|
|
Re: 3 dimensions and their 6 directions
Posted:
May 12, 2010 4:40 PM
|
|
why would the bulb rotate -- isn't it just sitting
on the table in the sunlight?
I left themost important question, since the effect obviously
is either or both aerodynamic & magnetohydrodynamic,
what the shape of the vanes is.
> The explanation of Reynolds, that a thermal effect would produce some
> stream of gas across the edges wouldn't explain how the bulb could rotate.
> Than the involvement of the edges sounds dubious to me. I don't think,
> that would work.
> The mechanism should have more em-forces involved and that would lead to
> plasma physics. To build plasma is the habit of thin gases, too.
> Since there is a relation to heat and infrared, this would rule out some
> sort of photoelectric effects.
> Has the form, number, orientation, arrangement and size of the vanes an
thus:
thank you!... now, if we could just get folks
to see that "all sorts" of modalities are needed
for prolonged spaceflight & a non-post-industrial economy
(current cargo-cult from SW Asia).
> The Chinese are busily developing a Thorium
> based fuel for their CANDUs. The Indians likewise, since
> India has a sizeable supply of Thorium, but is short on
> Uranium.
>
> There was also a pretty keen article I read last
> year on combining a Thorium fuel cycle in one CANDU
> with a Uranium cycle in a neighbour CANDU. It turns
> out that a fairly easy fuel reprocessing can recycle the
> waste fuel from one into fresh fuel for the other, and get
> something like 90 percent fissioning of both Uranium
> and Thorium. Current Uranium reactors burn only the
> U235, which is about 0.7 percent of natural Uranium.
> (Along with a small amount of breeding of U238 into Pu239.)
> This cycle could burn nearly all of the Uranium and the
> Thorium, and leave mostly relatively short lived (half
> lives in the 10's of years) isotopes as waste. So you could
> get about 100 times the energy out of a kg of fuel, and
> leave much less waste.
> Next, light water moderated means enriched Uranium.
> In order to get the Thorium to breed fissile isotopes you
> need better neutron economy than you can get in a light
> water moderated reactor. However, heavy water Thorium
> reactors have been built. Indeed, with a little tweaking
> and some careful mixing of fuels, you can burn Thorium
> in existing CANDU reactors.
>
> Thorium has other interesting features. For example, in
> oxide form as would probably be used, Thorium has a
> higher thermal conductivity than Uranium oxide. That
> means the fuel will be cooler for any given power output.
> It's got interesting mechanical properties also.
>
> There are a number of new reactor designs being touted.
thus:
Copenhagen's "reifiying" of the mere probabilities
of detection, is the biggest problem, whence comes
both "perfect vacuum" and "quantum foam" etc. ad vomitorium,
as well as the brain-dead "photon" of massless and
momentumless and pointy rocks o'light, perfectly aimed
at the recieving cone in your eye, like a small pizza pie.
> So both setups are needed to get the direct
> measurement of what happens in both cases.
> What you want to do is to replace this experiment with the one only
> involving detectors at the slits, and then insisting that nothing
> changes if the detector is not at the slits.
thus:
all vacuums are good, if they suck hard enough, but
there is no absolute vacuum, either on theoretical or
Copenhagenskooler fuzzy math grounds. ao,
what is the "ruling out" in the article?
> From what I've read so far I'm not buying any pure vacuum effect has
> been explained theoretically. Relying on Thomas's article from Baez
thus:
magnetohydrodynamics is probably the way to go, yes;
not "perfect vacuum or bearings" -- and,
where did the link about YORP, include any thing
about the air-pressure?... seems to me,
it's assuming Pascal's old, perfected Plenum.
twist your mind away from the "illustrated
in _Conceptual Physics/for Dummies_" nothingness
of the massless & momentumless & pointy "photon"
of the Nobel-winning "effect" in an electronic device -- yeah,
CCDs -- the Committee's lame attempt to "save the dysappearance"
of Newton's corpuscle.
also, please don't brag about free God-am energy,
til you can demonstrate it in a perpetuum mobile!
> > In the link mentioned above is stated, that the
> > vacuum has an optimum at 0.05 bar and that hard
> > vacuum wouldn't work, because the mill stops.
> It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids
thus:
so, a lightmill is that thing with black & white vanes
on a spindle in a relative vacuum?
you can't rely on "rocks o'light" to impart momentum
to these vanes, only to be absorbed electromagnetically
by atoms in them; then, perhaps,
the "warm side" will have some aerodynamic/thermal effect
on the air in the bulb, compared to the cool one.
thus:
even if neutrinos don't exist,
Michelson and Morely didn't get no results!
> Could neutrino availability affect decay rates?
thus:
I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can
be made ... anyway, see "Green Freedom" in the article,
which is not quite what I was refering to!
> http://thorium.50webs.com/
thus:
every technique has problems. like,
you can't grow hemp-for haemorrhoids under a photovoltaic,
without a good lightbulb.
the real problem is that, if Santa Monica is any indication,
the solar-subsidy bandwagon is part of the cargo-cult
from Southwest Asia (as is the compact flourescent lightbub,
the LED lightbulb etc. ad vomitorium).
> Government subsidies, and fat returns on PVs?
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
|
|
