Slashdot Mirror


Record-Setting 100+ T Magnetic Field Achieved At Los Alamos

New submitter schrodingersGato writes "Researchers at the Los Alamos campus of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory achieved a record-setting 100.75 Tesla magnetic field. To do this, scientists placed a resistive magnet (a sophisticated electromagnet) coupled to massive bank of capacitors within another magnet fixed at a 'lower' magnetic field. A short-lived pulse two million times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field was generated. The magnet itself made an eerie sound as it was energized (video). Prepare for the birth of Magneto!"

166 comments

  1. Interplanetary Space? by gcnaddict · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How much stronger would a field have to be to protect a hypothetical ship the size of the space shuttle from solar winds and other non-EM ionizing radiation in interplanetary space?

    If 100 tesla is achievable now, then I can imagine it wouldn't take long before a field can be generated which would be powerful enough to provide a buffer against most ionizing radiation a la Earth's own magnetic field, but I could be way in the realm of science fiction with this thought.

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Interplanetary Space? by durrr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The earths magnetic field is not strong, it's just huge. You're probably more burdned by power and weight and size contraints if you want to shield a shuttle than field strenght.

      What I find interesting with this is that some "magic physics" theories postulates funny things to be possible at some ~50 tesla strenght. Probably won't show up anything, but testing them to falsify is always a noble goal.

    2. Re:Interplanetary Space? by demonbug · · Score: 0

      How much stronger would a field have to be to protect a hypothetical ship the size of the space shuttle from solar winds and other non-EM ionizing radiation in interplanetary space?

      A hypothetical ship is the easiest kind to protect from all sorts of dangers; the size doesn't even matter!

      Or were you asking, hypothetically, what the field strength needed to protect a space-shuttle size ship would be?

      (Pedants hide their ignorance and inability to answer the question by making fun of the grammar of the parent)

    3. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, it is likely very possible to do considering pretty new research just done right there.
      We have now managed to make an anti-magnet that works very well. In fact, I'd better describe it as a magnetic pipe more than anything since it bends the field around it.
      Ship in the middle of it would work very well.

      Some future versions of both of them may very well be the forcefields of Scifi we will be using on our spaceships in however many centuries it takes us to get off this rock. (or if we are really lucky, decades, but I doubt it)

    4. Re:Interplanetary Space? by XiaoMing · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's great that you can quote a few numbers you recall being important and draw inferences from them, but please leave the science to people who didn't just read the summary of an article, and go "hey that number I just read is bigger than another one I remember reading about somewhere else, so I'm close to discovering a solution!"

      This is like if you find out that if you place a 50lb bag on a 100 foot lever, you can generate 5000ft-lb of torque, and holy crap how far away are we from sandbag-lever arm car engines!?

      First off:
      This is a transient field generated by an electric current that was created through the discharge of capacitor banks. The banks themselves probably took a few minutes to charge up, at a power draw unsustainable for any space vehicle, and discharged a "short lived" pulse, which from the video, was order of seconds. Regardless, the point of mentioning "short-lived" is obviously that this cannot run in steady state, which wouldn't do much for protection.

      Second (and you and whoever modded you up have probably heard of this exciting term too):
      The physics behind an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) is exactly what this magnet would create: a large magnetic flux change through closed conducting circuits. That means that if you can't generate this type of magnetic field in steady state (remember the words "short-lived"?), you'd end up frying more components than whatever charged particles you want to protect against.

      Third:
      Does anyone know how standard magnetic fields are generated, or at least bother to take a look at the pretty pictures in the article? The 100T that was quoted was undoubtedly in the center of the giant metal solenoid (new buzzword for the pseudoscientists out there!). To "protect" a space vehicle from more science words using this specific methodology basically means building a giant metal sewer pipe around every space shuttle to begin with. The technology required to be useful in stellar flight requires small modular field generators that can create magnetic fields external to itself (and anything it wants to protect), not internal (where once again dFlux/dt would fry your circuits).

      Finally:
      "Non-EM ionizing radiation" is a cute and exciting phrase, but really that just means other "ions". And yes, if a magnetic field can stop a proton (a hydrogen ion) from that "non-EM" solar wind, it'll stop other forms of ions as well, as they all follow the same physics of being a massive (i.e. having mass) charged particle.

      +3 interesting?? What the fuck, mods.

    5. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look out Mars, here we come.

    6. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      + 5 Informative, -6 for being a snarky asshole.

    7. Re:Interplanetary Space? by idontgno · · Score: 2

      You must be new here.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    8. Re:Interplanetary Space? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I think you got the sign on the second mod wrong.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FYI: your reply would have been more interesting without the snobbery and generally superior attitude. You may be technically correct, but you sound like an ass.

    10. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking douchebag.

      BTW you also don't have a clear understanding of what is discussed here. I know you read a few more articles than the parent, so you think you are a smarty pants. You are not. You are a fucking asshole who wants to slam other slightly-less-informed people about something meaningless to the discussion of the OP.

    11. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Xiterion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a transient field generated by an electric current that was created through the discharge of capacitor banks.

      If you're going to pour on the snark, you could at least read enough of the article to understand that, while a capacitor bank is used in establishing the magnetic field, the primary energy storage was from a motor-generator that stores 1.2 GJ of energy for the experiments. So, while I agree that it's frustrating to hear half baked ideas for applications of exciting new science to pet science fiction dreams, doing so in a confrontational manner does little to actually enhance the knowledge of the folks making those sorts of suggestions.

    12. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the sanctimonious explanation! I bet the magnetic field generated by you patting yourself in the back was fairly significant.

    13. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares what someone sounds like. What's important is the information they give.

    14. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does anyone know how standard magnetic fields are generated, or at least bother to take a look at the pretty pictures in the article? The 100T that was quoted was undoubtedly in the center of the giant metal solenoid (new buzzword for the pseudoscientists out there!). To "protect" a space vehicle from more science words using this specific methodology basically means building a giant metal sewer pipe around every space shuttle to begin with.

      This in itself shows a clear lack of understanding of how magnetic fields work. Magnetic fields are closed loops: what that means is, if there is a 100T flux through the middle of the magnet, there will also be an intense magnetic field curving back around the outside of the magnet (this is middle-school physics here). So if you ran the magnet through the center of the ship (and had sufficient power to leave it on, or hell a permanent magnet would also work), it would create a magnetic field that would extend around the entirety of the ship, which would deflect and charged particles stream that got near the ship (except at the ends, where like the Earth's north pole, the field would be parallel to incoming particles and wouldn't be deflected). Indeed, that design would be exactly identical to the Earth's magnetic field.

      Also, the EMP effect would be non-existent if you could keep the magnet charged (assuming you built up slowly), so that point is... well, not relevant to the posters question (he didn't say this design would work, only asked how strong the field would need to be in general). And your third point is just being snarky. He asked an interesting hypothetical question, and you answered snarkily and, ironically, in a way that revealed your own ignorance.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    15. Re:Interplanetary Space? by avandesande · · Score: 0

      This information is unimportant to 99% of the people that read this article

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    16. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1
    17. Re:Interplanetary Space? by c0lo · · Score: 3, Informative

      What I find interesting with this is that some "magic physics" theories postulates funny things to be possible at some ~50 tesla strenght. Probably won't show up anything, but testing them to falsify is always a noble goal.

      They went to pulsed 200T in 1950-ies (see the MK2 in 1956).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    18. Re:Interplanetary Space? by XiaoMing · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      And it's pretty clear that high school physics was where your understanding ended.

      Re: closed loops
      Grab a plasma physics text (which is highly applicable in the regime of astrphysical charged particles) and learn about the conservation of magnetic moment. This was the basis for Z-pinch style devices attempting fusion towards the end of the cold war, and it's also the basis for why charged particles stuck in the earth's magnetic field DON'T just completely fry the northern and southern poles, but rather bounce around from the north to the south magnetic poles (I'm sure you've learned this in your high school classes as well?)

      Also, try to understand how modern day fusion devices such as tokamaks do not contain all of the closed loop magnetic field lines within the containment vessel itself, but are able to direct leakage particles to areas specifically designed for high energy charged particle impacts (divertors).

      Re: EMP:
      The whole point was that OP's excitement was based on a complete lack of understanding of just how differently steady-state and transient responses can be in the realm of physics. This experiment in question being at one end of highly transient, and the avoidance of EMP related chip frying being on the other. That you can wonderfully point out the grey area that occurs between the two extremes deserves almost a pat on the back I guess... but if that were the case people could make careers out of just stating the obvious.

      Master's in plasma physics and I have a moron who can't do math try to bluff while quoting shit from high school, really?

    19. Re:Interplanetary Space? by XiaoMing · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good point.

      But the snark is there for a reason. He posed a silly thought, and was instantly modded to +3 with worthless comments otherwise. I post something factual with a shit attitude, and everyone spends additional effort trying their best to prove me wrong. Which one got the general public to do more thinking? Even the other (non AC) response to mine tried to at least mention some high school physics and bring up regimes where my EMP example might not completely hold.

      The real problem isn't that comments are misleading, but that too many people blindly eat up whatever sounds important or right without doing their own due diligence, as OP demonstrated first hand.

      There was a link on ./ a week ago regarding online comment sections being completely worthless. It was almost ironic that it was posted in ./, probably best known for its comments sections, and I refuse to let the same thing happen here without a fight.

      Ming

    20. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He might be ignorant, but you're just a dick

    21. Re:Interplanetary Space? by XiaoMing · · Score: 2

      And it's that wonderful 99% that ends up repeating a mis-understanding of said information in subsequent articles until we end up with every thread looking like those nuclear powerplant ones where most likely humanities majors have already set their religion on either thorium or pebble or TW reactors with no understanding of the physics nor the real-world nuclear proliferation implications.

    22. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      things never get smaller. Sources of power will always stay the same size. Scientific advance is never fueled by figuring out what is possible, then figuring out how to make it practical.

    23. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Cut Sheldon some slack, his genius is proportionate to the square of study multiplied by sublimated sexual tension and direct ratio to his Oedepal desires.When you factor in damage from early peers and an apparent lisp you can understand that we keep him in his room.

    24. Re:Interplanetary Space? by hexagonc · · Score: 2

      Why be a douche about it? For one thing, you didn't even address the question. He did not ask: "Wow, this is neato! How can we apply this methodology to protecting starships?!!" He was asking about the use of magnetism in general to protect spacecraft from radiation. This is by no means a silly question or one steeped in ignorance. Instead, you went on a long tangent about the unsuitability of transient magnet fields and EM pulses -- relevant to the article but irrelevant to the question. I didn't even read your whole reply until I had read some of the responses to it. The problem was not with GP's question but rather with you.

      The only reason I'm replying to this is because your post was one of the worst, most arrogant replies I've ever read on Slashdot. And that's saying a lot. Contrary to popular opinion, most scientists are quite humble when dealing with questions from the public. Humility gets instilled in you when everything you say is subject to scrutiny by equally or more knowledgeable peers. Your comment is more suggestive of a physics grad student rather than someone who has spent years working as a scientist.

    25. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Threni · · Score: 1

      Ming the merciless!

      You're not taking any shit today, huh?

    26. Re:Interplanetary Space? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      100 Tesla is possiblenow as a pulse. A stable 100T is much harder. One big enough to shield a space ship is much harder than that.

      Also, it might not be possible to live in such a strong field. It certainly wouldn't be comfortable.

    27. Re:Interplanetary Space? by celtic_hackr · · Score: 2

      Also, if he hadn't been so snarky and actually had any creativity, he might have found some engineering that could be done on the apparatus to make it steady state. I haven't read the article, and not sure I'd want to be inside a space vehicle generating a 100T magnetic steady state or not.

      A little engineering knowledge might have helped him see beyond his theoretical physics knowledge, which itself is lacking, as has been pointed out.

      The fact the field is transient doesn't mean it needs to be that way. One could use multiple banks of capacitors to keep a constant charge, with some sine wave fluctuation of max and min field. A proper ship design would keep you from frying your components and passengers. I have no idea what a 100T field would do to people, but my guess is it's not harmless.

      While the poster seeking to make this into some spaceship protection field, clearly didn't have a grasp of the science vs science-fiction. Being a jerk explaining that doesn't help.

    28. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Parent is still mostly correct in the sense a high enough parallel velocity won't be blocked (i.e. would be in the loss cone of a magnetic mirror). And despite the trapping of particles in the magnetosphere, a large portion of particles are still diverted, and a decent portion still ends up hitting the poles. If you want to talk about extending the understanding to higher level, you can get into the difference between northward and southward solar fields interacting with the Earth's magnetic field. In other words, depending on how the incoming magnetic field from the sun align with or against Earth's magnetic field (and somewhat depending on how fast it changes), you can get more or less deflection of particles, and end up with more particles hitting the poles (in southward case) vs. trapped in northward case. With a ship you could at least control this interaction much more instead of the (human time scale) constant Earth's magnetic field direction interacting to the will of the flipping interplanetary magnetic field. About the only thing off with the parent's post is "intense magnetic field curving back around" would seem to imply the field outside the solenoid would be strong, when instead it is much weaker with the flux lines spread out a lot more. It could still be a relatively intense external magnetic field compared to what your ship is flying though, depending on the geometry of the solenoid used in addition to its peak field strength.

      But this thread doesn't seem to be about extending understanding and instead seems to be more about dick waving. Be happy you have a master's in plasma physics and only have to worry about people with quoting high school science. Those of us with a PhD in plasma physics apparently have to worry about people lacking basic communication sense being dicks in the name of our field.

    29. Re:Interplanetary Space? by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      There was a link on ./ a week ago regarding online comment sections being completely worthless. It was almost ironic that it was posted in ./, probably best known for its comments sections, and I refuse to let the same thing happen here without a fight.

      Obligatory.

      You're obviously new here.

      /. comments are famous for being completely worthless. Or you just don't read enough of them. That's why there's a rating system. So you can easily see the really worthless ones, and ignore the worthwhile ones.

    30. Re:Interplanetary Space? by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, I'm fairly sure you're wrong here. Please explain how these particles are bouncing "back and forth" "inside" a N-S permanent magnet. Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me and I call BS. Not to mention the fact we have observed a charged particle emission from the poles in black holes. If charged particles continually entered the Earth and get stuck bouncing back and forth the Earth would gain mass, conservation of energy would be violated, and over 4.3 billion years or so, that would be significant. Theory is great but occasionally you have to apply tests to those theories to make sure you actually are thinking correctly. Which is often not the case (well except in pre-planned school classes where you know what the result "should" be).

      Furthermore, were high energy particles bouncing back and forth inside the Earth that might make the Earth the world's largest MASER. Producing exactly the effect which you say can't happen (ie the poles would be natural microwave ovens). Particles bouncing back and forth, not escaping, knocking out other particles, releasing EM waves as a side effect, creating a cascade event, resulting stimulated emission of radiation at the poles. Brilliant!

    31. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody just lost their PhD funding, and is taking it out on /.

    32. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Particles are trapped in the magnetosphere, although "trapped" doesn't mean they have to stay there forever. If you want to know how particles bounce off of a field gradient, look up how a magnetic mirror works as a result of conservation of magnetic moment which applies if the magnetic field isn't changing too fast. A single particle could be trapped for a very long time, until it has lost its kinetic energy to radiation. Groups of particles trapped by a magnetic mirror will result in them leaving quicker, as each collision between particles has a chance of knocking one in a direction close enough to parallel to the magnetic field, in which case it won't bounce off the mirror field. It is as much a perpetual motion machine as planetary orbits, where two bodies could orbit for a very long time until gravity waves radiate energy out of the system, or multiple body systems can eject a planet much quicker, but otherwise "trap" orbiting bodies on relevant time scales.

      And there are emissions observed from Earth's and other magnetospheres, including maser like activity. There are entire books written on the topic at this point.

      There is so much written on these topics, it is hard to link to anything in particular. Especially since it is such a big research area, searches return mostly narrow, esoteric papers and discussions of various minute details. An article here at least doesn't require math, and Wikipedia has an article on particle motion in a magnetosphere, although it isn't that great but at least links to other related topics.

    33. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're trolling way too hard to be legit.

    34. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still a douchebag. You must be the hit of every party that doesn't invite you.

    35. Re:Interplanetary Space? by DiarrhoeaChaChaCha · · Score: 1

      You obviously know your shit. You're also a complete cock about it.

    36. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I support Ming's response and his tone. I did not read it so much as snarky but as frustrated. In this day and age of Wikipedia and such everyone fancies themselves as a master of all knowledge.

      If you have a legitimate question, then feel free to ask it.

      If the topic is not in your field, then shut the fuck up.

      If you want to toss a sarcastic post out there, please use the tag at the end. We all love our humor, but sometimes it is hard to tell in text.

    37. Re:Interplanetary Space? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      This is a transient field generated by an electric current that was created through the discharge of capacitor banks.

      If you're going to pour on the snark, you could at least read enough of the article to understand that, while a capacitor bank is used in establishing the magnetic field, the primary energy storage was from a motor-generator that stores 1.2 GJ of energy for the experiments. So, while I agree that it's frustrating to hear half baked ideas for applications of exciting new science to pet science fiction dreams, doing so in a confrontational manner does little to actually enhance the knowledge of the folks making those sorts of suggestions.

      ...but it does enhance the entertainment value of the thread for those of us who don't expect, let alone *require*, that every slashdot post have a high signal-to-noise ratio. Frankly, I *love* browsing at -1. People are too funny, really...

    38. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should read how the Slashdot rating system actually works before you start complaining about someone's rating.

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

      Scroll down to where it says "Slash and peer moderation"

    39. Re:Interplanetary Space? by durrr · · Score: 1

      Yes, but only with destructive pulsing and you can probably agree that there's a bit of problems with running tests where the magnet pulse is accompanied by a HE shockwave.

    40. Re:Interplanetary Space? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      theories that some "magic physics" theories postulates funny things to be possible at some ~50 tesla strenght

      They went to pulsed 200T in 1950-ies [wikipedia.org] (see the MK2 in 1956).

      Yes, but only with destructive pulsing and you can probably agree that there's a bit of problems with running tests where the magnet pulse is accompanied by a HE shockwave.

      I was answering to the "funny things happen over ~50T", not diminishing the merit of the non-destructive 100+T.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    41. Re:Interplanetary Space? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Um, Tokamak? As in 1950s modern?

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

      Experimental research of tokamak systems started in 1956 in Kurchatov Institute, Moscow by a group of Soviet scientists led by Lev Artsimovich. The group constructed the first tokamaks, the most successful being T-3 and its larger version T-4. T-4 was tested in 1968 in Novosibirsk, conducting the first ever quasistationary thermonuclear fusion reaction.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. What would survive. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    This would make an excellent MRI If it doesn't rip all the blood from your body.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:What would survive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if that doesn't happen, you'd still have to get a meaningful amount of HF radiation into the body, which is kinda hard at 4.2+ GHz...

    2. Re:What would survive. by Thud457 · · Score: 2

      This would make an excellent </Mr. Burns> death-ray if it did rip all the blood from someone else's body.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:What would survive. by schrodingersGato · · Score: 2

      The issue is not the magnetic field strength (which only aligns the nuclear spins). Instead, the major hurdle would be that microwave frequency radiation would be needed to image a person at that field strength (rather than radio-frequency) at typical MRI field strengths, thus cooking the person by dielectric heating. Also, the iron in hemoglobin is paramagnetic, not ferromagnetic. It is aligned by the magnetic field, but is not at risk of being torn out of the body. Though if you like iron shavings with your breakfast cereal...

    4. Re:What would survive. by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The strongest MRI currently used on humans is 9.1T and a 13T MRI scanner is being built - might already be finished. Given that the 9.1T is good enough to see individual neurons, the 13T scanner might be good enough to start seeing the fine structure of the synapses. I look forward to seeing the photos that will hopefully be published once the scanner gets going.

      It would be interesting to see how far you could go before the damage becomes excessive. Would it be possible to build an MRI capable of directly observing the proteins that control and form memories? Could you observe the tau protein unpeeling as Alzheimer's begins? (Long before structural changes occur, which in turn is long before symptoms appear.)

      How about archaeological uses? Could a high-power MRI reveal something of the mental state of the various bog bodies that have been found? What about Otzi? If we can directly observe memory structure, could we interrogate his brain to find out what happened to him?

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

      Frogs have been levitated in a 10T field. Would these machines levitate humans? Or would there be problems from the machine focusing on one part of the body?

      --
      I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
    6. Re:What would survive. by schrodingersGato · · Score: 2

      MRi is technically just a euphemism for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) imaging. The N was dropped because it of the obvious stigma that word possesses outside of scientific circles. We already have structures of these proteins solved by NMR. The next challenge is indeed to view these molecular systems in-vivo. I doubt that these techniques will actually make it out of the research setting. MRi's with fields higher than 3T are having trouble being approved by the FDA for clinical use. This is complicated by the fact that high field instruments are really expensive to begin with. Other scientists are working hard to advance the image quality in other ways.

    7. Re:What would survive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How about archaeological uses? Could a high-power MRI reveal something of the mental state of the various bog bodies that have been found? What about Otzi? If we can directly observe memory structure, could we interrogate his brain to find out what happened to him?"

      Otzi would most likely have been thinking "boy am I ever a dumb shit for getting caught in this blizzard up this mountain!"
      Perhaps his frozen brain might be compared to others that have frozen to death to see if there is some connection. But understanding how and why he died will only come down to an assumption albeit an educated one. More powerful mri tech will definitely enhance forensics within the next 5 years. But I doubt that it will be all that useful in the field of neural chemical science.

      To obtain the level of fine grain imaging you are suggesting we would be reaching the point that imaging of the subject without destroying or altering the subject could become a real problem.

    8. Re:What would survive. by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Who's building the 13T? When I got out of diagnostic imaging, 8T was as big as we got, and those things were monsters but the bore hole was only large enough for the leg of a small dog.

    9. Re:What would survive. by jd · · Score: 1

      Technically, the FDA has already stated that 7.3T MRI is approved for clinical use, so any hold-ups between the 3T and 7.3T range is arguably in violation of their own approval process. Further, scanners for medical research using live patients do not need FDA approval and can go at high as they like, which is why there are 3-4 9.1T scanners already in use. Patients with actual clinical need can also gain access to non-approved systems, subject to all manner of waivers and disclaimers.

      Improving sensitivity is good, yes, but so far most of the micro-T MRIs are useless for brain scans of live patients.

      The main problem with high-T MRI is that the impact of magnetic radiation on the brain is still largely unknown. We don't know what dosage is safe, we only know what doesn't appear to kill people. On that basis, it would not surprise me if the limit went up to 9.1T at some point as that has been shown to not cause people's brains to melt and doesn't appear to cause the kinds of tumours described in the pilot episode of Space: 1999.

      However, obviously I'm all for improved image quality. So long as the two approaches can be mixed without hitting diminishing returns, they should be.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re:What would survive. by schrodingersGato · · Score: 2

      Agilent (Varian) has a system that is up to 16T and Bruker has systems up to almost 12T. Technically, the highest field MRI is at the NHMFL (21T at 900MHz), but it cannot accept live samples so it doesn't count...

    11. Re:What would survive. by jd · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    12. Re:What would survive. by schrodingersGato · · Score: 2

      The issue is not the magnetic field, its the dielectric heating from the microwave-frequency radiation needed to detect nuclear spins at the higher magnetic fields. Yes, the cell-phone radiation issue has raised the question of whether other (yet undetected) phenomena can occur in cells (like changes in gene regulation/expression) in response to microwave radiation. The issue of cooking a patient is by far a bigger challenge. Patients can get waivers for high field MRIs, but the spectrometers are still not very common (mostly due to their price). Image quality can be improved by other, cheaper methods such as DNP. Most hospitals still use 2-D, black and white (X-ray style) renderings of MRi data due to their policy, level of comfortability, and in some cases law. Also, a limited number of MRi experiments are even approved for diagnostics (even the hyped fMRi/lie detector is not technically FDA approved to treat or diagnose anything). Other than an elite group of specialist physicians and medical research scientists, most clinicians probably would not be able to take advantage of the improved resolution of high field instruments unfortunately.

    13. Re:What would survive. by jd · · Score: 2

      Molecules absorb at very specific frequencies, so provided you don't emit microwave radiation at the hydroxide bond frequency or any other frequencies "reserved" by biochemistry, you should be safe enough. That means that you need to be very selective about microwave frequency components, which in turn means specific sized magnets won't be usable at all. Those not in the automatically excluded list will depend on how good you are at ensuring genuinely harmful frequencies either don't occur or don't reach the person.

      Of course, it's very easy to talk about absorption bands. It's much, much harder to build very high-power devices that stay out of said bands.

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

      20 years later after having my head routinely very close (not in) at the bottom of 8T narrow bores, roughly maybe +5T, has apparently not affected me, though my wife begs to differ, I am sure. But I do have this crazy affinity for heme... is that a zombie apocalypse?

    15. Re:What would survive. by schrodingersGato · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I am fortunate to work at a facility with a lot of talented physicist and engineers who are building the next generations of these magnets. I, the lowly life-scientist, am just surfing off their accomplishments. Occasionally I do remind them that living samples require require some delicacy though...

    16. Re:What would survive. by jd · · Score: 1

      I may have missed something but the 16T MRI appears to have only been used on rodents, but where they got hold of enough bankers to develop it, I don't know.

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

      Not all MRI is NMR. MRI can be purely magnetic using supercooled conductors and lots of power. These are the ones used on humans.

      NMR are usually the higher powered siblings of MRI systems with usually very small bores and really, really strong fields (up to 21T) usually used in spectroscopy.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    18. Re:What would survive. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Frogs and other small, light items levitated at 16T if I remember correctly and humans would probably not levitate because of their mass (gravity still works). I doubt 16T systems have already been approved for human research but either way the side effects would probably be going more towards nausea and dizziness. I don't know enough about how the brain works but it would definitely be interesting to see at what point we can influence the brain itself.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    19. Re:What would survive. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Besides spacial resolution, higher field MRI would allow more chemical information to be probed. At sufficient field strengths it becomes more practical to image nuclei other than hydrogen. You can also study stuff like diffusion and movement of blood/etc. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance has many applications beyond the fairly simple pictures generated by most MRI machines, but the biggest limitation has been the field sizes of magnets large enough to stuff a person into.

      Imaging other nuclei than hydrogen would get around your microwave issue - their resonance frequencies are much lower. Of course, with the lower frequencies comes lower resolution as well.

      However, generating magnetic fields with capacitor pulses, non-superconducting electromagnets, and explosions (another technique) aren't very useful for MRI since they tend to generate very unstable and non-uniform fields. I remember reading an article about this facility about 12 years ago and they were using "conventional" electromagnets that were water-cooled. They were pumping some insane amount of water through the magnet and it would come out way warmer than it went in. I think the power draw was a number of megawatts just for the magnet coil.

    20. Re:What would survive. by schrodingersGato · · Score: 1

      The only difference between an NMR experiment and an MRI experiment is the use of imaging coils, not the type of magnet. Almost ALL NMRs used today are super-conducting, while there are still plenty of resistive MRIs (many of the "open-scan" types are resistive). If you can make a bore hole large enough, these same imaging coils can be used in modern NMR spectrometers to turn them into an MRI (not for anything large though). The brains of zebra finches are commonly studied (ex-vivo) in high field spectrometers because they are really small and have complex white-matter connections that are of interest to neuroscientists. The pulsed-field-gradients that make the MRI experiment possible were originally developed for NMR experiments and are still common today. Also MRI is a form of spectroscopy. On the very basic level, the image is produced by a deconvolution of the observed nuclear-spin anisotropies (there are many flavors of this) into an image.

    21. Re:What would survive. by schrodingersGato · · Score: 1

      Rodent are easier to study than humans for a lot of reasons (fewer ethical issues, you can dissect them when you're done to confirm what you are seeing, lots of animal disease models exist, etc). Almost all MRI techniques are developed on animal models long before they reach a human. Because of this, there's a huge demand for animal-sized spectrometers. If someone can get a grant approved for it, companies will usually line up to be first to build the new instrument. Bragging rights goes a long way in my field

    22. Re:What would survive. by schrodingersGato · · Score: 1

      Finally another poster who knows how this type of spectroscopy works! In the early days of MRI, they tried probing different nuclei such as P31 and C13, but it never really got a lot of traction. The bottom line is that physicians don't know and frankly don't want to know much about the spectroscopy (there are exceptions, but its not common). For example, scientists have been able to non-invasively map all white matter connections in the brain (by DTI of Q-ball imaging) for the past 20 years, but this has never made its way into the clinic unfortunately. BOLD imaging is just starting to gain traction clinically, but its very slow. As a spectroscopist, I have to accept the reality that most methods people in my field develop will never leave the laboratory... I think people who develop any diagnostic test share this frustration. The issue with using an insensitive nuclei for imaging is that they are not abundant at all. C13 and N15 are not naturally common in biological systems, and are not ubiquitous to all tissues. These nuclei are used for special cases in medicine (isotopically labeled tracers), but in generally are not used. Also, resistive magnets are sometimes used in the "open-scan" MRIs. They take a ton of power to run and are generally at lower fields (higher field = more heat). Like you said, these magnets tend to be as expensive as their super-conducting counterparts because they have to have PERFECT magnetic fields for imaging. We have a 36ish Tesla restive magnet at my lab (not something I use) that practically requires its own sub-station to run. The energy required to cool the water that flows through the cools is another issue altogether!

    23. Re:What would survive. by jd · · Score: 1

      Frankly, old-timers in any field tend to be horribly conservative. In archaeology, techniques like thermofluorescence, atomic mass spectrometry, etc, are 15+ years old but are only now starting to be used -- and almost exclusively by younger generations with more flexible minds. I've been privileged to see techniques being introduced into fields like inorganic biochemistry by the brute-force of innovative thinking by people unsatisfied by existing methods.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:What would survive. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Tend to agree here. I think another issue is likely to be insurance payments. A new pulse sequence might as well be a new class of drug as far as getting paid for it goes. That's another group of people who don't understand NMR theory to try to explain what you're doing to.

      The high fields are another big issue. MRIs must be big money since they're popping up all over the place, but I imagine that much of that money comes from (possibly unnecessary) shoulder pain images and such. Maybe a stroke victim might benefit from a diffusion MRI of the brain, but in my local hospital they just keep you around for a day and take the picture with a more conventional test on a cheaper spectrometer. Then again, I'm not sure what intervention options actually exist that would create a benefit from earlier detection, but maybe if we actually reliably detected non-hemorrhagic evolving strokes in the ER somebody might figure out a treatment option.

      I personally know somebody who had intermittent and somewhat subtle stroke symptoms, and the doctors were pretty mixed on whether anything was wrong, though they admitted her (not really with any kind of aggressive treatment beyond a CT scan and if anything her normal antiplatelet medication was delayed due to the usual hospital practice of stopping all medications until all the paperwork is finished 12 hours later). The next day she had a vocabulary of about 12 words and a golfball-sized bright spot on an MRI. I'm not really sure if more rapid action could have changed the outcome since she had the symptoms when she woke up and was outside the 3 hour window for most direct intervention, but it was incredibly frustrating trying to convince the doctors that something was wrong and at the very least a diffusion MRI might have shown something right away and ended the debate. Then again, I'm sure the MRI machine was busy with a long line of shoulder injuries.

      So, whether they would have made any difference in this particular case is debatable, but I think it is pretty clear that there are a lot of potential applications for MRI that are untapped, and most of the barriers are non-technological in nature.

    25. Re:What would survive. by schrodingersGato · · Score: 1

      Yep, this is definitely the case in medicine. Researchers in my field tend be be fine with adopting new techniques, but the translation of the science into treatment is the real hurdle. The gate-keepers tend to take a more conservative approach, and seemingly reject new-things de-facto if there's an older, similar technique already in use (even if the new one is a quantum leap forward and offers numerous other advantages). Their argument on one hand is to prevent unnecessary complexity in treatment, and on the other its political (i.e. keeping cost of treatment down). Perhaps the answer is to get some energetic, young policy makers in the FDA and insurance companies that will start seeing the merit newer techniques. I not even touching on the cynical side of the issue (i.e. who are the campaign contributors and former employers of the regulators)...

    26. Re:What would survive. by schrodingersGato · · Score: 1

      I think you hit the nail on the head. Diagnostics have become a black hole in the budgets of health care providers and they are catching on. It is sad that lower priority, perhaps unnecessary cases are put in the same cue as higher priority cases (triage is not always perfect). Informing the uninformed is always a challenge indeed. I'll be the first to admit that the people in my field develop more techniques than there is a need. That being said, I don’t think enough informed people are critically evaluating the existing options through the lens of improving care.

  3. In unrelated news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    >> A short-lived pulse two million times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field was generated.

    In unrelated news, government researchers have issued an RFP for 100 new disk drives and data recovery services.

    1. Re:In unrelated news... by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      Dammit, I thought I told the HARP project guys to spin down during that period!

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    2. Re:In unrelated news... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      and ten female researchers, with copper clad IUDs, celebrated by smoking...from their vaginas

  4. EAT IT, Thomas! by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Funny

    There ain't no SI unit named after Edison. beeeotch!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by syphax · · Score: 1

      It's really Gauss who is Tesla's bitch...

      I love that the record is 100 Tesla. No scaling prefixes necessary.

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    2. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 5, Funny

      i propose we use Edisons as units of patents trolled

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    3. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sadly, there is an award named after Edison and he gets all the attention in schoolbooks. Seems Edison's slow, amateur progress from a telegraph addict to inventing one of the least efficient light sources known to man is preferable to teaching about the 'madman' who repeatedly did the 'impossible' and established the technological foundation for the majority of modern age.

      Probably just a bunch of teachers scared about what the middle-school science fairs would look like if Tesla had been part of the lesson plan...

    4. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by jd · · Score: 1

      Would the Edison use Imperial or Metric units?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really Gauss who is Tesla's bitch...

      I love that the record is 100 Tesla. No scaling prefixes necessary.

      Depends on what record you are talking about. The highest man-made magnetic fields are created in magnets that self-destruct - laser plasma configurations more specifically. For example a somewhat random magnetic field of GigaGauss values can be created with Petawatt lasers shooting at solid targets:
      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004mmfg.conf..161S

      Or more coherent, solenoid-type fields of tens of MegaGauss can be created via magnetic flux compression (check wikipedia), either with explosives or, again, with lasers:
      dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/52471

    6. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      how to use Edisons in a sentence:

      "Intellectual Ventures is responsible for over 1 million Edisons since the company began."

      "A couple more Edisons and I won't have to actually invent anything again!"

      "Forget the Benjamins, it's all about the Edisons!"

      "I want this new batch of patents we bought Edisoned by the next fiscal quarter!"

      "Yo dawg, I heard you like Edisons so I Edisoned your Edisons so you can Edison while you Edison."

      k, maybe not that last one...

      "Yo dawg, I heard you like Edisons, so I changed a few dates in my own Edison and added facebook sharing so you can't Edison my Edison while I Edison your Edison."

      that's a little better...

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    7. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Only when the trolling C&Ds are carried by an unladen swallow.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    8. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by treeves · · Score: 1

      You mean 1 hectoTesla, or 0.1 kiloTesla?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    9. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by Sparx139 · · Score: 1
      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    10. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the second, it is the same in both systems.

    11. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use it as a unit of elephants needlessly killed.

    12. Re:EAT IT, Thomas! by rilian4 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, there is an award named after Edison and he gets all the attention in schoolbooks. Seems Edison's slow, amateur progress from a telegraph addict to inventing one of the least efficient light sources known to man is preferable to teaching about the 'madman' who repeatedly did the 'impossible' and established the technological foundation for the majority of modern age.

      Probably just a bunch of teachers scared about what the middle-school science fairs would look like if Tesla had been part of the lesson plan...

      Dude did invent quite a few things. He *does* deserve mention as a great inventor. You're right that Tesla is under-appreciated but that's no reason to beat down Edison.

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
  5. Warp drive next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great so how long till we can generate the magnetic feild large enough for the warp drive?

    1. Re:Warp drive next? by sycodon · · Score: 2

      Actually, for all you physicists out there and just for goggles, what kind of power and size of device would you need to give a spacecraft a magnetic field strong to protect that craft from radiation in the same manner the earth's magnetic field protects us?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Warp drive next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it already will happen in roughly five years ago.

    3. Re:Warp drive next? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      We will need it to reach 1 Cochrane.

      Hey we are talking about fictional technology so lets use fictional units of measurements.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Warp drive next? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Los Alamos can't say. For some reason all of the hard drives storing the data were wiped.

  6. I thought I felt by Troyusrex · · Score: 1

    the change in my pocket move.

    1. Re:I thought I felt by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      ...and I had a hard-drive failure. Damn you, Los Alamos!

    2. Re:I thought I felt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That wasn't change.

    3. Re:I thought I felt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anyone else note in the video the apparent movement of that dangling cable/belt, right around the time the sound hit its apex?

    4. Re:I thought I felt by mmontour · · Score: 1

      Many years ago I had a summer job at the TRIUMF cyclotron. When you stood above the main magnet (on top of a thick layer of concrete shielding blocks) the field was strong enough that you could hold one coin vertically and stick another one onto its bottom edge.

      The stray field was too weak to affect credit cards or hard drives, but it did do interesting things to the CRT monitors in nearby offices.

    5. Re:I thought I felt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and my plane crashed on a weird island. Damn you, Los Alamos!

    6. Re:I thought I felt by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else note in the video the apparent movement of that dangling cable/belt, right around the time the sound hit its apex?

      Actually, yes I did. If the movement was due to it being affected by the magnetic field, then I doubt the object's placement there was an accident- I assume they would have had to account for *anything* remotely magnetic in the vicinity(!)

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    7. Re:I thought I felt by davewoods · · Score: 1

      Ahah! You must be Canadian.

      From Wikipedia:
      The Canadian dime is magnetic due to a distinct metal composition: from 1968-99 it was composed entirely of nickel, and since 2000 it has had a high steel content.

  7. Did they send a poet? by bradorsomething · · Score: 1

    Because they should have sent a poet.

  8. What insights will we gain from this? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 2

    What insights will we gain from this breakthrough? As it stands it sounds as impressive as the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Cool, but sort of useless.

    Why did they choose 100 Tesla as a target? Why not 117 Tesla? That is even more!

    1. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 2

      It doesn't go to 111 :(

    2. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by bengoerz · · Score: 1

      The number of symbolic. But giant electromagnets make some pretty awesome railgun weapons: http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=65193 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1q_rRicAwI

    3. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by bengoerz · · Score: 1

      *The number is symbolic.

    4. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by sloth+jr · · Score: 2

      It seems to be evolutionary work that will likely strengthen magnetic containment fusion (eg Tokamak/ITER) research.

    5. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Useless? From TFA on their website,

      Mielke said that since the team's latest foray into magnetic fields above 90 tesla, theyâ(TM)ve demonstrated that they can measure:

      • Upper critical fields of superconductors- radio frequency contactless conductivity
      • Quantum magnetic transitionsâ"magnetic susceptibility
      • Electrical resistivity - magnetotransport
      • Optical spectroscopy - visible light transmission
      • Crystallographic length change- fiber-optic dilatometry

      "Now, at 100 tesla, we can focusing our efforts to get multiple user experiments completed in single magnet runs on the big magnets since they are so oversubscribed. More than a dozen people are working together to make this happen here at the Laboratory," said Mielke.

      The ability to create pulses of extremely high magnetic fields nondestructively provides researchers with an unprecedented tool for studying a range of scientific questions: from how materials behave under the influence of very high magnetic fields, to research into the quantum behavior of phase transitions in solids.

      Researchers can explore extremes of low temperature and high magnetic field, which will contribute to our understanding of superconductivity, magnetic-field-induced phase transitions, and so-called quantum critical points, in which small changes in materials properties at very low temperature have dramatic effects on physical behavior.

      The breakthrough is steady progression of science. 100 is a nice number. Like 10T, 100T, 1000T. Something to compare.

      I know, I know, this stuff is hard, so may as well say it is useless.... :S

    6. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      From TFA:

      "Today’s 100.75-tesla performance produced research results for scientific teams from Rutgers University, ÉcoleNationaleSupérieure d’Ingénieurs deCaen (ENSICAEN), McMaster University, University of Puerto Rico, University of Minnesota, Cambridge University, University of British Columbia, and Oxford University. The science that we expect to come out varies with the experiment, but can be summarized as:
      Quantum Phase transitions and new ultra high field magnetic states
      Electronic Structure determination
      Topologically protected states of matter"

    7. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I respectfully disagree. I think it has many uses.

      These are tools, and as we expand the range of what our tools can do, we can learn and observe even more about our universe. The real goods come after these tools are used and explored.

      I am sure physicists would love to have better tools to study the fundamentals of magnetism. Perhaps find hints on ways to create monopoles?

      Astrophysicists might learn some of the ways high Gauss fields interact with matter. I am not sure how much we know about or what we might want to learn about the ultra dense celestial objects like Magnetars myself.

      Material scientists (even said in the video) would love to know about superconductivity and possibly narrow searches for creating room temperature superconductors.

    8. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by NoAccountBoozer · · Score: 1

      What insights will we gain from this breakthrough? As it stands it sounds as impressive as the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Cool, but sort of useless.

      Since someone went and created a "National High Magnetic Field Laboratory" I would imagine this someone thinks there are some useful and valuable insights to be gained.

    9. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The linked article already says what insights they are gaining - they're measuring quantities never measured before. I think your real question is, "how can this be commercialized?" The answer is, nobody knows yet. But do you know how much basic science and engineering must be done before some opportunistic company can swoop in, put it in a shiny box, and become trillionaires selling it? These physicists aren't Exxon pumping oil from the ground. They're chloroplasts slowly producing biomass through photosynthesis, some of which will eventually become that oil.

    10. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, somewhere there are 3-fingered aliens who count in octal and use a different measure for magnetic field. They are totally unimpressed.

    11. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Why did they choose 100 Tesla as a target? Why not 117 Tesla? That is even more!

      1.17 Holy Grails? That's crazy talk!

    12. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

      The number is rather numeric. ABC is rather symbolic, wouldn't you say? :)

      So a bunch of "boffins" (yes I read The Register sometimes) created a magnetic field which, measured in some completely arbitrary units of flux density, precisely achieved a figure which is the square of the number of digits endowing the two human upper appendages.

    13. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No...

      This type of work is actually very useful for fundamental physics and materials research. Tokamaks and other fusion devices typically use steady-state superconducting magnets that create fields 10 Tesla. Granted, high fields will help boost confinement and plasma densities (as I understand it), but 100 T will never be applied to large systems. What is basically done here is a resistive magnet (think regular coil wound magnet - though the windings are probably tensioned, made out of unique alloys, and cooled in a neat way) is likely placed within a larger superconducting magnet. They pulse the resistive magnet to create a short lived very high field, but in a very small volume. This will never be applied to fusion devices or MRIs, but is great for research. You can look at interesting quantum behavior in these types of fields, especially when coupled with low temperatures. Very likely this is built around a cryostat for this purpose. I'm not a physicist so another poster can probably give us a better understanding of exactly what systems...

      Having a higher field is not just about record breaking. This is similar to "lowest vacuum", "most accurate clock", "highest pressure", etc. The record is cool, but the research it enables is cooler :)

      On a side note, what limits the fields of these types of magnets is not the energy or physics of the magnet, but largely the mechanical stresses they can endure. When these things are pulsed the coils want to rip apart. Often they plastically deform and need to be replaced after some time.

    14. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Commercialized? It would be great if that was obvious. I'm trying to figure out what you can DO with 100T.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    15. Re:What insights will we gain from this? by whit3 · · Score: 1

      Oh, there's a good chance there ARE uses for this, and in a surprising way.
      The energy levels in electrons of atoms are perturbed by magnetic fields. So, in addition to temperature, and pressure,
      a magnetic field can change chemical energies (and cause or inhibit reactions, change reaction rates...).
      Douglas Hofstadter did some work (theoretical) on high magnetic fields, before writing _Goedel, Escher, Bach_.

  9. Peep science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, but what will it do to a marshmallow peep?

  10. Strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget that A+ test, I bet this thing will hold your dissertation on the fridge!

  11. Not just field strength by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How much stronger would a field have to be to protect a hypothetical ship the size of the space shuttle from solar winds

    The deflection of charged particles in a magnetic field is roughly proportional to the strength of the field and the "thickness" of the field i.e. the distance that the charged particle travels through it. So (ignoring important complexities like varying field strength, ship geomtery etc.) a 100T field 1 m around the craft would be roughly as effective as a 1T field extending 100m around the craft.

    1. Re:Not just field strength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... Would this mean "Yes"?

      If not, then what strength is needed to block or reflect ionizing radiation? 1T is the magnetic field strength of Earth, no?

    2. Re:Not just field strength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... Would this mean "Yes"?

      If not, then what strength is needed to block or reflect ionizing radiation? 1T is the magnetic field strength of Earth, no?

      No. Just reread the OP.

    3. Re:Not just field strength by Truth+is+life · · Score: 1

      Um...no. 1 T is a very powerful field (100 T is just incredibly powerful). The Earth's magnetic field is measured in gauss, which are 1/10,000th of a Tesla. Many magnets in common use have much more intense fields nearby (although of course their fields aren't as extended as Earth's). The question of deflecting particles is considerably more complicated than just "how strong" the magnet is.

    4. Re:Not just field strength by Xiterion · · Score: 1

      1T is the magnetic field strength of Earth, no?

      Nope. That's off by a few orders of magnitude. The magnetic field of the Earth is about 30e-6 to 60e-6 T at the surface, depending on where you measure it at. The key is the Earth's magnetic field is extremely large in human terms, since it's large enough to easily fill multiple Earth radii.

    5. Re:Not just field strength by squidflakes · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're damn right 100T is incredibly powerful. Most MRI rings for humans max out at 3T. Some of the experimental medical rings are 7T-8T and you have to be really careful working around those. I can't imagine 100T. Hell, we stuck a dumpster to a brick wall with a 5T magnet.

    6. Re:Not just field strength by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Small animals MRI machines go up to 17T.

    7. Re:Not just field strength by squidflakes · · Score: 2

      There a comment lower down that talks about a human rated magnet in the teens. It's been a while since I was in diagnostic imaging, and the 8T magnets at the time had tiny bore holes, and were limited to small animal use.

      Jeez, 17T, that must have amazing resolution. Any idea how many slices?

    8. Re:Not just field strength by treeves · · Score: 1

      I remember an NMR spectrometer from when I was in college that had a 4T field. Keep your credit cards and mechanical watches away!
      17T or 100T is wacky strong.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    9. Re:Not just field strength by Sussurros · · Score: 1

      In 1978 the hard drive on the minicomputers I operated used to stop my watch if I stood next it. The hard drive platters were the size of a dinner plate and a blue plastic cowling with a handle in the middle so you could mount and unmount them.

      --
      I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
    10. Re:Not just field strength by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that many MRIs are around 1 T.

      For an example of how complicated it is, rare earth magnets are about 1 tesla too (just much smaller field)

    11. Re:Not just field strength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to repair those. The read/write heads were the size of a dime.

    12. Re:Not just field strength by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine 100T. Hell, we stuck a dumpster to a brick wall with a 5T magnet.

      Now have a guess what my reaction was when our astrophysics lecturer started talking about gigatesla field strengths. Granted, neutron stars have a few other impressive features, such as a spoonful of their surface material having a mass that exceeds that of the pyramids, but the mere mention of gigatesla field strengths was enough to drop my jaw.

    13. Re:Not just field strength by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I'm curious what the field strength near a micro blackhole would be like. Would a micro-blackhole be able to significantly slow its fall in Earth's magnetic field?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning#Black_hole_hypothesis

      --
    14. Re:Not just field strength by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      14 years ago I routinely used a 12T NMR, and we had a 17T model in the basement (time on that one was a bit harder to get).

      However, to be useful for most forms of NMR the field has to be very uniform and stable over long periods of time. You can't do that with pulses or some of the other techniques used at this high-field lab. There are of course all kinds of other things you can do there.

      MRIs tend to be much weaker than NMRs. The problem is the bore size of the magnet. Scaling up the size of a magnet is very difficult, and it takes a lot more energy to make a weak field the size of the earth than a strong one that you can fit a skinny test tube inside. This is similar to the difference between temperature and heat. A match and a bonfire might be the same temperature, but the bonfire puts out way more heat.

      Medical MRI tends to be only a few T at most. Really big ones are in the very low teens, and are VERY expensive to build. Of course, MRIs have spacial resolution and NMRs typically do not. An NMR probes fairly complex chemical relationships but does not generate a spacial image. An MRI probes fairly simple chemical relationships (often just the presence of water or a contrast agent), but it takes a 3D picture.

      The other more modern trend is building bigger NMRs but instead of making them more powerful using extra magnets to cancel out the field outside of the dewer. This makes them easier to site - and people don't get injured by flying tools if somebody is careless. High-field NMRs can be very dangerous when performing operations like filling with the aid of gas cylinders (with very long hoses). Shielding or not, another big danger with either NMRs or MRIs is ventilation. If something causes the magnet to quench you can get huge volumes of He/N2 liberation which will quickly displace all O2 in even a large room.

    15. Re:Not just field strength by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Your comment confuses me greatly. NMR was the original name of MRI, they dropped the N because no one likes the word nuclear...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    16. Re:Not just field strength by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Typically the term MRI is applied to medical use, and NMR to non-medical use.

      Also, MRI is generally used for imaging, and NMR usually is not associated with generating images (at least not images where a pixel on the image corresponds to some point in space inside the magnet).

      Most MRI images ask the question "is there water in this spot or not?" Most NMR data visualizations represent whether there are certain relationships between particular atoms in some molecule. For example, an NMR might ask the question "for each particular backbone 15N atom in some protein, follow the bond to the attached hydrogen atom and then look for any other hydrogen atom within about 10 angstroms or so, and then identify any 15N atoms attached to those." From that you can elucidate the 3D structure of the protein (well, in reality it is just one out of a large set of clues you need to do this).

      I have read a little on some more elaborate functional MRI studies that start to move in this direction. For example, you can ask the question "show me all the water in this spot that wasn't there a moment before." Or you can ask "show me where all the water in this particular spot went after half a second."

  12. Now I know! by ccanucs · · Score: 1

    Ah! So *that's* where my keys went!

    ;-)

    W

  13. Bbbzzzttt! by mholve · · Score: 0

    All your ferromagnetic objects are belong to us!

  14. I, for one, welcome our magnetic overlords. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our magnetic overlords.

  15. Would have made an awesome coin crusher by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    Like this one but much more so.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  16. YAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knew you could have so much fun with magnets, as a government employee, before you happen to die from a heart attack before retirement. That is the best PR geek celebration I have ever seen!

  17. Imagine by Verdatum · · Score: 1

    Wow! Imagine a Beowulf cluster of....wait that makes no sense, nevermind.

  18. natural fields 10^10 times stronger by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    This is a record for an artificial field. The strongest naturally occurring fields are believed to be about 10^12 Tesla for some pulsars.

    1. Re:natural fields 10^10 times stronger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a record for an artificial field. The strongest naturally occurring fields are believed to be about 10^12 Tesla for some pulsars.

      No, this is a record for a field generated by a device that suffers no (or more likely minimal) destruction in the process.
      As stated in one of the previous comments, man can create MegaGauss (1 Tesla = 10000 Gauss) or even GigaGauss fields with lasers and magnetic flux compression.

  19. Cell phone by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Since cell phones are said to cause cancer with the magnetic waves they create, how many people in LA will be suing Los Alamos in the near future?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  20. Is it just me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or does the "eery noise" the field device made when energized sound a lot like the TARDIS from Doctor Who?

    1. Re:Is it just me.... by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought it sounded like the probe from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

      --
      [End Of Line]
  21. new ftl drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once read about an alternative field theory which would make spacetravel at ftl speed possible, all that was needed was a spinning superconductor over a 100T Magnetic field.
    The Theory was called the Burkhardt-Heim Theory or something, it also predicted the masses of most elementary particles quite accurately.
    Unfortunately it also predicted a new kind of neutrino which, at the predicted energy range, does not exist, so I guess its either wrong or at least seriously flawed.

  22. They're too late with this stunt. by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

    If the neighborhood still watched tube TV's, you could distort or completely blank everyone's picture within an X mile radius.

  23. Strong Magnets! (but only transient) by AceJohnny · · Score: 1

    I used to work next to the french Laboratoire National des Champs Magnétiques Intenses (Powerful Magnetic Field National Laboratory) and was lucky enough to visit it once during the yearly Science Day (why don't we have this in the US?).

    They claimed they had the second most powerful magnets in the world, IIRC behind the Fermilab, at about 32T (again, IIRC). Note that this is a sustained magnetic field, not transient as the OP's record. (still, hitting 100T without destroying the magnet is one hell of a feat! Now if only we could find a source of power to sustain such a field...).

    32T is extremely high, more powerful than any natural magnetic field on Earth (according to WP, the Earth's field is about 25uT at the equator to 65uT at the poles). The most powerful permanent magnets (rare-earth) can achieve a little under 1T, and good luck getting that magnet off a piece of steel. 32T is achieved only in a space about the size of 2 coke-cans at the center of a large cylindrical apparatus that is the concentric electromagnets. But even at such a strength, the fields we make are dwarfed by stellar and interstellar magnetic fields, that have been calculated to reach hundreds or thousands of Teslas.

    Fun facts: they run the magnets at night, when power is significantly cheaper. They have big banks of capacitors and batteries for spare surge power. The (classical) electromagnets aren't built by spooling wire on a tube, because wire isn't thick enough the sustain the kind of current that goes through. Instead they take a thick copper tube that they slice in a spiral and insert an isolator in the spacing.

    Their most powerful magnets were formed of a core superconducting electromagnet surrounded by standard electromagnets. The cost of superconducting materials is what prevent them from making more powerful stuff.

    But despite all that, I'm still not sure what kind of experiments require such powerful magnetic fields. Such awesome engineering, so few applications...

    --
    Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
  24. Test for Heim theory by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    IIRC, Heim theory proposes a type of antigravity effect based on magnetic interactions.

    The effect is difficult to test on Earth, because the effect is smaller the closer you get to a gravitational body. I seem to recall an experiment on Earth would require something like 14T to produce a measurable effect.

    Maybe we could set up the Heim propulsion using this system and definitively decide whether Heim was correct?

    Ah - here is the link. The paper tosses out values of 25T and 60T as needed to do interesting things.

  25. I feel a disturbance in the Force ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    .... as if millions of Juggalos suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  26. I don't think you mean 17T! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Small animals MRI machines go up to 17T.

    Are you sure about that? At that field strength you have a sufficiently large diamagnetic effect to levitate small animals like a frog. A quick search on Google suggests that 7T might be the number you are looking for.

    1. Re:I don't think you mean 17T! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For diamagnetic levitation you need a combination of strong field and strong gradient in the field (i.e. high B*(dB/dx)). 17 T along would not be enough unless it dropped off quickly too.

    2. Re:I don't think you mean 17T! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Nope, 17T for tissue samples and small animals is correct for a very small bore size (coils available between 1 and 10mm) these are usually NMR though. Resolution is dependent on your coil and what you're trying to do but can be anywhere between 0.05-0.2mm

      7T is commercially available for human research which gives a resolution of .1mm. I think 3T for clinical is about the standard for new installations in the better hospitals, 1.5T for cheap, mobile or open (half) systems. You can get a small .5T for a little over 100k if you want one at home. It's almost cheaper than having to pay the copay.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  27. Ehrm.... by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

    ... Well done doctors, now can I have my keys back please?

    --
    If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
  28. Lobster by Asahi+Super+Dry · · Score: 1

    Hope there were no lobsters in the vicinity.

  29. Oddly enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much to the scientists disappointment it still wouldn't attract girls.

  30. Hard drives. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something that powerful and they had computers a couple of meters away. How does that work ? Shouldn't that have wiped off all the drives?

    1. Re:Hard drives. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCKIN MAGNETS! How DO they work?

      lololololololololol

  31. Bonus action by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

    Researchers celebrated by having their fillings restored after a painful emergency.

    In other news, superhero Dr. Magnet explained to the press that the large bulge in his trunks was merely because he'd flown too close to Los Alamos. His sidekick Alnico Girl shook her head and said "Don't believe a word that horny bastard says."

  32. swoosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ;)

  33. Sound file and spectrograph added by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/magnetic_field_researchers_target_hundred_tesla_goal.html has the sound file and imagery updated now:
    "The sound that the 100 T multi-shot magnet makes is due to the electrical current modulation from the 3 phase power converters (known as 12 pulse converters) and the harmonics associated with the chopping of the sinusoidal input power. The magnet vibrates at the electrical current frequencies multiplied by 12 (i.e. ~ 55 Hz x 12 = 660 Hz) hence making an audible sound. The generator is not run at full speed (1650 RPM instead of 1800 RPM) so the frequency is slightly lower than US Line frequency (i.e. 55 Hz instead of 60 Hz). A spectrograph of the sound from the magnet pulse shows the multiple harmonics as reddish horizontal bands as a function of time."

  34. That's nothing... by Thuktun · · Score: 1

    Wait until Livermore powers up the bobble generator they're building in secret.