View Single Post
  #123   Report Post  
Old September 5th 07, 07:56 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Richard Clark Richard Clark is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:33:11 -0700, Denny wrote:

Despite the photon torpedoes fired at me, I have not seen a convincing
physics experiment that deflates my previous arguement...


Hi Denny,

You need a better reading list. Researching the historical names
offered would be a start.

Where the F=MA arguement fails in a radiometer is that the photons
impact both sides of the paddles leaving a zero net force for
rotation...


Well, the Newtonian math certainly fails (as does the Quantum math);
but not because photons hit (more properly absorbed by) both vanes
equally for a net zero force (an appeal to F=MA already dismissed). If
you observe the Crookes radiometer (and its brethren), it has distinct
differences in reflection/absorption characteristics which impart a
very considerable differential in the net force; which, again, do not
balance with the energy applied. This is not to dismiss the obvious
reaction, however; but no one here has offered any quantifiable forces
other than myself.

The fact that a Crookes Radiometer requires an atmosphere is proof of
its mode of operation. The fact that it has to be a partial vacuum
further proves how it operates (more air density means too much air
drag to allow rotation by the weak local differential pressure across
the paddle)...


Unfortunately (and as mentioned several many times), the so-called
differential in pressure does not balance with the applied energy.
Even if it did, it would require a porous vane to make it work
(another negative hit). It would be useful if someone could offer
even one line of quantifiable data to support ANYTHING. So much of
this is testimonial that this should be called rec.radio.tent.meeting
given the general inclination to veer from facts towards faith.

Those who reject local differential pressure changes due to local
heating by claiming the pressure in the bulb is static ignore the
factor of time in molecular exchange of thermal energy gains...
Carrying their argument to the logical end means sun heating cannot
cause the winds to ever blow across the ground because the net air
pressure of Terra is static...


Hmmm, who could those heathens be? Perhaps the scurvy Nichols and
Tear whose radiometer works so well in a more complete Vacuum?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC