|Crystalline Image by Malize Ong
Martin Glicksman, a research professor of materials science who occupies the Allen Henry Chair At the Florida Institute of Technology began re-examining data from a twenty year old NASA experiment and in conjunction with Kumar Ankit of the School of Matter, Transport, and Energy at Arizona State University made an important discovery within the old data. Basically they discovered evidence of an energy field that affects all crystallizing substances. Glicksman named the field "THE BIAS FIELD" which Glicksman and Ankit believe is the primary way that nature guides the formation of complex patterns in materials that crystallize. The "bias field" is sort of the programming code that guides cellular and branching dendritic micro-structures that form during the solidification process of most metals and alloys. This is big news in the world of metallurgy and materials science generally and will likely lead to new processes, refinements of old processes, and all sorts of new materials.
While examining the 20 year old data from a NASA materials in formation in micro gravity experiment something new was observed. In the last phases of melting needle-like crystals were observed to rapidly change to sphere shapes. This unexpected shape change was observed for the first time while watching particles melting in microgravity. Not a bad piece of evidence to be offered in support of future low earth orbit scientific experimental missions. This one we expect will benefit the economy immensely a few years from now in the very basic materials industry, and that from a 20 year old experiment that we are still learning from. Prior to this re-examination of old data many metallurgists and other physicists believed that what causes pattern formation in crystallizing materials is random noise. Any sound vibration or disturbances under the "sound induced theory" would act upon a solidifying material. However, contrary to the previously widely accepted "sound theory" Glicksman and Ankit found a subtle internal energy source at work. This is the force they labeled the "Bias Field". It is this "Bias Field" that Glicksman and Ankit believe modulates the speed of the solid /liquid interface on micro scales and guides the formation of complex structures. Theoretical research and advanced computer simulations appear to confirm these observations and resulting theory.
Glicksman expressed gratitude for the opportunity to look for "Bias Field" in micro gravity thanks to the existence of the twenty year old NASA study. Prior authoritative literature had indicated that such a field would be most likely observable in a micro gravity environment. Glicksman noted that thanks to research made possible by the old NASA experiment ; "Now we have a sound thermodynamic theory and proof to back that idea up. Glicksman and Ankit recently published their findings on the bias field in the journal METALS (Martin Glicksman et al, Detection of Capilary-Mediated Energy Fields On A Grain Boundary Groove-Liquid Interface Perturbations, Metals (2017) DOL: 10:3390/met7120547 )
The process of solidifying metals produces branch like internal micro-patterns. These micro patterns disturb the chemical homogeneity of cast materials. Having a better understanding of the recently observed "Bias Field's" role in the formation of these micro-patterns presents engineers with potential tools to make improvements in commonly used cast and wielded materials used in large and small technologies from automotive to medical instruments. The improvement of the structure of castings and weldments and other solidification processes require a correct understanding and application of the relevant physics. The undersigned believes that the discovery of the "Bias Field" will eventually lead to improvements in metallurgical processes . Improving the casting part of the process will require capital investment on the part of the metals industry. As the industry considers upgrades in heavy processing equipment in coming years it will be an opportune time to shift to cleaner and more controllable heat sources. In considering our fractal lens development, now is really an opportune time to shift our research funding search from electrical energy production grant sources to the metallurgy industry and other heat processing industries grant and research partner sources. Moreover, it appears that the bias for photovoltaic solar energy technology within the DOD and DOE continues unabated as the new administration heads into its second year in office. It appears time to expand our search for research funding into other areas more friendly to solar thermal energy / heat production or at lest not biased in favor of photovoltaic technology. One thing that photovoltaic technology is unlikely to produce is efficient high heat production. We should consider "Bias Field" research to be a parallel development with the fractal lens when it comes to the field of metallurgy and try to time our research to arrive at a working Fractal lens about the same time that the metallurgy industry will be considering expending capital on major infrastructure improvements driven by "Bias Field" applications some years from now.
As mentioned in previous reports we also should seek research funding within the desalinization process industry , another industry in need of highly efficient and inexpensive sources of high heat. In that industry each new plant is open to the adaptation of new and more efficient technologies. This eliminates the necessity to wait for a retrofit cycle to become marketable.
I have added "Bias Field" research to my watch list of fractal lens parallel developments to watch. In terms of investment in our endowment fund or advice to future readers of our publications I see no companies in formation at this time with any basis in this technology. Investors, including the Helios Ruehls Endowment Fund should look for new start ups in the future focused on the manufacture of metallurgy production equipment that incorporate the Bias Field theory into design.
At this time I would appreciate any thoughts from our Physicists stock holders on the size of a proof of concept fractal lens meant only to physically confirm the heat gathering and directional capabilities of the lens vice our previous "industrial size" which was literally meant to fit into electrical energy generators of specified electrical energy generating capacities. It was the large size that incorporated into our research plan a proof of concept that such a large size lens containing such a high number of fractal facets would not be a fragile glass latticeworks but could withstand industrial applications. I think in order to keep up with parallel developments that may drive a future era of major capital improvement expenditures in the Metals industries we need to divide our research funding into two parts, first let's physically demonstrate the heat gathering and directional capabilities of the Fractal lens and then le'ts see how big and powerful the current stage of the glass makers art can make it. One thing that a growing understanding of the "Bias Field" does is offer the possibility of major improvements in glass manufacture possibly one day eliminating size and fragility from our fractal lens applications considerations.
Helios Ruehls, Inc