Lab Produces 3.6 Billion Degree Gas

starexplorer2001 writes "LiveScience is reporting how scientists at Sandia's Z laboratory have produced superheated gas exceeding temperatures of 3.6 billion degrees Fahrenheit (2 billion kelvins). That's hotter than the interior of our sun, which is only 15 million degrees F. And they don't know how they did it. Do we want anything that hot on our planet?"

Comments

Re:Summary is wrong yet again

[the_humeister]

It's 15 million Kelvin, not 15 million degrees Kelvin

Re:(energy out energy in) != perpetual motion

[Bad D.N.A.]

If you think E=MC^2 has anything to do with an endothermic oxidation reaction, you had to have flunked basic chemistry.

So your claiming that E=MC^2 is not intimately and directly related to a endothermic oxidation reaction ?

Your claiming that somehow the basic principles of E=MC^2 break down when it comes to a specific type of reaction?

is it the endothermic part?

is it the oxidation part?

is it the (god forbid) the reaction part?

Granted.. I did sleep through a great many of my graduate physics courses but this one strikes me as odd

Please do correct my mis-understanding.

Re:(energy out energy in) != perpetual motion

[Bad D.N.A.]

I do have a degree in physics and saving face is something I'm not really interested in (on /.)

The poster said...
If you think E=MC^2 has anything to do with an endothermic oxidation reaction, you had to have flunked basic chemistry.

I contend that statement is wrong! And as I stated.. correct me.

The basic statement "E=MC^2 has nothing to do with X" is always incorrect.

b.t.w. The poster did explain his comment. I found it quite useful

I guess it's that peer-review mentality in me... I review a lot of papers, most of which I understand the lingo, and therefore let it slide because the audience will also understand the lingo and can therefore brush over an incorrect statement because "we knew what he meant"

For instance.. You may understand the words:
nongyrotropic
gradient
anisotropies

but if I put them all together in a complete sentence:

I want to investigate the nongyroropic gradient anisotropies of the phase space distribution upstream of the Jovian bow shock, you may find that confusing.

There is nothing wrong with that statement, it's a factual "abstract if you will", although some may not understand the context.

The post in question contained a flaw, perhaps I did not understand the context "fine", I thought I made my lack of knowledge clear.

Cool

[h2g2bob]

Probably still cooler than some AMD processors