home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
- Path: sparky!uunet!seas.smu.edu!vivaldi!aslws01!aslss01!terry
- From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
- Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
- Message-ID: <1993Jan11.190341.21334@asl.dl.nec.com>
- Originator: terry@aslss01
- Sender: news@asl.dl.nec.com
- Nntp-Posting-Host: aslss01
- Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
- References: <1993Jan8.021210.27077@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1993Jan8.214902.837@asl.dl.nec.com> <1993Jan9.014604.28670@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:03:41 GMT
- Lines: 56
-
- Hi folks,
-
- In article <1993Jan9.014604.28670@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
-
- > In article <1993Jan8.214902.837@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
- >
- > | ... I am worried that this could be turning into [a] ping-pong match...
- >
- > 'Ping pong' is over. I was interested in nothing more than explaining to
- > you certain difficulties in what you were saying.
-
- Actually, what you provided is what I would consider to be some of the best
- dialog and cross-examination I've ever seen on this particular group. You
- stuck with facts, and you went straight for the conceptual jugular -- the
- weakest links in the ideas I'd presented.
-
- In short, you're an outstanding scientist. I hope you will keep working on
- your variant of the shock wave idea, and that you will post it here. I'm
- intrigued by what you have said to date, but (like you about mine) I'm not
- convinced about the details and I'd love a chance to critique _your_ model.
-
- .....
-
- Comment in general: Beware the Farfetches of Terry. I will go on for some
- length discussiong _possible_ mechanisms for increased intensity in bubble
- cavitation, but until I see some actual, highly reproducible _experimental_
- results I will remain just about as unconvinced as Dale Bass about the final
- results. (I'm perhaps a little more optimistic because of my off-beat entropy
- arguments, but much of what Dale has said is doggone convincing.)
-
- After all, how _can_ you say that all cavitation collapses will not turn out
- to be governed by some very general principles that will guarantee nothing
- more intense than noodling fireplace-level hot gases can ever be achieved by
- cavitation? I certainly cannot exlude such a possibility, and I think Dale
- has pointed out a lot of reasons why such general failure modes _should_ be
- considered as both possible (and perhaps likely). Experiments are the only
- way I can see to resolve such questions with any degree of certainty.
-
- In that vein, I do hope that some of this net dialog will encourage reasoned,
- well-thought-out new experiments in cavitation. If folks had gone strictly
- by the "rules," I'd say it's very likely sonoluminescence would never have
- been found in the first place. Why? Because if you had asked the experts,
- I'd bet that the majority of them would have rather adamantly said: "NO --
- there are simply no mechanisms by which the simple, well-understood effect
- of cavitation can produce visible light. So don't waste your time on it."
-
- But of course, sonoluminescence _did_ turn out to exist, didn't it?
-
- So why quit now? Push cavitation a bit and see what happens. Who knows,
- someone out there just might wind up uncovering the existence of one or two
- _more_ things happening that everyone "knew" could not happen in cavitation.
-
- Cheers,
- Terry Bollinger
-
-