EVALUATION OF CONTRACT(Sanitized)'FEASIBILITY OF USING A DIPOLAR SUSPENSION FOR A LIGHT AMPLIFYING SCREEN'(Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B04747A002500030009-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 16, 2001
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: February 7, 1966
• Content Type: MFR

ApprovedsFor Releas ff(ffE Nf rX[8BW747AO02500030009-3
NPIC/P&DS/D/6-772
7 February 1966
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Contract - "Feasibility of Using a
Dipolar Suspension for a Light Amplifying Screen"M
REFERENCE: Final Report of Contract
1. The initial interest in pursuin this contract was generated
by a product that had developed for
other purposes. The pro uc , mown as arad , is a dipolar suspension
whose optical transmission can be controlled or modulated by an
externally applied electric field. Where the electric field is
applied, the dipoles align perpendicular to the surface layer and
light can be transmitted through the material in these areas of
alignment. The purpose of this contract was to investigate the
feasibility of employing photoionic materials to modulate the suspension.
An ultraviolet light would be modulated by the original image and
projected upon the suspension (in the form of a large screen),;
those areas, in which the light was transmitted by the film, would
appear dark to an observer because ionization of the photoionic
material would occur there it was struck by the ultraviolet light
and the ions would shield the externally applied electric field,
causing the dipoles in those areas to dis-orient and the screen to
become opaque.
2. -begins his report by building a case to show that
the duration of the contract was too short; however, it must be
remembered that the contractor himself estimated the time period and
he was at liberty to select the length of the effort. The six
months effort that is referenced as the duration of the contract is
misleading for the contract has actually been active for eleven
months. From the explanation of how the time was spent, it is
evident that the time was not utilized efficiently. From the
quantity and quality of the equipment used in the experimentation,
it is apparent that a three month effort to complete this phase was
not justified. Concurrent efforts should have been initiated during
this initial period to obtain the test equipment and material samples,
to study the available literature, and to calculate the theoretical
results. The final report evidences extremely poor management of the
program by the contractor.
Declass Review
by N I MN,DO&d For Release 2 flflI ffqFAkB04747A002500030
U d from automatlcI
ngrading aad
declasalf esfl n
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
 Approve&?For Releasg?~QmfMEgTIM!78SW4747AO02500030009-3
3. The report, as a whole, is inadequate and extremely super-
ficial. Throughout the report, the contractor makes vague references
to facts that he assumes to be established. For example; he states
in (Section 1) on page 6 that "There will be an upper limiting
frequency to dipole ion shielding effect because the mobility of the
ions is small." The reader is left with this general statement with-
out any quantitive analysis as to specific materials. In (Section II)
page 3, the assumption is made "that the dipole suspension contains
ultraviolet absorbing molecules which will produce at least 90 to 99%
ultraviolet absorption." Nowhere in the report does he substantiate
this assumption nor is it related to specific materials. The basis
for the assumption is offered in the following: "This Lhe assumption
is necessary in order to have an efficient utilization of the ultraviolet
light intensity". Although the statement is true, it is certainly
not a substantiation of the hypothesis. The assumption is further
expounded in Section VI, page i where the statement is made that "for
an efficient photoion layer, the layer thickness and a concentration
of photoions is established such that at least 99%, but not more
than 99.9/0, is absorbed in the layer." Even if this is true (which
is doubted for a lack of evidence to the contrary); how would this
concentration affect the transmissivity? neglects the fact
that one can not just add photoions and dipoles and neglect the
other factors. There is a possibility that this procedure might
decrease the density range of the screen. If this is not a problem,
it should be so stated and thoroughly substantiated.
4. Continuing the analysis of the question and answer section,
the contractor again has done a inadequate job. Primarily this is
caused by his incomplete investigation -- which is evidenced by the
lack of answers to questions 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and
15 -- but in some instances even this reason is not valid. The
answer to the question of "What is the attenuation of the on inal
imagery by the screen?" is completely mis-interpreted when "i
answers, "The original imagery which is born by ultraviolet light is
substantially totally absorbed by the screen. Very little, if any,
ultraviolet light need pass through the screen."
5. The organization of the report shows that very little effort
has been directed toward testing possible photoionic materials.
Although vague references are made to the multitude of available
materials possessing photoionic characteristics, apparently only three
were tested. This fact was in part caused by inability to
limit the effort to the photoionic investigation. Notwithstanding
the fact that early in the program a specific stipulation was made
to only investigate photoionic materials, apparently continued
to explore other possible solutions to the problem. The sections
and extensive discussion of photo-dipoles, photoconductive rod
matrix layer, and oriented dipole photoconductive layer are completely
irrelevant to this program. These subjects comprise over 30% of
the final report.
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
2
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 :,CIA-RD 78B04747A002500030009-3
 Approve4For Release 2002/01/Q4n RIM YA002500030009-3
6. In conclusion, it is recommended that no further endeavors
be undertaken with in the field of
optical dipoles. The primary basis for this conclusion is low
productive, inefficient, and unresponsive management. As document-
ated above, the contractual responsibilities were far from satisfied
and the yield from this program has been extremely low. Notwith-
standing the results of the final report of this contract, it is
strongly felt that the basic ideas and concepts should be pursued;
however, not with this contractor.
Distribution:
Orig - Project File
1 - DB Chrono
2
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release 2"A f bnE1Nfl B04747AO02500030009-3