Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    What biggest density of plasma (at too-extreme plasma densities)

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    The answer is a tricky one. I can see, in my mind's eye, the route towards an answer. It will neccesarily be an OOM fraction estimate of the surface area of a solid occupying the same volume due to the number of assumptions required.


    I estimate (guess) that roughly 4 to 5 Orders Of Magnitude less plasma surface area occurs within a surface area equivalent to a solid of the same outer dimensions as the interior of the Quark vessel, at not-too-extreme plasma densities, as applicable to the area factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (if it is appropriate at all).

    What biggest density of plasma (at too-extreme plasma densities)

    Gennadiy Tarassenko ,

    I really couldn't even guess at a real number at the moment.


    I looked at a whole bunch of reports of various plasma densities, (which are generally commensurate with temperature), and then at typical solid material densities.

    Then I looked at a whole bunch of optical thickness estimates for various dispersed particles versus solid materials. I also considered that Bremmstrahlung is responsible for the blackbody spectrum of plasmas, while characteristic spectral lines are present, but not likely to carry away a large amount of energy compared to Bremmstrahlung (unless lasing was intentional).


    My guess is a mental composite of a lot of random data. I mostly compared the ranges of the order of magnitude differences between solids and plasmas in regards to various characteristics, as best as I could manage, without getting caught up in the precise values.


    If someone wants to try and do a more specific estimate, they are welcome to it. It looks really difficult.


    I think lightning was one of the highest plasma densities I looked at.

    (High density plasmas seemed to tend to push themselves apart by electric charge repulsion, towards a lower density, pretty quick unless they are held under pressure somehow).


    Not sure if this is what you are looking for but in the 1990s I had the chance to do a (small) research project in a Tokamak and from that work I know the basics of plasma densities. In Tokamak designs, plasma densities are typically in the 1019/m3 range with confinement times in the order of 1 sec to fulfil the Lawson criterion. ITER will not be different in that regard. On the other hand, capillary fusion Z-pinch designs with filaments of <1 mm diameter can have plasma densities up to 1027/m3. Search for "high density Z-pinch". HDZP prototypes were developed in the 1970s in Los Alamos. In a table top capillary fusion experiment, plasma densities in the range of at least 1023/m3 are easily manageable. You can look at the references I gave in my previous post.

    Это же сколько будет плотность г/см3??

    Quote from JulianBianchi

    Not sure if this is what you are looking for but in the 1990s I had the chance to do a (small) research project in a Tokamak and from that work I know the basics of plasma densities. In Tokamak designs, plasma densities are typically in the 1019/m3 range with confinement times in the order of 1 sec to fulfil the Lawson criterion. ITER will not be different in that regard. On the other hand, capillary fusion Z-pinch designs with filaments of <1 mm diameter can have plasma densities up to 1027/m3. Search for "high density Z-pinch". HDZP prototypes were developed in the 1970s in Los Alamos. In a table top capillary fusion experiment, plasma densities in the range of at least 1023/m3 are easily manageable. You can look at the references I gave in my previous post.

    Не вижу предыдущую ссылку


    And where the link, give the reference please still here, I don't see your link. Это how many there will be g/cm3 density??

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    We should certainly skip the Rossi Quark whiteboard conversion. It is a blurry bunch of scribbles for everyone that looks at it.

    (Clicking on the photo of the meters that I posted above will enlarge it further, and I think it can be expanded from that view even.) It was quite large on my PC.


    Para it is more than that much more. I do not want to get personal with Rossi but you need to look at the body language in the photo. I have found being honest with people means they become quite honest with you in return regardless of warts.


    We are so off the rails at this point. We could and should be coming up with ideas to make the "world a better place." Maybe our time would be better spent there? (that is a question to you para?) not waxing....

    Oh yeah, great! big news totally unexpected. :D

    Now the King of Hoax is fully dedicated preparing the scene of the fiction to bambolize the participants.

    I for one would like Paradigmnoia to piece together a model of the QuarkX on the basis of statements that Rossi has made and photos that have been released.


    Does anyone have a description of the specific experiment that has putatively reached 5 sigma, or a p-value of 3e-7? Going along with Rossi for the sake of argument, what would the sample size need to be?

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I for one would like Paradigmnoia to piece together a model of the QuarkX on the basis of statements that Rossi has made and photos that have been released.


    Does anyone have a description of the specific experiment that has putatively reached 5 sigma, or a p-value of 3e-7? Going along with Rossi for the sake of argument, what would the sample size need to be?

    Pointless query, if I may say so. Signor Rossi does not use the term 5 sigma (or sigma 5) in its common sense of being a measure of unlikelihood of a given event being sheerly random. He has not and cannot have done the number of tests needed to justify using such a measure.

    Mind you, we have yet to be informed exactly what he means in his personal and idiosyncratic use of the term

    For historical reasons, it is too bad that ecatnews has vanished into internet oblivion. Otherwise, one could page through memory lane and see about 6 completed cycles of Rossi Big Event history. The pattern is well-established.


    1) Rossi announces an upcoming pivotal event

    2) Rossi supporters become very excited and conveniently forget everything that happened in the past. They proclaim that skeptics will soon be eating crow by the bucketful.

    3) Supporters and skeptics argue vociferously for weeks on end before the "event"

    4) The event happens and it is sort of what was anticipated but not quite

    5) Supporters are ecstatic declaring the dawn of a new age

    6) Skeptics and non-combatants alike point out glaring problems with "the event" until it is clearly revealed as meaningless

    7) Supporters gradually retreat to relative silence

    8) Rinse and repeat


    Of course, the most pious never really get to step 7 and still consider all the previous sham events as meaningful. This is not likely to change.

    Quote from interested observer

    Of course, the most pious never really get to step 7 and still consider all the previous sham events as meaningful. This is not likely to change.


    I sympathize with the irony in your summary of the steps leading up to and following a Rossi demo. But consider this as a long-term educational effort. The most pious will not get to step 7, as you say. But there are others who are more receptive and will gradually apply some critical thinking. As we have seen in the pathological cases, every single person counts in attempts to raise the level of discussion on this site.

    Eric, your comments on the long-term educational effect are correct. In fact, what distinguishes one cycle from the next is the number of supporters and, in related fashion, the number of the most pious. Clearly, the former has been dropping steadily over the years. Whether the latter is a stable number or is somewhere on an asymptotic curve remains to be seen. I do believe that there is a core group that will take faith in the e-cat to their graves regardless of real-world events.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Yes, I suspect as much. I was just interested in a concrete number of trials that would have been needed. It probably is a pointless query.


    His idiosyncratic meaning might be a per-day thing: we had our first 5-sigma day today; or, today was not so good, and we had a 3-sigma day.


    I agree with Nigel 100%. So far "It seems to me" ;) that Rossi is simply blowing more smoke! Just like he did with his "Safety certification". For a long time, production could not "be made" until "certification" was achived. Over time, he kept stating it was coming, it was close and then finally.... "obtained". He even posted the so called "certification" which was written up by SGS ... see here.


    http://e-catworld.com/2012/09/…ety-certificate-from-sgs/


    This certification had no bearing on the reactor, was simply a voluntary submittal for electrical enclosures. Such as switches etc. were to standard and the reactor was not even tested or running.

    The certification even states on page 2 that the certification was not for nor could be used for any commercial purpose or even advertising! It was meaningless. Yet to this day, the believers still say Rossi got safety certification on the eCat. He did not. Yet it was presented with much hype and was absolutely meaningless.


    Perhaps the engineer here who thinks I have a disease can click on the link and read the certification, use his formidable experience and tell us what value it actually has? Remember, Rossi was proclaiming it not me! However, to some, " the disease" that I have been accused of having..... which must be "presenting hard evidence and links", means this is to be ignored. One cannot consider anything that casts doubt as to Rossi's continued pattern of actions!


    In any event, production was never started even though the so called "certification" was received! The "sigma 5" will be no different.


    This 5 sigma thing all started when it was announced about the Higgs Boson and the reference to 5 sigma. Rossi, wanting to sound "scientific" latched on and started publishing the silly statements!


    For one, you cannot get "5 sigma" without clearly defining what you are testing. Sigma calculations require control limits, standard deviations and other statistical measures. What is Rossi measuring?

    He refuses to state!

    Is he measuring radiation? I can easily get 5 sigma from a LED light that it is "5 sigma" certain that it does not produce ionizing radiation.

    Is he measuring light production? I can easily get 5 sigma from a LED light that it is '5 sigma" certain that it produces light.

    Is he measuring heat? I can easily get 5 sigma from a LED light that it is "5 sigma" certain that it produces heat, although low amounts. But the amount does not matter.


    Why does he not state he is measuring COP? He refuses to because he knows he will be trapped by the statement.

    To be "5 Sigma" certain that a COP is > 6, would require control limits, standard deviation AND a proven method to measure that COP.


    Why does he not state what he is measuring? The supporters will rally and state because "it would give up his precious IP"! They have no facts to back that up, they just have to invent excuses.


    Statistics are just numbers and can be presented to mean whatever you want. Such as "90% of the stuff you read on the internet is wrong" ! You read that statement on the internet, so what is the chance it is wrong? ^^


    Here is a statistic... Rossi has been building factories, close to mass production and has had satisfied customers for 6 years.... yet not one eCat has been sold to the general public... not one factory revealed... not one eCat proven to work! (No the Lugano test was not proven and certainly not the Doral "selling of heat" event)


    If you want to know about 5 Sigma here is a link that would shed some light.

    https://www.qimacros.com/lean-…gma-articles/sample-size/


    However, based upon Rossi's HISTORY, this is all simply BS and will mean nothing just like the "famous" but meaningless certification. You can mark this page and time will tell!

    I don't disagree with your message, Bob. But as Paradigmnoia, THHuxleynew, Alan Fletcher and others have demonstrated, a few concrete details can be helpful in moving beyond vague suspicions and pinning things down as more information comes to light. Keeping track of concrete details is laborious and potentially a waste of time, but occasionally the outcome is revelatory.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    The tube is AFAIK sapphire

    For sapphire, the max operating temperature (in air) is ~1900C, The melting point ~2040C. Hence my speculation it was boron nitride. I recall Rossi saying what he used failed and he had to develop a "new" material.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    here is a problem with Boron Nitride. From the spec sheet:- BN is stable in inert and reducing atmospheres up to 2000°C, and in oxidizing atmospheres to 850°C. Observers suggest that the outer surface of the Quark-X tube is exposed. No oxidation protection.

    I know. That is why I suggested it had a (tungsten?) sheath to keep the air away. Possibly it was sapphire to start with and that was what failed. The bottom line is I don't know what the material is. There are not many options for 2700 C.

    • Official Post

    If it had a tungsten sheath you couldn't see the light. Anyway, tungsten has oxidation problems of its own.


    'Oxidation experiments were performed on pure tungsten and hot-pressed tungsten carbide. The chemical state and thickness of the oxide products were determined by ESCA. The oxidation of W and WC in dry atmosphere was performed in oxygen at temperatures ranging from 20 to 500 °C. The oxide formed is WO3. The thickness of the oxide layer increases slowly up to 200 °C, after which the oxide growth is rapid.'

    JulianBianchi ,

    I had to constrain my estimate somehow. The plasma has to be able to fit in a thin tube, probably built by hand. The electrode gap is adjustable by means of a large lever, which should imply a limit to the internal pressures/vacuums feasible. No neutrons, etc. seem to be coming out of the tube.


    My general impression was that simply using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for a plasma, which is considered to be a blackbody in this case, within a thin transparent tube, is quite easily subject to errors that can easily span orders of magnitude compared to a solid that is a blackbody of the same dimensions.


    If anyone wants to work out the plasma density/pressure/temperature/frequency required to make a blackbody in the space allotted by the Quark design, please have a go at it.

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.