Slashdot Mirror


LHC Shut Down By Transformer Malfunction

Ortega-Starfire writes "A 30-ton transformer in the Large Hadron Collider malfunctioned, requiring complete replacement on the day the LHC came online. No one at CERN reported any problems, and they only released this data once the Associated Press sent people to investigate rumors of problems. I guess it's hard to just sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the rug."

293 comments

  1. Transformers... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Funny

    More than meets the eye! I guess the Decepticons don't want us to advance our knowledge!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Transformers... by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're going to use the LHC to make energy cubes.

      But of course, you already knew that.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Transformers... by antek9 · · Score: 1

      No, because in undivided Soviet Switzerland, transformers are zeroed by probability. Other sources confirm that the 30-ton device was completely lost, but at least it successfully filled and collapsed the 'really tiny' black hole that appeared within the LHC 'for no apparent reason', officials said.

      --
      A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
      Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
    3. Re:Transformers... by inode_buddha · · Score: 5, Funny

      In deference to relativity, perhaps they are exploring another aspect of this?

      --
      C|N>K
    4. Re:Transformers... by JungleBoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're going to use the LHC to make energon cubes.

      There, fixed that for you. Also, turn in your geen badge.

      --
      "You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
      -Calvin
    5. Re:Transformers... by RockoTDF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There, fixed that for you. Also, turn in your geek badge.

      Fixed.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    6. Re:Transformers... by CSMatt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seems more like an exploration of this.

    7. Re:Transformers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      There, fixed that for you. Also, turn in your geek badge.

      There, fixed that for you. Also, turn in your English homework.

    8. Re:Transformers... by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, that very well may be the first time I've seen on Slashdot, where "there, fixed that for you," actually fixed an actual issue. Bravo, sir.

    9. Re:Transformers... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Bwahahaha that made my day, thanks! I actually read the entire thing and wondered how Bob's Slack Fist of Reason would react to that.

      --
      C|N>K
    10. Re:Transformers... by davidphogan74 · · Score: 1

      And he decreases the number of clocks by exactly one...

    11. Re:Transformers... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 4, Funny

      There, fixed that for you. Also, turn in your geek badge.

      Transformed.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    12. Re:Transformers... by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

      Trans-formers
      More than meets the eye
      Trans-formers
      Robots in the sky

      Ok, fess up. How many others heard "Robots in disguise" as "Robots in the sky" like I did? Show of hands.

      No, not you guys who made up your own playground lyrics like "Robots with KY" or "Robots pissing high", you put your hands down. I want just the misheard-as-robots-in-the-sky people. Anyone? Don't be shy, I've confessed. Anyone at all?

      Gawd I'm such a geek.

    13. Re:Transformers... by OutOfMyTree · · Score: 1

      It does seem a bit odd... by now, we have transformer technology pretty well cracked. They work well in hostile environments with very little maintenance, what the heck was going on at CERN?

    14. Re:Transformers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, that site reminds me of my father in law before his "diagnosis"

    15. Re:Transformers... by wick3t · · Score: 1

      This has got me me thinking there's something more sinister going on. The objective is not to make energon cubes but to transport energon cubes. The LHC is really a Space Bridge. It even bares a striking resemblance to it!

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

      UPDATE: It's back up.

    17. Re:Transformers... by cooldemo · · Score: 1

      In deference to relativity, perhaps they are exploring another aspect of this?

      Still, the best note on that site is the "Without Financial Support, I May Shut Down. ".

    18. Re:Transformers... by giantweevil · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the timecube theory sound EXACTLY like time zones? It's basically saying "when it's 10AM in New York, it's dawn in California."

      --
      Disregard the above.
  2. A Transformer? by hemp · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet it was Omegatron!

    --
    Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
    1. Re:A Transformer? by fyoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it was Gary Seven saving our butts once more.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    2. Re:A Transformer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll blame it on Sarah & John Conor...

    3. Re:A Transformer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is Omegatron? I thought his name was Omega Supreme

    4. Re:A Transformer? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I bet it was Omegatron!

      Unlikely. That ride was removed from Worlds of Fun years ago. Unless it walked off... hmmm...

      --

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

    5. Re:A Transformer? by phtpht · · Score: 1

      Activate Omega 13!

    6. Re:A Transformer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The door is over that way. My apologies but we don't like your kind here.

    7. Re:A Transformer? by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      Nope, it definitely says it was Malfunction, though I've never heard of that particular bot.

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    8. Re:A Transformer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gotta give me a minute to put it in a box for you

  3. Obligatory: by Fluffeh · · Score: 0, Redundant

    No, it's a trap!

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  4. Dead 30 ton transformer? by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I TOLD YOU! Why wouldn't anyone listen? See what happens when the LHC opened a warp hole to Cybertron? Now they'll come back for vengeance, and they won't care if they're autobot or decepticon, for this dispicable act. They'll know that I stood against the LHC, and they'll ensure that I have a place in rounding up you for work in their salt mines. I for one welcome our robotic overlords.

    1. Re:Dead 30 ton transformer? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it's any help, I swept Optimus Prime under a rug in three hours. No biggie.

    2. Re:Dead 30 ton transformer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Really. What is the worst thing that could happen when a large oil cooled transformer fails?

  5. GORDON! by Kingrames · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gordon, what have you done?!?!?!

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    1. Re:GORDON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me, or does the guy in the in the 2nd link look photoshopped?

    2. Re:GORDON! by caladine · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're waiting for you, in the test chamber.

    3. Re:GORDON! by floatingrunner · · Score: 0

      strangely enough, i DID hear that they were considering of changing the name to either Black Mesa or Halo...

    4. Re:GORDON! by JustKidding · · Score: 1

      That guy holding the torque wrench looks he's never seen one of those things before. Aside from the fact that a picture of a guy in a suit tightening the bolts on a seemingly important flange is just stupid, he's holding it wrong. A torque wrench is only used to tighten a bolt, not loosen it, so he should be rotating it clockwise.

      Pictures with people pretending to do something, especially if they don't have a clue about how to do it, are just plain stupid.

    5. Re:GORDON! by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      Gordon, what have you done?!?!?!

      Mr. Shumway tried to cook a cat in it.

  6. Why the tone in the summary? by hairykrishna · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The summary reads like it's some kind of attempted cover up. Maybe it's because they thought that an equipment failure wasn't exactly news? The little accelerator I use has been down for a week because of a borked turbo pump. Should I phone Reuters?

    It's a big, complicated machine - shit breaks. It gets fixed. I wouldn't worry about it unless you're waiting for beam time.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    1. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Funny

      I appreciate the fact that they have set up some live web cams so you can see what's going on at the facility.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Um, wow. Where do I start?

      A) This isn't just some ordinary big, complicated machine. That should be obvious. For example, there was a huge hurrah when it launched.

      B) It has been down longer than it was up. By a factor of what, 3? In fact, it took them longer to draft a press release than the thing was up. It probably took longer to coordinate the big fanfare mentioned above than it was up. This is noteworthy.

      C) Isn't this the controversial machine that may or may not destroy the planet itself? Doesn't that kind of debate set the stage for transparency? I think the assumption is, 'if we have nothing to fear, what do you have to hide'? It seems reasonable to me.

      D) THOUSANDS have contributed BILLIONS from across the globe. The damn thing better be worth it, and when it breaks it damn well better be fixed pronto. Otherwise, 'what a colossal waste', right?

      In short, I don't really think this has much in common with your 'little accelerator' at all.

    3. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've clearly never participated in any big launch of a technology. Heck, if software project first demos went as well as the LHC's, developers would be ecstasic.

    4. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      That's just GOLD!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      In short, I don't really think this has much in common with your 'little accelerator' at all.

      ... actually, if you have 'little' problems with a 'little' accelerator, why would you expect 'little' to 'none' problems with a BIG accelerator?

      Besides, if it was a big deal, they would have made it a big deal. As it stands, it is only being fixed because it could become a PR headache - not because it is a big deal.

    6. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're not trying to cover up a broken transformer - they're trying to cover up the tiny black hole that formed in the transformers, and is growing exponentially.

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
    7. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by jadedoto · · Score: 1

      Golly that amazing!

    8. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by feyhunde · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
    9. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      a) Yes, it is a big complicated machine, things will break, this device barely impacted the overall schedule at all. People have been working on this project for about 2 decades. A week or two isn't in the least bit significant.

      b) If this had happened say, 5 years from now, this point would be as irrelevant as it is now. And as noteworthy.

      c) Cosmic rays interact in our atmosphere in the PeV range (Peta Electron Volt), the LHC smashes particles together in the 14 TeV (Tera Electron Volt). Sooo.... it operates at energy levels an order of magnitude less than what currently happens on Earth... I don't know about you, but I feel pretty safe about the whole thing.

      d) They did fix it pronto, and it does work. Little things break, I know where I work (a not so little accelerator) I didn't hear a PEEP about this incident and we have been directly and closely involved in the LHC.

      In short, I agree with hairykrishna, this isn't really news. Just another instance of the media trying to make a big deal out of something small.

    10. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by coldkryten · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't this the controversial machine that may or may not destroy the planet itself?

      Goddammit NO. It's the machine that will not destroy the planet, but some controversial people have done a damn good job of spreading rumors that it will. The point of the LHC is to re-create events that occur everywhere in the universe all the time, including here on earth. It's just not practical to put 50' diameter detectors hanging in the upper atmosphere and wait for a particle collision to happen inside of one.

    11. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      A & B) thats why they are just testing it now, this isnt even going to affect the schedule they're on much.
      C) No there are some nut-jobs but, meh ( i mean somebodies got to vote for palin)
      D) Actually it was mainly paid for by a few governments. if your referring to the work scientists have put in, then Im sure they would rather this stuff came out in the testing & calibration than getting a bad dataset at the end

      I very much doubt his little accelerator is just for decoration, not all research is done at CERN but given that you spend much more time analysis the data than generating it his point was that a couple of weeks downtime doesn't mean much to high energy physicists.

      *I'm sure theres a vista joke in that last paragraph somewhere, if only i could smash it into another paragraph and see what came out

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    12. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by peezawaki · · Score: 1

      So I'm not a scientist -journalist way- I want to see that stuff won't break our planet, but; are that cosmic rays measures right? It was just an "woow" cypher? Okay, we're not slashed with solar rays but are they always mantaining a PeV energy? Won't we broke the ying yang, the equilibrium creating one more higgs boson? Yay, scientists have facts, but the rest of people will have questions. Always. Make a new religion, for pasatafari's sake! It's another stage. First scientists played with its life (Galileo, Curie, Tesla...). Now they play with whole universe. That's a big deal! Just a reflexion from a drunk litteracy spaniard. greetz!

    13. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1
      The summary also infers that the transformer somehow directly cools the LHC. While you can create a cooling via the Peltier effect, from what I have read they use super-fluid Helium in some sort of standard refrigeration cycle. I'm sure that for the type of cooling they need, they just didn't have the power via other means to run their reefers at full capacity.

      I agree, this is hardly news.

    14. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was funny 8 days ago when the date matched ;)
      old and kinda lame now

    15. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the problem is that everyone who actually understands this big complicated machine also understands they break, especially when first built.

      This are one of a kind structures. Everyone who matters in the project or in the community that really knows how it works and what it does has probably dealt with previous ones ... which breaking or needing major changes early on isn't a shocker for them.

      To the guys who are working on it, it was probably just a question of what broke, not if it broke. We're not talking about creating a piston engine, which we've been doing for a hundred years, we're talking about new technology custom built for the project for the most part. The transformer probably wasn't, but they break too. I have a coworker whos husband worked for a large power company, helping to install substations, it wasn't suprising to him that it broke, appearently for large scale transformers its still hit or miss when they first start being used.

      If no one involved in the project is really 'shocked' that it broke, maybe it the thought that it should be a media frenzy never crossed their minds?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    16. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The summary authors don't seem to understand. Nobody at CERN reported the malfunction? I assume they mean "reported to the press" -- otherwise, how did they fix a 30-ton transistor without telling anyone.

      Anyway, things malfunction and break on particle accelerators constantly. They're devilishly difficult to maintain properly. (They operate in extreme fail-safe modes, so failures harmless but common.)

    17. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Just another instance of the media trying to make a big deal out of something small.

      and dim-witted people can't help but keep eating it up over and over...

      Science isn't reality tv

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    18. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by shma · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... trying to make a big deal out of something small.

      I was just thinking that this is the most concise way of describing a particle physicist's job.

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    19. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by tenco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yay, scientists have facts, but the rest of people will have questions.

      Actually it's the other way round.

    20. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, most are. When I was working at the (then SERC) Daresbury Nuclear Structure Facility, we were basically sitting under a really big tank of SF6 (Sulpher Hexafluoride) which is not stuff you want to be breathing. It's not poisonous. It doesn't do much other than sit there and be really really inert, but that makes it a superb gas for accelerators. It also makes it hard to detect and really bad for oxygen-breathing lifeforms. But, yes, things would go wrong all the time with that, and it was a child's toy compared to the LHC - in terms of power (Darebury's tandem accelerator was a puny 20 MeV), technology, scale, rarity/availability of skills, innovativeness, etc. Not only did things go wrong, but it routinely arced. If you thought a Van De Graaf generator or a Tesla Coil was impressive, you've never seen an accelerator when the insulating gas fails. However, another thing to consider is the European attitude to emergencies. I got to see the operators of the facility during an SF6 leak. Those guys weren't casual by any means but they kept their cool better than most refrigerators. Working their way through the emergency drills methodically and and calmly. And that was a potentially life-threatening emergency. A mere transformer?! Pah. Bet the only ones who even flinched were the accountants. The main scientists weren't expecting to run experiments for a while yet, as it wasn't even considered as burned-in. If the news channels thought this was significant, they've clearly never visited a laboratory after high-school and skipped classes there.

      --
      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)
    21. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by tenco · · Score: 2, Informative
    22. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      Quick! Grab a broom and sweep that black hole under the rug. DAMMIT! IT'S NOT WORKING!

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    23. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by natx808 · · Score: 1

      in short your just a anonymous coward lhc fanboi

    24. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by atraintocry · · Score: 3, Funny

      The LHC? Destroy the planet? Turn in your geek card. We may or may not let you go on digg, following a probationary period where you may only post comments on youtube.

    25. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      I've got facts I know the truth
      You're all corrupt you're all depraved
      A few devices around the place
      I'll blow you all away


      "God does not play dice with the world"
      But things are'nt right in the outside world
      But still there's vice in the world
      I'll put things right

      --
      Squirrel!
    26. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      Reefer madness !

      --
      Squirrel!
    27. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by JustKidding · · Score: 1

      I don't know a whole lot about huge transformers, but I'd think the experts in that field have them perfected by now. This thing breaking could just be bad luck, like some undetected manufacturing error, or it could mean someone goofed up some calculations.

    28. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by cornjones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's just not practical to put 50' diameter detectors hanging in the upper atmosphere and wait for a particle collision to happen inside of one.

      heh, b/c building a 27km underground tunnel is generally considered "practical".

      Note that I am in very much favor of these highly experimental projects but I don't really think of them as practical.

    29. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It swallowed the broom! Quick, we need more brooms! Throw in some Avril Lavigne CD's, maybe that will scare it away!

    30. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful observation of our European minds.

      Sorry, but Anna, Britney and failed transformers are pretty much non-news here. Well, at least while the transformers aren't from Cybertron.

    31. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You call 30 tonnes "something small"?! Wow, I'm gonna tell mom to get of her diet right now.

    32. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Experimental particle physics never brought us CAT scans, PET scans, MRIs, chemo, radio-isotope dating, nuclear power, and it certainly has not brought us electricity or advanced transister production.

      There is nothing left to discover or utilize. Further research is not practical.

    33. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cosmic rays interact in our atmosphere in the PeV range (Peta Electron Volt), the LHC smashes particles together in the 14 TeV (Tera Electron Volt). Sooo.... it operates at energy levels an order of magnitude less than what currently happens on Earth...

      This was a perfect opportunity to use the phrase 'order of magnitude' precisely (rather than simply to mean 'a lot'), and you missed it. The LHC reaches energies around 10 TeV = 10^13 eV, and cosmic rays exceed 1 PeV = 10^15 eV. 15 - 13 = *two* orders of magnitude.

      (Actually, cosmic rays have been detected up to about 10^20 eV, so it should be 7 orders of magnitude.)

    34. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by EdgeyEdgey · · Score: 1

      radio-isotope dating

      Much better than online dating!

      I'll get my coat.

      --
      [Intentionally left blank]
    35. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) This isn't just some ordinary big, complicated machine. That should be obvious. For example, there was a huge hurrah when it launched.

      Sure. Nevertheless, problems occur at accelerators all the time. Maybe it's a bit of a new situation for physicists that the general media is interested whether this particular accelerator is online or has technical problems.

      But it was clear right from the start that it will take weeks until they get first collissions, that there will be set backs and problems. It will probably take the experiments a year or longer to understand the data from their detectors. I'm sure there never was the intention to make a press release for every problem on the way to first results.

      B) It has been down longer than it was up. By a factor of what, 3?

      Big deal. I mean, they just started last week. And especially at the beginning you expect problems with such a complicated machine. There is a reason why first collisions are only expected after a while of testing (and fixing problems).

      C) Isn't this the controversial machine that may or may not destroy the planet itself? Doesn't that kind of debate set the stage for transparency?

      The status of the machine is available online for everybody. Cryo status is here:
      http://hcc.web.cern.ch/hcc/cryo_main/cryo_maintain.php

      It does not get much more transparent than that. I guess that CERN just is not used to make a press release for every problem.

      D) THOUSANDS have contributed BILLIONS from across the globe. The damn thing better be worth it, and when it breaks it damn well better be fixed pronto. Otherwise, 'what a colossal waste', right?

      Yes, but nobody who contributed expected that you flip a switch and everything just works. These people who contributed are experts and know that there is quite some work ahead.

      BTW, in the US there is the Relativistic Heavy Ion collider (RHIC).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RHIC

      It cost more than 600 Million Dollars to build and just runs a few months (I think 2-3) a year (among other things due to energy constraints on Long Island in the summer). In 2006 it almost did not run at all, due to budget cuts. They did take data that year eventually because a private company chipped in 13 Million Dollars.

    36. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're not trying to cover up a broken transformer - they're trying to cover up the tiny black hole that formed in the transformers, and is growing exponentially.

      Not to worry, once this gets too big to contain, I can guarantee that no information about the disaster will ever get out.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    37. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      how did they fix a 30-ton transistor without telling anyone.

      Maybe because Press are Not Privileged, or No Press Needed ?
      Anyway, the effects have been amplified.

    38. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      While you make an excellent point, it's really a strawman to mine. Notice the 'or may not' stanza there? The facts of the matter are irrelevant to the controversy itself, illustrating which was the point of the statement. Yes?

      That being said, doesn't it make at least a tiny bit of sense that they'd be careful about managing further PR issues to prevent additional rumor mongering?

      They'd be insane not to.

      Unless there is a reason, that is.

      Even accepting that the controversy is baseless, there IS STILL the matter of why it didn't impact their behavior going forward.

    39. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Or, and I really am just stating the argument because I find it interesting, it could be that the process used breaks transformers. They COULD be pushing the device beyond its limits because the device they actually need doesn't yet exist.

      That would be a decent reason to be less than forward about its failure...

      I'm really only putting this out there. Slashdotters can all please put away the cross and nails, thanks.

    40. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That's true -- the accelerator in Trieste apparently emits harmful radiation to the surrounding countryside.

      Relative to the possible dangers, they're fairly safe. :-)

      At CHESS we had a fun "no ladders" rule, since the experimental areas were separated from the beamline by a 10' concrete wall and no ceiling. Climbing a ladder would get you a direct view of the beamline and an unhealthy shot of X-rays.

    41. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      The LHC? Destroy the planet? Turn in your geek card.

      Yeah... everyone knows it's going to create a new Big Bang and destroy the entire universe; stop getting hung up on one insignificant planet.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    42. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ugh, that was a singularly bad pun.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    43. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      >> It's just not practical to put 50' diameter detectors hanging in the upper atmosphere and wait for a particle collision to happen inside of one.

      Actually, they spent a LOT of money putting 50' diameter detectors (actually, some a LOT bigger than that) deep underground, with all sorts of expensive detectors ... and then sat around for years waiting for things to happen.

      http://www.ct.infn.it/cris2006/abstract/enqvist.html

      I always felt sorry for the grad students on those projects, I really did.

    44. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by CelticWhisper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, duh. You'd have to be infinitely dense to not see that.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    45. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      However, another thing to consider is the European attitude to emergencies. I got to see the operators of the facility during an SF6 leak. Those guys weren't casual by any means but they kept their cool better than most refrigerators. Working their way through the emergency drills methodically and and calmly. And that was a potentially life-threatening emergency.

      Just wanted to point out that's not solely a European only attitude. That's a "first responder" attitude. I've had the opportunity to see American cops, firemen, and sailors* in action on several occasions. In each case, they all calmly followed their training, dealt with the situation at hand, then went on about their business.

      Don't confuse first responders with FUD merchants. Or have you not read the Globe or Daily Mail lately? :)

      *(Sailors deal with emergencies a fair amount because a ship is inherently a dangerous place. Murphy gleefully makes sure that emergencies have a way of popping up when the ship is literally thousands of miles from the nearest help.

      However, it doesn't help when a CO pushes his ship too hard to score brownie points with a commodore. In the year I was on board a destroyer, we dealt with an engine dropping offline while underway and two fires. The two fires both occurred while we were in the yards for overhaul. One was a welding accident. A fire started on the far side of a bulkhead from an arc welder. I never heard what the cause of the other one was.)

    46. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little things break

      A 30-ton transformer isn't "little". Insignificant, trivial, maybe, but not little.

    47. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Experimental particle physics never brought us CAT scans, PET scans, MRIs, chemo, radio-isotope dating, nuclear power, and it certainly has not brought us electricity or advanced transister production.

      I'm guessing you were attempting to be sarcastic but got it wrong. Experimental particle physics did bring us PET but it did not bring us the rest. Fundamental physics in general did (mainly quantum and nuclear) but not particle physics. This is because quantum and nuclear physics are a lot older than particle physics and it usually takes several decades before discoveries this fundamental trickle down into applications. One you forgot though is that Experimental particle physics did give us the web.

    48. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP was right. You don't need a circular collider to count as "particle physics". How do you think we found out the nuclear constituents of atoms? Did you forget Rutherford's experiment? Or the oil drop experiment to measure the strength of an individual electron? It's ridiculous to think that early experiments with the innards of atoms didn't bring us the above technologies.

    49. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by teko_teko · · Score: 1

      Yay, scientists have facts, but the rest of people will have questions.

      Actually it's the other way round.

      That's true.

    50. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't need to build the underground tunnel. It was already there.

    51. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this the controversial machine that may or may not destroy the planet itself?

      Goddammit NO. It's the machine that will not destroy the planet, but some controversial people have done a damn good job of spreading rumors that it will. The point of the LHC is to re-create events that occur everywhere in the universe all the time, including here on earth. It's just not practical to put 50' diameter detectors hanging in the upper atmosphere and wait for a particle collision to happen inside of one.

      this WILL destroy the planet and if it doesn't then contact me after the collision experiments are over and I will buy pizza for everyone on this discussion.

    52. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 1

      Informative is the new funny?

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
    53. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the team charged with repairing this beast are also going to have to figure out what caused the problem in the first place-- if the problem is due to a flaw in design, the solution is a lot trickier...

      it could take more time and money than people suspect.

      and unfortunately your opinion of what news is and is not is, well, .. your opinion, man.

    54. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by jtankers · · Score: 1

      That argument is a bit deceptive. The LHC will create conditions not created by nature on Earth. In the LHC protons (or lead on lead nucleon and possibly protons to anti-protons in the future?) collide head on, like a head on car crash, some resulting particles will travel too slowly to escape Earth's gravity. When a cosmic ray strikes Earth's atmosphere (moving hitting stationary) results all have extremely high speed. If any stable neutral micro black holes were created by Nature they would all travel through Earth and into space. CERN's LHC Safety Assessment Group acknowledged this in a 16 March 2008 email before they modified their theories a bit.[1] "While it is true that a BH produced by cosmic rays would not be stopped by the Earth, there are many other "things" in the universe that could trap such CR-produced BH's, thus leading to visible consequences."[1] (that arguments is also refuted) [1] http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=10 LHC Safety Assessment Group, 16 Mar 2008

    55. Re:Why the tone in the summary? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you are completely wrong. I'm guessing you don't know too much about the different fields of physics. There is atomic physics (study of atoms), nuclear physics (study of the atomic nucleus) and particle physics (study of the fundamental particles which make up everything).

      Rutherford's experiment gave birth to nuclear physics. MRI, or to give it its proper name: nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is nuclear physics, as are radio-isotopes and nuclear power. Chemo, as the name suggests, has nothing whatsoever to do with physics (unless you count chemistry and biology as applied specializations of physics). CAT scans use X-rays which are atomic physics. Even calling PET scans particle physics is a little generous since really it is nuclear physics (isotope decay) and only the positron annihilation can really be considered particle physics.

  7. Not the end of the world... by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yet. Now I have another chance to try all of those world ending pickup lines! Actually, I really should get religious. If I were religious, I could celebrate an end-of-the-world day every day!

    Can one of you physicists tell me how 4.5 Kelvin is different from 2 Kelvin, operationally?

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Not the end of the world... by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can one of you physicists tell me how 4.5 Kelvin is different from 2 Kelvin, operationally?

      At 2 K, adding a given amount of energy makes the entropy of the system go up 2.25 times as much as it would at 4.5 K. :)

    2. Re:Not the end of the world... by OneIfByLan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lipstick.

    3. Re:Not the end of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can one of you physicists tell me how 4.5 Kelvin is different from 2 Kelvin, operationally?

      It's hotter.

    4. Re:Not the end of the world... by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, I haven't the faintest idea how the damn thing is cooled, but helium becomes superfliud at 2.17K (iirc). It effectively loses all of its viscosity and becomes far more thermally conductive. At 2K its a superfluid, at 4.5K its not. Cool stuff, but I don't know if it matters, I don't know squat about the LHC. (see what you get for asking a question on /.?)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Not the end of the world... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Can one of you physicists tell me how 4.5 Kelvin is different from 2 Kelvin, operationally?

      IANAP, but I'm sure that it makes a really big difference at a really small level.

      Hope that clears things up for you.

    6. Re:Not the end of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I modded you up due to the proper use of the subjunctive case. Cheers.

    7. Re:Not the end of the world... by MagicM · · Score: 1

      You posted that in the wrong thread. Let me help you.

      Just in case anyone else misread the headline, there's a vas deferens between the Large Hadron Collider and the Large Hardon Collider.

      Lipstick.

    8. Re:Not the end of the world... by Laguerre · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can one of you physicists tell me how 4.5 Kelvin is different from 2 Kelvin, operationally?

      The magnets they use to shape and steer the beam require about 12,000 amps, so they use superconductors. Between 2K and 4.5K, the superconductor undergoes a phase change and becomes non-superconducting, and the resistance goes from zero to not zero all of a sudden. The 12,000 amps suddenly produces an incredible amount of heat (P=I^2R) which drastically increases the pressure from the liquid He. That much pressure means the He needs to escape (violently), causing all sorts of trouble. It's called a 'quench.'

    9. Re:Not the end of the world... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Sure, at the field strength they are trying to push the NbTi magnets they lose superconductivity around 4.2K reference. That's a bad thing considering the amount of energy in the magnets!

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re:Not the end of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The He gas can usually be made to escape pretty quickly, but a more serious problem to the superconductor is the thermal stress when it suddenly heats up. Usually a quench means the end of you superconductor.

    11. Re:Not the end of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The magnets are superconducting at 4.5K.

    12. Re:Not the end of the world... by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Informative

      The maximum magnetic field you can put on a superconductor depends on temperature. You can operate a superconducting magnet with a stronger magnetic field at 2 Kelven instead of 4.5 kelvin. Also, below 2.17 degrees kelvin, helium becomes super-fluid and has better heat conductivity - this is important in some applications. For alternating fields (like microwaves) superconductors are not perfectly superconducting, they have a bit if residual resistance. This resistance decreases as the temperature goes down.

    13. Re:Not the end of the world... by tenco · · Score: 1

      Can one of you physicists tell me how 4.5 Kelvin is different from 2 Kelvin, operationally?

      More of it moves faster but still not at all.

    14. Re:Not the end of the world... by edsousa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its not called 'quench'. Its called holy shit.

    15. Re:Not the end of the world... by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      And it is not only the power that is pumped in from the outside. As parts of the magnet becomes non-superconducting the magnetic field changes, and a changing magnetic field induces electrical currents(see eddy currents). So even if only a small part of the magnet becomes non-superconducting it will create a "cascade" event, if you will. All the energy locked up in the field is released as heat and torque(kinetic energy).
      The magnet failure back in 2007 (http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/20070329_page01.html) was caused by an inadequate fixing of the magnet. When it was purposefully subjected to a quench it ripped its support structure apart.

    16. Re:Not the end of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what happens when the steering magnets fail? The death ray inside the machine escapes! OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

  8. Hey! What's that.... by actionbastard · · Score: 1

    BZZZZZT! BAM! Crackle...
    Merd!

    --
    Sig this!
  9. sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the rug? by jcnnghm · · Score: 5, Funny

    It would be hard to sweep a 30-ton transformer under a rug, unless there is a black hole under said rug.

    --
    You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
  10. One transformer down... by mikiN · · Score: 5, Funny

    several to go.

    Well ALICE, let's see how deep the budget hole goes...

    --
    The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    1. Re:One transformer down... by eclectro · · Score: 1

      It must be pretty deep. Maybe when she climbs down there, she will find the 10,000 ton cracked magnet stored there.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  11. Obligatory blackhole joke... by xaoslaad · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It wasn't swept under the rug, it was sucked into the blackhole!

  12. Oh hey by kjzk · · Score: 0, Redundant

    A black hole ate it.

  13. Of course. by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1

    Everybody knows that GoBots are better than Transformers.

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    1. Re:Of course. by db32 · · Score: 1

      Pft. Those are the K-mart Transformers.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    2. Re:Of course. by tyrione · · Score: 1

      I'll take ROBOTECH and get to fly while kicking ass. But nothing touches the original: http://www.starblazers.com/home.php

  14. Reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just in case anyone else misread the headline, there's a vas deferens between the Large Hadron Collider and the Large Hardon Collider.

    1. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a second - that's actually funny.

    2. Re:Reminder by evanbd · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, this is slashdot. The least you could do is provide a link.

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

      I've been misreading it for months... Damn scientists...

    4. Re:Reminder by swilde23 · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
    5. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      inconceivable!

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

      Maybe they were too busy thinking about the Big Bang and what might be created from it.

  15. I have a degree in electrical engineering... by RobinH · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and I didn't realize the standard measurement for transformers had been changed to tons. Must be a European measurement?

    I think kVA or MVA would be a better statistic.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by tukkayoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a fairly standard measurement for mass, though. Transformers have mass, so it's perfectly applicable, especially when you are trying to underscore the massiveness of the piece of equipment in question, rather than its functional capability. If the person writing the article/summary wanted to underscore the cost of the unit, he might have measured it in US dollars. That's what journalists do: describe things in terms their readers might understand or care about. And most of their readers aren't pedantic electrical engineers.

    2. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by Zoomzabba · · Score: 0

      I work on transformers and we have what is know as a top stack transformer sitting outside our shop. It is 5000 KVA and weighs 11 tons (American Standard). this includes the core, oil tank and fittings. the tank is about the size of 5 telephone booths and the core is about the size of 2 telephone booths. the oil is a dielectric mineral oil based fluid that weighs slightley less than water. Quality transformers are made out of copper wire. half the volume of the core is silicon grain steel and the other half is copper. copper is 13.7 time heavier than iron. uaomeone want to do the rough math?. we had a palette with copper coils on it what weighed over 9000 lbs. it's total volume was only that of a lazy boy recliner. so, who else loves copper?

    3. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the tank is about the size of 5 telephone booths and the core is about the size of 2 telephone booths.

      African telephone booths or European telephone booths?

    4. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Must be a European measurement?

      Exactly! Mainland Europe uses stupid metric system, where everything is a power of 10. The unit would therefore be a tonne.

    5. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...and I didn't realize the standard measurement for transformers had been changed to tons. Must be a European measurement?

      I think kVA or MVA would be a better statistic.

      when it stops working thats the only measurement useful

    6. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and I didn't realize the standard measurement for transformers had been changed to tons. Must be a European measurement?

      I think kVA or MVA would be a better statistic.

      Its funny cause a 30T transformer isn't that big in the scale of transformers. If it was a big 3000 MVA Transformer then i would be thinking ok someone buggered up the transformer protection!

    7. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      How many Routemaster Buses would it be equivalent to ?

      --
      Squirrel!
    8. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      Scientists throughout the world use S.I. units.

      --
      Squirrel!
    9. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not funny. It takes some sort of education and brains to understand what a 1MVA transformer is, and some specific knowledge to even know how big one of those are.

      Which is, of curse, the sort of thing that is serious lacking on the people who are afraid of the LHC.

    10. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by Aumaden · · Score: 1

      They're jes a usin' that new fangled metric thingy. Never did make no damn sense.

    11. Re:I have a degree in electrical engineering... by Zoomzabba · · Score: 0

      apparently too tired from tearing the damn things apart. i intended ~13.7%. a degree is not necessary. sleep is.

  16. The System Works by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Informative

    They knew this was a hazard going in (temp rising), they talked about the possibility before the first trials and they successfully designed systems to shutdown before causing damage. This is just part of the sea trials of the particle pirate's new ship.

  17. I don't really think CERN owe the media any favors by sleeponthemic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What with, you know, most of the world's population thinking that day was the critical "black-hole" day.

    Whilst I'm sure that is beneficial for CERN in the context that most people will be completely unaware on the day that full speed collisions are truly started, I do not for one moment think the media had that intention. A publicised failure would only serve to increase people's prejudice.

    --
    I record my sleeptalking
  18. Is the speed of light slower near Lyons by bornwaysouth · · Score: 5, Funny
    The transformer failure is just one of those things. But, according to the article..

    After it was started up Sept. 10, scientists circled a beam of protons in a clockwise direction at the speed of light. They shut that down, then turned on a counterclockwise beam.

    Now, accelerating a proton to the speed of light seems to me impossible, given that they are in a vacuum. But if they can do that, then the other interpretation is possible. It was the scientists who were circling at the speed of light, round say, a little beaker of protons. I'd like to commend whoever shut them down, then anti-beamed them to restore reality.

    1. Re:Is the speed of light slower near Lyons by infonography · · Score: 1

      .....

      Now, accelerating a proton to the speed of light seems to me impossible, given that they are in a vacuum. But if they can do that, then the other interpretation is possible. It was the scientists who were circling at the speed of light, round say, a little beaker of protons. I'd like to commend whoever shut them down, then anti-beamed them to restore reality.

      I get the same result at full light speed by placing light bulbs at either end of a system of tubes.

      Sadly reality isn't what it used to be.

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    2. Re:Is the speed of light slower near Lyons by glitch23 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Now, accelerating a proton to the speed of light seems to me impossible, given that they are in a vacuum.

      I'm not a physicist but I do read some of the layman cosmology and theoretical physics books when I can so maybe I'm still missing something but exactly why does that seem impossible? Having a vacuum actually makes it easier due to no wind resistance if we were talking about an object big enough for wind resistance to matter. They are using magnets to accelerate the particles so I'm not getting why you are questioning the possibility of what they did. Unfortunately no one else questioned you yet for me to share in your answer with them so I had to be the first to ask.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    3. Re:Is the speed of light slower near Lyons by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Only things with zero rest mass can reach the speed of light.
      Protons have a rest mass (1.67261 x 10-24 grams ) which increases as velocity increases by the equation

      m / sqrt(1 -(v^2/c^2))

      From the equation you can see that as velocity increases towards c , the mass increases asymptotically.
      If you use the same constant force to accelerate with, the rate of acceleration approaches zero as you approach c.

      So if you're using particles with mass, you can never quite get to the speed of light. No doubt the LHC can accelerate them to pretty close to c though.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    4. Re:Is the speed of light slower near Lyons by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It is impossible. They can accelerate to quite close to the speed of light, though. Perhaps the article authors were inconveniently rounding. Not very helpful, considering that most particle accelerators produce particles traveling faster than .99c, and there's a vast difference between .99c and c.

      If only they'd use the proper units for near-speed-of-light travel.

    5. Re:Is the speed of light slower near Lyons by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      So if you're using particles with mass, you can never quite get to the speed of light. No doubt the LHC can accelerate them to pretty close to c though.

      I guess we have idiots for moderators tonight. For some reason I was modded down for asking a question. True, particles with mass take an infinite amount of energy to get to the speed of light. I didn't read the article but maybe they were just being generic and said "to the speed of light" when it was technically 99.9% of the way there. Mod me down again for no reason.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    6. Re:Is the speed of light slower near Lyons by bornwaysouth · · Score: 1

      I assume by proper units are TeV. At the full design speed of 7 TeV, that's 0.99999991 c. I can understand reporters rounding up, but it does imply that they are technically incompetent. Would they report a near-death experience as the real thing? Let's be kind and speculate that there is an editorial requirement that when atomic physics is being discussed, the word 'terror' (or tera or terra) shall be avoided utterly.

      However, I was more amused by the relativity in this report on relativistic speeds - namely that the scientists were doing the moving.

      Nor has anyone leapt on the 'clockwise' and pointed out the need among all these PhDs for spin doctors. I would like to know if they would be leptons or bosons. The former has a hint of victim of violence about it, and the latter a shiver-me-timbers feel, but then maybe word connotation is leading me astray. My degree was a long time ago. Last time I looked (Wikipedia), I got boggled at the half spin versus full spin distinction. Also, are spin doctors always created with parity preserved. They usually appear on TV in that form. Do opposing spins always cancel? A clockwise spin doctor in Hawaii is probably spinning on much the same axis as a counterclockwise one at CERN. These are important questions that some of the heavy-weight intellectuals such as Oprah need to debate. There are risks to the fabric of our universe here. (Could we eat a TV dinner and to our horror see the spinners furiously agreeing.)

      Any physicists out there willing to speculate. They could even explain why the Higg's boson is called the 'God particle'.

    7. Re:Is the speed of light slower near Lyons by tenco · · Score: 1

      Simple: 0.9 = 1 is a good first approximiation.

    8. Re:Is the speed of light slower near Lyons by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      Sadly you're accelerating photons, not protons. Pretty big difference written in that single letter.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    9. Re:Is the speed of light slower near Lyons by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Not that any reporter would use it (nobody would understand it), but the convenient measure is rapidity, since it's additive.

  19. Not Everyone Has That Degree by Kneo24 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well that's great that you have that degree, but not everyone does. To people who aren't too familiar with that area of study or work, saying "30 tons" paints a much better picture in the reader's minds.

    1. Re:Not Everyone Has That Degree by Caboosian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Promoting ignorance: A cause we can all get behind!

    2. Re:Not Everyone Has That Degree by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      Because obviously every person should spend every spare moment posting on slashdot, and learning everything there is to know about anything.

    3. Re:Not Everyone Has That Degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially if you want to scare the ignorant.

    4. Re:Not Everyone Has That Degree by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      Agreed, telling people it is 30 tons lets them know it isn't as simple as changing a light bulb. Telling them that the transformer is rated for a certain electrical rating doesn't in anyway indicate that it is likely the size of a house.

    5. Re:Not Everyone Has That Degree by repapetilto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so say both? I mean its like 5 extra characters.

    6. Re:Not Everyone Has That Degree by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Let's review here:

      News: to learn new things
      Science: to learn new things

      Gonna have to go with 'yes' on the learning part.

    7. Re:Not Everyone Has That Degree by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      But at what scope? How much should we learn? How much is necessary?

  20. Made in China - not good a thing anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thought - and still do - that Made in China was a good thing. Am I wrong for thinking this?

  21. Not News and News by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you read TFA, you discover that it, but not the provided summary on /., says it was news to nobody in the field that something broke. What's not said here, but said in TFA and far more worthy of mention, is that they replaced it and were running again the next day, well before AP even inquired. Falling prey to the cheap journalistic gimmick of awfulism, are we?

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Not News and News by Rhesusmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But without sensationalism and misrepresentation, what would we have to wring our hands over???

      You want some really interesting discussion, hunt down gorilla199's youtube account. "Satan's stargate"... now THAT's entertainm...I mean information. ROFL...

      --
      You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
    2. Re:Not News and News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is awfulism?

    3. Re:Not News and News by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      What is awfulism?

      Root word, "awful": focusing on the negative and rejecting the positive in order to make something seem bad which isn't necessarily bad. Done in news publication because of the car wreck phenomenon -- people seem to be more interested in bad things. The antonym is "neatism".

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  22. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Funny

    True, but if they're real scientists they'd figure out it's easier to sweep the black hole under the 30-ton transformer. When done, cover up with rug.

  23. morethanmeetstheeye by workbench · · Score: 4, Funny

    I used to come to slashdot for the summaries. Then the community grew and it was the comments that drew me here. But now, I just come for the tags.

    You folks crack me up.

    --
    Carry on.
    1. Re:morethanmeetstheeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have been bestowed with mod points almost continuously for the past month(5 or 6 times anyways). Sadly, since I don't mod down, I have barely used them since the comment quality is nearing that of digg... Someone say something insightful PLEASE!

    2. Re:morethanmeetstheeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Something insightful.

    3. Re:morethanmeetstheeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      something insightful PLEASE

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

      Slashdot: Tags for nerds.

    5. Re:morethanmeetstheeye by log0n · · Score: 0

      PLEASE!

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

      You forgot "please"!

    7. Re:morethanmeetstheeye by MC+Negro · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'll readily admit that Slashdot has gone down hill a bit in the last few years, but it's nowhere near as bad as digg. Seriously. Trolling on digg is like pissing in an ocean of piss, the comments are so bad.

      I mean this as no insult to digg, but the comments on the articles (and most of the articles themselves) are absolute shit. Most of the people commenting are - by their own admission - highschoolers and young college kids. With Slashdot, at least there's some pretense of being accurate and factual in the comments - users who troll or make ill-informed posts are usually modded down or corrected by other users.

      In summary, I submit to you a summary of the current digg RSS feed as evidence of article and community quality on digg -
      • 3 newbie-oriented or otherwise obvious Linux articles
      • 4 pro-Obama articles.
      • 4 anti-McCain/Palin articles.
      • 3 YouTube/Break.com video submissions
      • 5 "list" articles (e.g. - "Top 10 Drinks Real Men Don't Order")
      • 3 image articles (article is just a link to a single image.)
      • 2 articles that Slashdot covered earlier this week.

      The above is but a small sample of the typical digg feed. Oddly, there aren't any "Marijuana will cure everything and it's 'big pharma' keeping it illegal maaaaaan" articles in the feed, but I'm sure those will trickle in as the day goes on.

      Seriously. Digg is fucking retarded. Hang out there for a week and tell me Slashdot has approached that level of stupidity or redundancy.

      No offense to digg or the OP, BTW :-)

      --
      "You and your third dimension."
    8. Re:morethanmeetstheeye by Mex · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Not only that, but sadly, most of the time the same note is found at Digg with the EXACT same paragraph/summary. It's becoming ridiculous.

      Besides that, the fact that EVERYONE now wants to be a comedian and just posts "funny" comments that really don't add anything to the discussion.

      I'm not a grinch nor do I hate comedy, but when everyone does it and it doesn't contribute anything interesting...

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

      I have been bestowed with mod points almost continuously for the past month(5 or 6 times anyways). Sadly, since I don't mod down, I have barely used them since the comment quality is nearing that of digg...

      Someone say something insightful PLEASE!

    10. Re:morethanmeetstheeye by mtmra70 · · Score: 1

      something insightful PLEASE!

    11. Re:morethanmeetstheeye by code+shady · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should start modding down.

      --
      Look out honey cause I'm usin' technology
      Ain't got time to make no apologies
  24. off topic... by bilbo909 · · Score: 0

    hmmm, black hole under rug.... what an ingenious way to solve the world's pollution problem!!! we'd only need a small one really. we could even set them up beside every MacDonald's in the world just to remind the fat slobs where to put their garbage. i'm liking this LHC more and more.

  25. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know how you do it. It never works for me.

      I could've sworn I left my favorite rug on top of the black hole in the living room the other day but, crazy as it sounds, it seems to have just disappeared. I'd swear on a stack of bibles that's where I left the dang thing and you know it didn't just grow legs and walk out of the house.
     

  26. huh ? by brucellin0 · · Score: 1

    I don't get it ... we have beam, how can the LHC be "shut down" ? who cares if there was a short downtime

  27. Blackhole malfunction by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Thank God it wasn't a blackhole malfunction.

    Or rather, thank the God particle.

  28. A mechnical engineer wrote the story... by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..he just assumed that something which might be involved with cooling must be rated in the amount of ice it can create in a day.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:A mechnical engineer wrote the story... by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      How much ice is in a football field?

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    2. Re:A mechnical engineer wrote the story... by mikiN · · Score: 1

      American or European?

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    3. Re:A mechnical engineer wrote the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      African preferably

  29. Transformer Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Transformers are usually considered very stable electrical equipment, given that they have no moving parts. The only way a transformer that passed factory inspection should fail is if there was a short circuit and the current in the windings exceeded the temporary overload rating. Of course any number of errors COULD have ocrrured, but the most obvious (insufficient electrical clearance, insufficient cooling, cracked power bushings, etc.) should have been found before it left the manufacturer. Maybe the contractor didn't size the unit properly?

    1. Re:Transformer Failure by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Actually, a great many of those kinds of problems happen during delivery and installation. Normally such transformers undergo certain tests during the installation. Many transformers also have their coolant added during installation. And it could have been damaged by one of those little black holes flying out at near light speed.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:Transformer Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big transformers have lots of oil in them, and that oil can leak, or it can overheat (if it's in a situation where it can get warm). It isn't totally unheard of for electricity sub-station transformers to suddenly make a very loud bang during a very hot summer.

  30. Who put Homer Simpson in the power control room? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Who put Homer Simpson in the power control room?

  31. So how much time do we have now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I remember correctly, the human race had 4 weeks till the end of the world, dos this malfunction implies a delay in the end of the world?

    1. Re:So how much time do we have now? by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      The LHC may very well bring about the end of the world, but it won't be until 2012, just ask any Mayan :D

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
  32. Slashdot- your source for yellow (tech) journalism by EjectButton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For those who only read the "summary" (I use this term loosely) and aren't familiar with the LHC you may be surprised to learn that:
    this is not a major failure
    there is no sinister cover-up
    no one was ever in any danger

    Thanks for some more fear-mongering doomsday garbage "news" Slashdot. The purpose of editors, at least for non-tabloid news sources, is to filter factually inaccurate and inflammatory nonsense, not seek it out.

  33. Soylent Energon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soylent Energon... IS PEOPLE!

  34. they deserve a break by Digitus1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Being able to MacGyver that thing at all without a DHD is impressive, let's not be so hard on them.

  35. Re:Who put Homer Simpson in the power control room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's my first day!"

  36. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by crispin_bollocks · · Score: 1

    Shh, nobody's supposed to know about the Roomba Death Star

  37. RMA? by chekk4 · · Score: 1

    I hope it was under warranty. "Fedex? I've got a package for you..."

  38. I Hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they bought the extended protection plan.

  39. I hope they recycle that copper by Locutus · · Score: 1

    Copper is getting expensive enough these days without a 30 ton xformer blowing every time they turn that beast on. ;-/

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  40. Obligatory Tintin reference by binpajama · · Score: 0

    Hooray! The end of the world has been postponed!

  41. Mod parent up. by darkonc · · Score: 1

    +1 informative.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  42. What, did Fermilab make the transformer too? by Taxman415a · · Score: 1

    I can't remember the details, but didn't Fermilab or some outfit on this side of the pond screw up when they produced one or two of the large magnets needed for the LHC about a year back? Wikipedia to the rescue, it was Fermilab and KEK[1] More details here

    Not to knock too hard on Fermilab, they do a lot of great work, it's just too funny that they screwed up on an important part for a rival's project. Uh, yeah, we, uh, can't believe we did that.

    1. Re:What, did Fermilab make the transformer too? by Born2bwire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They really can't be called rivals though. Fermilab cannot replicate the experiments that LHC can perform and Fermilab probably cannot be upgraded to do so on a feasible budget. When Fermilab became the most powerful accelerator in the world (and it did find new quarks and what not because of it) it did not put CERN out of business and LHC is not going to do that to Fermilab (our own government can do that on their own).

    2. Re:What, did Fermilab make the transformer too? by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fermi has built or been involved in the design of the magnets for basically ALL of the large colliders worldwide. LEP, LHC, SSC, RHIC, Tevatron (obviously), etc all had significant contributions by Fermi. The fact that every design review missed it was simply amazing. Luckily they were able to come up with a way to fix the surviving magnets and fairly quickly built replacements for the destroyed units.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  43. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by darkonc · · Score: 1

    I was thinking that the problem wasn't sweeping te transformer under the rug, but rather smoothing the rug down once you're done. I think that the black hole solution might actually do the job (as long as you can keep the rug from being sucked in too).

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  44. Uncanny Valley in real life?!? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Boy, howdy! Talk about the Uncanny Valley -- his eyes totally give me the creeps!

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:Uncanny Valley in real life?!? by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      You are so ugly, that you end up in the depths of the uncanny valley.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:Uncanny Valley in real life?!? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Your mother is so ugly, she graduated from Uncanny Valley High.

  45. I know what they did wrong: by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

    Overhead transformers to one-oh-five percent...

    It's probably nothing... probably... but I'm seeing a small discrepancy in the readings...

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:I know what they did wrong: by Samah · · Score: 1

      Mod parent +5 awesome.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
  46. look by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i know michael bay is trying to get some good pr for transformers 2 next year, but there was no need to a stage a mock decepticon attack on a real human technological installation

    why couldn't you leave the transformer devastation on the movie screen mr. bay? do you really think this will make people want to watch your movie?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  47. Sounds Oddly Familiar by rdforsyth · · Score: 1

    I wonder when we're going to hear about the alien that escaped?! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433883/

    --
    Ryan
  48. Censorship! by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

    It's Cosmic Censorship, man! A super intelligence from the future has come back to ensure the Large Hadron Collider can't create a naked singularity. OMG Xeelee!

  49. Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This failure is just the first of many, as a series of "probability waves" propogate backwards in time from the period where the LHC would come fully online, destroying equipment and information as the universe attempts to avert it's own destruction.

  50. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    I know you're joking, but I can just see someone taking you seriously.

    For reference, the black holes it may create will evaporate almost instantly and are so tiny they won't small much of anything before disappearing. Well... thats theory as I understand it anyway.

    And no, the joke didn't whoosh me, I got it :) I just can see many people whooshing :)

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  51. LHC by alxkit · · Score: 0

    must have been those greek hackers, huh?

  52. Time travel by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

    "A 30-ton transformer in the Large Hadron Collider malfunctioned, requiring complete replacement on the day the LHC came online."

    This news must have traveled in time - because the LHC doesn't come online until sometime next summer. Right now, its in the middle stages of a months long startup and calibration sequence.

    Not to mention that stuff breaks during the startup of complex machinery, doubly so for one of a kind complex machinery.

    1. Re:Time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The LHC research eventually led to time travel, so the people from the future are trying to sabotage the project without interfering too much. So it is quite logical that this news came from the future.

    2. Re:Time travel by Idbar · · Score: 1

      So... watch out! If news can travel in time, probably the transformer can too. I hope doesn't fall on somebody's head.

  53. WoaH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LHC has an "on" switch, and an "off' swithch on the control board!

    The "Official" how hit the switch, actually hit the "off" switch, not the "on" switch!

    This, what a bum-deal, has sent MacGyver, into the Archean Earth, i.e. reducing atmosphere!

    Speciallists are hard at work to fix the "switch" confusion, by re-wiring the LHC with an "On-Off" switch.

    Toodles!

  54. Now we know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we know where that quantum black hole ended up.

  55. The black hole got it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did a mini black hole collide with the transformer?

  56. love the coward option here, hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    funny thing is, there were three somewhat downplayed earthquakes (6.1 - 7.2) later that day in the news (CNN, Yahoo), the day they first tried it last week... what if it's true that the aliens who seeded us really meant it when they said they weren't going to allow us to destroy earth? Cos they'd 'been there, done that'...

  57. Bad News Nobody by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

    The super collider super exploded.

    --
    My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
  58. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by sinktank · · Score: 1

    You're very clever young man, very clever. But I'm afraid it's rugs all the way down.

  59. not the end... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a sad world if people can't even be bothered to read more than the headline in articles on the LHC. Everyone is responsible for what they say or write and ignorance is not an excuse to talk absolute crap, so don't give this kind of people an excuse to write garbage.

    @ All the doomsdayers

    To all the people who think the LHC will destroy the planet, first please read some proper science articles, or even the BBC articles on this or the decent UK newspaper websites like the times, guardian, and independent. Then come back here and type something worthwhile about the LHC.

    And for any statement about the LHC that's complete speculation it's up to you to prove that it will cause some harm to you, otherwise intellectual people have every right to call you a complete buffoon.

    Anything you can't prove to be correct is 'never' assumed to be correct, as for example religion beliefs, and all other garbage which requires a stupid belief, and so anyone with critical thinking skills has the right to point out this obvious fact and say you are wrong, unless you can prove otherwise.

    This is the same for everything 'anyone' puts down in text, writing or speaks, and if by critical thinking someone else can challenge that assertion, they have the right to do so without any offence caused towards the speaker/writer/texter. This is also the case for religious beliefs, and if you feel offence has been caused then you are wrong to take offence, and by trying to make the critical thinker feel bad you are in actual fact being completely out of order. It is time everyone stopped with all belief systems and accept only 'facts' as factual. That means all unsupported claims without appropriate scientific evidence and so zero proof is classified as either a belief or speculation. Only, and I repeat only scientifically supported claims with real documented evidence and so proof can be 'factual'. That is why these experiments have to take place! Just get it people because nobody else except yourself can ever make you understand this!

    Note to slashdot.org admins: your interface is crap and your word inputs for security doesn't always work!

  60. Summary plainly misleading by Shillo · · Score: 5, Informative

    They have day-to-day log of the activities at https://lhc-commissioning.web.cern.ch/lhc-commissioning/dailynews/index.htm I didn't have any problems finding this logs at the LHC website.

    Transformer outage and cryogenics breakdown is logged on September 13. They were not 'rumors'.

    --
    I refuse to use .sig
  61. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What a shame, it really tied the room together.

  62. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True, but if they're real scientists they'd figure out it's easier to sweep the black hole under the 30-ton transformer. When done, cover up with rug.

    True, but if they're real scientists they'd figure out it's easier to sweep the black hole under the 30-ton transformer. When done, cover up with rug.

    Well all the scientists in the world are more than ass. they don't know if anything can not be prepared ma some one so how this huge un believeable universe has came into being.... welll you idiots the answer is so same God has Created each thing.. you idiots .... you spent that much money on a reducluous discousting machine if you have spent that much money on poors well there would have remained no poor in the world... well i can say in advance that you fucking asshold idiots try your levels best but you cant success because upptill know u idiots have even not knowing how long in the earth so how can you tell anything all of you are idiots well i can tell u in advance that a day will came when all of you came to a point that you have learned no
    thing

  63. Not Quite the point here by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The used superconductors are good well above 4K (although with decreased maximum saturation).
    The main point is that they want their helium to be superfluidic, as otherwise it would be impossible to direct the heat over the many km needed (if their were bubble formation in the dewars).

    With superfluidic helium, heat resistance also drops nearly to zero(as we are in the real world, it cannot be zero. But heat conductivity increases by many magnitudes, and bubble formation is eliminated). That way, they can keep heat gradients along the whole ring well below 1K.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Not Quite the point here by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      That way, they can keep heat gradients along the whole ring well below 1K.

      Damn, that's impressive.

    2. Re:Not Quite the point here by CPNABEND · · Score: 1

      "The used superconductors are good well above 4K (although with decreased maximum saturation)." Well, there's the problem - They should have bought NEW superconductors :^)

      --
      My wife doesn't listen to me either...
  64. Re:Slashdot- your source for yellow (tech) journal by natx808 · · Score: 1

    you have to admit its prety embarassing for stuff to start going bad less than 2 weeks after it goes live though. but thats what happens when you buy stuff from china.

  65. Link to current status page by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 5, Informative

    The webcam is a great source of information on CMS :), but if you want to know the status of the LHC, check the following links:
    The current status of the beam can always be viewed here
    All other status informations are linked from here
    So maybe they didn't make a press release, but perhaps journalists should be smart enough to find these pages instead of claiming conspiracies?

    1. Re:Link to current status page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The current status of the beam can always be viewed here

      Which currently says "We just had a major quench in sector 34. More news as we get it"

      IIRC a quench (loss of superconductivity because of the magnetic fields) is likely to cause extra damage, so this sounds a lot more important than a simple transformer failure. Plus therer might be design issues that caused it.

      Good luck to the LHC team. I guess this is how a real beta goes

    2. Re:Link to current status page by Doc+Ri · · Score: 1

      Which currently says "We just had a major quench in sector 34. More news as we get it"

      Yes, not nice. On the bright side this means that my night shift is cancelled. ;)

      --
      617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
    3. Re:Link to current status page by cooldemo · · Score: 1

      Me idiot, the webcam really got me for a while :) The first problem I was thinking about, was that "Isn't CERN in Europe ? It should be dark there now" and then the black hole strike, I really did shake a little :)

  66. No, not as big as a house by chkn0 · · Score: 1

    .. likely the size of a house.

    No. Transformers are mostly iron. Iron is heavy -- 7.87 g/cm^3. 30 tons of iron is only 3.5 m^3 (think of a cube 1.5 meters in each direction).

  67. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by ciderVisor · · Score: 1
    --
    Squirrel!
  68. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by newr00tic · · Score: 0

    The carpetpissers did this?

    --
    A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
  69. Transformers by Msdose · · Score: 1

    Even dumb-ass big iron transformers know enough to not want to die. Give them religion and they'll fall in line.

  70. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by fbjon · · Score: 1

    You didn't put the stack of bibles on the rug, did you?

    --
    True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  71. sensible by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    I think that makes good sense, more than people readily accept. Since any cheapo meccano accelerator achieves particle speeds close to lightspeed, it becomes kind of silly to describe LHC speeds as "close to lightspeed". So "at lightspeed" is technically wrong but practically fine. Energy or mass is a much better way to point out the difference.

  72. Real reason for cover-up by seanellis · · Score: 1

    It broke, so far no news, but they ordered a replacement from a catalog which was lying around, some company called Electronic Services Unit 16.

    The replacement arrived in a small padded envelope, and they've spent the intervening time running tests on it.

  73. Re:Slashdot- your source for yellow (tech) journal by bloobloo · · Score: 1

    No - it's being commissioned at the moment. You know stuff is going to go wrong - that's why you put it through commissioning first rather than just pressing "ON"

  74. Worlds largest BB gun with the worlds smallest BB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one that wants to put a BB in one of these things to see how far it will shoot through something?

  75. Anthropic Principle by jibjibjib · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The transformer malfunction was inevitable, due to the anthropic principle. In every possible universe in which the transformer didn't malfunction, the LHC destroyed the world and we couldn't observe that it didn't malfunction. :p

  76. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  77. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by MK_CSGuy · · Score: 1

    I could've sworn I left my favorite rug on top of the black hole in the living room... crazy as it sounds, it seems to have just disappeared.

    That's a real shame dude... that rug really tied the room together

  78. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure you can. Just use a "Rug of Holding".

  79. Broken sure .. but needing REPLACEMENT? by mcalwell · · Score: 1

    What on earth do you have to do to a 30 ton transformer that requires complete replacement?

    1. Re:Broken sure .. but needing REPLACEMENT? by jfb2252 · · Score: 2, Informative

      We had a 20 year old, 5MW transformer go a month ago. Internal bolted connections had loosened in the years since we had last drained the oil to inspect them. There was internal arcing which damaged the connections so badly they had to be replaced. The transformer was drained of oil and shipped off for repair. It was re-installed this week.

      We have a vendor sample the oil annually to check for compounds formed during arcing. The oil check picked up the nascent problem about five months ago. We didn't repair it then because the accelerator was operating. When the accelerator was shut down for the summer (electricity price hike) the oil was drained and the problem found to require offsite repair.

      We don't have the money to stock spare transformers. CERN seems to. Or at least they have the cash to buy a spare fast and repair the broken one at leisure.

  80. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or better yet, just shoot a portal under it with the the other one at the garbage dump. Heavy thing in heavy thing out ... or something like that.

  81. Re:Not the end of the world... - superconductors by jfb2252 · · Score: 1

    The magnets use NbTi (niobium titanium) alloy superconductor which has a critical temperature of ~9K. Current capability of a superconductor is a function of the local magnetic field and the temperature. The greater the ratio of critical temperature (9K) to operating temperature, the greater the current that can be carried. 9/4.5=2 while 9/2 =4.5. It's not linear, but one can get to higher fields at the lower temperature, and therefore greater beam energies in the same tunnel. The Tevatron operates at 4.5K, BTW.

  82. Re:What, did Fermilab make ? by jfb2252 · · Score: 1

    If Fermilab had handled the public relations better before the SSC site decision, the locals might not have opposed it, sending it to Texas. Had the Tevatron been used as the injector for the SSC, as the CERN complex does for the LHC, the cost would have been much less. The SSC might have been running for a decade in this scenario.

    Fermilab set up a local committee to discuss the possible siting of the International Linear Collider, a proposed follow-on to LHC which will cost about the same. The lab learned from the SSC mistake. The ILC would be 30-50 miles long but the most complicated stuff, including the detectors, would fit on the Fermilab site of ~6400 acres. The rest goes in a couple of long, deep tunnels.

  83. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet the Greek hackers did it!

  84. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by tomzyk · · Score: 1

    Or you just have a REALLY bug rug and a REALLY big broom to sweep it with. *ba-doom TSSHHH*

    "...unless there is a black hole under said rug." Come on now, lets be realistic here: that black hole could only exist if the LHC didn't break down right away. Well, that or your infinite improbability machine is functioning (properly or otherwise).

    ...

    oh man, I just messed up the rule for the day.

    --
    Karma: NaN
  85. magnets don't increase speed by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    The magnets are only for keeping the particles inside, for keeping them from flying in a straight line. For accelleration an electrostatic approach is normally used. True, making things fly in a circle also is a form of accelleration, but without the speeding up part.

    Why grandparent mentions vacuum I can't imagine..
    The point about lightspeed is, it is the relativistic equivalent of infinite speed. You can't go faster than infinite, but you can still keep accellerating. You can keep accelerating close to lightspeed, and while speed only changes a tiny bit, the particle can still accumulate all the momentum you want to put in to cause a big bang on impact. So momentum and energy keep growing to infinity just like you would expect, as you're pumping in energy, only speed creeps along and never gets beyond lightspeed.

  86. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    You know, my first thought was to check the transformer for any teeny tiny holes (probably vertical) boring out the bottom. If they found one ... be afraid, be very afraid ...

  87. Everythings fine, just fine by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Conversation on the phone went something like this:

    LHC: Uh...had a slight transformer malfunction. But, uh, everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?

    AP: We're sending a squad up.

    LHC: Uh, uh, negative. We had a reactor leak here now. Give us a few minutes to lock it down. Large leak...very dangerous.

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  88. Definitely by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    And you know when they throw a champagne bottle at a ship once the ship construction is complete? It's a waste of a perfectly good bottle, the ship doesn't need things to be banged against it like that and the fishes don't really appreciate the glass that much.

  89. geen badge by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    They're going to use the LHC to make energon cubes.

    There, fixed that for you. Also, turn in your geen badge.

    That's harsh... The geen badge is the one that lets you control pokemon up to level 50, and lets you use "fly" outside of combat...

    Well, looks like you're hoofin' it then...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  90. Re:Slashdot- your source for yellow (tech) journal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those who only read the "summary"

    You must be new here.

  91. Re:Slashdot- your source for yellow (tech) journal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it's pretty normal that things go wrong when commissioning a machine like that...

  92. Thank you AP! by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    This is sensationalist reporting at its best. An electrical component broke and got quickly replaced, whoopty-doo. Yes, it takes big transformers to cool a 27 km long collider. Yes, they breakdown. It's not a scandal or coverup, it's experimental science.

    If the science AP writers would actually write about science instead of failed transformers and beer cans in the tunnel, the general public might actually learn something useful. But then I guess they'd have raise the level of all of their articles.

  93. Thank you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John Connor for saving all of humanity.

  94. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by PDX · · Score: 1

    The god particle finally hit something critical. Where is the Omega cube now?

  95. Nothing to see - move along by ozbird · · Score: 1

    Obligatory: LHC webcam.

  96. OK, But. . . by gacl · · Score: 1

    I don't know anything about the LHC but i'd like to comment on Slashdot's newly redesigned system. It's made the screen of my computer appear much larger than it was before. And it seems to be affecting everything in my room too. Fix this, please!

  97. Failure Prediction by blank89 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't their a pair of scientists that predicted the possibility that all parallel universes in which the LHC successfully ran would be destroyed, so we would always exist in the universes in which id didn't run? If there are a few more failures, I think they might be on to something...

  98. Insightful comments by AlpineR · · Score: 1

    I think the thing that keeps Slashdot Slashdot and Digg Digg is the comment moderation systems.

    Here, comment scores are limited to the range [-1:5], so you can filter to your level of interest. There are plenty of stupid comments, but they're easy to mute so that the more sophisticated readers can still hear each other.

    On Digg the comment scores are in the range [-N:N], where N is the number of people seeing the article summary. If you filter through [0:N] then the best comments will still be swimming in a sea of just-barely-not-terrible comments. If you filter through some arbitrary cutoff [M:N] then you might see nothing or another sea of garbage, depending on how N for that story compares to your M. Since N varies wildly, you have no reliable way of skimming the cream of the crop.

    Since good comments are hard to find, there's not much incentive to write them. The best you can do is write a popular comment and get recognition that way. So Slashdot appeals to people who value recognition as insightful, informative, or interesting. Digg appeals to people who value recognition as popular.

  99. This happened sure before! ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    before the LHC swept all "fixed-this-for-you-fixes" under it's blackholed rug!
    These fixes are available in the alternate universal editions 1, 2 and 3.

    (I can't imagine I've ever said blackholed .. sounds nastier than goatse!)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  100. We are Still Alive..... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    I think the new OS that LHAC uses, the "Geneva Logical A.I. Disk Operating System", or G.L.a.D.O.S. would be better at controlling power than than letting the scientists control it manually.

    The Eggheads were responsible for making the transformer blow as it was trying to power up the LHAC to make an Ad-hoc Eistein-Rosen Bridge.

    I say they need to automate it and let the G.L.a.D.O.S control the power levels and the security systems.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  101. hmmm by doyen2000 · · Score: 1

    The transformers that have developed trouble are the ones that were recycled from the LEP experiment. The positron and electron collider which resided the LHC tunnel during the 90s . Since they are always reclycling equipment, it makes things a bit more less stable. Cheers, A

  102. They left out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We're all going to die" on the tagging beta :)

  103. Re:sweep a 30-ton transformer breaking under the r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It grew legs and walked out of the house. Your rug is a Transformer

  104. Yes. by pxc · · Score: 1

    So is this post informative or is it funny?

    1. Re:Yes. by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 1

      Well, duh. You'd have to be infinitely dense to not see that.

      If someone really thought that was more informative than it was funny, then I say "Whoosh!"

      Obligatory XKCD:

      I used to find Slashdot delightful
      But my feelings of late are more spiteful
      My comments sarcastic
      The iconoclastic
      Keep modding to +5, Insightful

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
    2. Re:Yes. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Mods (including myself) often give funny posts +1, Insightful or +1, Underrated because +1, Funny gives the poster no karma, and so if that moderation later gets countered with a -1, the user ultimately loses one point of karma, even though their post breaks even.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  105. Explanitory by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    They're not trying to cover up a broken transformer - they're trying to cover up the tiny black hole that formed in the transformers, and is growing exponentially.

    Well that explains it, wondered how a transformer the size of a grapefruit could weigh 35 tons! :-)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  106. Obviously not a programmer by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    heh, b/c building a 27km underground tunnel is generally considered "practical".

    Orbiting a detector might mean you get to observe one such interaction close enough to observe in perhaps a few thousand years or so.

    Building a small tunnel means you get to do so, on demand, whenever the mood strikes you.

    Which is less practical again? A programmer would realize time was better spent optimizing the thing you want to do a few million times in a loop even if it takes a bit of effort up front.

    Also a tunnel just sits there where anything put into space needs to be maintained and monitored and prevented from falling on you. It's like the difference between launching a popular website on Windows vs. Linux.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  107. Isn't it more like a 6 month shutdown? by speed50 · · Score: 1

    After all, if the media is report 2 months minimum then it falls into November when they have to shutdown anyhow to provide Geneva enough energy to heat the city til spring. I suppose they don't want to publicly admit that since they like the attention and press coverage. Sadly, we won't see much data from them for a while then = (