Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Neutron Pulse from SNS

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the prepare-the-proton-torpedos dept.

kebes writes "The $1.4 billion Spallation Neutron Source is nearing completion, and has produced its first neutron pulse. The SNS is a scientific instrument that generates beams of neutrons, which can be used to probe anything from minuscule samples to industrial materials. When fully operational, the facility is expected to host up to 2,000 international scientists annually."

100 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. god help me... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1, Funny

    I for one welcome our Spallating Neutron Overlords..

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
  2. Just for the record by littleghoti · · Score: 3, Informative

    We've had one of those for a while now, on this side of the pond. http://www.isis.rl.ac.uk/ They are building a second target at the site, due to open in 2008.

    1. Re:Just for the record by fbjon · · Score: 2, Funny

      You misspelled "Frist pulse!1"

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    2. Re:Just for the record by Kristoph · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are a number of these in North America http://www.sciner.com/Neutron/neutron_facilities_w orldwide.htm. The news here is that ....

      When fully operational, the Energy Department installation will produce a pulsing neutron stream 10 times more intense than that of any other research facility in the world. That stream will let scientists look deeper into the structure and dynamics of different materials.

      ]{

    3. Re:Just for the record by Zone5 · · Score: 1

      Only on Slashdot could someone call "Dupe!" on a research installation. :)

      --
      "So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
    4. Re:Just for the record by Skevin · · Score: 1

      Actually, they misspelled "SNES". I knew Nintendo was up to something!

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
  3. Call Doctor Who by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    If ever they need to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow...

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  4. Can they aim this at..... by frinkacheese · · Score: 1


    Dodgy Iranian nuclear installations?

    Russian chemical weapon stores?

    Iraqi WMD sites?

    Countries onthe Axis of Weavels?

    Spammers?

    Redmond?

    1. Re:Can they aim this at..... by spiro_killglance · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, i forget the article, but a physicist did genunely suggest using a neutrino (not neutron) beam to cause enermy nuclear weopeans to melt down in there casings. It seemed reasonably practicle as well, it
      would require a very high current particle accelerator to produce a very narrow ultra relavistic pion or
      muon beam. At these high speed the neutrino decay products of pions would still be very tightly directioned. They could pass straight through the earth, and cause sufficient stimulated fission reactions in remote nuclear materal to cause it to gently (as opposite to explosively) melt down.

    2. Re:Can they aim this at..... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Where "reasonably practical" means slewing a 10 mile long particle accelerator to point at your target.

  5. Friend did the SNS Web site by Myrrh · · Score: 1

    Hey cool, a friend of mine designed their Web site when he was working at Los Alamos. Small world.

    I'd provide a link to his Web site but I doubt he feels like getting Slashdotted.

    1. Re:Friend did the SNS Web site by everett · · Score: 1

      Even cooler I tested the cryomodules when I was at TJNAF aka JLAB aka CEBAF as a student intern three years ago. It's cool to see that their nearing completion.

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    2. Re:Friend did the SNS Web site by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1
      I looked at the site and frankly didn't find much in the way of what this thing is really about.

      The main page says it can be used to "improve jets; credit cards; pocket calculators; compact discs, computer disks, and magnetic recording tapes; shatter-proof windshields; adjustable seats; and satellite weather information".

      How about something on the site for the technically curious to show just how these sorts of things are done? The site is a thin veneer of a few basic pages and anything deeper just goes to lots of unstructured PDF files.

      Please lets have some more presentable info for the public justifying the amount of money this thing cost, and will cost to run.

    3. Re:Friend did the SNS Web site by Myrrh · · Score: 1

      I'll pass your suggestions on to my friend, but seeing as how he hasn't worked on the SNS project for probably four years, I don't know if it'll do much good. =)

      You might want to email the current Webmaster.

  6. Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the article:
    'The machine is so powerful that in one year it will use about the same amount of electricity as a town of 30,000.'

    If we assume that the average person has an electric bill of $1000/yr, that would be $30,000,000/yr, or about $82,200/day just in electricity costs.
    I imagine that lots of scientists would want to play around with this- I would certainly have fun with it given the chance. At that price, though, only extremely well-funded researchers could afford to use this machine.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
    1. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by Myrrh · · Score: 1

      Uh, the scientists' budgets wouldn't necessarily have to pay for the electricity. I'm guessing most, if not all, of that is going to come from the taxpayer.

      Still cheaper than running a war in the middle east, though.

    2. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Umm I'm sure at that usage rate you would get a bulk rate. FSU pays $18 million a year for electricity for its Mag Lab, and that isn't scaring away anyone.

    3. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by kebes · · Score: 5, Informative

      about $82,200/day just in electricity costs.

      Yes, something like that. The instrument at full output is supposed to be 1.4 MW. Assuming 5$/kWhr (note that big installations end up paying less per kWhr, on average, than a residential user) that's over $100,000/day in electricity costs. Of course when running this delivers neutron beams along all of the beam tubes. When fully operational, there should be 24 beamlines, meaning that each researcher is "only" costing ~$5000/day in electricity.

      I imagine that lots of scientists would want to play around with this- I would certainly have fun with it given the chance. At that price, though, only extremely well-funded researchers could afford to use this machine.

      As far as I know, that's not how it works. The researcher does not "pay" outright for the beamtime (although companies renting beamtime do). What happens is that a researcher makes an application for beamtime. Like any other grant, this is reviewed by experts. If the proposal is accepted, the researcher gets the beamtime (for "free"). So instead of giving government funds to researchers, who then buy beamtime, the SNS is funded and divides out the beamtime to researchers worldwide, based on the scientific merit of the proposals.

      I'm not 100% sure that's how the SNS will be run, but that is how such "user facilities" have been run in my experience. The SNS is a government-funded facility whose goal it is to "get important science done" and as such its top priority is to divide up the beamtime to researchers (from around the world) without "wasting any beam-time" and hopefully giving opportunities for the best science to be completed (regardless of how much money the research group has).

    4. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      When fully operational, there should be 24 beamlines, meaning that each researcher is "only" costing ~$5000/day in electricity.

      That's per day that they use the device. I would imagine that most experiments will take significantly longer to prepare and put into papers afterward than they will do perform -- so skilled labour still takes the cake as the bulk of the expense.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    5. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by quanminoan · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm fortunate enough to be working with the SNS this summer as an intern, so this is exciting news for me. I watched a presentation on the SNS about a year ago, and the Phd who gave the presentation told us the machine is already booked for the next ten years.

      Though there may be other neutron sources out there, as FP mentioned, I don't believe any of them can hold a candle to the power and energy spectrum of the SNS. The reasearch is useful for just about every field out there - from basic materials science to protein dynamics. Industries are interested in the SNS as well - if I remember correctly he mentioned one company was planning to observe shampoo (though I don't recall why).

      Take a look at the size of this thing: http://www.bnl.gov/nufo/images/facilities/SNS_lg.j pg

    6. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by kebes · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that most experiments will take significantly longer to prepare and put into papers afterward than they will do perform -- so skilled labour still takes the cake as the bulk of the expense.

      You're quite right. In my experience it takes months of sample preparration before going to do such work, and it takes months afterwards to finish analyzing all the data (and then more time to write up the papers). The actual beamtime is typically only one or two weeks. So the bulk of the time for any particular scientific study is not spent at the neutron source.

      However, when it comes to money, the skilled labour in question is mostly graduate students and post-docs, who are not very expensive. If two grad students work on a project for a year, this costs $40,000, whereas the two weeks of beamtime at the hypothetical $5,000/day amounts to $70,000.

      For a company, however, the equation is a no-brainer: the beamtime will typically give them information that would have taken many skilled people years to obtain with any other technique.

    7. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by fourtyfive · · Score: 1

      Why would they just have their own generators? A 1.5 megawatt generator runs about 500k$ US last time I took a look, and I imagine that would be a lot cheaper than utility power...

    8. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by dhovis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Remember that Oak Ridge National Lab is where the U235 enrichment was done for the first atomic bomb. Uranium enrichment takes up a lot of energy, and the reason that it was done at ORNL was that it was located in the midst of the Tennesee Valley Authority, a government project that put lots of hydroelectric dams in the Tennessee river valley. So there is lots of cheap hydroelectric power available in the area, and I'd be willing to bet ORNL still gets their power cheap from the TVA.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    9. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      $5 per kilowatt hour?
      aka a 'unit'. I just looked up one of our local electricity suppliers prices and 'leccy costs about 10p per unit. You're more than an order of magnitude out.
      I live in the UK, I was under the impression that, relative to the US, our electricity was expensive.

      --
      FGD 135
    10. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by lazlo · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm not arguing with your math here, but:

      The instrument at full output is supposed to be 1.4 MW. Assuming 5$/kWhr (note that big installations end up paying less per kWhr, on average, than a residential user) that's over $100,000/day in electricity costs.

      According to my math, that ends up being $168,000.00 per day. That's certainly well over $100K/day. However, I do take exception to one of your assumptions. $5/kWhr seems excessive. From my (residential) power bill:


      Non-Fuel Energy Charge:
            First 1000 KWH $0.042310 per KWH
            Over 1000 KWH $0.052310 per KWH
        Fuel Charge:
            First 1000 KWH $0.058410 per KWH
            Over 1000 KWH $0.068410 per KWH


      That ends up being, at most, about 12 cents/KWH, or for a full day, it's $4056.19 That's still a lot more than I'd like to pay for my power bill, it'd end up being about $121,685.76 for a 30 day month, but it's a far cry from over $100K per day.

      Of course, this being ORNL, they could just build their own power plant. I'm sure they could find the pieces for one laying around somewhere...

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    11. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by Robotbeat · · Score: 1

      According to my research, industrial non-peak electricity only costs $.03/kilowatthour, which works out to about $42 per hour to run the thing at 1.4 MW. That's less than a plumber's wage. Residential electricity costs much more, especially during peak hours, but even then it's only like $200 per hour at very most.

      BTW, I found this at:
      http://www.xcelenergy.com/docs/corpcomm/Me_Section _5.pdf

    12. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by Ravear · · Score: 1
      If the proposal is accepted, the researcher gets the beamtime (for "free").


      Will they charge you if you don't conduct yourself properly?
    13. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by DeepStream · · Score: 1

      Contrary to popular belief ... graduate students are NOT particulary cheap, as they cost MUCH more than their stipend. Remember that research funds support tuition (which at a private institution can run $30k+, but is still $5k at public school). In addition, there are overhead costs that are typically 50% (roughly) of the salary for all supported employees. As a result, a grad student at a state-school costs $30-35k in direct costs, and $45-50k with overhead. At a private school, direct costs can easily be $60-70k, putting the total almost at $100k.

      For post-docs, you don't have tuition, but you have to add on fringe (to cover benefits). This is typically 30-50% of the salary, so a post-doc at $35k is actually costing closer to $50k in direct costs, so $75k in total.

    14. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by menacing_cheese · · Score: 1

      Heh that's funny. The second I read the GP's post I wondered how much FSU's mag lab pays in power bills and two posts later you gave me an answer. Of course I did my undergrad (smoked pot and drank a lot) at FSU.

    15. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by menacing_cheese · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity what indirect costs would there be for a grad student. When I was a grad student (I graduated 2 years ago) I received no benefits including no health insurance. I did get free tuition although I had to pay all of my student fees (athletic, activity, technology etc...). When you figure that my stipend was only about 13 grand a year and I worked 7 days a week almost every week I think thats pretty cheap labor!

    16. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Yea I live in Tally. I'm not completly sure about my answer (took a lot of googling) but I got it from this.
      http://www.facuflorida.com/Newsletters/FACUNewsLet ter7_05.pdf
      Which states (bottom right of page 5)
      "The Universtity has finalized an agreement with the city of Tallahasee regarding electricity rates to the Mag Lab. The bottom line is $18 million for the city, and a lower rate for FSU."

    17. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I have to think that they are not running this thing at full power for particularly long periods.

      Or maybe they are.

      Nevertheless, I'm waiting for the consumer model...

      Hey, it happened to the Hummer, why not?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    18. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by DeepStream · · Score: 1

      The fringe item I mentioned for post-docs covers benefits like health, etc. As you said, generally this doesn't apply for grad students, but tuition does, so it balances out.

      The indirect costs are charged by the university for infrastructure and maintainance (heat, electricity, cleaning, etc.), as well as for administrative costs. They can also be used for capital expenditures by a school or department (revamping lab space, shared equipment, and so on).

      My main point was just that actual cost of a graduate student to a research grant is generally twice the actually stipend, if not more. This is something that most people aren't aware of until they start thinking about running a research group of their own.

      Graduate student stipends also vary alot geographically ... in Boston and New York (at least in my experience ... I went to a private school for grad school, and I'm faculty at a state school) stipends are currently in the 20's. Where it really starts costing a lot is when private school tuition is added on. I definitely agree that a $13k stipend with state-school tuition, even including overhead, is some pretty damn cheap labor (since it probably will total $25-30k).

    19. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1
      So it works out to $82K per day. But if there are 2000 scientists using the facility that works out to $41 each per day. I suspect that keeping the trash cans empty, roof from leaking and the restrooms clean and stocked costs about the same or maybe more.

      A typical overhead rate for the industry is close the 100%. In other words a high tech company typically pays an enginerr his salery and then spend that much again on all the little (and big) things that enable him to do his work, payroll taxes, vacations and so on. $41/day is not much.

    20. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 1

      You perhaps missed that it is 2000 scientists per year that they expect to use it. Of course, someone else has pointed out that it can serve 20 researchers at 1 time, making it a more reasonable $4100 per day per person electricity cost.

      --
      You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  7. I'm neutral on this topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    so I have nothing to say

    1. Re:I'm neutral on this topic by HumanisticJones · · Score: 1

      All I can say it that my gut is telling me... eh.

    2. Re:I'm neutral on this topic by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

      "Your neutralness, it's a beige alert."

      "If I don't survive, tell my wife, 'hello'"

      --
      my pet machine
  8. It would be cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..if at the time of unveiling the project one of the scientists says in british english: "Now this station is Fully Operational!" :)

    1. Re:It would be cool... by Wierdy1024 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm british, and I don't understand the joke...

    2. Re:It would be cool... by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      I believe he is referring to the apparently British Governor Tarkin, saying, "I think it is time we demonstrated the full power of this station. Set course for Alderaan."

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:It would be cool... by CSLarsen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or rather: As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station! from ROTJ. :)

      --
      Claiming to be pedantic on Slashdot is asking for trouble
  9. But, what does it do? by Eudial · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, okay, not quite sure what this thing actually does? Except fire neutrons at stuff... but while I'm sure that's an amusing thing to do, I doubt that would attract 2,000 international scientists annualy. So, what's the point of this thing?

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:But, what does it do? by kebes · · Score: 5, Informative

      So, what's the point of this thing?

      The purpose of a "neutron beam" is *neutron scattering.* You can either use a continuous beam from a nuclear reactor, or a neutron pulse from a spallation source (which the SNS is). The idea is that you sent the beam at your (scientifically interesting) sample, and measure the directions and energies of the neutrons that are scattered/reflected/diffraction from the sample. This is a huge field, but here are some ideas of what it can be used for:

      1. Neutron diffraction can be used for crystallography: to determine the crystal structure (hence molecular structure) of some novel material, drug, protein, etc. This can be done with x-rays also, but for some samples neutrons give better results.

      2. Neutron reflectivity can be used to study thin films: to analyze coatings applied to electronics, or anti-abrasive coatings, or membranes used in medical applications, and so on.

      3. Neutrons can be used to study industrial materials: for instance, a neutron beam can be used to probe a weld joint and map out the 3-dimensional arrangment of microsocpic stress patterns in the material. This has been used to design better welding processes, better aircraft components, engine parts, and so on.

      4. A neutron beam can be used for "imaging" similar to an x-ray... except that neutrons can pass through dense materials (like lead) quite easily and can image organic materials with better sensitivity than x-rays.

      5. Neutron beams can be used for the study of nuclear physics and chemistry, the properties of neutrons, and other particle-physics questions.

      There are of course many other things you can do with a neutron beam, but hopefully that gives you an idea of the diversity of research that goes on at a neutron scattering facility.

      I doubt that would attract 2,000 international scientists annualy

      Well there is quite a bit of demand for neutron beam-time. Since the SNS will take the flux up a notch (8 times higher than anything we have now), researchers will be able to complete their experiments faster (or conversely complete more experiments in a given timeslot), and will also be able to detect things that perhaps went unnoticed before. So yes, there will quite a bit of demand for this installation.

    2. Re:But, what does it do? by quanminoan · · Score: 2, Informative
      In some (if not most) situations neutron beams can determine more about the structure of a material than alternative methods.

      Using neutron beams scientists determined the structure of insulin, YBCO, and cell membrane structures. The SNS site has a page that discusses the importance here

    3. Re:But, what does it do? by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

      5 (expanded): you can add neutrons to the nuclei of atoms to create heavier isotopes, which may then (in one of several decay scenarios*) split, as in fission

      I.e., the most obviously valuable use of a high-density, high-energy neutron beam is studying heretofore under-investigated fission reactions and adding significant digits to heretofore over-investigated fission reactions. All this stuff about the "commercial benefits" is a cartoonish beard for A-bomb research.

      * - the other common scenarios are alpha (helium-nucleus) emission resulting in a decrease of atomic number by 2 and mass number by 4, and beta (electron) emission resulting in an increase of atomic number by 1 and no change in mass number; i.e., we're talking alchemy here, kids.

    4. Re:But, what does it do? by Pollardito · · Score: 2, Funny

      some more possible applications :

      6. burn the heck out of ants on the sidewalk

      7. further exploration of the stress points for Peeps

      8. the production of tray after tray of wonderful chocolate brownies, in a fraction of the time that it takes to make them in an easy-bake oven

    5. Re:But, what does it do? by kebes · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, neutron beamlines are great for study of transmutation and nuclear properties.

      All this stuff about the "commercial benefits" is a cartoonish beard for A-bomb research.

      I think that's an exageration. At the facilities I've worked at, the research has been heavily geared towards science. Some facilities do indeed use the beams to study materials and designs for next-generation nuclear power plants, but not for weapons. Unlike Los Alamos, the SNS is optimized for academic research. In fact one of its "selling points" is accessibility to scientists (due in part to the fact that it's not a weapons lab).

      Also, I'm not sure that "A-bomb research" has benefitted from fundamental studies in transmutation and decay rates recently. Modern advances in nuclear weaponry seem to come from engineering the bomb design, and have nothing to do with new insights from fundamental studies.

      the most obviously valuable use of a high-density, high-energy neutron beam is studying heretofore under-investigated fission reactions and adding significant digits to heretofore over-investigated fission reactions.

      That kind of research is probably much more useful to the medical isotopes community than it is to the weapon design community.

      The US certainly does research on nuclear weapons, but I don't think the SNS is intended to be part of that infrastructure.

    6. Re:But, what does it do? by cyfer2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For carbon and hydrogen based matters like DNA, RNA, protein and polymer, in many case, it is very hard to get good contrast from either X-ray or electron beam. But by replacing hydrogen with deuterium, we can actually control the contrast from neutron beam. To be simple, neutron is extreme important to the research in biology area and soft condensed materials.

      Neutron has pretty long wave length, thus it can be used to study the structures in nanometer scale. While the X-ray works better actually in Angstrom scale. Transmission Electron Microscope works very well from micron to angstrom scale, but TEM can only look at extreme small volume. But neutron can look at bulk material. So neutron is good at looking into nanostructure even in bulk.

      The problem with neutron equipment is firstly they are all huge, secondly, they are slow. The new one at Oak Ridge is still huge, but very fast.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    7. Re:But, what does it do? by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
      Very nice explanation, thanks.
      You forgot one though:

      *pinky in mouth*
      6. Taking over the world... for one...million dollars.

    8. Re:But, what does it do? by RedBear · · Score: 1

      4. A neutron beam can be used for "imaging" similar to an x-ray... except that neutrons can pass through dense materials (like lead) quite easily and can image organic materials with better sensitivity than x-rays.


      And if you image the object three times, once with a red filter, once with a blue filter, and once with a green filter, you can combine the resulting three images and get color X-rays!

      Thanks folks, I'll be here all week!

    9. Re:But, what does it do? by cfuse · · Score: 1
      Uh, okay, not quite sure what this thing actually does? Except fire neutrons at stuff... but while I'm sure that's an amusing thing to do, I doubt that would attract 2,000 international scientists annualy.

      Well, I heard that there would be punch and pie.

    10. Re:But, what does it do? by dosboss · · Score: 1

      Uh, okay, not quite sure what this thing actually does?

            It attracts those pesky international scientists, of course! Duh!

    11. Re:But, what does it do? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Unless it has a smaller beam concentration and/or energy than the weapons labs have, it will end up as a weapons research facility, even if it does somehow also make our breakfast cereals a little more "coo-coo" in the process.

  10. As opposed to the Snoopy Dance... by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    Did they do the Neutron Dance to celebrate?

    --
    Program Intellivision!
    1. Re:As opposed to the Snoopy Dance... by certel · · Score: 1

      Hah. If I had mod-points, I'd give them all to you for that comment.

      --
      [%] Cingular Ringtones
    2. Re:As opposed to the Snoopy Dance... by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      Did any one else read this as, First Neutron Pulse from Super Nintendo System?

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  11. wow, 2,000 scientists a year by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

    Allowing for time off on weekends and holidays..lets see..that's Eight Scientists a day for probing...line up to the left please and loosen you belts....

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  12. sweet! by minus_273 · · Score: 1

    does this mean i can play mario world again?

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
  13. Analyzing Anomalous Materials by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...which can be used to probe anything from miniscule samples to industrial materials."

    Sure, it starts out that way, but before you know it you've opened up a gateway to another dimesion.

    Please, do us all a favor and keep plenty of weapons and ammo around the facility. Oh, and make sure whoever's wearing the hazmat suit has a crowbar with them at all times.

    --
    Demented But Determined.
    1. Re:Analyzing Anomalous Materials by jacen_sunstrider · · Score: 1

      And issue blue suits and stylish briefcases to all of the execs.

    2. Re:Analyzing Anomalous Materials by sharkey · · Score: 1
      Sure, it starts out that way, but before you know it you've opened up a gateway to another dimesion.

      It's just Cartman's ass. Jeez....

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    3. Re:Analyzing Anomalous Materials by PylonHead · · Score: 1

      SCIENTIST 1
      Ah, Gordon, here you are. We just sent the sample down to the Test Chamber.

      SCIENTIST 2
      We've boosted the antimass spectrometer to 105 percent. Bit of a gamble, but we need the extra resolution.

      SCIENTIST 3
      The Administrator is very concerned that we get a conclusive analysis of today's sample. I gather they went to some lengths to get it.

      SCIENTIST 1
      They're waiting for you, Gordon. In the Test Chamber.

      --
      # (/.);;
      - : float -> float -> float =
  14. Damn! by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    I thought we were talking vintage gaming consoles and there was a new cart out for the SNES. Oh well... ;P

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  15. Off-Topic, But... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I've got to say it anyhow:

    First Atom: I just lost an electron

    Second Atom: Are you sure?

    First Atom: Yeah, I'm positive.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
    1. Re:Off-Topic, But... by CatsupBoy · · Score: 1

      Gee, I havnt hear that one before:

      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183740 &cid=15174728
      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=42802& cid=4492605
      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88229& cid=7641491
      http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=53451&cid= 5285691
      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=83066& cid=7277548

    2. Re:Off-Topic, But... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Hey, never claimed it was original...

      But, seriously, if I'd realized that it had been used that often on Slashdot I wouldn't have posted it. I heard it somewhere else and thought it was funny but no one else I know gets it.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
  16. Uses? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    IANAPP (I am not a particle physicist) so I was wondering if someone could explain in layman's terms why this is useful and what potential applications are for this technology. I mean...it sounds really cool...proton beams have been sci-fi weapons forever, but something tells me this doesn't exactly have immediate weapons applications so I'm just curious what exactly it does.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Uses? by Alioth · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the facility's website:

      http://www.sns.gov/aboutsns/benefits.htm

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
  17. Fools! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    When fully operational, the facility is expected to host up to 2,000 international scientists annually

    This is the oldest trick in the book. Behold the power of their fully operational Spallation Neutron Source! Bwah-haa-haa, etc.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  18. Sneaky rascals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What is it those 2,000 scientists are hiding that we need to probe them with neutrons?

    1. Re:Sneaky rascals by grimJester · · Score: 1

      Apparently they're part of the evolutionist conspiracy.

      May God have mercy on their souls.

  19. Goddamn it, you stole my joke by spun · · Score: 1

    I'm just burnin'.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  20. Neutron Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source

    Photoneutron process is more efficient than Spallation.

    1. Re:Neutron Sources by Quantum+Fizz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it scalable to the power levels given by the Spallation source? How focused can the beam be? What is the energy dispersion of emitted neutrons, compared to the Spallation source?

  21. As an added benefit... by 32Na · · Score: 1

    The facility puts out a huge flux of neutrinos, allowing improved measurements of the neutrino-matter interaction cross-section.

    1. Re:As an added benefit... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      How does it compare to the neutrino flux from the Sun? Everything that I've read about neutrino detectors seems to emphasize how rare it is for a neutrino to interact with matter, like only detecting a small number of events per year.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:As an added benefit... by 32Na · · Score: 1

      The neutrino flux from the SNS should be much higher than the solar neutrino flux locally: ~10^6 nu/cm*s from the sun compared to ~10^15 nu/s (note different units) due to the SNS. The proposed neutrino detector can therefore achieve much higher flux by putting it close to the source (although it will only cover a small solid angle). Here's a link on the estimated solar neutrino flux: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Astro/s olneu.html

  22. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use - 100x off by markk · · Score: 1

    Uh.. its probably 5 cents a KWH not $5. So a Megawatt-Hour is about $50 - then say the device uses 2 MW rounding up we get about $100/hour of electricity costs. Not too bad. That is $2400 a day. So $100 a day per beam according to your usage. That is negligable for something like this and almost sounds wrong - but even if it were 2 MW per beam, that would still only be that $100/hr per researcher which again is not much.

  23. Now, that would be interesting... by FellowConspirator · · Score: 1

    A flood of neutrons into a fissile isotope... That ought to speed things up quite a bit.

    "Um, Al, you know that U 235 over there. You know, over there in the core."

    "Yep. What about it Mo?"

    "Well, I'm not sure about it yet, but I think that the big red glowing mass that just melted through the containment vessel floor like a giant glowing gopher making a burrow was our U-235."

    "Damn zioinst neutrons!"

  24. Re:This is exciting! by Ruie · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Doesn't the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor generate copious amounts of neutrons for far less than 1.4B$?

    The trick is that SNS produces a lot more of them and in a beam. You can't focus neutrons as efficiently as you can light or electrons.

  25. Important question by SIGFPE · · Score: 1
    If the article said

    The machine is so powerful that in one hour it will use about the same amount of electricity as a town of 30,000.

    would you have responded any differently?
    --
    -- SIGFPE
  26. How do they make a pulsed neutron beam? by Biff+Stu · · Score: 1

    It seems that they must first accelerate charged particles and then turn them into neutrons without significantly modifying their momentum. Does anybody know the details?

    1. Re:How do they make a pulsed neutron beam? by wiml · · Score: 1

      It's a "spallation" source, which means they bombard a heavy nucleus with something (protons in this case) to knock neutrons off. Details at their web site. It looks like the pulse actually contains a wide range of momenta, but since it's very brief (corresponding to the brief proton pulse that produced it) you know the momentum of any given neutron by when it arrives at the target/detector.

    2. Re:How do they make a pulsed neutron beam? by PiMuNu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually its pretty straight forward - whack a bunch of protons into a target and neutrons drop out. The protons react with nuclei in the target to produce neutrons (and pions and a whole load of other junk). The protons need to be reasonably high energy (say at least relativistic) to get a good neutron yield.

      Usually you use a heavy metal as the target. High nuclear mass so that there are lots of protons and neutrons to collide with, high melting point/tough so you don't damage the target too much when the protons go into it. The target is probably actively cooled or you might want to try a liquid metal target at high intensities so that it cools itself. Watch out that you can build pipes to contain the liquid that aren't destroyed by the incoming proton beam. Then you collimate the neutrons coming out and possibly slow them down using something like carbon.

      Jobs a good 'un!

    3. Re:How do they make a pulsed neutron beam? by CaryTheSane · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IANAPP (I am not a Particle Physicist) but I *DO* work at the SNS site. I'm a software engineer in their Beam Diagnostics group, and was in the contorol room on Friday when we met this milestone. My basic understanding is that here we use our Linac to accelerate protons (H-). A minipuse sent down the linac is approx 700 ns long. They first go into an accumulator ring, and are "stacked" to increase the intensity of the pulse to target. On Friday we accumulated for around 180 pulses, design specs are for around 1000. Finally the the pulse is extracted from the ring and hits a target vessel filled with mercury. Again, IANAPP, but my understanding is that this intense pulse of protons only 700 ns long, hits the mecury, and "spalls" neutrons from the mercury atoms. Then as others have mentioned the neutrons are columnated and fly down different beam lines to be used in different refraction experiments (or they will be once this source is fully operational ;-) . Bottom line is that the particles that we acclerate are not the ones that contribute neutrons. Once more, IANAPP, but it helps me to think of it as we're accelerating cue balls, and hitting a (3D) rack of billard balls.

    4. Re:How do they make a pulsed neutron beam? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I wonder why they use Hydrogen ions instead of Helium? Is it because it is cheaper or that they can get Hydrogen ions to higher energies than Helium ions?
      Just kind of wondering since alpha particle bombardment is one of the traditional ways to generate neutrons.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  27. fusion catalyst? by prmths · · Score: 1

    Anyone think this technology could act as a catalyst for fusion?

    --
    p r m t h s
  28. Re:Extremely Cost-prohibitive to use - 100x off by kebes · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thanks to the posters who pointed out the mistake in my previous post. Indeed power is typically on the order of 5 cents/kWhr. I also confused the discussion by mentioning the 1.4 MW that the SNS is rated for. The 1.4 MW is the power delivered to the target. It requires about 42 MW to generate that 1.4 MW proton beam. So we're talking about:

    42,000 kW * 0.05 $/(kW hour) * 24 hours/day = 50,400 $/day

    (Hopefully I haven't made a mistake this time.) This is a lot of money, but really not such a big deal for a facility this size.

  29. Misapplication by Mannerism · · Score: 1

    The SNS is a scientific instrument that generates beams of neutrons, which can be used to probe anything from miniscule samples to industrial materials. When fully operational, the facility is expected to host up to 2,000 international scientists annually.

    Now, now, the scientists don't deserve that. Couldn't they probe lawyers instead?

    --
    Please donate your spare CPU cycles to help fight cancer and other diseases
  30. Make sure by Maximilio · · Score: 1

    You get enough fricking explosive barrels. Don't wanna run out of those!

    --
    My book, podcast
    1. Re:Make sure by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      If I could, I would mod this up. Thanks for the great new comic to read!

      --
      Demented But Determined.
  31. Pyroelectric Fusion as Neutron Source? by Aelcyx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone remember UCLA doing a form of cold fusion using pyroelectric crystals? It did not release enough energy to make it efficient as an energy source, but I recall the article saying it would make a portable neutron source. Perhaps that could be used to make a smaller and more efficient version of the Oak Ridge facility.

    1. Re:Pyroelectric Fusion as Neutron Source? by bhima · · Score: 1

      I remember that... I also remember that being said about a Farnsworth Fusor.

      Surely folks looked into these things before building this thing!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:Pyroelectric Fusion as Neutron Source? by SlashSquatch · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yep. The pyroelectric crystal can produce about 1000 neutrons per second. This spallation accelerator produces 1.5e10^14 protons per pulse. Each proton should generate 20-30 neutrons. Evidently this source is supposed to be brighter. If I estimate correctly, brighter by an order of 10^10 times.

      --
      Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
  32. Re:goodbye world by SIGFPE · · Score: 1

    When you start driving cars, shit goes boom too. Most drivers don't have the necessary knowledge to weild [sic] this kind of power either. From time to time drivers lose limbs and they are more likely to do so by driving than by playing with neutron guns. So quit your whining.

    --
    -- SIGFPE
  33. Some more info by Quantum+Fizz · · Score: 4, Informative
    Neutrons are interesting for a few more reasons.

    Firstly, they're neutral, so the charge of electrons or lattice ions they scatter off of won't give any extra Coulomb repulsion, as it would if they used proton or electron beams for scattering.

    Additionally, they're massive, so the interaction will be different than X-Ray scattering.

    But one of the most important characteristics is that neutrons have a spin of 1/2, and this spin looks like a small magnetic moment. So the neutrons can give useful information about magnetic interactions in the sample. Many people are studying interesting ferromagntic or anti-ferromagnetic interactions of whole new classes of materials with neutron scattering. This is also important for spintronics, where the neutrons will scatter differently off of a particle if that particle is spin-up vs spin-down.

    The neutrons interact nicely with the lattice in a crystal, and with the energies involved they are a great tool for looking directly at phonon modes of the sample.

  34. Go and tell your master... by angrytuna · · Score: 1

    King Arthur: What?
    Sir Galahad: He said they've already got one!
    King Arthur: Are you sure he's got one?
    French Soldier: Oh yes, it's very nice!

    --

    It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork.

  35. For future readers by Lightning+Hopkins · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is kind of a crappy Slashdot item, as it links to a Yahoo-hosted news article that will be gone in a month. Yahoo collects and temporarily hosts news items. Their links are dead usually after about a month, in my experience. Future readers won't be able to use the link given in the OP. Wayback doesn't archive Yahoo-hosted articles either, so far as I know. Users can get the same Associated Press article here or here.

    I find it annoying when I read a Slashdot item from yesteryear and the links are dead. When you link to Yahoo, you're ensuring that you're giving a link that'll be worthless in the not-too-distant future.

    Just take a second to search for the name of the article in Google News or something to get a more permanent link. It's not hard.

    --
    Eh?
  36. Can you say Resonance Cascade?! by beetlefeet · · Score: 1

    Someone kinda stole my joke above.. but I made it anyway! Muahaha.