3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Physics]
|
From: Thomas Heger on 12 May 2010 16:28 dlzc schrieb: > 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. > The explanation of Reynolds, that a thermal effect would produce some stream of gas across the edges wouldn't explain how the bulb could rotate. Than the involvement of the edges sounds dubious to me. I don't think, that would work. The mechanism should have more em-forces involved and that would lead to plasma physics. To build plasma is the habit of thin gases, too. Since there is a relation to heat and infrared, this would rule out some sort of photoelectric effects. My questions would be: would the vanes rotate with a horizontal axis, too? Is the mill working with other materials, say copper, glass, plastic or paper (painted white on one side and black on the other)? If the kind of gas inside the bulb is changed, would that have an effect? Would external fields (or fields within the tube) have an effect? Does the thing rotate upon much lower frequencies (microwaves, radiowaves)? Has the form, number, orientation, arrangement and size of the vanes an influence? How about the bulb? Would other forms work, too? How about other materials? Has the type of paint an impact on the result? Does the bulb really rotate, if the rotor is stopped? What is the influence of cooling? I would think, all that could be tested and would certainly be interesting to do so. Than one could try to apply certain theories and compare it with the results. My guess is, that certain assumptions would be simply incompatible to observations. So light-mills seem to provide a good and inexpensive possibility to test assumptions. ... >> 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. > To say, that something like understanding of the real world is 'not of interest' is certainly not, what you intended to say. This statement is against all scientific goals. It is assumed to be difficult, but not to be impossible. Even if it's impossible in the end, the final goal could/should be approached. Even if 'science' -as you understand it- is not interested, there are people, that certainly are. Maybe not for building spaceships or so, but just because of interest. >> 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. > No, I don't think so and never said. I'm just an amateur with some interest in the subject. I don't ask anybody to trust me, but to think for themself. (Btw: in case you want to know about my ideas, you may read this: http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) The status of an amateur has advantages, though, because this is not 'my life', but a hobby. Greetings TH
From: spudnik on 12 May 2010 16:40 why would the bulb rotate -- isn't it just sitting on the table in the sunlight? I left themost important question, since the effect obviously is either or both aerodynamic & magnetohydrodynamic, what the shape of the vanes is. > The explanation of Reynolds, that a thermal effect would produce some > stream of gas across the edges wouldn't explain how the bulb could rotate. > Than the involvement of the edges sounds dubious to me. I don't think, > that would work. > The mechanism should have more em-forces involved and that would lead to > plasma physics. To build plasma is the habit of thin gases, too. > Since there is a relation to heat and infrared, this would rule out some > sort of photoelectric effects. > Has the form, number, orientation, arrangement and size of the vanes an thus: thank you!... now, if we could just get folks to see that "all sorts" of modalities are needed for prolonged spaceflight & a non-post-industrial economy (current cargo-cult from SW Asia). > The Chinese are busily developing a Thorium > based fuel for their CANDUs. The Indians likewise, since > India has a sizeable supply of Thorium, but is short on > Uranium. > > There was also a pretty keen article I read last > year on combining a Thorium fuel cycle in one CANDU > with a Uranium cycle in a neighbour CANDU. It turns > out that a fairly easy fuel reprocessing can recycle the > waste fuel from one into fresh fuel for the other, and get > something like 90 percent fissioning of both Uranium > and Thorium. Current Uranium reactors burn only the > U235, which is about 0.7 percent of natural Uranium. > (Along with a small amount of breeding of U238 into Pu239.) > This cycle could burn nearly all of the Uranium and the > Thorium, and leave mostly relatively short lived (half > lives in the 10's of years) isotopes as waste. So you could > get about 100 times the energy out of a kg of fuel, and > leave much less waste. > Next, light water moderated means enriched Uranium. > In order to get the Thorium to breed fissile isotopes you > need better neutron economy than you can get in a light > water moderated reactor. However, heavy water Thorium > reactors have been built. Indeed, with a little tweaking > and some careful mixing of fuels, you can burn Thorium > in existing CANDU reactors. > > Thorium has other interesting features. For example, in > oxide form as would probably be used, Thorium has a > higher thermal conductivity than Uranium oxide. That > means the fuel will be cooler for any given power output. > It's got interesting mechanical properties also. > > There are a number of new reactor designs being touted. thus: Copenhagen's "reifiying" of the mere probabilities of detection, is the biggest problem, whence comes both "perfect vacuum" and "quantum foam" etc. ad vomitorium, as well as the brain-dead "photon" of massless and momentumless and pointy rocks o'light, perfectly aimed at the recieving cone in your eye, like a small pizza pie. > So both setups are needed to get the direct > measurement of what happens in both cases. > What you want to do is to replace this experiment with the one only > involving detectors at the slits, and then insisting that nothing > changes if the detector is not at the slits. thus: 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? > 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 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 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
From: dlzc on 12 May 2010 16:42 Dear Tim Golden BandTech.com: On May 12, 4:41 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 11, 5:53 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > On May 11, 1:56 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > > Spinning toward the light is very difficult > > > to grasp. > > > Think of the light as bullets, and the > > resulting heat radiated as having lower "mass" > > or "speed". > > I don't think that this is accurate, No, but it is possible to "grasp" as a first approximation. > and this was somewhat in the article that > Thomas provided on light mills. Conservation > of energy will not allow this. Conservation of energy isn't the issue. Energy is conserved, and so is momentum. > This is why I point out that the absorbed > energy of the black surface is also > radiating out the other side, No. You draw a control surface around the black surface. Energy in = energy out + energy stored. Energy in is the incident light, and conducted thermal energy from the back side. If the "control volume" is small enough, you don't have to worry about energy storage. This leaves energy radiated (front side), energy reflected (front side), and energy conducted through (towards back side). > whereas the reflective surface has much > less energy radiating out the other side. It is on the same substrate, it has the *black emitter* radiating away its heat. > To conserve momentum we'll need a block > which either receives or sends photons. > Whatever the small momentum is, a > reflected photon will have an effect > on the block twice that of a photon > absorbed. But to claim that the heat > radiated after absorption has less > energy than this reflected system you'd > have to give up conservation of energy. No. The surface stores heat, and the surface recoils (or stores energy in the failed bearing stress). > As a black surface heats up gradually > it should reach some point where net > absorption is in balance (over time) > with net radiation, otherwise there > would be thermal runaway. Thermal or physical "run away. .... > > > I still haven't gotten to studying that > > > thermal edge effect. > > > 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. It has been. By Newton, Sir Isaac. > 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. The good vacuum / good bearing case was waved away in Baez' analysis. We have asteroids that show it has merit. David A. Smith
From: dlzc on 12 May 2010 16:47 Dear Thomas Heger: On May 12, 1:28 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > dlzc schrieb: .... > >> 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. > > The explanation of Reynolds, that a thermal > effect would produce some stream of gas > across the edges wouldn't explain how the > bulb could rotate. Than the involvement > of the edges sounds dubious to me. I don't > think, that would work. Well, since you are smarter than those two august gentlemen, I would be wasting my time discussing this further with you. You do realize that Reynolds techniques are well regarded in fluid mechanics, and serves to keep you alive and fed? Nature does not care what you care to accept, or struggle to understand. It is your job to stay out of the way of the juggernaut She occasionally becomes. Over and out. David A. Smith
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 12 May 2010 19:43
On May 12, 4:42 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Tim Golden BandTech.com: > > On May 12, 4:41 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > On May 11, 5:53 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > On May 11, 1:56 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > > > Spinning toward the light is very difficult > > > > to grasp. > > > > Think of the light as bullets, and the > > > resulting heat radiated as having lower "mass" > > > or "speed". > > > I don't think that this is accurate, > > No, but it is possible to "grasp" as a first approximation. > > > and this was somewhat in the article that > > Thomas provided on light mills. Conservation > > of energy will not allow this. > > Conservation of energy isn't the issue. Energy is conserved, and so > is momentum. > > > This is why I point out that the absorbed > > energy of the black surface is also > > radiating out the other side, > > No. You draw a control surface around the black surface. Energy in = > energy out + energy stored. Energy in is the incident light, and > conducted thermal energy from the back side. If the "control volume" > is small enough, you don't have to worry about energy storage. This > leaves energy radiated (front side), energy reflected (front side), > and energy conducted through (towards back side). > > > whereas the reflective surface has much > > less energy radiating out the other side. > > It is on the same substrate, it has the *black emitter* radiating away > its heat. > > > To conserve momentum we'll need a block > > which either receives or sends photons. > > Whatever the small momentum is, a > > reflected photon will have an effect > > on the block twice that of a photon > > absorbed. But to claim that the heat > > radiated after absorption has less > > energy than this reflected system you'd > > have to give up conservation of energy. > > No. The surface stores heat, and the surface recoils (or stores > energy in the failed bearing stress). > > > As a black surface heats up gradually > > it should reach some point where net > > absorption is in balance (over time) > > with net radiation, otherwise there > > would be thermal runaway. > > Thermal or physical "run away. > > ... > > > > > I still haven't gotten to studying that > > > > thermal edge effect. > > > > 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. > > It has been. By Newton, Sir Isaac. > > > 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. > > The good vacuum / good bearing case was waved away in Baez' analysis. > We have asteroids that show it has merit. > > David A. Smith I don't buy this asteroid interpretation as a valid argument. The old knowledge was that asteroids are dry and comets have ice, but I think recently this went away. As soon as you allow for evaropation then you are back on another branch of the radiometer analysis. It would be kind of cool to see the space station launch a little vane with no bearing and see what happens, but the geometry of the asteroid can't be isolated from the possibility of vaporization. I do think it is a cool visualization of the problem to do away with the bearing, but acceleration then does not convert to torque, since the effect will cause the instrument to wander off. Rotational analysis won't be enough. Shouldn't this Yorp effect be on the order of years to observe? The sun puts out roughly 1000 watts per square meter here on the earth's surface, so a vane 10 cm x 10 cm receives roughly 10 watts of juice at a normal sun angle. Jeeze, we are nearly ready to design a solar turbine here. That's actually a pretty substantial amount of power given the negligible amount of work we are looking to do. Even at atmospheric pressure how much work can it be to spin air in a jar? It's mostly the skin effect of the jar, and that is going to be nicely attached flow. I don't know if I beleive the ballistic model of light. I think it would be wise to entertain the inverse bullet effect. I did this some time ago. This is sort of light as gravity. Then the black attraction works out. I honestly don't feel good about any of this stuff anymore. The more I look at it the less sense it makes. I'm still also open to the Bernoulli force being behind it. dlzc, can you substantiate the effect in vacuum with a link, and not about asteroids? This cannot be a decent discussion because we're talking about four or five different effects. If you had the strong vacuum scenario in a lab then that would be ruling out most of the gas interaction. So far I think Thomas is correct on this point; that the radiometer stopped working under strong vacuum conditions, whether torsion or spinning. I welcome falsification. - Tim |