On 5 Sep, 04:33, Denny wrote:
On the other hand, the absence of porous plates in operating
radiometers tends to cast some doubt on your claim that the plates
must be porous.

Not "my claim," my report. The claim they must be porous arrives
through the math necessary to balance the kinetic forces.
Again, which radiometer? If you are arguing a "perfect" vacuum, then
like a free lunch, I would agree there's no such thing. The Crookes
radiometer requires a partial atmosphere to work, other radiometers
work quite fine with much less.

Depends entirely on what one intends to measure.

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

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...

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)...

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...

denny
It's 10PM somewhere, have you hugged your radio today?

Perhaps people should take look at other things that creat radiation!
For instance the explosion from a energy container such as a
transformer feeding a spark plug.
The frequency band is widespread leaving time varient current,
capacitance and inductance and neglecting resonant lengths. Can a
capacitance store a particle or can it blow away a particle formed on
its own material?Time varient obviously dependes on the size of the
capacitor therefore the time current is applied to the capacitor is
irrelevent.
I have left off references to icecream, snorkels e.t.c. even tho
apparently they are necessary.
Art

Denny wrote:
On the other hand, the absence of porous plates in operating
radiometers tends to cast some doubt on your claim that the plates
must be porous.

Not "my claim," my report. The claim they must be porous arrives
through the math necessary to balance the kinetic forces.

Again, which radiometer? If you are arguing a "perfect" vacuum, then

like a free lunch, I would agree there's no such thing. The Crookes
radiometer requires a partial atmosphere to work, other radiometers
work quite fine with much less.

Depends entirely on what one intends to measure.


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

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...

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)...

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...

denny
It's 10PM somewhere, have you hugged your radio today?

Hi Denny -

The thing that seems to have certain people confused here is the fact
that, with regard to radiometers, there are two different effects at
work. Radiation pressure is in fact quite measurable, but is an
orders of magnitude smaller force than the thermal/molecular effect
that toy store radiometers demonstrate.

Radiation pressure is such a small effect that it cannot be observed
unless the vessel is first evacuated to an ultra high vacuum.
Ordinarily, one would use a torsion or micro balance to measure this
effect. But in a radiometer type arrangement, the vanes rotate in a
direction away from the more reflective side because the change in
momentum is twice as high for a reflected photon as it is for an
absorbed photon.

But in the case of the thermal, partially evacuated (toy store)
radiometer, the black side of the vanes absorbs more thermal energy
and is therefore hotter than the white side which absorbs less and
reflects more energy. Gas molecules which encounter the vanes in a
partially evacuated radiometer are ejected more energetically from the
hotter side than from the cooler side thus creating a net force in the
direction away from the black (less reflective) side. This is as you
described.

73, ac6xg

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

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:04:23 -0000, Jim Kelley
wrote:


Richard Clark wrote:


The description you offer requires a porous plate which is absent in
every radiometer that has come down the pike

On the other hand, the absence of porous plates in operating
radiometers tends to cast some doubt on your claim that the plates
must be porous.


Not "my claim," my report.

So be it. The absence of porous plates in operating radiometers tends
to cast doubt on your report that the plates must be porous.

The claim they must be porous arrives
through the math necessary to balance the kinetic forces.

But a balance of forces would result in the absence of an observable
effect. An imbalance in forces is required in order to produce
movement.

Now, if we simply move to another radiometer (Nichols, Tear, Hull, and
Webb already recited) without that partial vacuum, the vanes still
move, and expressely by Radiation Pressure.

By a different mechanism and in the opposite direction, yes.

In essence, these instruments indicate,
not measure.

A description which applies beautifully to power meters as well, don't
you agree? ;-)

The coy context of the thread was measuring the mass of a Photon.
Absolutely no SI Units have been named or any quantitative values
offered (the rather standard omission from claims made here).
However, feel free to introduce your own side thread's goal or even offer a
guess (your own quatitative value for the mass).

I'd like to offer m = E/c^2 as a guess.

73, ac6xg

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:02:38 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Not "my claim," my report.

So be it. The absence of porous plates in operating radiometers tends
to cast doubt on your report that the plates must be porous.

Hi Jim,

You should distinguish between reporting, claims, and what you see.
The point about being porous is to substantiate the expectation of
explaining the full energy budget (and specifically for the Crookes
radiometer). I don't know how many times I have to emphasize this,
but NO METHOD achieves that balance.

The claim they must be porous arrives
through the math necessary to balance the kinetic forces.

But a balance of forces would result in the absence of an observable
effect. An imbalance in forces is required in order to produce
movement.

The balance is in the energy applied and the energy expended. You put
an HP into a car, and it will accelerate 550 foot-pounds/sec. You put
x photons into ANY radiometer, and the change in inertia WILL NOT
balance.

[This is why I expressed my question in Newtonian terms for the
benefit of the twins who are so devoted to the master (that they are
wholly lost in a simple 2 variable computation). The difference
between that computation and performance is extreme. What is more
compelling, is that it is quite a departure from what Quantum
Mechanics would predict. NO METHOD achieves that balance.]

Now, if we simply move to another radiometer (Nichols, Tear, Hull, and
Webb already recited) without that partial vacuum, the vanes still
move, and expressely by Radiation Pressure.

By a different mechanism and in the opposite direction, yes.

In essence, these instruments indicate,
not measure.

A description which applies beautifully to power meters as well, don't
you agree? ;-)

No. Power meters to even uncommonly high accuracy still conform to
Newtonian mechanics.

The coy context of the thread was measuring the mass of a Photon.
Absolutely no SI Units have been named or any quantitative values
offered (the rather standard omission from claims made here).
However, feel free to introduce your own side thread's goal or even offer a
guess (your own quatitative value for the mass).

I'd like to offer m = E/c^2 as a guess.

The photo-electron appears to even depart from that. More to follow.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

John Smith wrote:
Why has ether become synonymous with "kook?"

From Wikipedia:
"Einstein in later years proposed calling empty space equipped
with gravitational and electromagnetic fields the "ether",
whereby, however, this word is not to denote a substance with
its traditional attributes. Thus, in the "ether" there are to
be no determinable points, and it is meaningless to speak of
motion relative to the "ether." Such a use of the word "ether"
is of course admissible, and when once it has been sanctioned
by usage in this way, probably quite convenient."

Ives was the first to positively measure the effect of speed on clock
rates. He wrote in 1940 in a paper in Science:

"I have considered the popular claim that the ether has been "abolished"
[...]. Reverting to experimental findings I have reviewed the experiment
of Sagnac, having in mind the claim that the ether can not be detected
experimentally. I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally
found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect
the ether."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally
found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect
the ether."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Me neither... The old bull dozer refused to start and I hunted all
over the place for a can of ether... Didn't detect one either... Mind
you it was 92 degrees yesterday and rooting around through the
toolshed with the sun beating on the steel roof for ether was no
picnic... I doubt that Michaelson and Morley worked up that much
sweat looking for it...

denny

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
"I have considered the popular claim that the ether has been "abolished"
[...]. Reverting to experimental findings I have reviewed the experiment
of Sagnac, having in mind the claim that the ether can not be detected
experimentally. I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally
found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect
the ether."

Yes, that annoying fact, clocks slow when you place 'em on jet aircraft,
refuel the aircraft in flight, and make a few trips around the
circumference of the earth.

In my present state of thought, this directly relates to the speed of
light; further, I suspect, the ether is responsible in establishing the,
seeming, barrier of the speed of light. As you approach the speed of
light, things are not linear, you must apply magnitudes more energy
without corresponding gains in speed. And, although I tend to believe
the math which "proves" this, it ends up just another thing I fail to
completely be able to wrap my mind around. But, it seems at the speed
of light, traversing the ether with matter offers such a resistance to
the speed of matter, any further increases of speed are impossible--no
matter the amount of expenditure in energy ...

At this point, I am just happy to be in the company of others who will,
at least, accept the possibility of the ether, and the possibility it
can/does have real effects/affects on our material world.

Regards,
JS

Denny wrote:

...
Me neither... The old bull dozer refused to start and I hunted all
over the place for a can of ether... Didn't detect one either... Mind
you it was 92 degrees yesterday and rooting around through the
toolshed with the sun beating on the steel roof for ether was no
picnic... I doubt that Michaelson and Morley worked up that much
sweat looking for it...

denny


Denny:

If you should be fortunate enough to find/purchase a can of that
"ether", be careful not to breath the vapors--they may have a
detrimental effect on ones cognitive abilities! :-)

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:

In essence, these instruments indicate,
not measure.

A description which applies beautifully to power meters as well, don't
you agree? ;-)


No. Power meters to even uncommonly high accuracy still conform to
Newtonian mechanics.

So it is because of Newtonian mechanics that an RF power meter is
actually measuring power rather than indicating power. What is the
value gained by this strain on credulity?

The coy context of the thread was measuring the mass of a Photon.
Absolutely no SI Units have been named or any quantitative values
offered (the rather standard omission from claims made here).
However, feel free to introduce your own side thread's goal or even offer a
guess (your own quatitative value for the mass).

I'd like to offer m = E/c^2 as a guess.


The photo-electron appears to even depart from that.

I've often wondered how one might go about recognizing a
photo-electron out of a group of other, less prominent electrons? :-)

73, ac6xg