Dark matter and Dark energy

General comment...

Where are all the scientists, that BeAChooser keeps inferring about, who are earning an easy and affluent living by ignoring evidence and criticism?! :confused:

Anyway, back to reading about cosmology...


In his own mind, no conspiracy theory works without conspirators.
 
Please provide a reference for those laboratory results. I did not see anything in the link you provided that said fusion had been obtained using a Z-pinch.

See Technical Paper II linked at focusfusion's website. It says "We have determined the density of the plasma that produces the neutrons by the DDreaction. There is strong evidence that this is the same volume that traps the high-energy electrons and produces the hard X-ray radiation (see Sect. 3.4). In 25% of the deuterium shots at optimum fill pressure (two out of eight), 14.1 MeV neutrons were observed. These 14.1 MeV neutrons are produced by the fusion of deuterium nuclei with tritons produced by DD fusion reactions and then trapped in the high-density regions by strong magnetic fields. This was observed in one of the two deuterium shots with the best X-ray data (shot 81602), as well as in one shot (shot 80910) that was made before the X-ray detectors were functional (Fig.5). Shot 80910 also had the highest number of DD neutrons(5x1010). The DT neutrons were detected by time of flight measurements using the 9 meter and 17.4 meter scintillators. The DT neutron detection cannot possibly be cosmic rays or other noise sources. ... snip ... We have ruled out any source for the DT neutrons other than a dense plasmoid where the tritons are produced, along with the DD neutrons."

Now perhaps I'm misinterpreting that or they were wrong about what their data means. But in any case, there seems to be a lot of activity surrounding z-pinch research, not only by Eric Lerner's group but by others (at Sandia Labs, for instance) and from what I read many of them seem to think that fusion is occurring due to z-pinch produced x-rays. Whether it can be controlled is another matter but this seems to support the electric universe theorists contention that since z-pinch phenomena appear to be evident on the sun, that phenomena might be producing the by products that we interpret as evidence of fusion taking place in the core.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So if z-pinches are what we see on the surface of the sun (as electric universe proponents contend), then there is likely to be fusion occurring on the surface (and above the surface) of the sun.

Why is fusion likely? Research into Z-pinch fusion has been ongoing for about 50 years with no successful fusion of the pinched plasma that I am aware of

Here are some other sources confirming z-pinch fusion:

http://www.cfn.ist.utl.pt/17IAEATM_RUSFD/doc/files/proceedings/P3.pdf "Preliminary Results of a 10kJ Z-Pinch ... snip ... A yield of 107 - 108 D-D fusion reactions by shot is reported when the optimum conditions are reached ... snip ... A deep and extended revival of the z-pinch experiments in the plasma and fusion community has been developed by the spectacular advances made during the last decade reaching high energy density by means of implosion of annular current sheaths."

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2913380_ITM "May 2003 ... snip ... Scientists from the Sandia National Laboratory (Albuquerque) have reported successfully compressing a small pellet containing fusion fuel using x-rays from the z-pulsed power facility ... snip ... this is the first time such experiments have shown fusion reactions"

http://jp4.journaldephysique.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/jp4:2006133156 "2006 ... snip ... Production of thermonuclear neutrons from deuterium filled capsule experiments driven by z-pinch dynamic hohlraums at Sandia National Laboratories' Z facility"

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PhPl...14b2701V "2007 ... snip ... Z-Pinch Plasma Neutron Sources ... snip ... For recent deuterium gas-puff shots on Z, our analytic estimates and one- and two-dimensional simulations predict thermal neutron yields ~3×1013, in fair agreement with the yields recently measured on Z"

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Z_Machine

, due mostly to plasma instabilities.

Looks like those problems may have been overcome. :)

If fusion in a Z-pinched plasma in a controlled lab environment is so elusive, fusion in uncontrolled conditions like the surface of the sun is even less likely.

http://www.physorg.com/news11538.html "2006 ... snip ... Sandia’s Z machine has produced plasmas that exceed temperatures of 2 billion degrees Kelvin — hotter than the interiors of stars. The unexpectedly hot output, if its cause were understood and harnessed, could eventually mean that smaller, less costly nuclear fusion plants would produce the same amount of energy as larger plants. The phenomena also may explain how astrophysical entities like solar flares maintain their extreme temperatures. ... snip ... the radiated x-ray output was as much as four times the expected kinetic energy input. ... snip ... more unusually, high ion temperatures were sustained after the plasma had stagnated — that is, after its ions had presumably lost motion and therefore energy and therefore heat — as though yet again some unknown agent was providing an additional energy source to the ions."

Well I guess you have never heard of the hydrogen bomb.

Let's hope that the mainstream's fusion reactors aren't hydrogen bombs. (just kidding) ;)
 
Plasma is a distinct phase separate from solid, liquid and gas, and there are other phases as well, such a quark-gluon plasma, Bose-Einstein condensate and so on. However, it's just meaningless semantics. Random stuff floating around in space is generally refered to as gas and/or dust just because it's easier than identifying exactly what it is in casual conversation.

It's not meaningless semantics because it shapes ones CONCEPT of what is talking about and because the basic properties of the two are very different. And "plasma" is soooooo much more difficult to say or write than "gas". :D
 
Plasmas also conduct electricity, dust and gas don't.

Not precisely, in a metal which by its definition gives up electrons readily to form positive ions (other then having luster and malleability as the other defining characteristics) those "free" electrons are modeled as an electron gas. Although not by definition a plasma this electron gas (as it can be and is modeled) gives metals their conductivity. Also the attraction between this electron gas and the positive ion lattice structure gives metals some of their structural integrity. From metallurgy, physics or chemistry some 25 years ago I remember the phrase electron gas metal bonding in reference to that latter characteristic (although I can not cite a current reference)
 
My point stands. Plasma is a conductor of electricity. Gas and dust clouds don't glow, emit EM radiation of all kinds, or allow electric currents to flow for millions of miles through them. Plasmas do.
 
Gas and dust clouds don't glow, emit EM radiation of all kinds,

Wrong. Everything glows. How much is largely temperature-dependent, and things have to be pretty hot to emit appreciably in the visible range, but even if you can't see it with your eyes, it's still glowing.
 
See Technical Paper II linked at focusfusion's website.


Thanks, I’ll have to look at that later as I am still having problems with .pdf files on this system.



Looks like those problems may have been overcome. :)


Actually, they were side stepped by moving away from a direct Z-pinched plasma fusion and to configuration more similar to a hydrogen bomb (inertial confinement).


Let's hope that the mainstream's fusion reactors aren't hydrogen bombs. (just kidding) ;)


Unfortunately, from what I can read on this system (non .pdf files) it seems the fusion configurations you have cited are physically similar to a hydrogen bomb (inertial confinement) and not a direct Z-pinched plasma fusion. They involve a fuel load compressed and heated by X-rays resulting in fusion. Although in a hydrogen bomb the fuel load is heated and compressed by gamma rays and x-rays produced by a fast fission device, reflected on to the fuel load and contained by bomb casing for the microseconds or so before it is vaporized. In these cases it is the Z-pinch producing X-rays to compress and heat the fuel load initiating fusion. If you do not consider the Sandia National Laboratories as mainstream then what would be? This is the current state of one of the mainstreams of controlled fusion that has been ongoing for 50 years. I thought you were supporting direct Z-pinch fusion of the pinched plasma? (Which was and may still be a mainstream endeavor as well)


Welcome to the mainstream.


It’s not as different as you would like it to be.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. Everything glows. How much is largely temperature-dependent, and things have to be pretty hot to emit appreciably in the visible range, but even if you can't see it with your eyes, it's still glowing.

Veering wildly back on topic, so what frequencies does dark matter emit. You just said everything glows, what are the frequencies that dark matter is glowing with?

(I'm going to avoid pointing out you made up a definition of glow ... no wait, I'm not.)

In regards to real matter, how much radiation do we detect from dust and gas? What frequencies? If it glowing, what is the radiation?
 
Veering wildly back on topic, so what frequencies does dark matter emit. You just said everything glows, what are the frequencies that dark matter is glowing with?

:rolleyes:
I thought you'd be smart enough to understand that "everything" in context meant all ordinary matter - you know, stuff made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. It's quite amusing that you're trying to be pedantic, though.

(I'm going to avoid pointing out you made up a definition of glow ... no wait, I'm not.)

Glow means emit electromagnetic radiation spontaneously. As in thermal radiation.

In regards to real matter, how much radiation do we detect from dust and gas? What frequencies? If it glowing, what is the radiation?

Gas emits mostly at specific emission lines which are dependent upon the gas in question. How much it glows depends very much on the temperature. Dust (meaning condensed particles) will generally emit across a broad range of the spectrum. Total power output from a radiating body generally scales roughly as T4, and the frequency of the peak of the spectrum scales directly with temperature. If you care to find out more, read up on it on your own time.
 
I'd just like to say 'Hi!' to each and every one of you neutrinos washing through me.
 
It's a subset of "gas", is it not ?

I would argue that it is the other way around, gases are a subset of plasmas, because plasmas have more diverse properties, including all those exhibited by gases.

It is also common to simplify the behavior and properties of plasmas, modelling them as gaseous fluid, whereas gases never exhibited some of the properties of plasmas (eg. electrical conductivity, self-generating magnetic and electric fields, filamentation, negative pressure, charge separation, etc etc)
 
It's an ionized gas but even Wikipedia recognizes that plasma is "a distinct state of matter,

Just because plasma is described as an ionized gas, does not necessarily mean it is a kind of gas. It means that plasma is derived by ionizing a gas. For example, we could describe liquid water is melted solid ice, but that does not mean that liquid water is some kind of solid.

There are many many sources which describe plasma as the forth state of matter, and although it may sometimes have gas-like properties, it is not a gas.

Historically, the description of plasma as an ionized gas goes back to the days of gas discharge tubes. Sir William Crookes call it "radiant matter". It was not until 1928 that Irving Langmuir coined the word "plasma".
 
I would argue that it is the other way around, gases are a subset of plasmas, because plasmas have more diverse properties, including all those exhibited by gases.

It is also common to simplify the behavior and properties of plasmas, modelling them as gaseous fluid, whereas gases never exhibited some of the properties of plasmas (eg. electrical conductivity, self-generating magnetic and electric fields, filamentation, negative pressure, charge separation, etc etc)

So, if gases 'gases never exhibited some of the properties of plasmas', how can you say that they are a subset of plasmas?
 
So, if gases 'gases never exhibited some of the properties of plasmas', how can you say that they are a subset of plasmas?

Gases have a subset of of properties that plasmas have. Perhaps that's not the same thing.
 
See Technical Paper II linked at focusfusion's website.


Looks interesting and hydrogen-boron looks like it should be the fuel of choice if the temperatures and pressures required are obtainable. I would have to say that the jury is still out as to if the neutrons detected would actually confirm deuterium fusion in the pinched plasma itself. Based mostly from another link you provided.


http://jp4.journaldephysique.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/jp4:2006133156

Use of these techniques are of particular importance because alternative, nonthermonuclear neutron processes were previously found to exist in Z-pinch and dense plasma focus plasmas. Such processes typically involved the creation of directed energetic ions leading to the production of nonthermal, "ion beam" generated neutrons. If not properly diagnosed, neutrons produced by these nonthermal processes could be misinterpreted as thermonuclear in origin.



Although, I would be more then happy to see it confirmed since direct pinched plasma fusion (pulsed or continuous) would solve a lot of fuel feed issues.

My money’s still on the Z machine though, considering the other article you linked reporting the achievement of a 2 billion degree temperature (that should be suitable for hydrogen-boron fusion), combined with this article about a rapid fire pulse circuit under experimentation, a critical step regardless of which fuel is used.


http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/rapid-fire-pulse.html
 
One, Wikipedia, contained this quote:

Examples of the highly speculative nature of Alfvén's conclusions include factually inaccurate explanations for star formation using Birkeland currents.[10] These plasma currents were held by Alfvén and his supporters to be responsible for many filamentary structures seen in astrophysical observations. However, there remains no direct observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents[citation needed] and mainstream astrophysical explanations for large-scale phenomena preclude plasma current mechanisms.
.
A good example of why Wikipedia is bad source. In the quote above, the citation "[10]" gives the impression that the first statement is substantiated. Actually, the citation is to a paper by Hannes Alfvén and co-author Per Carlqvist, not to the claim of "factually incorrect information".

The rest of the statement is also unsubstantiated and includes a "[citation needed]" request, which has been unfulfilled since July 2007
 
Well, very interesting...I need to read a lot more about this but I found this one quite informative in that Alfven has gotten a pretty bad rap for a long time, not clear why though.

Just one quote among many. Seems pretty even handed to me, but this whole area has the tenor of great debate, so....:confused:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

I can recommend the following (the last one is available online in full):

 

Back
Top Bottom