Faulty Equipment, or New High?

[bpat1434]

Article Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060308/sc_space/recordsetforhottesttemperatureonearth36billiondegreesinlab)

If you read the article (quite short, like 1 real page of print) it's about scientists stumbling upon a superheated gas that is above 2-billion degrees Kelvin (3.6-billion degrees Farenheit).

So, here's a question:
Is it faulty equipment, or just dumb-luck?

[Weedpacket]

Two billion Kelvin? The gas must've been pretty bloody rarefied (otherwise the pressure would have been insane). While I'm waiting for that page to load, lessee... (now I know why I keep my Halliday & Resnick in reach) ... Ah, there's the article, and yep - it's all down to the speed the gas particles were moving, and these ones were being fired in a certain direction. The rms speed of tungsten carbide ions at that temperature would be 15953m/s, or about 57430km/hour, so the temperature isn't that outrageous. Unusually high, but not outrageous.

That Z machine is a pretty brutal piece of kit....

(And tsk, tsk, any science writer should know that "degrees Kelvin" is a silly phrase.)

[bpat1434]

heh... I just pulled from the article....

On a side note:
HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW SO MUCH?
Do you have a Ph.D or something? Seriously? Or are you just that common-sensical to google for answers to things you might not know (like me sometimes)?

One thing that puzzles scientists is that the high temperature was achieved after the plasma’s ions should have been losing energy and cooling. Also, when the high temperature was achieved, the Z machine was releasing more energy than was originally put in, something that usually occurs only in nuclear reactions.
Now this is what makes me believe the scientists really just kind of stumbled upon it (like Champagne)....

[Weedpacket]

When I was at University, one of the requirements for my degree was a sufficient pass rate in several different fields. One of those I picked was physics; hence the textbook. I did have to Google for the molecular mass of tungsten carbide, though.
Now this is what makes me believe the scientists really just kind of stumbled upon it (like Champagne)....I'm quite prepared to believe they did; the best discoveries start off with "Eh? How did that happen?". But I'm also confident that they had ruled out the possibility of equipment failure before publishing in Phys.Rev.Lett. (http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v96/e075003)even though that journal does have slightly more relaxed rules about submissions than Physical Reviews itself).

[dream.scape]

Hey there is nothing wrong with "stumbling" upon discoveries. Some of the best advancements in science, medicine, and technology have come as a result of being stumbled upon (group sets out to do on thing, but ends up finding something else that turns out to be a significant discovery).

[bpat1434]

Never said there was anything wrong with it, but hey... you've got to figure side-effects that might emerge. I mean, they did know they were producing an exothermic reaction.

The reason I find it "unbelievable" is that how can a temperature probe be accurate as to a temperature of that magnitude? Wouldn't most matter melt or boil, or even just go from solid to gas at that temp? 2 billion Kelvin? That's insane....

[Weedpacket]

how can a temperature probe be accurate as to a temperature of that magnitude?You wouldn't use a probe, you'd do it spectroscopically, by looking at the radiation being given off; the way you'd measure the temperature of a thermonuclear explosion? Or a solar flare, or stars in general, or anything else you can't insert a probe into.

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2006/physics-astron/hottest-z-output.html

(Incidentally, I note that I should have used steel instead of tungsten carbide - I was mislead by that original article's use of the phrase "tungsten steel". Iron's heavier than tungsten, which would make the speed lower.)

[dalecosp]

You wouldn't use a probe, you'd do it spectroscopically,And probably a computer did the measuring/computation/controlled the spectrometer (or at least aided in interpreting the results?)

So, we could ask about the software they use. But, of course, those geeks are ber-|33T, right? ;)

[Weedpacket]

So, we could ask about the software they use. But, of course, those geeks are �ber-|33T, right?Hey, they're Real Programmers over there. They code in FORTRAN!

[dalecosp]

Via front-panel toggling....