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: PD on 25 Jun 2010 11:29 On Jun 25, 12:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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." Good grief. Where did you read that awful definition of power? It's among the worst I've ever seen. > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 26 Jun 2010 19:32 On Jun 25, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As spoken by a tiny speck of a person, PD, who jealously looks up the tall Hill of Science that I am the King of. NE > > On Jun 25, 12:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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." > > Good grief. Where did you read that awful definition of power? It's > among the worst I've ever seen. > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 27 Jun 2010 11:36 Timo Nieminen wrote: > 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. > No. We start with initial condition of the vane stationary. We shine sunlight equivalent light onto the vane. Because the velocity is zero there is no Doppler shift. At zero velocity the Doppler shift is zero. I accept the confluence, and that red shifting the light is a means to extract energy, and so this process as a microturbine could be a realistic power generation system, though the rate of rotation will have to be relativistically high, so that atomic or electron processes will be more relevant than a literal turbine. Still, this turbine model is fine. If we start the turbine spinning at high speed, shadowed by another turbine at the vane return side, then a series of these turbines can be a direct mechanical energy converter, according to the kinetic interpretation of light that we've been discussing. Still, this procedure is more analogous to feeding a current at the field coils of a generator in order to extract electricity from mechanical energy. With no field coil no electricity will be generated. Got to prime the pump. The Doppler interpretation is fine for a new solar cell technology, but not for the radiation pressure study. It is two different situations. Reliance upon the Doppler argument will likewise conflict with doubling claims on perfect reflectors. The perfect reflector itself is a broken construction under the Doppler analysis. I suppose we should look forward to solar cells that will require a DC initiation voltage. If this is overlooked in experiments that attempt new cells then that could be a problem. Such cells could stall out under the above analysis. - Tim
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 10:55 On Jun 26, 6:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 25, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > As spoken by a tiny speck of a person, PD, who jealously looks up the > tall Hill of Science that I am the King of. NE > You didn't answer where you'd read that awful definition of power. Seriously. > > > > > > On Jun 25, 12:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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." > > > Good grief. Where did you read that awful definition of power? It's > > among the worst I've ever seen. > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 28 Jun 2010 15:17
On Jun 27, 11:36 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Tim: Do you... believe that solar sails can drive objects out of the solar system? The Crooke Radiometer, high friction or not, proves it can't happen, So, how can there be such a thing as a solar turbine? The only actual solar turbine(s) converts the energy to STEAM, and uses that to do useful work. I would benefit the readers of your well-composed replies to have you state, in a sentence or so, what you suppose to be possible. NoEinstein > > Timo Nieminen wrote: > > 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. > > No. We start with initial condition of the vane stationary. We shine > sunlight equivalent light onto the vane. Because the velocity is zero > there is no Doppler shift. At zero velocity the Doppler shift is zero. > I accept the confluence, and that red shifting the light is a means to > extract energy, and so this process as a microturbine could be a > realistic power generation system, though the rate of rotation will have > to be relativistically high, so that atomic or electron processes will > be more relevant than a literal turbine. Still, this turbine model is > fine. If we start the turbine spinning at high speed, shadowed by > another turbine at the vane return side, then a series of these turbines > can be a direct mechanical energy converter, according to the kinetic > interpretation of light that we've been discussing. Still, this > procedure is more analogous to feeding a current at the field coils of a > generator in order to extract electricity from mechanical energy. With > no field coil no electricity will be generated. Got to prime the pump. > The Doppler interpretation is fine for a new solar cell technology, but > not for the radiation pressure study. It is two different situations. > Reliance upon the Doppler argument will likewise conflict with doubling > claims on perfect reflectors. The perfect reflector itself is a broken > construction under the Doppler analysis. > > I suppose we should look forward to solar cells that will require a DC > initiation voltage. If this is overlooked in experiments that attempt > new cells then that could be a problem. Such cells could stall out under > the above analysis. > > - Tim- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |