Re: Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.



On Jun 11, 5:35 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Sue: Are... your solar sails white or black? If they are white
there should be no thrust, just like the Crooke Radiometer doesn't
rotate with the white side trailing. If they are black, the heating
"may" find enough atoms to kick back to cause a thrust. The best
argument against photon thrust is the fact that all that solar energy
doesn't send the planet Mercury flying away. Photon exchange allows
the ether envelope to have more pressure on the opposed sides than on
the facing sides. That's why objects in space will attract,
gravitationally. But note: There can be no gravity between objects if
the ether is discontinuous, as it generally is between galaxies. —
NoEinstein —

On Jun 11, 7:07 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 9, 5:55 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 9, 2:20 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 8:58 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 6:42 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 7:41 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> 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.

I'll take your side because radiation~suction
fits an induction gravity mechanism better.

(Timo can conscript a few students if he
thinks we are ganging up on him.)

We're really not beyond anything
more than

    e = h f ,  e = m c c ,

and such simple product relationships.

I don't see how e = hf applies  where there
may be no atomic absorption.

<<The requirements of energy and momentum
conservation generally forbid the absorption
of photons by free carriers, and the process can
only take place by interband transitions or with
the assistance of phonon absorption or emission. >>

http://www.colin-baxter.com/academic/research/downloads/prl063802.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant







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&;...

<<Theory
It may be shown by electromagnetic theory, by quantum
theory, or by thermodynamics, making no assumptions as
to the nature of the radiation, that the pressure against
a surface exposed in a space traversed by radiation
uniformly in all directions is equal to one third of the
total radiant energy per unit volume within that space.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

Hmmm... 1/3 is a pretty nice number and the statement
is very inverse square-ish.  Is it too late to
switch to Timo's team? I am a sore looser.

I see the traversed volume here:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html



But all of it, half of it or 1/3 of it is not
doing anything for me unless we put some gas in
it and give it a temperature.

Yeah... That's the steam.
Eggs explode  in  my microwave oven because
of radiation pressure.

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.

In fairness, I  should read about Timo's light-bullets
a bit closer before we declare victory.

Photons (Phonons?) can be a pretty good model translating
angular momentum in a dielectric. I am becoming
sceptical however because acoustic radiation pressure
is lumped in, apparently as the same effect.

If it is just molecules in the traversed volume
jiggling more, induction gravity should be unscathed
and it really shouldn't matter how you describe the
heating process. light bullets, flaming arrows, or
Ella Fitzgerald on Memorex.

Well, if the photon momentum is taken to be coming from the entire
photon energy, then there is no room for the rotational quality to
contain more energy. This is the logical trouble with the existing
theory.

The light is *all* angular momentum until charges in
the gas convert it through interaction. Antenna are
necessary for any directed energy.

(With a minor exception) <<for a highly relativistic
charge the radiation is emitted in a narrow cone
whose axis is aligned along the direction of motion.>>

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node33.html



As you say, we should take freedoms in describing these
things. Ella Fitzgerald may be going a bit far,

The wiki references indicate the principle is the same
for sound so Ella is not "too far" but specifically
included.  Anything that heats the media is what
I understand for the Nichols device.

==============



Hmmm... I thought by going to 10E-6 torrs that the temperature effects
were being diminished. Likewise sound does not travel in a vacuum-
although this very word 'vacuum' is pretty dubious. As soon as you put
anything in a vacuum it cannot be a vacuum anymore. So as soon as we
plop down a Nichols device within the vacuum we ought perhaps to state
that the Nichols device has been isolated, rather than use the vacuum
terminology. Still, to what degree is the isolation perfect? Just tap
the lab table and you've got your sound transmission again.

Metallic vanes and glass surfaces can spoil a vacuum too.

I don't know who went there and measured it but I have
some information that if you want vacuum better than
1 atom per cc you have to visit another universe.

But let's say for the sake of argument that you could
sweep ALL the gas out of a Nichols device. The electrons
in the vanes and the electons in the glass will still
jiggle from illumination and a few will still try
to fill the space with even greater repulsion from
the protons in their host matter.

Electron valves (vacuum tubes) don't malfunction
if we take too much gas out. Eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_emissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschen%27s_law







but as you take
interest in gravitation there is room for a photon relationship with
gravitation to provide gravitational shadowing, which could then
provide the dark matter resolution.

The term shadowing has a negative connotation
from some dubious shielding experiments but yes there
is mechanism for enhancement or attenuation
along a gravitational path so the "shadowing"
label seems to stick.

It is not as bad as a big red "A" on your
blouse  and it might even be a source
of pride when Mercury and Hulse-Taylor are
considered.

Well, I looked at some Hulse-Taylor links. I suppose if it is true
that gravitational shadowing is an effect then the planetary orbits
will take on more dynamics and might help explain all of the strange
angles of rotational axes, magnetic axes, maybe even how they can be
in such a clean plane. That would be quite some fine tuning and would
put the inner planets as the leaders. Anyway Sue it's nice to see you
consider this idea, though cryptically.

I don't buy into the notions about quadrupole moments from
a monopolar ~antenna~. So induced gravity explains Hulse-Taylor
and a quite LIGO very nicely, (tho only qualitativly)  :-(



Here is a simple question for you: Is radiation pressure a unique
effect from photon momentum?

Qualitatively no. Because photons are pseudoparticles.
But they are powerful modeling tools. If the maths
is rigourous and makes better predictions there is
every reason to favour their use in explaining an
phenomena.

If atom "D" absorbs a unit of energy with some
causal link to atom "S" loosing a unit of energy,
call it a photon.

But don't try to say too much about the path.
That requires classical electromagnetism.

My answer is no, but I am still not
getting much clear feedback on this, and as I read there is little
direct connection made, though the math appears to work out directly.
This is based on a wiki link number of the sun's radiation pressure,
so I'm not feeling so solid. As I recall it is 4.6E-6 Pascals of solar
radiation pressure here on the earth's surface from 1375 watts of
solar radiation energy per square meter. It's rather alot of heat for
a little kick. I'm trying to give this theory a kick in the pants.
Speaking of panting, I'd better see what Timo has been up to on this
thread.

Well... Timo threw a nearly atomic scale experiment at
us with the tweezers, so we have to keep him honest and make
sure it scales to Nichols radiometers and  solar-sails.  I don't
see any thing about Boltzmann constant or traversed
volume in his most recent post.

I won't say his technique can't leapfrog all that, it may.
But I am not seeing it yet.

Sue...





 - Tim- 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 -

.