|
|
| Author |
Message |
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151663100.616780.87120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff1.jpg
| Quote: | Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151576040.181776.105150@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
The easy test to prove you wrong is to extend the smoke tube to
the limit of the housing inner and bend it back so that the smoke
stream points directly at the housing center.
It won't take long. Prepare yourself for the worst.
Nice idea!
Good luck, Max!
|
Thank you.
The very first puff of smoke which emerged from the tube end, drew
away from the tube in a similar fashion to that shown in the first
image. It moved in an anticlockwise direction, relative to the
clockwise rotating housing as viewed from the strobe light position.
That is of course the direction that the air mass would be driven
by the gravity anisotropy. But it was only a wisp of smoke that
didn't show up clearly in the movie clip. This snapshot was taken
within a few seconds of that event. There's no doubt that the air
within the housing was already in motion, as predicted.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff1.jpg
This next image was extracted from the movie clip after a minute
or so running time had elapsed. Apart from the build up of smoke
in the housing, there were no apparent changes.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff2.jpg
It is now quite obvious that centrifugal forces have pushed the
higher density smoke/air cloud outward to accumulate in a ring at
the outermost radius within the housing, which fairly quickly
narrows as the air is squeezed out from the smoke/air cloud. The
obvious problem now is that the smoke/air cloud tangential velocity
when it left the tube end was slower than the air mass that it has
displaced at the outer rim. And that could still apply an
anticlockwise drive to the air mass. The air mass which has been
displaced, necessarily into an area of lesser tangential velocity,
will tend to counteract the smoke/air cloud drive. But the slightly
higher density smoke/air cloud will dominate.
The next step is just to tidy up the experiment and inject
the smoke at the radius of highest tangential velocity.
Which shouldn't present too much of a problem.
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:22 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
| Quote: | "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151663100.616780.87120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff1.jpg
Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151576040.181776.105150@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
The easy test to prove you wrong is to extend the smoke tube to
the limit of the housing inner and bend it back so that the smoke
stream points directly at the housing center.
It won't take long. Prepare yourself for the worst.
Nice idea!
Good luck, Max!
Thank you.
The very first puff of smoke which emerged from the tube end, drew
away from the tube in a similar fashion to that shown in the first
image. It moved in an anticlockwise direction, relative to the
clockwise rotating housing as viewed from the strobe light position.
That is of course the direction that the air mass would be driven
by the gravity anisotropy. But it was only a wisp of smoke that
didn't show up clearly in the movie clip. This snapshot was taken
within a few seconds of that event. There's no doubt that the air
within the housing was already in motion, as predicted.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff1.jpg
This next image was extracted from the movie clip after a minute
or so running time had elapsed. Apart from the build up of smoke
in the housing, there were no apparent changes.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff2.jpg
It is now quite obvious that centrifugal forces have pushed the
higher density smoke/air cloud outward to accumulate in a ring at
the outermost radius within the housing, which fairly quickly
narrows as the air is squeezed out from the smoke/air cloud. The
obvious problem now is that the smoke/air cloud tangential velocity
when it left the tube end was slower than the air mass that it has
displaced at the outer rim. And that could still apply an
anticlockwise drive to the air mass. The air mass which has been
displaced, necessarily into an area of lesser tangential velocity,
will tend to counteract the smoke/air cloud drive. But the slightly
higher density smoke/air cloud will dominate.
The next step is just to tidy up the experiment and inject
the smoke at the radius of highest tangential velocity.
Which shouldn't present too much of a problem.
|
Let me see if I understand the still photos correctly. Perspective
makes it a little difficult for me to be sure that I'm interpreting
them properly.
First, a couple of questions:
1) It looks to me as if the tube is constricted from the bend, i.e.
a bit kinked? Does this kink make it difficult to blow the smoke at
significant velocity?
2) Also, is the bend of the tube mostly within the plane of
rotation because of space limitations, or am I misinterpreting the
photo because of perspective? What is the diameter of the tube,
versus the width of the gap between the two walls of the housing?
OK, to make sure that we are on the same page in interpreting
the photos:
1) Seeping out slowly from the end of the tube, the smoke slowly
"falls" towards the rim because of centrifugal effects.
2) The "falling" smoke accumulates in a bulk mass "behind" the
tube.
3) My interpretation of puff2.jpg is this:
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/images/Keon_June_30_2006.jpg
Is my interpretation correct?
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
| Quote: | This next image was extracted from the movie clip after a minute
or so running time had elapsed. Apart from the build up of smoke
in the housing, there were no apparent changes.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff2.jpg
It is now quite obvious that centrifugal forces have pushed the
higher density smoke/air cloud outward to accumulate in a ring at
the outermost radius within the housing, which fairly quickly
narrows as the air is squeezed out from the smoke/air cloud.
|
I'm trying to understand puff2.jpg in terms of both the gravitational
anisotropy theory and in terms of Coriolis effect plus centrifugal
force acting on dense smoke. I'm wondering if the kink in the tube is
inducing turbulence in the outgoing stream. It doesn't look like what
I would expect from laminar flow.
Could you supply a photo of the output stream with the rotor at rest?
I rather expect the output stream to be somewhat divergent.
Thanks,
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bilge
science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Jerry:
It looks more or less correct (except that you are using the term
``coriolis effect,'' in a somewhat unsual way, but I think I know
what you mean. If so, it can be made rigorous).
You need a method with more power than iterating your way intuitively
from the center outward, though. The right tool for the job is statistical
mechanics. The partition function in the limit of maxwell-boltzmann statistics
is just Z = A exp(-\beta H), where \beta = 1/kT, H is the hamiltonian,
and A is a statistical factor (which is irrelevant here).
If the system contains n_i molecules having an energy E_i, the
hamiltonian is just the sum of the energies x the number of molecules with
an energy E_i, \sum n_i E_i. You can now apply the transformation between
rotating and stationary frames to get the hamiltonian that contains your
coriolis force (in the form of a potential energy function) and a
centrifugal potential.
The thermodynamic quantities then follow from taking the derivative of
the natural log of the partition function. For example, <E> = dln(Z)/dbeta.
I can do this in more detail when I have a little more time to write it
all out. That gives the steady-state result. If you want to know how the
energy dissipates once the rotation stops, you have to do more (and I'm
quite certain that max would be flabbergasted if what he needs to do ever
sank in). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:58 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Bilge wrote:
| Quote: | Jerry:
Bilge, could you critique my analysis? As you know, I'm not a
physics student, I'm a med student, so math isn't really my strong
suit.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ed6c16c81daf6ba5
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/60fbd8ce773fca59
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c3c47bd979e8816f
It looks more or less correct (except that you are using the term
``coriolis effect,'' in a somewhat unsual way, but I think I know
what you mean. If so, it can be made rigorous).
You need a method with more power than iterating your way intuitively
from the center outward, though. The right tool for the job is statistical
mechanics. The partition function in the limit of maxwell-boltzmann statistics
is just Z = A exp(-\beta H), where \beta = 1/kT, H is the hamiltonian,
and A is a statistical factor (which is irrelevant here).
If the system contains n_i molecules having an energy E_i, the
hamiltonian is just the sum of the energies x the number of molecules with
an energy E_i, \sum n_i E_i. You can now apply the transformation between
rotating and stationary frames to get the hamiltonian that contains your
coriolis force (in the form of a potential energy function) and a
centrifugal potential.
The thermodynamic quantities then follow from taking the derivative of
the natural log of the partition function. For example, <E> = dln(Z)/dbeta.
I can do this in more detail when I have a little more time to write it
all out. That gives the steady-state result. If you want to know how the
energy dissipates once the rotation stops, you have to do more (and I'm
quite certain that max would be flabbergasted if what he needs to do ever
sank in).
|
I've never seen an explanation that went down to molecular levels
before. All the explanations of Coriolis effect that I've seen have
been at the macroscopic level.
Since this obviously a complex system that is governed not just by
Coriolis effect, but viscosity, centrifugal force, and density
differences as well, I would have thought the proper tool for a full
analysis might be through supercomputer simulations solving the
complete Navier-Stokes equations... just kidding! :-)
But look at these results!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first link is to one of Max's photographs
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff2.jpg
and this second link is my interpretation of the photograph.
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/images/Keon_June_30_2006.jpg
This first result of Max's bending the smoke tube so as to direct
the smoke inwards was completely unexpected, and shows the dense
smoke being flung outwards by centrifugal effects rather than blowing
inwards as I expected. But "sinking" smoke should not show Coriolis
deflection. So why is the smoke collecting "behind" the smoke tube?
Something very complicated is going on, and this photo is not very
useful for distinguishing between gravitational anisotropy and
Coriolis effect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a link to another of Max's photographs with a much simpler
interpretation
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokon.jpg
and here a link to my interpretation
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/images/Keon_smokeon.jpg
The evidence is totally against any rotation of the air within the
housing.
Note how the air collects in a big cloud behind the smoke tube...if
the air were rotating in the housing, the cloud would be blown away.
Note also how the dense cloud spreads both forwards and back. If the
air were rotating in the housing as rapidly Max seems to think, there
is simply no way that the cloud could be spreading forward of the
smoke tube.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the air in the housing must be stationary with respect to the
housing, and the deflections that Max observes must be from Coriolis
effect.
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:58 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Jerry wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Something very complicated is going on, and this photo is not very
useful for distinguishing between gravitational anisotropy and
Coriolis effect.
|
Why pretend a finite propogation speed for gravitation would manifest
itself in only his experiment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bilge
science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:22 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Jerry:
| Quote: | Since this obviously a complex system that is governed not just by
Coriolis effect, but viscosity, centrifugal force, and density
differences as well, I would have thought the proper tool for a full
analysis might be through supercomputer simulations solving the
complete Navier-Stokes equations... just kidding! 
|
I don't know why you are just kidding. Understanding the precise
dynamics of such a system is a very tricky business and in this case,
one must invoke the navier-stokes relations, if only to find how to
approximate the flow in terms of phenomenology (like reynolds numbers,
diffusion processes, viscosities, etc.). The bottom line is that
(1) The rotating system is essentially a centrifuge. You can find
thermodynamic parameters such as the pressure, density, etc. as a
function of the radius for the rotating system. in fact, you can
probably locate a worked example using statistical mechanics on the
internet somewhere. (2) the collisions between the air molecules and
the smoke particles are random. While lots of collisions will cause the
smoke particles slow down their circular rotation, lots of other
collisions will do the opposite. The net difference in the number
of collisions in different directions is what slows the smoke particles
down. (Think brownian motion). (3) The smoke particles are 1000-5000
more massive than an air molecule, so not only does the random nature
of the collisions end up requiring a lot of collisions to have an
overall net effect, the large difference in mass multiplies that
number a thousand-fold+.
[...]
| Quote: | inwards as I expected. But "sinking" smoke should not show Coriolis
deflection. So why is the smoke collecting "behind" the smoke tube?
Something very complicated is going on,
|
Very complicated? Yes. That is why weather forecasting only works
over short time intervals. Even then, it is somewhat of an art despite
the rotation of the earth being very stable and information from detailed
measurements of wind speeds and other factors can be extremely precise.
| Quote: | and this photo is not very useful for distinguishing between gravitational
anisotropy and Coriolis effect.
|
If it were some anisotropy, changing the rotation direction ought to
give results that differ eyond what would be expected for the change in
rotation direction. That is what anisotropy means - a direction dependent
effect. Basically, a detailed analysis is hard, but the gross features can
be deduced from general principles. Since max has done no analysis what-
soever, let alone a detailed one, he is wasting everyone's time, including
his own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bilge
science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:30 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Eric Gisse:
| Quote: |
Jerry wrote:
[...]
Something very complicated is going on, and this photo is not very
useful for distinguishing between gravitational anisotropy and
Coriolis effect.
Why pretend a finite propogation speed for gravitation would manifest
itself in only his experiment?
|
Like other cranks, max follows the principle: ``Today - halliday and
resnick, page 1. Tomorrow, a nobel prize.'' As soon as the reality that
a real calculation is hard, sets in, it's time to invent new physics
to avoid that reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:05 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151742156.398859.120080@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Max Keon wrote:
The very first puff of smoke which emerged from the tube end, drew
away from the tube in a similar fashion to that shown in the first
image. It moved in an anticlockwise direction, relative to the
clockwise rotating housing as viewed from the strobe light position.
That is of course the direction that the air mass would be driven
by the gravity anisotropy. But it was only a wisp of smoke that
didn't show up clearly in the movie clip. This snapshot was taken
within a few seconds of that event. There's no doubt that the air
within the housing was already in motion, as predicted.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff1.jpg
This next image was extracted from the movie clip after a minute
or so running time had elapsed. Apart from the build up of smoke
in the housing, there were no apparent changes.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff2.jpg
It is now quite obvious that centrifugal forces have pushed the
higher density smoke/air cloud outward to accumulate in a ring at
the outermost radius within the housing, which fairly quickly
narrows as the air is squeezed out from the smoke/air cloud. The
obvious problem now is that the smoke/air cloud tangential velocity
when it left the tube end was slower than the air mass that it has
displaced at the outer rim. And that could still apply an
anticlockwise drive to the air mass. The air mass which has been
displaced, necessarily into an area of lesser tangential velocity,
will tend to counteract the smoke/air cloud drive. But the slightly
higher density smoke/air cloud will dominate.
Let me see if I understand the still photos correctly. Perspective
makes it a little difficult for me to be sure that I'm interpreting
them properly.
First, a couple of questions:
1) It looks to me as if the tube is constricted from the bend, i.e.
a bit kinked? Does this kink make it difficult to blow the smoke at
significant velocity?
2) Also, is the bend of the tube mostly within the plane of
rotation because of space limitations, or am I misinterpreting the
photo because of perspective? What is the diameter of the tube,
versus the width of the gap between the two walls of the housing?
|
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravdim.jpg should serve the
purpose.
| Quote: | OK, to make sure that we are on the same page in interpreting
the photos:
1) Seeping out slowly from the end of the tube, the smoke slowly
"falls" towards the rim because of centrifugal effects.
2) The "falling" smoke accumulates in a bulk mass "behind" the
tube.
3) My interpretation of puff2.jpg is this:
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/images/Keon_June_30_2006.jpg
Is my interpretation correct?
|
The smoke tube body contacts the inner boundary of the rotating
housing. The other problem is in how you picture the smoke will
behave after injection into the housing.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/ganmovy.html is the best
possible description I can muster.
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
| Quote: | "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151742156.398859.120080@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Let me see if I understand the still photos correctly. Perspective
makes it a little difficult for me to be sure that I'm interpreting
them properly.
First, a couple of questions:
1) It looks to me as if the tube is constricted from the bend, i.e.
a bit kinked? Does this kink make it difficult to blow the smoke at
significant velocity?
2) Also, is the bend of the tube mostly within the plane of
rotation because of space limitations, or am I misinterpreting the
photo because of perspective? What is the diameter of the tube,
versus the width of the gap between the two walls of the housing?
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravdim.jpg should serve the
purpose.
|
OK,
1) The tube is not kinked, it only appeared that way as a result
of perspective effects.
2) The tube is symmetrically centered in the housing, with air
gaps to either side.
| Quote: | OK, to make sure that we are on the same page in interpreting
the photos:
1) Seeping out slowly from the end of the tube, the smoke slowly
"falls" towards the rim because of centrifugal effects.
2) The "falling" smoke accumulates in a bulk mass "behind" the
tube.
3) My interpretation of puff2.jpg is this:
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/images/Keon_June_30_2006.jpg
Is my interpretation correct?
The smoke tube body contacts the inner boundary of the rotating
housing. The other problem is in how you picture the smoke will
behave after injection into the housing.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/ganmovy.html is the best
possible description I can muster.
|
1) Are the photos in ganmovy.html of smoke injected while the
housing is IN MOTION? What is the rotational velocity of the housing,
and can you estimate the exit velocity of the smoke?
2) Chamber 1 is where the J tube exits, correct?
3) Chambers 8 and 2 flank the J tube, correct?
4) Smoke from chamber 1 pushes both ahead, into chamber 8, as well
as behind, into chamber 2, correct?
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Bilge wrote:
| Quote: | Jerry:
Since this obviously a complex system that is governed not just by
Coriolis effect, but viscosity, centrifugal force, and density
differences as well, I would have thought the proper tool for a full
analysis might be through supercomputer simulations solving the
complete Navier-Stokes equations... just kidding! :-)
I don't know why you are just kidding.
|
Because if we focus on the essentials of the experiment and look only
at the small volume of laminar flow, where the initial velocity of
the air stream has not gotten broken up by turbulence, we ought to be
able to come up with a simple, relatively intuitive explanation that
Max will accept, using math much simpler than what would be needed
for a general solution.
As Lawrence Krauss notes, there are many times when it is sufficient
to model a cow as a simple sphere.
| Quote: | Understanding the precise
dynamics of such a system is a very tricky business and in this case,
one must invoke the navier-stokes relations, if only to find how to
approximate the flow in terms of phenomenology (like reynolds numbers,
diffusion processes, viscosities, etc.). The bottom line is that
(1) The rotating system is essentially a centrifuge. You can find
thermodynamic parameters such as the pressure, density, etc. as a
function of the radius for the rotating system. in fact, you can
probably locate a worked example using statistical mechanics on the
internet somewhere. (2) the collisions between the air molecules and
the smoke particles are random. While lots of collisions will cause the
smoke particles slow down their circular rotation, lots of other
collisions will do the opposite. The net difference in the number
of collisions in different directions is what slows the smoke particles
down. (Think brownian motion). (3) The smoke particles are 1000-5000
more massive than an air molecule, so not only does the random nature
of the collisions end up requiring a lot of collisions to have an
overall net effect, the large difference in mass multiplies that
number a thousand-fold+.
|
I'm not sure that focusing on individual smoke particles is correct.
True, a smoke particle is several thousand times as massive as a
single air molecule, but any individual smoke particle is surrounded
by many thousands (millions?) of times its volume of carbon dioxide-
enriched gases, whose mass should dominate under normal circumstances.
Ideally, a smoke particle should be acting merely as just a test
particle, making visible the motions of the gases surrounding it.
| Quote: | [...]
inwards as I expected. But "sinking" smoke should not show Coriolis
deflection. So why is the smoke collecting "behind" the smoke tube?
Something very complicated is going on,
Very complicated? Yes. That is why weather forecasting only works
over short time intervals. Even then, it is somewhat of an art despite
the rotation of the earth being very stable and information from detailed
measurements of wind speeds and other factors can be extremely precise.
and this photo is not very useful for distinguishing between gravitational
anisotropy and Coriolis effect.
If it were some anisotropy, changing the rotation direction ought to
give results that differ eyond what would be expected for the change in
rotation direction. That is what anisotropy means - a direction dependent
effect. Basically, a detailed analysis is hard, but the gross features can
be deduced from general principles. Since max has done no analysis what-
soever, let alone a detailed one, he is wasting everyone's time, including
his own.
|
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151842121.171666.68460@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151742156.398859.120080@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Let me see if I understand the still photos correctly. Perspective
makes it a little difficult for me to be sure that I'm interpreting
them properly.
First, a couple of questions:
1) It looks to me as if the tube is constricted from the bend, i.e.
a bit kinked? Does this kink make it difficult to blow the smoke at
significant velocity?
2) Also, is the bend of the tube mostly within the plane of
rotation because of space limitations, or am I misinterpreting the
photo because of perspective? What is the diameter of the tube,
versus the width of the gap between the two walls of the housing?
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravdim.jpg should serve the
purpose.
OK,
1) The tube is not kinked, it only appeared that way as a result
of perspective effects.
2) The tube is symmetrically centered in the housing, with air
gaps to either side.
OK, to make sure that we are on the same page in interpreting
the photos:
1) Seeping out slowly from the end of the tube, the smoke slowly
"falls" towards the rim because of centrifugal effects.
2) The "falling" smoke accumulates in a bulk mass "behind" the
tube.
3) My interpretation of puff2.jpg is this:
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/images/Keon_June_30_2006.jpg
Is my interpretation correct?
The smoke tube body contacts the inner boundary of the rotating
housing. The other problem is in how you picture the smoke will
behave after injection into the housing.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/ganmovy.html is the best
possible description I can muster.
1) Are the photos in ganmovy.html of smoke injected while the
housing is IN MOTION?
|
Yes. In reasonably constant motion. It will be constant next run.
| Quote: | What is the rotational velocity of the housing,
|
Close to 15 r/sec.
| Quote: | and can you estimate the exit velocity of the smoke?
|
For this test it was necessary to quickly pump a reasonable quantity
of smoke into the chamber so that it would easily be detected by
the CCD camera when it was located at the furthest chamber in the
anticlockwise direction from the smoke injection point, as viewed
from the strobe light end. The smoke flow rate was set at around
200 mm/sec.
| Quote: | 2) Chamber 1 is where the J tube exits, correct?
|
Yes.
| Quote: | 3) Chambers 8 and 2 flank the J tube, correct?
|
Yes.
| Quote: | 4) Smoke from chamber 1 pushes both ahead, into chamber 8, as well
as behind, into chamber 2, correct?
|
That's hardly surprising considering the 12 degree, clockwise, smoke
injection angle. Centrifugal forces quickly send the smoke to the
outer boundary of the housing chamber, where the smoke then
naturally spreads around the inner rim in both directions. One would
expect the smoke to spread more in the pointing direction of the
smoke injection though, which is clockwise. That clearly doesn't
happen.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/8g.jpg shows a very dense smoke
cloud which has entered the chamber from the adjoining chamber where
the smoke injection took place. That was almost as far it progressed
before it was halted and sent back in the anticlockwise direction.
The smoke trail arrived from the anticlockwise direction four and a
half seconds later.
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:16 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrneaemge.5j.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
| Quote: | Jerry:
Since this obviously a complex system that is governed not just by
Coriolis effect, but viscosity, centrifugal force, and density
differences as well, I would have thought the proper tool for a full
analysis might be through supercomputer simulations solving the
complete Navier-Stokes equations... just kidding! :-)
I don't know why you are just kidding. Understanding the precise
dynamics of such a system is a very tricky business and in this case,
one must invoke the navier-stokes relations, if only to find how to
approximate the flow in terms of phenomenology (like reynolds numbers,
diffusion processes, viscosities, etc.). The bottom line is that
(1) The rotating system is essentially a centrifuge. You can find
thermodynamic parameters such as the pressure, density, etc. as a
function of the radius for the rotating system. in fact, you can
probably locate a worked example using statistical mechanics on the
internet somewhere. (2) the collisions between the air molecules and
the smoke particles are random. While lots of collisions will cause the
smoke particles slow down their circular rotation, lots of other
collisions will do the opposite. The net difference in the number
of collisions in different directions is what slows the smoke particles
down. (Think brownian motion). (3) The smoke particles are 1000-5000
more massive than an air molecule, so not only does the random nature
of the collisions end up requiring a lot of collisions to have an
overall net effect, the large difference in mass multiplies that
number a thousand-fold+.
|
You don't think the tiny gravity anisotropy could be camouflaged
within that lot?
And according to you, a smoke ring crashes to the ground like a
house brick. In all the years that I was a smoker, I did not once
notice that. I should have been more attentive perhaps.
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:13 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Homeowner Loans | TurboTax | Bankruptcy | UK Hotels | Debt Consolidation
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
