>At 12:49 AM 2/26/98 -0500, Jim Bell wrote:
>>Glenn writes:
>>
>><<It seems to me that all John did was say,
>>"Glenn is wrong". That may or may not be true, but it doesn't clarify
>>anything. I raised specific objections that John is avoiding.>>
>>
>>No, he's not. He answered the objection specifically:
>>
>><< Because the deformational heating is proportional to the stress times
>>the strain rate and the stresses are so strongly reduced, the heating is
>>not nearly so extreme.>>
>
>Not a single number or mathematical equation. Yep, he answered it
>specifically, Specifically answered in such a way that no response or
>criticism can be given.
>
>glenn
Glenn, don't respond to Jim's claim that Baumgardner answered the questions
by (at least, sarcastically) rolling over like this. What is needed is a
careful explanation, that even a lawyer can follow, as to *why*
Baumgardner's response doesn't answer the questions.
1. Baumgardner's response about "the deformational ... heating is not nearly
so extreme" does not say relative to what this reduced heating is to be
compared to. "So extreme" as what? Is this relative to his previous
published work admitting that about 10^28 J of heat would be liberated, or
is it relative to other possible unnamed critical calculations regarding
Baumgardner's thermal runaway senario that do not properly account for
effect of the reduced shear stress at high temperatures on the heat
production rate? We do not know whether or not the 10^28 J figure includes
this heat reduction mechanism or not.
2. Relative to 1. we do not know if Baumgardner still stands by his 10^28 J
figure.
3. *If* he does not still hold to this figure, and the effect he mentions
was subsequently included in a newer updated calculation, he does not say
just how much the old figure is to be reduced by. A quite significant
reduction in the heat evolved in the process would *still* result in too
much liberated heat to be effectively handled by his model. Is the
(possible) new lowered liberated heat energy low enough to not cause the
drastic problems that the 10^28 J figure causes. In order to be a realistic
model the figure ought to be reduced by at least a couple of orders of
magnitude. Note, for comparison purposes, the latent heat of vaporization
of the entire hydrosphere amounts to about a mere 5% of this value.
4. *If* Baumgardner *does* still stand by his earlier figure, then his answer
given does not at all meet the objections raised.
5. Baumgardner said the details were given in his papers on the subject, but
did not reference just which papers he meant. So instead of answering the
questions he may have effectively said that the answers are in those
unreferenced papers. Even if the heat problem is effectively dealt with
(a prospect that seems dubious) in one or more of his works, the fact
remains that his email response did not answer the questions itself.
David Bowman
dbowman@gtc.georgetown.ky.us