🚀 go-pugleaf

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