sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics

Nucleation theory is a very complicated science, or at least it has
been rendered such over the last century. I am wondering if there are
any good folks of this forum who may wonder if there is a simpler
solution.

Now I have published a simpler explanation with proof in the journal:
Physics Essays, vol 17, number 4 2004, pg 476-495. A paper
entitled :"Energetics of Nucleation"

Now I realize that blowing ones horn is a no no in physics, and to
that I agree. However in this case, I am starting to think it is time
to blow. The problem with nucleation theory starts with Gibbs famous
paper: Equilibrium of Heteroigeneous Substance" wherein he deals with
the nucleation of globules i.e. a liquid forming in a liquid (example
a lava lamp)

In a nutshell Gibbs equation for the nucleation of a globule has been
applied to both bubbles and droplets, both of which require a phase
change. So I believe that the foundation of the science of nucleation
is wrong. Moreover this may explain why the science has become so darn
complicated when it should be simple.

Interesting in 2001 the Lauterborne group published the energy
required to nucleate bubbles oin degasified water via a laser in 2001:
Paper B. Wolfrum, T. Kurz, O. Lindau and W. Lauterborne Phys. Rev. E.
64, 046306 (2001). Now they stated that current theory could not
explain the energy required to produce a bubble. Interestingly, all
their data point were an exact fit to what I had been saying, hence my
paper was published (please note that previously referees would say
that in so far as I could explain everything that I had no proof.)

Basically if one wants to calculate the energy required to nucleate
a bubble, one calculates the bubble's volume and pressure and then
calculates the number of vapor molecules and then uses the latent heat
at that pressure to calculate the energy required for the phase
change. And onto that value one adds the energy required to form the
tensile layer based upon its surface area.

Now the above assumes that the water is at its boiling point. If the
water is below its boiling point then one must add to the above, the
energy required to bring those molecules top their boiling point.

To me the above is common sense. To experts in nucleation it does
not. Now the Lauterborne group have confided to me that yes their data
is an exact fit to what I say but beyond that I have drawn a blank
from them. Human nature wins over logic sort of thing.

If anyone out there is interested in further discussion of
nuclreation, please let me know.

Regards Kent Mayhew of Ottawa Canada