3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Math]
|
Prev: how much is...
Next: " THE END OF AN HISTORIC ERA OF PRIME NUMBER HEGEMONY OF MATHEMATICS" AN INVITATION TO ALL MATHEMATICIANS, BY INVERSE19 MATHEMATICS TO SEE THE "WIZARD" IN HIS BOX.
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
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 |