text:
# A New Damping Mechanism in Non-linear Bubble Dynamics

## I Introduction

When a small isolated gas bubble, immersed in a liquid, experiences a high amplitude spherical sound field, it grows and contracts non-linearly. Description of the dynamics of such non-linear motion is an old challenging problem. The complexities of the problem arise from the effects of heat conduction, mass diffusion, compressibility, viscosity, and energy losses involved in damped oscillations of the bubble. So far, many people have investigated this problem, each concentrating on different aspects of its complexities. However, a rather complete description has not been presented yet.

Lord Rayleigh Rayleigh:1917  was the first who analytically solved the collapse of an empty bubble in an incompressible liquid. Plesset Plesset:1949  subsequently studied the dynamics of a vapor-filled bubble in a time-dependent pressure field. Noltingk and Neppiras Noltingk:1951  were the first people derived a differential equation for the gas bubble motion under the influence of such pressure field. The extension of this equation to the bubble motion in a compressible liquid has been studied by many authors; Herring Herring:1941 , Trilling Trilling:1952 , Gilmore Gilmore:1952 , Keller and Kolodner Keller:1956 , Hickling and Plesset Hickling:1964 , Jahsman Jahsman:1968 , Flynn Flynn:1975 , Lastman and Wentzell Lastman:1979 , Keller and Miksis Keller:1980 . On the other hand, heat conduction effects were presented in the works of Hickling Hickling:1963 , Fujikawa and Akumatsu Fujikawa:1980 , and Yasui Yasui:1997 . In addition, the works of Löfstedt et al. fstedt:1993 , Nigmatulin et al. Nigmatulin:2000 , and Brujan Brujan:2001  are of the subsequent papers addressing this problem.

Between all previous works, the most complete description of the bubble dynamics equations was presented by Prosperetti and Lezzi Prosperetti:1987 . They used a singular-perturbation method of the bubble-wall Mach number and derived the following one-parameter family of equations describing the bubble motion in the first order approximation of compressibility Prosperetti:1987 :

$`(1(\eta +1){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{C}})R\ddot{R}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(3\eta +1){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{C}})\dot{R}^2=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\rho C}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(P_lP_{\mathrm{}}\right)+(1+(1\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{C}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{P_lP_{\mathrm{}}}{\rho }}\right),`$
where, $`R`$, $`C`$, $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`\rho `$ are the bubble radius, liquid sound speed, liquid pressure at infinity, and liquid density, respectively. Also, $`\eta `$ is an arbitrary parameter. Equation (I) must be supplemented by a boundary condition equation at the bubble interface to relate the liquid pressure, $`P_l`$, to the gas pressure inside the bubble. Like all previous authors, Prosperetti and Lezzi Prosperetti:1987  used the following incompressible equation for this purpose:

$$P_l=P_g4\mu \frac{\dot{R}}{R}\frac{2\sigma }{R},$$
(2)
where, $`P_g`$, $`\mu `$, and $`\sigma `$ are the gas pressure at the bubble interface, liquid viscosity, and surface tension, respectively. Most of the previously derived equations belong to this single parameter family of equations, corresponding to different values of $`\eta `$. Moreover, $`\eta =0`$ yields results in closest agreement with the numerical simulation of full partial differential equations Prosperetti:1987 .

Two specific approximations have been used in the derivation of Eq’ns. (I) and (2). The first approximation is the negligence of the viscosity effects for the liquid motion around the bubble, which has been used in the derivation of Eq’n. (I). In fact, Eq’n. (I) has been derived from the Euler equation, in which the viscosity is eliminated. Note that the viscous term of Eq’n. (2) has been resulted from the liquid viscosity at the bubble interface, but not from the bulk of liquid.

The second approximation is the incompressibility assumption of the liquid and the gas at the bubble interface, which has been used in the derivation of Eq’n. (2). All of the effects of the liquid compressibility in the work of Prosperetti and Lezzi, as well as in all other previous works, have been resulted from the liquid motion around the bubble, but not from the bubble boundary condition equation. In fact, all previous authors, on one hand took into account the compressibility of the liquid motion around the bubble, but on the other hand neglected its consideration at the bubble interface.

Although, the two mentioned approximations have been used in the derivations of the existing bubble dynamics equations Rayleigh:1917 ; Plesset:1949 ; Noltingk:1951 ; Herring:1941 ; Trilling:1952 ; Gilmore:1952 ; Keller:1956 ; Flynn:1975 ; Jahsman:1968 ; Lastman:1979 ; fstedt:1993 ; Nigmatulin:2000 ; Brujan:2001 ; Hickling:1963 ; Fujikawa:1980 ; Yasui:1997 ; Hickling:1964 ; Prosperetti:1987 ; Keller:1980 , but the applicability of these approximations for all times of the bubble motion needs to be clarified. Especially, at the end of the collapse, when the bubble motion is significantly compressible, these approximations may be inapplicable.

In this paper, by eliminating the above mentioned approximations, we have originally modified the bubble dynamics equations. A new set of equations have been derived including all effects of the viscosity and compressibility of both the liquid and the gas. These equations contain new terms resulted from the effects of two coefficients of viscosity of both the liquid and the gas. The influence of the added new terms arisen from the liquid viscosity has been numerically investigated. The results clearly indicate that the addition of the new terms considerably affects the bubble motion at the collapse time and during the bubble rebounds.

## II Derivation of the Bubble Dynamics Equations

To derive the bubble dynamics equations, we assume that the motion of the bubble interface and the infinitely extended surrounding liquid are always spherically symmetric. Under this circumstance, the continuity and the momentum equations are as follows Aris: :

$$\frac{1}{\rho }\left[\frac{\rho }{t}+u\frac{\rho }{r}\right]=\frac{u}{r}\frac{2u}{r}=\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(3)
$`\rho \left[{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}+u{\displaystyle \frac{u}{r}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{r}}+(\lambda +\mu )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(r^2u\right)\right)\right]`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`\mu \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(r^2{\displaystyle \frac{u}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2u}{r^2}}\right],`$
where, $`\rho `$, $`u`$, $`p`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are density, velocity, pressure, and divergence of the velocity, respectively. Also, $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ are first and second coefficients of viscosity. The two brackets of the right hand side of Eq’n. (4) have the same differential forms. Hence:

$$\rho \left(\frac{u}{t}+u\frac{u}{r}\right)=\frac{p}{r}+(\lambda +2\mu )\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{r}.$$
(5)
Dividing Eq’n. (5) by $`\rho `$ and integrating it with respect to $`r`$ from the bubble interface to infinity at a fixed instant of time and assuming that the two coefficients of viscosity are constant, we get:

$`{\displaystyle _R^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}^2}{2}}={\displaystyle _R^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}𝑑p+(\lambda +2\mu ){\displaystyle _R^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta },`$
where, the liquid velocity at the far field is assumed to be sufficiently small. When the liquid density does not strongly change, Eq’n. (II) can be written as:

$`{\displaystyle _R^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}𝑑r={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{\mathrm{}}P_l}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +2\mu }{\rho }}(\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}_l).`$
where, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the divergence of the liquid velocity at the bubble interface and at infinity, respectively. The liquid pressure at the far field, $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$, is:

$$P_{\mathrm{}}(t)=P_0+P_a(t),$$
(8)
where, $`P_0`$ and $`P_a(t)`$ are ambient and driving pressures, respectively. From Eq’n. (3) the divergence of the velocity can be written as:

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{d\rho }{dt}=\frac{1}{\rho c^2}\frac{dp}{dt},$$
(9)
where the sound speed, $`c`$, which is assumed to be constant in the liquid, is defined as: $`c^2=dp/d\rho `$. Thus, Eq’n. (II) becomes:

$`{\displaystyle _R^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}𝑑r={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{\mathrm{}}P_l}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +2\mu }{\rho ^2C^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(P_lP_{\mathrm{}}\right).`$
The viscous term in Eq’n. (II) has been resulted from the simultaneous effects of the liquid viscosity and compressibility. This term has been neglected in the derived equations of the previous authors.

To convert Eq’n. (II) to a differential equation, the integral term must be approximated. Because of the irrotationality assumption of the bubble motion the velocity potential, $`\phi (r,t)`$, can be introduced into this equation as:

$`\phi _t(R,t)={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{P_lP_{\mathrm{}}}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +2\mu }{\rho ^2C^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(P_lP_{\mathrm{}}\right),`$
where subscript $`t`$ denotes the temporal derivation. In the simplest approximation of $`\phi _t(R,t)`$, the liquid motion is assumed to be incompressible. So, the liquid velocity at any distance $`r`$ will be:

$$u(r)=\frac{R^2\dot{R}}{r^2}.$$
(12)
According to this approximation, $`\phi _t(R,t)`$ can be written as:

$$\phi _t(R,t)=\left[\frac{}{t}\left(\frac{R^2\dot{R}}{r}\right)\right]_{r=R}=R\ddot{R}+2\dot{R}^2.$$

Inserting Eq’n. (II) into Eq’n. (II) and eliminating the liquid viscous term due to incompressibility approximation yields the well-known Rayleigh-Plesset equation:

$$R\ddot{R}+\frac{3}{2}\dot{R}^2=\frac{P_lP_{\mathrm{}}}{\rho }.$$
(13)
To introduced the compressibility effects into approximation of $`\phi _t(R,t)`$, we assume that the liquid potential fulfills the following acoustic equation for the spherical waves:

$$\frac{}{t}\left(r\phi \right)+C\frac{}{r}\left(r\phi \right)=0.$$
(14)
As we have shown in the following, this approximation is equivalent to the first order compressibility consideration of Ref. Prosperetti:1987 . Double radial differentiation of Eq’n. (14) results:

$$\frac{}{t}\left(r\mathrm{}\right)+C\frac{}{r}\left(r\mathrm{}\right)=0.$$
(15)
Through the definition of total derivative of the velocity along with Eq’n. (3) it can be obtained that:

$`\phi _t(R,t)={\displaystyle _R^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}𝑑r={\displaystyle _R^{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{du}{dt}}u\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2u^2}{r}}\right)𝑑r.`$ (16)
By a partial integration:

$$\phi _t(R,t)=R\ddot{R}+2\dot{R}^2R\dot{R}\mathrm{}_l+_R^{\mathrm{}}r\frac{\mathrm{}}{t}𝑑r.$$
(17)
Applying Eq’n. (15) in Eq’n. (17) yields:

$$\phi _t(R,t)=R\ddot{R}+2\dot{R}^2R\dot{R}\mathrm{}_l+RC\mathrm{}_l.$$
(18)
Substituting Eq’n. (17) into Eq’n. (II) results:

$`R\ddot{R}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\dot{R}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\rho C}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{C}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{dP_l}{dt}}+{\displaystyle \frac{P_lP_{\mathrm{}}}{\rho }}`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +2\mu }{\rho ^2C^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(P_lP_{\mathrm{}}\right).`$
This equation is the modified form of Flynn equation Flynn:1975  along with viscosity consideration.

The compressibility effects can be introduced in a different manner. Differentiating Eq’n. (14) with respect to $`t`$ and substituting $`\phi _t(R,t)`$ in it from Eq’n. (II) yields:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{R\dot{R}}{C}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}\right)_R+{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\rho C}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p}{t}}\right)_R{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\rho C}}{\displaystyle \frac{dP_{\mathrm{}}}{dt}}+`$
$`R\dot{R}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{r}}\right)_R+{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\rho }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p}{r}}\right)_R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{R}^2=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{\mathrm{}}P_l}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +2\mu }{\rho ^2C^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(P_lP_{\mathrm{}}),`$ (20)
in which, the spatial and the temporal partial derivatives of the viscous term have been neglected due to smallness as well as the spatial derivative of the liquid pressure at infinity. Inserting the relation $`d\rho =dp/c^2`$ into Eq’n. (3) and using this equation and the momentum equation along with the total derivatives of the pressure and the velocity at the bubble interface, the four partial derivatives in Eq’n. (II) can be obtained as:

$$\left(\frac{u}{t}\right)_R=\ddot{R}+\frac{\dot{R}}{\rho C^2}\frac{dP_l}{dt}+\frac{2\dot{R}^2}{R},$$
(21)
$$\left(\frac{p}{t}\right)_R=\rho \dot{R}\ddot{R}+\frac{dP_l}{dt},$$
(22)
$$\left(\frac{u}{r}\right)_R=\frac{1}{\rho C^2}\frac{dP_l}{dt}\frac{2\dot{R}}{R},$$
(23)
$$\left(\frac{p}{r}\right)_R=\rho \ddot{R}.$$
(24)
Note, in the derivation of the Eq’ns. (21-24), the spatial and the temporal partial derivatives of the two viscous terms in the Navier-Stokes equation, Eq’n. (4), have been neglected. Inserting Eq’ns. (21-24) into Eq’n. (II) and retaining only the terms up to the order of $`\dot{R}/C`$ results the modified form of Herring-Trilling equation Trilling:1952 ; Herring:1941  along with viscosity effects:

$`(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{R}}{C}})R\ddot{R}`$ $`+`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\dot{R}}{3C}}){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\dot{R}^2={\displaystyle \frac{R}{\rho C}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(P_lP_{\mathrm{}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_lP_{\mathrm{}}}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +2\mu }{\rho ^2C^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(P_lP_{\mathrm{}}\right).`$
It is straight forward to obtain the modified form of Eq’n. (I) by the addition of Eq’n. (II) and the product of $`(1\eta )\dot{R}/C`$ with Eq’n. (13) as:

$`\left(1(\eta +1){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{C}}\right)R\ddot{R}`$ $`+`$ $`\left(1(3\eta +1){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{3C}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\dot{R}^2=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\rho C}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(P_lP_{\mathrm{}})`$ $`+`$ $`\left(1+(1\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{C}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{P_lP_{\mathrm{}}}{\rho }}`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +2\mu }{\rho ^2C^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(P_lP_{\mathrm{}}).`$
The new Eq’n. (II) provides a suitable description of the simultaneous effects of liquid compressibility and liquid viscosity in the bubble motion. The added viscous new term of this equation arises from the liquid compressibility.

To complete the argument, it is necessary to modify the boundary condition Eq’n. (2) with the compressibility effects. The radial component of the stress tensor is:

$$T_{rr}=p+\lambda \stackrel{}{u}+2\mu \left(\frac{u}{r}\right).$$
(27)
Inserting the velocity divergence from Eq’n. (3), into this equation yields:

$`T_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`p+(\lambda +2\mu )\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2u}{r}}\right)4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu u}{r}}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`p+(\lambda +2\mu )\mathrm{}4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu u}{r}}.`$
The boundary continuity requirement at the bubble interface is:

$`T_{rr}(liquid)_R=T_{rr}\left(gas\right)_R+2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{R}}.`$ (29)
Substituting Eq’ns. (28) and (9) into Eq’n. (29) leads to:

$`P_l+4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \dot{R}}{R}}`$ $`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +2\mu }{\rho C^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dP_l}{dt}}\right)=P_g+4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _g\dot{R}}{R}}`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _g+2\mu _g}{\rho _g}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _g}{dt}}\right)2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{R}},`$
where, $`\rho _g`$, $`\mu _g`$, and $`\lambda _g`$ are the gas density, the first and the second coefficients of viscosity of the gas, respectively. The new Eq’n (30) provides the most complete boundary condition equation at the bubble interface, which contains all effects of compressibility and viscosity of both the liquid and the gas. Here, we concentrate on the effects of liquid viscous new term of Eq’n (30) and eliminate the gas viscosity terms as previous works Rayleigh:1917 ; Plesset:1949 ; Noltingk:1951 ; Herring:1941 ; Trilling:1952 ; Gilmore:1952 ; Keller:1956 ; Hickling:1963 ; Fujikawa:1980 ; Yasui:1997 ; Hickling:1964 ; Jahsman:1968 ; Flynn:1975 ; Lastman:1979 ; fstedt:1993 ; Nigmatulin:2000 ; Brujan:2001 ; Prosperetti:1987 ; Keller:1980 . Therefore, Eq’n. (30) becomes:

$`P_l+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +2\mu }{\rho C^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dP_l}{dt}}\right)=P_g4{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \dot{R}}{R}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{R}}.`$ (31)
Comparison of Eq’ns. (2) and (31) indicates the existence of a new viscous term in Eq’n. (31) due to the liquid compressibility. The set of Eq’ns. (II) and (31) present the most complete form of the bubble dynamics equations containing effects of the liquid compressibility and viscosity not only at the bubble interface, but also in the bulk of liquid. In fact, these equations account for the viscosity of a compressible liquid. While, all previous equations accounted for the viscosity of an incompressible liquid and compressibility, separately.

To generalize the argument, Eq’ns. (II) and (31) are expressed in dimensionless forms. The dimensionless variables of this problem are defined as:

$`R^{}={\displaystyle \frac{R}{R_0}},`$ $`\dot{R^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{C}},t^{}={\displaystyle \frac{tC}{R_0}},P_l^{}={\displaystyle \frac{P_l}{\rho C^2}},`$ (32)
$`P_g^{}={\displaystyle \frac{P_g}{\rho C^2}},P_{\mathrm{}}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{P_{\mathrm{}}}{\rho C^2}},`$
where, $`R_0`$ is ambient radius of the bubble. Substituting the dimensionless variables into Eq’ns. (II) and (31), the dimensionless equations are obtained as:

$`\left(1(\eta +1)\dot{R}^{}\right)`$ $`R^{}\ddot{R^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(3\eta +1)\dot{R}^{}\right)\dot{R}^2`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`(1+(1\eta )\dot{R}^{})\left(P_l^{}P_a^{}P_0^{}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`R^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt^{}}}\left(P_l^{}P_a^{}\right),`$
$$P_l^{}=P_g^{}4\frac{\mu ^{}\dot{R}^{}}{R^{}}2\frac{\sigma ^{}}{R^{}}(\lambda ^{}+2\mu ^{})\frac{dP_l^{}}{dt^{}}.$$
(34)
The quantities $`\sigma ^{}`$, $`\mu ^{}`$, and $`\lambda ^{}`$ are dimensionless surface tension and dimensionless liquid viscosity coefficients, which are defined as: $`\sigma ^{}=\sigma /\rho R_0C^2`$, $`\mu ^{}=\mu /\rho R_0C`$, and $`\lambda ^{}=\lambda /\rho R_0C`$. These dimensionless numbers, which are basically inverse of Weber Number and inverse of Reynolds Number, characterize significance of the surface tension and the liquid viscosity in the bubble dynamics.

## III Bubble Interior Evolution

To quantify effects of the new viscous terms on the bubble dynamics, evolution of the gas pressure at the bubble interface, $`P_g`$, must be specified. It can be determined from simultaneous solution of the conservation equations for the bubble interior and the bubble radius equations C.C.WU ; Moss:1994 ; Kondict:1995 ; Voung:1996 ; Yuan:1998 ; Xu:2003 . Also, heat conduction and mass exchange between the bubble and the surrounding liquid affect the bubble evolution. These complexities were considered in a complete gas dynamics simulation by Storey and Szeri Storey:2000 .

On the other hand, strong spatial inhomogeneities inside the bubble are not remarkably revealed, unless at the end of an intense collapse Voung:1996 ; Yuan:1998 . Therefore, the uniformity assumption for the bubble interior seems to be useful and provides many features of the bubble motion Barber:1997 ; Brenner:2002 . Using this assumption Toegel et al. presented an ODE model Toegel:2000 , in which effects of heat and mass transfer at the bubble interface have been considered. This model accurately describes various experimental phase diagrams Toegel:2003  and provides a good agreement with the complete direct numerical simulation of Storey and Szeri Storey:2000 .

In this paper, we used the Toegel et al.’s model Toegel:2000  for specifying the bubble interior evolution. We describe an argon bubble in water under the conditions of Single Bubble Sonoluminescence Brenner:2002 ; Barber:1997 . The gas evolution model can be summarized as follows.

The gas pressure is modeled by the van der Waals equation of state:

$$P_g=\frac{N_{tot}kT}{VN_{tot}B}$$
(35)
where, $`N_{tot}=N_{Ar}+N_{H_2O}`$ is total number of particles inside the bubble. The covolume constant $`B=5.1\times 10^{29}m^3`$ is assumed to be equal for both water vapor and argon Toegel:2003 . The value of $`N_{tot}`$ changes with time because of evaporation and condensation of the water vapor molecules at the bubble interface. The rate of change can be modeled as Toegel:2000 :

$`\dot{N}_{tot}=4\pi R^2D{\displaystyle \frac{n_{0_{H_2O}}n_{_{H_2O}}}{l_d}},l_d=min(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{RD}{|\dot{R}|}}},{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\pi }}),`$
where, $`n_{_{H_2O}}`$ and $`n_{0_{H_2O}}`$ are the instantaneous and equilibrium concentration of the water vapor molecules, respectively. The diffusion coefficient, D, is given by Lu:2003 : $`D=D_0(n_0/n_{tot})`$, where $`D_0=23.55\times 10^6m^2/s`$ and $`n_0=2.5\times 10^{25}m^3`$. The quantity $`l_d`$ is thickness of diffusive boundary layer (see Ref. Toegel:2000  for more details). The equilibrium concentration of the water vapor molecules is given by the number density of the saturated vapor pressure at the ambient liquid temperature $`T_0`$; $`n_{0_{H_2O}}=P_\nu (T_0)/kT_0`$. In our calculations: $`n_{0_{H_2O}}=5.9\times 10^{23}m^3`$.

Similar to Eq’n. (III), the heat exchange at the bubble interface can be approximate by Toegel:2000 :

$$\dot{Q}=4\pi R^2\kappa \frac{T_0T}{l_{th}},l_{th}=min(\sqrt{\frac{R\chi }{|\dot{R}|}},\frac{R}{\pi }),$$
(37)
where, $`T`$ and $`T_0`$ are the gas temperature and the ambient liquid temperature, respectively. Also, $`\kappa =17.9\times 10^3W/mK`$ Lu:2003  is thermal conductivity coefficient of the gas content, $`l_{th}`$ is thickness of thermal boundary layer and $`\chi `$ is thermal diffusivity coefficient, which is given by: $`\chi =\kappa /c_p`$, with $`c_p=(\frac{5}{2}n_{Ar}+\frac{5}{2}n_{H_2O})k`$ the constant pressure heat capacity per unit volume of the gas.

Applying the basic energy equation for the bubble content evolution results the rate of change of the gas temperature Toegel:2000 ; Toegel:2003 :

$$\dot{T}=\frac{\dot{Q}}{C_\nu }\frac{P_g\dot{V}}{C_\nu }+[4T_03TT\left(\frac{\theta _i/T}{e^{\theta _i/T}1}\right)]\frac{k\dot{N}_{tot}}{C_\nu }$$
(38)
$`C_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}N_{Ar}k+\left[3+{\displaystyle \left(\frac{(\theta _i/T)^2e^{\theta _i/T}}{(e^{\theta _i/T}1)^2}\right)}\right]kN_{H_2O},`$ (39)
where, three different values for $`\theta _i`$ correspond to characteristic vibration temperatures of H<sub>2</sub>O: $`\theta _1=2295K`$, $`\theta _2=5255K`$, and $`\theta _3=5400K`$ Toegel:2003 . In this paper for simplicity we neglected the effects of chemical reactions Toegel:2003 , which are important only at an extremely short time interval when the bubble temperature is high enough (more than 5000K).

Equations (35-39) along with the bubble dynamics equations are the set of equations, which totally describe the evolution of the bubble characteristics. Under these circumstances, time variations of the bubble properties have been numerically calculated for both the new (Eq’ns. 33,34) and the old (Eq’ns. I,2) bubble dynamics equations (for $`\eta =0`$).

## IV Numerical Analysis

The calculations were carried out for a periodic driving pressure; $`P_a(t)=P_a\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega t\right)`$, with $`\omega =2\pi \times 26.5kHz`$. The constants and parameters of the bubble dynamics equations were set for the water at room temperature, $`T_0=293.15K`$, and atmospheric ambient pressure, $`P_0=1.0atm`$; $`\rho =998.0kg/m^3`$, $`C=1483.0m/s`$, $`\mu =1.01\times 10^3kg/ms`$, $`\sigma =0.0707kgs^2`$ CRC:1995 . The second coefficient of viscosity of water at room temperature was set to be $`\lambda =3.43\times 10^3kg/ms`$ Karim:1952 .

Figures (1-3) illustrate the results of our calculations for $`P_a=1.4atm`$ and $`R_0=4.0\mu m`$. Similar values for these parameters have been reported in recent experimental works of Ketterling and Apfel Ketterling:2000 , Simon et al. Simon:2001 , and Vazquez et al. Vazquez:2002 . Figure (1) shows the variations of the bubble radius for the new and the old bubble dynamics equations. It is observed that the addition of the new viscous terms considerably changes the bubble evolution after the collapse. The bubble motion is remarkably compressible during the collapse. Therefore, the new viscous terms, which have been arisen from the liquid compressibility, are important in this time interval. These terms exhibit a damping role and their consideration reduces the amplitude of the bubble rebounds. Also, the period of the rebounds decreases with the addition of the new terms. Details of our calculations at the end of the collapse show that the minimum radius for the new case is about 4% greater than that of the old one.

The difference between the two cases for the evolution of the number of H<sub>2</sub>O particles has been illustrated in Fig. (2). As this figure indicates, a large amount of water vapor evaporates into the bubble during the expansion. Indeed, at maximum radius, most of the bubble content is water vapor. During the collapse, the water vapor molecules rapidly condense to the liquid. It is seen that the remarkable difference between the two cases also appears on the variations of the number of H<sub>2</sub>O particles after the collapse. Note that, the difference gradually disappears as the bubble rebounds weaken.

In Fig. (3), the gas temperature evolution during the bubble rebounds and at the end of the collapse have been demonstrated. Damping feature of the new term is clearly observed by considerable decrease of the peak temperature at the collapse time as well as remarkable reduce of the secondary peak temperatures. Also, the pulse width of the main peak temperature decreases with the addition of the new terms.

Figures (4) and (5) illustrate dependence of the bubble properties at the end of the collapse to the variation of the amplitude and the frequency of driving pressure for the two cases. The different values of $`P_a`$, corresponding to a specific values of $`R_0`$, can be experimentally obtained by varying the concentration of the dissolved gas in the liquid Barber:1997 ; Ketterling:2000 ; Simon:2001 ; Vazquez:2002 . Also, the frequency range in the calculations of Fig. (5) is in the range of the experimental results Barber:1997 .

Figure (4) shows the variation of the peak temperature, the peak pressure, and the minimum radius as a function of the driving pressure amplitude. The ambient radius was fixed ($`R_0=4.5\mu m`$). The damping feature of the new viscous terms is clearly observed in this figure. For the peak temperature in Fig. 4(a), the maximum relative difference appears around $`P_a=1.25atm`$ (about 35%). The difference between the two cases decreases for higher driving pressures. However, for the peak pressure in Fig. 4(b), the difference increases with the increase of the amplitude. The values of $`R_{min}`$ for the two cases are similar in high driving pressures because of the effects of the excluded volume, which prevent the bubble compression Toegel:2002 .

Figure (5) represents the dependence of the bubble characteristics at the end of the collapse to the variations of the driving pressure frequency. The ambient radius and the amplitude were fixed in these calculations ($`R_0=4.5\mu m`$ and $`P_a=1.35atm`$). As Fig. (4), the damping feature of the new terms is also seen here. The difference between the two cases for the peak temperature and the minimum radius increases when the frequency is increased. While, for the peak pressure the difference reduces with the increase of the frequency.

A major deficiency of the old bubble dynamics equations is that for strongly driven bubbles, such as sonoluminescence bubbles, large amplitude rebounds are produced after the collapse, so that they often last until the next acoustic cycle of the periodic driving pressure. This is in contrast with the experimental results, which show rapidly damped rebounds Barber:1997 ; Moss:2000 . By introducing a damping term arisen from the gas compressibility, Moss et. al Moss:2000  provided a typical solution for this problem. The effects of the suggested term by Moss et. al is very similar to the damping effects of the new terms in this paper, (compare Fig. 1(b) with Figs. (3) and (4) of Ref. Moss:2000 ). It seems the damping feature of the the new terms is a better way for solving the mentioned problem. The reason is that Eq’ns. (33) and (34) have been derived directly from the basic equations of fluid mechanics, on the contrary to Eq’n. (3.2) of Ref. Moss:2000 , which was derived by an approximate method.

## V Conclusions

The equations of the bubble motion in a compressible viscous liquid were newly derived from the full Navier-Stokes equations. These equations contain two similar new terms resulted from the simultaneous effects of the liquid viscosity and compressibility. These new terms have a considerable damping role at the collapse, when the bubble motion is significantly compressible. This new damping mechanism dramatically changes the bubble properties at the end of the collapse and during the bubble rebounds.

The results of this work indicate that, the neglect of the new terms in the previous works is not reasonable for the collapse time and the new effects should be considered for the prediction of the quantities related to the collapse, e.g., the value of light emission by a single sonoluminescing bubble as well as the bubble stability limits.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by Sharif University of Technology and Bonab Research Center. Partial support of this work by Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics is appreciated. The authors thank Andrea Prosperetti for his helpful comments.


format: text

text:
# GRAVITATIONAL WAVES AND ETHER’S WIND

## Abstract.

A very recent research validates observationally the theoretical demonstrations of the physical non-existence of the gravitational waves.

Submitted to *Il Nuovo Saggiatore* – Bollettino della Società Italiana di Fisica
Recently (August 14th, 2003) it has been published on *Los Alamos Archive* (arXiv:gr-qc/0308050 v1) an observational paper by 368 co-authors (B.Abbott …J.Zweizig) entitled “Setting upper limits on the strength of periodic gravitational waves using the first science data from the GEO600 and LIGO detectors”.

Its abstract is as follows: “Data collected by the GEO600 and LIGO interferometric gravitational wave detectors during their first observational science run were searched for continuous gravitational waves from the pulsar J1939+2134 at twice its rotation frequency. Two independent analysis methods were used and are demonstrated in this paper: a frequency domain method and a time domain method. Both achieve consistent null results, placing new upper limits on the strength of the pulsar’s gravitational wave emission. A model emission mechanism is used to interpret the limits as a constraint on the pulsar’s equatorial ellipticity.”

*These null results could have been foreseen* – and in a very simple way. A fundamental article of 1917 by T.Levi Civita  has demonstrated that the gravitational waves are mere *formal* undulations, fully destitute of energy and momentum, *only* endowed with a *false* (pseudo) tensor (i.e. a *non*-tensor) of energy-momentum. As a matter of fact, Einstein had always serious doubts about the *physical* reality of the gravitational waves, see e.g. his paper with Rosen of 1935 , even if the notion “gravitational wave” had been theorized by him in 1916 . But in this paper he investigated the approximate *linearized* version of the exact general relativity (version whose substrate is simply Minkowski spacetime), which resembles the Minkowskian formulation of e.m. Maxwell theory, and which has an invariant character only under the transformations of Lorentz group. On the contrary, Levi-Civita  made a frontal attack to the analogous problem of the *exact* GR, for which the variable metric *is*, in essence, spacetime – and *not* a conventional field propagated through a fixed substrate.

In recent years I have given specific and stringent proofs of the physical non-existence of the gravitational waves , in particular of the absence of any generation mechanism whatever.

It is a pity that in 2003 the above 368 physicists base essentially their belief in the real existence of gravitational waves on the cited Einstein’s paper of 1916 , fully neglecting some basic concepts of the *exact* GR . Of course, they have the possibility of persevering on their road with the aim to lower more and more the upper limits of the strength of the gravitational waves. And in fact they write that “further improvements are planned”: a vain chase to nothing. In the Forties of the past century a distinguished experimentalist, Quirino Majorana (uncle of Ettore M.), had succeeded in lowering to the intensity of a very gentle breeze the upper limit of the strength of terrestrial ether’s wind; he used just a Michelson interferometer.

An Italian proverb says: “Chi si contenta gode”.