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).

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I say that the planet kernel Earth consists of plasma of cold nuclear synthesis, plasma can have density as iron from 10 g/cm3 and more. Who can confirm or reject such statement!

Quote from Paradigmnoia

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).

Display More

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....

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

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 Nigel Appleton

He has not and cannot have done the number of tests needed to justify using such a measure.

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.

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.

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.

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.