论文部分内容阅读
《再论影响半径》(以下简称《再论》,见本刊1977第5期)发表后,我们反复阅读,颇有所识。该文既是兼答《质疑》的,但对《质疑》提出的许多问题,并未全面作答。据《再论》的理由是:这些略去的问题是“与地下水动力学一般原理”无关的“细节”。我们不能同意这是未能回答问题的原因。比如:“各种不同类型实际的降落漏斗与理论的K_0(x)函数进行比较,验证理论函数对漏斗描述的正确性和误差情况”这能说是“与地下水动力学一般原理”无关吗?回答R_y的主要求解方法——s～1gr图解法为什么不呈直线和不交于一点是“理论上的缺陷”所造成的这样的问题,难道是什么“细节”吗?……。
After the publication of “Re-discussing the Impact Radius” (hereinafter referred to as “Re-discussion”, see Issue 5, 1977), we read it over and over again. This article answers both “questioning” and not answering many questions raised by “questioning”. The reason for the “further discussion” is that these omitted questions are “details” unrelated to the general principle of groundwater dynamics. We can not agree that this is the reason for not answering the question. For example: “The different types of actual landing funnels are compared with the theoretical K_0 (x) function to verify the correctness and error of the theoretical functions describing the funnel.” This can be said to be “and the general principle of groundwater dynamics ”Does not matter? Answer R_y the main solution - s ~ 1gr graphic why not a straight line and do not pay a point is “ theoretical defects ”caused by such problems, is it “ details ” ?…….