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: 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
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 13 May 2010 08:56 On May 12, 7:43 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Here is another interesting possibility to measure some force from lower frequency. This has as well to do with reflection and absorption, but done in a coaxial cable. There are two known means of generating a reflected signal along a long piece of coaxial cable: 1. short circuit the cable 2. open circuit the cable The phase difference of the reflections is different but to use substantial power it would probably be wise to choose the short circuit case, which I believe returns the signal out of phase. Either of these conditions represent reflection without any energy absorption. To absorb the signal there is just one optimal case, as far as I know: 1. impedance matched resistive load absorbs maximum energy We could design an isotropic radiator load at the end of the coaxial cable and should observe heating no different that the solar gain model. Let's try to measure the presence of mechanical force. 1 Joule = 1 Watt Second = 0.1 Meter Kilogram (rough) Even at one watt we have a substantial (10 cm) effect on a kilogram for a one second pulse. Well, let's hang the coax from a scale with the load dangling. Do you think the scale is really going to move? I don't think so, and as a loose proof we would here many stories of amateur radio operators whipped by loose cables and that sort of thing; antennas out of tune turning ito jump ropes. Well, some of this can occur and mechanical stability is considered very important in high power work, but this usually comes back to electrical and magnetic effects. With the sunlight effect we have enough power to truely measure on a scale what we are supposedly talking about. This isn't just a pressure that should be available. This is actual working power. That spinning radiometer should be achieving more like a runaway acceleration, even in a fairly dense gas. Under the ballistic model the reflected wave should provide a doubling effect, but under the signal analysis there should be no energy transfer. Recall a Doctor Who episode where he is lost off the side of a spaceship or some such and he pulls a superball out of his deep pockets and bounces it off something and it ooches him in the other direction. This is the ballistic reflection, and Who gets a doubling due to absorption. The object the ball bounce off of gets the same, presuming that Who and the object are in stasis. Are we not then doubling the power of our experiment? Can we get twenty watts out of ten watts? No, so there is something wrong with the ballistic model of light, and we are certainly not experiencing any mechanical difficulties when we hold a mirror of one square meter toward the sun. As Thomas says, these effects must remain within electromagnetism, and the ability of sunlight's energy to transfer to matter must be suspect. I'm not going to support a plasma theory, but I think the freedoms that Thomas takes would be the sort of freedoms that any who pondered the problem long ago would consider. It is foolhardy to dismiss such freedoms, and in this way the modern dismissals due to disagreement with past science deserves its own label. We should be careful about accepting this label to be 'science', for then the practice of those past peoples is dead, and any who go by this modern attitude are likewise practicing a dead form of science. This form approaches a religion, which is likewise a dead form in its absolute sense. In reality very slowly moving is a more modest claim. This overlooks the branching structure of the busy bees; the monkeys in the tree. Yes, it is exciting foraging for food, but when the fundamental understructure of the tree you are in is shaky, then what? To beleive because others beleive is no better than religion. But we are caught here in the most scientific sense, because all fact is merely strong belief. As burdensome as this might sound it is likewise a loosening to adopt this realization. The blind leading the blind is what we are, and we enjoy and 'see' tremendous things, though our sight is severly limited. That we can observe the same things and agree is helpful, but that is for two blind men. Once the herd forms then all bets are off. It is this social aspect of the human race that is at the bottom of our 'scientific' mechanism and is inherently troubling. Now why don't some of you excellent physics people step in here and staighten us out. I am completely open to falsification. I am a free man A free man can see man But I'm no better than a blind man - Tim
From: spudnik on 13 May 2010 15:06
the M-set's property of "universality" or self- similarity -- the mini-bugs like the big cardioid -- is strictly an artifact of the floating-point spec (and its many implimentations); however, monsieur M. could only beg the question, over ten years ago, because he never bothered to speak with the engineers at his IBM fellowship. (he had not gotten any further, when he came to campus & spoke, again, couple o'years ago .-) > Actually I can't tell for sure, that Lanczos used bi-quaternions, but > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0112/0112317v1.pdf > Fractals are usually build with complex numbers, like the Mandelbrodt thus: yeah, but what is the integral value?... do you know the surfer's value of pi? > 12 grams of C-12 is Avogadro's Number of carbon atoms. thus: well, that is where the problem with assigning a particle to a wave, a la de Broglie et al, comes. the assumption, that causes folks to say "particle," is that because a quantum (wave) of light is absorbed by one atom of siver dioxide (say, in the photographic emulsion; or, other detector) --some how-- that it must be that a rock of light hit the electronic orbital (although this is never specified, as to how it could be, and the whole problem of EM is also hard to describe, and is confounded with the absurd notion of the "plane wave"). this is really all of a confusion from Newton's "geometrical optics," that is, the "ray" of light, which is just one "normal" to the wave (or Huyghens wavelet). > You assume the particle exits both slits because you assume the > particle creates the interference pattern in and of itself. thus: about your five "cloture" events, the real problem is that "the Fed" was never properly ratified (and is unconstitutional for that reason, if not directly; it is modeled upon the Federal Reserve System of England). of coursel the 527 cmtes. have essentially taken over the TV advertizing on all national issues & candidates, through an Act that was passed unaanimously in both houses. > "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60 thus: I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can be made, and gasoline fuel cells, what is the problem with Fossilized Fuels (TM), which ain't fossilized? ... anyway, see "Green Freedom" in the article, which is not quite what I was refering to! > 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. > http://thorium.50webs.com/ 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. thus: all vacuums are good, if they suck hard enough, but there is no absolute vacuum, either on theoretical or Copenhagenskooler fuzzy math grounds. 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! > 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: 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 |