Slashdot Mirror


19 million Amps

deblau writes "On July 27, scientists at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Nevada Test Site said they generated a current equal to about four times all the electrical current on Earth. During the few millionths of a second that it operated, the 650-ton Atlas pulsed-power generator discharged about 19 million amps of current through an aluminum cylindrical shell about the size of a tuna can. Official news release is available from the DOE (PDF)."

457 comments

  1. Elsewhere in the news: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny


    In operation, the 650-node Slashdot news-for-nerds generator successfully discharged nearly 19 million hits of HTTP requests through the NNSA Nevada Site Office News webpage, or PDF, on a server about the size and shape of a tuna can. The requests caused the server to implode at extreme speeds, with unrivaled symmetry, precision, and reproducibility.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by jurt1235 · · Score: 2, Funny

      LOL, tested and tried many times before, but you are the first one to decribe in details what really happens at such a moment.

      Time for a noble price nomination I would say.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    2. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      The nobles are vastly over-rated. How about a Vincent Price instead?
      Befits the mad scientist theme of TFA better, anyway.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    3. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by Noishe · · Score: 1

      What shocking results

    4. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      Err, the proposed noble price nomination was for the parent poster of this comment, not for the people who try to steam tuna while it is still in the can by just letting current run through it.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    5. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 1

      What price for noble peace?

      Tim

    6. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, so, at what point was the Vincent Price not directed at GP?

    7. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by Itanshi · · Score: 1

      but did the tuna taste better?
      hmm another question, interpret it as funny or not. Did it cook the tuna?

    8. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by dodongo · · Score: 1

      ...The slashdotting generated four times the number of HTTP request on earth.

    9. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Elsewhere in the news...

      THIS HAPPENED 4 YEARS AGO!!!

      linky: http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?fuseaction=home .story&story_id=1212

      funny parent post though ;)

    10. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Err, the proposed noble price nomination was for the parent poster of this comment

      I think he was making fun of the fact that you refer to the Nobel Prize as the "noble price."

    11. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by kosmicki · · Score: 1

      That is the funniest thing I've read all day. :D

    12. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by dunng808 · · Score: 1
      but did the tuna taste better?

      I doubt it was as good as the crispy garlic chicken served at Jacob's Ladder.

      --

      Gary Dunn
      Open Slate Project

    13. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by joaommp · · Score: 0

      mod parent up funny

    14. Re:Elsewhere in the news: by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1


      damn, if I only had mod points...

  2. Wowf by Stanistani · · Score: 1, Funny

    I wondered why my cat has been so tense lately...

    1. Re:Wowf by ceeam · · Score: 0

      I find your use of "cat" in "discharge" context highly disturbing.

    2. Re:Wowf by wpiman · · Score: 0

      Was it a can of chicken or tuna? It says Chicken of the Sea on the can. It makes it so confusing.

    3. Re:Wowf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your lack of faith disturbing

    4. Re:Wowf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find you disturbing.

    5. Re:Wowf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i find the disturbing use of disturbing disturbing.

    6. Re:Wowf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your mother disturbing.

    7. Re:Wowf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have disturbed your mother.

    8. Re:Wowf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This thread is disturbing!

    9. Re:Wowf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he wonders why his cat has been so tense!

  3. current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "current equal to about four times all the electrical power on Earth" riiiight.

    1. Re:current == power? by stinerman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sure.

      I = V/R
      If R->0, I->INF.

      Its certainly possible.

    2. Re:current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, find me a 0 ohm conductor, smarty! :p
      And no, 0 ohm resistors from Digikey do not count. I've put less than 10 amps through them and they go poof...

    3. Re:current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But P = I * R * R,
      so as R -> 0, I -> INF, but P -> O.

    4. Re:current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I always thought it was P = I * I * R ...

      That's the cool thing about /. - you learn something new every day!

    5. Re:current == power? by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 1

      "current equal to about four times all the electrical power on Earth" riiiight.

      Experiments like this have been going on for a long time. For example, there's a z-pinch cold fusion experiment named Magpie (in the basement of the physics building at Imperial College) that creates a peak current of the same order of magnitude to the combined output of every power station on Earth. That's been around for years.

      The trick is that these things take ages to charge up and only maintain peak current for a tiny fraction of a second.

    6. Re:current == power? by InvalidError · · Score: 5, Informative

      From later in TFA: "During the few milionths of a second that it operates, Atlas generates electrical energy roughly four times the Earth's entire energy production."

      This is almost technically right except for "Atlas generates"... Atlas is only a huge capacitor bank, it does not magically "generate" energy, it only stores existing energy.

      Now, if worldwide production is something like 25GW and the pulse lasts 10us, we have 25GW * 4 * 10us = 1MJ, a balievable finite quantity.

    7. Re:current == power? by Dick+Faze · · Score: 2, Funny

      Think those guys would let me borrow it? I'm going to be in Vegas next week and I don't want to find myself in Barney.....

    8. Re:current == power? by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 1

      This is almost technically right except for "Atlas generates"... Atlas is only a huge capacitor bank, it does not magically "generate" energy, it only stores existing energy.

      Maybe not, but it does generate current, which is what we're talking about here. No known system actually creates energy, it's just converted from one form to another.

    9. Re:current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware of the existence of superconductors, yes?

    10. Re:current == power? by KDan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ok, find me a 0 ohm conductor, smarty! :p

      Easy... any superconductor will do.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    11. Re:current == power? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      More importantly:

      P = E/t

      Where P is Power, E is Energy and t is time. As t tends towards 0 P tends towards infinity, so if this experiment happened very quickly then it could well have been using more power than the rest of the world.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was Pi * R * R...

    13. Re:current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      I thought it was Pi * R * R...

      Yeah, but you're using circular reasoning...

    14. Re:current == power? by stinerman · · Score: 1

      TFA states a few trillionths of a second, so basically the submitter isn't really saying all that much.

    15. Re:current == power? by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      Current is only a measure of how fast charges are exchanged across two bodies of different electrical potential. Provide a discharge path from two such bodies and you will have "generated" a current. A consequence cannot be generated, only the conditions that lead to it can be.

      From a power distribution perspective, generating energy means providing energy to the grid. Atlas draws energy from the grid so it should have beeen something like "for the 10us it operates, Atlas _uses_ energy equivalent to four times the worldwide production."

      Well, even if the report's wording has multiple flaws, successfully switching capacitor banks worth over 1MJ to sustain a 19MA pulse for some microseconds is still impressive.

    16. Re:current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So what you're looking for is a pinch, right? You tossers! :)

      Besides, you won't find yourself in Barney. You'll find Barney inside of Betty, except for that one threesome where Fred was involved.

    17. Re:current == power? by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

      Dude, if we could just hook up any AA battery to a superconductor and get 19,000,000 Amps, don't you think we would have done that already?

      Off the top of my head, I can think of several issues with this approach:

      1) Superconductors have their limitations.

      2) Your shitty battery isn't going to be able to drive 19 million amps.

      3) Going from 0.00 amps to 19 million amps in a fraction of a second is going to induce massive electric fields. These will rip the electrons off the air and cause a counter current that will severely curtail ones ability to build up current.

    18. Re:current == power? by RicktheBrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With this much current I think of the rail gun technology. Will this lead to a rail gun that is powerful enough to accelerate a chunk of metal to escape velocity. That is could we place a robotic factory in orbit around the earth and produce a gigantic mirror that could reflect light away from the path of a hurricane and use that light to generate huge amounts of power that could be microwaved back to earth.

    19. Re:current == power? by Mage+Powers · · Score: 1

      A consequence cannot be generated, only the conditions that lead to it can be.

      no offence but your post just seems like an orgasm of scientific words, not really thought out.

      A consequence can be generated by generating the conditions that lead to it.

    20. Re:current == power? by Retric · · Score: 1

      Your forgeting about the drag from all the air between the ground and space.

    21. Re:current == power? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      "four times all the electrical current on Earth"

      On July 27 being fairly warm and all the air conditioners running local power stations saw consumption over 20,000 MW.

      If outlet voltage is 120 V and P = VI, then
      I = 20 * 10^9 / 120 = 1.6 * 10^8 A >> 19 * 10^7.

      Granted not all users consume at 120 V if even as much as 10% of them used 120 V, the 120-V users will run almost 19 million amps.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    22. Re:current == power? by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      The exact usage may be wrong in this case, however it is customary to call the transformation of a low power, long time draw into a high power, short time draw "generation" of pulsed power. Even though, as you say, no real power is generated. I think the key word is "pulsed" power.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    23. Re:current == power? by sukotto · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part where Dr. Evil demands a million dollars. :-)

      --
      Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
    24. Re:current == power? by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between "generating current" and "generating current pulses". ... but generating current pulses is really a matter of shaping the applied voltage to obtain the required current rise, sustain and fall times. Now, doing this with mega-joules of stored energy with a mega-amps target must require some interesting bits of kit.

      (For a rough idea of what kind of damage 1MJ can do, imagine a 1kg brick flung at 1400m/s... the testing room itself probably has some interesting safety measures built into it too.)

    25. Re:current == power? by buford_tannen · · Score: 1

      Now, if worldwide production is something like 25GW and the pulse lasts 10us, we have 25GW * 4 * 10us = 1MJ, a balievable finite quantity.

      Your average hospital will have Atlas beat. A common 1.5 Tesla MRI magnet has a little over 6 MJ of electromotive energy stored in its main superconducting coil.

      One of the newer 3.0 Tesla MRI units has over 27 MJ stored on its coil.

      You can discharge this energy in less than 1 millisecond, but the resulting event (called a "quench") will mean having to replace most of the liquid helium and parts of the gas pressure relief system (which is destroyed by the rapid boiloff of LHe), an expensive proposition.

      Note: These energy potentials were obtained via the E = I^2 * L method.

      --
      Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
    26. Re:current == power? by KDan · · Score: 1

      1) They do, but resistance ain't one of them.

      2) That's because it has a very high internal resistance.

      3) for sure. So what? What's this got to do with anything?

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    27. Re:current == power? by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1
      1) Resistance isn't an issue for a superconductor as long as it remains a superconductor. Even without electrical resistance, a mere million amp pulse implodes metals and releases immense heat. This heat will destroy the sensitive superconductivity properties. These are the types of limitations I refer to when I say superconductors have their limitations.

      2) No. Even if your battery had no internal resistance, it still wouldn't have enough energy to produce 19 million amps.

      3) Therefore, those who naively believe they can use V=IR to create an arbitrarily high current by using a zero-resistance superconductor are mistaken and should consider their vast ignorance before broadcasting their opinions.

    28. Re:current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're aware that power stations DO NOT OUTPUT AT 120V, right?

    29. Re:current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) It *would* have that energy, theoretically speaking. Internal resistance *is* exactly what makes the battery unable to deliver that kind of current. But of course there is no way the battery's resistance can be removed: it is inherent in the chemical way to induce voltage. I think it is also internal resistance that causes a battery to be "empty".

      To generate billions Amperes current through a superconductor you'll also need something like a super powersource just because zero internal resistance is required. Just correct me if I'm wrong.

    30. Re:current == power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wha ?..informative ???

      I= (delta V) /R

      as R ->0
          (delta V) -> 0

      so...no
      I !-> inf.

      what happens if i connect both ends of a resistor
      to the same point ? i.e delta V=0
      or connect two ends of a metalli wire across
      the same point ?

      in both the cases...no current flows

    31. Re:current == power? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      You're aware that power stations DO NOT OUTPUT AT 120V, right?

      Yes, and I know the law of conservation of energy. Granted some energy is lost in transmission and transformers and the like, but end users are most likely to consume power at 120V. So the current at the end will be quite high.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  4. Math by dsginter · · Score: 5, Funny

    I did the math for everyone... it works out to One point twenty one jiga-watts, Marty!

    --
    More
    1. Re:Math by Ledneh · · Score: 1

      88 miles per hour? 88 miles per hour !!

      --
      "We are the Dyslexia of Borg. Your ass will be laminated. Futility is resistant."
    2. Re:Math by ari_j · · Score: 0

      Jigga, what?

    3. Re:Math by #FF0000_five · · Score: 1

      I thought the only thing strong enough to generate that much electricity was a bolt of lightning. Unfortunately, you never know where or when they're going to strike.

      --
      The Cobra Kai: Strike First. Strike Hard. No Mercy.
    4. Re:Math by bsgk · · Score: 1

      Jigga, who?

    5. Re:Math by wowbagger · · Score: 3, Funny

      That would require about 64 volts of potential across the target at the stated current, at a resistance of 3.3 micro-ohms of resistance in the target.

      Given the "few millionths of a second" duration, the total energy would be about a kilo-joule to ten kilo-joules - about the same as the chemical energy in a single gumdrop (there's a new /unit for you!)

    6. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jigga, please

    7. Re:Math by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Gotta love those flux capacitors...

    8. Re:Math by springbox · · Score: 3, Funny

      about the same as the chemical energy in a single gumdrop (there's a new /unit for you!)

      I look forward to the day when the phrase "gumdrops per second" appears in physics text books. I promise to use it every chance I get.

    9. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jigga stole my bike!

    10. Re:Math by Mercano · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've been using a Tic-Tac as a unit of energy. Just one (kilo)calorie.

      --
      #include <signature.h>
    11. Re:Math by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      I personally like the phrase "amplitudes per second."

    12. Re:Math by eugene259 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      resistance of a conductor is:
      R=rho*L/A
      where
      rho - resistivity of the material in Ohms/m
      L - length of the conductor
      A - cross-sectional area in m^2 (in this case pi*r^2).
      rho for Al is 26.5x10-9.
      I am not sure what size can of tuna they were comparing the aluminium liner to in the official release but say it is a big can, say 5cm in heights, 12cm in width.
      This makes the resistance:
      R around 1.17x10-7 Ohms which makes the power:
      P = VI = I^2*R ~ 42293215 or 0.042 gigawatts at about 2.2V
      A bit short of 1.21 (28 times short in fact :-) but look at it that way - even if they delivered the 1.21 gigawatts, they need to work out how to get the 650-ton generator moving at 80mph to time travel...

    13. Re:Math by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      I thought Tic-Tacs were 2Kcal each?

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    14. Re:Math by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      A bunch of good calculations, I'm sure, but as short as the pulse is, the inductance of the conductor is significant. In fact, the inductance and resistance would surely change as the conductor crushes.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
    15. Re:Math by SouthendPier · · Score: 1

      You've never heard of the "skin effect" ?

      The "liner" is a very thin shell that
      vaporizes before imploding...

    16. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.95 ! Significant to cause a significant error in energies of a few hundred tt.

    17. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The limiting factor for such a short pulse is going to be inductance.

      The voltages are going to be high. The magnetic field causes the object to collapse. The energy is going into that field.

      Wonder if there was any bread in the system - its kind of a dramatic way to make tuna on toast sandwiches.

    18. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jigga, a collaborate product of Mr. and Mrs. Watt!

    19. Re:Math by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      How does gumdrops per seccond convert to Volkswagens per Libray of Congress per Fornight? :)

    20. Re:Math by Stiletto · · Score: 1


      Fifty hogshead-stones.

    21. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This brings up a very interesting fact. "jiga," is actually the correct pronunciation for the multiplication prefix giga-. I doubt this is well known, since all nerds already /know/ that giga- is pronounced "giga." It really shows that nerds don't always know what they're saying! For once (in Back to the Future), a popular science fiction movie is more accurate than the general public will ever realize.

    22. Re:Math by kosmicki · · Score: 1

      They were 1.5 Kcal, then they got 30% bigger. (They look a bit fatter) So they are indeed 2Kcal currently.

  5. 19 Million amps!! by Winckle · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now that was how Pink Floyd should have played.

    1. Re:19 Million amps!! by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      Yep, stand in front off the speakers attached to that amplifier and you will not just have burst eardrums, but they will be blasted to the center of your head to just stick against each other at that spot.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    2. Re:19 Million amps!! by Winckle · · Score: 0

      Just like the band in Hitchikers guide then!

    3. Re:19 Million amps!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Desaster Area?

    4. Re:19 Million amps!! by orcus · · Score: 1

      That's precisely why you should listen from orbit!

      --
      First they burn books, then they burn people.
    5. Re:19 Million amps!! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Preferably, orbit around a different planet.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:19 Million amps!! by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      For a few trillionths of a second?

      I couldn't agree with you more.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    7. Re:19 Million amps!! by tdonahue · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you aren't seated in the stunt sundive ship.

    8. Re:19 Million amps!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5, DNA reference to parent, grandparent and great grandparent posters.

    9. Re:19 Million amps!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disastrous spelling, that's for certain.

  6. Waaaaaa! by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

    I want me one of those!

    --
    Sig
  7. The other questions by Samir+Gupta · · Score: 2, Funny

    How much was the voltage? Would the power be more than 1.21 Gigawatts?

    Was it part of a modified DeLorean travelling at 88 mph?

    --
    -- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
    1. Re:The other questions by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      The impedance/resistance should be able to be calculated, the material is AL, the size is tuna can (about 2 to 3 inches across, length about 3 inches?). I can't find the bulk condictivity value though, but at least you have the approximate surface

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    2. Re:The other questions by JesseL · · Score: 1

      I don't think that calculating the resistance of the cylinder would tell you, as the peak current was probably achieved after the aluminum had vaporized and become plasma.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    3. Re:The other questions by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 2, Informative

      From a Z-machine article, which claims that its 290 trillion watt output is 80 times world production, world production is 3.625 trillion watts. Times 4 is 14.5 trillion watts. Divided by 19 million amps (wattage is voltage time amperage, right?) is about 760,000 volts. But we don't need that number, just the 14.5 terawatts. Which is 11,983 times 1.21 Gigawatts. I'm estimating that the weight of a DeLorean is about a ton? Which means this thing, with appropriate flux capacitance, of course, can send about 12,000 tons back in time 30 years, or one ton 36,000 years (of course assuming that energy required is linear and proportional to weight and not size. If it's dependent on vehicle contents, then the same numbers work if you have access to 12,000 Marty McFlys, which this author assumes that you do).

      My math might be off by a digit or two, so if you're going to be sending an aircraft carrier back in time to invade 1975 France (I'm looking at you, Mr. President), you're using these numbers at your own risk.

    4. Re:The other questions by Taladar · · Score: 1

      I believe somebody already did that one 25 years ago.

  8. Pure nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    they generated a current equal to about four times all the electrical power on Earth.

    Sounds like apples and oranges:
    units of current = Amps
    units of power = Watts

    The statement is pure nonsense.

    1. Re:Pure nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amps = coulombs per second,

      you can have high amps, and low voltage,
      or high voltage and low amps (power lines)

      high amperage is good for burning things...
      consider it as kinetic energy related.
      at this level, maybe they wany to do some
      sort of nuclear reaction.

    2. Re:Pure nonsense by robertjw · · Score: 1

      you can have high amps, and low voltage, or high voltage and low amps (power lines)

      Or high amps and high voltage (or I suppose low amps and low voltage). Watts are Amps * Volts (P=IV), or at least they were when I was in school. High amperage won't burn anything without some voltage. A car battery typically is rated for around 1000 Amps, but only 12 volts. As such you can touch both terminals of a 12 volt car battery and not feel a thing. OTOH, a power line has 120V and around 30 amps (before you blow the breaker), but a residential power line will definitely burn things.

      A very large current is useless if the voltage is too low to overcome the impedance of the circuit you want to use. Including voltage, thus power, into the equation is the only way to really measure usefulness.

    3. Re:Pure nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amps = coulombs per second,

      you can have high amps, and low voltage,
      or high voltage and low amps (power lines)


      But it still does not equal power = joules per second. The comparison is just pure nonsense.

      high amperage is good for burning things...
      but this implies a potential that is causing the "high amperage" to flow. It is this potential that is missing from the comparison.

      consider it as kinetic energy related.

      Nope. That's why we call "energy" energy, and "current" current. They relate only when you have a specified potential and time.

    4. Re:Pure nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just you try and short out a car battery with a screwdriver. 12 volts is good because it's not enough to penetrate the resistance of the human body. If car batteries as they are were in the 100 volt range, people would be blowing themselves up right and left.

    5. Re:Pure nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A very large current is useless if the voltage is too low to overcome the impedance of the circuit you want to use.

      Or rather, a very large current simply doesn't happen, if the voltage is too low.

    6. Re:Pure nonsense by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      As such you can touch both terminals of a 12 volt car battery and not feel a thing

      How about if you cross the terminals with a steel socket wrench. YOU DEFINETILY FEEL SOMETHING THEN!!!

    7. Re:Pure nonsense by robertjw · · Score: 1

      How about if you cross the terminals with a steel socket wrench. YOU DEFINETILY FEEL SOMETHING THEN!!!

      All that will happen is the wrench will get hot after a few seconds, and this is only because the 12 volts is large enough to create current across the impedence of the wrench. A steel wrench has a much lower impedence than a human body.

      On a side note, you would have to have a very large socket to reach across the terminals on most batteries. I would probably use a box end, open end, combination, rachet or breaker bar rather than a socket.

    8. Re:Pure nonsense by fubar1971 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever done this. It hurts like hell, and the current is enought to begin to weld the wrench to the terminals.

    9. Re:Pure nonsense by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Have I ever touched a wrench across both terminals? Not intentionally, I have shorted the positive battery connnection either to the body of the car or the negative terminal accidentally while removing or installing a cable many, many times. It will definitely throw sparks and cause pitts in your tool, but I don't remember it ever being painful. What I have done, more times than I care to admit, is touch a coil wire or spark plug when the engine is running. That is painful. The coil transforms the 12 Volts and 1000 amps into several thousand volts and correspondingly low amperage so that the spark will jump the tiny gap in the spark plug. 12 Volts won't jump the gap no matter how much current you have in it.

      Low voltage definitely has power behind it, with enough current behind it and a low impedance path to ground it will generate sparks and heat. The original discussion was about how high current is good to burn things with, but current is useless without voltage to accompany it with. If you had a low enough voltage source, less than is required to overcome the impedence of the conductor, even shorting with a piece of steel would not result in any heat or light.

    10. Re:Pure nonsense by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      The coil transforms the 12 Volts and 1000 amps into several thousand volts and correspondingly low amperage

      WHAT kind of vehicle do you have that has 1000 amps flowing through any part of it? What mechanism does your vehicle use to generate such a large current at 12V?

    11. Re:Pure nonsense by Bad_Feeling · · Score: 1
      WHAT kind of vehicle do you have that has 1000 amps flowing through any part of it? What mechanism does your vehicle use to generate such a large current at 12V?

      1000 amps capacity is needed to start the car during cold weather. Although the starter might only draw 300 amps, during extreme cold the battery's amperage capacity drops very dramatically because the chemical reaction is slowed down, while the energy required to turn the engine increase dramatically (due to the thickining of the oil). As such, 1000 amps capacity is required to start the car.

      --
      Disclaimer: On the other hand, I am kind of a psycho...
    12. Re:Pure nonsense by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      As such, 1000 amps capacity is required to start the car.

      Riiiight. What about those of us who don't drive a semi or front-end loader to work?

      Also, this still doesn't explain the G.P. who said there is 1000 amps going into his coil.

    13. Re:Pure nonsense by Bad_Feeling · · Score: 1
      As such, 1000 amps capacity is required to start the car. Riiiight. What about those of us who don't drive a semi or front-end loader to work? Also, this still doesn't explain the G.P. who said there is 1000 amps going into his coil.

      I'm sure the GP meant up to 1000amps. And by the way, 1000 amps *capacity* is needed to start a car during exteme cold. That's because the output of the battery at -40C might drop to the low hundreds of amps. If you just put a battery rated at 300A in a car, it will not start in the cold period.

      --
      Disclaimer: On the other hand, I am kind of a psycho...
    14. Re:Pure nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > cause pitts in your tool

      May I be the first to say, "Ouch".

    15. Re:Pure nonsense by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the GP meant up to 1000amps.

      Riiiight. Up to 1000 amps going into the coil. Yeah....

      When you say "1000 amps capacity", do you mean "Cold Cranking Amps" (which your cold weather concerns seem to imply)? My car doesn't need a battery that has a rating of 1000 CCA to start in the winter. More like half that figure.

    16. Re:Pure nonsense by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      It's just the typical /. lack of knowledge about any technology outside of programming and go-faster blue LEDs...

      I used to work daily with battery banks quite capable of supplying 19,000A instantaneous current (@ 50v) - and I'd guess there's at least 100 of those in Australia, let alone all the smaller ones scattered around the country. By /. math, that'd mean that Telstra has at a minimum 1 one-hundredth of the worlds total electrical power stored away in their telephone exchanges.

      Yes, Telstra is evil, but not for that reason...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    17. Re:Pure nonsense by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should elaborate a bit...

      Take a 500 amp-hour battery - typically, in a telephone exchange, these consist of twenty-four 2.2v cells in series, each cell rated at 500A/H. A small telephone exchange, servicing a few hundred customers, would have 2 such banks in parallel.

      Now, that A/H rating is actually calculated at what is called the C/10 rate - that is, the battery won't really supply 500A for one hour, but will supply 50A for ten hours.

      The rule-of-thumb for calculating the instantaneous current a battery bank could supply was to multiply the A/H rating by 11 - so, a 500A/H battery could supply 5500A into a spanner dropped across the teminals.

      I regularly worked on 2170A/H batteries, and the biggest I ever saw were 3200A/H - or a touch over 35 thousand amps instantaneous current through the soon-to-be-ex-spanner you just dropped onto the busbar...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    18. Re:Pure nonsense by robertjw · · Score: 1

      WHAT kind of vehicle do you have that has 1000 amps flowing through any part of it?

      A regular car.

      What mechanism does your vehicle use to generate such a large current at 12V?

      It's called a battery. If you look at car batteries next time you are at your local walmart (assuming you live in a country where they have walmarts) you will see that the batteries are generally rated at a minimum of 600 "cold cranking amps" and a max of about 1100. This current is used to run the starter and start the engine. Car starter motors, especially on a V8 engine require a large amount of power.

    19. Re:Pure nonsense by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I give you that the battery may have some sort of short term "burst" to deliver 1000 amps.

      But the original post said there was 1000 amps at 12V going into the coil.

      I'll amend my original question to be: "What kind of vehicle are you driving that has 1000 Amps going into the coil?"

    20. Re:Pure nonsense by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Ok, I give you that the battery may have some sort of short term "burst" to deliver 1000 amps.

      Not sure what you would consider "short term". You can usually crank a car for several minutes before the battery will give out. Generally you don't have to, but sometimes it will crank a relatively long time.

      I'll amend my original question to be: "What kind of vehicle are you driving that has 1000 Amps going into the coil?"

      Fair enough, I don't believe there is a 1000 amps going to the coil. Actually, according to this site, the coil uses 5 amps. The output current must be relatively low, if it wasn't touching a spark plug wire would zap you.

    21. Re:Pure nonsense by Lotharus · · Score: 1

      A very large current is useless if the voltage is too low to overcome the impedance of the circuit you want to use.

      THAT is pure nonsense. Dude. Ohm's law. (Excluding non-Ohmic materials, as someone has suggested). E = I * R. I = E / R. PERIOD. There's a reason it's called Ohm's LAW. If "...the voltage is too low to overcome the impedance of the circuit..." then you don't GET a "very large current." You get a very small current.

      Plenty of electric welders' outputs have potential differences of a mere twelve volts. This gives the electric welder a great safety measure - if I inadvertently connect myself across the welder's terminals, I don't evaporate in a puff of burning cytoplasm because of my body's internal resistance. However, when I touch the welder's brazing rod against the material being welded (presuming all surfaces are sufficiently prepared, clean of all high-impedance materials), the fractional resistance results in a very large current (still only a potential difference of 12V), dissipating enough power to melt metals together into a very strong bond.

      I love when people hot-headedly defend statements that are patently wrong. Bottom line, man, high current is high current, and current comes from the ratio of potential difference to resistance (also excluding magnetic inductance which was previously mentioned).

    22. Re:Pure nonsense by robertjw · · Score: 1

      I love when people hot-headedly defend statements that are patently wrong. Bottom line, man, high current is high current, and current comes from the ratio of potential difference to resistance (also excluding magnetic inductance which was previously mentioned).

      I was NOT wrong. I just said what you said - just didn't want to bring Ohm's law into the discussion and complicate it further. Thanks a bunch.

      I=V/R is homes law, so If I have a low voltage the current across the same resistance is lower. I can have a source that will provide a tremendous amount of current, like an arc welder or a car battery, but if it's only providing 12 volts the source won't have enough potential for the current to flow. According to the Singapore Science Center a dry human body has a resistance of about 500,000 ohms. If we plug that into Ohm's law we get I=12/500,000 or .024mA - not enough current to hurt anyone.

      The original poster stated, way back when, that 'current was good to burn things'. A source can have all the potential current in the world, but if the voltage is extremely low (obviously much less than 12v) it loses it's usefulness.

      Sorry I wasn't more clear earlier, like I said, didn't want to teach a basic electronics class.

  9. Wouldn't that be... by jav1231 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "about four times all the electrical power on Earth"
    Wouldn't that be all of the OTHER power on Earth? After all, this test was conducted on Earth, making even this discharge a subset of the "all the electrical power on Earth," but I digress. It's really amazing, though, to think this was pulse through a tuna-can sized hunk of aluminum. You'd think it melt. Tuna...melt....I really should stop.

    1. Re:Wouldn't that be... by Filter · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Your post time says 10:24AM, you need to get some sleep, I have seen these symptoms before. You'll be alright.

      --

      "better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07

    2. Re:Wouldn't that be... by YankeeInExile · · Score: 1

      ...all of the OTHER power on Earth?

      No, I think they can stand by the all the power generated on earth. because their system does not actually generate any power. It just stores up power from The Grid for a longish while and then dumps it in a (quote) few microseconds. The power being dissipated in that chunk of plasma-ball-former-aluminium-puck is indeed excess to all the power being currently generated (Well, actually, converted from some existing source of potential or chemical energy, if we want to get superpedantic ... ) world-wide.

      --
      How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
    3. Re:Wouldn't that be... by simon_clarkstone · · Score: 1
      You'd think it melt.

      It probably did melt, but the important part was that it was also crushed by the immense magnetic field created. This is a bit like the effect created at http://205.243.100.155/frames/shrinkergallery.html . Of course, the actual heating cannot be worked out as they do not specify the duration of the current.

      --

      C:\>spell -b slashdot_submission.txt
      Bad command or file name.
    4. Re:Wouldn't that be... by EvilNTUser · · Score: 1

      "\"about four times all the electrical power on Earth\" Wouldn't that be all of the OTHER power on Earth? After all, this test was conducted on Earth, making even this discharge a subset of the \"all the electrical power on Earth,\" but I digress."

      Stop spreading that sentence, damnit. My brain overflows its stack every time I try to read it.

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    5. Re:Wouldn't that be... by dattaway · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've seen 1/1000th of this current used on a daily basis through 14 guage wire as part of the wire making process. When I worked on wire drawing and annealing machines, I measured a constant 1900 amps on the wire at about 2000 feet per second. The voltage drop was about 30 volts for about 15 feet. The magnetic field was pretty strong and the wire got hot enough to soften it. If the wire were stationary, it would take about a second or two to melt it. If I were to take 10,000 strands of that 14 guage copper wire (which is much more conductive than aluminum) we'd have about 19 million amps, but I'm sure the magnetic field would have presented interesting challenges.

    6. Re:Wouldn't that be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would prefer if it was generated through Patty. Then it would be a Patty Melt.

      Hmmmm... Isn't it about lunch time??

      Nathan

    7. Re:Wouldn't that be... by kinglink · · Score: 1

      I noticed the same thing, people need to realize that the word other is never implied.

      There's a couple great logic tests that have lines like "This is the sum of all the questions on this test" Which of course makes that answer undeterminable by itself but it requires all the other questions on the test to be equal to 0....

      god I'm a geek.

    8. Re:Wouldn't that be... by jZnat · · Score: 1

      The total energy of Earth is about 5.36934319 × 10^41 joules (or 1.28330382 × 10^38 kilocalories). I'm pretty sure that TFA's experiment couldn't reproduce that much energy.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    9. Re:Wouldn't that be... by karmatic · · Score: 1

      Why are you escaping your quotes? Too much time programming, perhaps?

    10. Re:Wouldn't that be... by EvilNTUser · · Score: 1

      Well, I do program, but it's mostly because it's convenient. I hate reading nested quotes anywhere, because you have to keep track of what level you're at, and whether the next symbol terminates the current level or starts a lower one. Escaping them using programming conventions is the simplest way to deal with the problem.

      I also do similar things with other stuff, like math. Commenting calculus operations with C++ syntax made my high school homework much more readable.

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    11. Re:Wouldn't that be... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      we'd have about 19 million amps, but I'm sure the magnetic field would have presented interesting challenges.

      Interesting challenges for some, interesting work for the local dentist.

      "For the love of God, use ceramic this time!"

      Assuming, of course, that the field wasn't strong enough to pull iron from blood. Doesn't sound like the most pleasant way to go.

  10. Maybe Now... by ballstothat · · Score: 1
    Perhaps with this technology, Con Edison can finally power all the air conditioners in the metro NYC area.

    Nah, I doubt it.

    --
    10
    20 Print "Balls To That"
    1. Re:Maybe Now... by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Are there problems with brownouts in NYC, too? Wow, if both LA and NYC don't have enough juice, then we may be seeing the first *real* practical limits of the massive human overpopulation. Awesome.

    2. Re:Maybe Now... by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      we may be seeing the first *real* practical limits

      Nah, it would still be an artificial limit. Let people go without power long enough, and they'll have no problem with a couple of new nuke plants. Problem solved.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:Maybe Now... by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      Why do you have line 10 in your comment, more efficient is: 20 print "Ball etc" 30 goto 20

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    4. Re:Maybe Now... by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Good point. Damn.
       
      ...Hoping for real armageddon/societal collapse since 1973...

  11. What? by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...Test Site said they generated a current equal to about four times all the electrical power on Earth.

    ...

    During the few millionths of a second that it operated, the 650-ton Atlas pulsed-power generator discharged about 19 million amps

    Um....unless things have changed in the 25+ years since I took a college physics class, we measure POWER in WATTS, and CURRENT in AMPS. So the number you quoted in AMPS that you claims is eqaual to four times the POWER in amps doesn't make any sense. Of course, that never stopped our /. Editors before!

    1. Re:What? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 0

      Don't blame the editors -- the press release contains the same irritatingly vague language.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:What? by timle · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with the editors its taken directly from the PDF, but I don't suppose you took time to read it. Yes, its a terrible sentence but later they say for the for "the few millonths of a second that it operates, Atlas generates electrical energy output roughly four times the Earth's entire energy production." Again an unforunate sentence as it doesn't say minus Atlas itself. However energy is power * time, so for a minute ammount of time this does seem to produce produce vast ammounts of power.

    3. Re:What? by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

      Actually, it wouldn't matter. This was just a garbage press release.

      "Hey, look! We can *still* do what we did before to simulate the "computer codes" we use to simulate the nuclear testing we can't do"

      So, this is a re-test of a POC of a nuclear weapons testing system. It's hardly science, and it is definately not news, since this existed what, 3 years ago?

      Sheesh.

      -WS

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    4. Re:What? by Otter · · Score: 1
      Obviously, "power" refers to its colloquial meaning of "generated electricity" (as in "The power is out!"), not to the scientific definition of the term.

      C'mon...

    5. Re:What? by EZLeeAmused · · Score: 1

      First, we can't blame /. for the current = power statement. That came directly from TFA. Second, although I know that /. readers love nothing better than to find fault in others, I assume that what was meant was that the amperage generated was four times that of the total current of all electrical power generated on earth.

      N.B. the article is a news release, not a scientific report.

      --
      Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
    6. Re:What? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Don't blame the editors -- the press release contains the same irritatingly vague language.

      Wherever the blame lies, the language isn't irritatingly vague. It's irritatingly wrong. I can accept vague just fine. Wrong is another story.

    7. Re:What? by YankeeInExile · · Score: 1

      unless things have changed in the 25+ years since I took a college physics class, we measure POWER in WATTS, and CURRENT in AMPS. So the number you quoted in AMPS that you claims is eqaual to four times the POWER in amps doesn't make any sense.

      Well, it seems to me, in the kind of physics they are engaging in, the actual voltage does not matter a white. So long as it is sufficient to pass the required current through the sample. So, to fix up the sentence to offend your eyes less:

      they generated a current, at sufficient voltage to be equal to about four times all the electrical power on Earth.
      --
      How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
    8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot editors are idiots. Can't you tell by the quality of their work?

      Digg.com. At least the people there care.

    9. Re:What? by Saggi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article is vague, but it don't state the same as the editor on SlashDot...

      During the few millionths of a second that it operates. Atlas generates electrical energy roughtly four times the Earth's entire energy production.

      It doesn't say if it the Earth (magnetic field etc.) or the human energy production....

      The statement is just after describing the Earth atmosphere pressure etc. so it could be related to earth it self.

      And as the quote above states, it doesn't indicate that the energy production is measured in amps.

      --
      -:) Oh no - not again.
      www.rednebula.com
    10. Re:What? by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      Then do we trust these scientists claiming this feat, or is it even a bigger feat then what they already claimed? Instant conversion of universal (ok, not universal, but at least earthly) definitions when turning on this device.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    11. Re:What? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      That changes the meaning of the statement. Their statement does not include the power in batteries and capacitors (which have no current), yours does.

    12. Re:What? by Stanistani · · Score: 2, Funny

      >I can accept vague just fine.

      Ok... maybe it needed to be set on "Wumbo."

    13. Re:What? by SlashingComments · · Score: 1

      Look man, please don't bother try to justify other people doing stupid press release. We EE people will not accept things unless it is black-n-white, it is our nature. I wish programmers were like that and stop saying "it runs fine in my computer ..."

      --

      - People who believe other people have no right to live, got no right to live ...

    14. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as "current" was used in the colloquial sense of "latest fashion".

    15. Re:What? by ets960 · · Score: 1

      are they assuming that it is AC running at 120 VAC, 60 Hz? Because when we discuss the capacity of a power outlet in most buildings, or the ratings of amplifiers and such, we assume that it is at 120 VAC, 60 Hz. That way, we can just say the current that is delivered. Just a thought

    16. Re:What? by JohnPM · · Score: 1

      Colloquialism has no place in scientific reporting.

      --
      Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
    17. Re:What? by kyojin+the+clown · · Score: 1

      something cool happened. there was, like, loads of electricity and stuff. and some tuna.

    18. Re:What? by systemic+chaos · · Score: 1

      he/she/they Wumbo
      Wumbology - the study of Wumbo

    19. Re:What? by HardCase · · Score: 1

      Colloquialism has no place in scientific reporting.

      Agreed, but it was a press release.

      -h-

    20. Re:What? by iq+in+binary · · Score: 1

      Where as Watt is a measurement of heat produced by the current passing through resistance.........

      P=E*I

      Whereas P represents Power (Watts), E represents applied Voltage (Volts) and I represents amprage applied.

      Without reading the article we don't have enough information to figure exactly how they accomplished this, but it was likely done by running extremely high voltage (the potential for coulombs to be transferred) through a vacuum which poses little resistance. But the end result is yes, they did generate current equal to about four times all the electrical power on earth (Last I checked 27.6 GW, in the late 1990's). Here's how it works, 1.9e7 amps run through, oh say 10 ohms of resistance would yield (using the P=I^2*R method) roughly 3.61 TW, while highly improbable for this to happen, it is believable to yield 1.24 TW if they simply ran 19 million amps across a lower resistance.

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
  12. Hmm... by leshert · · Score: 5, Funny

    On July 27, scientists at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Nevada Test Site said they generated a current equal to about four times all the electrical power on Earth.

    Where did they do this experiment--Mars?

    1. Re:Hmm... by DoorFrame · · Score: 1

      It only said "on" the Earth... I suppose they could have done it underground. Or in a balloon of some sort.

    2. Re:Hmm... by SeekerDarksteel · · Score: 0

      Where did they do this experiment--Mars?

      Well yeah, where else are they gonna manage to open up the portal to Hell?

      --
      The laws of probability forbid it!
    3. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq would now work.

    4. Re:Hmm... by leshert · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, where else are they gonna manage to open up the portal to Hell?

      Ahh. I missed that bit in the article. I understand now--they did the experiment underground... just below Sunnydale High...

  13. I could use that... by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Funny

    to power the beowulf cluster I just imagined.

    Laugh kids... it's kinda funny.

    1. Re:I could use that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not laughing preciesly BECAUSE it's not funny. Not even in the slightest.

  14. Two points by TildeMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    1. Current != power. Power = I^2 R, or any equivalent formula.

    2. They did this on Earth, so it was actually only 80% of the electrical power (or insert appropriate noun here, see point 1) on Earth. Assuming it was four times the normal power levels without this extra current.

    1. Re:Two points by Aerion · · Score: 1

      1. Current != power. Power = I^2 R, or any equivalent formula.

      Such as Knowledge = Power?

  15. 11? by ryanvm · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll bet this amp goes to 11.

    1. Re:11? by adrianbaugh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah, they just made 10 louder ;-)

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    2. Re:11? by Satorian · · Score: 0

      Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?

    3. Re:11? by JustOK · · Score: 0

      u needa spinal tap

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:11? by Thalagyrt · · Score: 1

      Most guitar amps generally have 0-10 on their output knobs, I think that's what he was talking about.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    5. Re:11? by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 2, Informative

      For those who didn't see 'Spinal Tap' - Marshall once sold an amplifier where the knobs instead of being marked 0 - 10 were marked 0 - 11. Many musicians, not normally noted for their technical savvy, assumed that they were that little bit louder

      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    6. Re:11? by IvoryRing · · Score: 1

      Was it actually sold (I mean, as a catalog item from Marshall or any other amp manuf prior to the movie)? I had that pegged for a prop-shop-chop-n-drop when I saw it originally.

    7. Re:11? by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 1

      Oh yes
      Back in the eighties when I was a roadie I used to work for a band which had them (name withdrawn to protect the embarrassed!)

      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    8. Re:11? by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      Actually, it goes to 11!

      (now, for the clueless /mods who's understanding of maths requires them to drop their pants to count to 21, look up factorial.)

    9. Re:11? by makomk · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, it was built specially by Marshall as a one-off. (It was mentioned in the local paper a while back - I live near where they're based). It wasn't really any louder, it just had different knob markings from the standard model.

    10. Re:11? by Satorian · · Score: 1

      And I had though a direct Spinal Tap quote would be recognized. Got to spell everything out the next time for some people.

    11. Re:11? by Thalagyrt · · Score: 1

      Ah ha! I see, movie reference.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    12. Re:11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it goes to 19.

    13. Re:11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this new version of winamp? Where can I download it? Mirrors?

  16. Coherence ? by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

    to about four times all the electrical power on Earth.
    19 million amps
    Urr... if it was all about generating amps I don't see the point. Can't you get near infinite amperage with finite power in a supraconducter ?

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:Coherence ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this make sense? If power is the product of current and voltage is it possible to have an infinite current, a finite voltage > 0, and measure a finite amount of power? I would think that you could APPROACH an infinite current and still have a finite amount of power produced.

    2. Re:Coherence ? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
      supraconducter

      You could also use a Honda or any other type of car for that matter.

    3. Re:Coherence ? by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      > if it was all about generating amps I don't see the point.

      It wasn't, as you'd know if you'd RTFA. Passing a high current through a cylinder makes it implode (in our undergrad labs in Oxford there was a length of squished copper pipe that had provided a short circuit between (IIRC) an old linac and ground. They want to cause a powerful implosion to study nukes without having to detonate them for real.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    4. Re:Coherence ? by Interrupt18 · · Score: 1

      I googled supraconducter to make sure it wasn't some new type of material, but since it's apparent you mean superconductor, there is no power dissipated (R=0 so I^2R = 0, although you're right, it's finite) but there is still an upper limit on the amount of current a given superconductor can accomodate before it stops superconducting.

    5. Re:Coherence ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In theory, you could push an infinite current through a perfect superconductor.

      In practice, you can't--all real superconductors have a "critical current density"--drive the current above a certain threshold, and it ceases to be a superconductor. It's a "density" because the exact current at which a superconductor stops superconducting is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the wire, but you'd need a very large wire indeed to drive 19 Mega-amps through a superconductor.

    6. Re:Coherence ? by BytePusher · · Score: 0

      No.

  17. so that's what it was by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    I thought I felt a disturbance in the force.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:so that's what it was by interiot · · Score: 4, Funny

      As if a million tuna cans cried out, and then were silenced?

    2. Re:so that's what it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was funny - I have my 4 year old son beliving in the Force now I pretend to choke whenever he does the Darth Vader choking hand motion. It is hard to keep up the facade when driving - I tend to swerve....

    3. Re:so that's what it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? The question is, was it dolphin safe?

    4. Re:so that's what it was by dakirw · · Score: 1

      So what will you tell him when he tries this on the neighborhood bully?

      "Son, it failed because he must have been a Sith Lord?"
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. 19 MA at (x) volts? by YankeeInExile · · Score: 1

    Although, having read the press release, I do believe the four times the net energy production figure; without telling us what voltage this few-microsecond pulse is at, it is impossible to know what the instantaneous power is.

    One would need to scrounge around in Wikipedia or something for the total worldwide electricity production, multiply by four, do the arithmetic, and know the peak voltage. But maybe they meant the energy dissipated in those microseconds, which case you'd need to know the discharge curve. That's what, 0.5*C*V**2, right? Quick, what's the resistance for a tuna-can-sized chunk of some random aluminium alloy?

    --
    How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
    1. Re:19 MA at (x) volts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0.5*C*V**2 is the energy stored in a capacitor

  20. "We never get tired of blowing stuff up" by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    One of the researchers was quoted as saying.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:"We never get tired of blowing stuff up" by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      It imploded, not exploded...

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    2. Re:"We never get tired of blowing stuff up" by Cheeze · · Score: 1

      "We never get tired of blowing stuff down?"

      --
      Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
  21. Picturing preliminary testing... by AndyChrist · · Score: 3, Funny

    A group of lab-coated engineers having a barbecue using a 48 million dollar grill.

    1. Re:Picturing preliminary testing... by Thalagyrt · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, this isn't flamebait, it's a joke. :P

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    2. Re:Picturing preliminary testing... by kpwoodr · · Score: 1

      > A group of lab-coated engineers having a barbecue using a 48 million dollar grill.

      and all they could think of to grill was tuna...

      --
      This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
    3. Re:Picturing preliminary testing... by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      A group of lab-coated engineers having a barbecue using a 48 million dollar grill.

      This reminds me of the classic Dave Barry column describing a group of engineers who are tired of waiting for charcoal to ignite and heat to cooking temperature. The article ends, somewhat ominously, with

      On Goble's Web site, you can see actual photographs and a video of Goble using a bucket attached to a 10-foot-long wooden handle to dump three gallons of liquid oxygen (Not Sold In Stores) onto a grill containing 60 pounds of charcoal and a lit cigarette for ignition. What follows is the most impressive charcoal-lighting I have ever seen, featuring a large fireball that, according to Goble, reached 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The charcoal was ready for cooking in this has to be a world record three seconds.

      There's also a photo of what happened when Goble used the same technique on a flimsy little $2.88 discount-store grill. All that's left is a circle of charcoal with a few shreds of metal in it.

      "Basically, the grill vaporized," Goble said. "We were thinking of returning it to the store for a refund."

      Looking at Goble's video and photos, I became, as an American, all choked up with gratitude at the fact that I do not live anywhere near the engineers' picnic site.

      Will the three-second barrier ever be broken? Will engineers come up with a new, more-powerful charcoal-lighting technology? It's something for all of us to ponder this summer as we sit outside, chewing our hamburgers, every now and then glancing in the direction of West Lafayette, Ind., looking for a mushroom cloud.

      This just might be the technique to break the three-second barrier. Stay tuned for further developments.
      --
      ~Idarubicin
  22. I wonder if... by Zweideutig · · Score: 1

    Could Intel be funding the construction of this generator as a drop-in replacement for our current source of electricity? With this, Intel should be able to get a system to POST with the new Pentium V. Disclaimer: I have a 3.8 GHz Precott on my Gentoo machine.

    --
    Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
  23. The big question is by jurt1235 · · Score: 0

    Does it hurt when you hold the other end of the tuna can shaped wire?

    Ok, last night Braniac rerun had an electric fence test, you have got to get your inspiration from somewhere :-(

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    1. Re:The big question is by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "Ok, last night Braniac rerun had an electric fence test, you have got to get your inspiration from somewhere :-("

      Haha! Once, I was involved in putting together a haunted house, and for my part, I took a piece of plywood, painted outlines of two hands, and put big round copper brads right where the palms would go, and hooked the thing up to the electrodes of a hot-shot. Then I put a sign that said "DANGER, DO NOT TOUCH".

      But the day-glo orange hand outlines were too much to resist for at least one dumbass in almost every group that came through, and one actually did the hand thing and got jolted -- and some other dumbnuts who saw it happen DID IT TOO!

      Now, this haunted house also featured a naked chick in a bathtup filled with (fake) blood with a (real) cow tongue, an abortion scene (fake) followed by a kitchen scene (also fake), and other really horrible, tasteless, distrubing things.

      Yeah, we were total punks, back in the day. But we had a reputation to uphold!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  24. can't anybody get it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Current, power and energy are not the same!

    power = voltage times current

    and

    power = energy per unit time
    (the rate of energy production or consumption)

  25. How much power? by harks · · Score: 1

    How much is all the electrical power on Earth? It doesn't give numbers.

    1. Re:How much power? by JordanH · · Score: 1
      How much is all the electrical power on Earth? It doesn't give numbers.
      ~ 19/4 Million Amps
    2. Re:How much power? by Prophetic_Truth · · Score: 1

      Well, according to their claims, it would be 19,000,000 / 4 and some change. Which would be around 4,750,000 amps generated in the amount of time they generated thier power i guess.

      --
      time is a perception of a being's consciousness
      time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
    3. Re:How much power? by harks · · Score: 1

      Amps are not power, power is current times voltage (or current squared times resistance) and we aren't given those other figures.

  26. Partical Applications? by nherc · · Score: 1

    Umm, okay that's interesting and all, but are there any practical uses besides using this thing to simulate nuclear weapons material tests? Or is this just another huge money sink for the good ol' US Gov't?

    Do we really need to keep reasearching nuclear weapons anyway, with the Cold War long over and the ban on them and all?

    --
    'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
    1. Re:Partical Applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and the chinese threatening to nuke us, and the Iranians developing nuclear weapons, and the Pakistanis with nuclear weapons, and oh yes, the Chinese threatening to nuke us. Remember more then a decade ago when the Chinese Premeir threatend to nuke Los Angeles? Oops, no, we forgot that the worlds fastest growing nation, which is competing with us for oil, and building the worlds largest modern army, has threatened to nuke us. It's appropriate that the word to confirm I'm not a script is "survival".

    2. Re:Partical Applications? by JargonScott · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a really cool way to do what one of these would do.

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/3737 101/002-1029920-3420805

      --
      Nuke Gay Whales for Jesus.
    3. Re:Partical Applications? by badfish99 · · Score: 1

      Of course you need nuclear weapons. Saddam didn't have any, and look what someone did to him.

    4. Re:Partical Applications? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Of course you need nuclear weapons. Saddam didn't have any, and look what someone did to him.

      Don't worry - I'm sure Iran and North Korea have taken note and won't make the same mistake.

    5. Re:Partical Applications? by DongleFondle · · Score: 1

      to confirm I'm not a script

      I don't buy it. I think you are a script.

      The reason why we've conviently forgotten this fact is because it's not profitable for the U.S. arms industry nor the U.S. oil economy. We're not planning on going to war with China, hence the absence of media hype and government leaked disinformation plastered all over the major media drumming up support for invasion. (Invasion of China - it just looks silly in print, doesn't it).

      Odd, my word to confirm I'm not a script is "troll".

  27. Cool, but... by vontrotsky · · Score: 1

    ... Sandia National Lab's Z-Machine is about 20-times more powerful (http://www.sandia.gov/media/z290.htm)

  28. What a waste of money... by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Funny

    Any fool knows they could obtain just as much current by sticking a few boyscouts up on a pole... oops, bad taste...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:What a waste of money... by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      You will note it wasn't boy scouts who were broiled. We made those jokes about scoutmaster brains being so expensive for a reason.

      --
      -mkb
  29. 19 Million? by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Funny

    19 Million Amps, eh? Now all they need is 19 million guitars and the whole planet can rock out.

    1. Re:19 Million? by bobcave · · Score: 1

      yeah - rock out with your cock out.


      --
      There is no such thing as 'chocohol' or 'workahol'.
  30. Black Mesa by Chairboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of interest, the testing work here in Nevada has been farmed out to a private corporation. We now call it the Black Mesa Research Facility. Dr. Freeman and I have just started working together, and we have a number of exciting experiments underway. This last one in the story just happened, and it was very...

    hold on, there's something moving out in the hallway, I've got to go check.

    )#($)
    NO CARRIER

    1. Re:Black Mesa by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

      I wanted to scream, "It's alliivvee" after reading the parent post.

      Were they really trying to juice Frakenstein's Monster back up?

      Things that make you say Hmmm...

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    2. Re:Black Mesa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft - what could possibly squeeze through a gate the size of a tuna can?

      And now, if you don't mind, I have snarks to feed.

    3. Re:Black Mesa by jackbird · · Score: 1
      Pfft - what could possibly squeeze through a gate the size of a tuna can?

      What, you've never seen canned (head)crab?

    4. Re:Black Mesa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see predictable phase arrays. Nothing to worry about ,according to the facility's administrator, Dr.Breen.

      Fortonextone

  31. Note to above by stinerman · · Score: 1

    Obviously current and power aren't the same thing, but I was making the assumption that the submitter simply used them interchangeably, making a layman's error.

  32. sooo... by scaverdilly · · Score: 1

    If you divide that between the entire human race ... each person could make a piece of toast? Maybe over a 20 minute period of time?

  33. But does it run Linux? by martinultima · · Score: 0

    I see no reason to allow four times the amount of energy the Earth can produce unless the generator runs my favorite operating system. :-)

    (Would nineteen million amps be enough to power the three million processor TRANSLTR, do you think?)

    --
    Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
    1. Re:But does it run Linux? by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      That's 30 million, not 3.

  34. Minor detail by beavis88 · · Score: 1

    How the hell was it generated? A capacitor farm? 32 trillion hamsters on exercise wheels?

    1. Re:Minor detail by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1

      From TFA: Atlas works as a giant power multiplier, using electrical energy that is accumulated slowly and stored in the machine's capacitors for sudden release into the cylindrical liner.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    2. Re:Minor detail by beavis88 · · Score: 1

      Weird. Hacrobat didn't show me page two, so I guess I only got half TFA. Thanks.

    3. Re:Minor detail by Dick+Faze · · Score: 1

      Last time I accumulated energy for sudden release into the cylindrical liner, it only required 2 candlepower.

  35. power != current by fizze · · Score: 0, Redundant
    "...said they generated a current equal to about four times all the electrical power on Earth."

    power = current * voltage

    at least thats was teachers & prof bashed into my head for years.....
    --
    Powerful is he who overpowers his temptations.
    1. Re:power != current by wpiman · · Score: 1
      Then knowing V= I * R we can say

      power = I * I * R

      Hopefully if these guys are smart enough to measure for R- which should be a constant when dealing with DC current. However since this was a pulse- I am not so sure that the DC equations hold true- and this problem would become an AC problem- and the impedance of the can would changed for the harmonics of the pulse. Calculating the impedance of a cylinder is not difficult- but consider the thing imploded during the test- its shape was changing- and that could make life difficult.

    2. Re:power != current by fizze · · Score: 1
      said they generated a current equal to about four times all the electrical current on Earth.

      At least those ed's react fast *cough* ;)
      --
      Powerful is he who overpowers his temptations.
  36. Re:And this benefits us how? by vontrotsky · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is part of the nuclear stewardship program. The US has a few thousand nukes that need to be maintianed, but not tested due to treaty restrictions. Therefore, intricate computer simulations are used to run virtual weapons tests.

    The "tuna can" in this experiments is being subjected to high stresses, and measuring its response lets the researchers validate their simulation's predictions. If the simulation predicts the behavior of the can, it's more likely to acurately describe a nuclear device.

    Jeff

  37. Re:Tuna by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think tuna can be cooked with far less power.

    Tuna can be cooked with much less power, but unforunately by slow cooking it you lose a lot of the natural flavoring. That's why this, the preferred solution by most gourmet chefs, cooks the tuna in a few millionths of a second.

  38. How was this measured? by MirrororriM · · Score: 1
    I RTFA, but I see no mention of wattage or voltage. Amps would be just one part of the equation: V * A = W

    Was it 1 volt? 1 watt? Call me shallow, but it could be much less impressive depending on the aforementioned questions.

    Inquiring minds want to know...

    --
    Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
  39. Ya by avkb03 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Keep Pedalin Lance, we're at 19 Million Amps!

  40. That's great news... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 0

    Ted Nugent can finally go to 11!

    Wait, that's BAD news. Sorry.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  41. Isn't that... by DigitalDwarf · · Score: 1

    Isn't that the same AMP that a 2 Year Old Child produce when on a Sugar Rush??

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
  42. ugh? by logik3x · · Score: 1

    This post is so useless... there is nothing back it up... that press realease is so generic I could make my little sister write one like that... and what are we supose to get from this? some random chunck of aluminium can implode when stuck by 19 million Amps... I could of predicted that and saved them a couple of millions...

  43. Tuna cans... by mikael · · Score: 1

    During the few millionths of a second that it operated, the 650-ton Atlas pulsed-power generator discharged about 19 million amps of current through an aluminum cylindrical shell about the size of a tuna can.


    That's one über wi-fi.

    I can only imagine the wi-fi range they'd get with a Pringles can.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  44. What A Waste... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

    All that power and no Frankenstein monster in sight. You would think they could use the technology to create humanity instead of light shows.

    1. Re:What A Waste... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what can you bench now?

    2. Re:What A Waste... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I do 150 pounds on the pull down machine, and 300 pounds on the leg press machine. I been focusing more on doing 30 to 60 minutes of aqua jogging in the swimming pool every day, and 30 minutes on the treadmill at the gym two to three times a week. I'm a lot more slimmer now and I lost five pounds over the last two months.

  45. How many amps in a watt? by JackDW · · Score: 0

    Sounds like apples and oranges If the scientists actually tried to compare current and power, their scientist licences should be revoked immediately.

    --
    You're an immobile computer, remember?
  46. Yes, yes... current != power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you people maybe check and see that 9000 other people have not posted the same thing, or maybe realize it's just not that important to correct an offhand quip? That's why people make fun of nerds: you insist on technical accuracy in inappropriate or unnecessary situations. It's annoying.

    1. Re:Yes, yes... current != power by Raistlin77 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must be new here...

  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. Pshaw by Theatetus · · Score: 0

    Now when they can mount it on the back of a shark, I'll be impressed.

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  49. Each one turned up to 11 by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 2, Funny

    for when you want that extra edge

    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    1. Re:Each one turned up to 11 by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      As if the one in U2 wasn't enough...

  50. In other news... by afstanton · · Score: 0

    nuclear fusion achieved with raw tuna!

    --
    Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
  51. Exploding apples with capacitors by Cyclotron_Boy · · Score: 4, Informative
    This is a fun project. I was able to get about 18kA repeatably through a variety of objects from a small cap bank using low inductance leads and vacuum triggered spark gap. Lots of people do fun projects like this at home in their garages

    For example
    Bert Hickman's coin shrinking
    Thaltech's capacitor experiments
    Sam Barros's Power Labs page
    Bill Beaty's webpage
    and many others...

    1. Re:Exploding apples with capacitors by Milican · · Score: 1

      Wow. Thats almost funny. Making fun of nerds not getting laid. Whew.. I'm crying over here. The originality! the wit! I can see it now... "Anonymous Coward" opening for Jerry Seinfeld, no... Chris Rock.. yeah... you have some excellent material. Keep it coming. No really. Great stuff. You should be a comic writer for the Simpsons or maybe Family Guy.

      JOhn

    2. Re:Exploding apples with capacitors by oldbenway · · Score: 1, Funny

      Man, what do you have against apples?

    3. Re:Exploding apples with capacitors by blair1q · · Score: 1

      (30 minutes later)

      Now that's the sort of post /. was intended for.

    4. Re:Exploding apples with capacitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Where can I subscribe to your "wit newsletter"? You are quite clever and witty.

      The guy has his whole life ahead of him to plug apples into the wall outlet, but after a certain age, it will become impossible to get laid without the skills you should have learned as a kid. Unless you sell your capacitors and buy a hooker with the proceeds.

    5. Re:Exploding apples with capacitors by H3g3m0n · · Score: 1

      Are shrunken coins still legal tender?

      --
      cat /dev/urandom > .sig
  52. That explains it! by jdavidb · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I was wondering why I had developed a brain tumor over the weekend...

  53. Seems impressive right? by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

    Yeah it sure does.

    But the impressive part isn't the current. It's the pulse. It's surprisingly easy to get really high currents... as long as you only want them for fractions of a second.

    Sure the total current achieved here is impressive... but what about watt hours? I would imagine the number of watt hours here is surprisingly low compared to the current...

    --
    I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  54. Mmmm... Can you say "railgun" boys and girls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, so I did RTFA. And yes it was very light and fluffy. But what caught my attention was the method of energy generation. They trickle charged a big old bank of capacitors and then disharged them really really fast through a conductive slug. Sounds like how a railgun works to me! Just modify the geometry a little and you can start carving smiley faces into Mars... :)

  55. 1.21 Gigawatts by MikeyToo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Given: 19MA generated(That's ninteteen megaamps as opposed to ma which is milliamps for those of you who avoided engineering). 1210MW (Again that's megawatts, or 1.12GW for you Back to the Future types) Then using Ohm's Law (E=P/I) They needed to work at 63.68MV (mega again). I wonder how long it will take them to get all this equipment packed in a DeLorean.

    --
    "Well Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything." - Dr. Roger Fleming
    1. Re:1.21 Gigawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your units and try again. You're off by six orders of magnitude.

    2. Re:1.21 Gigawatts by VoidWraith · · Score: 1

      You could just explain the error... Its volts, not MegaVolts. And such a low voltage is hard to expect in a system with that much charge (Someone want to find how much, in Coulombs? =P), so its not very likely to have been 1.21 Gigawatts.

    3. Re:1.21 Gigawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The error was rather significant.

      As far as Coulombs go, there's not enough information given. The article says "a few millionths of a second." If it's 3 millionths of a second, that's 57 Coulombs, or about 0.032% of what a typical, 50Ah lead-acid car battery can produce.

      As far as the *power* goes, there is definately not enough information given. Just for fun, though, make up a few numbers. Assume the "tuna can" is 10cm in diameter, 5cm tall, and has a wall thickness of 0.5mm. Also, use the resistivity of conductor-grade aluminum of 28.0 nOhm-m. That's 8.95 uOhm top-bottom, or 170V with 19MA going through it. That's 3.23GW.... more than Marty needed by almost a factor of 2!

    4. Re:1.21 Gigawatts by MikeyToo · · Score: 1

      Ok. Count me stupid but I don't see the error. I deliberately converted everything to M and 1210/19 does indeed equal 63.86 and some change and not .00006368.

      --
      "Well Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything." - Dr. Roger Fleming
    5. Re:1.21 Gigawatts by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      I'm sure in 1985 plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, future boy.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    6. Re:1.21 Gigawatts by VoidWraith · · Score: 1

      Convert it all to the standard units (ie. not mega). You'll still wind up with 63.86, and then you'll be assured that its Volts, because Watts over Amps is, logically, volts. MegaWatts over MegaAmps is also Volts, because of how division works. The extra zeroes cancel.

    7. Re:1.21 Gigawatts by MikeyToo · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Serves me right for doing math on a monday.

      --
      "Well Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything." - Dr. Roger Fleming
  56. Nuke research by BenJaminus · · Score: 1

    After my first thoughts (which as usual everyone else has posted) I wondered what the point was... well to save anyone else who can't be bothered to actually read the article - it's to create a really high pressure explosion type thing (although the article says "implosion") to research into nuclear explosions (without actually setting one off - which is a good thing:)

    1. Re:Nuke research by dethlejd · · Score: 1

      I suspect that this is exactly what this experiment is designed to accomplish.

      If you can eliminiate the need for a fission primary, it becomes feasible to test core compression theories, enabling designers to produce more efficient fusion devices; smaller, higher yield, and perhaps consuming less material.

      The heats and pressures required to light the fusion fire are created quite frequently in accelerators, but I don't see them as being practical on a "working man's" scale.

      It'd be fun to have one, that's for sure. Though I bet that their power bill leaves a little bit to be desired.

  57. Oh Sure by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

    This dull go nowhere story gets on /. while my inspirational story about robot jockeys gets denied.

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  58. Marketing tip by elgee · · Score: 1

    They should have titled it "19 trillion microamps." Sounds more impressive to the aveage dufus.

    "A billion microamps here, a billion microamps there and pretty soon, you are talking real power."

    1. Re:Marketing tip by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      I find it funny that scientists measure the mass of planets in grams. It makes sense, since that's the S.I. unit, but it's funny anyway.

  59. Re:And this benefits us how? by youknowmewell · · Score: 1

    It's important because now we can generate enough power...er, current, to power a graphics card powerful enough to run Long...er, Windows Vista. We can also fight back when there is a thunderstorm around. Before, Thor was able to torch us at will with no fear of return fire. Now we can stand every whory hair on his wrinkled body on end.

  60. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A cable that can handle the power load of today's processors. ;)

  61. Applications of current by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

    "...discharged about 19 million amps of current through an aluminum cylindrical shell about the size of a tuna can."

    Hey bro, I'm gonna go online. Can you hand me my cantenna?"

    Zolt!

    Bro? You there?

    I was wondering how they were going to stop people from using cantennas...

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  62. Re:Tuna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Millionths of a second! But I want it now!

  63. 007 shakes his head, looks at the smoking corpse.. by mwooller · · Score: 1

    "Shocking"

  64. doesn't say what power by glassesmonkey · · Score: 1
    ... as the current surges, it crushes the liner at velocities of 12070 m/s ... achieves pressures approximates the center of the earth (millions of atmospheres) ... the few microseconds it operates.
    19 megaAmps @ 1V would be 19 megaWatts and need about 40Farad of capacitor banks 19 megaAmps @ 1mV would be 19 kWatts and need about 40,000 Farad of capacitor banks 19 megaAmps @ 1000V would be 19 gigaWatts and need about 40,000uF of capacitor banks
  65. It's practical in a sense... by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    The idea isn't (only) to determine the accuracy of modeling for new weapons. Those same models (IIRC) are used to predict the yield and failure rate on current warheads that were constructed years agoand have been "sitting around" since.

    While I don't see the US using these, it's still a good idea to build models that let us predict what would happen if we did and at what point the risk of failure warrants switching old devices out for new (or deactivating them).

    In this case, the more data the better.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    1. Re:It's practical in a sense... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Plus I think we share the data with the UK/France/Russia so they don't blow up thier old nukes to test them.

  66. SHOCKING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, someone had to say it.

  67. This is NOT a machine to generate AMPS! by Saggi · · Score: 1

    The article is about a machine that can produce a very high pressure, generated in a short amount of time. This is actually much more interesting (of cause a matter of opinion) than the ability to generate a lot of amps.

    Amps without voltage don't really say anything after all. Besides it's the high level of voltages that are exciting, just think of lightning. Having a lot of amps stored in some battery or something similar is just not that exciting....

    But back to the article. This machine can generate a very high pressure in a very precise way. As the article states; ... the fabrication tools used to build the hardware, and the diagnostic tools used to measure the results, making this one of the best-predicted and best-understood high-precision implosion experiments ever.

    Now, that's exciting. Who don't love a good implosion? And the machine is much more than that. It's also all the measure end diagnostic tools. I guess anyone on SlashDot would like to get their hands on this nerdish kind of equipment.

    --
    -:) Oh no - not again.
    www.rednebula.com
  68. No, no... by beej · · Score: 1
    It's not the amps that kills ya, it's the--

    --whoa, I guess it is the amps. Sorry!

  69. Pack it into my laptop... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    ...and I'd never need to plug into a wall socket again. Ahhh... the future's so bright I gotta wear shades. ;P

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  70. Finally... by vertinox · · Score: 1

    I can run my Voodoo 5 card at full power...

    Oh this joke was sooo 2000, I should mod myself down. ;)

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  71. theory versus practice by The+Philosophers+Cat · · Score: 1

    once enough electrons cross between the anode and cathode they'll cause their own p.d to be formed across the electrodes and thus cancel out the orignal driving voltage. unless you can contruct a circuit with zero resistance all the way around so no charge is built up; at which point you'll have zero potential difference around the whole circuit, e.g. no current will flow. circular argument, granted :)

    1. Re:theory versus practice by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Unless you change the externally applied magnetic flux through that loop of superconducting material, in which case you have an induced EMF, i.e. current will flow. This EMF will be precisely enough to generate a change in magnetic flux through the loop exactly opposite the change in externally applied magnetic flux. I'm glad you understand electricity, now go understand electromagnetism.

      The magnetic flux through a superconducting loop is constant.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:theory versus practice by The+Philosophers+Cat · · Score: 1

      infinite current requires an infinte number of electrons - its not going to happen. basic maths my friend.

    3. Re:theory versus practice by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Oh my bad, let me check my post, I must have mistakenly said something about infinite current...... oh. Never mind. I didn't.

      My point was that your argument that a superconducting loop could have no current whatsoever ignored a very important and well known idea from electrodynamics: induction.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    4. Re:theory versus practice by The+Philosophers+Cat · · Score: 1

      "your argument that a superconducting loop"
      i'm sorry, but if i was to be pedantic. i would say: where did i mention superconductors?

      please point it out to me.

    5. Re:theory versus practice by tehcrazybob · · Score: 1

      Though you didn't mention superconductors by that name, you did mention a circuit with absolutely zero resistance. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but I always understood that to mean the same thing.

      --
      Computers need to explode more often.
    6. Re:theory versus practice by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      not technically necessarily... Superconductors are a subset of zero-resistance materials. The only qualifying characteristic that I know off the top of my head is that the electrons in a superconductor always move in pairs, rather than singly.

      That said, I don't know of any zero-resistance material which is not superconducting. But the point stands that zero-resistance is not sufficient to classify a material as a superconductor.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    7. Re:theory versus practice by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Ah. I see. I had failed to take into account the parent to your original post, which did mention infinite current. Yes, infinite currents are impossible (but since we're being pedantic, they would not in fact necessarily require that the number of electrons be infinite; the velocity of the electrons could be infinite instead, or the current could be a flowing fluid of infinite charge density, or any number of other possibilities, but yes, all these are equally impossible). However, my post did not deal with infinite currents, nor was it intended to deal with infinite currents.

      As to where you mentioned superconductors: Allow me to correct myself. You mentioned zero-resistance loops, and claimed that no current could flow in such a loop. I merely pointed out a way that current can, and does, flow in such a loop. This is, as I stated, due to magnetic induction. If this is not the case, and magnetic induction causes no current to flow in a zero-resistance loop, then Maxwell's equations need revision. Since I haven't done the experiment myself, I don't know, but I would suspect that they do not, at least in this case.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    8. Re:theory versus practice by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      As to how you can have a non-infinite current in a zero-resistance loop, have you ever heard of non-ohmic materials? The well known Ohm's law is simply an approximation that works very well in most cases.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    9. Re:theory versus practice by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Probably near the place where he said, 'R->0'. That's what a superconductor does; it reduces resistance to somewhere near 0.

      --
      My other car is first.
  72. Mirrordot to the rescue by rbarreira · · Score: 1
    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  73. LANL is in this too, possible link to NIF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope this is a step to getting the national ignition facility back on track.

    the "tuna can" is a lot bigger than the NIF-envisioned holraum, but perhaps a step on the way?

    So many disgruntled employees:

    http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/la nl-is-leaderless.html

  74. Bash by yurivish · · Score: 1

    First thing that went to my mind... [01:33] (hilo21) ima looking for a site that seels amp [01:33] (hilo21) ima looking for a site that seels amps [01:33] (hilo21) iam looking for a site that seels amps [01:34] (hilo21) I am looking for a site that sells amps [01:35] (nexxai) how bout you look for a site that teaches english? [01:35] (hilo21) fuck you [01:36] (nexxai) Lemme guess, you'd kick my ass, but can't read the road signs to get to my house?

  75. Obligatory Kent Brockman by BucksCountyCycleGeek · · Score: 1

    And I for one would like to welcome our 19-million amp tuna can sized overlords...

  76. The actual challenge by haggar · · Score: 1

    I RTFPDF (funny abbreviation), but I have not seen any details on what was thesolution to, in my opinion, the greatest challenge: the switch.

    Since I graduated electrical engineering, there has been great progress in the field of solid-state switches. Yet, I think the losses incurred in such a switch would make this experiment unviable.
    A mechanical switch is definitely out of the question, unless they managed to accelerate one of the contacts in some, to me inimaginable way. Maybe with explosives.
    In the hihg-voltage experiments a spark gap is a very good and viable alternative, but here we don't deal so much with high voltage as high currents.
    As I said, I RTFPDF, but the PDF didn't contain any solid technical data, let alone details.

    --
    Sigged!
    1. Re:The actual challenge by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      I RTFPDF (funny abbreviation), but I have not seen any details on what was thesolution to, in my opinion, the greatest challenge: the switch.

      Since I graduated electrical engineering, there has been great progress in the field of solid-state switches. Yet, I think the losses incurred in such a switch would make this experiment unviable.


      Power FET's can switch lots of amperes (my EE prof taught me it's either amperes or A. Amp is the abbreviation for amplifier). Put a half million in parallel and control them with something that can dump maybe five miillion amperes into the gates (the Miller capacitance just makes power FET's that much harder to switch fast - perhaps use common-source configuration instead of the rather common common-drain).

      Slightly more practically, there are SCR's that have pulsed current capabilities of over 1,000 A, and it should be possible to paralell them and trigger them all at once (make sure the trigger time delay to each one is the same).

      In the hihg-voltage experiments a spark gap is a very good and viable alternative, but here we don't deal so much with high voltage as high currents.

      Yes, but there's this electromagnetic thing called a transformer. It might even be the way they do it, discharce a capacitor bank into the high-voltage/low-current end of a large transformer, and have a (let's say) six-inch diameter single turn of copper for the secondary.

      As I said, I RTFPDF, but the PDF didn't contain any solid technical data, let alone details.

      Then, as they say, designing a 19 million ampere switch is an exercise for the reader.

      But seriously, sometimes the actual challenge is to reprouce something without being told how it was done. You may even come up with something better. Just stay well away from such operating machinery, for many reasons involving safety, health and plausible deniability ("I don't know a thing about it, I heard noises and thought I'd come take a closer look").

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  77. Compact Toroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Discharging through an aluminum cylinder like this is how they produce compact toroids. It's funny TFA doesn't mention this. Tack on the word weapon to the search terms - they're interesting, but I haven't heard of them going beyond the experimental phase.

  78. So assuming.. by jpellino · · Score: 1

    ...they remained on the earth during this run, they were merely making 80% of all the current on the earth. Currently. Well, currently at that time...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  79. Practical Application by beyond_the_blue · · Score: 1

    "During the few millionths of a second that it operated,"

    Soooo..we now have a tazer capable of taking down a small moon?

    --
    "Sometimes you have fun, and sometimes the fun has you"
    1. Re:Practical Application by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      That's no moon....

      (I feel dirty)

    2. Re:Practical Application by dentar · · Score: 1

      ...that's no moon...

      --
      -- I am. Therefore, I think!
  80. Power Calculation by superstick58 · · Score: 4, Informative
    If we consider the resistivity of Aluminum as 2.82x10^-8 Ohm-meters and the dimension of a soup can is .2159m length by .0889m diameter, we can calculate the approximate resistance of the aluminum and therefore the power.

    resistance = resistivity*length/area

    It turns out that the resistance is near 1 ohm at .981 Ohms. This means that the power would be found with the following equation.

    P = I^2*R

    Therefore we can estimate the total power to be a huuuuuge amount, 354.14x10^12 Watts.

    1. Re:Power Calculation by superstick58 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Let me make a correction. I used a soup can when they said tuna can. My mistake. Assume a tuna can of dimensions of dimensions .0381m length and .04206m diameter. That would lower the resistance of the aluminum to .781x10^-9 (I also forgot some decimal places in my previous equation :P). That means the total power would be:

      (12x10^6)^2*(.781x10-9) = 112.464kW.

      That's not much power. In addition, it only lasted a few milliseconds so it wouldn't come close to the total power usage of the world in a year.

    2. Re:Power Calculation by rjw57 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming the cylinder was solid. TFA states that it was a cylindrical shell. You need to factor in the thickness of the shell.

      --
      Rich
    3. Re:Power Calculation by joshuao3 · · Score: 1

      Would you mind recalculating that for the dimensions of a TUNA can... which is much more squat than a soup can. I'd be curious.

      --
      Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
    4. Re:Power Calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
      I also forgot some decimal places in my previous equation

      You work for NASA, right?

    5. Re:Power Calculation by superstick58 · · Score: 1
      Good point. I wasn't sure if the cylindrical shell would be hollow or solid so I went with the easier calculation. I guess if it was a hollow shell, the calculation would be a little more difficult because the cross sectional area would involve more than just pi*r^2. It would likely increase the resistance of the cylinder which would mean more power.

      If it's a shell of only 1 cm thick, the power produced would increase a little more than 100 times.

    6. Re:Power Calculation by isorox · · Score: 1

      Therefore we can estimate the total power to be a huuuuuge amount, 354.14x10^12 Watts.

      Wow, that's more than 1.21 jiggawatts!

      Yes, it was a huge ammount of power, however it lasted arround 10^-6 seconds - the total ammount of energy produced cost less than $10!

    7. Re:Power Calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may wish to consider the wall thickness of the tuna can. This would probably raise the resistance and power into the megawatt range.

    8. Re:Power Calculation by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      You also need to factor in the probability that, at the resistance you calculated, the 'tuna can' would have been vapourized. The real resistance of whatever substance they used is obviously much lower.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    9. Re:Power Calculation by parker9 · · Score: 1

      sigh.

      pure Al resistivity is 24.2 nOhm m = 2.42e-8 Ohm m. if the inside of the cylinder is a and the outside is b and the length is L then the resistance of the cylinder is R = rho L / A = 2.42e-8 L / [ pi (b^2 - a^2) ].

      but, it's wrong. by using Ampere's law, the magnetic field generated by a dc current of 19 million amp is B = mu_0 I / 2 pi b and if we use b=0.04445m (i.e. 3.5 inch diameter) B = 85.5T. if memory serves, there will be a force on the current (i.e. Al cylinder) goes as F = integral over space J x B = mu_0 I^2 L (b^3/3-a^2 b + 2 a^3 b/3)/[pi (b^2 - a^2)^2] > 1MNewton directed towards the center of the cylinder.

      that is, the cylinder will not there anymore- it will collapse

    10. Re:Power Calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...the total ammount of energy produced cost less than $10!"

      And it only cost them $1,000,000 to produce it. ;)

    11. Re:Power Calculation by zoomzit · · Score: 1
      "they generated a current equal to about four times all the electrical current on Earth..."

      ...or about half the power required to boot a Pentium 4.

    12. Re:Power Calculation by LastNickAvailable · · Score: 0

      Errr .. I think you made a slight mistake in your calculation :

      With more accurate constants and dimensions of l=5cm and diameter=10cm :
      2.65.10-8 * .05 / (pi * .05) = 1.7x10^-7 Ohms

      Which gives a power of about 6x10^7 Watts

    13. Re:Power Calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of electricity may cost $10 for you or me but the government paid $1M for it, minus the $5 for the aluminum disk.

  81. Misinterpreted by cmsavage · · Score: 1
    From this link, the U.S. electrical energy use for the month of April was 290.7 terawatthours, which corresponds to an average current of over 3 billion amps (U.S. alone). That is much higher than the Atlas current. As other posters pointed out, they must be talking about power. From the press release:
    Scientists today successfully generated a powerful current - roughly four times the electrical power on Earth - to create....
    So they never actually said the current itself was equal to four times the electrical power of the Earth, but implied the power generated from the current was that size.

    But, as you can see here, they were generating the same current level over 4 years ago, so this is hardly a new result.

  82. This news is simply... by jim_v2000 · · Score: 0

    Shocking.

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    1. Re:This news is simply... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down redundant.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  83. Phew! by Laxity · · Score: 1

    This came just in time to meet the power requirements for Nvidia's Next Gen 8800GTX.

  84. Impressive, but ... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    useful? What was this actually good for?

    Maybe TFA mentions it, but, you know, this is /.

    So, what's the big deal?

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  85. Hey! by hullabalucination · · Score: 1

    Why does all of southern Nevada smell like burnt tuna this morning?

    This is weird.

  86. Reminds me of the old hotdog cooker by richardoz · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of when I was a child, my grandmother has this "appliance" that would pass electrical current through hotdogs to cook them.
    http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/electric/hotd oggfi/hotdogcooker.html

    --
    All the worlds indeed a .sig, and we are mearly players..
  87. This is spinal tap by Philodoxx · · Score: 1

    when asked if they had any comments regarding the announcement, a scientist was quoted as saying "... but this one goes to eleven"

    --
    Oh, a lesson in history from Mr. I'm my own grandpa.
  88. So, like, what is this useful for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Missile Defense? Weather Modification? Seismic Weaponry? EMP generation? Air conditioning? Mind Control? Insurgent Eradication? Tell us, please!

  89. Re:Fucking nerd by 21st+Century+Peon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Then why are you reading Slashdot?

    --
    "Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!"
    ~Harcourt Fenton Mudd
  90. Exaggerated by elronxenu · · Score: 1

    Actually it was only about 7 million amps but they had a couple of CD writers nearby.

  91. Intel by kilocomp · · Score: 1

    There is another article out there that talks about how Intel funded this project. Intel is currently looking into ways to power their next Pentium line. Of course they need the power source to last a little bit longer, but they are making progress.

  92. 19 million Amperes is chicken feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    My home electric stove+oven has 2x 50A circuit breakers; my electric water heater, 2x 40A; my electric clothes dryer, 2x 30A (all 230V service in US). There are at least 15 million houses in the US with similar electrical service. Some industrial plating baths use 6000 Amperes at less than 3V. So 19 million amps is a serious underestimate of the current being used in the world.

    1. Re:19 million Amperes is chicken feed by SUB7IME · · Score: 1

      You think all electronic devices in the world operate at full load all the time?

    2. Re:19 million Amperes is chicken feed by DeathPenguin · · Score: 1

      They're not talking about the number of amperes being used by electrical demand in the world, they're talking about the current of the earth itself.

    3. Re:19 million Amperes is chicken feed by boots@work · · Score: 1

      If you read the actual article (only 2 pages!) you'll see they claim it delivers more power than the Earth's energy production, not more current. It seems plausible that they had 19MA at many MV, which could be more power than the instantaneous production of the world

      Actually they say it "generates electrical energy", which I think is a bit sloppy. But it's just a press release.

    4. Re:19 million Amperes is chicken feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Circuit breakers are there to break the circuit if the ampage goes over their rated load - not to produce any conclusive statement about how much actual juice is being sucked at any given time.

      Not that your point about the estimation is really wrong but the justification you use is stupid. What you should be really saying is making a statement regarding current does not really take into account at what voltage this current occurs and even then the estimation is ridiculously inaccurate.

      Remember, much of the world is on different V to you guys.

  93. forgot about the earth's magnetic field. by vortigern00 · · Score: 1

    If my compass needle didn't bounce, then they did not create a current larger than the one that generates the earth's magnetic field.

  94. MY EYES! by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Informative

    1.Dont use bastard childs like TkW
    2.Power =! Work. So its Watt. Not Watt/s. or anything. WATT. So the Power rating wont change if you make it shorter.
    3. Scientific notation, growing out of your ass: 5.61161e-12 TkW you write... well, thats just 5.61kW... maybe you mean something different?!
    and 2.36e-12 Trillion Volts... well, thats 2 AA cells, definitively archivable ;)

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:MY EYES! by ki4iib · · Score: 1

      1. Don't use bastard children like "childs" =)

  95. Re:Current != Power by yecrom2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    so, if there are 86400 hours a year

    There aren't 86400 hours in a year, at least not on this planet. There are 8760 hours in a year. (other than leap year)

    There are 86400 seconds in a day.

  96. Who are these twits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does 19 million amps equal "roughly four times all the electrical power on earth"? Hardly. I'm drawing at least 2 amps right now. If a mere 10 million others are doing the same, we've bested them. The power claim may actually be right, but neither the person who wrote the press release or the original Slashdot poster knew enough about the difference between power and current to make that clear. And there's also the bit about the "sophisticated computer codes." I think that's a reference to computer programs and not to the codes used to order a nucleur strike.

  97. Mythbusters by SamMichaels · · Score: 1

    I think Jamie and Adam should redo their experiment with the lightning hitting your house using this generator.

  98. New AMD Processor Announcement by IdleMindUI · · Score: 1

    In a related story, AMD has announced that it is shipping it's long-awaited 1.2 petahertz Athlon 128 FX 8-core processor. It requires a heatsink about the size of a can of tuna.

  99. Implode? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

    OKay, I'll cop to an ignorance of physics. Why did the aluminum cylinder implode? Doesn't increasing the energy in an object normally cause it to expand?

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:Implode? by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      Why did the aluminum cylinder implode?

      Putting a large electric current through a conductor causes a large magnetic field to form which happens to push inward. Or something like that. See my 'small change' post and go to the Quarter Shrinker page, there's more there on the physics of it.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  100. And how is this impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    My girlfriends cat does this everymorning rubbing against my leg.

    Stupid cat.

  101. Just enough... by sdpuppy · · Score: 1
    Intel will be happy now - that'll be enough current to power the next generation of their chip destined to power laptops...

    Wow - 19 mega-amps! Bet that thing out put enough of an EMP to fry chips!

  102. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  103. Did you not see the movie? by Snar+Bloot · · Score: 0, Troll

    It was one louder. 11 is one louder than 10. Even Nigel understood that.

  104. How much does it cost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    To hook that up to my nipples?

  105. Re:Current != Power by Binestar · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to the CIA World Fact book, the world uses 15.29 trillion kWh of power a year, so, if there are 86400 hours a year, then we use 1.769676e-4 Trillion kW a year.

    *blink* *blink* Typo? We would use 17,696,760 kW/hr (I'm human, I don't mind rounding long numbers when the answer doesn't need to be perfect)

    This computes to 5.61161e-12 TkW a second.

    295,945 kW/sec

    So, if this thing ran for .02 seconds (I think they said for "milliseconds" then, they would need to generate (4x) 1.12232111e-13 TkW to make this thing work.

    5,918kW/.02sec

    So the voltage used would have to have been [4*1.12232111e-13e-13]/19000000 = 2.36278128e-12 Trillion Volts.

    0.0236278128 volts? I may have misplaced a decimal point, because that looks like a pretty small amount. But then again something to e-12 is small, even if we're counting it in trillians (e10)?

    Now, please take MY numbers with a huge grain of salt, I'm definately a layman in this, but I just thought his choice of not converting to layman human readable numbers was a obfuscating method of displaying the information.

    Also, just punching your numbers into google shows that the final number should be 2.36278128 × 10(^-20). So one of us is way off here, and I'm not an electrical engineer, so there is a good chance it's me.

    --
    Do you Gentoo!?
  106. Re:And this benefits us how? by mikepaktinat · · Score: 1

    Because, If we cant blow up cans of tuna.... Then the terrorists have won

  107. I just... by shawnce · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just heat my tuna in a microwave... sure it is a little slower but my microwave doesn't weight 650 tons.

  108. MOD PARENT UP by rco3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, people. Is there anyone on the /. editorial staff who can do basic math?

    There are easily 19 million electrical service drops in the U.S. alone, counting homes and businesses and such, and I'll bet each and every single one of them uses more than one ampere ALL THE TIME.

    Who lets this crap through, anyway?

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't say running more current than the rest of the world. It said more power:

      It's 19 MA at how many volts? The way a marx bank works is you charge a bunch of capacitors up to a vary high voltage in parallel and then run them in series so you multiply a high voltage by a number, that in the case of atlas is probably pretty big. So it's a lot of volts. Power = Current * Voltage. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not obviously wrong.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 19 million amps was the figure put out by the news release by a fairly reputable government agency. However, having said that the newsletter did not say that 19 million amps was four times bigger than all the current capacity in the world it said the POWER. Not only that but it really should qualify how the comparison is being made - I presume it is comparing the power generated from the experiment with the STEADY STATE power generating capacity of the world. This does give some sense of the power when it is being released over such a short period of time (a few millionths of a second). Let us do the calculation properly though:

      Tuna can dimensions (approximate)

      Height: 3cm
      Radius: 5cm
      Wall thickness: 0.2mm

      Assuming aluminium at a resistivity of 2.82x10^-8 Ohm-meters (from previous comment) that would give a resistance of 2.82x10^-8 x 0.03 / 1.6x10^-6 = 5.4x10^-4 ohms. The power would be (19x10^6)^2 x 5.4x10^-4 = 1.9 x10^10 Watts. This power is released over the period of a few millionths of a second - assume 5x10^-6 secs therefore the energy released = 1.9x10^10 x 5x10^-6 = 9.7x10^5 Joules.
      this amount of energy is equivalent to the amount used to boil a kettle of water, i.e. 9.7x10^5 / 3000(kW) = 324 secs (about 5 mins).

    3. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's assuming the voltage potential is 120 volts. Which it probably wasn't. Estimating the resitance of an aluminum object the size of a tuna can suggests it could have been as high as 18 million volts.

    4. Re:MOD PARENT UP by rco3 · · Score: 1

      The story on the front page of Slashdot said current, not power. Still says current. Still wrong.

      The article might well be right. But what's on the front page of Slashdot isn't.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  109. One point twenty-one gigawats!!! by nilbog · · Score: 1

    One point twenty one gigawatts!

    --
    or else!
  110. Re:Fucking nerd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then try www.slashdot.org. You'll be safe there.

  111. About £0.60 worth of electricity? by Ixalon · · Score: 1

    World total combined electricity consumption for the year of 2003 was 14767.74849 billion kWh (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/ta ble62.xls)

    Even if they used 4 times the world consumption over a few millionths of a second that's only about 7 to 8 kWh... Cheapskates!

  112. High currents result in small change by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    I actually read TFA, saw something about implosions caused by high currents, and an old neuron fired.

    Quoting (actually retyping) TFPDF:
    The current caused the liner to implode at extreme speeds, with unrivaled symmetry, precision and reproducibility.

    This appears to describe the Quarter Shrinker, so here it is:
    http://teslamania.delete.org/frames/shrinkergaller y.html

    The (short-short) recent Wired article on The Quarter Shrinker:
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/start.htm l?pg=9

    Giving a new, literal meaning to "blinded by science" ...

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  113. Amps for Justice! by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    Let's a hope a scientist or two was accidentally left behind in the generator room. This planet really could use some new super heroes right about now!

  114. They did 20,000,000 on Sept 27, 2001 by CarnivoreMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Per this news release here this has already been done by the mentioned generator. They even use the tuna can size reference;

    "In the shot, the 650-ton Atlas pulsed-power generator successfully discharged approximately 20 million amperes of current through an aluminum cylindrical shell or liner about the size and shape of a tuna can, causing the liner to implode at very high speeds. "

    1. Re:They did 20,000,000 on Sept 27, 2001 by juggledean · · Score: 1

      It's the same people. They just got $68 million and moved to another Nevada location and fired up another tuna can. Not bad for four years work.

      Did anyone notice that a 10th planet was announced the same day but somehow /. ran this tuna can story instead.

      .sigless in san diego

  115. Re:New Math? by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    I don't have my calculator handy -- how many DoE "sunshine units" are there in 1.0000 gumdrops?

  116. Re:And this benefits us how? by radtea · · Score: 1


    The "tuna can" is more likely to be vapourized. One of the goals of tests like this is to determine the properties (particularly radiative opacities) of extremely hot, dense plasmas. A spin-off benefit would be a better understanding of the physics of the solar core, if/when the numbers are declassified.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  117. Does Radioshack carry 19 million amp fuses? by halfdeadcat · · Score: 1

    If so, what color are they?

    1. Re:Does Radioshack carry 19 million amp fuses? by Rocko+Bonaparte · · Score: 1

      I don't think Radio Shack carries 19 million amp fuses, but I am pretty sure you could build one out of a few bricks . . .

      --
      No I'm not trolling.
  118. First toilet seats and now tuna by Ursa+Major · · Score: 1
    Great, at the cost of millions the government has come up with a tuna can opener. I can buy a cheapo for under a buck and get an electric with all the frills for under 50. Of course mine are a tad slower and don't puree the tuna at the atomic level in that same instant, but come on! What about ROI!

    Of course, someone shows me a recipe for "atoms of tuna" and I'm there!

  119. from the coursing-thru-their-veins dept? by Erandir · · Score: 2, Funny
    I thought this kind of news falls under the current-affairs dept?

    e

  120. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  121. Oops by DaveM753 · · Score: 1

    It would have been 20 million amps, but some jerk forgot to remove his surge supressor...

  122. My amp goes to 10**11 by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the FORTRAN exponentiation syntax, but that was what was popular when DSOTM was released.

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  123. Re:And this benefits us how? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    We need to lose these treates that prevent us from acutally testing and thus truly knowing that our national security is protected.

    We don't have any margin for error nowadays.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  124. WORLD'S BEST QUARTER SHRINKER!!!! by cr0sh · · Score: 1

    subject says it all, 'nuff said...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  125. Damn by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'd hate to piss off the practical joker of that lab.

    --
    http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
  126. In a related story by zephc · · Score: 1

    The intergalactic band Disaster Area was reached for comment about the 19 million amps released by scientists, and had only this to say: "Pfff. Amateurs."

    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
  127. Why aluminium and not silver? by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    Why did they use aluminum and not silver? Since silver has a lower resistance.

      I'm guessing it was probably for cost reasons, or even availability. It would be easier to get a hunk of almost pure aluminum than it would be pure silver. Even copper would be better and easier to find than either silver or aluminum.

      btw would the amperage be greater in the silver? Since an amp is a measurement of electrons moving through a certain length of space in a certain time.

  128. Errr, no. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    It was *one* perfectly ordinary Marshall head, with *one* custom front panel. In other words, a movie prop.

  129. is it hot in here? by sacrilicious · · Score: 2, Funny
    During the few millionths of a second that it operated, the 650-ton Atlas pulsed-power generator discharged about 19 million amps of current through an aluminum cylindrical shell about the size of a tuna can.

    Sounds like the love scene from a Bulwer-Lytton romance novel contest.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  130. Big deal... the Z-machine has had them beat by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sandia National Labs' Z-machine has been pumping out 20+ million amps for quite some time.

  131. Re:Tuna by boristdog · · Score: 1

    Was it packed in oil or water?

  132. Sponsered by Intel? by killercoder · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is critical research - intel needs that much power for its next generation mobile processor.

  133. and the ZR will beat that by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    and when the Z-machine gets refurbished (to become ZR) next year, it'll be pumping out 26+ million amps.

  134. Pentium 5 power supply test? by Sam+Nitzberg · · Score: 1

    Maybe they're just getting ready for the power supply testing for when the Pentium 5's are ready....

  135. 19 million amps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "current equal to about four times all the electrical current on Earth. ... discharged about 19 million amps"

    This is utter nonsense. A 100W light bulb uses 5/6A. Are they saying there are less than 6 million light bulbs in the world? Or fridges, or AC, etc.

  136. Finally... by vga_init · · Score: 1

    We are one step closer to giant military robot mechs!

  137. My Pringles Can by sycodon · · Score: 2, Funny

    I put something like that through my Pringles can and was able to ping a server in Tokyo.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:My Pringles Can by ACPosterChild · · Score: 1

      Once. Then Tokyo went dark.

  138. Exploding Apples?!? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn! He was talking about fruits, not computers!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  139. Should have been rated -1, Bizarre... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Why do we need a rail gun to put a factory in orbit? We got the ISS up there with plain old rocket technology.

    Reflecting the sun away from hurricanes? And why would we even want to do this? Hurricanes get their energy from the sun only indirectly, in the form of heated water. Unless you're planning to reflect the sun away from the tropical regions of the ocean for months at a time (which would have God only knows what side effects), you wouldn't cool the water appreciably, and wouldn't effect the strength of the hurricane.

    You do know that hurricanes still blow at night, right?

    Sean

  140. PDF? Yuck! by kensavage · · Score: 1

    Anyone have this document in HTML form or something other than PDF that crashed my computer?

    --
    kensavage knows more than god
  141. 650 tons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you... better get the hell out of the way!"

  142. Reminds me of.... by lauridsd · · Score: 1

    Pretty cool. Reminds me of this: http://teslamania.delete.org/frames/shrinkergaller y.html Not sure I understand the practicality of either, but they are still cool.

  143. those amps by BoobsInMyFace · · Score: 1

    so next time we have roling blackouts here in san francisco we know it's because some nerd at the DOE is warming up his tuna sandwich?

  144. Nonsense by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Given that modern CPUs have current requirements in the 50-100A range, this is clearly nonsense. I guess the title meant to say "amps at 220V" or the like. It would still be an useless comparison.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  145. Not to mention Disaster Area by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    I think Hotblack Desiato would have laughed, laughed at this figure. "Is that all?" ;)

  146. Let's go disable some cars by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    They should have fired this pulse through a coil. The resulting EM pulse would surely have had some interesting effects, though I wonder what the voltage was (in order to find out the power).

    Is there any way to focus an EM pulse so that it only comes out one side of a coil? Would a metal parabolic reflector concentrate the pulse to one side? (I'm guessing "yes", but I'm not sure if some portion of the pulse would simply bleed through the reflector.)

    I have to admit that the little evil looking-for-trouble guy in me wants to install something like that in my trunk, facing backwards, charged by a large capacitor... Cop on your tail doing some fundraising? Push a button and kill his engine dead.

    Complications to this would include things such as: metal frames and structures being in the way, etc. Plus actual property damage, which isn't cool. It would be cool if you could just disable it...

  147. Like in the Story by Arthur Clarke by asadodetira · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the story by Arthur Clarke "Technical Error":
    http://math.cofc.edu/faculty/kasman/MATHFICT/mfvie w.php?callnumber=mf169

  148. Mod Parent Up by Gewis · · Score: 1

    The grandparent has the assumption that "generating" means "creating out of thin air." It doesn't. The original article is completely technically right because all current and power is generated from other sources. There weren't 19 million amps of current flowing before the device was activated. There were 19 million when it was. Obviously it generated the current.

    Everybody's well aware that mass-energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but that doesn't deserve an informative modifier for saying the article is incorrect when claiming that amperage was generated. By that logic, all generators are misnamed, aren't they? So, yes, please mod the parent up for pointing out the grandparent's silliness.

  149. Really Sad :: Calculations on here are really sad by tyrione · · Score: 1

    Countless calculations based upon milliseconds (0.02 sec) when the article states,a few millionths of a second (0.0000002 sec) is enough to get zero credit in any reputable engineering curriculum.

    More so, the information is scant thus we haven't enough to go on to even make a sound engineering judgement.

    We know very little about the geometry and properties of the material other than a reference to aluminum that was a cylindrical shell.

    We don't know if the material is purely aluminum[versus a composite alloy predominantly made of Al] and whether as another poster pointed out treated it as a thin wall vessel or a thick walled vessel.

    We don't know the electromagnetic field constraints and how they faired in comparison to their theoretical cousins.

    There is not enough information to go on to make a sound engineering calculation. I'm sure this is on purpose.

  150. News just in.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft today announced in conjuction with their partner NNSA ,the successful test of a prototype PSU capable of powering the minimum required hardware for running Windows Vista.

  151. mod down, the guy doesn't know jack by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

    people, the parent pulled some numbers out of his ass while confusing power with amperage, came to some completely bullshit conclusion, and then ratcheted up the hypocrisy by explicitly claiming others can't do math.

    1. Re:mod down, the guy doesn't know jack by rco3 · · Score: 1

      Let me explain a few things to you, sir.

      First, I'm an electrical engineer. Two degrees, working on the third.

      Second, my research area is lightning. I deal in high currents and high voltages ***and extraordinarily high powers*** every day. I can safely be said to know "jack" and then some.

      Third, the article blurb posted on Slashdot's front page said, "they generated a current equal to about four times all the electrical current on Earth." That's an exact cut-n-paste quote. I re-read it several times because it was so obviously wrong, and I was stunned that something so stupid could make it to the front page. The **article** might have said power and not current, but the Slashdot editors have nothing to do with the article. They passed the story post, which was mind-blowingly wrong and stupid. As of this writing, it still says exactly that.

      Fourth, I suggest you take your 800K+ ID self back down into mommy's basement and be quiet while your betters are talking. There might be people who post here who understand more about high V, I, or P than me - but you aren't one of them.

      For the record, there's no bullshit at all in my conclusion. If anything, my numbers are LOW conservative estimates. I can't blame you if you don't understand electricity, but I don't think you have to run your mouth about it.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    2. Re:mod down, the guy doesn't know jack by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

      yes. I see the summary did misquote the original article so I will retract my original contention, despite your tarting off like a rummy little bastard.

    3. Re:mod down, the guy doesn't know jack by rco3 · · Score: 1

      "... despite your tarting off like a rummy little bastard."

      As you sow, so shall you reap.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  152. EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the point of the project is to invent EMP without nuclear power. That would be strong weapon.

  153. Charge by xihr · · Score: 1

    It's several million amperes, but it only operates for a few millionths of a second, so the total charge involve ends up only being a few coulombs.

  154. Mmmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That must mean that their experiment wasn't actually conducted on Earth, doesn't it?

  155. Maybe they were trying to revive a dead parrot by ross.w · · Score: 1

    Did the parrot Voom, or not?

    --
    If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  156. Re:And this benefits us how? by esampson · · Score: 1
    ...Yes, that is a HUGE amount of current, but unless you are designing HUGE lasers...

    We will be mounting the lasers on the heads of sharks.

  157. Re:Updated Calculation: by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
    Arrgh. I'm posting so I won't be tempted to try to mod this whole discussion down. (Not just this thread - I mean from the top down. This thread could be the best of the bunch, but it's still off.)

    So, each hour we consume 1.7454e12Wh of energy.

    Close enough. I used 365.25 days. Here things break down, though. You have proved that the average power is about 1.74e12 watts. THAT IS THE AVERAGE POWER - it doesn't scale. If you had more information, you might be able to estimate peak usage and so on.

    If the power used here was four times the average you'd have power dissipation of about 7.0e12 watts. Doesn't matter how long the duration was from this perspective. (For a 0.02 second discharge, the energy dissipated would be about 140e9 joules, for what that's worth.)

    The voltage would be 7e12 W / 19e6 A or about 370 kV.

    I am an engineer, but not an EE. I recall some stuff from my circuits classes, but energy and power is used everywhere ...

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  158. Thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to really thank you for those links. Bert Hickman's site was a life saver.... found a book I was in need of and could not find elsewhere. Now i can continue to my plans for world domination... or at least not to be bored stiff.

  159. Read TFA by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
    Okay, I think I see what the problem was. TFA says "During the few millionths of a second that it operates. Atlas generates electrical energy roughly four times the Earth's entire energy production." This was morphed twice by the /. editors and/or submitter.

    This means that the power dissipated would be 4 times the average (mean or norm) for that period, much like what thoolie is getting at ... somewhere along the way.

    Totally bloody useless statistic, unless you have an idea of "the Earth's entire energy production."

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  160. What did you expect? by jd · · Score: 1
    Fusion research requires continued experiments with large quantities of matter imploding at high velocity.


    It is a little-known fact, but CERN is planning on posting a whole series of stories to Slashdot, once the reactor has been built in France. This will allow them to power it up far more rapidly than by conventional means.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:What did you expect? by typical · · Score: 1

      Fusion research requires continued experiments with large quantities of matter imploding at high velocity.

      You've confused "fusion research" with "bored grad students".

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    2. Re:What did you expect? by Tekgno · · Score: 1

      A whole series of articles?

      You must be new here, they only need to do one and let the dupes take care of the rest.

  161. Its a power source for a new weapon by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    After a bit of thought I wondered why they would need such alot of energy to be released in a short period, then it hit me, they need it for a short pulse energy weapon. Looks like the o'l Star Wars program is still ticking away 20 years later.

    Dr. Evil: Welcome to my submarine lair! It's long, hard and full of seamen.

  162. Obligatory Vegas Vacation quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clark Griswold: "Eddie, doesn't it ever worry you that you live on a test site?"

    Cousin Eddie: "Clark, all I know is, my teeth have never been whiter, and I grow 50 pound tomatoes..."

    from "Vegas Vacation"

  163. Resistence drops sharply on ionization by guybarr · · Score: 1


    Because the material explodes and ionizes already at pulse start. The Plasma resistivity is many orders of magnitudes lower than the Al.

    (In fact, partly-ionized Plasma can have negative resistivity)

    However, the shell implodes, so that R drops sharply - at some point resistance sharply rises as well.

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  164. Because of ionic energy levels by guybarr · · Score: 1


    The material material explodes and ionizes at pulse begining, so that it's initial resistivity does not matter anyway.

    What does matter is the inner-shell ionization potential, so that at stagnation (highest pressure and heat) the ions have a few energy-levels at the expected energy.

    For this, Helium-like ions are the simplest, and are widely used.

    Silver has way too many electrons, and will not ionize sufficiently.

    (In my MSc we've used He-like Neon for a much weaker Z-Pinch, ~0.3 MA current)

    -- and yes, I WAS a plasma physicist.

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  165. 64V by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    That's all you need to make the 1.21 gigawatts of power needed to travel across time!

  166. Be extra careful when handling gum drops! by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Never underestimate the chemical energy of a single gum drop. The sugarfree kind can still rip off your arms.

  167. Errr - Yes by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 1
    If that was the case how come I (and many others like me) used Marshall amps with the controls which went to 11 back in the late seventies/early eighties.

    I may not be able to remember the sixties because I was there but by the eighties the psychadelics had made way for coke and my memory is pretty good.

    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
  168. Dunno then. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    I bet you wish you still had them.

  169. Re:Errr - Yes - Err, definitely no. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    I asked a friend of mine who works for Marshall. The "Spinal Tap" amp was a one-off, made for the movie.

  170. Re:Really Sad :: Calculations on here are really s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spelling Aluminium without the second i should also lead to a "zero credit in any....."

  171. But the real question is... by therufus · · Score: 0

    How long did they have to rub their feet on the carpet to achieve such a current?

    --
    You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.