Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Come on creative minds solve this fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico if ?you can
Next: Dark Energy: The problem with Einstein's Cosmological Constant is that there's no physics behind it
From: NoEinstein on 31 May 2010 18:39 On May 30, 2:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: You are a former teacher, and a recognized proponent of the Status Quo. By copying the equations of others, you are showing yourself to be a pedant. Mostly, you don't understand a thing about true science. If you would like to expound your "thorough understanding" of the equations of others, please make your own '+new post' entitled, say, "Why NoEinstein is wrong about 'this or that'..." I'm sure you will find⦠FEW readers. â NoEinstein â > > On 5/30/10 9:31 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Photons have ZERO mass, and exert zero force upon > > âstrikingâ a reflecting surface. > >   Photons have zero REST mass, but have momentum of > >     p = hν/c = h/λ > >   A perfect reflector's momentum would increase by > >     2p = 2h/λ > >   for every photon. Ever heard of a solar sail?
From: NoEinstein on 31 May 2010 19:20 On May 30, 10:33 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Mark: Excellent point! The ether which pervades the Universe, nurtures light on its way, and doesn't drag the light. If light were dragged, we would all be dead and in the total darkness! James C. Maxwell certainly wasn't being logical when he suggested to A. A. Michelson that Michelson measure the drag on the velocity of the light in M-M. There is none! Photons being emitted from within matter carry some of the internal ether outward. Most of that falls off before too long, Light from the Sun has, say, 95% of the ether dropped off. But the reflected (re emitted) light from the vans carries fresh ether outward. The 'none' in, 'some' out is why the Radiometer can function (friction being the limiting factor) by varying ether pressure alone. Those argon atoms give a secondary mode of pressure, as I've already explained. NoEinstein > > On May 30, 7:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > (snip to the crash) > > > There is ether throughout the bulb. The sunlight coming in imparts > > little or no thrust to the ether (toward the squares). But, because > > of the concentration of ether within the matter of the squares, the re > > emitted light carries some of that ether outward. > > The light emitted from the squares carries ether with it, but the > sunlight coming into the bulb does *not*? > > Inconsistent. > > Mark L. Fergerson
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 20:11 On May 31, 3:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 30, 2:48 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > Dear Timo: I like that you have had a broad exposure to the world of > physics. My New Physics is different in that it is based almost > solely on analysis and on reason. To avoid being corrupted by the > status quo, I relish the observations of valid experimentswhile > always being open minded to the possibility of errors. I avoid > automatically accepting the explanations, by supposed authorities, > for the observed phenomena. > > White and black squares are two competing gravity experiments > combined into one. In the Crookes Radiometer, the black squares > exhibit more repulsion from the light (or heat) source than the white > squares. Reverse rotation has been observed (by others) to occur if > the glass is made to be cooler than the vanes, themselves. You say > The force on the vanes has been measured in vacuum, and the force is > in the opposite direction to the usual Crookes radiometer thermal > force. If not for friction, the radiometer in vacuum would rotate > "backwards". That observation may or may not be a true analogy to the > Crookes. I dont make it a point to shoehorn anyones observations > unless and until I know most of the particulars. > > *** I invite you to reply with a concise PARAPHRASE of how that in > vacuum experiment was done. (Note: I do not read links to the words > of others.) The thermal qualities of the vacuum container must be > considered, as well as the thermal isolation of the white paint from > the black paint, if present. Since there was no rotation, how was > the force measured? > > Like I have said, conclusively, massless photons, alone, exert no > force on objects. What is actually happening to move small objects is > that photons create a gravity effect, as explained in: > > There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26.... > > The latter involves having the varying ether flow and density push the > object in proportion to the objects cross section that is in the > photon stream. Dust particles adjacent to laser beams can be seen to > move in the direction of the beam. But that is due to the air > molecules, and the ether being moved, together. The dust is pushed by > the air gases and by the flowing ether, not by the photons. > > That Wikipedia article on Radiometers mentioned that there is an > induced gas flow through porous ceramic plates that is toward the side > that is heated. [ Note: That is consistent with the ether flow > direction predicted by my New Science. ] The rather iffy porosity of > the edges of the squares in the Crookes Radiometer has, for over a > century, been considered to be the primary source for the thrust. The > errant rationale has been: The edges of the black squares heat, and > then shoot-out, the argon atoms, causing the observed rotation. The > latter concocted science, combined with Einsteins heated gas > nonsense, supposedly accounts for 100% of the observed rotation of the > vanes. > > Photons are concentrations of energy which, in high enough > concentrations, can burn through steel. Those photons dont force > through the steel. You could say: They energy through the steel! Radio waves pass through steel. Mitch Raemsch > Timo, Ive observed over the past month that you have, occasionally, > been adversarial regarding aspects of my New Science. To the extent > that you bring up valid points which I can explain to the many > readers, I welcome your comments. But I dont seek to have a time > consuming one-on-one conversation with you just for your edification. > Though this reply is long, dont take that to be an invitation that > you have been selected as the spokes-person for the status quo. > Because of my obvious huge contributions to science, you should ask > questions, not sit in judgment. You are welcomed to make your own > +new post(s) to pontificate your science if you differ with me. > Lastly, please TOP post, and limit yourself to about two paragraphs. > I really dont need to hear what you think about every little thing > that Ive ever said. No more PDs are wanted, here. Thanks! > NoEinstein > > > > > > > On May 31, 12:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Ive just learned, and provisionally accept as true, that: Radiometers > > > wont rotate at all in a perfect vacuum; > > > True enough, but misleading, since there is still a measurable force. > > Only the friction of the bearings stops it from rotating. > > > > If the devices were totally > > > frictionless, the rotation would occur in the identical direction > > > without that gas being there. > > > This isn't true. The force on the vanes has been measured in vacuum, > > and the force is in the opposite direction to the usual Crookes > > radiometer thermal force. If not for friction, the radiometer in > > vacuum would rotate "backwards". > > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer > > > This reverse force due to radiation pressure was measured in 1901. > > (Published in 1901, anyway. I think Nichols and Hull did their > > measurement in 1901, but Lebedev did his in1899, but didn't publish in > > a journal until 1901.) > > > > Photons have ZERO mass, and exert zero force upon > > > striking a reflecting surface. > > > Non-zero force. This has been measured. Microscopic objects can be > > easily pushed around with this force. Macroscopic objects have been > > levitated against gravity. It's more common to use the force due to > > refraction (which is also non-zero), since then you don't cook the > > object being pushed, but reflection works too. (Also absorption.)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Timo Nieminen on 31 May 2010 20:44 On Mon, 31 May 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > *** I invite you to reply with a concise PARAPHRASE of how that in > vacuum experiment was done. (Note: I do not read links to the words > of others.) Why should I bother paraphrasing such things? _You_ don't bother answering simple direct question that should take a genius like yourself only 10 minutes or so to answer. Does somebody of your intellect need others to pre-digest your reading for you? Of course not! Since you're clearly capable of reading, read: P.N. Lebedev Untersuchungen über die Druckkräfte des Lichtes Annalen der Physik 6, 433 (1901) E.F. Nichols and G.F. Hull A preliminary communication on the pressure of heat and light radiation Physical Review 13, 307 (1901) > Like I have said, conclusively, massless photons, alone, exert no > force on objects. Simply wrong. Force due to electromagnetic waves is routinely observed. Fundamentally, no different from the force that drive electric motors. And since you're already whining about your two-paragraph attention span being exceeded, I'll stop here.
From: Tim BandTech.com on 31 May 2010 20:57
On May 30, 2:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/30/10 9:31 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Photons have ZERO mass, and exert zero force upon > > âstrikingâ a reflecting surface. > > Photons have zero REST mass, but have momentum of > > p = hν/c = h/λ > > A perfect reflector's momentum would increase by > > 2p = 2h/λ > > for every photon. Ever heard of a solar sail? I've recently done some research on the radiometer, and this math analysis is definitely not what makes it tick. The sun is putting out 1300 watts per square meter. If all of this energy goes into mechanical energy then we'd be making turbines rather than PV cells. There is a 'radiation pressure' claim of one third the energy density (loose language) supposedly from Maxwell. I haven't found that computation yet. The Nichols radiometer is a torsion balance, whereas Crook's spins freely. Somehow Nichols claims to have provided one that works in vacuum, and yet the argument should pass freely onto the Crook's version. How much friction can there be in a well made pin bearing versus a quartz fiber? The Nichol's data is weird near perfect vacuum. An inversion takes place that he just graphs and doesn't care to explaim. He claims that the atmospheric effects can be cancelled as shown by the zeros in his graphs. Well, at these zeros there will be no effect. I find the Nichols claims unconvincing. In terms of the atmospheric effects a thermal differential causing fluid flow at the edges is supposedly the cause, discovered by Reynolds. I've not seen any analysis in terms of Bernoulli effect, but if the air is rising at the black surface then the velocity of the gas is greater there. This is the simplest explanation, but there are so many explanations with very little proof. I'm pretty sure the radiation pressure argument is false. Photons are more like AC sources than DC sources. If the pressure is alternating then to claim a propulsive acceleration is a misnomer. It would be like putting a ping pong ball in front of a speaker, blasting out 100 watts and expecting the ping pong ball to accelerate away from the speaker. It's interesting how easy it is to become opinionated on this topic. Without gravity the effects of the atmosphere with temperature difference would be diminished so it would be neat to see this experiment done in outer space, and at various atmospheric pressures. I was researching this in a recent thread http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/4835ecd7ca63f1f1# There are some links in there, starting with http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html The most blatant farce is in terms of conservation of energy. The claim is that the light hitting a reflective surface will provide twice the momentum; one kick when the light hits it and one kick again from the light when it leaves. This concept offends the conservation of energy. 1300 watts in with 1300 watts out leaves no acceleration whatsoever for the perfect reflector. Consider taking a full length mirror out into the sun and being boled over by three horsepower of push. This area is loaded with misnomers and is a great subject for it. - Tim |