On May 11, 1:56 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 11, 3:21 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > > On May 11, 11:37 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote: > > ... > > > > Let me speculate a bit about those 'lightmills'. > > > Also "Crooke's radiometer". > > > > As my short term investigation has found out, > > > these objects have a maximum speed with a > > > vacuum of 0.05 bar and respond to infrared > > > only. > > > All wavelengths, if one has a good internal vacuum. <snip link broken by Google.Groups> > > Errrr. Got to pay for this link. No thanks dlzc. > Here's one <snip link broken by Google.Groups>
> I found from > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer > which is a torsion system. > > There are some pretty weird things going on > related to pressure in the google book link.
The point is, light carries momentum. That an instrument can be made that makes more of a "to do" of its energy, should not blind us to the facts.
> Wouldn't it be acceptable to simply shade > one half of the spinning device and not > worry about a color difference on the > plates?
It isn't, or shouldn't be, the color, but the reflectivity.
> Then one with reflective plates can be > compared against one with black plates.
Would work for a torsion system, but you'd still need "zero" pressure.
> It seems the reflective one should spin > faster, and that both should spin away > from the radiation source. Then again, > if the black one were to have an > insulated back side it seems to me its > rate should go up, which puts me back at > the black and white radiometer running > on this effect. > > Spinning toward the light is very difficult > to grasp.
Think of the light as bullets, and the resulting heat radiated as having lower "mass" or "speed".
> I still haven't gotten to studying that > thermal edge effect.
Not an issue with a good vacuum.
> I'm gonna try building one of these shaded > ones in a pickle jar sometime soon. > I'll let you know how it goes. Probably > with a light copper wire beam on a steel > pin, with aluminum foil vanes, mounted to > the lid of a jar.
... > > > There is something, I have serious > > > problems with: As being an amateur > > > with wage knowledge and a budget of > > > nothing, how is it possible for a > > > single person to challenge the > > > mainstream, that has a headcount in > > > the millions and endless funds? > > > You've been challenging it. You're making > > more of your black magic than you should, > > but you are looking... > > > > There is something more than wrong, > > > but I don't know exactly what. > > > Consider the budget of the man that > > invented the radiator overflow reservoir. > > It wasn't invented (first) by a large > > company. You find a repeatable effect, > > and you describe it, and maybe you will > > get lucky. > > > What is "more than wrong", is that you > > are coming to the fight completely > > unarmed. There is a vast array of > > knowledge at your fingertips, and hosts > > of people have tried to make the > > knowledge easy to assimilate. Yet you > > spend effort imagining and describing > > "conspiracy". You choose the company > > you keep, both in terms of people and > > in terms of knowledge. > > > But it is of course, your life... > > Well, there are plenty of scientists who > know that the system is more than wrong.
Cold fusion scientists don't count. The system we have is the only one possible.
> Funding pressures and pressures to > publish... aren't these the standard > woes?
How else do we get them out of the ivory tower, into stuff you and I can use? Mathematics had it the way you imagine for hundreds of years... and Programmers for some Big Iron folks still think that way.
> We sure do have a whole stinking pile of > information in journals that we have no > access to unless we pay the big bucks. How > much of it is worth anything?
All of it, if you know the "shorthand"...
> Things are changing, and if some censor > doesn't like your work there is arxiv > right? That's the way things are going, > and sifting the bullcrap out always was > everybody's business.
You do realize that Science is at heart and antagonistic field right? You make a statement or result, and NO ONE is supposed to take your word for it.
> Let's not forget Newton, who attempted > to decrypt the bible or some such. Then > there was Pythagoras who banned some > numbers.
He was God at some point, if you'll recall.
> Now what have we got? Just because it's > printed doesn't make it right. For an > authentic look at an alternative theory > coming from inside the system read > Faster Than Light by Magueijo. You can > buy a used copy off the net for like > four bucks. He's got plenty to say > about crap.
Got plenty of crap already.
> But thanks for the links and info dlzc. > The problems remain open and always will.
I don't think it is the problem you seem to think it is...
