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?