Primitive Radiometer Studies
in [Math]
|
From: Thomas Heger on 15 May 2010 13:35 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. The vanes in my idea are not the important part, but only transfer radiation to heat. But they do it asymmetric and introduce a current of that gas, that is not in the center. This would create a toroidal stream perpendicular to the axis and the vanes just follow. Since they still show the black sides at the right and the silvery at the left, even if they would rotate, the upstream is out of center. > >> 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? Maybe yes. But I would like to connect this device more to vortex behavior and a more simple mechanism. Even if this model is much too simple, it is certainly (hopefully) more of the right kind. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex) > 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. > Yes, if we were experimenters at all. But I have no lab. But possibly one reading this could do the experiment. TH
From: dlzc on 15 May 2010 14:32 Dear Tim Golden BandTech.com: 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. .... > 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. I have, over and over. But you ignore it, as you always have done. You have this obsession, and I cannot help you get past it. Only you can do that. I've even provided links that you can read... David A. Smith
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 15 May 2010 17:29 On May 15, 2:32 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Tim Golden BandTech.com: > > 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. 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. 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. We could formalize this if you are feeling really persistent, but it should still be possible for you to falsify my statement. Likewise it should be possible for me to falsify yours. I have just done that here. > > ... > > > 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. > > I have, over and over. But you ignore it, as you always have done. > You have this obsession, and I cannot help you get past it. Only you > can do that. I've even provided links that you can read... > > David A. Smith SELENE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELENE launched in 2007 and the article you reference was written in 1999. Of the numerous articles listed at the bottom of this wiki page I did read one which did not detail any 'radiation pressure' navigation and instead detailed the usage of thrusters on those secondary satellites. Like the article on improved radiometers there is no material evidence but you have enlarged your camp by three, let's say. Really it's alot more than three. But this is not proof, except by socialization. We are not doing political science here. Are you claiming that a square meter reflective plate can yield 1000 or 2000 watts of power to the holder? I really would appreciate an answer in terms of the accepted energy level, which wiki says is more like 1300 watts per square meter. I do receive this power right? Then I throw it back? And I am then achieving a doubling correct? How can you turn this huge amount of power into the pittance that we can prove it is? We're talking about a few horsepower here. If the ballistic theory were true then we would exist on a drastically different planet. It is an impressive amount of energy and when absorbed by the right materials does much more than heat things up, and it should be the only fusion reactor we ever need. But we are not going to witness the direct conversion to acceleration so easily as some wish. It may one day be possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure states that 1370 W/m/m equates to a radiation pressure of 4.6 micropascals. It seems I have to get into the Stefan Boltzman Law in order to understand this. It is not the electromagnetic energy they are talking about, though their language comes awfully close to this interpretation. - Tim
From: waldofj on 15 May 2010 18:46 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 > 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 how about this? http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/General/LightMill/light-mill.html
From: Thomas Heger on 16 May 2010 09:47
waldofj schrieb: > On May 15, 11:23 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Hi Tim ... >> 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 > > how about this? > http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/General/LightMill/light-mill.html Hi the page I've read before, but I think, the explanation of Reynolds is wrong. The idea with a vortex seems simpler to me. But than the light-mill wouldn't measure radiation, but heat and the behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with rebouncing photons. The guy with the vortex was Victor Schauberger. He invented a lot of strange things, among them some kind of 'ufos'. A tornado is a vortex. There you have an upstream and a rotation around. (Maybe you google for vortex plus Schauberger to find a good explanation.) Greetings TH |