sonoluminescence

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo
god didnt create light or the sun. theres no such thing as god.

Maybe God didn't create light or the Sun but this is at least debatable. There is, however, such a thing as God (capitol 'G' btw), gods (small 'g' denotes lower deities) and goddesses (small 'g' again). Whether it be just a myth or spiritual/religious belief it is at least that and therefore does exist in at least that form. Proof of this can be found in the cultures, past and present, all over the world. There is God yet the question remains, "What is God?" Best answer I have found is, "I am that I am."

I agree with beebs in that your belief, or lack thereof, in God is within your subjective definition and with this you have therefore created a belief in God. To have a belief that there is nothing is to have a belief in something and therefore you have a belief.

science has clearly proven withh solid indisputable fact how a star is made.

There is a scientific theory on the form and function of stars. This theory has several problems but it is still widely accepted. I think your exaggerating here about the "indisputable facts". For one, we have yet to actually go and get samples from a living star. I know this is semantics, but I do believe that the definitions of our words are important.

reply to post by Hedera Helix


I'm not sure what your implying, but the fact that the experiment created temperatures as hot as the sun, proves that it is an energy source and like I said, only someone who is completely ignorant would walk away from such an experiment without fully understanding what's really going on.

reply to post by kindred


i agree there is a mechanism at work here that does need to be understood and exploited for green energy and a better understanding of our universe

how do atoms callapse and contract in that manner?

can this process be enhanced ?

why after 20 years of resurch is there no big break through?

does this prove our models of atomic structures incomplete?

interesting questions ?

the fact that something as hot as the sun is being generated is enough to not focuse on netrenos

i think people are too focused on fusion and are missing a larger understanding of the experiment

do callapsing atoms draw energy directly from the suns magnetic feild

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

the fact that something as hot as the sun is being generated is enough to not focuse on netrenos

If it really produced temperatures as hot as the sun... the entire lab should have gone up in smoke... not???

reply to post by Hedera Helix


the effect is contained inside the bubble and would not create any problems as far as heat damage is concerned
as hot as the suface of the sun but so small as to not be a concern

the water flow induced sololuminesence can cause problems for pumping stations and hydro electric stations but not from the heat,
it comes from the shock waves in a sound exposion that damages structures and equipment

this effect can be enanced to provide larger bubbles that require alot more care

xploder

if this effect was used infront of a ships bow the water drag would be reduced and higher speeds posable

[edit on 31-8-2010 by XPLodER]

reply to post by XPLodER


In my experience of this effect (in turbines) it manifests as a system loss IE some kW expressed as wasted energy in a system with an overall useful output of 10s or 100s of MW which makes it insignificant apart from the recurrent cost of repairing the damage it does. As much as I hate to show the 'thermodynamics' card, unless this process can be made to be self-supporting it's quite obvious that it takes more energy to produce it than can be recovered from it so there's little promise of overunity here.

If nuclei are actually being fused, there needs to be quite a lot of it going on to get a useful steady output as heat energy which raises a major problem in terms of neutron radiation.

reply to post by Pilgrum


im not looking at this phenomon as fusion or free energy
i think the process is not explained and if we understood what was happening the process could be refined and exploited

im thinking an area of science is steering us in the face and we should have a profound change in thinking if the reality of whats taking place is quantifyed

xploder

reply to post by Pilgrum


sometimes the understanding of a thing or a process gives insite to a whole new process or use for the science

heck it may even prove to be a good welder or a lamp or on a large scale provide with a positive feed back loop increase in streanght exponetially

not to hung up on cold fusion when callaspsing/expanding atoms can cause an energy release of this type

imagine a nuclear power station sized reaction
xploder

Originally posted by kindred

I'm not sure what your implying, but the fact that the experiment created temperatures as hot as the sun, proves that it is an energy source and like I said, only someone who is completely ignorant would walk away from such an experiment without fully understanding what's really going on.

There's no evidence here that any energy is being created. It's simply a matter of the sound energy being focused on a very small point that generates the large temperatures.

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo


I'm glad science has proven anything. Unfortunately, nothing is ever proven. You can't possibly observe every situation for something to happen and therefore you can't prove it. That's why the theory of evolution is still a theory. That's why people sound so dumb when they say "but evolution is JUST a theory so that means it's not true LOL."

You can't disprove God. You can not do it. Just because we observe natural processes does not mean that God wouldn't work through the natural universe which it created. Why would a programmer invent a code for a program and then use a different code inside of it? That would be retarded.

So how did the universe begin? Big bang? Cool, where did that come from?

reply to post by Mr Headshot


im not trying to disprove god and you are entitled to your veiw
as for the big bang the fact that sonoluminesence is caused by frequencies and i think the two might be connected somehow

xploder

reply to post by nataylor


there is something going on here that this basic experiment demonstates in a minor way yes but demonstates a process we dont underatand anything that reacts in an unexpected way can be studied and the mechanism understood which may lead to a greater discovery
alot of people are missing the point

anything unexplained should be investigated as the initial desovery may inspire a deeper understanding to the universe and how it operates

xploder

Finite size corrections to the black body radiation laws

In conclusion, by using semiclassical techniques, we have derived explicit expressions for the finite size corrections of the blackbody radiation’s laws as a function of the temperature, size and shape of the cavity and area of the aperture. We have also shown that the experimental detection of these finite size corrections is within the reach of current experimental capabilities and may be of relevance in sonoluminescence.

Looking at some more here, if anyone else is interested do not hesitate to jump in yourself:
ArXiv.Org search results: 'sonoluminescence'

reply to post by beebs


thank you for the information
i will be busy reading all the theorys
its interesting the the output of heat/radiation can relate to size of the min max size of the bubble

mabey we need a really big bubble

xp thanks

Well, this is fun. I was doing some basic research on SBSL (single-bubble sonoluminescence, as opposed to multi-bubble) in high school in 2002-03. We built a small prototype with cheap materials, but couldnt reproduce the effect. At least i got the pleasure of seeing it in a U of Chicago lab with more high-tech setup. Based on my research, I wrote a high-school-level paper for a national science contest (ExploraVision, sponsored by Toshiba), on a possible future tech I called "SLFR: Sonoluminescence Fusion Reactor." Well, the paper made it to top 6 of US/Canada, but failed to win in the finals. Now, it's funny to see these ideas come back to real life possibilities again. What always kept me optimistic is that the discoverer of SBSL himself, whom I had the pleasure of communicating with in 2002-03, Felipe Gaitan, was working for Impulse Devices, attempting to use this cavitation effect to obtain power. I checked just now, he is still with them: www.impulsedevices.com...

reply to post by XPLodER


Is it real or is it a movie???. I don't know how much closer to disclosure you want to get from our Jewish friends in Hollywood.

after much study
it seams this topic is still in the unexplained catagory
i hope people dont forget about this one

xp

reply to post by XPLodER

Not forgotten.
I am trying to make an animation on what is really happening with this process. But I'm going right now to try to put it into words.I think this process we have used for years in other devices such as a fire piston and Diesel engine. With a touch of electrolisis.Maybe a better more efficiant form of separating the oxygen and hydrogen.but instead of releasing the oxygen and hydrogen to go off and do bigger and better things.This process seem to bring them back together.and just like in a hydrogen feul cell if my understanding of that thing is correct. When oxygen and hydrogen are combined there is an energy relase.when the two sound waves collide through some form of wave interference
It creates a negative pressure maybe even a perfect little vacuum like the one we supposedly cannot achieve on earth. And in that perfect little vacuum comes the better form of electrolisis. And seperates the hydrogen and oxygen.but when the waves come bouncing back they collapse the perfect vacuum and thus recombining hydrogen and oxygen.
I think the key element to successfully scaling this thing is the geometry of the wave interference.
And I do believe this could explain a lot of things like ball lighting appearing when the wave interference of two claps thunder collide in a humid atmosphere.