Commonly, people confuse Nichols Radiometer, which really works on light pressure, with Crookes Radiometer, that uses a weird sort of convection that only takes place in a partial vacuum. We know they are different because the net force on Nichol's Radiometer acts toward the more reflective side, in keeping with the light pressure principle; whereas, the net force acts toward the more absorptive side of Crookes Radiometer, in keeping with the weird-convection principle. Most people will argue that Nichol's Radiometer cannot produce a continuous force; they say that the force will vanish as it comes into thermal equilibrium with its environment.This may actually be true with some particular experimental setups however, it is not true if the vanes can effectively and passively transfer heat so to remain at about the same temperature: A Nichols Radiometer is bombarded by electromagnetic, equal but opposite light fluxes. The applied collision forces are equal and opposite as they act on the absorptive side and on the reflective side. There truly is no net force. There is a net energy impartation. yet the the vane is not moved by the impartation of this energy. The absorption of energy does not move the vane, because, even though energy is absorbed on one side, it re-radiates equally but oppositely from both sides; so again, we have forces negating each other. So where does the force come that causes the vane to move? In contrast to the re-emitting absorbed light, the reflecting light, as it rebounds, is both absorbed and rebounded from just one side; to summmarize: The impacting reflecting light and the impacting absorbing light cancel each others forces but impart energy to the radiometer. The re-emitting absorption energy is mostly absorbed on one sides but is mostly re-emitted equally from both sides, in one direction, in other words it negates its own forces.The reflecting light rebounds mostly from one side; thus, it produces an un-opposed force toward the more reflective side. Peter Milonni, (he is the "Go-to Guy" for this sort of thing) believes that re-emission of virtual photons is different and so this will not work; however, even he admits that the regularization scheme in his calculations, that eliminates "unwanted" infinities, is something of a case of wishful thinking that has become the accepted norm in QM circles. The moral of the story is not that this will necessarily work with the photons of the Quantum Flux; rather, the point is that equal and opposite em fluxes can provide energy , not forces, to fuel asymmetric reaction forces that are caused by the radiometer, not the uniform, omnidirectional thrust. Likewise, if materials can be made that are attracted to light, rather than repelled by light, then a metal sheet can exclude the wavelengths that we want to harness from its interior. One side can be pushed by its impacts with these tiny wavelengths (1-15 nm) while the opposite side can be pulled on by the equal and opposite em flux that is impinging on that side.For example, one side might be , pushed North while the opposite side is pulled North. Left-handed materials seem to have all the other predicted properties, but this has not been verified, since so far we have not produced such materials that will interact with smaller, sufficiently forceful wavelengths. Again, optical coatings a quarter-wavelength thick, bend light enough to cause more light to pass through a transparent material from one side than from the other side, even if the light fluxes are equal and opposite. Why would this not in principle work with the photons of the QF? This is the same sort of thinking, (not the same principle) as has to be accepted to believe that the wind rushing past the front of the sail, can pull the boat as much- or more- than the wind that is pushing on the back of the sail. Again, light exerts an axial force on matter by means of its transverse Lorentz forces, so there is no particular reason why light-suck on certain materials is not possible.
From: To: scott...@hotmail.com; Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:25:38 -0400 Subject: [Vo]:RE: Asymmetry Reaction is the key I agree you must alter the way matter reacts to the quantum flux but I remain convinced you must do this while transitioning between changes in quantum flux density – If energy density is not varying you don’t qualify for the relativistic effects which we need to exploit. I agree with your synopsis of the equal and opposing forces as the VP wink into and out of our 3d plane. I would however expand your synopsis to include the Heisenberg uncertainty principle where the cancelling forces do not occur simultaneously but rather cancels out over a short time period such that chaotic motion of gas is explained. We have been told these imbalances occur on such a tiny scale of space and time that Maxwell’s demon is mechanically impossible to implement. I happen to disagree with this assumption based on our shared relativistic concept that longer wavelength vacuum energy is not really displaced by Casimir suppression, but rather time itself varies with energy density whenever it is reduced (or increased) such that a tiny observer inside a specific Casimir geometry would still see the full wavelength while from his perspective that same wavelength would appear shorter or longer in surrounding regions where the cavity geometry changes. Notice that the tapestry of different Casimir geometries are all far lower than the density we experience at the macro scale and therefore all dilations would be accelerated instead of the more familiar retarded dilation where the Paradox Twin remains young relative to us. Notice also that our relativistic perspective amplifies the total energy available through time dilation. The gas atoms migrating through these dilation zones are blissfully unaware of their temporal space time translations and provide only the opportunity to exploit the differences between these stationary – adjacent regions of different energy density. I say “only” the opportunity because the translations themselves will seek to be conservative unless we do something to make the translations asymmetrical like translating between densities as atoms in one circumstance while translating as molecules for another. You also mentioned the analogy of stationary wind to the motion of electromagnetic radiation which I think needs to be examined slightly differently. Electromagnetic radiation exists in our 3D plane can explain solar cell collectors or even driving a tiny space elevator up a tether but you are still utilizing a standard source of directional energy. Virtual particles form a stream on the time axis but schemes that just try to put up sail between 3d matter and this stream won’t work – the stream is normally isotropic or varies at a slow gravitational gradient. To exploit the stream we need to utilize Casimir geometry to create an abrupt break in this isotropy where we are left with numerous stationary inertial frames similar to gravitational wells but with abrupt gradients formed by the geometry. An object inside the cavity inherits an equivalent gravitational energy courtesy of the geometry such that two tiny stationary observers displaced by only a few nanometers can be experiencing different levels of gravitational acceleration. RegardsFran From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 12:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Francis Roarty; Fran Roarty Subject: Asymmetry Reaction is the key In my more recent work, I am not talking about altering the Quantum Vacuum itself; rather, I am trying to alter the way matter reacts to the Quantum-flux. Granted, the expanding circle of the virtual photons as it winks-in is expanding in all directions, but it can only be pushing on a particular object in just one direction! But of course, the real problem is that different virtual photons are pushing equally on all sides of an object in equally in force but in opposite directions. Of course, if we were talking about using ambient "stationary" air pressure, it would take just as much- or more- energy to reduce the pressure on one side of an object than might be obtained from the resulting unbalanced forces. Fortunately, we are not dealing with air, but with electromagnetic radiation. The major difference is this, the only part of the flux that exerts any pressure on any material is those few vp's that wink-in immediately adjacent or even overlapping the surface of the material. As we have noted, the same flux is incident on opposite sides of an object, creating equal and opposite forces. There are at least five ways that we might potentially make objects that have asymmetric interactions with the equal but opposite radiation pressure that acts on two opposite sides of an object. For example, a radiometer is bathed in equal but (rotationally) opposite light sources, and all applied forces are equal and opposite; in other words, the absorbing light imparts the same amount of momentum as it strikes the one side of the radiometer as the reflecting light as it first strikes the opposite side of the radiometer. Here is where the net force comes from: on the one hand, absorbed radiation is always re-emitted as Black Body Radiation according to the temperature of a body; therefore, as long as we have good heat transfer between the two sides,both sides will re-emit the same amount of originally absorbed energy---even though most of this originally-absorbed energy was originally collected on the one, more-absorbent side. Therefore, the absorbed radiation is re-emitted fairly equally in opposite directions so it contributes zero net force. On the other hand, the reflected light rebounds (mostly) from one side only, so its rebound force is mostly unopposed, thus leaving us with a net force. Again, the applied forces are equal and opposite, but the object's reaction to these applied objects is asymmetrical. Now this does not prove that we can do such a thing with the Q-flux, but merely proves that the omni-directional, uniform nature of the Q-flux is not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle. Materials with negative refraction are likely to be attracted to the source of incident light instead of being pushed away from the source, as is usually seen. Again, this does not prove that we can do this with the Q-flux in practice, except in principle. Again, it is the axial Lorentz force that imparts the "momentum" of mass-less light to matter; again, we would not be altering the q-flux itself, but we would be altering the manners in which at least one side interacted with the Q-flux, as compared with the opposite side. In other words, one side would be pulled on by certain frequencies of the Q-flux while the opposite side was pushed-on by the normal radiation pressure of the same frequencies. The pressures wavelengths between 9 and 10 nm is greater than atmospheric pressure. We have had mirrors that reflect x-rays at very shallow angles for many years, so even tapping just photons at very shallow angles gives us a lot of pressure to work with. The small size of these wavelengths is not as daunting as they first appear. For example, high quality lenses are coated with a refractive coating that is only 0.25 wavelengths thick. They bend incident light that is approaching the lens at too shallow an angle, so that it passes through the lens at a more-perpendicular angle so as to not reflect off the surface of the lens to create glare inside the space in front of the lens. One nm is 10 typical atoms across; therefore, atoms are still small enough to work with at these scales, yet the quantum forces are great enough to be potentially very useful. Even hard x-rays are refracted by atoms that are 10 times larger than their wavelength (0.01nm.) From: froarty...@comcast.net To: scott...@hotmail.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Fran & Group: Please Reconsider the following pointTime-Frame-Based Casimir Effect Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:56:41 -0400Scott, I am not saying the perpendicularity prevents these virtual photons from exerting real forces – only that the forces divide equally between the 3 spatial axis unless you use another body or field that interacts with the photon in an asymmetrical manner –like tacking a sail boat to derive a different vector from the ambient wind direction by utilizing a rudder and centerboard between wind and wave. My issue with Vtec is that it seems like you are trying to pick yourself up by your hair – the forces you propose to exploit are sourced and sinked in the same v shaped geometry. That said I do agree these growing and contracting spheres do represent motion but they impart force equally into our spatial plane. I think gas motion is a perfect example of how these chaotic occurrences equal out to supply random forces that keeps gases expanded but without any specific spatial bias – just pressure. I don’t think you can reuse the same object that creates the pressure to steer itself.RegardsFran Wm. Scott Smith Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:57:05 -0700I agree that we can view virtual photons as expanding through our lower dimensional 3-di "Plane" I think of this expansion in terms of a photon "traveling" half a wavelength then disappearing. From any standpoint the Quantum Photon Flux is imparting momentum to matter (or else it doesn't matter anyway!)Furthermore, if we consider a photon flux from 3-space through 2-space, it is as you say, a dot appears to expand into a circle, then contract again into a dot and disappear.When a 4 or 4+ space sends photons through our 3-space, then these appearing-disappearing circles intersect every possible plane in our 3-space.I really don't see why this perpendicularity prevents these photons from exerting real forces in the many ways that have been attributed to the Quantum Flux. If you accept that there is an electromagnetic Q-Flux then you must acknowledge the possibility that it exerts radiation pressure on matter. If this is true, then my various proposals are very plausible.Incidentally, light in a medium other than space moves slow, yet imparts more momentum to a mirror that is located inside the medium; therefore, even a stationary photon may impart momentum to an adjacent surface in the direction of its propagation, since its action on matter is due to the transverse movement of the wave.Researchers have created materials that have negative (not fractional) indices of refraction, it is thought that light might exert tension on a material instead of pressure. Again, such light could only do this if its transverse field motion is what causes it momentum-effects.Again, I really think I can do this, but I really need help.Scott
