No, Jim. There’s no substitution for knowledge and academics. Whether you accomplish them empirically or through intitutions. Do not EVER take anything I say too seriously. Well, with maybe one or two exceptions. Maybe three. What the heck, perhaps even four or five… Who’s counting anyway, it could even be seven or eight. On the other hand, it may actually be nine or ten. :o)

Education and knowledge are priceless. I am very serious about this.

I was just goofing, Jim. But I have the thing very well documented at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o

Luis, no problem. Five G8s speak for themselves, so I definitely take what you say seriously! I’m also old enough to know never to question the good results you have had from your inventing method.

I was just kidding, PapaJim… With much envy. Just kidding…

I wished I knew what you guys were talking about. Keep the good tech stuff going. I do take your word for everything. I just have no way of following.

Just kidding… :oD

Luis, don’t take my word for anything, but I might say I find a rich source for inventions by trying to stay at the edge of knowledge in areas that interest me. Scientists many times discover new principles and effects, but they have little knowledge at how they can commercialize them or expand and capitalize on their importance. I recommend you try it.

Luis, fancy words are great for explaining things, but they can also make things happen too. Just take a look at some of the fancy language contained in most white papers submitted in an attempt to gain Government funding. If you really look into the substance of what is written in white papers and even formal proposals you will find out what you wrote makes as much sense! You’re in the money!

kelce, it’s always nice talking with you! I can tell you stories about my involvement with “a given permittivity difference” and “the interface between regions of differing permittivity”. I’ll have to wait a while though and see how things progress here at EN. What do you know about spintronics? I’m doing some work with a college friend that involves opposite spin-currents in a semiconductor (one with up-spin electrons and the other with down-spin electrons in the lattice). We’re trying to create spin-regions by using the Hall effect where the opposing and aligned spin-currents eliminate all coulomb resistance in an attempt to create room-temperature superconductivity. I personally think something similar is happening with quantum dot doping and it may be a better explanation than the BCS or paired-electron theory. Spintronics is another very exciting technology area that shows great promise. These are all fantastic areas other EN inventors should look into as well.

Not to mention Wilbur’s theory about the WKP expander activated at micromolecular tangential velocities. The values it generates are incredible! Even when parallely juxtaposed. Simply amazing! Don’t you guys agree?

I am familiar with the physics, but am not familiar with non-military systems, such as medical MRI systems. So I wasn’t aware of anyone outside the military leveraging the phenomenon. (Apart from you.) It is used in ground penetrating radar, to locate landmines and unexploded bombs. Even apart from metal cases (some landmines use non-metallic cases to make detection more difficult), the interface between regions of differing permittivity does create a reflection coefficient.

I would expect that you might see a set of multiple TE and TM modes at different frequencies, based on the polarization and specific frequencies relative to cell dimensions. It seems to me that the more closely the cell shape approximated a closed form Green function (for a given permittivity difference), the stronger the resonance would be.

This might provide a discriminant for shapes. But I would think that the “signatures” would be determined empirically, through measurements, rather than predictively, based on the known shape.

But I can’t really contribute to any invention on this idea. So I’ll step out of the discussion, now.

Normally I would have claimed I said too much already, but as I mentioned, I have a personal interest in perfecting such a scanning/treating apparatus, so have at it if you want! You are a very impressive individual, so finally: did you know that a cellular membrane can act as a resonant-cavity whose resonance depends on its dimensions and enclosed volume? Examine and employ wave-guide principles too.

So then you’re looking for a unique non-linear response that acts like a cellular “signature” of sorts. By using 2 circularly polarized transmitters, you can adjust phasing to tilt the dominant linear field alignment. I suspect there is some relationship between the frequency and the dimensions of the volume enclosed by the cellular membrane.

Losing connectivity. I’ll check back later.

When you say the transmitter burns out the receiver (the rf-amplifier stages) you identified the problem we had. It’s the same destructive technique used in EMP bombs to take out the enemy’s radar and blind them. Timing is always critical, especially between two distinct sensor nodes, when you are trying to concentrate beams on a specific area that’s constantly in motion. You wouldn’t even realize the ill-effect slight vibrations have on a concentrated sensing-apparatus. In other words, trying to focus even momentarily on structures as small as human cells is very difficult because they constantly vibrate into and out of focus! And that’s why I was interested in your moving image identifier since it’s a prime requirement to keep track of exactly where the target (a human cell!) was and is between scanning-pulses. In any case, we totally eliminated the need for precise timing between the transmitter and the receiver because there is no need for the ‘ranging’ operation. If you know radio basics, I’ll give you another hint (which I probably shouldn’t!): The target acts as a ‘mixer’ and a ‘bio-transmitter’ in a superheterodyne transceiver unit that uses circularly-polarized rf-radiation. Maxwell’s equations work quite well for our purposes, but there’s a lot more going on when superimposing EM waves for sure (quantum computers and entangled particles!) I better be quiet now, but I do get excited!

Have you considered a bistatic configuration? The earliest radars were bistatic for the very reason you mention, rather than by choice.

Basically, the earliest radar designers were worried that the transmitter would burn out the receiver, and the switching between transmit and receive modes was so slow that the minimum detection range was undesirably large. So they just used a separate receive antenna that was moved somewhere else.

The direct coupling between the 2 sensors can be used as a sync signal. I can dig up the bistatic range equations, if you wish. I taught radar at grad school for a few years, and bistatic radar was (a small) part of one of the courses.

kelce, I figured if you do a lot of work in radio and ‘crypto’, then you must be familiar with radar too. What I’m suggesting is RF-based microscopy to see very minute details and changes that occur at specific locations inside the human body in real-time. The problem we have always had when trying to make a device that works, was to find a duplexer-switch that’s fast enough to decrease the minimum sensing range from a transmitter and eliminate back-scattering so scanning of a close and small area can be done. So we moved to a scanning technique that utilizes 3-D, circularly-polarized, finely-concentrated, rf-radiation or non-ionizing EM waves that intersect at a specific location inside the body. There’s more I won’t disclose though, for obvious reasons. Anyway, the intent is to eliminate the need for the dense (superconducting) magnetic field needed for MRI and to make a highly-portable unit. Also, if cancer cells can be identified while they’re dividing inside the human body, it would be a mere matter of concentrating the sensing-beam a little longer to heat and destroy unwanted cell-structures. I have a very personal interest in methods for identifying and treating cancer. BTW, if anyone wants to help, here’s a hint: Any linearly polarized light wave can be obtained as a superposition of a left circularly polarized and a right circularly polarized light wave, whose amplitude is identical.

So Jim, you’re familliar with MTI. I didn’t expect to meet many people outside the DoD who knew what that was.

No, my idea isn’t dynamic. It requires some significant time to elapse between the collection of the different images. I was inspired by watching my dentist looking back and forth between my current (at the time) X-rays and X-rays that had been imaged about 6 months earlier.

I wanted something to assist him, to bring his attention to potentially problematic developments that were still in the early stages. But from my work in automatic target recognition, in both tracking radar and synthetic aperture radar, I knew that machine vision is time consuming and susceptible to false alarms. But a human can interpret complex information in a way that cannot yet be simulated or converted into a computer algorithm.

I have seen a computer match human intelligence if imagery only a single time. It’s in a technical paper I wrote years ago, and was my algorithm for identifying shadows of tanks in radar imagery. But that was a special case, because the images were so noisy and blurry.

kelce, does it work like a radar’s moving target indicator? Cancer cells take on a specific hour-glass configuration when splitting, and they are very susceptible to RF-heating at that stage due to their resonant characteristics. A sustained temperature rise of only a few degrees F. will kill the dividing cells. The point is if you can identify very minute changes as they occur, then you can potentially stop any adverse changes. Sounds interesting to say the least, especially for anybody that’s had a negative experience with cancer (which is practically everybody these days!)

Thanks Greg.

I have one that I cannot submit to EN, for complex reasons that I really can’t describe here. But the terms of the GE search are different. So I was able to submit GEidea6003, Medical Diagnostic Image Change Highlighter. I used my wife’s profile to submit, so my name is buried in the submission, and might not be visible.

Ralph, since you are an insider, you don’t need to to trick-out the URLs. Thanks for posting this one.

Back in the early 80s I subscribed to Games magazine and they’d have challenges like complex puzzles or such that readers submit for a chance to win something. When reading one with a pinball machine reward, I thought how much cooler it would be if the challenge was to solve or design something important. It’s nice to see that happening nowadays.

I also like the approach Ideo is using:
http://www.openideo.com/

And there’s a clearing house site for independent challenges:
http://www.ideaconnection.com/contests/contest/