🚀 go-pugleaf

Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com

>My favorite response so far was from Dieter:  He described my "wedge-out"
>mechanism as sounding a lot like wishful thinking.

>Alright!  That's exactly the kind of whack-em-about-the-ears criticism
>that the UC (ultracavitation) idea needs.  Dieter zeroed in on exactly
>the weakest link:  Can you _really_ get massive acceleration through this
>kind of proposed mechanism, or not?

Just to clarify things, let me add that what I regard as possibly wishful
thinking, or at least a very unsupported bit of optimism, is secondary
wedging. The primary wedging effect seems reasonable, but it requires some
quantification. I once had to do with molten salts, a field new to me at the
time, and I thought up a beautiful explanation - all in words - of something
or other to do with charge transport (I forget the details). My colleague, to
whom I explained it, was agog with admiration of my acuity of thought, and I
basked in the glory. It turned out I was quite wrong. Whatever the scientific
method is, one of its most powerful tools is certainly the use of mathematics
to quantify things, starting with simple assumptions. Words can lead you
astray.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------