The mathematics of hypothetical extraction of energy from the vacuum

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You cant use maths to try figure out free energy LOL its called Taurus energy

Yeah those numbers are pretty scary, especially I do not imagine that we fully fathom the consequences of extracting energy from a "vacuum". This energy may be miniscule in comparison to the energy found in matter, but this could be something very dangerous to mess around with. I'm imagining worst case scenario that space-time is completely thrown out of whack. Perhaps sensational, but we really need to take it easy with such ideas when we have feasible solutions such as hydro, solar, chemical reactions, etc.

Who knows, maybe there's a reason we don't use the wireless type of power that tesla was proposing. Maybe the atmosphere needs this energy to maintain proper balance so far as climate and deflecting coronal mass-ejections are concerned. Though using satellites that could harness the power of a CME would be an interesting and highly impressive prospect.

if any present day human was introduced to really advanced technology from the future you would certainly die out of shock/fear

Its actually over unity, more akin to the Electric Universe theory and gravity//magnetism. Earth is wired up like a capacitor and spins due to the way she's wired. Free energy is based on the spin of the planets, that do spin. The moon has no magnetic poles and doesnt. Venus same thing except they suddenly invented a reverse spin to hide this probably because science had taken that fork in the road and it was too obvious a pattern, if noted.

So its not stealing the energy.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Tesla had inventions to harness free energy and extract from the envioroment and space, pitty the government stole his most important patients.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I am unsure whether You have read the book, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, but it also has a bit about the energy extraction through electrogravitics, a science pulled into black ops in late 1959, early 1960, and also the math of subquantum kinetics, which grew out of chemical kinetics and predicts the Biefield-Brown effect of gravity control.

For more (and a link to a PDF of Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion) see My thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not sure why you're linking me to that thread, I was the 4th person to reply.

My apologies. I really put it out there for others. I guess I was unclear.

I've seen no evidence for electrogravitics and don't find the claims in that book to be credible as I said in your thread. Searle's story that his anti-gravity machine flew into outer space and that's why he can't demonstrate it is an absolute joke. When a book uses bunkum like that as evidence, it lends no credence to the author's critical thinking skills or ability to sort fact from fiction on the other claims.

Searle is a very small section in a very large book. You keep focusing on that one small bit. I HAVE seen evidence - in the work of T. Townsend Brown, and in My father's work (along with subquantum kinetics - which predicts exactly the electrogravitic effects) - of electrogravitics. Whether You believe or not does not make it not so. [shrug]

But I'm sure he's sold a lot of books to people who are happy to believe things with zero evidence.

You mean Searle with "zero evidence," right? The few pages out of 500+... Well, since there IS evidence, in the test results T. T. Brown performed and the math of subquantum kinetics, the rest of the book is fine.

I'm sure I could write a book about how unicorns are real, have zero evidence for the claim, and it would still sell. Maybe I could borrow Searle's trick and say I had a unicorn, but the reason I can't show it is because it flew into outer space? Or would that be stealing Searle's original idea too much?

There's LOTS of evidence for electrogravitics. Look into Brown's tests and results.

You know, snide does not become You.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Photons don't have rest mass but they are believed to have relativistic mass determined by their frequency, however this is so small I have never seen it demonstrated experimentally; I don't think it's been proven. But it seems pretty likely to be true, it's just too small an effect to measure with current technology.

Much of the doctrine and math surrounding the 'pressure of light' was created in the early 20th century by people who very much did not want the figure for this force to be large one (like Einstein). A lot of this was fought out over experiments using the Crookes and Nichols radiometer.

The major proof of this is claimed to be the fact that in high-vacuum, the Crookes radiometer will stop spinning, thus the interaction is a result of heated gas flow, not the pressure of light. It is consistently quoted in books and papers to this day that very low pressure = no spinning of the vanes.

I spent several days earlier this year trying to find a graph or some data showing the curve of pressure vs spin speed in a Crookes radiometer. I could not find any data for any effects aside the increase in speed as the pressure is lowered. In fact, the only written proof I could find of the deceleration assertion was from 1907 where the author claimed that in a total hydrogen atmosphere, the vanes would stop spinning. Considering how poor vacuum technology was at this time, I don't really consider this anecdotal account to be sufficient evidence.

Given that the Crookes radiometer's spin is the most obvious, mechanical and easy to perform experiment proving the negligible mass of light in motion - isn't it a bit odd that the graph proving this isn't quoted everywhere? Surely that graph should be one of the crowning achievements of experimental science?

Originally posted by CLPrime
The pressure exerted by EM radiation has been measured. This pressure is caused by the photons' momentum, which, itself, is due to their relativistic mass.

Local physical effects, like the spinning of vanes and the photoelectric effect, are not caused by 'relativistic mass', because 'relativistic mass' is a mathematical data transform, not a description of physical forces. I think you need to lay off the Penrose-pipe.

reply to post by yampa


The Crookes radiometer might have been thought to be evidence of the pressure of light at one time but the Wikipedia article dismisses that as a current explanation and provides the current explanations of how it works instead:

en.wikipedia.org...

Crookes incorrectly suggested that the force was due to the pressure of light. This theory was originally supported by James Clerk Maxwell, who had predicted this force. This explanation is still often seen in leaflets packaged with the device. The first experiment to disprove this theory was done by Arthur Schuster in 1876, who observed that there was a force on the glass bulb of the Crookes radiometer that was in the opposite direction to the rotation of the vanes. This showed that the force turning the vanes was generated inside the radiometer. If light pressure were the cause of the rotation, then the better the vacuum in the bulb, the less air resistance to movement, and the faster the vanes should spin. In 1901, with a better vacuum pump, Pyotr Lebedev showed that in fact, the radiometer only works when there is low pressure gas in the bulb, and the vanes stay motionless in a hard vacuum. Finally, if light pressure were the motive force, the radiometer would spin in the opposite direction, as the photons on the shiny side being reflected would deposit more momentum than on the black side where the photons are absorbed. The actual pressure exerted by light is far too small to move these vanes, but can be measured with devices such as the Nichols radiometer.

note "The actual pressure exerted by light is far too small to move these vanes". It seems to me you're at least a few decades behind current scientific knowledge, maybe more.

The wikipedia article also explains the curve of pressure inside the crookes radiometer and the optimal pressure for maximum rotation. Higher than that and friction is a problem, lower than that and lack of molecules is a problem for attaining maximum rotation.

CLPrime pointed out that I didn't really say what I meant to say, which is that it's the gravitational attraction of photons which has never been demonstrated. As that wikipedia quote points out, it's not the crooke's radiometer that shows evidence of the EM "pressure" but rather the Nichols Radiometer

With this apparatus the experimenters were able to obtain an agreement between observed and computed radiation pressures within about 0.6 %. The original apparatus is at the Smithsonian Institution.[1]

This apparatus is sometimes confused with the Crookes radiometer of 1873

Did you just get the two types of radiometers confused as that suggests?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
"This apparatus is sometimes confused with the Crookes radiometer of 1873"

Did you just get the two types of radiometers confused as that suggests?

No, the physical differences between the mechanisms are obvious (but they really aren't all that different).

The thing I'm confused about is the lack of proper data on this subject. You will note that there is no citation for that 10-6 torr cutoff figure on Wikipedia (this figure is quoted without citation in many places).

Surely this should be a classic undergrad experiment for any physics or chemistry student? Take an off-the-shelf Crookes radiometer, drill a hole in it, stick it in oil-sealed rotary pump + diffusion pump, take it down to 10-6 torr, graph the rise and fall and eventual cessation of the rotation.
Why aren't there youtube videos and many undergrad performances of this experiment? Where is the graph in various physics books?

I'm not saying it does or doesn't stop, or denying whether it slows under high vacuum. I'm asking, where is the data on this?

The mention of Pyotr Lebedev's experiment on Wikipedia is false if they're talking about his 1901 paper. I read it first time around and I see nothing which backs the assertion that he created a high enough vacuum to stop the rotation of the veins.
pdf:
web.ihep.su...

The link to the 1933 paper by Mary Bell and S E Green linked on the Crookes Radiometer Wikipedia article actually covers a device which looks a lot more like a Nichols radiometer, due to the suspension via quartz fibre. I can't read the whole paper because it costs $33 to view it (this from a physics charity supposedly dedicated to scientific advancement).
iopscience.iop.org...

But what is said in the abstract is ambiguous to my eye. Did the veins ever stop spinning at 10-6 torr in these experiments?:

"The latter experiments, not yet completed, involved radiation-pressure determinations made with a vane suspended in a vacuum sufficiently high for radiometer action to be completely eliminated. "

"With all the vanes, gas action had practically vanished at a pressure of 10-6 mm. of mercury. Under these conditions, measurements of radiation pressure, using glass and mica vanes, were found to give results in agreement with the energy-density of the radiation to within ± 7 per cent.

So they are still measuring rotation here.. Why is this on the Wikipedia article about the Crookes radiometer? Why are they only using glass and mica as an example of reflecting vanes? both these materials are transparent.

A fun quote from this paper regarding the calculations in the Hull and Nichols radiometer experiments (which are often quoted as proof of the real pressure of light):

While the above preliminary experiments were in progress the errors of calculation occurring in Nichols and Hull's paper dagger on radiation pressure were noticed..... With each vane a considerable range of radiation-intensities was employed, the maximum deflections of the suspensions under the influence of the radiation-pressure being up to 10 or 15 times those obtained by Nichols and Hull

Another abstract from the same journal, this time, a paper from 1977:
iopscience.iop.org...

The motion of a Crookes radiometer is calculated both in a good vacuum and in a poor one. It is found that the sense of rotation in a perfect vacuum depends on the angle between the vertical and the direction of the light source, while for the imperfect vacuum the push exerted by gas molecules is dominant, even though most of the energy lost is radiated away.

This is the paper quoted on Wikipedia:

On Radiometer Action and the Pressure of Radiation by Mary Bell & S.E Green 1933

I realise you guys are more interested in romancing infinites, speechifying about unobserved wormholes, and babbling about how much energy you can get from a nothing, but if someone could establish (using data) how a $200 earth-bound vacuum experiment actually behaves in relation to real electromagnetic energy, that would be great!

If you guys are so sure of your physics, why is one the primary experiments on highly typical EM energy transfer always loaded with assertions which have no data (namely, cessation of Crookes radiometer rotation at high vacuum).

I now see that a 'platinized glass' is actually a semi reflective mirror. So not such a bad choice.

Originally posted by yampa
The thing I'm confused about is the lack of proper data on this subject. You will note that there is no citation for that 10-6 torr cutoff figure on Wikipedia (this figure is quoted without citation in many places).

I don't think you looked too hard. Wikipedia cites a 1901 experiment by Pyotr Lebedev:

en.wikipedia.org...

Pyotr Lebedev showed that in fact, the radiometer only works when there is low pressure gas in the bulb, and the vanes stay motionless in a hard vacuum.

you can even buy the book here with his data:
www.manhattanrarebooks-science.com...

Or if that's too rich for your blood, this is probably a better alternative:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
That's the first page with a link to the pdf.

I'm not saying it does or doesn't stop, or denying whether it slows under high vacuum. I'm asking, where is the data on this?

Now you know.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't think you looked too hard. Wikipedia cites a 1901 experiment by Pyotr Lebedev:

This is the second time you've quoted this assertion, apparently without checking it yourself. You've pointlessly linked to a rare original copy of the paper and a single page pdf of the same written in German. Are you engaging in misdirection on purpose?

I have already said:
a) I've read this paper already (twice)
b) I've provided a link to the pdf of the whole paper in full, in English.

As far as I can see, there is NO mention in this paper of Lebedev producing a vacuum strong enough to cause the vanes to stop rotating. Quote to prove me wrong, if you like.

Again, here is Pyotr Lebedev's full 1901 paper from Annalen der Physik in pdf, in English:
web.ihep.su...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Now you know.

Yes, now I know that you will wilfully engage in mental gymnastics rather than spend time reading actual physical science.

reply to post by yampa

I looked up on this radiometer and found that the cause of the rotation is called thermal transpiration or thermal creep and the reason the vanes stop spinning is because once all air is removed then there is no air molecules to move the vane. Why would you want a data sheet on something so logical?

Originally posted by Aletheia007
reply to post by yampa

 

I looked up on this radiometer and found that the cause of the rotation is called thermal transpiration or thermal creep and the reason the vanes stop spinning is because once all air is removed then there is no air molecules to move the vane. Why would you want a data sheet on something so logical?

edit on 22-12-2011 by Aletheia007 because: (no reason given)

I am not confused about the existing theories. I understand their theories and the history that they stem from. I just can't find any evidence that a Crookes radiometer stops spinning at high vacuum. I can see what is written on Wikipedia and I'm calling a 'citation needed' on it. Do you have a source for the experiment which displays this phenomena? I have looked. It's quite remarkable that this data is not readily on hand.

reply to post by yampa

Enjoy
I hope the above link is what u looking for

and another link showing it experimentally avspublications.org...

edit on 22-12-2011 by Aletheia007 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Aletheia007
reply to post by yampa

 

Enjoy
I hope the above link is what u looking for

and another link showing it experimentally avspublications.org...

Unfortunately not, no. Neither the model or the abstract from the paper you have linked to says anything about the pressures at which these things stop spinning (I have actually read that abstract before). I can't read the whole paper, but thank you for making the effort to look anyway.

The idea that the EM interactions occurring in these devices have been fully mapped and understood - like the Wolfram blurb implies - does not hold water imo. The fact that the author has included misdirection about the absorption of black surfaces is telling, as many experiments have been done showing that atypical vane configurations work just as well (all-gold nanocrystal vanes was a particularly nice demonstration).

Originally posted by R3KR
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

Thats is one of the funniest videos I have ever seen! Thanks
PS: Wonder how that guy did it with out laughing!

His avatar is pretty good too.

reply to post by yampa


Really?

In 2010 researchers at the University of California, Berkeley succeeded in building a nanoscale light mill that works on an entirely different principle to the Crookes radiometer. A gammadion shaped gold light mill, only 100 nanometers in diameter, was built and illuminated by laser light that had been tuned to have an angular momentum. The possibility of doing this had been suggested by the Princeton physicist Richard Beth in 1936. The torque was greatly enhanced by the resonant coupling of the incident light to plasmonic waves in the gold structure.

are you trying to compare apples with oranges?

The success of this new light mill stems from the fact that the force exerted on matter by light can be enhanced in a metallic nanostructure when the frequencies of the incident light waves are resonant with the metal’s plasmons - surface waves that roll through a metal’s conduction electrons. Zhang and his colleagues fashioned a gammadion-shaped light mill type of nanomotor out of gold that was structurally designed to maximize the interactions between light and matter. The metamaterial-style structure also induced orbital angular momentum on the light that in turn imposed a torque on the nanomotor.

I dont see thermal creep being used as the the motors source of power do you? as the 1st paragraph says the light mill works on an entirely different principal than the crookes radiometer

That isn't the paper I was talking about, no. If you disagree that this is a similar device, then you should remove the link from Wikipedia?

But even if I were talking about your experiment, the comparison between what is happening in a regular Crookes radiometer and what is happening in the Berkeley paper is hardly 'apples and oranges' - they are both caused by photon collisions, they are both quantum electromagnetic interactions leading to physical motion of a wavelength-tuned vane. You say 'plasmon resonance', I say 'particles hitting other particles'. Either way, that's a pretty nice looking nanoscale device.

“We have demonstrated a plasmonic motor only 100 nanometers in size that when illuminated with linearly polarized light can generate a torque sufficient to drive a micrometre-sized silica disk 4,000 times larger in volume,”

www.physorg.com...

^next time a Standard Model evangelist tries to tell you the pressure of light is negligible, ask them how it is able to do the above?

Cool photo from that article:


No, the paper I am talking about is the one just above yours on Wikipedia: the 'All-black light mill' published by University of Texas, Austin. This was a monocolored light mill, with vanes around 1mm high. That paper strongly claims the major causative factor in the rotation is gas based - just like conventional theory.

Here is the paper I was referring to (pdf):
lihsinhan17research.com...

You will see:

"Because the light mill ceases to spin at lower pressure, we conclude that the observed rotation does not stem from Yarkovsky effect, namely, the recoil momentum from thermally irradiated photons."

So, great. Here we have a modern experiment which is about to give us the data showing when the light mill stops rotating under high vacuum, right? Wrong. For some reason, they have decided not to include this information in their graph (page 9):



So, again, the assertion about the stopped vanes is there, but the data is not. Also note, the second graph has a constant intensity of 1.2 mW/cm^2. But in the graph above, we can see that a 5 mW beam can multiply the RPM by 5 times at 400 mTorr. That means there is the possibility that a 5 mW beam could have been spinning the device at 1000 RPM at the lowest pressure they measured. 1000 RPM is not exactly stopped, is it?

This is what 1000 RPM looks like:

reply to post by yampa


and i thought u understood basic physics.

porous plate is kept hotter on one side than the other, the interactions between gas molecules and the plates are such that gas will flow through from the cooler to the hotter side. The vanes of a typical Crookes radiometer are not porous, but the space past their edges behaves like the pores in Reynolds's plate. On average, the gas molecules move from the cold side toward the hot side whenever the pressure ratio is less than the square root of the (absolute) temperature ratio. The pressure difference causes the vane to move, cold (white) side forward.

I dont see photon collisions being the source.....it is infrared or heat that drives the gas molecules and as the molescules of air gets pumped out less molecules are hitting the vane therefore will eventually stop turning.

Crookes incorrectly suggested that the force was due to the pressure of light. This theory was originally supported by James Clerk Maxwell, who had predicted this force. This explanation is still often seen in leaflets packaged with the device. The first experiment to disprove this theory was done by Arthur Schuster in 1876, who observed that there was a force on the glass bulb of the Crookes radiometer that was in the opposite direction to the rotation of the vanes. This showed that the force turning the vanes was generated inside the radiometer. If light pressure were the cause of the rotation, then the better the vacuum in the bulb, the less air resistance to movement, and the faster the vanes should spin. In 1901, with a better vacuum pump, Pyotr Lebedev showed that in fact, the radiometer only works when there is low pressure gas in the bulb, and the vanes stay motionless in a hard vacuum. Finally, if light pressure were the motive force, the radiometer would spin in the opposite direction, as the photons on the shiny side being reflected would deposit more momentum than on the black side where the photons are absorbed. The actual pressure exerted by light is far too small to move these vanes, but can be measured with devices such as the Nichols radiometer.