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 28 Jun 2010 15:33 On Jun 28, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD, haven't you heard? I'm a genius who doesn't need to read the works of anyone else to figure out what's what! "Power is: A FORCE which is available to be used CONTINUOUSLY, but which may be used for any length of time." The FORCE is what's available. The length of time used is important only when billing electric usage, or etc. NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 28 Jun 2010 18:11 NoEinstein wrote: > On Jun 28, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD, haven't you heard? I'm a genius who doesn't need to read the > works of anyone else to figure out what's what! "Power is: A FORCE > which is available to be used CONTINUOUSLY, but which may be used for > any length of time." The FORCE is what's available. The length of > time used is important only when billing electric usage, or etc. � NE > � Hi Noein. I'm sorry, I'm having difficulties with usenet right now, so I am replying here to your numerical breakdown, but just number three of the coasting context. (3.) Coasting components of accelerated objects: Any attempt to create two devices here from the unified position of an object does still seem puzzling to me. For instance, if an object accelerates then we will have created new coasting components. For instance let's suppose that an unaccelerated object A is travelling at v along the x component of a reference frame: x(A) = x0(A) + v0(A) t where x(A) is the position of A, the y and z components of A being zero, x0 and v0 being constants. We'll have to accept in your terminology that this is a 'coasting component'. Next we'll allow A to accelerate by a1(A) when A reaches x1. Constrain a1 to be constant. We see that v(A) = v0(A) + a1(A) t during this region of acceleration. As we have entered this region then we have steadily changing velocities, and each of these is a new coasting component. For instance we could just study the first of these changes, though it is very small, but still we can call it dv so that the new velocity having just entered the acceleration is v0(A) + dv and since this dv is now a 'coasting component' there is actually nothing left for any other component. The objects entire behavior is accomodated within the concept of 'coasting components' since these require a measure of instantaneous velocity. I don't see how you can say: "In a four second fall, 75% of the fall distance is due to COASTING." By my analysis 100% of the objects fall distance is due to coasting. I am willing to review how you arrive at 75% and will try to stay open minded. I am sorry that the indices on my notation above aren't too meaningful, but I believe the expressions are correct. I suspect that your analysis uses a discrete time step instead of continuous principles of calculus. - Tim On Jun 26, 7:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 25, 9:05 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > Dear Tim: I�ll place numerals within your reply, below, and �top > post� my corresponding reply to you: > > (1.) �g� is indeed 32.174 feet per second EACH second (rather than� > per second SQUARED). The value of the acceleration can be any value, > depending, of course, on the uniform FORCE (in pounds) that is causing > the acceleration. If a one pound mass is being acted upon by near > Earth Gravity, such mass will have an �a� of 32.174 AND a �g� of that > same amount. That will mean that the value of the a/g portion of my > equation is unity; and unity times �m� is simply �m�, or the mass of > the object in question. > > (2.) All objects that are accelerating, regardless of the rate, have > huge portions of the distance of travel attributable to COASTING > alone. Suppose that an object is accelerating at �g�. After two > seconds, the velocity will be 64.348 feet per second. If one could > magically turn off the force of gravity (or turn-off the in-space > �thrust� of the rocket motor) and the object will continue COASTING at > 64.348 feet per second, indefinitely. Those same coasting components > are there from every single velocity at the end of all of the seconds > of time that the object is dropped, or the rocket is accelerated. > COASTING components are what cause the �free-drop� curve to be a > parabola, rather than a straight line. > > (3.) No, Tim. The coasting component is part of the distance of > travel of all accelerating objects; it�s not� left behind. >
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 18:27 On Jun 28, 2:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 28, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD, haven't you heard? I'm a genius who doesn't need to read the > works of anyone else to figure out what's what! "Power is: A FORCE > which is available to be used CONTINUOUSLY, but which may be used for > any length of time." The FORCE is what's available. The length of > time used is important only when billing electric usage, or etc. NE > Nice! So what you're saying is that you feel free to make things up, and because of your delusions of grandeur, you're quite sure that what you make up is correct. And so obviously when you put quotation marks around your statements... Force is: "An impetous for moving a mass." and Power is: "A force which is 'available' to be used continuously, but which can be used for any practical length of time." .... the person you were quoting was yourself. Which is an unusual thing to do, unless you were quoting another personality. You're a hoot to talk to. A certifiable fruitcake with a Napoleon hat and an unused prescription for antipsychosis meds. > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 28 Jun 2010 18:53 all sorts of weird things can happen, when one starts one's personalized analysis [*], but isn't it clear that Nein Stein has supposed that the first three seconds acceleration is compounded as "coasting," and teh last quarter is taken to be somehow especially different, *just because of a particular unit* of time. good luck with that ****. > I don't see how you can say: > "In a four second fall, 75% of the fall distance is > due to COASTING." -- Rep. Waxman and Pres. Obama, les ducs d'oil! http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 29 Jun 2010 00:51
On Jun 28, 6:11 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Tim: You are, indeed, analytical. Each second that an object accelerates, the velocity at the end of any given second becomes coasting. That coasting distance of travel gets added to every other coasting carryover distance, at the end of every second, until the object stops accelerating. In a four second fall (Thats the maximum size parabola graph that fits easily on 8.5 x 11 paper.) the coasting is 75%, with this proviso: *** Since velocities and accelerations are per second, then the coasting is indicated in steps that change each second. I too am aware that there is a small coasting component after the object drops for any fraction of a second. So you would be right to say that there is SOME coasting carryover from the instant of drop. But you would be WRONG to say that 100% of the distance of fall is from coasting. Do you see the difference? The only non-coasting distance of travel for an object falling at g, or accelerating in space at g, is: d =16.087 feet per second of fall. The latter plots as a STRAIGHT line rather than a parabola. In four seconds of fall there is 4d due to pure acceleration, and 12d due to coasting, for a total distance of 16d. That means 12/16ths, or 75%, is from coasting. I drew my parabola with the fall distance in the -Y direction, just like for gravity. And I plotted the time in seconds in the +X directiondifferent from your example. I can visualize things easier if I dont mess with natures conventions. For the record, when a man pees, the stream will always follow a parabolic course down, and will be a complete parabola if the steam is horizontal at the start. NoEinstein > > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Jun 28, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD, haven't you heard? I'm a genius who doesn't need to read the > > works of anyone else to figure out what's what! "Power is: A FORCE > > which is available to be used CONTINUOUSLY, but which may be used for > > any length of time." The FORCE is what's available. The length of > > time used is important only when billing electric usage, or etc. NE > > > > Hi Noein. > I'm sorry, I'm having difficulties with usenet right now, so I am > replying here to your numerical breakdown, but just number three of the > coasting context. > > (3.) Coasting components of accelerated objects: > > Any attempt to create two devices here from the unified position of an > object does still seem puzzling to me. For instance, if an object > accelerates then we will have created new coasting components. For > instance let's suppose that an unaccelerated object A is travelling at v > along the x component of a reference frame: > x(A) = x0(A) + v0(A) t > where x(A) is the position of A, the y and z components of A being zero, > x0 and v0 being constants. We'll have to accept in your terminology that > this is a 'coasting component'. Next we'll allow A to accelerate by > a1(A) when A reaches x1. Constrain a1 to be constant. We see that > v(A) = v0(A) + a1(A) t > during this region of acceleration. As we have entered this region then > we have steadily changing velocities, and each of these is a new > coasting component. For instance we could just study the first of these > changes, though it is very small, but still we can call it > dv > so that the new velocity having just entered the acceleration is > v0(A) + dv > and since this dv is now a 'coasting component' there is actually > nothing left for any other component. The objects entire behavior is > accomodated within the concept of 'coasting components' since these > require a measure of instantaneous velocity. > > I don't see how you can say: > "In a four second fall, 75% of the fall distance is > due to COASTING." > > By my analysis 100% of the objects fall distance is due to coasting. I > am willing to review how you arrive at 75% and will try to stay open > minded. I am sorry that the indices on my notation above aren't too > meaningful, but I believe the expressions are correct. I suspect that > your analysis uses a discrete time step instead of continuous principles > of calculus. > > - Tim > > On Jun 26, 7:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 9:05 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > Dear Tim: I ll place numerals within your reply, below, and top > > post my corresponding reply to you: > > > > (1.) g is indeed 32.174 feet per second EACH second (rather than > > per second SQUARED). The value of the acceleration can be any value, > > depending, of course, on the uniform FORCE (in pounds) that is causing > > the acceleration. If a one pound mass is being acted upon by near > > Earth Gravity, such mass will have an a of 32.174 AND a g of that > > same amount. That will mean that the value of the a/g portion of my > > equation is unity; and unity times m is simply m , or the mass of > > the object in question. > > > > (2.) All objects that are accelerating, regardless of the rate, have > > huge portions of the distance of travel attributable to COASTING > > alone. Suppose that an object is accelerating at g . After two > > seconds, the velocity will be 64.348 feet per second. If one could > > magically turn off the force of gravity (or turn-off the in-space > > thrust of the rocket motor) and the object will continue COASTING at > > 64.348 feet per second, indefinitely. Those same coasting components > > are there from every single velocity at the end of all of the seconds > > of time that the object is dropped, or the rocket is accelerated. > > COASTING components are what cause the free-drop curve to be a > > parabola, rather than a straight line. > > > > (3.) No, Tim. The coasting component is part of the distance of > > travel of all accelerating objects; it s not left behind. > > |