Slashdot Mirror


Research Vehicle Reaches the Bottom of the Ocean

timothy found BBC coverage of the voyage of the Nereus, which on May 31 dove to the bottom of the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench. Only two vehicles have accomplished this feat before, the last 11 years ago. "The unmanned vehicle is remotely operated by pilots aboard a surface ship via a lightweight tether. Its thin, fibre-optic tether to the research vessel Kilo Moana allows the submersible to make deep dives and be highly manoeuvrable. Nereus can also be switched into a free-swimming, autonomous vehicle. ... The Challenger Deep... is the deepest abyss on Earth at 11,000m-deep, more than 2km (1.2 miles) deeper than Mount Everest is high. At that depth, pressures reach 1,100 times those at the surface."

165 comments

  1. Are you ready kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aye aye, Captain!

    1. Re:Are you ready kids? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      For a completely on topic but irrelevant post, see Dilbert. :P

    2. Re:Are you ready kids? by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't hear you!

    3. Re:Are you ready kids? by spyder-implee · · Score: 1

      And... There will be no accusations, just friendly crustaceans. Under the sea.

      --
      Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    4. Re:Are you ready kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      AYE AYE, CAPTAIN!

  2. undersea progress by codename.matrix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, that is great. Hope they find some interesting stuff down there. Maybe some animals we didn't even know existed. Next up: Building the Seaquest

    1. Re:undersea progress by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're asking a lot there, buddy. Don't you think they got enough pressure as it is?

    2. Re:undersea progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, first they have to finish something more important: This thread is useless without pics.

    3. Re:undersea progress by RuBLed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Couple that with the fact that we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

    4. Re:undersea progress by Kagura · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've walked on the bottom of the ocean before. The picture's not me, just an example. ;)

    5. Re:undersea progress by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Yea, Dethklok recording their new album and a giant radioactive seahorse.

    6. Re:undersea progress by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They've been there before, with a manned craft, back in the 60s. They used something called a bathyscaphe. They just found some flounder down there.

    7. Re:undersea progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However low you go, you'll still find lawyers beneath you

    8. Re:undersea progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:undersea progress by Amouth · · Score: 1

      oh god i fell asleep on the couch last night and woke up to that..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    10. Re:undersea progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To hell with Seaquest, let's build Rapture, in exactly the same way as it was in Bioshock, no silly laws to hold back the great, etc.

      Actually, i feel like playing it now, but i'm trying to get this damned PHP to bend to my will at the moment...

    11. Re:undersea progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how low can u go?

  3. I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by linzeal · · Score: 1

    Will see a craft reach the surface of one of the gaseous giants. Now that would be a helluva science and engineering project.

    1. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by sgbett · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm impressed with the two guys who did it *manned* in the 60s

      from tfa :

      In January 1960, Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh made the first and only manned voyage in a Swiss-built bathyscaphe known as the Trieste.
      The vessel consisted of a 2m-diameter (6ft) steel sphere containing the crew suspended below a huge 15m-long (50ft) tank of petrol, designed to provide buoyancy.
      During the nine-hour mission, the two men spent just 20 minutes on the ocean floor; enough time to measure the depth as 10,916m (35,813 ft).

      --
      Invaders must die
    2. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Funny

      Men had balls in the 60s.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to be the first man to set foot on the surface of the sun!

    4. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Men in the 1960's landed on the surface of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune?

    5. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Men had steel balls in the 60s.

      Fixed that for you.

    6. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Trieste is very cool, you can see it in person at the the US Navy Museum which coincidentally is next door to NCIS headquarters.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Facegarden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm impressed with the two guys who did it *manned* in the 60s

      from tfa :

      In January 1960, Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh made the first and only manned voyage in a Swiss-built bathyscaphe known as the Trieste.
      The vessel consisted of a 2m-diameter (6ft) steel sphere containing the crew suspended below a huge 15m-long (50ft) tank of petrol, designed to provide buoyancy.
      During the nine-hour mission, the two men spent just 20 minutes on the ocean floor; enough time to measure the depth as 10,916m (35,813 ft).

      Yeah, I remember seeing a special on that when I was younger (like 10 years ago), and I still remember it, because it's such an awesome story. I really suggest that if anyone is bored you look this story up, it's really awesome.

      The sad thing is that once they hit the bottom, the sand down there was so fine that it threw up a cloud of it that never cleared during the time that they were there, so they didn't get to see much except for what they saw right before they landed!

      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    8. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Will see a craft reach the surface of one of the gaseous giants.

      Unlikely, seeing as the gas giant planets don't have surfaces.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    9. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by linzeal · · Score: 1
    10. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men had steel balls in the 60s.

      They sure did! But now days they are made of plastic :(

      So much for progress.

    11. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      They certainly did. (also in 1960)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by gringofrijolero · · Score: 3, Funny

      After getting through the corona, that should feel downright refreshing.

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    13. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by ryanleary · · Score: 1

      Unlikely, seeing as the gas giant planets don't have surfaces.

      The sun is a planet?

    14. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's why I'd do it at night.

    15. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one of the original seven, in fact. Along with the moon.

      What do you think "planet" means, anyway? Hint: IAU did not invent the word.

    16. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by cailith1970 · · Score: 1

      Damn it, 15 mod points and I HAD to use 'em all up before I read this comment. Talk about premature evaluation! :)

      --
      I intend to live forever, or die trying. - Groucho Marx
    17. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Jophiel04 · · Score: 1

      Men had balls of steel in the 60s.

      Fixed.

    18. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      I always find getting through a Corona refreshing.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    19. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, even the women had steel balls in the '60s.

    20. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by JustOK · · Score: 1

      a cloudy day would be better.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    21. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by youn · · Score: 1

      I bet they didnt stay long because as soon as they got down, their first observation was, "uh oh, there's something FISHY about the ocean floor let's go back up"

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    22. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
      A gigantic nuclear furnace
      Where hydrogen is built into helium
      At a temperature of millions of degrees.

    23. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Batman's steel balls can fix Supman's balls of steel. Hands down. :P

    24. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you sure that's the only time men got down there? I'd not be surprised if the Seaview didn't manage it at least once. After all, that's exactly the type of thing she was built for.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    25. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, the Trieste and the crew do seem to be more impressive than a robotic vessel in 2009. Trieste was engineering ingenuity and creativity, and the crew members, well, they had some balls!

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    26. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does.

      What part of "possible" don't you really understand?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    27. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by foobsr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So much for progress.

      Depends - Quote:"By mimicking a brick-and-mortar molecular structure found in seashells, University of Michigan researchers created a composite plastic that's as strong as steel but lighter and transparent."

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    28. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Xest · · Score: 1

      Is that the same NCIS building the goth chick, grey haired guy, ex-mossad agent, British medical examiner and two young blokes work at too?

    29. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Lol, are you serious?

      What is at the centre of a gaseous planet then? Is it gas and liquid all the way done, lol.

    30. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      'Is it gas and liquid all the way done, lol.'

      Don't be silly; it's turtles.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    31. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Not only that, the friggin' window cracked on the way down, and they kept going!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    32. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and where that other chick with the ugly nose used to work, too. Right up until she got shot in the head.

    33. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Lol, are you serious?

      Sure

      What is at the centre of a gaseous planet then?

      We DO NOT KNOW.

      Is it gas and liquid all the way done, lol.

      Maybe.

      The pressure might be high enough to force the liquids into a solid, OR the extremely high pressures generate enough heat to maintain a liquid or rocky core.

      But we just don't know...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    34. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a very good haiku.

    35. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    36. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Can they try it with aluminum? We know they won't be remembered for their creation, but it would be nice to have.

    37. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      This may be the single funniest comment I have ever read on /.

      Kudos to you sir, and keep up the funny! If I had mod points, they would be yours.

    38. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      Yo-ho Its hot
      The Sun is not
      A place where we could live

      But here on Earth
      There'd be no life
      Without the light it gives

      We need its light
      We need its heat
      We need its energy
      Without the sun, without a doubt
      There'd be no you and me

    39. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by skeeto · · Score: 1

      In January 1960, Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh made the first and only manned voyage [...].

      He was boldly going where no one has gone before. I'm sure it will become a family tradition.

    40. Re:I wonder if my great^8 grandkids by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Alas, these particular men had to leave those balls on the bottom of the trench in order to surface again:

      Nine tons of magnetic iron pellets were taken on the craft as ballast, both to speed the descent and allow ascent, since the extreme water pressures would not have permitted compressed air ballast-expulsion tanks to be utilized at great depths. This additional weight was held actively in place at the throats of two hopper-like ballast silos by electromagnets, so that in case of an electrical failure the bathyscape would automatically rise to the surface.

      --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste#Design

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  4. All I want to know.. by nanospook · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do they have a good pizza/wing place down there?

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    1. Re:All I want to know.. by Scutter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do they have a good pizza/wing place down there?

      No, but there's a Starbuck's.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:All I want to know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And its across from another Starbucks.

    3. Re:All I want to know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but you can get a good Krabby Patty at the Krusty Krab down there.

  5. Only Two Vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Plus all the boats that sank.

  6. Re:Pray for some luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    off-topic. soapbox's are over 2 aisles.

  7. When will by schrodingers_rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    submersibles actually manage to stay at the bottom of the trench for extended lengths of time? Short visits can only tell scientists so much about ordinary conditions. A permanent unmaned observation station could record a much larger data sample. Now all that's left to do is develop technologies that can withstand the pressure and power themselves of sulphur-feeding clamlike tube creatures.

    --
    #Computers do not appreciate sarcasm
  8. Cable? Why? by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Somebody smarter than myself, please comment on why we need a cable over a distance of 11km? There's a ton of off-the-shelf radio equipment that can easily handle that distance with very high bitrates.

    I can imagine two possible problems:

    First, the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.

    Second, the varying pressures and temperatures might distort a signal to the point where it is unusable. I'm referring to dielectric effects and the fact that the dielectric constant would not be constant in this sort of operation. But would it be "constant-enough"?

    1. Re:Cable? Why? by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.

      Yes, it just might be. In fact, it is. You see, salt water is conductive.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Cable? Why? by commlinx · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.

      Yes salt water is very good at attenuating RF, the higher the frequency the worse it is. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency on Wikipedia that highlights some of the difficulties, especially in relation to antenna size. Also at those frequencies you can end up with transmission rates less than one bit per second.

    3. Re:Cable? Why? by EvanED · · Score: 4, Informative

      First, the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.

      I don't have direct knowledge of the behavior of radio waves in water, but I would strongly guess this.

      Even sunlight peters out at depths measured in dozens of feet, and that you need pretty strong lights to illuminate even 10 feet in front of you if you're at the bottom. Going through two miles of water would likely be quite a feat.

      Further, I'm pretty sure that the reason water is "blue" is that blue light tends to penetrate better (think looking up from the perspective of a SCUBA diver 20 or 30 feet down), which suggests that longer wavelengths get blocked more, which is exactly the opposite of what you would want for radio penetration.

    4. Re:Cable? Why? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Because of the electrical conductivity of salt water, submarines are shielded from most electromagnetic communications.

      Very low frequency signals can penetrate about 20 meters.

      Extremely low frequency signals can be received from deeper but are extremely limited in bandwidth.. and you need to use the whole earth as an antenna, etc.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Cable? Why? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      You got it the first time. Radio transmission is very difficult in the water. You're pretty much limited to ultra low frequency transmission, like the military uses to talk to subs. It's slow, about 1 bit /sec and might have problems at extreme depths or in complex topography.

      Hence, the tether.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Cable? Why? by BCW2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The VLF system used to communicate with Navy Submarines is an example. A message that could be received as a burst from a satellite in 2 seconds can take 20 minutes or more by VLF and that is with 1000 yards of antenna streamed from the boat.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    7. Re:Cable? Why? by artor3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is mostly a nitpick, but water is blue because other frequencies of visible light get absorbed and turned into molecular vibrations (or something like that, I never fully understood that mechanic). This is an entirely separate phenomenon from what causes it to attenuate RF signals.

      I only bring it up because blue, and even red, light are much higher frequencies than would be used in RF transmissions (10^14 Hz for visible light as opposed to 10^11 at the most for RF).

    8. Re:Cable? Why? by ssimmons · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... the ocean might simply be good at blocking transmissions.

      The ocean isn't just good at blocking transmissions. It's ridiculously good at blocking radio waves. If you work the math on this page, you can see that your basic WiFi transmission (at 2.4 GHz) will experience an attenuation of almost 1700 dB/meter! At that rate you'd get far less than a millimeter of penetration.

      Even the lowest frequency short wave bands (1.8 MHz) get 46 dB/meter attenuation. It starts to get possible to receive RF when you get down in the kHz range but of course, your data rate goes to hell.

      For underwater communications under a couple hundred meters or so you can use an acoustic modem. Even then, your best data rate is going to be on the order 2400 baud or less.

      If you want high speed underwater communications, you gotta use a cable.

    9. Re:Cable? Why? by Opyros · · Score: 3, Informative
    10. Re:Cable? Why? by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I saw on the Science Channel show "Brink" about experimental LASER communication for close-range ship or sub-to-sub communications or sub to aircraft communications. Here is a link to the people trying to perfect it: http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jav/jav_0184.html. It seems to hold some promise.

      --
      Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
    11. Re:Cable? Why? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, try explaining to a government official that you need more funding because you're using elves to talk to your submarine. :P

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    12. Re:Cable? Why? by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 2, Interesting
      OK that tears it. I'm turning in my tinfoil hat for a saltwater Stetson.

      Steve

      --
      Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
    13. Re:Cable? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Congratulations - you managed to be so wrong that you were modded Funny.

    14. Re:Cable? Why? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Water blocks radio. If Radio worked don't you think they would have used it?
      The only way to send radio under water is to use ELF extremely low frequency radio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency
      As you can see the data rate is in bits per minute...

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    15. Re:Cable? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      far less than a millimeter of penetration

      I am sure most Slashdotters have individual workarounds for these kinds of deficiencies.

  9. Nice, but what does it do? by vampire_baozi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It may give us access to 100% of the sea floor, but given the expense of sea exploration, how much will we actually explore? Setting records is nice and all, but it takes time, effort, and money to map the deep sea floor in any kind of detail.

    It should be able to take samples and such, but what about repeat dives? The artile was a bit lacking, but hopefully google will turn up the juicy details on this particular little bot....

    1. Re:Nice, but what does it do? by tsa · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would love to see Google Street View of the ocean floor. Who knows what we'll find down there... And it's easy for Google too; no complaints about privacy breach.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    2. Re:Nice, but what does it do? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      I suspect it would be like the time there was a volcano in New Zealand and somebody there set up a web cam people elsewhere could monitor it. Somebody in a different hemisphere took a look and because the scene was black assumed the surrounding area had blown up. Of course they were looking at night and had forgotten the time difference.

    3. Re:Nice, but what does it do? by thespeech · · Score: 1

      I think Great Cthulhu might have something to say about that. Cthulhu ftagns no more

    4. Re:Nice, but what does it do? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And it's easy for Google too; no complaints about privacy breach.

      They are getting sued by SCO though, for violating their patent for sinking to the lowest depths possible.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    5. Re:Nice, but what does it do? by youn · · Score: 1

      LOL... unless the fish start complaining that their location is classified information so that sharks dont use google ocean floor to find their hideout :)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    6. Re:Nice, but what does it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sharks *are* fish, you insensitive biped!

    7. Re:Nice, but what does it do? by tsa · · Score: 1

      I don't often LOL because of a post, but you made it happen! Man, how did you come up with that?

      --

      -- Cheers!

    8. Re:Nice, but what does it do? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      It is best to explore and deliberately push the boundaries of these craft. You never know when they might be required urgently for something like the Air France Flight 447 black box search, and it is best to break them when there is time to fix them, rather than when they just have to work.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  10. how hard can it be? by sir_montag · · Score: 1

    Not to belittle the achievement, but how hard can it be to make something that won't crumple? Does every bit of equipment need to be at 1 atmosphere for it to function? Are there no solid-state components?

    1. Re:how hard can it be? by KillerBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's pretty certain that the components are not functionning at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Give or take, the rule of thumb when diving is that the pressure goes up by 1 atmosphere for every 10m of depth. With a depth of 11000m, that's 1100 atmospheres of pressure. That's one of the most reliable methods they use to measure depth, actually.

      It's not the outside pressure that causes things to crumple. It's the difference between outside and inside pressures. With that in mind, and keeping in mind that electronics don't get decompression illness, I think it'd make more sense to pressurize the sub. Especially considering that it's a lot easier to contain high pressure at the surface than it is to withstand it at the bottom... case in point, I have an aluminum scuba tank sitting in my basement which is pressurized to 3200 PSI. That's over 217 atmospheres of pressure inside the can, a fifth of the way to the pressure at the bottom of the ocean, and it's not even close to the highest pressure scuba tank I've ever seen. (it's about the max pressure you can have with a yoke connector, but a DIN connector can take a significantly higher pressure).

      The bottom line, though, is that you can make a sub that can withstand a *much* greater depth by designing/building it to be pressurized on the inside, too.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    2. Re:how hard can it be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Uhh. those solid state components you're thinking of tend to have voids in them, e.g. what's under that lid on the CPU.. a bare die and a bunch o' bond wires. Squish city at 1000 Atm.

      What about wires? More than enough pressure to push water through the wire using the insulation as a tube.

      It is REALLY, REALLY hard to design stuff to work at 1000Atm. What do you use for bouyancy? (Trieste used gasoline.. a liquid that is about the same compressibility as water) Syntactic foam with silica microspheres is fairly popular, because the tiny hollow spheres are pretty strong.

      Interestingly, it's harder to design something that won't crush than something that won't explode. That is, building a compressed gas tank to hold 20,000 psi is easier than building one that won't crush under 20,000 psi.

    3. Re:how hard can it be? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Isn't it an option to remove the difference between outside and inside?

      Is it so hard to build electronic components that:
      - Are individually insulated from the surrounding water.
      - Have no internal compressible parts.

      You'd then be able to let the water in. No pressure difference, no crunchy toy.

    4. Re:how hard can it be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something that won't crumple in 1,100 atmospheres, sweety.

    5. Re:how hard can it be? by squoozer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You seem to know a bit about submarines so perhaps you could answer a question that has puzzled me. If you build a submarine like an onion with a hull inside a hull and put pressurized water / air between the two hulls to half the outside pressure would each hull then only need to be strong enough to resist half the external pressure?

      I can't see the flaw but it feels wrong because it seems to imply that it would be at least theoretically possible to build a submarine out of sheets of tin-foil as long as there were enough layers and the pressure could be maintained accurately enough.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    6. Re:how hard can it be? by HopeOS · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert, but my first thought is that the problem lies with "pressurized water/air". Water does not compress well, and even if it did, the water/air mixture would separate leaving a void. By comparison, a rigid foam would solve that, and laminated sheets of foam are probably indistinguishable from thick foam when uniform pressure is applied. So the idea has merit, but possibly with different materials. I'm thinking of rigid cells containing a liquid for neutral buoyancy. -Hope

    7. Re:how hard can it be? by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      You are right. Your idea should work. However, designers until now have always chosen to have a single hull (which also consists of multiple layers, beams and parts that altogether withstand the pressure).

      I am not sure that tin foil is your ideal material, because it should at least be able to keep itself up in a tubular shape, and tin foil isn't able to do that when the tube is the size of a submarine. (In other words: tin foil doesn't need water or a pressure difference across a hull to collapse... it does that happily just in your backyard).

      Also, the submarine might get a bit bulky.

    8. Re:how hard can it be? by NorthWestFLNative · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm not an engineer so someone else may correct me on this, but I suspect that it may have to do with the incompressibility of fluids. I would think that the pressure on the outside of the hull would be transmitted to the fluid which in turn would transmit the pressure to the inner hull causing a collapse.

      This would be similar to how a free diver's lungs get compressed as they dive. The pressure is transmitted through the skin, muscle, bone, hits the lungs which are mostly gas and are compressed.

    9. Re:how hard can it be? by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      In theory you are correct. Your system will be much less efficient though unless you can link the skins together.

    10. Re:how hard can it be? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "That is, building a compressed gas tank to hold 20,000 psi is easier than building one that won't crush under 20,000 psi."
      That is because an air tank is loaded in tension and not in compression. Most material is stronger in tension than compression. Cement is one of the few that isn't. If fact the trick of build light strong anything is usually figuring out how to put convert the loads to tension.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:how hard can it be? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Just use vegetable oil for buoyancy. Actually I have no idea if it has the same compressibility as water or if it is light enough. If I remember correctly the Trieste used aviation gasoline. You could never do that today because it is such nasty stuff. Some subs even used mercury for trim since they could pump it back and forth to change the pitch of the sub.
      Building any type of sub is just hard. Trying to figure out how to build any type of hull penetrations for a sub like that makes my head hurt.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re:how hard can it be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you're doing is spreading the pressure throughout all the levels of your onion. The number of layers would be directly correlated with their thickness. Ultimately, if you took all your layers and smashed them together, you'd end up with just as much hull as regular sub.

    13. Re:how hard can it be? by Tarquin_1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That idea won't work because it doesn't actually make sense. While it is definitely an interesting question; and one that I was initially puzzled by, I think you will be surprised by how clumsy the intuitive logic that brings us to that conclusion is. Consider your onion, with two layers, and you are standing between them. To make things simpler, lets assume that instead of water pressure you actually have pressure from weights, and lets also change your onion from spherically shaped shells to just two flat surfaces. For example, you could imagine that you are just standing on an imaginary, levitating sheet of plywood and there is a sheet of plywood above you. The "water pressure" from above you is say 100 lbs. This is how many weights are on the sheet of plywood above you, and it is as much as you can hold. So you say, lets "pressurize" the intermediate onion layer (you), and you position springs on both sides of you (or you could use water pressure). With this new pressurized layer, you can now withstand twice as much "water pressure" from above you, for a total of 200lbs. But that has nothing to do with how much pressure is being exerted on this imaginary sheet of plywood beneath you. As you see, you could build a million onion shells and it wouldn't change anything about how much pressure the inner most layer, or the bottom sheet of plywood, must withstand. Indeed, all submarines already use your multiple hull theory, but not in the way you imagine. They all must withstand the pressure from a layer of ocean above them AND a layer of atmosphere above the ocean--the ocean doesn't protect against the atmospheric pressure.

    14. Re:how hard can it be? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      You're assuming really flexible hulls.

      Would it make any difference to a normal sub if you had a steel chamber containing a vacuum inside the crew area? Or to the vaccum chamber?
      Nope. The sub still has the same pressure inside, so the vaccuum chamber still has the same pressure on the outside. Neither sees any difference.

    15. Re:how hard can it be? by squoozer · · Score: 1

      Thank you I now see the error in my thinking which I was fair certain must be there since it results in an absurd situation when taken to the limit. It's an interesting reason ing puzzle though.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    16. Re:how hard can it be? by Tarquin_1 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand your comment -- It seems confused to me, perhaps you could explain it? I don't know where the "really flexible hulls" assumption comes from. Could you explain this, I have no idea how it might relate to my explanation? Are you referring to "springs?" As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if the intermediate pressurizing occurs with something flexible like springs, or inflexible like water. The rest of your comment appears to be very confused. First, if there was a vacuum chamber inside a sub, the pressure inside the sub would not be the same--There is now a vacuum inside the sub! That means that the pressure would be 0, which would be an unsurvivable change for any human occupants that might have been in there. Second, your second to last sentence is quite amusing. You are saying that because the pressure on the inside is the same, the pressure on the outside stays the same? Do you really think this is logical? Do you think that if you blow up a balloon, take it 1000ft deep, it will have the same pressure on the inside? Do you think it will be the same size?

    17. Re:how hard can it be? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      They all must withstand the pressure from a layer of ocean above them AND a layer of atmosphere above the ocean--the ocean doesn't protect against the atmospheric pressure.

      Come again?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    18. Re:how hard can it be? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      I said a steel chamber containing a vacuum is placed inside the sub.

    19. Re:how hard can it be? by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      Your assumption that the inner layer must carry the entire load is false.

      Each layer will carry a proportion of the load thus reducing the load carried by subsequant layers.

      We employ the same principle when constructing multistorey concrete buildings. There are always two or three storeys of pressurised props underneath any floor under construction. This is because you need three storeys to support one new storey. Each of the three floors below carries its portion of the new floor load.

    20. Re:how hard can it be? by Tarquin_1 · · Score: 1

      Anything that is not part of the structural integrity of the submarine is exactly that--it doesn't have anything to do with the submarine hull and it's ability to withstand pressure. In other words, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with what we're talking about. Where you are going with this?

    21. Re:how hard can it be? by Tarquin_1 · · Score: 1

      And how much load must the foundation, or the ground carry? Do you actually think that it is anything less than the "pressure" (the weight in this case) of the entire building? To be really pedantic, I did not assume that the inner layer must carry the entire load, I argued that. And storeys is spelled stories. Pressurised is spelled pressurized.

    22. Re:how hard can it be? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      My point is that that inner container has one less atm of pressure relative to the water outside than the inside of the sub itself, but neither sees any difference.

      It's proof that layering different pressures inside each other doesn't require the inner container to be able to withstand the total pressure difference.

      Your example with the plywood sheets fails because each is supported by the one below, so the weight transfers through. In other words, they can move up and down as much as necessary to let the weight through, and provide no resistance to the weight.

      With a complete shell and pressure, you're not moving the shell, you're making the shell shrink or expand, which it resists doing.

      Multiple shells would work. If you have a shell which can withstand a 500atm pressure difference, you can put one inside another to get a total pressure difference to the outside of 1000atm. What you can't do is connect them together too rigidly, or the small shrinkage of the outer hull from the pressure will push the connecting beams in and cause pressure to the inner hull. If you only join them together from one side, e.g. the bottom, as if one was resting inside the other, there would be no problem.

      Unfortunately using a pressurised outer hull has two problems which stop its use:
      Getting in and out of the inner hull (a hatch directly to the outside would have to take the full pressure difference, and therefore makes layered pressure hulls pointless).
      On the surface the pressurised outer hull would have a positive pressure compared to the outside, making it try to explode instead of implode, and designing a container to withstand both is much harder than just one.

    23. Re:how hard can it be? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      Here's a replacement example for you:

      Two people are holding a metal sheet, one each side, and doing so they can hold 200kg placed on top off of the ground.
      The 200kg weight represents pressure, the sheet represents the submarine's hull, and the people represent the hull's ability to withstand pressure. There is a melon on the floor below, representing a melon in the sub.
      Hull failing from too much pressure == people dropping everything from too much weight. Either way the melon gets squished.

      Now, adding another hull outside the first would be represented by adding another sheet above the first, with another two people holding it, and moving the weight to the upper sheet. Note, the new people are also standing on the ground, not on the original sheet. As it is, any weight on the upper sheet wouldn't affect the lower sheet, until you added too much and they dropped it on to the one below, which would cause the bottom guys to drop theirs too (failure cascade).
      Now we are simulating an inner hull and an outer hull, with the pressure on both sides of the inner hull being equal.

      We can't represent pressurising the space between the inner and outer hull with weight, because pressure would also exert a force outwards on the outer hull. So we'll use compressed springs.

      Removing the weights, putting compressed springs between the two sheets and getting the people to hold the sheets in the same position as before (against the compressed springs) would represent a sub with twin hulls and the space between them compressed, sitting on the surface (so inside the inner hull and outside the outer hull is both 1atm).

      If they drop the bottom one it means the inner hull has imploded, if the upper one is let go it will mean the outer hull has exploded (the sheet will go up!). If the springs exert more force than the original 200kgs of weight, this is what would happen.

      If you added weight to the upper sheet at this point, the people trying to hold the upper sheet down against the springs would actually have less work to do as you added weight, until it cancelled out the upward force from the springs below, and the people weren't having to do anything. This would represent a sub with twin hulls at a depth where the outer hull had the same pressure on the inside and outside, and the inner hull had 1atm on the inside. All is fine so far.

      The people below wouldn't feel anything any different during this, the springs they're trying to hold the bottom sheet up against would go from being compressed by the people holding the upper sheet to being compressed by weight, but it would be the same amount of force the whole time.

      You can now add even more weight, and the people holding the upper sheet would end up supporting more and more of it, until the upper sheet has 400kg on, and both the people holding the upper sheet and the people holding the lower sheet feel the force of 200kg.

      The people below apply 200kg of upward force to the lower sheet, which the springs transfer to the upper sheet. The people holding the upper sheet apply 200kg of additional force, cancelling out the force from 400kg of weight, and holding the same thing stable, if looking a little complicated and stupid.

      After all, as people, they could just all hold the same sheet, with all the weight on (which would represent using a stronger hull, which is what normally gets done, being much simpler).

    24. Re:how hard can it be? by Tarquin_1 · · Score: 1

      I'm convinced you don't understand my argument and example. You are ignoring that the pressure that the people are exerting on the ground must be accounted for in a real-world scenario where a submarine's hulls don't stand on the ground. But I'm having a hard time following you much of the time. Is English your first language? For example, just looking at your first sentence: "My point is that that inner container has one less atm of pressure relative to the water outside than the inside of the sub itself, but neither sees any difference." Aww it makes my brain hurt!

    25. Re:how hard can it be? by Tarquin_1 · · Score: 1

      P.S. I think you have thought about this well and your comments are interesting and insightful, but I think you are just missing one important piece of what I originally said

    26. Re:how hard can it be? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      I'll make it simple:
      Submarine, in water of 1001 atm pressure.
      Pressure in sub is 1atm (for people).
      This makes a difference between the inside and outside of 1000 atm. The sub can't withstand any more.
      Sub has a box in. The box is welded to a table in the sub. The table is welded to the floor.
      Box has 0atm pressure (vacuum) inside.
      The box can only withstand about 2 atm pressure difference between its inside and outside at max.
      But this is ok, the box is in the sub, and the sub has 1 atm pressure in.
      The box's walls only have 1atm of pressure difference between inside and outside, even though they are 1000 atm pressure deep in the ocean.
      The difference between inside the box and outside the sub is 1001 atm, even though neither the sub or the box can withstand 1001 atm difference on its own.

      The box is no different to having a second, inner hull.

    27. Re:how hard can it be? by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      Yes the ground carries the whole building. Of course I wouldnt disagree with that.
      As I understand it your position is that the inner skin of the onion sub must ultimately resist the entire load. If this is true then the outer skins resist zero load (from newtons third law). This however neglects the transverse compression stresses that will develop in each skin. These stresses provide an "outward push" to each skin. I.e. the outer skins are not unsupported/levitating, but are in fact self supporting. They do not rest entirely upon the inner skin, but carry some of the load themself.
      "Storeys"/"Pressurise" is British/Australian spelling.

  11. So then they were the first customers by moniker127 · · Score: 1

    to the walmart setup down there by one of the previous vehicles.

  12. And what did they find? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MEGATRON!!!!

  13. What They Aren't Telling Us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that they found an undersea kingdom full of nubile, singing mermaids wearing clamshell bras.

    Disney and Universal are in a bidding war for the rights.

    1. Re:What They Aren't Telling Us... by artor3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That'll make for one traumatic moment when the lead mermaid tries to surface and bursts open from the tremendous drop in pressure. I don't think my kids would want to see that one.

    2. Re:What They Aren't Telling Us... by CarlaBernatti · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is the way to find new life. Every year a lot of new sealife is found which mankind did not know about before in the deep of the oceans. And maybe it is possible to find in the future what is going on in the Bermuda triangle and what is the cause of the different magnet behaviour in that area http://www.asian-porn-teens.com/ http://www.geisha-sluts.com/

    3. Re:What They Aren't Telling Us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This happens frequently bringing back fish and organisms from as little as 800-1000m. Gas expansion in body cavities or swim bladders cause the animals to explode because they are hauled to the surface much faster than they can adjust to the surrounding pressure differences. It ain't a pretty sight at time, including the eyes popping out of the fishes heads :S
      Best approach to avoid is an extremely slow recovery, so give the mermaid enough time to put on her makeup while you're hauling her up, and you might avoid the eye-popping experience.

    4. Re:What They Aren't Telling Us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. The bermuda triangle is huge, so it makes sense that a lot of shipping will pass through it.
      2. The bermuda triangle happens to contain a very popular crossing area for international shipping. Due to ocean currents, pretty much every transatlantic shipping route will have at least one leg passing through the triangle.
      3. There is an unusually high amount of tourist activity there also, since the islands that compose one of its borders are very popular tourist destinations for a very wealthy that happens to be very close.

      There are a lot of ship disappearances in the bermuda triangle because there is a lot of ship traffic through the triangle. You normalized to area, when you should have normalized to passages.

    5. Re:What They Aren't Telling Us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and you might avoid the eye-popping experience.

      But it makes skull-fucking them so much easier.

  14. Say hello to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Megatron for me.....

  15. No biggie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last time this happened was seven hours ago. And the slashdot post announcing it appears to be identical...

  16. Underwater radio by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's active work going on with underwater radio. It's really tough to do in salt water. But it's not quite impossible. There's considerable interest in making something that can push data through 100 meters of water depth. Oil industry operations would like to talk to their stuff on the ocean floor.

    At longer ranges, there's at least one research project which claims that there's a transmission window in seawater between 1MHz and 10MHz. They hope to get data across 1KM. That will be useful if it works.

    ELF works; the US and the USSR both have used it in the 70-85 Hz band. The trouble with ELF is that the wavelengths are so long at 80Hz that you need an antenna the size of a county.

    1. Re:Underwater radio by ultranova · · Score: 1

      There's active work going on with underwater radio. It's really tough to do in salt water. But it's not quite impossible. There's considerable interest in making something that can push data through 100 meters of water depth. Oil industry operations would like to talk to their stuff on the ocean floor.

      Since salt ware is conductive, couldn't you simply use electric discharge? Put a metal rod on the water and discharge an electric pulse through it; it'll expand in a spherical manner (or half-sphere if it originated on the surface). The other end receives it by measuring the potential along its outer surface.

      Or just use the good old sound communication. A loudspeaker capable of making clicks and a microphone capable of picking them up aren't exactly expensive, and lag is going to be negligible within 300 meters - in fact it would be just a few seconds to the bottom of any ocean, and certainly within tolerable limits.

      Why use radio when it's the least efficient communication method imaginable underwater?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Underwater radio by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      That's interesting although it seems like it is severely distance limited. Still need the tether if you want to go deep.

      Of course, the antenna length issue is less of a problem in the huge volume of ocean. A wire several thousand feet long strung behind a sub or rig isn't too hard as long as you stay away from twisty canyons, wrecks and sharks with lasers.x

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  17. But check out what it brought back! by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

    "They said it was hauled from the Challenger Deep, but I'm positive that beast never swam in terrestrial waters until a week ago."

    --
    if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
  18. Twists in the fiber optic cable by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I worked on an ROV simulation back in the 90's and we needed to keep track of how many times the ROV turned around because twists accumulate in the cable. At some point you may have to sit in place and spin for a bit to undo the twists. Terrible things happen when the tether gets too twisted.

    1. Re:Twists in the fiber optic cable by ymgve · · Score: 1

      I worked on an ROV simulation back in the 90's and we needed to keep track of how many times the ROV turned around because twists accumulate in the cable. At some point you may have to sit in place and spin for a bit to undo the twists. Terrible things happen when the tether gets too twisted.

      Why aren't you doing the un-spinning at the top of the cable? Seems like it would be better than spinning around at the bottom.

    2. Re:Twists in the fiber optic cable by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My uneducated guess is that the cable is so long that you'd wind up with (for example) a CW twist near the top of the cable and a CCW twist near the bottom of the cable - twists at the top wouldn't propagate all the way down.

  19. That reminds me of... by Fishchip · · Score: 1

    We call out to the beasts of the sea to come forth and join us, this night is yours
    Because, one day we will all be with you in the black and deep
    One day we will all go into the water


    Man, I need that to help wake up.

  20. Reaching the bottom of the sea is *easy* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's getting back to the surface intact that's the trick.

  21. Nah, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as everyone here knows, the deepest abyss on Earth is goatse.

    P.S. why am I getting "useless" as captcha?

  22. I always figured it was Rayleigh scattering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Which depends as wavelength to the fourth power. so lower frequency, higher wavelength, more scattering.

    That's why the sky is blue, for example.

    The red of sunset is due to scattering from dust particles which is a different mechanism because of the size.

    1. Re:I always figured it was Rayleigh scattering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't have to be a different mechanism - the blue light gets scattered out, so the direct light that is left is mostly red. At sunset, there is much more atmosphere to pass through because of the angle the sun makes (dust does play a pretty strong role sometimes, though... if you've ever seen sunsets through heavy smoke).

  23. Obligatory Talking Heads by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    Remove the water, carry the water!
    Remove the water, from the bottom of the ocean!

    --
    -
  24. I would love to set up point beacons by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    You know it is interesting that we have sent a sub down there, but it would have been cool to also send down tech that could record any sealife down there on webcam...and place beacons per each say 1000ft to be able to keep sending commands down to each camera to be able to control their movement...pan right up down...etc... We were able to send 2 rovers to the moon, could we not just do something to leave behind to record, so we don't have to keep going down there every 11 years...

  25. Already been done? by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't the Titanic already make this journey? /Oh, you meant "and returned". //My bad...

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  26. color me not impressed by kel-tor · · Score: 1

    Currently, the deepest-rated vehicles are able to descend to 6,500m, allowing scientists access to 95% of the seafloor.

    Deep Flight Challenger

    Deep Flight Challenger was built to enable adventurer, Steve Fossett, to set the ultimate solo dive record for all time (37,000 feet). Unfortunately Fossett perished in a plane crash before he could dive the submersible to record depth. Hawkes Ocean Technologies is now the only organization in the world that has full ocean depth technology.

    Flight endurance: full ocean depth and back in 5 hours
    Speed: Cruise 2.2 knots; Max 3 knots
    Ascent/Descent Rate:350 feet/second at +/- 45 degrees
    Operating Depth: 37,000 fsw
    Crew: 1

    http://www.deepflight.com/subs/df_challenger.htm

    37,000 feet > 6,500m normally. News reporters seldom seem to actually fully understand reality or what they are reporting, is it any wonder that the rest of the news sounds so distorted and that headlines are usually one way hashes?

    --

    ---

    1. Re:color me not impressed by True+Grit · · Score: 1

      News reporters seldom seem to actually fully understand reality or what they are reporting

      The "Deep Flight Challenger" vehicle has not actually *made* a dive to the bottom of Challenger Deep yet. In fact, its never made *any* deep dive, due to its owner's untimely death before its final completion.

      Why would you expect news reporters to mention it? Claiming something is not newsworthy, *doing* that something is.

    2. Re:color me not impressed by Starcub · · Score: 1

      350 ft/s is about 238 miles per hour. That would mean that the underwater vessel would be traveling at about 330 miles per hour. That's jet aircraft speed. I find that highly unlikely as well, especially in a manned vehicle.

  27. Big deal, I've been to the bottom of the ocean by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Granted, it wasn't he really deep parts.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. Light Comms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might be able to use light, though I don't know how far that would get. Certainly it's dark on the ocean floor, even in full daylight. In fact I think it's pretty dark after a couple hundred feet.

    However, a high power laser of optimum wavelength might blast a ways through it, at least enough for a glimmer to show up on the receiving end.

    How you would power such a thing on the bottom of the ocean for an extended period beats me.

    Perhaps a relay team of dolphins could pass the message along...

    1. Re:Light Comms by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Blue light is a possibility, but not for more than a few hundreds of meters. High power isn't the answer in that case. Look at section 7.5 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" -- at least the 3rd edition. There is a very interesting window in the absorption coefficient of *fresh* water right in the visible region, which life has obviously taken advantage of. However, even for the LOWEST area of that coefficient (around 10^(-4) ) per centimeter still puts the range at which light loses 50% of its intensity at about 60 m, 25% at 120 m, etc. Sea water is far worse in terms of getting light through.

  29. Units, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "11,000m-deep, more than 2km (1.2 miles) deeper than Mount Everest is high." WTF? Someone is confused. It *is* deeper than Everest is tall though...

    You have: 29000 feet
    You want: miles
                    * 5.4924242
                    / 0.18206897
    You have: 11000 meters
    You want: miles
                    * 6.8350831
                    / 0.146304

    1. Re:Units, anyone? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You sure you parsed the statement correctly?

      They are saying that the deepest part of the trench is 1.2 miles farther from sea level than the tip of Mt Everest. Your math confirms this.

      Not sure what the problem is, other than the fact that they used m and km in the same sentence (which is the nice thing about metric units... you can easily interpret between m and km, unlike feet and miles).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  30. Pineapple by blueforce · · Score: 1

    In related news, researchers have also discovered who actually lives in a pineapple under the sea.

    News at 11.

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  31. Walked? How un-extreme. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    How about some ocean bottom Extreme Ironing?

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  32. And do this to it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://hittingmetalwithahammer.wordpress.com/category/dinocam/

  33. Whoosh. by OgGreeb · · Score: 1

    So, did they see the plug?

    --
    -- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD //www.digimark.net/
  34. Re:Cable? Why? I'm too lazy to look it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, gee, I'm too bloody lazy to even fire up google or wikipedia. And I've been asleep at school since grade 6.

    Idiot. Lazy idiot.