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."

61 of 238 comments (clear)

  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 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.)

    6. 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!
    7. 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.

    8. Re:The one question we all want to know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      sounds like he already has that power. Redundant!

    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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.
  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 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)
    2. 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!"
    3. Re:Awesome by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Informative

      jebus you're right. unbelievable.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was request number 4, you insensitive clod!

    9. 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.
    10. 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?

    11. 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.
  3. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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...
    7. 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.

    8. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.)

  6. 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
  7. 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?

  8. 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.
  9. 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"
  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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!"
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.

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

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

  17. 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.
  18. 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!"

  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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 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
  22. Storage application? by __aarvde6843 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  23. 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.

  24. 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.