson's and metals
1995 ferritin not increased in SN, but iron and iron export protein were. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24113558
1991 However, only in PD was there an increased total iron level, decreased ferritin content, decreased copper content, and an increased zinc concentration in substantia nigra. PD has generalized reduction in brain ferritin immunoreactivity even in SN http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1832073
2012 Pakistan, N=50 The current study showed that generally there is no significant difference between the patients with the idiopathic Parkinson disease and healthy controls in terms of serum iron and ferritin levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24261127
2013 These results implicate a neuroprotective role of mitochondrial ferritin (FtMt) in neurodegenerative diseases. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23916831
2014 review free article It is also found that, by maintaining mitochondrial iron homeostasis, FtMt could prevent 6-hydroxydopamine induced dopaminergic cell damage in Parkinson's disease. It protects mitochondria from iron-induced oxidative damage presumably through sequestration of potentially harmful excess free iron. Its expression in increased in PD, showing defensive action is being taken. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24596558
2011 japan N=249 Higher intake of iron, magnesium, and zinc was independently associated with a reduced risk of PD. Copper and manganese not correlated. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21497832
1991 However, only in PD was there an increased total iron level, decreased ferritin content, decreased copper content, and an increased zinc concentration in substantia nigra. PD has generalized reduction in brain ferritin immunoreactivity even in SN http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1832073
2012 Pakistan, N=50 The current study showed that generally there is no significant difference between the patients with the idiopathic Parkinson disease and healthy controls in terms of serum iron and ferritin levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24261127
2013 These results implicate a neuroprotective role of mitochondrial ferritin (FtMt) in neurodegenerative diseases. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23916831
2014 review free article It is also found that, by maintaining mitochondrial iron homeostasis, FtMt could prevent 6-hydroxydopamine induced dopaminergic cell damage in Parkinson's disease. It protects mitochondria from iron-induced oxidative damage presumably through sequestration of potentially harmful excess free iron. Its expression in increased in PD, showing defensive action is being taken. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24596558
2011 japan N=249 Higher intake of iron, magnesium, and zinc was independently associated with a reduced risk of PD. Copper and manganese not correlated. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21497832
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
parkinson's diet
I'll edit this as I learn more.
I've been researching how to delay/slow Parkinson's with diet/nutrition. These are proven by many epidemiological studies and/or in animals, but my list is restricted to compounds that are also known to cross the blood-brain barrier in humans. I now have a twitch in my left thumb and index finger if I put them in the right position. Here's the ideal diet:
1 to 3 packs of cigarettes worth of nicotine per day
3+ cups of green tea (2+ pills of the extract)
raw broccoli twice a day
3+ cups of black tea (2+ pills of the extract)
2 beers w/ 3 tablespoons brewer's yeast or can of sardines to raise uric acid to gout-danger levels
coconut oil to provide brain energy by ketones since the glucose energy path has been compromised
3 egg yolks or equivalent shrimp to raise cholesterol in diet. Low cholesterol causes damage.
1200 IU vitamin E
2000 IU vitamin D
fish oil (heavy on omega-3's)nn
3+ cups of coffee (or caffeine pills)
No milk products
selenocysteine (need to investigate)
zinc.
Many of these are (not by coincidence) free-iron chelators in the brain (nicotine, caffeine, tea extracts, uric acid, and possibly omega-3s), regardless of whatever other benefit they provide.
Ideally, the beer and yeast are split to 2 or 3 times a day with lactic-acid generating exercise which blocks uric acid excretion. Exercise also lessons danger to neurons that are in the process of trying to die by increasing oxygen levels in the brain.
Also, limit intellectual activities and try to work outside. (high school educated outdoor workers get it at least 10 years later than others). Also, sleep as good as possible and no mind/emotion stressors.
There is a laundry-list of things that placed me in the higher-risk category (male, intellectual, 1970's pesticide exposure in youth (4x to 10x risk increase), non-smoker (4x risk), severe elemental mercury vapor exposure at age 11, milk, history of very low vitamin D) but for several reason's my high-dose vitamin C "exposure" (10 grams/day for for 10 years) increasing free-copper (if not free-iron) is my best guess.
I've been researching how to delay/slow Parkinson's with diet/nutrition. These are proven by many epidemiological studies and/or in animals, but my list is restricted to compounds that are also known to cross the blood-brain barrier in humans. I now have a twitch in my left thumb and index finger if I put them in the right position. Here's the ideal diet:
1 to 3 packs of cigarettes worth of nicotine per day
3+ cups of green tea (2+ pills of the extract)
raw broccoli twice a day
3+ cups of black tea (2+ pills of the extract)
2 beers w/ 3 tablespoons brewer's yeast or can of sardines to raise uric acid to gout-danger levels
coconut oil to provide brain energy by ketones since the glucose energy path has been compromised
3 egg yolks or equivalent shrimp to raise cholesterol in diet. Low cholesterol causes damage.
1200 IU vitamin E
2000 IU vitamin D
fish oil (heavy on omega-3's)nn
3+ cups of coffee (or caffeine pills)
No milk products
selenocysteine (need to investigate)
zinc.
Many of these are (not by coincidence) free-iron chelators in the brain (nicotine, caffeine, tea extracts, uric acid, and possibly omega-3s), regardless of whatever other benefit they provide.
Ideally, the beer and yeast are split to 2 or 3 times a day with lactic-acid generating exercise which blocks uric acid excretion. Exercise also lessons danger to neurons that are in the process of trying to die by increasing oxygen levels in the brain.
Also, limit intellectual activities and try to work outside. (high school educated outdoor workers get it at least 10 years later than others). Also, sleep as good as possible and no mind/emotion stressors.
There is a laundry-list of things that placed me in the higher-risk category (male, intellectual, 1970's pesticide exposure in youth (4x to 10x risk increase), non-smoker (4x risk), severe elemental mercury vapor exposure at age 11, milk, history of very low vitamin D) but for several reason's my high-dose vitamin C "exposure" (10 grams/day for for 10 years) increasing free-copper (if not free-iron) is my best guess.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
vitamin C, libido, and parkinson's
I took 12 grams vitamin C for much of about 10 years from age 27 to 37. Myself and the only two others I knew of who took more than 10 grams a day for more than a week or two noticed a large decrease in libido. I took so much because it greatly relieved stress. I stopped because I got married. Fast-forward 10 more years and at age 47 I seem to have Parkinson's. Then I remembered Dr Pauling's videos from about 1981 and on seem to show him displaying two symptoms of Parkinsons: weak voice, trembling hands, and head nodding just a tad more than you would expect. After some researching, I see that more than 2 grams a day causes copper to shift from the protein-bound state to free copper, and that the protein-bound state is needed to protect the part of the brain that is damaged in Parkinson's. The protein-bound state is needed to protect the brain from iron toxicity. If not, then the iron damages dopamine producing cells, which is directly related to libido. As a side note, my own research into how much vitamin C animals produce (and primates and guinea pigs need) would convert to 0.5 to 2 grams a day for a human. The biggest error in saying 10 grams a day is that it is based on body weight, but body weight is not the correct measure in converting nutrition and toxicity, but caloric intake is, which is lower for larger animals. Keep in mind, I've read all of Pauling, Hoffer, Cathcart, Cameron, and Stone's work on VitC and you can't find anyone these days who is as big a proponent as I was.
1500 mg/day decreases protein-bound copper "Serum ceruloplasmin activity was significantly reduced (p less than 0.01) at every data point throughout the ascorbic acid supplementation period."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6837490
1000 mg/day decreased:
http://nsft.sbmu.ac.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-8&slc_lang=en&sid=1
Effect not seen in guinea pigs and men
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7891201
Also reduced in guinea pigs:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7429759
Also in rats:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3337044
Ceruloplasmin was not reduced at 605 mg/day in men, but its activity was
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3694287
Magnesium was lowered in guinea pigs, but not ceruloplasmin
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4077401
vitamin c in blood correlates with lower ceruloplasmin in humans
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22841398
Small effect seen in monkeys on marginal copper diet
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7304479
Low ceruloplasmin including from mutations is strongly implicated in PD and AD:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23144563
Low ceruloplasmin correlate with younger-onset PD
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19159062
Mutations for low ceruloplasmin allow iron oxidation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150804
Linus pauling institute:
1500 mg/day decreases protein-bound copper "Serum ceruloplasmin activity was significantly reduced (p less than 0.01) at every data point throughout the ascorbic acid supplementation period."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6837490
1000 mg/day decreased:
http://nsft.sbmu.ac.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-8&slc_lang=en&sid=1
Effect not seen in guinea pigs and men
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7891201
Also reduced in guinea pigs:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7429759
Also in rats:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3337044
Ceruloplasmin was not reduced at 605 mg/day in men, but its activity was
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3694287
Magnesium was lowered in guinea pigs, but not ceruloplasmin
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4077401
vitamin c in blood correlates with lower ceruloplasmin in humans
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22841398
Small effect seen in monkeys on marginal copper diet
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7304479
Low ceruloplasmin including from mutations is strongly implicated in PD and AD:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23144563
Low ceruloplasmin correlate with younger-onset PD
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19159062
Mutations for low ceruloplasmin allow iron oxidation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150804
Linus pauling institute:
Vitamin C
Although vitamin C supplements have produced copper deficiency in guinea pigs (17), the effect of vitamin C supplements on copper nutritional status in humans is less clear. Two small studies in healthy, young adult men indicate that the oxidase activity of ceruloplasmin may be impaired by relatively high doses of supplemental vitamin C. In one study, vitamin C supplementation of 1,500 mg/day for two months resulted in a significant decline in ceruloplasmin oxidase activity (18). In the other study, supplements of 605 mg/day of vitamin C for three weeks resulted in decreased ceruloplasmin oxidase activity, although copper absorption did not decline (19). Neither of these studies found vitamin C supplementation to adversely affect copper nutritional status.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
notes on companies to watch
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)
Startups:
Uber ("taxi")
Product Hunt (popular apps)
SnapChat (money transactions, etc)
Coinbase
Square (money transactions)
Stripe
AppNexus (app advertising)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)