At 07:33 am 30/08/2005 -0500, Richard wrote: > Grimer wrote...
>> Investigating how thermodynamicists accounted >> for the Hilsch phenomena and I came across this >> priceless piece of nonsense. Still, I suppose >> if professors don't confidently put forward >> explanations for anti-intuitive effects their >> students will no longer trust them. > Here's another link to the tube. > > http://www.southstreet.freeserve.co.uk/rhvtmatl/index.htm Thanks for that useful link, Richard. Here's a relevant excerpt. =============================================== Many, often contradictory, explanations for the vortex tube effect have been advanced over the years since its invention/discovery. Analysis of the various suggestions reveals only two firm facts (1) As of 1996, no-one knows for sure the details of how the energy separation in the vortex tube arises. A number of authors have written confidently about their theories, but all have serious difficiencies [sic] or are called into question by subsequent experiments. I advance a summary of my best guess below, based on experiments, simulations and analysis but I would not for a moment suggest that it represents a definitive explanation. (2) The vortex tube is a tough nut to crack. The energy/temperature separation is a complex and subtle phenomenon. Anyone who solves the mystery definitively will do so as the result of a serious programme of experimental and theoretical research. While qualitative. back of the envelope type explanations may be useful to get a basic handle on what is going on, there is no way they can do more than scratch the surface. =============================================== I guessed that must be the situation - but it's always nice to have confirmation. > and another to the third side .. read down to the little > people appearing.. wow !! never mix Tequila with water. > > http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/m-seeps.htm Perhaps it was Maxwell's demon in person, eh! But more likely, as you suggest, the demon, drink. 8-) Cheers, Frank
