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: Sue... on 7 Jun 2010 17:55 On Jun 7, 7:41 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [...] > Beyond this thermodynamics remains open in my book. This is a bit disturbing at this point in the thread. Reynolds explained Crooks radiometer with ~thermodynamics~ . Your discussion with Timo seems to be about Nichols radiometer. The distinction was made earlier in the thread but you will be talking past one another if you are not about the same device and effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer Apologies if I am covering old ground but it is a long thread and I got here late. Sue... > > > > - Tim > >
From: Sue... on 7 Jun 2010 18:15 On Jun 7, 3:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 6, 9:02 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > Dear Timo: "Momentum", first and foremost, requires that there be a > moving MASS. Photons are MASSLESS, and thus are without momentum. > So, there is nothing to be... "reversed". NoEinstein See equation 2.2 "Radiation Pressure and Momentum Transfer in Dielectrics: The Photon Drag Effect" Rodney Loudon, Stephen M. Barnett, C. Baxter http://www.colin-baxter.com/academic/research/downloads/prl063802.pdf Sue...
From: Tim BandTech.com on 7 Jun 2010 18:42 On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 7, 7:41 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Beyond this thermodynamics remains open in my book. > > This is a bit disturbing at this point in the thread. > Reynolds explained Crooks radiometer with > ~thermodynamics~ . > > Your discussion with Timo seems to be about > Nichols radiometer. The distinction was > made earlier in the thread but you will be > talking past one another if you are not > about the same device and effect. Thanks for the attempt at resolution, but we are on to other aspects now. He seems to think that when you attribute all of a photons energy to momentum that somehow the energy is independent of that momentum. I'm not going to buy that, but if you can falsify either of us then I think that input is very welcome. We're really not beyond anything more than e = h f , e = m c c , and such simple product relationships. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer > > Apologies if I am covering old ground but > it is a long thread and I got here late. Hey Sue, no problem. I guess one of the key points is that the radiometer itself is not quite what most of the discussion is about. Isolation of radiation pressure from the radiation is more like it. What I now understand and had overlooked for much of the thread is that the radiation pressure is merely the photon momentum, as is overlooked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure and likely elsewhere. Nichols work is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=8n8OAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA5-PA329#v=onepage&q&f=false which is actually linked to in that wiki you just gave. Some if his argumentation is quite poor imo. There is a 1933 paper by a woman Bell that I do not have access to which claims to resolve the study down to 10E-6 torr. I posted that link a few days ago here. - Tim
From: Timo Nieminen on 7 Jun 2010 19:37 On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Tim BandTech.com wrote: > He seems to think that when you attribute all of a photons energy to > momentum that somehow the energy is independent of that momentum. No! Absolutely not! ENERGY IS NOT MOMENTUM, AND MOMENTUM IS NOT ENERGY! THIS IS ELEMENTARY NEWTONIAN PHYSICS, THAT THE TWO ARE DIFFERENT! TO SAY SOMETHING HAS BOTH KINETIC ENERGY AND MOMENTUM IS NOT THE SAME AS "ATTRIBUTING THE ENERGY TO MOMENTUM"! And, although energy and momentum are different, they're not independent either! Stop a classical particle, and it has zero momentum and zero KE. -- Timo
From: BURT on 7 Jun 2010 20:23
On Jun 1, 7:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 31, 8:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > No disagreement, there; provided the steel isn't too thick. NE - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What is it about the steel that allows for different absorption for thin and then thick? What is the chance order of getting absorbed? Why would more steel atoms provide better absorption? If it is pure steel why would steel atoms absorb differently for thiness or thickness. I have a problem that absorption is less probable. How can it be made into probability? I want to lnow what blocks radio signals. MItch Raemsch |