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: Timo Nieminen on 30 May 2010 14:48 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". See http://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.)
From: Sam Wormley on 30 May 2010 14:58 On 5/30/10 9:31 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > Photons have ZERO mass, and exert zero force upon > 'striking' 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: Uncle Al on 30 May 2010 17:48 NoEinstein wrote: > > In keeping with my early childhood interest in science, my Father gave > me a curious present that was shaped somewhat like a light bulb. [snipc rap] The solution is on the Web, jackass, including pressure dependence of rotation sense. Thrust accrues from the *edges* not the faces. idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: nuny on 30 May 2010 22:33 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: NoEinstein on 31 May 2010 18:31
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/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&. 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! 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.) |