Primitive Radiometer Studies
in [Physics]
|
From: dlzc on 16 May 2010 14:05 Dear Tim Golden BandTech.com: On May 15, 2:29 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 15, 2:32 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > On May 14, 7:02 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > On May 14, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > <snip link now broken by Google.Groups> > > > > > Seriously, you need to get out more. We > > > > know what light does, and [you] 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. > > > > 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. > > > Not true. In free fall, I throw a medicine ball > > to you, and you throw it equally hard back to me. > > We are both moving away from each other. Newton > > can help you here. > > Under this situation where we each throw it 'equally > hard' it will return to you at a slower speed, > because I have accelerated away from you in catching > it. Under repetition of this procedure there will be > a diminishing acceleration. .... and at some point, the medicine ball will never arrive at one of us. > Let's say you throw me the medicine ball at 10 m/s, > and that my velocity increases by 1 m/s away from > you. For me to return the medicine ball to you at > the same velocity (we're getting into some tricky > relative reference frames here, but let's just > assume that you've remained stationary to keep from > getting into too much complication) Then I'll have > to send it at 12 m/s (add another 1m/s to my velocity > when I release the ball) and that will require > expending energy on my part. This is ignoring some > important details, but is a reasonable first > approximation. If we keep a perfectly elastic > reaction on my end the ball will not return to you at > the same speed that it left you. No matter what we do > conservation of energy applies, and we will need to > expend energy in order to maintain the balls velocity > relative to you, or even to me, because my own > acceleration has taken some of that energy, even in a > perfectly elastic situation. You may be envisioning > a sort of one way spring, but the one way spring will > not provide me with acceleration. Simplify it (based on what we surmise), the ball is always seen to leave the thrower at 10 m/sec. > This one way spring effect is somewhat what I am > claiming the light behaves as. A perfect reflector > is this one way spring; returning all the energy > that it received back toward the source, thereby > ensuring that no acceleration took place. !WHAT! You are not even thinking now. Over and out. David A. Smith
From: waldofj on 16 May 2010 14:19 On May 15, 1:35 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > > > > > 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? > > Imagine a ball-shaped container. Than the vertical axis denotes > symmetry. Once you have an axis out of this, than the space reachable on > both sides is different. If you have a vertical axis at the equator, > it's hight is zero. Than the sphere would all to the -say- left. If you > move this axis to the center, you would get more space to the right. But > this is still smaller than the space to the left, until you reach the > center. > > > 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? > > Actually I would think, that only heat is the important factor, because > we know, that the instrument would not respond to light of higher frequency. > And there are experiments, where it is put into ice-water, where the > vanes turn in opposite direction. I tried something similar, I put mine in the freezer. It never rotated backwards but when I took it out of the freezer (under low light conditions) it started running (normal direction) and continued to run until it warmed up. Still not sure what to make of that.
From: Thomas Heger on 16 May 2010 15:19 waldofj schrieb: > On May 15, 1:35 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: >> >>> 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? >> Actually I would think, that only heat is the important factor, because >> we know, that the instrument would not respond to light of higher frequency. >> And there are experiments, where it is put into ice-water, where the >> vanes turn in opposite direction. > > I tried something similar, I put mine in the freezer. It never rotated > backwards but when I took it out of the freezer (under low light > conditions) it started running (normal direction) and continued to run > until it warmed up. Still not sure what to make of that. > I've read somewhere, that the vanes would rotate in opposite direction, if the whole device is submerged in ice-water. But that may or may not be the case. As mentioned before, I have no possibility to do experiments and own no light-mill. Hence I can only reproduce what I've read. Whether or not these statements are correct, I can't tell, but it is certainly possible to do some experiments in case someone has the required resources. Maybe you do some 'research'. E.g. I would like to know, if the device works in a horizontal configuration (with the axis horizontal). I think, it would not rotate very well. Greetings TH
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 17 May 2010 10:24 On May 16, 2:05 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Tim Golden BandTech.com: > > On May 15, 2:29 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > On May 15, 2:32 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > On May 14, 7:02 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On May 14, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > <snip link now broken by Google.Groups> > > > > > > Seriously, you need to get out more. We > > > > > know what light does, and [you] 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > Not true. In free fall, I throw a medicine ball > > > to you, and you throw it equally hard back to me. > > > We are both moving away from each other. Newton > > > can help you here. > > > Under this situation where we each throw it 'equally > > hard' it will return to you at a slower speed, > > because I have accelerated away from you in catching > > it. Under repetition of this procedure there will be > > a diminishing acceleration. > > ... and at some point, the medicine ball will never arrive at one of > us. > > > > > Let's say you throw me the medicine ball at 10 m/s, > > and that my velocity increases by 1 m/s away from > > you. For me to return the medicine ball to you at > > the same velocity (we're getting into some tricky > > relative reference frames here, but let's just > > assume that you've remained stationary to keep from > > getting into too much complication) Then I'll have > > to send it at 12 m/s (add another 1m/s to my velocity > > when I release the ball) and that will require > > expending energy on my part. This is ignoring some > > important details, but is a reasonable first > > approximation. If we keep a perfectly elastic > > reaction on my end the ball will not return to you at > > the same speed that it left you. No matter what we do > > conservation of energy applies, and we will need to > > expend energy in order to maintain the balls velocity > > relative to you, or even to me, because my own > > acceleration has taken some of that energy, even in a > > perfectly elastic situation. You may be envisioning > > a sort of one way spring, but the one way spring will > > not provide me with acceleration. > > Simplify it (based on what we surmise), the ball is always seen to > leave the thrower at 10 m/sec. > > > This one way spring effect is somewhat what I am > > claiming the light behaves as. A perfect reflector > > is this one way spring; returning all the energy > > that it received back toward the source, thereby > > ensuring that no acceleration took place. > > !WHAT! > > You are not even thinking now. Over and out. > > David A. Smith I assume the medicine ball was to be an analogy to light, but the analogy is failing. The only way to achieve the loss that you have pointed to is to redshift the light, because the light is not free to drop in speed. Rather then 'one way spring' perhaps the better wording is 'single ended spring' which inherently implies high impedance at the 'other end' which is the position of interaction of the receiver, but this is equivalent to the high mass case that I already explained, where no acceleration of the receiver takes place. Anyway, the explanation of radiation pressure is askance to the context that we've gotten into here so this portion of this thread is dubious, except in terms of the energy conservation argument, which somehow isolates from radiation pressure, where photon momentum seems to be irrelevant. I was hoping you could lead me through this. Somehow the energy that is being derived in the concept of radiation pressure must be different than the energy of e = h f of the photon theory. - Tim
From: spudnik on 18 May 2010 01:32
if you suppose that the quantum of light that is absorbed, is actually a particle that is perfectly 'adsorbed" (i.e.) inelastically ... wait. anyway, what ever happens to the energy, it need not apply a momentum to the atom's direction, but only to its electronic angular momentum. > the energy that is being derived in the concept of radiation pressure > must be different than the energy of > e = h f > of the photon theory. thus & so: yes; a "complete graph on five points" is a what-you-call-it, having diagonals that (by definition?) cross each-other, which is not a "simple graph" that is dual to the map, whose edges & vertices also constitute a simple graph, simply connected, with (connected) oceans counting as "no color" (or a color; either way, you may & should only require four other colors .-) > no set of 5 mutually adjacent points exists. thus & so: what is a reasonable investment in rebinding, iff "the book is of value to me, myself & y'know," if y'know; or what is the best DIY format? I'm sure there are at least two of them in the old catalog-can-you-fax-it-over-to-here? what's the URL? > I asked them years ago when they started gluing their signatures. No > answer ever came. (Amusingly enough, I still have a signature-sewn > catalogue from them.) thus: prove and/or define the most canonical "law of cosines" in trgionometry, you can; you can define "canonical," two. well, I just read the definition of the law, or the supposed outcome of formula -- which is completely standard, as far as I can tell -- in a large dictionary (of English). thus: I haven't proven that the Bible Code was a hoax; only a hueristical argument about any ring of "letters of all of letters" ... not the Object or Bunny Rings, neccesarily. however, the biblical topic is "skip codes." > Where..Easter bunny..him? --Light: A History! http://wlym .com |