Kurt
Junior Member
Thanks that you looked it up, photons do have a tiny mass, but this mass is far from being weaponized.
Discussing future and (im)possible carrier technology
- Thread starter Kurt
- Start date
Thanks that you looked it up, photons do have a tiny mass, but this mass is far from being weaponized.
Seems like others with a better view disagree with your assessment of how this device works. Of course if you have a better explaination of how a Crookes radiometer works please post it. My definition comes from various sources on the web. Yours comes from where?
Crookes radiometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Crookes radiometer, also known as the light mill, consists of an airtight glass bulb, containing a partial vacuum. Inside are a set of vanes which are mounted on a spindle. The vanes rotate when exposed to light, with faster rotation for more intense light, providing a quantitative measurement of electromagnetic radiation intensity. The reason for the rotation has historically been a cause of much scientific debate.[1][2]
It was invented in 1873 by the chemist Sir William Crookes as the by-product of some chemical research. In the course of very accurate quantitative chemical work, he was weighing samples in a partially evacuated chamber to reduce the effect of air currents, and noticed the weighings were disturbed when sunlight shone on the balance. Investigating this effect, he created the device named after him. It is still manufactured and sold as a novelty item.
Crookes radiometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Crookes radiometer, also known as the light mill, consists of an airtight glass bulb, containing a partial vacuum. Inside are a set of vanes which are mounted on a spindle. The vanes rotate when exposed to light, with faster rotation for more intense light, providing a quantitative measurement of electromagnetic radiation intensity. The reason for the rotation has historically been a cause of much scientific debate.[1][2]
It was invented in 1873 by the chemist Sir William Crookes as the by-product of some chemical research. In the course of very accurate quantitative chemical work, he was weighing samples in a partially evacuated chamber to reduce the effect of air currents, and noticed the weighings were disturbed when sunlight shone on the balance. Investigating this effect, he created the device named after him. It is still manufactured and sold as a novelty item.
Kurt
Junior Member
Transformation of surface combatants
I want to add an interesting perspective on surface warfare that might help to gain new insights in the carrier debate:
This is an article the technological changes in the US surface fleet from a seemingly defensive oriented vessel to a strike force again due to the introduction of crusie missiles and a prediction that these capabilities will continue with ongoing UAV integration in the large surface ships other than carriers.
Possible implications for current aircraft carriers:
So while the surface ship did become a very defensive asset from US perspective and the carrier was the striking instrument, the current carrier vulnerability and air-defense centered mission could mean from my point of view that we might see a shift in naval attitudes. A defensive carrier air wing provides cover for the surface and subsurface ships that cover the carrier and all of them can have cruise missile or UAV capability for long range strikes.
Such a constellation could impact carrier requirements because fighter patrols don't need the catapults for heavy take off like multi-purpose and bomber aircrafts. Futhermore it's not necessary to have as large carriers if a reduction in size helps capability to better navigate in important waters. Just think about the Principe de Asturiass (R-11) that could be a new way to provide all carrier cover necessary for a force of cruise missile&UAV large surface combatants.
In order not to neglect the science fiction approach and laser applications, there have been some experiments about using ground based laser energy in order to lift object into the air by producing a stream of heated gas. If succesful, such an approach could offer a new chance for STOVL operations (that are faster than other launch systems) with external energy supplied vertical landing, utilizing a simple light reflector system for the surface ships laser. This would shorten runways and especially for UAV allow a long range, long endurance bomber force that doesn't have an as expensive and heavy modification for STOVL as current weapon platforms and would allow a kind of hybrid battleship carrier with cruise missiles and UAV bombers and possibly even some UAV fighters for short distance (jamming!) self defense.
So surface combatant development likely won't do away with the carrier, but the established relation of utility for power projection may change and a less carrier heavy investment approach might prove more cost efficent for SLoC control and power projection.
Defensive approach of naval vessels and their consequences for China
Concerning the very defensive approach of naval vessels that leads some minds to dismiss them as expensive and utterly useless carrier escorts, actually a defensive surface combatant is a defensive roadblock that can be placed in the enemies SLoC and thus greatly reduce enemy capabilities because of reduced economic interaction with the outside world (most transport of goods is by ship). The same holds true for a perfectly defensive surface ship being capable of defending own SLoC, by fighting of air, surface and submarine attacks. So despite not being able to go out and destroy the enemy like an army or air force, both will have a hard time without the navy manipulating the SLoC.
After pointing out SLoC importance, the Chinese area denial is nice and probably quite capable, but other than reducing possible naval requirements for coastal defense, it doesn't help much in SLoC protection and without SLoC around the globe the Chinese economy would have to run at a reduced level in a conflict. So, to make the whole area denial and anti-access developments worse the money, it needs a SLoC defense for the rest of the global route to China.
I want to add an interesting perspective on surface warfare that might help to gain new insights in the carrier debate:
This is an article the technological changes in the US surface fleet from a seemingly defensive oriented vessel to a strike force again due to the introduction of crusie missiles and a prediction that these capabilities will continue with ongoing UAV integration in the large surface ships other than carriers.
Possible implications for current aircraft carriers:
So while the surface ship did become a very defensive asset from US perspective and the carrier was the striking instrument, the current carrier vulnerability and air-defense centered mission could mean from my point of view that we might see a shift in naval attitudes. A defensive carrier air wing provides cover for the surface and subsurface ships that cover the carrier and all of them can have cruise missile or UAV capability for long range strikes.
Such a constellation could impact carrier requirements because fighter patrols don't need the catapults for heavy take off like multi-purpose and bomber aircrafts. Futhermore it's not necessary to have as large carriers if a reduction in size helps capability to better navigate in important waters. Just think about the Principe de Asturiass (R-11) that could be a new way to provide all carrier cover necessary for a force of cruise missile&UAV large surface combatants.
In order not to neglect the science fiction approach and laser applications, there have been some experiments about using ground based laser energy in order to lift object into the air by producing a stream of heated gas. If succesful, such an approach could offer a new chance for STOVL operations (that are faster than other launch systems) with external energy supplied vertical landing, utilizing a simple light reflector system for the surface ships laser. This would shorten runways and especially for UAV allow a long range, long endurance bomber force that doesn't have an as expensive and heavy modification for STOVL as current weapon platforms and would allow a kind of hybrid battleship carrier with cruise missiles and UAV bombers and possibly even some UAV fighters for short distance (jamming!) self defense.
So surface combatant development likely won't do away with the carrier, but the established relation of utility for power projection may change and a less carrier heavy investment approach might prove more cost efficent for SLoC control and power projection.
Defensive approach of naval vessels and their consequences for China
Concerning the very defensive approach of naval vessels that leads some minds to dismiss them as expensive and utterly useless carrier escorts, actually a defensive surface combatant is a defensive roadblock that can be placed in the enemies SLoC and thus greatly reduce enemy capabilities because of reduced economic interaction with the outside world (most transport of goods is by ship). The same holds true for a perfectly defensive surface ship being capable of defending own SLoC, by fighting of air, surface and submarine attacks. So despite not being able to go out and destroy the enemy like an army or air force, both will have a hard time without the navy manipulating the SLoC.
After pointing out SLoC importance, the Chinese area denial is nice and probably quite capable, but other than reducing possible naval requirements for coastal defense, it doesn't help much in SLoC protection and without SLoC around the globe the Chinese economy would have to run at a reduced level in a conflict. So, to make the whole area denial and anti-access developments worse the money, it needs a SLoC defense for the rest of the global route to China.
Kurt
Junior Member
I study chemistry and physics. Sorry, but you seem to misunderstand my and the published statements. To make it absolutely clear, the PRESSURE OF PHOTONS IN LIGHT RADIATION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOVEMENT OF CROOKE'S RADIOMETER you can frame that and ask everyone who REALLY knows physics and he will reply in agreement with me.
You seem to misunderstand that, similar the photons of a laser don't have enough impulse to significantly affect a missile. If you want to continue the debate, then please show me the impulse of one photon and the collective impulse of all photons created by a laser with a certain power output. Afterwards please show me a comparison to a random missile with corresponding energy and impulse.
It's like the ant trying to lift the whale.
Guess you disagree with the definitions of how this device operates as they are posted on the web. I gave you the sources. Go and disagree with them. I have said all that I can on the subject.
"A Crookes' radiometer has four vanes suspended inside a glass bulb. Inside the bulb, there is a good vacuum. When you shine a light on the vanes in the radiometer, they spin -- in bright sunlight, they can spin at several thousand rotations per minute!
The vacuum is important to the radiometer's success. If there is no vacuum (that is, if the bulb is full of air), the vanes do not spin because there is too much drag. If there is a near-perfect vacuum, the vanes do not spin unless they are held in a frictionless way. If the vanes have a frictionless support and the vacuum is complete, then photons bouncing off the silver side of the vanes push the vanes, causing them to rotate. However, this force is exceedingly small.
If there is a good but incomplete vacuum, then a different effect called thermal transpiration occurs along the edges of the vanes, as described on this page. The effect looks as though the light is pushing against the black faces. The black side of the vane moves away from the light."
Source: HowStuffWorks "How does a Crookes' radiometer work?"
science.howstuffworks.com › ... › Physical Science › Nuclear Science
Kurt
Junior Member
That's what I said in other words. The pressure and mass of photons is part of an irrelevant small force in Crooke's radiometer because there's no vacuum perfect enough for it to operate.
No personal insults are allowed in this forum! Knock it off!
bd popeye super moderator
Wasn't meant as in insult, rather a seemingly ill devised statement that the corresponding editor has a problem understanding simple physics due to limited intellectual capabilities (each of us has his intellectual limits in one field or another).
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Fact: Modern American Aircraft carriers already have too detour around a number of canals and have since the end of world war 2 Fact: Sea basing programs existed for a number of years in the Navy until 2001 when the price of a mega sized ship was ruled too mega for the check book.
Meet the Yak swath hull consept carrier of the 1970's
Kurt
Junior Member
I agree with you on the benefits of multihull designs, although I'm more in favour of M-shaped hulls. The problem with canals for these design still exists as well as the greater weight of the construction that can in turn do away with ballast.
For US aircraft carriers the old Panama Canal was a problem, but the modernised one will again allow them to sail quickly to the Pacific, while the Suez Canal was always wide enough for them to adjust in the more critical area.
Vertical landing with an external power source:
Theoretically you could do that today with some liquid fuel rockets attached to any aircraft, but after the long laser discussions, I'd like to show a technical possibility that could help all aircrafts to vertically land on carriers with little modification. That would in turn allow a major increase in sorties:
the lightcraft makes it possible to use a laser over a limited range to heat air or another propellant and provide thrust by the expansion of volume
Looks beautiful?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Wait I remember that one....
[video=youtube;LAdj6vpYppA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAdj6vpYppA[/video]
Mounting a maser on a ship is a very realist option but moving a inbound target or launching any thing but very light weight craft is still not really there yet and as my vid shows that model was "fried" by the laser. Back. Use against optical guidance or attacks on thin skinned missiles in hope of break up or fuel detonation are another matter proven by the YAL-1 in Air force testing. Use against satellites and manned craft proven Via the Terra 3 attack on STS 41-G. That is Today now twenty years from now? Any ones guess.
[video=youtube;LAdj6vpYppA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAdj6vpYppA[/video]
Mounting a maser on a ship is a very realist option but moving a inbound target or launching any thing but very light weight craft is still not really there yet and as my vid shows that model was "fried" by the laser. Back. Use against optical guidance or attacks on thin skinned missiles in hope of break up or fuel detonation are another matter proven by the YAL-1 in Air force testing. Use against satellites and manned craft proven Via the Terra 3 attack on STS 41-G. That is Today now twenty years from now? Any ones guess.