A Test of the Radiometric
I am applying
radiometric mechanics to the form of propulsion in the "Encapsulated
radiometric engine", patents summary by MIT and others: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060000215
A. The patent holders have
substantially increased the radiometric force/power of the small force I was
working with in my radiometer vacuum chamber.
B. The force/power is
generated in close proximity to the plates. My statement: the pressure
differential would still be maintained if the plates were to be enclosed.
C. This possibility of
inputting molecular energy into macro motion will be "seen" when the
energy flow from near the molecular level is diagramed in the transfer of energy
to the "vehicle" macro motion.
D. Patent figure 6 comes
closest for the internalization of accelerative force by directing the
internally generated radiometric force/power to a drive shaft on bearings to
which is attached an external propeller.
E. In the patent summary
applications, neither the prior patent holder or the following patent holders
seem to have "seen" that the plates could provide a propulsive
force/power from within the "vehicle" enclosure
to more directly propel a "vehicle".
F. The force/power being
applied to the plates is as a "composite" force/power with the
deceleration phase of the de-energized gas molecules having transferred energy
to the net macro acceleration of a "vehicle".
1. The force/power created
across the plates could be directly applied to propel a "vehicle".
2. There would then be
reduced need for heat pumps and bearings and gears. Excess heat could be
controlled by reducing the power and also could be expelled through radiant
energy. The mechanical simplification is the
force/power applied is being reduced to near the molecular level.
3. The casing itself serves
as the "drive shaft".
From my radiometer studies, I
feel when "the parts" are "semi attached" and when the force
is applied over time that it could be possible to contain the propulsive force
within "a vehicle". Such a "vehicle" would use the inertia
of the vehicle itself as "the base" for the application of the
Yet In this internalized
mechanics, it is as if the force does not "know" an outside"
physics. The necessary physics and pressure differential is taking place in and
near the plates in applying power to a "vehicle". The nano pores or
apertures serve to maintain the pressure differential in then transferring the
molecular momentum to the macro plate and "vehicle" momentum. However,
the plates could overheat if the "vehicle" would be braked without
reducing the power.
The reduction of molecular
energy to macro motion maintains the lower pressure on the other side of the
plates. The plates can be rigidly
attached to the "vehicle" casing as the plates would still be free to
move, though now as an internal component of the "vehicle" macro
motion. Larger size openings are to be left for the re-circulation of the now
de-energized molecules. An interesting point is the de-energized
molecules only return to the base velocity of the "vehicle" itself.
The patent holders refer to
"prior art". In my 1999
web paper I diagramed the hypothetical internal propulsion of a
"vehicle". I continue gifting my insights for general use, including
my insight the radiometric force could be contained within a "vehicle"
to be directly applied to propel such a "vehicle".
I still remember that very
light weight small strip dancing energetically down that fixed rod of my
radiometer trial from the minute force I was working with. Yet I could not
maintain the vacuum chamber seal for more than a short while. Yet in observing
that small energized strip for a few seconds I found the confirmation (subject
to re-verification) of that which my intuition leads me to think might be
possible - the internalization of an accelerative force.
With the much enhanced
force/power plates of the patent holders, I feel it could be feasible to now use
a force, at atmospheric pressure, to be applied within "a vehicle", to
propel a "vehicle". Although I do not know the magnitude of the
force/power, It seems there could be some additional "light at the end of
the tunnel" for alleviating carbon dioxide buildup.
Enclose a series of plates
permanently fixed to the interior of "a vehicle" which is free to
move. Leave sufficient openings around and/or in the plates for the
recirculation of the de-energized gas molecules. Apply, as in the above patents,
the power source to the enclosed plates.
As a safety, on the
application of force/power, I would take the precaution to step to the side of
the "test vehicle". Then
upon the positive confirmation of the test, as the "vehicle" is braked
to a stop, promptly turn off the force/power to avoid overheating plate damage. The energy would now no longer be directed to the "vehicle"
and would instead be directed to the individual plates. Note: I would also leave
a few vents in the casing to expel any excess pressure as heat and energy
In the patent summaries I
find references to rotating devices, drive shaft, and external propeller. It is
as if the patents "revolve around" what I feel the "core" of
what the patents are pointing to: the application of an internal force/power to
directly propel a "vehicle". In view of the substantially increased
radiometric force/power by the patent holders and my observations of the
radiometer force, I feel it would be time to retest the statement: "The
internalization of a force is not possible". I predict an unique test outcome of these special case radiometer properties.
1. The patents are respected.
2. The molecular movement of
radiometric mechanics, as a process, allows a freedom of movement which would
not be in Newtonian physics. Yet Newton's physics is also molecular motion in
the form of gears and levers and wheels and propellers. I sense the special case
of radiometric mechanics would then underlie Newton's "completion
3. I feel the
positive confirmation of the test could put this "on the table" for
others to carry forward the testing and the application of the radiometric force
properties. January 18, 2017 LT