Compression of water (split from Waveguides)

[despotic931]

why do i even post...

 

[SY]

I've pulled a personally abusive post. sreten, if you're frustrated to the point of invective, it's time to stop participating in this thread.

 

[auplater]

no time left for you

Looks like it's probably time for all sane and rational members to stop participating in this thread, eh?

 

[sreten]

I've pulled a personally abusive post.
sreten, if you're frustrated to the point of invective,
it's time to stop participating in this thread.

Hi,

True I'm frustrated, as any sensible person would be.

Censure that is effectively a word filter is your choice and option.
This forum is a bit nannying when it comes to these things.
Just do not tell me I'm being invective because of adjective use.
They were used specifically on purpose as their literal meaning.

Ah well, it seems I'm out of here, one did try .....


/sreten.

 

[scott wurcer]

Someone posted from Urick a primary reference on underwater acoustics and there was no response. After haranging people "to take the floor" or find ONE reference in our favor maybe some time off to buy a copy on Amazon and reading it would be helpful. Even the "surprise me" button on Amazon gets an occasional gem of a page.

Also, you seem very invested in your contrarian theory. The free energy and anti-gravity folks have goals in providing wondrous things when their theories are accepted. What aspect in underwater science would you change or benefit?

 

[wakibaki]

Given that sreten has been driven to extremes by this thread, (in this he is not alone), perhaps it is time to close it.

In my opinion many of the remarks made by John have been insulting even if not couched in provocative language and while many were general rather than directed at an individual, I would have felt justified in closing the thread some time ago.

Failing this I am hopeful that the rest of us can somehow agree to the suggestion that we stop replying...

w

 

[MJL21193]

Sound waves are perfectly well understood, you haven't "proven" anything. Not one person here would say you were anywhere even close. All you've been doing is playing little semantic games focussing on different meanings of the same word to try and make it seem like you have a point but there is none.

I think there is some confusion happening. What I said I have proven is that sound traveling through a medium will bring about a volume increase. The proof of this is that the energy will dissipate within the medium. There seems to be some resistance to this concept, but I believe it is correct.

I have been using only one definition for displacement, since day one. It's a fairly well known definition: "In fluid mechanics, displacement occurs when an object is immersed in a fluid, pushing it out of the way and taking its place."
Now, I know this is confusing, but I'm not referring to an "object that will be immersed". I thought it was clear what I meant by "displacement" and didn't expect this to be so tricky.
Maybe you guys weren't paying close enough attention.

I've pulled a personally abusive post. sreten, if you're frustrated to the point of invective, it's time to stop participating in this thread.

It's been frustrating for me as well. All I want to do is reasonably discuss the ideas I have, but for some reason, most here would rather insult or belittle. I don't know why anyone would need to get upset about what I'm saying, as if it is there own work that I'm questioning.
It's the insulation of the Internet, I expect. Similar to the behavior I witness quite often by other drivers on the highway - people do things, very rude things, in their car that they wouldn't dream of doing anywhere else.
I wonder would Mr. Sreten be so quick to call me stupid if we were sitting across form each other.

I did get the opportunity to read the post and even though it was insulting, I did want to talk about a point.
Sreten referred to the sound wave and likened it to AC and said that there could be no "displacement" because it doesn't have a DC component or something like that (going from my less than perfect memory here so I might not have it completely correct).

(shift to electricity) AC suffers losses as it travels through a conductor due to resistance. This loss shows up as heat and, you guessed it, the wire expands in volume. Simple, right?

The standard model for sound shows the waves positive component (compression) and a negative component (rarefaction). So during the positive portion of the wave, energy is entering the medium correct? What happens during the negative portion? It pulls energy out? How?
If we are to accept the idea that a sound wave will travel through a medium without having a physical impact on the medium, we need to figure out how the sound wave can draw energy out of the medium.

 

[MJL21193]

Also, you seem very invested in your contrarian theory. The free energy and anti-gravity folks have goals in providing wondrous things when their theories are accepted. What aspect in underwater science would you change or benefit?

Have you read any Tom Robbins? Skinny legs and all is one of my favourites. Interesting read.

What am I getting out of this?
It could be a study of behavior, to look at how people react when an "interloper" questions establish theory. The patronizing remarks, the insults, the dismissive attitudes, all of the usual mob behavior. I mentioned above how a motorist is insulated by his car and this allows for some rudeness. Same goes for the bravery one gets from being in a group of like minded individuals, especially when they are united in the common need to mock and ridicule.
Maybe I'm doing it to entertain myself. Maybe I don't really believe what I'm arguing, but do it anyway as a mental exercise. I have done a lot of reading on the subject so it's not in vain.

Or, maybe I do think there is something not quite right in the standard model/explanation. Maybe I'm looking for some help here, someone with an open mind and the willingness to even examine what I'm saying, rather than just try to prove me wrong.
What I have been saying isn't as outlandish as you all make it out to be.

 

[SY]

John, at the risk of being censured myself, may I please say something in complete honesty? Whether intentional or not, you do not give the impression of someone who is sincerely looking for help. It isn't a matter of questioning the conventional view, it's a matter of appearing not to grasp the very basics that allow the conventional theory (and enormous experimental support) to be understood combined with an apparent unwillingness to do so. Or perhaps you're putting us all on. I don't know.

But you need to go beyond a Monty Python "I'm here for an argument" approach. Actually reading a few texts on underwater ultrasonics, and perhaps even the reference that Scott has kindly provided, might go a long way. If you're hungry and people have handed you a fishing pole, go out and do some fishing, don't complain that they're not getting the fish out of the water for you, cleaning and gutting them, frying them, and serving them to you on a silver platter. That's not how learning works.

Jeremy Bernstein once wrote a wonderful essay on why, despite not just questioning, but absolutely overturning conventional wisdom, papers submitted by an unknown Swiss patent office clerk to the world's most prestigious physics journals were not dismissed as the work of a crank. There's a lesson in that.

 

[despotic931]

Actually reading a few texts on underwater ultrasonics, and perhaps even the reference that Scott has kindly provided, might go a long way. If you're hungry and people have handed you a fishing pole, go out and do some fishing, don't complain that they're not getting the fish out of the water for you, cleaning and gutting them, frying them, and serving them to you on a silver platter. That's not how learning works.

At this point I think that actually reading some of the posts in this thread could go a long way...

 

[MJL21193]

It isn't a matter of questioning the conventional view, it's a matter of appearing not to grasp the very basics that allow the conventional theory (and enormous experimental support) to be understood combined with an apparent unwillingness to do so.

What makes you think that I don't understand the basics of the conventional theory? Since when does understanding equate with belief as fact?
It's this type of comment that is non-productive.

Why not address some of the points I've made? If they are BS points, explain why you think they are.
You haven't made any comment on anything I've said, other than to quote the established explanation.

Here's an example of your understanding of the basics: Post 112

 

[despotic931]

Here's an example of your understanding of the basics: Post 112

And here is an example of yours John...

The cool thing about water is that anything that you add to it, that will stay in suspension, will actually decrease density.

I would think that you would like to refrain from attacking anyone if you want to prove anything.

 

[MJL21193]

And here is an example of yours John...

A champion to the rescue! I wasn't on the attack but the defensive.

The difference is I owned up to that mistake. I will again: I was wrong.

We all say some pretty silly things every once in a while. I'm sure you have at some point in your life.

The point here is to prove me wrong, not by spouting the same old same old, but by taking apart what I am saying and disproving my points.

 

[poptart]

we've disproved your points, your response to that has been to ignore those posts and change tack to a different argument. You now claim the point of this thread is to prove that a body of water expands after a wave passes through. That was not the issue we began with or what we disagreed with. The frustration you're seeing in people is exactly because of this non-sensical behavior, you're not acting like an honest or rational person and it puts people off.

I've been alternating between calling you out for trolling and game playing and actually trying to answer you as if you're serious, but since you've all but admitted now that this is a game I'm taking my ball and going home

 

[SY]

What makes you think that I don't understand the basics of the conventional theory?

Most of what you've written. I do not mean to be unkind, but basic concepts like "density," "energy," "displacement, " and "compression" are consistently misused. Your analogies tend to be inapt. You consistently misuse the concepts of adiabatic and isothermal. These are all very basic things which must be understood before attacking the problem.

So during the positive portion of the wave, energy is entering the medium correct? What happens during the negative portion? It pulls energy out? How?
If we are to accept the idea that a sound wave will travel through a medium without having a physical impact on the medium, we need to figure out how the sound wave can draw energy out of the medium.

That neatly illustrates what I'm trying to tell you here.

You've been handed some poles. Lots of good basic references. Go fish.

 

[AndrewT]

Hi,
and after all this intransigence, I have to ask myself the question and reach a very difficult decision.
Do I start an ignore list? Do I put MJL as sole resident in that list?

MJL,
see where you have put me!

 

[MJL21193]

we've disproved your points, your response to that has been to ignore those posts and change tack to a different argument.

One of the points I've been making from the start is:

You now claim the point of this thread is to prove that a body of water expands after a wave passes through. That was not the issue we began with or what we disagreed with.

This supports my "theory". Here it is again:
Sound energy enters the medium > molecules are excited > displacement happens > friction from the increased molecule movement creates heat.
Saying that the medium expands after the wave goes through it backs up the "displacement" idea. No one has disproved this. To dismiss it as unimportant is not to disprove.

If I am wrong about the above (volume increase from heat produced by the sound energy doing work within the medium), where does the energy go? Is the medium a perpetual motion machine - without losses? Why does a medium conducting sound energy not follow the same physical rules as other forms of energy transmission?

 

[MJL21193]

Most of what you've written.

Be specific. How did I get "density" wrong. And "energy", how did I mis-use this term.
Some examples please

So during the positive portion of the wave, energy is entering the medium correct? What happens during the negative portion? It pulls energy out? How?
If we are to accept the idea that a sound wave will travel through a medium without having a physical impact on the medium, we need to figure out how the sound wave can draw energy out of the medium.

That neatly illustrates what I'm trying to tell you here.

That is my spoof on what happens to the energy in your version. It is not a representation of how I see it, but a way to explain your side, where you say the sound will pass through the medium and results in no net change to the state of the medium.

It's tiresome when I write something that seems clear to me, but I have to go back and explain later, due to lack of understanding on your part.

 

[MJL21193]

Hi,
and after all this intransigence, I have to ask myself the question and reach a very difficult decision.
Do I start an ignore list? Do I put MJL as sole resident in that list?

MJL,
see where you have put me!

Hi Andrew,
You have popped in a time or two to say something, give an example, then don't hang around to discuss the merits of it. This is next to useless. You made no rebuttal regarding the things I said about your ruler example (rubbish, I think that's all you said).

Are you another who is taking this personally? If so, do what you will. It doesn't bother me if you choose to put me on your new ignore list.
It doesn't say anything about how reasonable I am.

 

[despotic931]

One of the points I've been making from the start is:

"You now claim the point of this thread is to prove that a body of water expands after a wave passes through. That was not the issue we began with or what we disagreed with."

ummmm, read here...

Hi,
Again:
Sound travels by making things vibrate. Air vibrates, water vibrates, solids vibrate. What is vibration? Mechanical motion, in this case, the molecules in the medium are moving and bashing into each other. they are not getting smaller or changing shape, just moving. This is why water transmits sound better than air and why steel transmits sound better than water - the molecules are closer together.

A spherical sound source immersed in water will make the water molecules move (vibrate). They move in the direction they are pushed. Nothing is being compressed, not even a minute amount.

I have thought about it, like 30 years ago when I was in elementary school and I learned the basics of sound transmission and (unrelated at the time) how it takes incredible force to compress water.
Think about hydraulics and how it works. Think about how sound goes through steel. Think about how easy it is to move water - you can pour it into a glass; try to put more water in the glass by compressing it (good luck with that one).
Observe, using your bathtub as the lab, how easy it is to produce waves in water by dropping objects into it. These waves show on the surface, but run deep. They are identical to sound waves, except they are on a lower frequency.
After much deep thought and experimentation, you should come to the well know conclusion that these mediums are not being compressed at all.

Is there not one reader of this thread that understands this? I encourage him or her to jump in.


PS: Don't send out invitations if you don't want me to attend.

This is the first post in this thread. This is what you originally set out to prove, and it seems you've completely forgotten it. Remember, you thought that sound travels through water via displacement? You said there was no compression as a sound wave passes through water, and we gave you reason after reason why you where wrong. Now your story changes, now you are out to prove something entirely different. Are you just a martyr looking for a lost cause John?

Heres how it works...

A sound wave causes compressions and rarefactions in the body of water. As these compressions and rarefactions cause the water molecules to go from a state of compression to a state of tension there is friction placed on them. This friction in turn causes a small amount of heat, and as with anything heat will cause the medium to expand. So, yes, water will expand very slightly on a molecular level as sound passes through it. However, this heat is simply a byproduct. If we put water in our imaginary container John, it would still transmit sound, even though the heat is causing expansion, the container would just contain it. The containing of this expansion would have no effect on the sound wave because the sound wave was the cause, and the small amount of heat is just the effect.

-J (says silly things all the time... ....I'll tell you a joke if you ask nicely)