3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Physics]
|
From: Thomas Heger on 11 May 2010 18:44 dlzc schrieb: > Dear Thomas Heger: > > On May 11, 11:37 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > ... >> Let me speculate a bit about those 'lightmills'. > > Also "Crooke's radiometer". > >> As my short term investigation has found out, >> these objects have a maximum speed with a >> vacuum of 0.05 bar and respond to infrared >> only. > > All wavelengths, if one has a good internal vacuum. > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/13/7/004;jsessionid=00C2C699F4C0D2D259CD7CDC35499F13.c3 > >> These 'wings' consist of mica. > > Or aluminum. > If aluminum works as well, than it could be, that the emitted radiation is the important factor. Since the black side emits and the blank side not (or much less), we had an effect due to reemission of infrared. That would cause the mill to spin. But why would the bulb rotate in the opposite direction and why is some pressure required? (That statement stems from: http://www.vdg-ev.org/technik/technik5.html (This is all German, but possibly Google could help to translate ) >> This stuff is known as a dialectic in >> capacitors. The black side is darkened >> with soot, what is conductive and a very good >> black body emitter. > > And is very light, taking a load off of insubstantial bearings. > >> Than the bulb has to be spheric. > > Only if you depend on gases in the envelope to dissipate as little > momentum as possible. > The title of that link is "Has the container of the light-mill to be a sphere?" and the answer seem to be yes, but I'm not sure about that. >> There is some kind of dependence on the >> bulb, because the bulb could rotate in the >> opposite direction, if the rotor is stopped >> by an outside magnet. So we had to look for >> some sort of electro-magnetic effects, that >> are related to infrared, thin gas, dialectics >> and bulbs. The thin gas reminds a bit of >> plasma bulbs. So, I would think more in >> terms MHD, what deals with plasma. The correct >> interpretation seems to be very difficult, >> since I don't think, that any of the current >> actually work. > > Actually it works really well, in a hard vacuum. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect In the link mentioned above is stated, that the vacuum has an optimum at 0.05 bar and that hard vacuum wouldn't work, because the mill stops. > ... >> There is something, I have serious problems with: >> As being an amateur with wage knowledge and a >> budget of nothing, how is it possible for a >> single person to challenge the mainstream, that >> has a headcount in the millions and endless funds? > > You've been challenging it. You're making more of your black magic > than you should, but you are looking... > >> There is something more than wrong, but I don't >> know exactly what. > > Consider the budget of the man that invented the radiator overflow > reservoir. It wasn't invented (first) by a large company. You find a > repeatable effect, and you describe it, and maybe you will get lucky. > > What is "more than wrong", is that you are coming to the fight > completely unarmed. There is a vast array of knowledge at your > fingertips, and hosts of people have tried to make the knowledge easy > to assimilate. Yet you spend effort imagining and describing > "conspiracy". My statement wasn't about me. But what are all those physicists actually doing? There are really many of them. So all possible theories could be tested and one would survive. As I'm linking my idea to 19th century theories, like Maxwell's early quaternion model, the question would remain, why this hasn't been done in the meantime. Time enough was throughout the last century. I don't think, this has anything to do with conspiracy, but with laziness and powerful financial and political interests. I always think, that finding out how our world really functions would be essential to science and there is no excuse for not delivering a proper solution. Maybe it takes a while and maybe some roads are dead ends, but a century is quite a long time. Greetings TH
From: dlzc on 11 May 2010 20:25 Dear Thomas Heger: On May 11, 3:44 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > dlzc schrieb: > > > Dear Thomas Heger: > > > On May 11, 11:37 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > ... > >> Let me speculate a bit about those 'lightmills'. > > > Also "Crooke's radiometer". > > >> As my short term investigation has found out, > >> these objects have a maximum speed with a > >> vacuum of 0.05 bar and respond to infrared > >> only. > > > All wavelengths, if one has a good internal vacuum. <link broken by Google.Groups> > > >> These 'wings' consist of mica. > > > Or aluminum. > > If aluminum works as well, than it could be, > that the emitted radiation is the important > factor. Since the black side emits and the > blank side not (or much less), we had an > effect due to reemission of infrared. That > would cause the mill to spin. This all was worked out by Reynolds and Maxwell. It is strictly heat transfer to the gas in the envelope, that is strong enough to move the rotor with "bad" bearings. > But why would the bulb rotate in the opposite > direction and why is some pressure required? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer#Explanations_for_the_force_on_the_vanes .... #4. > >> This stuff is known as a dialectic in > >> capacitors. The black side is darkened > >> with soot, what is conductive and a very good > >> black body emitter. > > > And is very light, taking a load off of > > insubstantial bearings. > > >> Than the bulb has to be spheric. > > > Only if you depend on gases in the envelope > > to dissipate as little momentum as possible. > > The title of that link is > "Has the container of the light-mill to be a > sphere?" and the answer seem to be yes, but > I'm not sure about that. It doesn't have to be. > > >> There is some kind of dependence on the > >> bulb, because the bulb could rotate in the > >> opposite direction, if the rotor is stopped > >> by an outside magnet. So we had to look for > >> some sort of electro-magnetic effects, that > >> are related to infrared, thin gas, dialectics > >> and bulbs. The thin gas reminds a bit of > >> plasma bulbs. So, I would think more in > >> terms MHD, what deals with plasma. The correct > >> interpretation seems to be very difficult, > >> since I don't think, that any of the current > >> actually work. > > > Actually it works really well, in a hard vacuum. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect > > In the link mentioned above is stated, that the > vacuum has an optimum at 0.05 bar and that hard > vacuum wouldn't work, because the mill stops. It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids have *perfect* bearings. > > ... > >> There is something, I have serious problems with: > >> As being an amateur with wage knowledge and a > >> budget of nothing, how is it possible for a > >> single person to challenge the mainstream, that > >> has a headcount in the millions and endless funds? > > > You've been challenging it. You're making more > > of your black magic than you should, but you are > > looking... > > >> There is something more than wrong, but I don't > >> know exactly what. > > > Consider the budget of the man that invented the > > radiator overflow reservoir. It wasn't invented > > (first) by a large company. You find a repeatable > > effect, and you describe it, and maybe you will > > get lucky. > > > What is "more than wrong", is that you are coming > > to the fight completely unarmed. There is a vast > > array of knowledge at your fingertips, and hosts > > of people have tried to make the knowledge easy > > to assimilate. Yet you spend effort imagining > > and describing "conspiracy". > > My statement wasn't about me. But what are all > those physicists actually doing? There are really > many of them. So all possible theories could be > tested and one would survive. The lion's share of them are teaching. > As I'm linking my idea to 19th century theories, > like Maxwell's early quaternion model, the > question would remain, why this hasn't been done > in the meantime. Time enough was throughout the > last century. I don't think, this has anything to > do with conspiracy, but with laziness and powerful > financial and political interests. The methods presented make sense, and agree with experiment. It won't get us to space, nor will it get us free energy, or stop "global climate change". Why should anyone with deadlines and budgets worry more about it? > I always think, that finding out how our world > really functions would be essential to science > and there is no excuse for not delivering a > proper solution. We can never know how our world "really" functions. Finding the unfindable is not what Science is about. Finally, your definition of "proper solution" is not of interest to either Science nor Engineering. > Maybe it takes a while and maybe some roads > are dead ends, but a century is quite a long > time. It is your life. If you think you know more than 4-500 years of scientists and philosophers what the possible domain of Science is, get after it. David A. Smith
From: spudnik on 11 May 2010 23:56 so, a lightmill is that thing with black & white vanes on a spindle in a relative vacuum? you can't rely on "rocks o'light" to impart momentum to these vanes, only to be absorbed electromagnetically by atoms in them; then, perhaps, the "warm side" will have some aerodynamic/thermal effect on the air in the bulb, compared to the cool one. thus: even if neutrinos don't exist, Michelson and Morely didn't get no results! > Could neutrino availability affect decay rates? thus: I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can be made ... anyway, see "Green Freedom" in the article, which is not quite what I was refering to! > http://thorium.50webs.com/ thus: every technique has problems. like, you can't grow hemp-for haemorrhoids under a photovoltaic, without a good lightbulb. the real problem is that, if Santa Monica is any indication, the solar-subsidy bandwagon is part of the cargo-cult from Southwest Asia (as is the compact flourescent lightbub, the LED lightbulb etc. ad vomitorium). > Government subsidies, and fat returns on PVs? --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: spudnik on 12 May 2010 15:21 magnetohydrodynamics is probably the way to go, yes; not "perfect vacuum or bearings" -- and, where did the link about YORP, include any thing about the air-pressure?... seems to me, it's assuming Pascal's old, perfected Plenum. twist you mind away from the "illustrated in _Conseptual Physics and/or for Dummies_" nothingness of the massless & momentumless & pointy "photon" of the Nobel-winning "effect" in an eectronic device -- yeah, CCDs -- the Committees lame attempt to unbury Newton's corpuscle. also, please don't brag about free God-am energy, til you can demonstrate it in a perpetuum mobile! > > > Actually it works really well, in a hard vacuum. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect > > > In the link mentioned above is stated, that the > > vacuum has an optimum at 0.05 bar and that hard > > vacuum wouldn't work, because the mill stops. > > It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids have *perfect* > bearings. > The methods presented make sense, and agree with experiment. It won't > get us to space, nor will it get us free energy, or stop "global > climate change". Why should anyone with deadlines and budgets worry > more about it? thus: so, a lightmill is that thing with black & white vanes on a spindle in a relative vacuum? you can't rely on "rocks o'light" to impart momentum to these vanes, only to be absorbed electromagnetically by atoms in them; then, perhaps, the "warm side" will have some aerodynamic/thermal effect on the air in the bulb, compared to the cool one. thus: even if neutrinos don't exist, Michelson and Morely didn't get no results! > Could neutrino availability affect decay rates? thus: I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can be made ... anyway, see "Green Freedom" in the article, which is not quite what I was refering to! > http://thorium.50webs.com/ thus: every technique has problems. like, you can't grow hemp-for haemorrhoids under a photovoltaic, without a good lightbulb. the real problem is that, if Santa Monica is any indication, the solar-subsidy bandwagon is part of the cargo-cult from Southwest Asia (as is the compact flourescent lightbub, the LED lightbulb etc. ad vomitorium). > Government subsidies, and fat returns on PVs? --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: spudnik on 12 May 2010 15:30
all vacuums are good, if they suck hard enough, but there is no absolute vacuum, either on theoretical or Copenhagenskooler fuzzy math grounds. ao, what is the "ruling out" in the article? > > Not an issue with a good vacuum. > > From what I've read so far I'm not buying any pure vacuum effect has > been explained theoretically. Relying on Thomas's article from Baez > site that was ruled out, though there was no serious analysis in that > article. This so far is a pretty sticky subject. thus: magnetohydrodynamics is probably the way to go, yes; not "perfect vacuum or bearings" -- and, where did the link about YORP, include any thing about the air-pressure?... seems to me, it's assuming Pascal's old, perfected Plenum. twist your mind away from the "illustrated in _Conceptual Physics/for Dummies_" nothingness of the massless & momentumless & pointy "photon" of the Nobel-winning "effect" in an electronic device -- yeah, CCDs -- the Committee's lame attempt to "save the dysappearance" of Newton's corpuscle. also, please don't brag about free God-am energy, til you can demonstrate it in a perpetuum mobile! > > In the link mentioned above is stated, that the > > vacuum has an optimum at 0.05 bar and that hard > > vacuum wouldn't work, because the mill stops. > It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids have *perfect* > ball-bearings. thus: so, a lightmill is that thing with black & white vanes on a spindle in a relative vacuum? you can't rely on "rocks o'light" to impart momentum to these vanes, only to be absorbed electromagnetically by atoms in them; then, perhaps, the "warm side" will have some aerodynamic/thermal effect on the air in the bulb, compared to the cool one. thus: even if neutrinos don't exist, Michelson and Morely didn't get no results! > Could neutrino availability affect decay rates? thus: I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can be made ... anyway, see "Green Freedom" in the article, which is not quite what I was refering to! > http://thorium.50webs.com/ thus: every technique has problems. like, you can't grow hemp-for haemorrhoids under a photovoltaic, without a good lightbulb. the real problem is that, if Santa Monica is any indication, the solar-subsidy bandwagon is part of the cargo-cult from Southwest Asia (as is the compact flourescent lightbub, the LED lightbulb etc. ad vomitorium). > Government subsidies, and fat returns on PVs? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |