Prev: Large Radio Telescope Orbiting Moon.
Next: LITTLE ORPHAN ANNIE PUT OUT TO PASTURE
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 14 May 2010 10:12
On May 13, 3:33 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear Tim Golden BandTech.com:
>
> On May 12, 4:43 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> ...
>
> > 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.
>
> It has been performed under hard vacuum, and its till works... just
> the forces developed are smaller.
>
> Let's add some free links of associated work:http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0402011
>
> Also, you may want to consider how "atomic tweezers" work... and why
> atoms "recoil" when their orbital electrons emit photons. Photons
> *must* carry momentum.
>
> David A. Smith

Great link David.
Still, it completely ignores the recoil that you are insistent upon at
the close of your statement. Also this link does not substantiate your
claim that the effect works under a hard vacuum. Worst of all this guy
designed an improved form and never tested the design which would be a
piece of verification, though how large a piece of verification could
still be puzzling. There is little trouble in admitting that the
perforated vane will pass more easily through a gas, but that if
purely kinetic forces were at work that there is less area of
absorption. Still, the experiment should be performed shouldn't it?
Was it? Have the results been stifled? Would the author choose to
stifle such results?

Back on photon kinetics is it true that the momentum of a single
photon is
2 h f / c ?
where f is the frequency? According to Wiki this should be
h f / c .
I get to mine by considering
E = m v v / 2 : kinetic energy
e = h f : photon energy
p = m v : momentum
v = c : speed of photon

Under this model all of the photon's energy is momentum. Again, using
readily available sun power a vane 10 cm x 10 cm receives 10 watts of
power, enough to accelerate a kilogram by
10 cm / second
in one second of exposure. This is more descriptive than my last post
on this, where I did not do the computation as acceleration.

Here is a simplified ballistic experiment. We simply suspend a black
or silver plate on a pendulum of length L, and expose it to sunlight
at its resonant frequency. One should be able to literally stand there
with a piece of cardboard and get this pendulum swinging in very
little time. We know that this is not going to happen, don't we?

Again, I welcome falsification. I am pretty sure that my own
falsification is that when the energy is absorbed by the matter the
storage is via electrical means, and that there is no mechanical
momentum other than theoretical associated with the photon. In order
to yield a more geometrical model a torque will probably be a more
appropriate mechanical model. Then stimulated emission might also make
some sense; the ability of an unabsorbed photon to influence the phase
of electrons, that photon's own phase being influenced as well,
bringing some materials into a coherent emmission. The word 'torquon'
comess to mind, and polarization effects can be included, whereas a
simple ballistic theory cannot do this. This would bring
thermodynamics more in line as well, where again a kinetic theory is
abusive.

Along the way we even see an expression for the photon's mass, and so
what is it with all of this math? The freedom to interperet a device
that travels the speed of light as having a mass equivalence should be
problematic shouldn't it? It is times like this when evidence gets
buried in order to procede, like on the wiki page.

Just so you guys know we're up against fourth and fifth graders on
this problem:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05202.htm
Here is another one from this site that appears to be wrong:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99182.htm
I just did a search on 'radiometer' through their own search system.
There are only a few links. Watch out guys the next time you turn on
your LED headlamp, if the kinetic theory begins to hold up you could
get whiplash. Soon we'll have light gyms that do away with weights.
Lots of mirrors and so forth, very snazzy...

Dave, why don't you go outside and hold a mirror toward the sun; a big
one; full length six footer, say three feet wide. You'll be at around
2000 watts and should be doubling that due to reflection right? Just
think of the power... Jee, Oooh, Aaaah... We doubled the power. There
is a falsification. Your own 4kw ballistic reflector. You know how
much power that is? That's alot of stinkin' power!

- Tim
From: dlzc on 14 May 2010 15:20
Dear "Tim Golden BandTech.com":

On May 14, 7:12 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
....
> Dave, why don't you go outside and hold a
> mirror toward the sun; a big one; full
> length six footer, say three feet wide.
> You'll be at around 2000 watts and should
> be doubling that due to reflection right?
> Just think of the power... Jee, Oooh,
> Aaaah...

.... "1.21 Jigawatss" ...

> We doubled the power. There is a
> falsification.

No.

> Your own 4kw ballistic reflector. You know
> how much power that is? That's alot of
> stinkin' power!

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5109/51090979.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g631800732ht1r17/

Seriously, you need to get out more. We know what light does, and
your strain with your little toys in the dirt. You remind me of
Aristotle, and how he argued that the nature of motion was for objects
to be at rest, unless acted on by some force. Bad bearings are
clouding your judgement.

David A. Smith
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 14 May 2010 22:02
On May 14, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear "Tim Golden BandTech.com":
>
> On May 14, 7:12 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Dave, why don't you go outside and hold a
> > mirror toward the sun; a big one; full
> > length six footer, say three feet wide.
> > You'll be at around 2000 watts and should
> > be doubling that due to reflection right?
> > Just think of the power... Jee, Oooh,
> > Aaaah...
>
> ... "1.21 Jigawatss" ...
>
> > We doubled the power. There is a
> > falsification.
>
> No.
>
> > Your own 4kw ballistic reflector. You know
> > how much power that is? That's alot of
> > stinkin' power!
>
> http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5109/51090979.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/g631800732ht1r17/
>
> Seriously, you need to get out more. We know what light does, and
> your strain with your little toys in the dirt. You remind me of
> Aristotle, and how he argued that the nature of motion was for objects
> to be at rest, unless acted on by some force. Bad bearings are
> clouding your judgement.
>
> David A. Smith

Due to conservation of energy if an excellent reflector receives 1000
watts of power and it returns that 1000 watts to space toward the
source then there can be no work done. In order to provide
acceleration there must be energy absorbed. I do find it interesting
that one way to extract this energy would be to red shift the light.
Then each photon can go off at the speed of c just as it came, but
with a bit of its frequency shaved off. I do not beleive that this is
a part of the standard theory, and a mechanism to cause it would need
to be created, though acceleration and red-shift go hand in hand.

Is there any evidence that SELENE's secondary satellite worked?

Even with a cannonball model, if the cannonball returns at the same
velocity as it was received (with no energy expended by the receiver)
then the receiver should not have moved. This is like bouncing a ball
on the earth: the receiver must be very massive and the collision
perfectly elastic. All other conditions will have the cannonball going
slower due to the acceleration of the receiver. Light cannot do this
and so the perfect reflector is not a ballistic experiment.

To flip it around let's suppose that the satellite did accelerate.
This amount of energy must have been absorbed from the light. This
means that there cannot be as much light energy leaving the
'reflector' mechanism as it received.

Also I want to correct my acceleration units: they should have been
m / s / s
If I am so wrong shouldn't it be easy to falsify my statements?
There should be literal positions in the words which are incorrect
that you can focus on.

I am willing to accept that modern science is falsifiable. I believe
that this subject is another instance. But again, I'm open to being
wrong. I just wish you could prove it to me.

- Tim
From: Thomas Heger on 15 May 2010 11:23
Hi Tim
I found an explanation of the light-mill, that is pretty
straight-forward and uses no exotic assumptions.
The mathematical model is not my kind of fish and I would think is
difficult, but anyhow.
It goes like this:
there is a temperature difference measured between the two sides of a
vane of 0.5 �C.
Now look at the radiometer horizontal and from where the light comes.
Than the right side shows the black backsides of the vanes and the left
side the silvery fronts. Now the temperature difference is between the
center spot right to the center of the vane at the left, too (plus the
one between both sides).
The sphere is filled with a compressible continuum, commonly known as
gas. These gases have the habit of expanding due to rising temperature.
Since delta t is very small, the gas has to be very thin to get a
measurable effects. But some gas is required, so we get some kind of
optimum at very low pressure.
With some amount of heat we get a pressure, that would tend to lift a
certain amount of gas. Once it reaches the inside of the container it
had to turn sideways. Since to the left there is more space available
compared to the right, the flow on the right is deviated. Since the flow
would be along the sphere, the pressure could flow only in a torus
perpendicular to the axis. Since the pressure originates from the black
side, the torus turns in a direction, as if the black side is pushed,
hence make the wheel spin.
This picture is actually that of a vortex, that we find in many
circumstances.

Greetings

Thomas
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 15 May 2010 12:11
On May 15, 11:23 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> Hi Tim
> I found an explanation of the light-mill, that is pretty
> straight-forward and uses no exotic assumptions.
> The mathematical model is not my kind of fish and I would think is
> difficult, but anyhow.
> It goes like this:
> there is a temperature difference measured between the two sides of a
> vane of 0.5 °C.
> Now look at the radiometer horizontal and from where the light comes.
> Than the right side shows the black backsides of the vanes and the left
> side the silvery fronts. Now the temperature difference is between the
> center spot right to the center of the vane at the left, too (plus the
> one between both sides).
> The sphere is filled with a compressible continuum, commonly known as
> gas. These gases have the habit of expanding due to rising temperature.
> Since delta t is very small, the gas has to be very thin to get a
> measurable effects. But some gas is required, so we get some kind of
> optimum at very low pressure.
> With some amount of heat we get a pressure, that would tend to lift a
> certain amount of gas. Once it reaches the inside of the container it
> had to turn sideways. Since to the left there is more space available
> compared to the right, the flow on the right is deviated. Since the flow

How is there more space available?
I definitely see the flow going vertical and then forced horizontal
near the top as you argue it. Also isn't the black side supposed to be
pulled so that it goes toward the light?

> would be along the sphere, the pressure could flow only in a torus
> perpendicular to the axis. Since the pressure originates from the black
> side, the torus turns in a direction, as if the black side is pushed,
> hence make the wheel spin.
> This picture is actually that of a vortex, that we find in many
> circumstances.
>
> Greetings
>
> Thomas

That's a very neat interpretation. Don't you think this could couple
with the Bernoulli force as well? I agree that there is higher gas
temperature on the black side of each vane, but perhaps we should just
admit that the pressure should distribute throughout the
container,except for accelerated portions where differential pressure
holds. Thermal conduction is doing alot and once the flow begins. In
steady state there must be as much cooling as heating on average, so
the warm gas at the top is gradually radiating or conducting through
the clear wall.

As gas lifts on the black side attached flow should begin on the white
side as well, this being colder gas and so resisting that lift,
leaving a little eddy off the top edge (for a thin edge) with more
warm air in that eddy. Even this little eddy would push the edge
toward the light, though this is awfully close to the Reynolds effect.
Well, I'm drifting off topic and should pay more attention to your
theory. I think this is a really funny topic that is capable of so
many interpretations. I feel pretty clear that there is no effect in
perfect vacuum, but David does come up with some pretty good links.
Still, I don't believe that he has it yet.

I guess if we were good experimenters we'd devise a smoke tunnel sort
of test.
Then we could observe the gas flow.

- Tim
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Large Radio Telescope Orbiting Moon.
Next: LITTLE ORPHAN ANNIE PUT OUT TO PASTURE