Doppler energy extraction: new solar cell technology
in [Physics]
|
From: Timo Nieminen on 19 Jul 2010 16:36 On Jul 20, 3:22 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 6:56 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > To summarise: > > > At some time t, we have no change in power on reflection (DP(t)=0), no > > absorption (rate of increase in internal energy = 0), v(t)=0. > > > F(t) can be any finite force, and conservation of energy is still > > satisfied at time t. > > > Yes or no? If no, support your position. > > No. For a reflector in free space the force upon it must be zero in > order for it not to accelerate. Doesn't matter if it accelerates; that isn't the question. The question is: what is the rate of doing work on an object at v=0, for any acceleration. > Any arbitrary force will certainly > cause the reflector to accelerate, and this is work done on the > reflector. So you keep claiming. Can you provide any support for this claim? All you're doing is simply repeating your claim. Repetition is not support. You have agreed that the rate of doing work is P = F.v If you wish to deal with acceleration, with F being the total force, the only force being applied to the object, we have P = m a.v What are the allowed values of F or a, with P = 0 and v = 0? You have repeatedly insisted, and contniue to insist, that only F=0 and a=0 are allowed. But we have 0*F=0 and 0*a=0 as the required conditions to be satisfied, and these can be satisfied for non-zero F and a. > This work requires a source, and I have established that > the perfect reflector cannot use the light as this source. > You've chopped up your argument into such little pieces that there is > no coherence. > The argument that I make here is simply > F = m a Not an argument. We simply get 0*a=0. Are you really claiming that you need to have a=0 for 0*a=0 to be satisfied? > As much as I try to cleanse the argument you hold your ground, and > your position has eroded to a pitiful stance. You are not a scientist > in this moment. We are all humans, and you seem caught up in winning a > struggle against me rather than addressing the problem at hand. Why > else would you focus on such a degenerate statement as > 0 * F = 0 > and insist that it provides arbitrary force? No, it doesn't _provide_ arbitrary force. You have been insisting, over and over, that P=0 _requires_ F=0. But the condition that must be satisfied is 0*F=0. > Simply substitute one > Newton of force on the reflector, and then we will have to ask what > the source of this force is? No, we don't need to ask what the source of the force is. We don't need an input of energy to provide a force, we need an input of energy to provide work. Force is not work, force is not energy. > We can freely substitute any value into your wonderful equation in any > units and have perfect nonsense. Is this your 12 year old son using > your account that I am speaking with? So, no support, no proof for your position, just insults. Still, how else are you going to argue against elementary mathematics? I would like to invite you, one last time, to actually provide some support for your argument, not just repetition and insults. You've agreed that P=F.v is correct. If the force in question is the total force acting on the object, we can write P=ma.v instead. If P=0 and v=0, these yield 0*F=0, 0*a=0. That is, according to basic classical mechanics, when v=0, the rate of doing work is zero, regardless of the force or acceleration. Do you disagree with this? Why? If P=F.v is wrong, why did you agree before that it was correct? What is, in your opinion, the correct formula for P? Show that your formula is correct, and P=F.v is wrong! If you don't disagree with this, why are you claiming that any force or acceleration requires the rate of doing work to be non-zero, when from P=F.v and P=ma.v, we have that when v=0 the rate of doing work is zero? You are aware of the distinction between the rate of doing work, and the total work done during a finite time interval?
From: Tim BandTech.com on 20 Jul 2010 09:08 I have no idea what you are arguing for. You are attempting to build a physical argument based on zero power. This is pretty much like someone who works with perpetual motion power generators. Well, Einstein showed us that there actually is quite some energy in a massive object, so that the effect could nearly be claimed, if a true mechanism existed to digest a few flakes of rust off of an old nail, or some such object, sitting in plain view though a window, say, on a lab table: the holy grail, a rusty nail... Your argument here lacks the thoroughness of this simple paragraph above. You have gotten stuck on some weird minor degenerative case and remain locked up there. I have taunted you several times to provide a complete argument and you refuse. It seems that your hope is to simply deny this thread some of the credit that it deserved. It was of reasonable quality, though terribly drawn out, even from the beginning. Yet here you've outdone yourself. I will just summarize my own positions that I feel are the most interesting material: The radiation pressure effect is claimed to be capable of propelling a reflective object at twice the rate of an absorptive object away from a light source. Yet, if the reflector is perfect then it will have returned all of the energy which hit it, and so no work can be done, and the reflector should not accelerate. Thus there exists a contradiction within this portion of existing theory. As we ponder the means of extracting mechanical work from light the redshift comes up since the energy of a lower frequency is accepted to be lower energy, and so if we could somehow redshift the light we might have claimed to extract some energy from it. This gells slightly with the notion of an acceleration away from the light source, though the cart seems to be ahead of the horse; it is mechanistically problematic. In hindsight it is clear that even the redshifted light of a perfect reflector contains the complete energy that it recieved; it is merely stretched out, and while the instantaneous power figure will be lower, the duration of the light will be longer. The balance conserves energy, and is possibly an overlooked feature of relativity theory, even by modern physicists. How else could a July 2010 Scientific American article overlook this simple point?: "Thus, inquisitive minds ask: When light is redshifted by the expansion of the universe, where does its energy go? Is it lost, in violation of the conservation principle?" The simplest answer to Tamara's puzzle was under her nose the whole time. So what is this strange world of ideas that some of we humans inhabit? Sequences of words and equations seem so deeply important to us, yet perhaps we are just freaks of nature. Our pattern recognition abilities seem more kaleidoscopic than fundamental. So to return to what is fundamental is the correct route. The notion that what is fundamental is already done is false. The last generation bought into Einstein's observer, but the next generation will not be so easily convinced. We are observers, and the procedure runs much deeper than He gave it credit within his theoretical style. I am not an Einstein hater, but I am happy to attempt falsification, upon anybody really, including myself. The modern accumulation is troubling, and yet it is a necessary part of what will eventually come along. We have little hope of achieving the next stage from a blank slate, yet the slate should be wiped fairly clean when it is well presented. In that these usenet threads could be considered a portion of that accumulation, well, they are a sad portion, yet perhaps one of the most accurate portrayals of the human minds that participate here, for they are uncensored, with full accountability. - Tim On Jul 19, 4:36 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Jul 20, 3:22 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 6:56 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > To summarise: > > > > At some time t, we have no change in power on reflection (DP(t)=0), no > > > absorption (rate of increase in internal energy = 0), v(t)=0. > > > > F(t) can be any finite force, and conservation of energy is still > > > satisfied at time t. > > > > Yes or no? If no, support your position. > > > No. For a reflector in free space the force upon it must be zero in > > order for it not to accelerate. > > Doesn't matter if it accelerates; that isn't the question. The > question is: what is the rate of doing work on an object at v=0, for > any acceleration. > > > Any arbitrary force will certainly > > cause the reflector to accelerate, and this is work done on the > > reflector. > > So you keep claiming. Can you provide any support for this claim? All > you're doing is simply repeating your claim. Repetition is not > support. > > You have agreed that the rate of doing work is > > P = F.v > > If you wish to deal with acceleration, with F being the total force, > the only force being applied to the object, we have > > P = m a.v > > What are the allowed values of F or a, with P = 0 and v = 0? > > You have repeatedly insisted, and contniue to insist, that only F=0 > and a=0 are allowed. But we have 0*F=0 and 0*a=0 as the required > conditions to be satisfied, and these can be satisfied for non-zero F > and a. > > > This work requires a source, and I have established that > > the perfect reflector cannot use the light as this source. > > You've chopped up your argument into such little pieces that there is > > no coherence. > > The argument that I make here is simply > > F = m a > > Not an argument. We simply get 0*a=0. Are you really claiming that you > need to have a=0 for 0*a=0 to be satisfied? > > > As much as I try to cleanse the argument you hold your ground, and > > your position has eroded to a pitiful stance. You are not a scientist > > in this moment. We are all humans, and you seem caught up in winning a > > struggle against me rather than addressing the problem at hand. Why > > else would you focus on such a degenerate statement as > > 0 * F = 0 > > and insist that it provides arbitrary force? > > No, it doesn't _provide_ arbitrary force. You have been insisting, > over and over, that P=0 _requires_ F=0. But the condition that must be > satisfied is 0*F=0. > > > Simply substitute one > > Newton of force on the reflector, and then we will have to ask what > > the source of this force is? > > No, we don't need to ask what the source of the force is. We don't > need an input of energy to provide a force, we need an input of energy > to provide work. Force is not work, force is not energy. > > > We can freely substitute any value into your wonderful equation in any > > units and have perfect nonsense. Is this your 12 year old son using > > your account that I am speaking with? > > So, no support, no proof for your position, just insults. > > Still, how else are you going to argue against elementary mathematics? > > I would like to invite you, one last time, to actually provide some > support for your argument, not just repetition and insults. > > You've agreed that P=F.v is correct. > > If the force in question is the total force acting on the object, we > can write P=ma.v instead. > > If P=0 and v=0, these yield 0*F=0, 0*a=0. That is, according to basic > classical mechanics, when v=0, the rate of doing work is zero, > regardless of the force or acceleration. > > Do you disagree with this? Why? If P=F.v is wrong, why did you agree > before that it was correct? What is, in your opinion, the correct > formula for P? Show that your formula is correct, and P=F.v is wrong! > > If you don't disagree with this, why are you claiming that any force > or acceleration requires the rate of doing work to be non-zero, when > from P=F.v and P=ma.v, we have that when v=0 the rate of doing work is > zero? > > You are aware of the distinction between the rate of doing work, and > the total work done during a finite time interval?
From: Timo Nieminen on 20 Jul 2010 17:47 On Jul 20, 11:08 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I have no idea what you are arguing for. At the moment, I am just saying that when the velocity of an object is zero, i.e., v=0, the rate of doing work by a force acting on that object is zero. For many posts, you have been saying that is wrong. Despite having agreed that P=F.v, from which this directly follows. > You are attempting to build a > physical argument based on zero power. I'm saying that a force can be exerted without any work being done. For many posts, you have been saying that is wrong. (Maybe you should ask a fridge magnet about how much work it is doing?) > The radiation pressure effect is claimed to be capable of propelling a > reflective object at twice the rate of an absorptive object away from > a light source. Yet, if the reflector is perfect then it will have > returned all of the energy which hit it, and so no work can be done, > and the reflector should not accelerate. Thus there exists a > contradiction within this portion of existing theory. So, above, we have your claim of "no work -> no acceleration". You've changed your claim above, slightly. Your previous claim was "no work - > no force". I don't think this makes a difference at the moment. For a reflector with only the radiation force acting on, these are equivalent (but not when there are other forces acting). Also note that "perfect reflector" means that no energy is absorbed. "Absorbed" means that energy is transferred to the internal energy of the reflector. You agreed with these definitions earlier. Your "if the reflector is perfect then it will have returned all of the energy which hit it" does _not_ mean the same thing; it only coincides with our previously agreed definition in the rest frame of the reflector. In particular, your definition of "perfect reflector" is frame- dependent, and a reflector that is perfect can be - generally will be - not perfect as viewed using a different coordinate system. Why are we still here? It doesn't help that you refuse to answer direct questions that were asked to seek some clarification, you refuse to give any support for your claims, merely insisting on their correctness. Why not just asnwer the question? Why not give any support for your claims? Why keep on trying to change the topic? Why post paragraph after paragraph of pointless waffle instead? Since you haven't answered the questions so far, let me ask a simpler question: Consider a force of 10N acting on an object of mass 5kg. The acceleration of the object is 2m/s^2, in the direction of the force. When the velocity of the object is 1m/s in the direction of the force, the rate of doing work is: P = F.v = 10 * 1 = 10W. When the velocity of the object is 0m/s, the rate of doing work is: P = F.v = 10 * 0 = 0W. The rate of doing work is zero, yet there is acceleration. You have been objecting to this last statement, repeatedly and strenuously. Q1: Why is it wrong? Q2: If it is wrong, what is the rate of the force F doing work on the object when v=0? Give either the formula or the numerical result (or both).
From: Tim BandTech.com on 30 Jul 2010 07:29
On Jul 20, 9:08 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I have no idea what you are arguing for. You are attempting to build a > physical argument based on zero power. This is pretty much like > someone who works with perpetual motion power generators. Well, > Einstein showed us that there actually is quite some energy in a > massive object, so that the effect could nearly be claimed, if a true > mechanism existed to digest a few flakes of rust off of an old nail, > or some such object, sitting in plain view though a window, say, on a > lab table: the holy grail, a rusty nail... > > Your argument here lacks the thoroughness of this simple paragraph > above. You have gotten stuck on some weird minor degenerative case and > remain locked up there. I have taunted you several times to provide a > complete argument and you refuse. > > It seems that your hope is to simply deny this thread some of the > credit that it deserved. It was of reasonable quality, though terribly > drawn out, even from the beginning. Yet here you've outdone yourself. > I will just summarize my own positions that I feel are the most > interesting material: One other thing I forgot to mention in this summary is the realization that the photon momentum is the particle rendition of the wave theory's radiation pressure, or at least this is what I glean from the discussion. Particle/wave duality seems to have an overlap here, though I do not claim to have a full understanding yet of the wave version of this. To me there are some gaps in this area of physics. This may be my own misunderstanding, but it may as well be a great opening. For me I attempt to treat it as an opening, and if I wind around to the existing theory, well, that would be fine, but it'll be a while before I get there. - Tim > > The radiation pressure effect is claimed to be capable of propelling a > reflective object at twice the rate of an absorptive object away from > a light source. Yet, if the reflector is perfect then it will have > returned all of the energy which hit it, and so no work can be done, > and the reflector should not accelerate. Thus there exists a > contradiction within this portion of existing theory. > > As we ponder the means of extracting mechanical work from light the > redshift comes up since the energy of a lower frequency is accepted to > be lower energy, and so if we could somehow redshift the light we > might have claimed to extract some energy from it. This gells slightly > with the notion of an acceleration away from the light source, though > the cart seems to be ahead of the horse; it is mechanistically > problematic. In hindsight it is clear that even the redshifted light > of a perfect reflector contains the complete energy that it recieved; > it is merely stretched out, and while the instantaneous power figure > will be lower, the duration of the light will be longer. The balance > conserves energy, and is possibly an overlooked feature of relativity > theory, even by modern physicists. How else could a July 2010 > Scientific American article overlook this simple point?: > "Thus, inquisitive minds ask: When light is redshifted by the > expansion of the universe, where does its energy go? Is it lost, in > violation of the conservation principle?" > > The simplest answer to Tamara's puzzle was under her nose the whole > time. So what is this strange world of ideas that some of we humans > inhabit? Sequences of words and equations seem so deeply important to > us, yet perhaps we are just freaks of nature. Our pattern recognition > abilities seem more kaleidoscopic than fundamental. So to return to > what is fundamental is the correct route. The notion that what is > fundamental is already done is false. The last generation bought into > Einstein's observer, but the next generation will not be so easily > convinced. We are observers, and the procedure runs much deeper than > He gave it credit within his theoretical style. I am not an Einstein > hater, but I am happy to attempt falsification, upon anybody really, > including myself. The modern accumulation is troubling, and yet it is > a necessary part of what will eventually come along. We have little > hope of achieving the next stage from a blank slate, yet the slate > should be wiped fairly clean when it is well presented. > > In that these usenet threads could be considered a portion of that > accumulation, well, they are a sad portion, yet perhaps one of the > most accurate portrayals of the human minds that participate here, for > they are uncensored, with full accountability. > > - Tim > |