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: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 24 Jun 2010 15:44 On Jun 24, 9:52 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On May 31, 8:57 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > <...> > > > 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. > > It leaves room for a force. If the reflector starts to move away, then > the spectrum will be conveniently downshifted by Doppler. I presume > energy conservation will be mollified. Well, this is a matter of velocity, and we are supposed to get that velocity via a force or an acceleration, so your logic is flawed here. The mirror in stasis needs to provide the acceleration at zero velocity, due to directed electromagnetic radiation, so the Doppler behavior may be a side effect of this process, but is not consistent with causing the flat plate reflector behavior, from the simplest analysis. > > > Consider taking a full length > > mirror out into the sun and being boled over by three horsepower of > > push. > > Evidently there is some problem with equating force with power. The > damn solar power can't do much direct work, apparently. Yeah, right, yet the photon momentum places all of the photon's energy as mechanical energy via e = h f (the entire photon energy) which when coupled to e = m c c will yield the photon momentum through the translation p = m v . The math seems to work out, but these intermediates are not at all reasonable. Nor is the conclusion that you make given the math. From what I am seeing in the math we should contradict your statement and anticipate direct drive solar turbines, albeit nanoscale. I am trying to falsify the math. Certainly AC principles are more truthful, and this means that the word 'momentum' is being used more broadly within the term 'photon momentum'. The sun's light is known to convert to electrical energy via the use of diodes, which are PV cells. There is not any true heating requirement, though that is the usual assumption on photon absorbtion. - Tim
From: Timo Nieminen on 24 Jun 2010 19:19 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > On Jun 24, 9:52 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > On May 31, 8:57 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > <...> > > > > > 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. > > > > It leaves room for a force. If the reflector starts to move away, then > > the spectrum will be conveniently downshifted by Doppler. I presume > > energy conservation will be mollified. > > Well, this is a matter of velocity, and we are supposed to get that > velocity via a force or an acceleration, so your logic is flawed here. > The mirror in stasis needs to provide the acceleration at zero velocity, > due to directed electromagnetic radiation, so the Doppler behavior may > be a side effect of this process, but is not consistent with causing the > flat plate reflector behavior, from the simplest analysis. Consider an object starting to move from rest. Force F, mass m. F = ma v(0) = 0 v(t) = at p = mv = mat = Ft KE = 1/2 m v(t)^2 = 1/2 m a^2 t^2 What are the rates of change? dp/dt = d(Ft)/dt = F (as expected, from Newton 2) dKE/dt = m a^2 t At t = 0, when the object is still stationary, the rate of change of KE is zero. We have dKE/dt = m a^2 t = Fv, proportional to the speed. This result, and the other results above, don't depend on the nature of the force. It's a general result in classical mechanics, that no work is done on a stationary object. Now consider this along with Doppler shift of a beam providing the force by reflection. The change in power due to the Doppler shift is proportional to velocity, the rate of doing work (i.e., the power) on the reflector is proportional to the velocity. Perfect match. -- Timo
From: NoEinstein on 25 Jun 2010 01:37 On Jun 23, 10:43 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > Good time management, Edward. Those who make wide contributions to science must be efficient. NE > > On May 31, 6:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > <...> > > > 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 > > That is about the most arrogant piece of folderal I have ever read.
From: NoEinstein on 25 Jun 2010 01:51 On Jun 24, 9:52 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > Dear Edward: Force is: "An impetous for moving a mass." Power is: "A force which is 'available' to be used continuously, but which can be used for any practical length of time." Both power and force are measured in pounds. Solar power is a misnomer, since photons are energy, not forceunless converted to electricity, or used to produce steam. The reason? Photons don't have mass. The solar energy hitting one side of an object causes an "immediate" (1/2 phase later) emission of photons of very close to the same interval... except for what I call "the friction of reflection". There is always a slight red shift in reflected light. However, such doesn't indicate there has been a thrust. Rather it indicates that there has been a heating of the object which isn't 100% returned with the radiant energy of the reflection. NoEinstein > > On May 31, 8:57 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > <...> > > > 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. > > It leaves room for a force. If the reflector starts to move away, then > the spectrum will be conveniently downshifted by Doppler. I presume > energy conservation will be mollified. > > > Consider taking a full length > > mirror out into the sun and being boled over by three horsepower of > > push. > > Evidently there is some problem with equating force with power. The > damn solar power can't do much direct work, apparently.
From: NoEinstein on 25 Jun 2010 02:06
On Jun 24, 1:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: I've provided experimental evidence (my X, Y, and Z interferometer) for my invalidation of the M-M experiment; and I've performed two separate experiment kinetic energy experiments invalidating KE = 1/2mv^2. The latter has been copied, without reason, in texts for nearly two centuries. My time and resources are too limited to perform any more experiments. Did you ever replicate my KE ball drop experiment. An afternoon and $40.00 bucks is all it takes. NE Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# > > On Jun 24, 10:55 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 24, 10:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 23, 9:43 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 31, 6:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > <...> > > > > > > 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 > > > > > That is about the most arrogant piece of folderal I have ever read. > > > > There's a fine line between arrogant and psychotic. This has crossed > > > the line by several yards. > > > > PD > > > As spoken by the speck (PD) at the bottom of the science Hill that I > > am King of! NE > > Case in point. > Thanks, NoEinstein, for providing direct experimental confirmation. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |