Slashdot Mirror


World's First X-Ray Laser Goes Live

smolloy writes "The world's first X-ray laser (LCLS) has seen first light. A Free Electron Laser (FEL) is based on the light that is emitted by accelerated electrons when they are forced to move in a curved path. The beam then interacts with this emitted light in order to excite coherent emission (much like in a regular laser); thus producing a very short, extremely bright, bunch of coherent X-ray photons. The engineering expertise that went into this machine is phenomenal — 'This is the most difficult light source that has ever been turned on,' said LCLS Construction Project Director John Galayda. 'It's on the boundary between the impossible and possible, and within two hours of start-up these guys had it right on.' — and the benefits to the applied sciences from research using this light can be expected to be enormous: 'For some disciplines, this tool will be as important to the future as the microscope has been to the past,' said SLAC Director Persis Drell."

238 comments

  1. The one question we all want to know. by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can it give me super powers if it accidentally hits me?!

    1. Re:The one question we all want to know. by captnbmoore · · Score: 5, Funny

      No but as in the previous story it may sink your balls.

      --
      The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
    2. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Scutter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can it give me super powers if it accidentally hits me?!

      It can give you the power to roll around on the ground and crap yourself. Does that count?

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    3. Re:The one question we all want to know. by dunng808 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The way it works in old comics, a ray gun gives the *shooter* power. But what good is a ray gun that shoots right through stuff? Won't the ray from my gun just circle around past the end of the universe and hit me in the back, like having sex with my girlfriend's sister?

      --

      Gary Dunn
      Open Slate Project

    4. Re:The one question we all want to know. by hmccabe · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I know about sci-fi, if you are going to be shot with a laser that gives you super powers, it's likely to be from a scientist named something like Director Persis Drell.

    5. Re:The one question we all want to know. by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFA yet, but "x-ray laser" screams "soon to be defense contract". I wonder what they will blow up with it?

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    6. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes indeed! You will become Atom Man! Your special power will be that you can turn yourself into a cloud of separate atoms, each disconnected from the other!

      (Note: This does not mean that the laser will help you turn back.)

    7. Re:The one question we all want to know. by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Where can I pickup my free Electron Laser? Will they be ad-supported (watch an ad before you get to fire the laser) or is there a 'pro' version?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can it give me super powers if it accidentally hits me?!

      Yes. It can make you disappear instantly. But only the one time.

    9. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFA yet, but "x-ray laser" screams "soon to be defense contract". I wonder what they will blow up with it?

      Dude, the question is, "What WON'T they blow up with it?"

    10. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Xiph1980 · · Score: 1

      No, but your grand(^^64)son might

      --
      Manuals are your last resort only
    11. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      sounds like he already has that power. Redundant!

    12. Re:The one question we all want to know. by fitash · · Score: 0

      will it blend whilst it runs crysis at full specs

    13. Re:The one question we all want to know. by incognito84 · · Score: 1

      Be careful! The goggles, zey do nothing!

    14. Re:The one question we all want to know. by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Abso-fucking-lutely!!!
      When it his your ass, decoherence and relativity will scatter your ass everywhere, and nowhere at once!

      Meow!
      You will be Snroedinger's cat, in a box, or not.

      Be careful what you ask for, you may get your wish!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    15. Re:The one question we all want to know. by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Never discount DARPA,or Sci-Fi: David Weber's Honorverse series.

      Bomb-pumped LASER weapons are not a new idea. If you are of the paranoid type, be very afraid!

      If not, then go on with life!

      Reality usually falls in between the two. :-)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    16. Re:The one question we all want to know. by trum4n · · Score: 1

      ...on linux?

    17. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Verteiron · · Score: 3, Funny

      On the upside, if you manage to reassemble yourself from that state, you'll get a nifty blue glow and no one will arrest you for running around naked all day.

      Ha ha! Dangly parts.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    18. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Funny

      She does likes the shot on her back.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    19. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Accidentally? How many basement-dwellers that have read too many comics do you think will be throwing themselves in front of this thing?

    20. Re:The one question we all want to know. by arotenbe · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but your grand(^^64)son might

      Surely, you mean Graham_64 son?

      --
      Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
    21. Re:The one question we all want to know. by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Its probably the WORST weapon ever built. A kilometer and a half long. Can only change its aiming point by a fraction of a degree. It took about 15 minutes to burn a pin sized hole in a piece of metal foil, and it only goes a couple of meters through air. Now if the bad guys decide to attack us with very slow moving, really tiny robots, one at a time, maybe we can do something.

    22. Re:The one question we all want to know. by cbrocious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Nothing Of Value Was Lost (TM).

      --
      Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
    23. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Zapotek · · Score: 1

      What is this sex thing you are talking about? TISD[1] please use a different analogy...

      TISD = This Is SlashDot

    24. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ow! My sperm!

    25. Re:The one question we all want to know. by fractoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tagging it 'xaser'. Because, you know, it is. And because of cool X-Men sound of it. :)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    26. Re:The one question we all want to know. by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      I finally understand why we search the beamline tunnels before we turn on the accelerator.

    27. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Now will you use that for good or evil?

    28. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Zoolander · · Score: 1

      Bah, my kid can do that.

      --
      Meep.
    29. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Should we tell the parent poster about there being porn on the Internet?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    30. Re:The one question we all want to know. by TadGhostal66 · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether she can be made to keep quite or not, I suppose. Erm.... the laser that is.

    31. Re:The one question we all want to know. by raistlinwolf · · Score: 1

      or if Mooninites try to attack our bridges again.

    32. Re:The one question we all want to know. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      No he meant, of course, grand(aleph64)son.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    33. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      My spidey sense says yes

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    34. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      informative?!?!

    35. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I see an interesting economic opportunity as well a gene pool beautification program here. Set up some kind of Japanese style game show, where nerds will compete with one another for a chance at being shot with the X-Ray Laser and the chance at super powers. And even the losers would still be given a consolation zap as well.

      Win-win!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    36. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but I'm sure they'll get the size down after a few centuries of development. After all, even the smallest Culture droids are equipped with gigawatt X-ray lasers, so it has to be possible.

  2. Awesome by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Informative

    I had the pleasure of taking a tour of the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Labs. They have a similar setup; using accelerated electrons to produce x-rays, the real achievement here is the coherency part. I wonder how this effects high speed x-ray crystallography, is it easier to decode the scatter if the light is coherent? Will we be getting real time videos of enzymes in action? If so I can only imagine what that will do for chemical and pharmaceutical research.

    1. Re:Awesome by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Isn't the problem simply one of integration time? (ie. getting enough interactions for imaging in too short a time cooks the enzymes.)

    2. Re:Awesome by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had the pleasure of taking a tour of the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Labs. They have a similar setup; using accelerated electrons to produce x-rays, the real achievement here is the coherency part. I wonder how this effects high speed x-ray crystallography, is it easier to decode the scatter if the light is coherent? Will we be getting real time videos of enzymes in action? If so I can only imagine what that will do for chemical and pharmaceutical research.

      Also, I hope this is the first step in a fairly rapid development of a tabletop x-ray laser that can live in a lab. Last time I spent a week doing small angle x-ray scattering at Argonne I had to be in the top 3 of the 48 requests submitted for x-ray time on the beamline I wanted in order to get an invitation. The other 45 groups got rejected. X-ray time is a limiting factor in a very large number of scientific fields.

      Not that I don't appreciate coherency.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    3. Re:Awesome by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Will we be getting real time videos of enzymes in action?"

      No, enzymes in action must be in solution and not locked into a regular crystalline lattice of the sort required to diffract X-rays of comparable wavelength with the spatially encoded information of said molecular structure which is necessary to do diffractometry.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    4. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they actually plan to do diffraction of a single molecule, not crystalized

    5. Re:Awesome by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Informative

      jebus you're right. unbelievable.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    6. Re:Awesome by thechao · · Score: 4, Informative

      IAAECXRPX (I am an ex-computational-x-ray-protein-crystallographer). Lasers a bit left wing, since we usually use anode sources for x-rays on the home source and synchotrons for MAD sets. However, if the laser has tight enough phases (60-degrees) and coherency this is not just big but HUGE. Currently, there are two difficult steps in PX: (1) crystallization; and (2) phasing. The first is becoming easier using automated screening and robots (although we are only at the beginning of this process, so probably still 5--10 years out). The second has been considered one of the outstanding problems in (at least) biology if not all of science. To put this in perspective, it was only a few years ago that just *finding* the structure (phasing) was enough to warrant a Nature or Science paper. Nowadays you're gonna need some function, too, but the phasing is still spectacularly hard. If these guys have really done this, and they're getting good power, this will be a watershed event for all of biology.

    7. Re:Awesome by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well for high-speed crystallography it isn't so much that data collection is the problem (for most applications). You can collect a high-quality data set of a protein at APS in under a half an hour. The real bottlenecks in x-ray crystallography is, was, and unfortunately most likely always will be protein crystallization. Way back in the day when protein crystallography was just starting, it was thought to be somewhat bizarre for proteins to crystallize. Fast forward four or five decades and now if your protein is reasonably soluble, reasonable stable, and has a definite structure (not all proteins have a well-defined structure and just flop about in a range of states), then you can probably get it to crystallize well enough to solve the structure. But it might take a long time to pull off, years even. But that's only for soluble proteins. If a protein is normally in the cell membrane, it is much, much harder. A cell membrane is basically soap. Soap doesn't crystallize. There are only a few structures of integral membrane proteins despite a lot of work on the problem. Also proteins that only have one domain or even just a helix poking into the membrane can be tricky--they're usually done by just removing the offending membrane bit but often suffer from solubility problems.

      For part two, lasers produce monochromatic light. One technique for doing real-time x-ray crystallography involves using polychromatic x-rays. Normally you get a single, specific, monochromatic wavelength (, or at least close enough that for data processing you largely ignore everything else. The resulting diffraction pattern looks something like that seen on wikipedia's page. That page and links are actually pretty good. However you can use a broader spectrum of x-rays and get a different diffraction pattern due to having different wavelengths of light hitting your protein crystal over the course of the exposure, or a Laue diffraction image (ignore the color--computer added). Interpreting Laue diffraction's significantly harder because you also have to take into account that you have basically multiple different wavelengths of light producing multiple different, overlapping diffraction patterns. Unlike monochromatic diffraction patterns, which require exposure times of at least tenths of a second even at APS (or potentially hours on a weaker rotating anode x-ray source like at an individual lab), Laue diffraction can be measured in picoseconds--on the time scale of chemical reactions catalyzed by enzymes. A few groups have done time-resolved x-ray crystallography with reactions by building up series of Laue images. You can't do it for everything, though. Data processing problems aside you typically need a chemical reaction that can be triggered by light. Also, proteins frequently undergo structural reorientations during catalysis--the change will have to be small enough so that the packing of proteins in the crystal lattice will not be affected. Time-resolved x-ray crystallography using Laue diffraction is never going to be widely used, but the results can still be very exciting.

      What these guys have in mind and how practical it is I don't know since I've somewhat shifted away from protein x-ray crystallography. I do remember going to a conference a few years ago where some guys wanted to use a single molecule to collect data on--by blasting the bajesus (that's a technical term) out of it with an extremely short, extremely massive burst of x-rays. They had the problem though of ripping off basically all of the electrons in the process, IIRC. Even at weak home rotating anode x-ray sources you still have to worry about radiation damaging your crystal (and affecting your resulting model of the protein), but blasting away all the electrons? That's like comparing a flyswatter and a tactical nuke.

    8. Re:Awesome by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 2, Informative

      I forgot to include that there are movies of proteins during catalysis by using Laue diffraction, and I've been lucky enough to see a talk where they speaker showed such a movie. While I can't at the moment find a good example I did find this large .pdf of a powerpoint presentation. Scroll down to page 17 and you can start to see a little bit of what's going on in the case of release of carbon monoxide from myoglobin. Which has some broader relevance as carbon monoxide poisoning results from that molecule binding to hemoglobin and out-competing oxygen. Got published in Nature too.

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

      long way to go to a table top system. The problem with x-ray's is that there aren't materials to make highly reflective mirrors out of, so you can't have a cavity. No cavity means no coherence and low power. This is why that source is nothing like a regular laser.

    10. Re:Awesome by rts008 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, enzymes in action must be in solution and not locked into a regular crystalline lattice of the sort required to diffract X-rays of comparable wavelength with the spatially encoded information of said molecular structure which is necessary to do diffractometry.

      *blinks*
      *thinks to self:Huh?*....Head a splodes!*
      *recovers*
      'Enzymes'? something about catalyst? Can't remember...
      Okay, this is obviously(to me at least) over my head, but I think I 'get it'.

      Is this a 'new' field of study that has potential to do stuff we don't expect? Maybe be able to capture video of enzymes in action in 5-10 years?

      I am truly NOT trying to be a smartass, but this sounds like a frontier that we can eventually cross, and would be beneficial to mankind/science/medicine.

      Is there no hope for this, or just lack of tech/understanding at this time?

      This may help quantify my question...
      I am 51 years old. I have seen stuff in the past 20 years that I would have denounced as impossible during my first 30 years.
      Dad worked for NASA(as did I), so I was lucky enough to watch Neil Armstrong step onto the moon from Goddard Space Flight Center's Mission Control room....LIVE! That memory will last as long as my mind/I do...and is treasured by me beyond mainstream belief.
      The list of other examples is long...

      I guess what I am questing for here is, Will it ever be possible?
      or just not possible at this time?

      I assume the latter, as impossible seems to be an impossible concept in science.

      X-ray diffractometry may not be the tool to allow this now, but I suspect we will eventually find a way to 'film' processes we are exploring.

      I am not assuming you are claiming 'impossible' here. I'm just looking for some clarity in what I see as murky waters. :-)

      BTW, I do have enough training/education to know that 'enzymes, and how they work' is a lifetime study...just to scratch the surface.(My B.S. degree is in Biochemistry, my major(oddly enough) is an A.A.S. in Veterinary Technology...long story-short, when I got my A.A.S. in Vet Tech, I only needed 14 credit hours for a B.S. degree in many 'science' fields. Biochemistry fascinated me at the time, so I did it for kicks- 14 hours? Pshaw!14 hours==light semester...easy as the summer semesters-also 14 hours![5 semesters==106 credit hours for the Vet Tech program, 120 needed for a B.S.... really, one easy semester after what you have already survived] and opened a lot of doors career-wise)

      So, I'm not completely clueless here, but almost knowledgeable enough to be dangerously stupid.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    11. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was request number 4, you insensitive clod!

    12. Re:Awesome by toQDuj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if you're applying for run-of-the-mill synchrotron radiation, competition isn't that high. For these ultrashort pulses of radiation, however, it's very _very_ high since there are only two around (and one of them is more far UV than X-Ray), and since you can have only a limited number of endstations on these lines.

      There is some serious development on tabletop synchrotrons, but it'll take a while before they're commercial...

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    13. Re:Awesome by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From that article:

      For example, a 500kD molecule exposed to an XFEL beam focused down to 0.1[micro]m scatters ~ 4x10^(-2) photons into a detector pixel at 1.8Å resolution in each shot.

      How do you manage to scatter less than 1 photon?

      Do they mean that they had to create 25 shots to get a single photon to register? Or is there something else going on here?

    14. Re:Awesome by drerwk · · Score: 1

      As I recall, the scatter angle is a function of wavelength, so having a single wavelength should make for a much sharper picture.

    15. Re:Awesome by sjames · · Score: 1

      That figure is per pixel. Presumably, if you have a megapixel detector, about 4x10^3 of them will detect a photon.

    16. Re:Awesome by PingPongBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Right turn, Claude.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    17. Re:Awesome by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      D'oh!

      Of course. I hadn't quite noted what I quoted.

    18. Re:Awesome by Btrot69 · · Score: 1

      Already done: "tabletop soft X-ray source â- wavelengths: 13 to 47 nm â- highly coherent light". Available at: http://www.kmlabs.com/

  3. First? by fm6 · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall that they fired up an X-Ray laser as part of the tests for the Strategic Defense Initiative. The whole thing was powered by an atomic blast, so it was kind of a one-shot deal.

    If they had actually deployed lasers like that one, I think I would have been more afraid of our missile defense than of any missiles.

    Ronnie promised us that SDI would make nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete". I think he didn't quite understand how hard that is.

    1. Re:First? by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they had actually deployed lasers like that one, I think I would have been more afraid of our missile defense than of any missiles.

      Considering that our pre-Star Wars anti-bomber defenses included preparing to toss up missiles with nuclear warheads in the midst of bomber formations, often necessarily over populated areas (as with Nike-Hercules), its not like the bomb-pumped lasers to defend against ballistic missiles would have been all that out of line with what preceded them (had they, you know, been practical to deploy.)

    2. Re:First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not the first - it's the most powerful and it is "hard" X-ray. The article itself does not make the claim of the "first", nor the wikipedia article linked in the summary.

       

    3. Re:First? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be fair, the Nike-Hercules missiles were among the last nuclear defenses intended to be employed. The first was to knock out air bases with nuclear strikes to prevent bombers from getting in the air in the first place. After that came air interception using missiles such as the AIR-2 Genie. Nuclear-tipped SAMs would attempt to intercept over the ocean or unpopulated territory where possible (the Nike-Hercules had a range of over 75 miles), and explode over populated territories only if nothing else worked.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:First? by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not the first. Maybe the first X-ray FEL (maybe) but not the first X-ray laser proper. The first X-ray lasers were created in nickel and samarium plasmas created by few ns long, multi Kj, UV light pulses of LLNL's Novette laser (predecessor of the Nova laser) in the early '80s. The work was probably done with SDI in mind.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    5. Re:First? by BobGod8 · · Score: 1

      Not even that. Felix anyone? http://www.lightsources.org/cms/?pid=1000446 Been around for 15 years or so, I think.

    6. Re:First? by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ronnie promised us that SDI would make nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete". I think he didn't quite understand how hard that is.

      Oh, I don't know; I'm pretty sure he did. You see, the whole idea of SDI was to start something very expensive that Just Might Work. That meant that the Soviets had to try to copy us, and the effort caused their rickety, barely-functional economy to collapse, bringing down the whole Soviet Union with it. And that, my friend, was the whole point of the exercise: fight the Cold War on economic grounds, where we could easily out do them rather than on military grounds where we were stuck in a stalemate.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:First? by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      It depends on where you draw the line for "X-rays". The LCLS is operating at 1.5 Angstroms (about 8.3 KeV) and is by a lot (factor of 20?) the shortest wavelength coherent source ever built. Storage rings produce X-rays, but they are icoherent and much lower peak power. If anyone has heard of another laser in this wavelength range, please let me know - we'll be happy to correct our info.

    8. Re:First? by 18_Rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ronnie promised us that SDI would make nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete". I think he didn't quite understand how hard that is.

      Oh, I don't know; I'm pretty sure he did. You see, the whole idea of SDI was to start something very expensive that Just Might Work. That meant that the Soviets had to try to copy us, and the effort caused their rickety, barely-functional economy to collapse, bringing down the whole Soviet Union with it. .

      Riiight. And that's exactly what Ronnie was thinking about when he shoveled all that money to SDI. "Let's do this because we know the Russians can't possibly keep up and it will bankrupt them!"

    9. Re:First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they had actually deployed lasers like that one, I think I would have been more afraid of our missile defense than of any missiles.

      Considering that our pre-Star Wars anti-bomber defenses included preparing to toss up missiles with nuclear warheads in the midst of bomber formations, often necessarily over populated areas (as with Nike-Hercules), its not like the bomb-pumped lasers to defend against ballistic missiles would have been all that out of line with what preceded them (had they, you know, been practical to deploy.)

      That, or gp read a bit much of Niven/Pournelle's Footfall and got xray mixed up with gamma ray lasers they generated by nukes setup to pump the laser. Also in that book was the Orion style drive to launch a bunch of saucers carrying the space shuttles to battle a bunch of invading aliens that look like elphants.....(which were the targets for the gamma ray lasers)

      tm

    10. Re:First? by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but you're exactly right. How do I know? Well, I happen to know the chairman of the citizen's advisory committee that worked out the idea, and the man who's house was used for the meetings.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    11. Re:First? by toQDuj · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, storage rings can produce radiation with a large coherence volume (i.e. cut out the part you can use), such as at the cSAXS beamline at the SLS. What's unique about these lasers is the ultrashort, huge emission at dependable timing that they can deliver.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    12. Re:First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the fallout from that has bankrupted the U.S.of A, but we won't talk about that. And of course the Great Dreamer is now helping put ideas in the DHS' head, but we'll be passing on that one too. It's all kinda sad really.

    13. Re:First? by JRIsidore · · Score: 1

      Actually the article's title sais "first"...

      --
      :w!q
    14. Re:First? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the Nike-Hercules missiles were among the last nuclear defenses intended to be employed. The first was to knock out air bases with nuclear strikes to prevent bombers from getting in the air in the first place. After that came air interception using missiles such as the AIR-2 Genie. Nuclear-tipped SAMs would attempt to intercept over the ocean or unpopulated territory where possible (the Nike-Hercules had a range of over 75 miles), and explode over populated territories only if nothing else worked.

      All true. Then again, nuclear-bomb-pumped X-ray lasers weren't the sole defense envisioned in SDI, either. My point was mainly that (leaving aside the fact that getting anything like the envisioned system working in any reasonable number of decades where sheer fantasy), having a defensive system that had a component that relied on detonating nuclear weapons wasn't all that out of line with what we'd had prior to the time work started on SDI (I think there was a gap of a few years between the retirement of the last Nike-Hercules batteries and when "Star Wars" proposals came out, but not much.)

    15. Re:First? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I think they overlapped, actually. The first proposals for SDI came out in the mid-80s, and the last nuclear Nike batteries were decommissioned in the late-80s.

      Nothing like preventing the enemy from sending your population into the stone age by doing the job yourself, eh? :)

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    16. Re:First? by careysub · · Score: 1

      And of course Jerry Pournelle is a thoroughly unbiased source of information about his great deeds.

      Ahem. Seriously now. Anyone who is familiar with Jerry Pournelle (hearing him speak, reading his various columns, etc.) should readily apprehend that he is a relentless self-promoter. This is no doubt an essential part of his success, but nothing he says about his accomplishments can be taken at face value.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    17. Re:First? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I've known Jerry for almost 30 years, long enough for him to consider me a friend. I even house sit for him when needed and take care of his dog, Sable. I'd not completely disagree with what you say, but in his defense, I don't honestly think he'd lie about what he's done. At the very least, he and Larry (who I've also known that long, although not as well) believe that what they did back then was as important as he now claims.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    18. Re:First? by play_in_traffic · · Score: 1

      Please see Eyring, Experimental Evidence of an X-Ray Laser 1972 http://www.pnas.org/content/69/7/1744.full.pdf

    19. Re:First? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      My point was mainly that ... having a defensive system that had a component that relied on detonating nuclear weapons wasn't all that out of line with what we'd had prior to the time work started on SDI

      Perhaps. But pre-SDI, there was no suggestion that defensive weapons could do more than mitigate the effect of a Soviet attack. By contrast SDI was supposed to be a "shield" that we could hide safely behind.

      A defensive weapon with lots of "collateral damage" might have a place in the cold-blooded calculations in place when Nike was first proposed near the end of WW II. (Recall that AA guns from that war also did a lot of damage on the ground.) It also would have fitted in with the bloody-minded attitude during the early years of the Cold War, when it was widely assumed that the two superpowers had to come to blows eventually. But once Mutually Assured Destruction became the accepted doctrine on both sides, the idea that you could tolerate some civilian casualties went away.

      Whatever its actual motives or effects, SDI didn't revive the doctrine of "acceptable collateral damage". It was supposedly about making civilians completely safe. "Defensive" explosions of nuclear weapons are kind of inconsistent with that.

    20. Re:First? by smolloy · · Score: 1

      The article you link to shows that FELIX is an infra-red FEL, not x ray. FLASH, the other FEL that people have been mentioning is VUV, not x ray.

      So I still think that this is the first *beam based* x ray laser. A slight correction from my original title (due to the existence of the NOVA experiment), but FELIX is most definitely not an x ray laser.

    21. Re:First? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. But pre-SDI, there was no suggestion that defensive weapons could do more than mitigate the effect of a Soviet attack. By contrast SDI was supposed to be a "shield" that we could hide safely behind.

      AFAICT, even (among serious participants in defense policy debate/analysis) the optimists who believed that the systems in SDI could in some reasonable time frame be deployed never believed that; insofar as such characterizations got made, they were political sales pitches. The real strategic purpose, as with earlier defense systems, was (1) to assure the capacity to retaliate against an enemy with more advanced weapons than earlier systems were meant to defend against, and thus deny the enemy the capacity (or even the ability to delude themselves into believing they had the capacity) for an overwhelming first strike, and (2) to raise the fear in any potential enemy (again, noting that our primary enemy had more sophisticated weapons than previously) that we might believe we had sufficient defense against any enemy retaliation to any first strike of ours that the enemy must take seriously our threat that we might use nuclear weapons in an escalating crisis, forcing them to back down without a war being initiated at all.

      Essentially, all through the cold war everything with nuclear weapons centered on (1) deterring attack by assuring that no enemy could believe they could attack you with losses that would be acceptable to their leadership, and (2) convincing the enemy that you believed that you could attack them with results that would be acceptable to your leadership, so that they could not risk actions that might provoke an attack.

      Of course, those strategies aren't the kind of things you can be completely open about with your own public most of the time.

    22. Re:First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that paper is crap. look at the subsequent citing papers. totally debunked. the first x-ray lasers were created at LLNL in the early '80s as is mentioned above.

    23. Re:First? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      insofar as such characterizations got made, they were political sales pitches.

      You mean like Reagan's big SDI speech where he promised to make nukes "impotent and obsolete"? Unless you think Reagan was nothing but a cynical con man (and if he was, he was a much better actor than a casual viewing of Kings Row suggests), that wasn't a political sales pitch, that was a heartfelt declaration of purpose.

  4. A safer way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to give humans superpowers, without the risk of giving others nearby cancer, or the need to steal some nuclear waste from a local nuclear plant.

  5. A big medical breakthrough. by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 4, Informative

    Right now X-Ray sources are quite random and waste _a lot_ of energy. A nice pencil thin directional beam would do wonders for CT scanners.

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    1. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by omuls+are+tasty · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, from TFA it seems that your CT scanner would need to have a two-mile linear accelerator behind it.

    2. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by Liquidrage · · Score: 4, Funny

      But once they ship it off to Taiwan for mass production that two miles will become two centimeters. And we'll all have our own X-Ray laser pointer.

    3. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by lahvak · · Score: 2, Funny

      And we'll all have our own X-Ray laser pointer.

      Awesome! You won't be able to see what you are pointing at, but it can still burn out your eyes.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      As far as medical radiology goes, a pencil-thin beam would be nice for added precision, but also for dramatically reducing the radiation dose. My local hospital has stopped giving me CT scans because I've had so many in the past (out of necessity) that they don't want to fry me any more than necessary.

      Replacing the emitters in a CT scanner, which basically spray you with radiation and rely on carefully-placed sensors to create the line-of-sight they want, with a directed, low-power beam that only hits with radiation those cells that actually need it, will dramatically reduce the amount of radiation that patients receive.

    5. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by tastiles · · Score: 1

      Actually current CT's are designed to use a "cone beam" and measure radiation from as much area as possible at one time. This has allowed the time it takes for a CT scan to go from minutes per slice to tenths of seconds per slice. Unless you had hundreds (or thousands) of pencil beams, the current scanners would take much less time.

    6. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > You won't be able to see what you are pointing at...

      I suspect that sufficient power at 1.5nm will make just about anything flouresce. Or at least glow.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      A coherent source should also make higher sensitivity detectors possible.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      My local hospital has stopped giving me CT scans because I've had so many in the past (out of necessity) that they don't want to fry me any more than necessary.

      MRI doesn't do the job?

    9. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Right now X-Ray sources are quite random and waste _a lot_ of energy. A nice pencil thin directional beam would do wonders for CT scanners.

      You are kidding right? Have you any idea how hideously inefficient a particle accelerator is?

    10. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, IIRC, you need a beam wide enough to irradiate the entire patient's body at once otherwise the Fourier transform used to generate the picture gives artifacts so I don't think a pencil thin beam will help. However I have heard that it is great for killing tumours. Apparently you can slice and dice them with a coherent X-Ray source and it is far worse for them than healthy tissue. This way you can reduce the collateral damage to tissue near the tumour.

    11. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by Zapotek · · Score: 1

      MRI does the job...MRI does a lot more than this job though and it's pretty damn expensive.

    12. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by cbhacking · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, for values of "glow" equal to "burst into flames." If sufficiently concentrated, it really doesn't take much energy to ignite something assuming it has a relatively low flash temperature (like wood, paper, even plastic or paint).

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    13. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by joe_frisch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was surprised, but the LCLS laser doesn't make thing fluoresce. We had a camera watching a wavelength calibration foil (Nickel) and didn't see any light at all until we burned through. We don't have a good energy calibration yet, but it is something like a millijoule in 50 femtoseconds.

    14. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Holy crap. My research is relevant to something for once!

      We're working on improving the accelerating gradients of linacs. Although I'm not sure that we'll ever get to the point where this technology is practical for use in CT scanners, we've had tremendous improvements over the past few years. Utilizing superconducting accelerating cavities, we've improved acceleration gradients from 5-7MV/m (megavolts per meter) to 35-70MV/m, with further improvements hypothetically possible.

      The ILC (International Linear Collider -- the LHC's linear collider cousin) could be up to 50 miles long according to some estimates. CERN believe that they can build a 150MV/m machine, using a novel technique to achieve acceleration (although this has yet to be seen).

      SLAC, where this facility is located, was built in 1962, and utilizes copper accelerating cavities, as opposed to the superconducting niobium cavities used in most new big linacs. Further, only the last 1/3 of the accelerator is used for the LCLS (ie. the X-Ray Laser). I haven't done the calculations (nor am I particularly familiar with the LCLS), though I'd imagine that you'd be able to considerably cut down on the size if LCLS were constructed with a new linac.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    15. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      You are right, we use the last 1/3 of the linac (about a kilometer) for a 14 GeV beam. The existing structures run at 17MV/M. The same structures can run as high as 35-40 MV/M (used for the positron capture section), but the power consumption is very high. The X-band test structures (for NLC and CLIC) operate at something like 75MV/M (loaded gradient). You could make a considerably shorter machine (maybe 3X) if you needed to, but it would be very expensive to build an entire new accelerator.

      The existing and future FELs at DESY use superconducting structures. I think flash operates at something like 20MV/M, and the (future) XFEL is designed for 25MV/M.

    16. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by smolloy · · Score: 1

      And even once you've built your very short linac, you still have all the length of the undulators to make the thing lase. Making these machines shorter isn't just a matter of accelerating gradient.

    17. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Intersting -- I haven't completely read up on this, but I presume that operating in the non-superconducting region limits your pulse length of the FEL to something rather short compared to what could be achieved with a superconducting accelerator?

      I remember that the FEL at JLab where I worked fit in its own (reasonably sized) building, although the SRF accelerator that powered it only provided a 200MeV beam. Even then, they were able to do some seriously impressive things with it.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    18. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      I don't think efficiency was one of their design goals ;).

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    19. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by omuls+are+tasty · · Score: 1

      assuming it has a relatively low flash temperature (like wood, paper, even plastic or paint).

      But does it work on human flesh?

      Please advise.

      Kind regards,
      The World Madmen Organization

    20. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by Canazza · · Score: 1

      it also interacts with the big metal pin holding my leg together

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    21. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by jeroen94704 · · Score: 1

      This would be interesting for the treatment of tumors as well. A number of low-power X-ray laser beams converging on a tumor would create a very small, and precisely controllable, spot of high-intensity x-ray radiation.

      --
      He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
    22. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Yes, room temperature accelerators typically operate with RF pulse lengths from 100 nanoseconds to a few microseconds. Superconducting accelerators typically operate from a millisecond to CW. The LCLS produces a single electron bunch at a repetition rate of up to 120Hz (10Hz at the moment). DESY Flash operates with a train of bunches - I think the design is around 1000 bunches (I don't know how many they have been able to use), at an overall repetition rate of 5Hz. You get much higher average power from a SC accelerator, a room temperature accelerator is considerably cheaper to build if you don't need the large number of bunches.

    23. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by sploxx · · Score: 1

      But you can do better than focused x-ray laser beams with already existing pencil shaped beams of charged particles.

      The problem is not that the beam can not be focused (a long chunk of lead with a hole in the middle is a perfect collimator for xrays/gammas).

      The problem is that the penetrating depth needs to be controlled.

      And the bragg peak for charged particle radiation helps in this much better than the e^{-x} absorption law of photons.

    24. Re:A big medical breakthrough. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Even better would be an array of pencil-thin (or thinner) emitters that intersect at a specific point. Keep each beam at low power to penetrate healthy cells without damage but at the intersecting point you get very high energy that destroys only the targetted cells.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  6. How soon... by roc97007 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...before it's available in a pointer?

    I'd pay money for that...

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:How soon... by flo55 · · Score: 1

      ...as soon as x-ray photons move into the visible spectrum.

      Oh wait, they have those!

  7. Huh? by msauve · · Score: 2, Funny

    X-ray laser (LCLS)

    Strangest acronym evar.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Huh? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      What's so strange about LCLS as an acronym for "Linac Coherent Light Source"? (Other than the fact that Linac is itself an abbreviation for Linear Accelerator, so it should really by LACLS.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Huh? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Yeah really, why not call it Xaser? Fun to say and Xs make everything cooler.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Huh? by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      But would it be X as in Xavier? Or X as in xenophobe?

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    4. Re:Huh? by jd · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The friggin' shark named it.

      --
      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)
    5. Re:Huh? by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Nah, at we have had lots worse:
      SLAC: formerly Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, now just SLAC.
      SLC: SLAC Linear Collider (note the nested acronym)
      NLC: Next Linear Collider - (possibly the worst acronym I've ever seen)
      FACET - I don't even remember that is - but we are building it.

    6. Re:Huh? by smolloy · · Score: 1

      And there are a group out there working on NLS -- "New Light Source" -- which I think trumps NLC for worst acronym ever.

    7. Re:Huh? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      X as in Xmas?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:Huh? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      X-ray laser (LCLS)

      Strangest acronym evar.

      I think Microsoft's "Client Update Notification Tool" still holds the award for unfortunate acronym.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  8. Do not look into laser... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...with remaining head.

  9. But I was promised bomb-pumped x-ray warheads! by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1

    How else would Honour Harrington defeat the peeps?

    --

    Yay me!

    1. Re:But I was promised bomb-pumped x-ray warheads! by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      with hemphills grav lance?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:But I was promised bomb-pumped x-ray warheads! by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      By using the new Bomb Pumped Gravitic Lasers developed by Admiral of the Red Hemphill.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    3. Re:But I was promised bomb-pumped x-ray warheads! by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      The idea has been used in Sci-Fi for a long time - I seem to recall Asimov making references to it, and probably others, in fairly golden-age stuff. It does actually work - I think it's actually been tested as a potential anti-ICBM measure - but aiming seems like it would be tricky.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  10. size by jschen · · Score: 3, Funny

    So when will it be small enough to fit on a shark's head?

    1. Re:size by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      HA. Typical non-mad scientists thinking! you will never get anywhere thinking like that!
      The question is, "SO when will there be a shark large enough to mount this on?"

      and that would be next week.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:size by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

      HA. Typical non-evil mastermind thinking! you will never get anywhere thinking like that!
      The question is, "SO which lawyer do you want to mount this on?"

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:size by peragrin · · Score: 1

      you fire it at lawyers.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:size by emmons · · Score: 1

      hey cts, are you ever going to finish that film?

      --
      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
    5. Re:size by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Now if you were to actually use a shark, I don't think it would be Evil let alone creepy or imposing enough on the people of my rule. So stick to your sharks. I would use the Loc Nest Monster as its much more befitting. I think a much larger laser will fit on it.

    6. Re:size by twakar · · Score: 1

      If a certain biotech company gets its' way, we may have a pig large enough soon!

      --
      Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity!
    7. Re:size by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      I would use the Loc Nest Monster [...]

      Err, LocH NesS Monster. So called because it (supposedly) lives in Loch Ness. Not a nest.

    8. Re:size by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      HA. Typical non-evil mastermind thinking! you will never get anywhere thinking like that!
      The question is, "SO where is the Beowulf cluster of lawyers to mount this on?"

      --

      Question everything

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

      HA. Typical non-evil corporate mastermind thinking! you will never get anywhere thinking like that!
      The question is, "SO which set of files do we point the laser at?"

  11. popcorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can I suggest that they put this thing in the belly of an airforce drone and attempt to cook a tub of popcorn on the ground? Perhaps in my professor's house?

    1. Re:popcorn by neurovish · · Score: 1

      Can I suggest that they put this thing in the belly of an airforce drone and attempt to cook a tub of popcorn on the ground? Perhaps in my professor's house?

      We're securing the fake moustaches as I type this.

  12. The only relevant question by noidentity · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The only question I have involves sharks, and when.

    1. Re:The only relevant question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

      Why I feel like this comes from a joke in a tv series? And, which one? :)

    2. Re:The only relevant question by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Sharks with frikin' lasers in the meme list for Slashdot on Wikipedia.

  13. You knew this was going to be asked.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My shopping list:
    30 x-ray lasers
    29 sharks

    1. Re:You knew this was going to be asked.. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You already have one shark?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  14. Stupid question by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can it be used for more accurate photolithography?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Stupid question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not realistically.

      X-ray sources have been experimented with for lith purposes. The trouble is, in order to take advantage of the small wavelength, you need to be able to have your photoresist - the photoactive compound that reacts to the light source - actually capture the x-rays.

      Modern resist thickness can be on the order of tens or hundreds on nanometers. An x-ray source isn't even going to notice that on the way by. It won't hardly notice the substrate either, for that matter.

    2. Re:Stupid question by storkus · · Score: 1

      You know, I was wondering when someone would finally ask this! I figured, being full of geeks (or maybe not so much anymore?), the first things on peoples' minds wouldn't be about SDI and other weapons, but about when we'll see this applied to keeping Moore's Law alive by allowing die shrink even further. But the AC above kinda blew that away, I suppose.

  15. And it runs on RTEMS by joelsherrill · · Score: 1

    And it runs RTEMS. There are a lot of RTEMS physics applications thanks to the EPICS community. Great group of talented folks.

  16. X-ray drive by Anenome · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How long until Sony announces their new 'Exray' drive, the successor to Bluray--capable of holding 60 petabytes on a single disk? :P

    --
    "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    1. Re:X-ray drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we just skip straight to gamma rays so I don't have to keep re-buying the same movies?

    2. Re:X-ray drive by Anenome · · Score: 1

      "Can we just skip straight to gamma rays so I don't have to keep re-buying the same movies?"

      XD Lol, nice one. But I think that could only happen once the copyrights expire on a significant number of movies... You could probably fit every movie ever made on a gamma-ray reading drive O_O

      --
      "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    3. Re:X-ray drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't look at that laser!

    4. Re:X-ray drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Xaser we will simple beam movies straight to your visual cortex. We are working on sound.

    5. Re:X-ray drive by Kratisto · · Score: 1

      Or 10^8 hours of commentary!

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    6. Re:X-ray drive by martas · · Score: 1

      pfft. Microsoft is already working with Toshiba to develop a new drive for the xbox that uses gamma rays to read/write from the disk. Of course that means that the new xbox will destroy all organic lifeforms within 2-5 miles when it's turned on, but they don't really care...

  17. Priority review by manoelhc · · Score: 1

    Why don't they focus on a powerful laser to destroy bad asteroids?

    --
    -- Simon said: Die!
    1. Re:Priority review by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Funny
      Because they don't subscribe to your medieval worldview of "good" and "bad" asteroids?

      And because it's ridiculously impractical?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Priority review by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Because they don't subscribe to your medieval worldview of "good" and "bad" asteroids?

      And because it's ridiculously impractical?

      Much better to make popcorn!

  18. World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by imperious_rex · · Score: 3, Informative

    The first x-ray laser was part of SDI research in the early 80's. Click here and here for more info.

    1. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by McNihil · · Score: 3, Informative

      It actually says Hard X-ray's

      http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/xray.htm

      This announcement believe it or not has actually made my day. It will 100% spur innovation like the original Red Lasers did.

    2. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually the FLASH soft xray laser in hamburg has been operational for a while now

    3. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      The ones you're referring to destroyed themselves on use, yes? I'm not sure there was anything in those systems that could be termed reusable. By comparison, the LCLS is possibly the first example of what most people think of when they say "laser" - not the beam of coherent light itself, but the device which generates said beam (without vaporizing itself).

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    4. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      FLASH at DESY in Germany has run for several years now. I think their record shortest wavelength was around 30 angstroms. There is a project underway there to build a 1 angstrom laser. LCLS is presently running at 1.5 angstroms.

      I don't know if X-ray wavelengths are officially defined, but wikipedia lists 100 to 0.1 angstroms, so all the above machines would count.

    5. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also appears that DESY had a FEL operational in 2004. AFAIK they also came up with the concept first and are currently planning to build a much larger device.

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

    6. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      They are hard at work for the XFEL there, digging a 3.4 kilometer tunnel through Hamburg and a surrounding canton which used to be a picturesque area before dumpster trucks started driving day and night to remove the soil. http://xfel.desy.de/

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    7. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by smolloy · · Score: 1

      Thanks for those links. I stand corrected :)

      But I don't think that negates the importance of LCLS switching on. One example is that the Nova laser you linked to can only be fired 6 times a day, whereas LCLS should be able to run quite happily at 50 Hz, or more, for days (weeks?).

    8. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by smolloy · · Score: 1

      FLASH is (I thought) VUV, not x ray, and the Euro XFEL hasn't turned on yet, so I still think that LCLS is the first x ray FEL.

    9. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by LatencyKills · · Score: 1

      This is certainly the first instance of Xray production from an FEL, but it's a far cry from the first Xray laser. While it's true that the SDI lasers were self-destructive, sub-10nm lasers have been produced from a number of modified atomic plasmas in sustainable laser formats http://www.clf.rl.ac.uk/reports/1996-1997/pdf/16.pdf. Sorry about the pdf.

      --
      Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
    10. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By comparison, the LCLS is possibly the first example of what most people think of when they say "laser"

      Not me. I've never considered x-rays to be light. UV laser while technically wrong, isn't silly, but x-ray laser doesn't make any sense.

    11. Re:World's *First* X-Ray Laser? I don't think so. by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Remember 10nm is 100 Angstroms. LCLS is almost 100X shorter wavelength than that. I don't think there are any other coherent sources near that wavelength.

  19. An X-Laser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Don't let Abaddon find out about it! He'll destroy billions in his quest for rushing human supremacy over the Galactic Milieu!!

    Only his brother can save us!

  20. Re:Huh? Not an Acronym by fuzzylollipop · · Score: 1

    it is only an acronym if it is pronounced like a work (ie RADAR, LASER). LCLS is just an abbreviation.

  21. Re:i have the perfect test for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > get all the fags in one area and see if you can fry them off the face of the planet. faggots are useless.

    Interestingly enough, if you ROT13 this message, it reads "OH GOD I CRAVE HOT HARD THROBBING COCKS IN MY MOUTH PLEASE DON'T TELL THE GUN CLUB".

  22. I don't think that ever actually worked by mbessey · · Score: 1

    As far as I can recall, while some work (and a lot of promotion) was done on bomb-pumped X-ray lasers for SDI, there wasn't any experiment that definitively demonstrated the effect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#X-ray_laser

    Wikipedia seems to agree, for what it's worth. I wish all my books weren't in storage - I'm sure this is mentioned in one of Richard Rhodes' books on the bomb, somewhere.

  23. You are... by msauve · · Score: 0, Troll

    appropriately named. Only "cluelesslollypop" would be more accurate.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  24. obligatory filk to celebrate: by mblase · · Score: 1

    X-ray lasers sing this song
    doo-dah, doo-dah
    Blasting holes 'bout nine miles long
    oh, de-do-dah-day
    Gonna recharge all night
    Gonna align all day
    You're standing right in the beam line now
    You better get out of the way

    (And if anyone can tell me who that's attributable to, you'll be my new Internet Best Friend.)

    1. Re:obligatory filk to celebrate: by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Barring someone from MRC or EG&G, I'd have to go with the Royal Crown Review.

      Course - third line seems to have changed some from the original.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  25. I wonder how long it will take by bombastinator · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it will take for all the advances produced by the millions and millions of dollars and careers spent will be squandered by crappy information security and shipped to china for 37 cents in long distance charges.

  26. So when can I buy one online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what I'm really wanting to know is how long until someone sells a cheap Chinese knock-off online? Fuck blue lasers! I can imagine loads of fun pointing this at people in the mall, during baseball games, at the movies, etc.

  27. Re:Huh? Not an Acronym by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

    it is only an acronym if it is pronounced like a work (ie RADAR, LASER). LCLS is just an abbreviation.

    I can haz LOLCLASS?

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  28. Apologies to Peter Benchley by PPH · · Score: 1

    (Looks at 2 mile long accelerator): "We're going to need a bigger shark."

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  29. It is impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but not the first by a few years.

    The first X-ray laser is in Hamburg: Flash. And it is operational since 2005 open for outside users!!!
    http://zms.desy.de/press/background_information/photon_science/flash/index_eng.html

    Come on guys!!! Research before saying first!!!

    1. Re:It is impressive... by smolloy · · Score: 1

      Apologies. I meant the first hard x ray laser. I don't think there has been another one of those.

  30. I think you are confused. by smaddox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone seems to be confused about what an x-ray laser is. It isn't like a laser pointer that can be focused down to a small dot. X-ray's can't readily be focused, except by clever uses of beryllium, and even those aren't very efficient.

    No, the applications of this are quite different. Think about an expanded laser beam. What can you do with that? Well, you can make holograms, for one. An interesting thing about holograms is that the size of the image scales with the light that illuminates them. So, if you could record a hologram in X-rays, then view it with red light, it would be magnified by ~700 times. Unfortunately, x-ray holograms are unlikely, because recording a hologram requires redirecting the beam at least once. The best X-ray mirrors (beryllium) are no more than 1% efficient.

    So X-ray lasers aren't really that interesting for the layman. However, they are extremely important for science. I don't know specifically what this one will be used for, but you can bet it will lead to new discoveries.

    1. Re:I think you are confused. by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      You can get pretty good reflectivity using glancing incidence mirrors, or crystal mirrors tuned to specific wavelengths. The plan is to focus the LCLS beam to a very small spot to get higher intensities.

    2. Re:I think you are confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get pretty good reflectivity using glancing incidence mirrors

      A good example would be http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/animations/mirror.html.

  31. In my best Flounder imitation... by CBob · · Score: 1

    I'd like 100 square miles of thin film solar cells please....

    The next phone call goes to SpaceX.

    An Evil Overlord's work is never done.

  32. Light by Kazymyr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "The world's first X-ray laser (LCLS) has seen first light. A Free Electron Laser (FEL) is based on the light that is emitted by accelerated electrons when they are forced to move in a curved path. The beam then interacts with this emitted light in order to excite coherent emission (much like in a regular laser); thus producing a very short, extremely bright, bunch of coherent X-ray photons. The engineering expertise that went into this machine is phenomenal -- 'This is the most difficult light source that has ever been turned on,' said LCLS Construction Project Director John Galayda. 'It's on the boundary between the impossible and possible, and within two hours of start-up these guys had it right on.' -- and the benefits to the applied sciences from research using this light can be expected to be enormous: 'For some disciplines, this tool will be as important to the future as the microscope has been to the past.' said SLAC Director Persis Drell."

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

    --
    I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    1. Re:Light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      2. Physics.
      a. Also called luminous energy, radiant energy. electromagnetic radiation to which the organs of sight react, ranging in wavelength from about 400 to 700 nm and propagated at a speed of 186,282 mi./sec (299,972 km/sec), considered variously as a wave, corpuscular, or quantum phenomenon.
      b. a similar form of radiant energy that does not affect the retina, as ultraviolet or infrared rays.

    2. Re:Light by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      Well, it's also commonly used by beamline scientists to indicate the radiation, so it's not used inappropriately here.

      It's even used for neutron flux, for example the spallation source at J-Parc recently achieved "first light", i.e. first emission of neutrons from its target.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    3. Re:Light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xrays no different from visible light... Just higher frequency.

    4. Re:Light by smolloy · · Score: 1

      Accelerator physicists (like me) use the word "light" to refer to any EM radiation coming off a beam, not just optical wavelengths.

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

      I don't think that word means what you think it means. Just because they aren't in the visible range doesn't mean it's not light. One of the big clues that it is in fact light is that it travels at 300,000,000 m/sec, the speed of light.

  33. Why... by jd · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...do you want sharks to have a targeting laser?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Why... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...that can see through WALLS!

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  34. Yes indeed! You will become Atom Man! Your special by lsjylp · · Score: 1

    Yes indeed! You will become Atom Man! aerobic exercise Your special power will be that you can turn yourself into a cloud of

  35. Sometimes you get what you deserve!.... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Dude, the question is, "What WON'T they blow up with it?"

    Your Momma!...There are not enough explosives in the UNIVERSE! *sigh!*

    *Disclaimer*
    I do not know your Mom, and meant no direct disrespect...this was meant to be an 'Obligatory, but inane' post....YMMV, however!

    Never discount the potential of 'bomb-pumped LASER weapons', if we ever figure it out....

    Your Momma, my Momma, EVERYONE'S Momma will be at risk.

    Even M.A.D.(Mutually Assured Destruction) has it's practical limits for rational beings. Let's hope humans belong to that group!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Sometimes you get what you deserve!.... by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Niven's "Footfall" - pump an x-ray laser with a fusion bomb. WHOOSH!

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    2. Re:Sometimes you get what you deserve!.... by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 1

      Came for a reference to the X-ray laser in The Mote in God's Eye...leaving only mildly disappointed that Footfall got mentioned first...

      --
      Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
  36. X-ray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when are we going to start using sharks for precision dental X-rays?

    1. Re:X-ray by TheDugong · · Score: 0, Redundant

      When we have strapped x-ray lasers to their heads, duh!

  37. SHOE STORES! by aqk · · Score: 1, Funny

    What, no comments yet?

    I remember, half a century ago, just walkin' in to a local shoe store, with a coupla pals. We'd have fun playing with the shoe-store X-ray machine.
    "Wow! watch me wiggle my toes !" etc etc

    And then would go home, and later that night in bed, after Mom or Dad told me to turn the light off, I would read my Captain Marvel comics to the light of my glowing feet...

    Then those evil machines got banned.
      Strangely, all my kids seem to have assumed adult-hood without... uhhh.. "mutations".
    We were just lucky I guess.
    And my feet are OK. 'Cept when I go barefoot in cold weather...

    Jeez. 50 years later. I can still run a daily 10Km on those feet. Is there something that I don't know?

  38. Re:Bah, that's nothing...- MALWARE! by xonar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Watch out, dont visit the above! It's a trap!

  39. Beyond the impossible... by the_tsi · · Score: 1

    "It's on the boundary between the impossible and possible"

    I call it... the possimpible.

    http://www.barneysvideoresume.com/

  40. DO NOT CLICK THAT LINK!!! - Malware! by emmons · · Score: 3, Informative

    It will fsck you up. Unless you're running linux - then it's just really annoying.

    --
    Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  41. X-Rasor by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    "X-Rasor". Say it out loud. Doesn't it just sound awesome?

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  42. Oh, oops by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    "X-Raser". Say it out loud. Doesn't it just sound awesome?

    Fixed that for me.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  43. Re:Bah, that's nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice.... no script, firefox on my mac... i clicked the link and was unaffected. if clicking on the link fucks you up then I just have to laugh.

  44. Whats with the visible light stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so I thought x-rays were not visible light?? How the hell do you get a visible stream off of x-rays? I mean really!! WTF!

  45. Do not... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Do not try to comprehend visions created by staring into X-Ray laser with remaining lobe.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  46. mmm. Prontons and sexlectrons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Free" your "electrons"!! Your "accelerated electrons" "forced to move" in an "excited coherent emission," "thus producing a very short" "beam". "These guys had it right on." This is the "most difficult...source that has ever been turned on." "This tool," "expected to be enormous," will be important to the future as the microscope has been in the past."

  47. How is this different from .... by oPless · · Score: 1

    A Maser?

    1. Re:How is this different from .... by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 1

      A maser is a coherent microwave beam. A laser is a more generic light beam (visible light mostly). An x-ray laser is a coherent beam of x-ray light.

      The 'ASER' part in each stands for Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

    2. Re:How is this different from .... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Masers operate at infra-red frequencies (the M being for Microwave) - i.e. frequencies below that of visible light. This is operating at X-ray frequencies, i.e. with wavelengths measured in angstroms, not in micrometers.

  48. Been there, seen that, done by that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    X-ray (gamma-ray) lasers are trivial and have been trialled during the 1980's Reagan's SDI Start Wars program. It only takes a nuclear bomb, surrounded by radially placed iron rods. When the nuke detonates, the iron rods evaporate in microseconds while producing powerful, coherent gamma lasershots from their tip. This was to be used in a network of one-time use battle satellites, which would destroy dozens of incoming USSR ballistic missiles in a single firing.

    This method was invented by the famous jewish war-mongering mad scientist Edward Teller, but eventually costs and the frightening aspect of further escalating nuclear weapons into outer space crushed the project.

  49. It's a race to the bottom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Semiconductor circuit size is related to wavelength in photo-lithography. Faster CPUs?

  50. No, SDI did not collapse the Soviet Union by amck · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are problems with this idea.
    (1) Its justification after the fact. No credible proof has been provided that this was ever the plan: rather, the Soviet Union collapsed economically,
    in a way unexpected by the CIA and the intelligence community, then the SDI folks say "See ? that was our Sekrit plan all along". If it was the
    plan, it shouldn't have been a suprise.
    (2) SDI didn't change soviet spending. They did practically no SDI work (in comparison to the US), and Soviet military spending didn't change.
    Counter-measures to SDI are / were far cheaper than SDI itself: SDI meant spending billions on new tracking and laser developments to appear
    credible (even if no-one involved believed it would work); countering it meant a few dummy balloons and chaff. It risked bankrupting the US
    far before bankrupting the SU.
    (3) Not only did Soviet spending not change, the CIA knew that it didn't change, and yet SDI continued. A very expensive, failed, policy was continued
    in order to keep money flowing into certain companies. It was a pork barrel.

    The soviet economic collapse was triggered by OPEC, not SDI. When Saudi Arabia et al opened stopcocks and flooded the world with cheap oil,
    the Soviet export economy collapsed.

    --
    Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
    1. Re:No, SDI did not collapse the Soviet Union by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      MOD PARENT UP!!! I'm sick of conservatives rewriting history. The Soviet Union fell on Reagan's watch, therefore he's responsible! And you know what else? MTV came out in the 80's. Thank Reagan for that. When did MTV start sucking and stop playing music? Under Clinton. Fucking liberal, just proves it. And have you noticed how few 9-11's happened under Reagan, never had an asteroid impact or alien invasion. That's because we bankrupted the aliens first!

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:No, SDI did not collapse the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may not have spend money on anti-SDI research, but someone spent money on assassination teams. One of my college professors volunteered and was chosen to work in Germany on SDI research. He was killed by a car that swerved over several lanes of traffic to hit him as he helped a stranded motorist change a tire. Not strange enough for you? The remaining members of his team were killed in 'strange accidents' within a week of his death. He wasn't part of this team as far as I know, but the same sort of 'accidents' happened in Germany around the same time.

    3. Re:No, SDI did not collapse the Soviet Union by icebrain · · Score: 1

      A couple points:

      1. The Soviets already had working, deployed ABM technology decades ago. So did the US. Trick is, those were terminal-phase interceptors with nuclear warheads. SDI sought to produce space-based boost-phase interception systems.

      2. The effectiveness of chaff and decoys on terminal-phase interception systems is highly overrated. Chaff is only good for obscuring radar returns, and can easily be sorted out with infrared sensors. It also decelerates much faster in atmosphere than a warhead. Decoys are a little better, but not much; in order for them to be effective and not easily separated from real warheads, you need to match the thermal and radar signatures of a real warhead (meaning you need to approximate the heat signature, shape, and materials of a warhead) and have comparable ballistics to a warhead (so if your shape and size are about the same per the first requirement, you need about the same mass). At that point, you're lugging around something the size, shape, and mass of a warhead... might as well carry a real one and stop wasting space.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    4. Re:No, SDI did not collapse the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm. Well, the former Soviet equivalent of their Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disagrees with you.

    5. Re:No, SDI did not collapse the Soviet Union by careysub · · Score: 1

      Quite correct.

      For those seriously interested in the question of how the USSR came undone, I recommend reading The Disintegration of the Soviet Economic System by Ellman and Kontorovich.

      In reading this detailed account of how things fell apart you will note that no SDI-related military spending is even mentioned. Soviet military spending was a major factor in the collapse, but this spending had exceeded 20% of the GNP in the 60s and stayed there up until the very end. It was the Soviet leadership's own choice to do this. Reagan has nothing to do with it.

      The oil price collapse and Gorbachev's attempt to restructure were the reasons for the collapse coming when it did. Restructuring tore down the old inefficient command system, but failed to replace it with anything effective.

      Those who cite claims by former Soviet leaders that SDI was responsible (rather than their own failures) probably also believe the claims of G. W. Bush and company that no mistakes were made in bringing the U.S. to its current crises.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    6. Re:No, SDI did not collapse the Soviet Union by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Interesting
      MOD PARENT UP!!! I'm sick of conservatives rewriting history.

      When it comes to Reagan, the liberals are just as bad. They constantly refuse to admit that the economy was booming under him, and pretend that he was already suffering from Alzheimer's when he was President, long before the first symptoms showed up. I don't know about you, but I remember the Reagan years, very well, and for the most part, they were very good years indeed, far better than that piss-poor excuse for a President Carter could ever have managed/

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  51. Storage application? by __aarvde6843 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wounder if it could be used to make a multi tera holographic x-ray storage device...

  52. Re:Bah, that's nothing...- MALWARE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who still falls for that ancient LM link deserves it.

  53. Incorrect headline by jeroen94704 · · Score: 1

    While this is the first "hard" X-Ray laser, there have been lasers producing (softer) x-rays far longer.

    When I was in college studying physics, we went on a field-trip to the FOM institute near Utrecht, the Netherlands. Even back then, they had a FEL operational that they told could produce coherent light in a large range of wavelengths. If I remember correctly, this range extended into the soft x-ray range.

    --
    He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
    1. Re:Incorrect headline by smolloy · · Score: 1

      Really, as far as I know LCLS is the first x ray FEL. FLASH is not an x ray FEL (it's VUV), and neither is FELIX (it's infra-red).

      Can you link to the machine you're talking about?

  54. not a true laser by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Numerous places have X Ray "lasers" including SLAC. These aren't true lasers since the mechanism that generates the coherent pulse of light doesn't do so via stimulated emission (where a cascade of photons generated by electrons dropping to a lower potential result in a pulse or beam of extremely coherent light, same phase, direction, etc). Packets of electronics are pushed at near light speeds through magnetic fields that bend or wiggle the packet, generating a pulse of very coherent light (bending the path of an electron causes a photon to be emitted) that compares well in coherence to laser generated light. What appears to be new is that the frequency of X Rays is in the upper limits of the X Ray spectrum. The higher frequency will be useful for even finer details of molecular reactions, internal cell processes, and other remarkable research that is being done with these light sources.

    1. Re:not a true laser by brando_j · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have to correct you on this. LCLS is the _only_ xray FEL in the world. At the end of the decade there will be 3. FLASH, the test facility for the XFEL can produce soft xrays. Granted it is not a true laser driven by stimulated emission of atoms but you can't have an x-ray laser because no optics have the necessary efficiency at these wavelengths. But for all intensive purposes it is a laser with coherent, tightly collimated light.

    2. Re:not a true laser by smolloy · · Score: 1

      I think you're wrong. LCLS produces light by using the undulators to amplify the spontaneously emitted light from structure already present on the electron bunches. It does this in a way that is a precise analogue of a conventional laser, and the physics of the light production can be studied and discussed in exactly the same way.

      And this is SLAC's first x ray laser, and the world's first x ray FEL. Please provide links if you feel I need corrected. Cheers!

  55. Re:Bah, that's nothing...- MALWARE! by Vu1turEMaN · · Score: 1

    the better question is why isn't it on a blacklist?

  56. Yo dawg by CaptainStumpy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I herd you like light so we put a beam in your beam...

    --
    It will be better to purchase from an owner who is a good farmer and a good builder.
  57. Awesome by reidiq · · Score: 1

    Before startup, the doctor yells, " I'm ChArGin MaH LaZeR!!!!!!!" (Not all caps)

    --
    Sig? No thanks. I don't smoke.
  58. First after Free Electron LAser Hamburg (FLASH) by manuel.flury · · Score: 1

    meaning, it's the second !

  59. But please look a little deeper by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    The soviet economic collapse was triggered by OPEC, not SDI. When Saudi Arabia et al opened stopcocks and flooded the world with cheap oil, the Soviet export economy collapsed.

    And why did OPEC flood the world with cheap oil? The answer is clear: SDI! :-)

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  60. Xasers by Baby+Duck · · Score: 1

    Didn't the earliest research into "lasers" involve microwave radiation, thus the first acronym being M.A.S.E.R, not L.A.S.E.R.? So shouldn't this be X.R.A.S.E.R or X.A.S.E.R.? I understand that X-Rays are still light, but not visible light. But if the differentiation between maser and laser existed, with laser solely belonging to visible light, I'd like to see this tradition upheld.

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

  61. Re:i have the perfect test for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did! I did! I did tell the Gun Club. Oh dear me, what now?

  62. Faster CPUs anyone? by mac1235 · · Score: 1

    Semiconductor circuit size is related to the wavelength used in photo-lithography. Smaller circuit sizes?

    1. Re:Faster CPUs anyone? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      X-ray photolithography has actually been extensively researched. However, an X-ray laser really doesn't help at all. In fact, photo-lithography uses an incoherent source, like a lightbulb, not a coherent source, like a laser.

      The reason X-ray's are not used is mainly because the depth of field scales with the wavelength. If you make it too small, it becomes nearly impossible to expose an area as large as a CPU die without some parts going out of focus.

  63. Free as in speech or beer? by cowdung · · Score: 1

    Awesome! I was getting so sick and tired of proprietary and closed source Lasers.

    Lasers should be free as in speech.

    All users should be able to change them for their needs. Closed source lasers are inmoral!

  64. Expert opinion needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone with the knowledge of diffraction theory explain how this would help in solving the phase problem? The detector still does not record the phase information, so how is having coherent beam different from using regular monochromatic source?