A Test of the Radiometric Force

I am applying  radiometric mechanics to the "Encapsulated Radiometric Engine", patents summary by MIT and others.  https://www.google.com/patents/US20060000215

A. The patent holders substantially increased the radiometric force/power.

B. The force/power generated is forming a pressure differential on "the plates". As per the patent summary this pressure differential can be maintained in a full atmosphere or above.

C. The force/power is generated in close proximity to the plates.

D. The possibility of inputting molecular energy into the macro motion of "a vehicle" is apparent when the energy flow from near the molecular level is diagramed in the transfer of energy to the "vehicle" macro motion.

E.  In the patent summary [0006] is indicated a large "plate" mounted in the open air positioned over "a vehicle".  I noted the pressure differential takes place in close proximity to the plates.

"No rotary motion is disclosed in these applications. ....The temperature difference is maintained by means of efficient thermoelectric heat pumps integrated in the plate."

F. Patent Images, Figure 6 and [0015 & 0031], comes closest in showing the internalization of accelerative force in directing the internal radiometric force/power to a drive shaft to which is then attached an external propeller.

G. I proposed the pressure differential of [0006], the open air "plate", could then still be maintained in a series of "plates" which would be fully enclosed in a "vehicle". The radiometric effect would continue to take place.

H. The patent developers focused on increasing the radiometric force to useable means.  My efforts focused on applying, with a far smaller force, the mechanical properties I observed in my workbench vacuum trial. 

The Test

Enclose a series of plates permanently fixed to the interior of "a vehicle". Although rigidly attached, the interior plates are still free to move - now as an integral component of "the vehicle". Leave sufficient larger openings around or in the plates for the recirculation of the de-energized gas molecules. Apply, as in the technology of the patents, the  power source to the now fully enclosed internal plates.

As a safety precaution, on the application of force/power, step to the side of the "test vehicle". Upon the positive confirmation of the test, as the "vehicle" is braked to a stop, promptly turn off the force/power to avoid overheating the plates and/or pressure buildup inside the enclosure. I would also have a few closed vents in the enclosure to open when necessary to expel any excess pressure build up.

Predicted Simplifications - 1. The inertia of the "vehicle" serves as "the base" to which would be directed the high molecular velocity,  small mass, of the molecules. Newton's physics enters here in the interplay of inertia, mass, and the velocity of a small mass versus a larger mass. In effect this would be the "gearing down" of low mass higher molecular velocity to the slower velocity of a large "vehicle mass". I also note when the weight of a larger mass is not excessive "a window" could be open in applying the velocity of the smaller mass to overcome the inertia of a larger mass.

2. The "vehicle" enclosure serves as the "drive shaft".  There would be no independent driveshaft with an external propeller. Thus reducing the weight and increasing the efficiency.

3.  The patents use "state of the art", [0040]to increase the torque of spinning internal blades for additional force/power for an external propeller. Yet an upper limit could be reached. At higher RPMs the more will be the medium friction and the greater will be the required tensile strength of the internal blades.

In the test the full force/power will be directed to a "vehicle" - and a rather small portion of the force/power generated would then be needed to offset the exterior medium friction of the slower velocity of the macro mass of the "vehicle" itself.

4. I ask: could the nano pores provide force/power with a lesser need for heat pumps when the "vehicle" itself would be left free to travel? I ask this question because the energy "flow" into the forward motion of "a vehicle" would, in effect, be reducing both the interior temperature of "the vehicle" and maintaining the pressure differential as the energy continues to go into the forward motion of the "vehicle".

4a. In asking this question I find myself "scratching my head" as to how this could be? It just does not seem possible. Yet my sense this is because this is a gap in understanding the application of radiometric physics. The test addresses this gap by using the inertia of a larger mass as the accelerative "base".

I am confident the test will confirm this gap for then applying radiometric physics (and avoiding "the bouncing ball oversight").  I am confident addressing this gap will contribute to the field of study of radiometric physics.

Notes for the Test

Note 1. 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 new base" for the application of the radiometric force.

Note 2. In this internalized mechanics, it is as if the force does not "know" the 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 maintain the pressure differential by then transferring the molecular momentum to the macro plate and "vehicle" momentum.

Note 3. A key understanding is a pressure differential is maintained when the "vehicle"  is left free to travel. The plates could be damaged by overheating if a "vehicle" would be braked without reducing the power.

An interesting point is the de-energized molecules only return to the new base velocity of a "vehicle" itself.

Note 4. 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 of the internalization of the radiometric force for general use, including that the radiometric force could be kept within a "vehicle" to be directly applied to "a vehicle". 

Note 5. I recall the very light weight, small strip dancing energetically down the fixed rod of my radiometer trial from the minute force I was working with. In my observing that small dancing, energized strip, I then realized the fuller internalization of an accelerative force might yet be possible.

Notes Upon A Positive Test Confirmation

1. The patents are respected. I could not ask this test without the work of the patent developers.

2. 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 is the "core" of what the patents are pointing to: the application of an internal force/power to directly propel a "vehicle".

3. A Limitation in Classical Physics

In classical physics one cannot use an internalization of an accelerative force as the equal and opposite reactions cancel. The Newtonian limitation is: "the parts" are fixedly attached. The equal and opposite reactions cancel.  I agree. (Note: although the test plates are fixed, the difference is the plates are free to move with the "vehicle".)

The radiometric force is near the molecular level and has a "fluidity" of movement which is not in the fixed, attached "parts" of Newton's physics. With respect to Newton's work, I would not include this limitation in applying radiometric mechanics.

4. Newton's physics is also molecular motion in the form of gears and levers and wheels and propellers. I feel radiometric mechanics would then underlie Newton's "completion physics".

5. I am a novice with novice insight.

March 25, 2017 L. Thompson