On May 13, 3:33 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Tim Golden BandTech.com: > > On May 12, 4:43 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > ... > > > So far I think Thomas is correct on this > > point; that the radiometer stopped working > > under strong vacuum conditions, whether > > torsion or spinning. I welcome falsification. > > It has been performed under hard vacuum, and its till works... just > the forces developed are smaller. > > Let's add some free links of associated work:http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0402011 > > Also, you may want to consider how "atomic tweezers" work... and why > atoms "recoil" when their orbital electrons emit photons. Photons > *must* carry momentum. > > David A. Smith
Great link David. Still, it completely ignores the recoil that you are insistent upon at the close of your statement. Also this link does not substantiate your claim that the effect works under a hard vacuum. Worst of all this guy designed an improved form and never tested the design which would be a piece of verification, though how large a piece of verification could still be puzzling. There is little trouble in admitting that the perforated vane will pass more easily through a gas, but that if purely kinetic forces were at work that there is less area of absorption. Still, the experiment should be performed shouldn't it? Was it? Have the results been stifled? Would the author choose to stifle such results?
Back on photon kinetics is it true that the momentum of a single photon is 2 h f / c ? where f is the frequency? According to Wiki this should be h f / c . I get to mine by considering E = m v v / 2 : kinetic energy e = h f : photon energy p = m v : momentum v = c : speed of photon
Under this model all of the photon's energy is momentum. Again, using readily available sun power a vane 10 cm x 10 cm receives 10 watts of power, enough to accelerate a kilogram by 10 cm / second in one second of exposure. This is more descriptive than my last post on this, where I did not do the computation as acceleration.
Here is a simplified ballistic experiment. We simply suspend a black or silver plate on a pendulum of length L, and expose it to sunlight at its resonant frequency. One should be able to literally stand there with a piece of cardboard and get this pendulum swinging in very little time. We know that this is not going to happen, don't we?
Again, I welcome falsification. I am pretty sure that my own falsification is that when the energy is absorbed by the matter the storage is via electrical means, and that there is no mechanical momentum other than theoretical associated with the photon. In order to yield a more geometrical model a torque will probably be a more appropriate mechanical model. Then stimulated emission might also make some sense; the ability of an unabsorbed photon to influence the phase of electrons, that photon's own phase being influenced as well, bringing some materials into a coherent emmission. The word 'torquon' comess to mind, and polarization effects can be included, whereas a simple ballistic theory cannot do this. This would bring thermodynamics more in line as well, where again a kinetic theory is abusive.
Along the way we even see an expression for the photon's mass, and so what is it with all of this math? The freedom to interperet a device that travels the speed of light as having a mass equivalence should be problematic shouldn't it? It is times like this when evidence gets buried in order to procede, like on the wiki page.
Just so you guys know we're up against fourth and fifth graders on this problem: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05202.htm Here is another one from this site that appears to be wrong: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99182.htm I just did a search on 'radiometer' through their own search system. There are only a few links. Watch out guys the next time you turn on your LED headlamp, if the kinetic theory begins to hold up you could get whiplash. Soon we'll have light gyms that do away with weights. Lots of mirrors and so forth, very snazzy...
Dave, why don't you go outside and hold a mirror toward the sun; a big one; full length six footer, say three feet wide. You'll be at around 2000 watts and should be doubling that due to reflection right? Just think of the power... Jee, Oooh, Aaaah... We doubled the power. There is a falsification. Your own 4kw ballistic reflector. You know how much power that is? That's alot of stinkin' power!
