Slashdot Mirror


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?"

82 of 594 comments (clear)

  1. Summary is wrong yet again by Kasracer · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the summary, the Sun's interior is 15 million degrees Fahrenheit. According to the article, it's 15 million degrees Kelvin which makes the Sun's interior actually 27 million degrees Fahrenheit.

    1. Re:Summary is wrong yet again by SeeMyNuts! · · Score: 5, Funny


      Nice, but what all Slashdotters really want to know is the temperature of Natalie Portman's grits!

    2. Re:Summary is wrong yet again by gbobeck · · Score: 5, Funny
      ...which makes the Sun's interior actually 27 million degrees Fahrenheit.


      Yes, but it isn't that bad because its a dry heat.
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    3. Re:Summary is wrong yet again by gbobeck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lets see... 0% humidity, 27,000,000 degrees F... thats like a heat index of FREAKIN HOT!!!

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    4. Re:Summary is wrong yet again by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

      Degrees Kelvin is not a unit.

      Uh, as long as we're being pedantic, yes, it is. It's just an obsolete unit. It's no less a unit than rods, chains, fathoms, cubits, or furlongs per fortnight.

      More specifically, degrees Kelvin was replaced by "Kelvins" by decree of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (who specify the SI measurement system) back in 1967 in the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures (1). This does not mean that it suddenly ceases to be a unit, however deprecated a unit it might be.

      On a side note, they decreed in 1948 that degrees Centigrade should be replaced by Celsius degrees. The fact that I, born in 1976, still originally learned it as Centigrade should give some indication about how slowly language changes.

      The real problem is that every measure of temperature that people use in their daily lives is measured in degrees. People are used to saying "degrees Celsius" or "degrees Fahrenheit". I understand the desire to have all the SI units not be prefixed by such a term, but it does serve an important purpose in making temperature fairly easily distinguished from other numbers in common language use, and thus is unlikely to fade away easily. I would not be surprised if a large percentage of non-scientists were still calling it "degrees Kelvin" fifty years from now....

      1. Source: U.S. Metric Association.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Summary is wrong yet again by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Technically, it's 15 million kelvins, but that's being really pedantic. See for yourself, though.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    6. Re:Summary is wrong yet again by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Funny
      Nice, but what all Slashdotters really want to know is the temperature of Natalie Portman's grits!
      Natalie Portman's grits?
      You're obviously new here.

      Temperature = Hot
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Summary is wrong yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow, I thought that joke had died out ages ago. Oh well...
      In Soviet Russia, Natalie Portman heats YOUR grits!

    8. Re:Summary is wrong yet again by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 4, Funny
      Well that settles it. I'm moving to Soviet Russia!

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    9. Re:Summary is wrong yet again by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My thoughts exactly. If they don't know how they made it, there is a good chance they didn't actually do it and its simply a wrong measurement. In science you should never assume a measurement that is way off the norm to be accurate without checking and double checking and doing your experiment over several times.

    10. Re:Summary is wrong yet again by Luyseyal · · Score: 3, Informative
      From TFA:
      "At first, we were disbelieving," said project leader Chris Deeney. "We repeated the experiment many times to make sure we had a true result."

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  2. Big deal... by SirBruce · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... I got 3.6 Billion Degree Gas just by eating at Taco Bell last week.

    Bruce

  3. "Some unknown energy source is involved" by Farrside · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Bwah? That's the most interesting part, to me. I mean, they MUST have had that sucker plugged into a surge protector. From where did the energy appear?

    1. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meaning that the temperature increase was not caused by the energy source they know about, so something else provided the energy necessary for a temperature increase. We might choose to refer to this as an unknown energy source.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    2. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, from what I know of conventional thermodynamics... some quantity of mass must have been converted to energy.

      The real catch is thus: "...the high temperature was achieved after the plasma's ions should have been losing energy and cooling."

      I find this is exciting! Some of the best science starts with the words "Gee, that's funny..."
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, an awful lot of science ends with...

      "So, what exactly did you do before the lab exploded?"

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by thrillseeker · · Score: 4, Funny
      I find this is exciting! Some of the best science starts with the words "Gee, that's funny..."

      The most memorable starts with "Hey, watch this!"

    5. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The paper with the proposed model explaining these findings is available here for anyone that can understand it. They refer to instabilities (of the Rayleigh-Taylor kind?) causing ion viscous heating as they are dissipated. When an array of wires is heated and implodes, most of the content of the wires remain unmoved at the beginning, with only the outer parts being converted to plasma and moving toward the center. The inner left-overs are eventually converted as well and make the trip, though not necessarily until after the peak energy radiation.

    6. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by rtaylor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, an awful lot of science ends with...

      "So, what exactly did you do before the lab exploded?"

      Isn't that usually when the military steps in with funding?

      --
      Rod Taylor
    7. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some of the best science starts with the words "Gee, that's funny..."

      wrong... All good science starts with:

      WTF..

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    8. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you're asked that question, things aren't too bad. Now when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds hearings to speculate on what you might have been doing when you vaporized yourself and everything within the good old 2 * unit n wide by 0.25 * n unit deep crater, that's bad. And if another intelligent race n lightyears away is wondering what in the hell you did doing exactly n years ago, why that's a real screwup. Bonus points for getting noticed in another galaxy.

    9. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by JudgeFurious · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here in Texas it usually starts with "Hey, hold my beer for a second"

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    10. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by LouisZepher · · Score: 4, Funny

      Silly Texans. Real men hold their own beer while doing cool stunts.

    11. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by bloobloo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or instruments that are not calibrated to measure a temperature that high accurately.

    12. Re:"Some unknown energy source is involved" by jb.hl.com · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or when one man with a crowbar tries to save the wor...

      I need to stop playing that damn game.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
  4. How did they measure it ? by distributed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and I RTFA.

    --
    [all generalizations are untrue except this one]
    1. Re:How did they measure it ? by lobsterGun · · Score: 5, Informative

      All things glow when they heat up, and they do so in a predictable manner.

      They may have been able to measure the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy coming off of the gas.

      This explains it better than I ever could.

    2. Re:How did they measure it ? by Rac3r5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually the live science article is missing the most vital info.

      I read this article on PhysOrg.com http://www.physorg.com/news11538.html (yes I'm to lazy to HTML'ize that link)

      From the PhysOrg article: "The results, recorded by spectrometers and confirmed by computer models created by John Apruzese and colleagues at Naval Research Laboratory, have held up over 14 months of additional tests. "

      What I don't understand is how these spectrometers even worked at these tempearatures, I would expect most things to go kaput at these temperatures.

    3. Re:How did they measure it ? by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Informative

      From the journal article, emission line optical depth varies inverse squarely with the ion temperature. So they used the k-shell emission spectrum for the stainless steel plasma to determine what temperature would produce the observed lines.

    4. Re:How did they measure it ? by jadavis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Spectrometers measure the EM radiation. It doesn't need to actually touch the substance being measured.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    5. Re:How did they measure it ? by nleaf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The way that the temperatures of things like plasmas are measured is to measure the radiation emitted by them as they cool. The way a spectrometer works is by measuring the properties of radiation, wavelength for instance, and use whatever various physical laws to work out the temperature of the plasma based on that measurement. The spectrometer is never really in the plasma like a thermometer in water.

      As far as the submitter's comments about whether we want such a hot thing on earth, it may be high temperature, but most experimental plasmas are extremely low density. Even if the plasma somehow ruptured its container and shot out around the lab, you'd never notice a change in temperature--especially since the plasma would only be around for something on the order of nanoseconds (going from memory here, might be less than that).

    6. Re:How did they measure it ? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Funny

      "How did they measure it ?"

      They used Recording Industry math.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  5. The article is really confusing.... by technoextreme · · Score: 5, Informative

    It says that the record was set for the hottest temperature ever on earth. Unfortunately, the value they list is not the highest value I can obtain for a really hot temperture. The hottest temperature I found occurs at RHIC and that is a trillion degress kelvin not fifteen million. http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/heavy_ion.htm Could it be a record temperture for a certain type of reaction? Also to answer the question about is this safe. Yes it's safe. The temperatures only occur for such a small tiny tiny tiny fraction of a second that it really doesn't affect anything.

    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    1. Re:The article is really confusing.... by Manchot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, in particle accelerators like the RHIC, temperature doesn't really have a lot of meaning. Temperature is a statistical quantity, and depends on the presence of many particles to be adequately defined. In colliders, only a couple particles are present, which happen to be accelerated to high velocities (and therefore high "temperatures"). However, the article seems to imply that many particles were involved in the experiment.

    2. Re:The article is really confusing.... by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would counter that by pointing out that a gold-gold ion collision on RHIC involves at least ~1200 particles (3 quarks per nucleon and a mass of ~200 AMU(daltons) per ion). this is to say nothing of the millions of particles that are created at the collision point and then explode outward (the kinetic energy of the fast ions is converted to mass). To speak of the 2 TeraKelvin temperature of a quark-gluon plasma of a heavy ion collision makes just as much sense as to talk about the 3 GigaKelvin temp. of a small amount of iron plasma in the Z machine.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    3. Re:The article is really confusing.... by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would counter that by pointing out that a gold-gold ion collision on RHIC involves at least ~1200 particles (3 quarks per nucleon and a mass of ~200 AMU(daltons) per ion). this is to say nothing of the millions of particles that are created at the collision point and then explode outward (the kinetic energy of the fast ions is converted to mass).

      The thousands (not millions) of particles in RHIC do not constitute a plasma. They are individual particles. Properly, the record is for temperature of a plasma. I do not know the formal definition (if there IS one) of the cutoff point between many discrete particles and a proper plasma, and there may be a grey area between the two categories, but the RHIC collision results and the Z machine results are well on either side of such a threshold.

  6. Do we want this? by rah1420 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's see. The experiment released more energy than it expended....

    Let me think a minute.

    Yes.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    1. Re:Do we want this? by stinerman · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm off to patent my perpetual motion machine!

    2. Re:Do we want this? by SEWilco · · Score: 5, Funny
      Let's see. The experiment released more energy than it expended....
      Too bad that half the time it destroys the planet. Fortunately we're always in the quantum universe which does not get destroyed. Well, this "we" is.
    3. Re:Do we want this? by Omnifarious · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It also sounds like they don't think it's because of fusion. If the ions involved are Fe ions, then you wouldn't expect to get any energy from fusion from them.

      Maybe the energy is coming from strong force interactions of some sort. It sounds like the temperatures were high enough that maybe there was some sort of quark-gluon plasma thing going on.

    4. Re:Do we want this? by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, this "we" is.

      All other "we" are hereby instructed to file formal complaints before further experiments take place. Complaints will be reviewed and taken into consideration after the experiments have been completed.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    5. Re:Do we want this? by rah1420 · · Score: 4, Informative
      From the third to the last paragraph:
      Also, when the high temperature was achieved, the Z machine was releasing more energy than was originally put in, something that usually occurs only in nuclear reactions.
      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    6. Re:Do we want this? by Boronx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe the energy is coming from strong force interactions of some sort. It sounds like the temperatures were high enough that maybe there was some sort of quark-gluon plasma thing going on.

      These are possibilities, but you should consider that the tachyon phase tranducers might have cross-coupled with the warp core.

    7. Re:Do we want this? by Perdo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nice, You have successfully unified Descarte's "I think therefore I am" with Schrodinger's cat, and you are immortal in this universe because you are always observing and can not take the dead cat path.

      Only one problem: Your universe only exists as long as you do.

      Damned if you do.

      --

      If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  7. To quote Paris Hilton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's hot

  8. The long-awaited invention of magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    They have no idea how, but they found all that thermal energy. "[T]he high temperature was achieved after the plasma's ions should have been losing energy and cooling. Also, when the high temperature was achieved, the Z machine was releasing more energy than was originally put in."

    Sounds like magic to me!

    1. Re:The long-awaited invention of magic! by pizpot · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...sounds like 'burning' to me.

  9. higher than fusion temperatures by andy314159pi · · Score: 4, Informative
    This temperature is at least 3 and 1/2 hotter than you might need in any possible reactor

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy#Power_p lant_design

    Also plasma is not a gas. The article points this out, but the title gets it mixed up. It is a 4th phase of matter associated with high conductivity and separation of ionic components

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

  10. I worked in this department for 3 summers by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Informative

    My work involved doing quantum molecular dynamics (QMD) simulations to extract equation of state (EOS) data for the tungsten wires used in the z-pinches. The highest temperatures I remember the simulations reaching, however, were only about 40,000 Kelvin.

    1. Re:I worked in this department for 3 summers by Ummu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's informative because nobody understands you.

  11. Getting out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't care what anyone says, these new pentiums just plain run too warm.

  12. Software bug... by bergeron76 · · Score: 3, Funny

    In late breaking news, it was revealed that a software bug cause this faulty reading. The correct value should have read: 150 degress.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  13. Re:How are they holding it? by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The container that holds the experiment is called a holhraum, just a cylindrical metal thingy. In the middle, wires are vertically strung around in a circle (see this pic). When you pass a current through the wires, they want to move towards eachother (Ampere's law). Since the situation is symmetrical, they all move towards the center, and the intense current, motion, and collision, turn the wires into a hot plasma, that doesn't stick around for long. The whole thing is over in well under a second, and the container holding the plasma is destroyed.

  14. the laws of thermodynamics... by knapper_tech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...exist to protect humankind from destruction. Experiments where output >> input with no explanation have an amazing potential to result in new Arizona beachfront property and still no explanation. I for one hope the next step into this effect is not too successful.

    The laws of the universe have finally come out of hiding and revealed to us that energy is an illusion and the abundance thereof is merely the lack of any continents at rest.

    Just out of curiosity, what does that temperature imply about the velocity of the atoms in order to have that kind of average KE? is it fast enough to have relativistic significance?

    --
    "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
  15. 3.6 billion!? by xeon4life · · Score: 5, Funny

    None of you have any idea what's going on! What really happened is these scientists have stumbled upon a gateway to hell, and this abnormally high temperature eminating from it is just the beginning of what can come out! We need to stop the scientists NOW before it's too late!

    --
    Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
    1. Re:3.6 billion!? by clickety6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to worry, we'll all be safe once Duke Nukem Forever is released. Apparently on that day, Hell will suffer a substantial temperature loss !

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  16. Here's Sandia's write-up by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rather than reading a digest from a science news site (not that it's a bad writeup) here is the press release from Sandia themselves.

    Personally, I think the picture of the Z-machine is one of the coolest looking things I've seen. =)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  17. why farenheit??? by tbird81 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Surely the calculations that they do are not done in farenheit (probably kept in Kelvins). I don't see how millions of degrees Farenheit is easier to understand than the equivalent in Celcius (or even Kelvins).

    It's not like it's a weather report or anything! Keep it scientific!

  18. (energy out energy in) != perpetual motion by schnitzi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you light a campfire with a match, you get more energy out than you put in.

    Sorry, this is not a recipe for perpetual motion. For a new energy source, maybe, but not perpetual motion.

    --



    I object to that article, and to the next reply.
  19. Research paper abstract by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    For the curious, here's the actual abstract from the research paper, as published in Physical Review Letters:

    Ion Viscous Heating in a Magnetohydrodynamically Unstable Z Pinch at Over 2×109 Kelvin

    Pulsed power driven metallic wire-array Z pinches are the most powerful and efficient laboratory x-ray sources. Furthermore, under certain conditions the soft x-ray energy radiated in a 5 ns pulse at stagnation can exceed the estimated kinetic energy of the radial implosion phase by a factor of 3 to 4. A theoretical model is developed here to explain this, allowing the rapid conversion of magnetic energy to a very high ion temperature plasma through the generation of fine scale, fast-growing m=0 interchange MHD instabilities at stagnation. These saturate nonlinearly and provide associated ion viscous heating. Next the ion energy is transferred by equipartition to the electrons and thus to soft x-ray radiation. Recent time-resolved iron spectra at Sandia confirm an ion temperature Ti of over 200 keV (2×109 degrees), as predicted by theory. These are believed to be record temperatures for a magnetically confined plasma.

    Also, there's a press release from Sandia National Labs.

  20. So, Mr. Bond ... by kitzilla · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... you finally get to see the glory of the Z Machine. Too bad this vision will be your last ...

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  21. Bush: U.S. on Verge of Energy Breakthrough by PowerEdge · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bush: U.S. on Verge of Energy Breakthrough

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-56 35046,00.html

  22. ... and again by xarium · · Score: 3, Informative

    "degrees" Kelvin...

    Kelvins would be the correct term.

  23. Re:(energy out energy in) != perpetual motion by Fordiman · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    You're adding energy in the form of the high potential energy found in the compounds in wood (cellulose is a good example); meanwhile, excess energy is being continuously added in the even higher-potential of a common diatom: oxygen.

    Of course, you have to add energy to liberate the atoms in the first place, that being a match and the flame off your starter fluid and kindling.

    Hey, campfires are complex.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  24. "Unknown Energy Source" I think not. by JudgeFurious · · Score: 4, Funny


      I can explain it entirely with three words.

      "Flying Spaghetti Monster"

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  25. Re:Not fusion. by brian0918 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because the density is nowhere near high enough. Fusion capsules that are imploded in the center of these devices get to be 30-50 times compressed, whereas this plasma is not compressed in any way like this, or to anywhere near this extreme.

    People are simply confusing the fusion research that is done with Z-machine with what is going on here. The increase in temperature has already been explained by a model that has been shown to fit the data, and does not involve anything in the way of fusion.

  26. Asimov had the right idea here... by Malor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka, but rather 'Hmm, that's funny...'"

    -- Isaac Asimov

    This is potentially a very, very big deal. The temperature is NOT the most important thing... that's the headline for dummies.

    The important part: they're getting out more energy than they're putting in, and they don't understand why.

  27. Re:and yet wrong again.. by IceAgeComing · · Score: 4, Funny


    There is a ginormous difference in 15M degrees F and 15M Kelvin.

    Both are too hot for me to grasp. Even with hot pads.

  28. Re:(energy out energy in) != perpetual motion by NoData · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?


    Christ, man. He didn't say relativistic principles break down, he said they're superfluous. It's overkill for the example. You're liberating energy in the form of chemical bonds, so the loss of mass as energy is pretty much negligible in chemical reactions, 'cause the mass-energy of the reactants utterly overwhelms the amount of energy released. Mass is, for all practical purposes, conserved.

    I think chemists and physicists understood combustion pretty well before Einstein came along. There was this guy, you know, Lavoisier, he had a few things to say about stuff sticking around.

    But come the hell on. If you have a graduate degree in physics you know this. You're just being a jerk to save some face.

  29. Lithium not Iron by squoyster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They should try lithium wires instead of iron. The lower atomic weight may allow a fusion reaction to start and convert the Li into heavier elements until significant amounts of Fe are produced by the reaction. After that, the whole thing blows up ... or something like that.

  30. There's no energy production here, move along... by citanon · · Score: 4, Informative

    I scanned the article. The article does not say that total energy observed was greater than the total input energy.

    What the article says, and it's easy to be confused by this, is that the observed energy was greater than the kinetic energy of the implosion. However, one has to realize that the kinetic energy isn't the only significant source of energy in the system. There is also the energy in the magnetic field. The article goes on to elucidate a mechanism by which magnetic field energy is converted to thermal energy ions, which is then transferred to electrons to produce soft X-Rays.

    Thus, the bottom line here is, unfortunately, that what happened in this experiment was that one component of the total energy input, magnetic energy, which normally is not converted into heat, was converted into heat by a new mechanism. This is what the authors meant by a new energy source. In other words:

    NO FUSION.

    Okay, time to move along folks, nothing to see here other than some really really really really hot plasma, which probably don't have the density to achieve sustained fusion...yet. =)

  31. THIS IS TOTAL NONSENSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, if you pull the original article from Physical Review Letters, there is not a single word about that anything does not perfectly meet theoretical expectations. Not a single word about an "unknown energy source is involved".

  32. The scary side of science by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do we want anything that hot on our planet?"

    Indeed. I love science, and in general I have tremendous faith in most scientists and physiscists. But science has progressed to a state where we are starting to venture into areas where there are huge swaths of unknowns, in physics, genetics, and nanotechnology.

    I mean, this quote sums it up for me......some unknown energy source is involved.... Wow, so basically, they did this experiment, which resulted in a breaking of one of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, and resulted in a gas billions of degrees higher than expected?

    GMO crops, artifical black holes, supercolliding particles ( of which sometimes we don't even know what will happen until we do it)... I mean, I am beginning to think man is not going to be obliterated through war, or disease, or a nuclear holocost, but just in an instant flash of some experiment gone wrong.

    We need to be very careful, the forces we are starting to toy with are both potent and dangerous, as well as increasingly misunderstood.

  33. Z machine by notea42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I spent three summers working in a trailer less than 50 meters from this machine. It always creeped me out a little. Several times a day, the sirens and flashy lights would go off outside the building, then about a minute later, we'd hear this huge "WUMPH". Our whole trailer would shake and the monitors vibrate. Despite understanding what was going on, I couldn't help but wonder about the safety of sitting next to an array of giant capacitors which get rapidly discharged all at once.

    However, I must admit it does make cool pictures. The bright lines you see on most pictures are supposedly spare charge arcing across the giant pool in which they have to keep the whole thing submerged.

  34. Re:and yet wrong again.. by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 4, Funny

    You need the Ove-Glove!!

  35. Does Gordon Freeman work there? by Mantrid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Crazy energy expirements, bizarre results? I wonder if Gordon Freeman works there...

  36. Re:Duh, by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what do you mean they don't know how they did it? I thought scientists use the so-called Scientific Method they taught us all about in school. And I thought that in this Scientific Method, you're supposed to record everything you do, so that the experiment can be reproduced by other scientists.

          So you create a hypothesis and design an experiment to test it out. You expect the results to be A if it works, and B if it doesn't work. But funnily enough, your result was C. Does this suddenly cast doubt on science and the scientific method in general? No. It just means that the original hypothesis is incorrect and nature doesn't work as expected. Now you just have to scratch your head and figure out how the hell "C" happens.

    Sounds to me like this story is a bunch of hogwash, now that I think of it. How would you even measure the temperature in order to come to the conclusion that it was 3.6 billion degrees? There's not a thermometer on the planet that can measure something that hot.

          I find it disturbing that something is "hogwash" just because you don't understand it. Perhaps if you educated yourself a little more on the subject then you'd understand how it's done.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  37. Stargate SG-1 Episode? by n2art2 · · Score: 3, Funny
    "Sandia consultant Malcolm Haines theorizes that some unknown energy source is involved, which is providing the machine with an extra jolt of energy just as the plasma ions are beginning to slow down."
    Doesn't this sound like a great Stargate Episode?
    --
    Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
  38. I know how they did it! by protovirus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Broken temperature gauge. :)

  39. No need... by rez_rat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Soviet Russia moves to YOU!

  40. 3rd life for the machine by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Growing up in Albuquerque, I got a chance to tour the machine they are using. Almost 20 years ago! One of the coolest aspects, besides the famous light show, is that they built the original machine for something like $10 mil and keep finding new uses for it. It's just a giant capacitor, so scientists keep thinking of new uses. I forget the orginal use. Light ion fusion reactor or something. Then it was converted to a heavy ion reactor. Now the Z-pinch configuration. It might have had a few incarnations in between. But it's great to see such a useful tool being resused for great science and that doesn't cost a billion dollars.

    Oh, and Trekkies: the control room is, or was, has connections to the bridge of the Enterprise, including a places for Kirk et al with nameplates.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.