Pioneer spacecraft anomolies

More
19 years 9 months ago #11969 by Larry Burford
[Jim] "Is it not a fact that mass needs to be ejected to make acceleration happen?"

Apparently not. Remember that m = E / c^2.

Although it takes a LOT of energy to equal a small amount of matter, throwing that energy overboard is functionally the same as throwing the equivalent amount of matter overboard.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 9 months ago #12261 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
LB, And therefore energy has mass-right? Now if the tiny amount of heat is causing the acceleration and we know mass is being ejected at the speed of light in this case, how much mass is needed to make the math balance out? The tiny amount of heat therefore has that mass if the fact that the acceleration is caused by heat excaping from the generator on board the Pioneer. I just don't think this works out.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 9 months ago #12017 by Quantoken
Replied by Quantoken on topic Reply from Quan Token
Larry:

What is to be considered is not the equivalent mass of the energy, but the momentum. The NASA group's calculation shows an anisotropy of just 85 watts of heat radiation would be enough to account for the anormalcy acceleration. That's a push of 85Watts/C = 2.84x10^-7 Newton, enough to cause said acceleration on a 350 kg spaceship. No one disagree with that. What's being disagreed on is whether the spaceship would allow such an assymetricity in the heat emission. The NASA group, being more familiar with the spaceship, said NO. And I said NO, too.

Remember the bulk of the heat is generated and disipated on the RTG itself, which is placed at the end of a long boom, far away from the main spaceship to reduce any radiation effect on the instruments.
The whole spaceship spins along the center axis of the big antenna dish, which points towards the Earth.

Keep in mind that the distribution of mass of the spaceship is so carefully designed to be ABSOLUTELY BALANCED around that spin axis, so when it spins, the center axis of the antenna is the spin axis and points towards the earth, instead of wiggling around. The RTG boom also extends perpendicular to that spin axis, instead of parallel to it, so as to provide further stability. So that consideration alone, has already average out any asymmetry of heat emission through the spinning.

There is one more reasoning why there will be no anisotropic heat emission. If you look at any object in space from one direction, and then look at it again from the exact opposite direction, you will see the two cross-section areas are exactly equal. So unless there is inbalance of heat causing one side of the spaceship to be hotter than another side, heat emitted from opposite sides will cancel out their momentums exactly. Consider the Pioneer spaceship, it is so far away from the sun, and the RTG generated heat is so little comparing with the surface area of the spaceship, that the surface temperature of the spaceship is very low, fa below room temperature.

At such low temperature the radiation of heat is so insignificant that heat dissipation through conduction far dorminate over heat dissipation through radiation (remember radiation is proportional to the 4th power of temperature?) So the heat will be conducted throughout the surface spaceship so well before it is radiated out, that the surface temperature of the spaceship is very uniform. So we will not see the required imbalance of hot surface versus cold surface, to produce the anisotropic heat emission. Note the interior of the spaceship will still be kept warm by very good insulating materials. But the metal surface doesn't need that insulation. Instead it would even be preferable to use a surface which is better heat conductor, for consideration when the spaceship is more close to the sun, and one side is baked too hight and the other side is too cold, so that the surface temperature even out.

I believe the Pioneer anormality is real, because my theory naturally leads to such a result and it matches quantitatively.

Quantoken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 9 months ago #11970 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
There should be some way to determine the frequency of the ejected heat by measurement. So, what is the frequency of the exhausted heat?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 9 months ago #11971 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Can a watt be divided by the speed of light to get the amount of force in a beam of light? The math seems to work out well but is this a process that can be done in the real world?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 9 months ago #11972 by Quantoken
Replied by Quantoken on topic Reply from Quan Token
Jim:

You seem to need a little bit more education on general physics. No one else would argue with how to calculate the pushing force resulting from any heat radiation. It's EM waves (light) and for EM waves:
Energy = Mass*C^2, or Momentum = Mass*C = Energy/C.
Power = Energy/per Second. So Power/C = Momentum/per second = Force.

Again the only thing being disputed, is whether the heat radiate in all directions in a balanced way so no significant net force resulted, or whether there is imbalance so there is a net force resulted. The imbalance would have to be about 85 watts to account for the acceleration. But the design of spaceship would not allow for such a big imbalance at all.

Quantoken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.431 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum