On May 15, 2:29 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 15, 2:32 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > > On May 14, 7:02 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > On May 14, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > On May 14, 7:12 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > 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... > > > > > ... "1.21 Jigawatss" ... > > > > > > We doubled the power. There is a > > > > > falsification. > > > > > No. > > > > > > Your own 4kw ballistic reflector. You know > > > > > how much power that is? That's alot of > > > > > stinkin' power! > >http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5109/51090979.pdf > > > <snip link now broken by Google.Groups> > > > > > Seriously, you need to get out more. We > > > > know what light does, and [you] strain > > > > with your little toys in the dirt. You > > > > remind me of Aristotle, and how he argued > > > > that the nature of motion was for objects > > > > to be at rest, unless acted on by some > > > > force. Bad bearings are clouding your > > > > judgement. > > > > Due to conservation of energy if an excellent > > > reflector receives 1000 watts of power and it > > > returns that 1000 watts to space toward the > > > source then there can be no work done. > > > Not true. In free fall, I throw a medicine ball > > to you, and you throw it equally hard back to me. > > We are both moving away from each other. Newton > > can help you here. > > Under this situation where we each throw it 'equally > hard' it will return to you at a slower speed, > because I have accelerated away from you in catching > it. Under repetition of this procedure there will be > a diminishing acceleration.
... and at some point, the medicine ball will never arrive at one of us.
> Let's say you throw me the medicine ball at 10 m/s, > and that my velocity increases by 1 m/s away from > you. For me to return the medicine ball to you at > the same velocity (we're getting into some tricky > relative reference frames here, but let's just > assume that you've remained stationary to keep from > getting into too much complication) Then I'll have > to send it at 12 m/s (add another 1m/s to my velocity > when I release the ball) and that will require > expending energy on my part. This is ignoring some > important details, but is a reasonable first > approximation. If we keep a perfectly elastic > reaction on my end the ball will not return to you at > the same speed that it left you. No matter what we do > conservation of energy applies, and we will need to > expend energy in order to maintain the balls velocity > relative to you, or even to me, because my own > acceleration has taken some of that energy, even in a > perfectly elastic situation. You may be envisioning > a sort of one way spring, but the one way spring will > not provide me with acceleration.
Simplify it (based on what we surmise), the ball is always seen to leave the thrower at 10 m/sec.
> This one way spring effect is somewhat what I am > claiming the light behaves as. A perfect reflector > is this one way spring; returning all the energy > that it received back toward the source, thereby > ensuring that no acceleration took place.