Slashdot Mirror


Record Setting 500 Trillion-Watt Laser Shot Achieved

cylonlover writes "Researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility (NIF) have achieved a laser shot which boggles the mind: 192 beams delivered an excess of 500 trillion-watts (TW) of peak power and 1.85 megajoules (MJ) of ultraviolet laser light to a target of just two millimeters in diameter. To put those numbers into perspective, 500 TW is more than one thousand times the power that the entire United States uses at any instant in time."

252 comments

  1. Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    [rimshot]

    1. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by durrr · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's not funny.
      Alderaan died that way.

    2. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      How many Bothans died to bring you that information?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      192 sharks.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Important difference: The LHC was built to be massively powerful because there were (apparently accurate) calculations of what would be needed. Ignition of a fusion reaction has been Real Soon Now for decades. Evidently, the theory behind nuclear fusion reactions is not nearly as good as that behind the Higgs boson. That is the point of my snarky remark.

    5. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this post somehow got displaced (?).

    6. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by DM9290 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Important difference: The LHC was built to be massively powerful because there were (apparently accurate) calculations of what would be needed. Ignition of a fusion reaction has been Real Soon Now for decades. Evidently, the theory behind nuclear fusion reactions is not nearly as good as that behind the Higgs boson. That is the point of my snarky remark.

      Ignition of a fusion reaction was done a long time ago. The theory is sound. The problem was never theoretical. It is technical: how to keep the hot plasma contained without using up more power generating magnetic fields than the amount of power produced by the reaction. And then actually building such a containment devices with such powerful magnets that are flawless. And then finally making the device with such low tolerances that it could be feasible in a commercial environment and maintained with very long duty cycles and very little maintenance. which means materials that can resist gama rays for many years, and can be easily replaced and maintained etc. its a huge engineering problem -- not a scientific one.

      Nuclear fusion has been real soon now for decades because the theory is so sound and so simple that its easy to underestimate the technical challenges.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    7. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually JT-60 did a D-D test a couple of years back that if it had been done using D-T fuel would have generated more energy than the energy used to create fusion in the first place. The problem is D-T fusion generates a lot of neutrons and it decreases the life of the reactor. Until someone figures out some way to make the reactor materials last or some other fuel cycle with net fusion output we aren't going anywhere fast. Not to mention that the net energy generated is still pitiful.

    8. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by skegg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmm, did you send it via Skype?

    9. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Evidently, the theory behind nuclear fusion reactions is not nearly as good as that behind the Higgs boson. That is the point of my snarky remark.

      The theory is solid in both cases and at the most fundemental level is actually the same theory, not only that but the LHC found the Higgs by sifting through the debris of trillions of tiny fusion reactions.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by vivian · · Score: 1

      Not nearly enough.

      At any rate, it's about equivalent to half a kilo of TNT, which contains about 4.184MJ of energy. Got a long way to go before it's going to be useful for blowing up even small asteroids, let alone planets.

    11. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by iiii · · Score: 2

      Well said. Also, NIF defines "ignition" as "achieving nuclear fusion burn and gain", i.e. getting more energy out than you put in. They create fusion all the time, they just have not passed that breakeven point yet. There is lots of great info on their site: https://lasers.llnl.gov/

      --
      Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
    12. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by carnivore302 · · Score: 2

      The article doesn't say, but I'm really curious as to what kind of stuff you can blow up with this thing. Seriously. On one hand there's this massive number of watts, on the other hand the duration of the pulse is so short.Do you need total energy to be really high to blow up anything big, or would this laser do the job?

      Mark.

      --
      Please login to access my lawn
    13. Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      192 sharks.

      Flying in formation.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Now all we need... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

    Is a BIGGER shark.

    (To jump, I guess.) :-)

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Now all we need... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Bigger Big Jaws? Or whatchamacallit?

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  3. One Thousand Times by dopaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "To put those numbers into perspective, 500 TW is more than one thousand times the power that the entire United States uses at any instant in time."

    Except for the instant when the lasers were on, of course.

    1. Re:One Thousand Times by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      "To put those numbers into perspective, 500 TW is more than one thousand times the power that the entire United States uses at any instant in time."

      Except for the instant when the lasers were on, of course.

      Meanwhile, we seek green energy, wind farms, etc. All this so some geeks can fire a laser and then party on about it.

      and I wasn't even invited!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:One Thousand Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine "use" here would be tallied over time, as you're charging your ultra-mega-mega-capacitors.

    3. Re:One Thousand Times by Noughmad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For another perspective, the 1.85MJ of energy is approximately 0.5 kWh, which is how much your boiler spends for a shower. So basically geeks that play with these lasers instead of showering spend roughly the same amount of energy.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    4. Re:One Thousand Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "the entire United States uses" I suspect it means the U.S. power grid which I'm assuming the laser was not part of. Could we also include all the batteries? Why limit it to just electrical power - think of the power of all those motor vehicles, planes, gas stoves hamster wheels. I would imagine the 'online' U.S. power grid is just a tiny fraction of all offline power being used.

    5. Re:One Thousand Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely one of those times that pictures(graphs) would do better than words.

      If I understand this correctly, the claim is that the laser used a relatively insignificant amount of energy(1.85MJ), but in a very brief window of time. It expended it very quickly(at a rate equal to average consumption for the entire US), then stopped.

      To double check the sense for how much 1.85MJ is, I'll use heating water too. 4.186 Joules of energy is required to heat 1 kilogram of water by 1 C. 1 kilo of water is about 1 liter of water. Suppose the starting temperature of the water is 20C. Ignoring loss of energy to the surroundings and the inefficiency of the heat transfer method(which would only further diminish the impressiveness of 1.85MJ), to boil one liter of this water(to 100C) requires 80 * 4.186J of energy, or 334.88J. The total number of liters that 1.85MJ would boil then is 1.85MJ/334.88J, or about 5524.

      This strikes me as not significant on a global scale, but much more significant than taking a shower. Am I mistaken?

    6. Re:One Thousand Times by Noughmad · · Score: 2

      You seem to be misusing/misplacing the decimal point there. To heat 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree, you need 4186 Joules or 4.2 kJ. So you can heat up 5.5 liters of water to 100 degrees, or (more realistically) 11 liters of water to 60 degrees.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    7. Re:One Thousand Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The heat transfer coefficient is not normalized to 1 (would be cool if it were). Water on copper is about 13 W/m.

    8. Re:One Thousand Times by serbanp · · Score: 2

      Nope. AC is correct. In fact, that was the original definition of 1 calorie (energy needed to heat 1 liter of water by 1 *C).

      Now why one nutritional calorie equals 1kCal (4.18kJ) - from where you confusion most likely arises - is anyone's guess.

    9. Re:One Thousand Times by Jerslan · · Score: 1

      Now why one nutritional calorie equals 1kCal (4.18kJ) - from where you confusion most likely arises - is anyone's guess.

      Because if Science wasn't confusing, then anyone could do it ;)

    10. Re:One Thousand Times by rvaniwaa · · Score: 1

      Actually, the lasers use a very low wattage generator of the like you can get at Radio Shack. This impulse is them amplified by successively sending the pulse through amplifiers until the final 500+TW is achieved. --Ron

      --
      main(i){(10-putchar(((25208>>3*(i+=3))&7)+(i ?i-4?100:65:10)))?main(i-4):i;}
    11. Re:One Thousand Times by Noughmad · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. The original definition (by some French guy, according to Wikipedia) was that 1 calorie heats one gram of water by 1 *C. I remember learning that the original definition was for one kilogram, that's why it was called kilocalorie, and was first measured by Joule. Wikipedia contradicts my history knowledge, but not my numbers.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    12. Re:One Thousand Times by hutsell · · Score: 1

      "To put those numbers into perspective, 500 TW is more than one thousand times the power that the entire United States uses at any instant in time."
      Except for the instant when the lasers were on, of course.

      A more interesting perspective: What would it be if the power output was somehow converted to Units of Popcorn Popped?

      --
      Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
    13. Re:One Thousand Times by tibit · · Score: 1

      And those are *optical* amplifiers, no less.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    14. Re:One Thousand Times by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right. My bad!

  4. Or, to put it another way ... by jxander · · Score: 5, Funny

    Enough energy to send a DeLorean back to 1985 over 400,000 times.

    --
    This signature is false.
    1. Re:Or, to put it another way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Great Scott!

    2. Re:Or, to put it another way ... by broggyr · · Score: 2

      How did you know his name was Scott?

      --
      Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
    3. Re:Or, to put it another way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how much is it in burning Libraries of Congress?

    4. Re:Or, to put it another way ... by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      Probably about 1-2 books. It only contained about 1.8 Megajules of energy. The duration was very short.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    5. Re:Or, to put it another way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, I can already do that with my body fat for just about 1.0 seconds. ^^

    6. Re:Or, to put it another way ... by aeortiz · · Score: 2

      Enough energy to send a DeLorean back to 1985 over 400,000 times.

      ... Or, 100 million times the power to fill a house with popcorn from a military satellite.

    7. Re:Or, to put it another way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is a Gigawatt?

    8. Re:Or, to put it another way ... by only_human · · Score: 1

      What the hell is a Gigawatt?

      = Gigawhere / Gigawhen

    9. Re:Or, to put it another way ... by RedShoeRider · · Score: 1

      But more than enough power to run the penis stretcher.

      --

      Chris Knight is my hero.

  5. To put that in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To put that 500TW in perspective. Are your lights still on? If so, where did they get this amount of power?
    I hope they did not have to trickle load their capacitors for a whole year... :)

    1. Re:To put that in perspective by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Informative

      I heard a radio program (NPR I think) talking about this. The entire energy was about the same as rubbing your hands together for a few seconds.

      Can anyone verify? It was early on a Monday morning, so it could ahve been the haze of the weekend...

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:To put that in perspective by NettiWelho · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... so, where did they get this amount of power? I hope they did not have to trickle load their capacitors for a whole year.

      They plugged in a ZPM.

    3. Re:To put that in perspective by dmatos · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a bit more energy than that, but it's not a remarkable amount of energy. 1.85MJ is enough to turn just under 1L of water from 100C liquid phase to 100C vapour phase. ie - it's enough to boil 1L of water, if the water is already at the boiling point.

      Latent heat of vapourization for H2O is about 2200 kJ/kg.

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
    4. Re:To put that in perspective by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      Apparently it was my morning haze. 1.85 MJ is the equivilent of leaving your old-school 60 watt light bulb on for the 8 hours while you are at work.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    5. Re:To put that in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      correction: rubbing your hands together saying 'muahahaa'

    6. Re:To put that in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about half a kWh, or about the energy in a shot glass of gasoline. To achieve the reported peak power, the laser burst must have been shorter than 0.3 femtoseconds.

    7. Re:To put that in perspective by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      It's quite a bit more energy than that. 1.85 MJ is the equivalent energy of about 50 mL, or 1.7 fluid oz of gasoline.

      --
      AccountKiller
    8. Re:To put that in perspective by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have no idea how hard I rub my hands together. Let's just say I've worked up some muscles for that very type of activity.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    9. Re:To put that in perspective by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      There were plans for a TEA laser in Scientific American Amateur Scientist column once that claimed 100KW, which sounded absolutely astounding until you realize the beam pulses are only 10 nanoSeconds long - so an ordinary amount of energy from a 6volt battery charging up a capacitor looks fantastic when expressed as power, or energy per unit of time, cuz the denominator (time) is so small ;)

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    10. Re:To put that in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah...we know what type of activity you're talking about. This is Slashdot, ya know.

    11. Re:To put that in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing like superheating some change then giving it to someone, right?

    12. Re:To put that in perspective by tempest69 · · Score: 1

      A liter of petrol has 35 Megajoules. So it's much more than rubbing your hands together. It's closer the the amount of energy you would expend on a short walk around your neighborhood.

    13. Re:To put that in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... so, where did they get this amount of power?
      I hope they did not have to trickle load their capacitors for a whole year.

      They plugged in a ZPM.

      Gives a whole new meaning to "imma chargin' mah lazars!"

    14. Re:To put that in perspective by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      See, but it's about how fast you release it, at least in part. If you leave a light bulb burning for 5 hours, you use the same amount of energy, but release it all at once in a confined space and you tear it up.

      1.85MJ is roughly equivalent to a stick of dynamite, and that is not safe to play around with. I mean, bullets generally have energy measured in kilojoules and they are plenty destructive. Something like this could be the laser equivalent of an armor piercing round.

    15. Re:To put that in perspective by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

      It's a bit more energy than that, but it's not a remarkable amount of energy. 1.85MJ is enough to turn just under 1L of water from 100C liquid phase to 100C vapour phase. ie - it's enough to boil 1L of water, if the water is already at the boiling point.

      Admittedly, I'm tired. But, in case anyone made the same mental mistake as me - this is roughly how much energy is required to boil off an entire 1L pot of water once it has reached 100C, not the amount to merely cause it to start boiling.

      ..which is a lot more than rubbing one's hands together - more like the energy released when biking for an hour (513.9Wh, specifically).

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    16. Re:To put that in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, ran out of mod points yesterday. :-(

    17. Re:To put that in perspective by physburn · · Score: 1

      Or more precisely, Enough to Boil 1.85 /2.2 = .78 Litres of already hot enough to Boil Water

    18. Re:To put that in perspective by srk2040 · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it's your hand ur rubbing?

  6. now all you need is a spinning mirror... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and you could vaporize a human target from space.

    1. Re:now all you need is a spinning mirror... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      That and a phase conjugate tracking system.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:now all you need is a spinning mirror... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...or pop a lot of popcorn.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    3. Re:now all you need is a spinning mirror... by K8Fan · · Score: 1

      Or make enormous Swiss cheese.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    4. Re:now all you need is a spinning mirror... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or make enormous Swiss cheese.

      The applications are endless. Let the engineers figure that out!

    5. Re:now all you need is a spinning mirror... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The applications are unlimited. Industrial for one.

      ... let's see the film on blinding techniques, then we'll have some lunch, all right?

  7. Death Star is a go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The final stage of the Star Wars program can now begin.

  8. Oww, it burns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    500 TW is more than one thousand times the *average* power that the entire United States uses at any instant in time.

    1. Re:Oww, it burns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you average an instant? Take the reading and divide by 1?

    2. Re:Oww, it burns! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Mean instantaneous power would presumably be calculated by deciding on a sampling interval, determining the wattage at each interval, summing the sample values, and dividing by the number of samples. I mean, if you could somehow come up with a mathematical function, you could ostensibly use an integral, but here in the real world, we tend towards summation.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Oww, it burns! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Mean instantaneous power would presumably be calculated by deciding on a sampling interval, determining the wattage at each interval, summing the sample values, and dividing by the number of samples. I mean, if you could somehow come up with a mathematical function, you could ostensibly use an integral, but here in the real world, we tend towards summation.

      If all you want is an average, then it's probably simpler to divide the total energy of the pulse by its duration. Both of these quantities are probably more easily obtained anyway.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Oww, it burns! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Mean instantaneous power would presumably be calculated by deciding on a sampling interval, determining the wattage at each interval, summing the sample values, and dividing by the number of samples. I mean, if you could somehow come up with a mathematical function, you could ostensibly use an integral, but here in the real world, we tend towards summation.

      If all you want is an average, then it's probably simpler to divide the total energy of the pulse by its duration. Both of these quantities are probably more easily obtained anyway.

      Whoops, sorry, I notice now that you're talking about the average of the US usage, not the laser output. In any case, my point is to sum up the energy and divide by the time interval instead of taking an average of wattage samples.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  9. The real question by slazzy · · Score: 2

    How did they get the ant to stay still why they blast it?

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    1. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ant was allowed to roam. The laser's tracking system was running on a Beowulf cluster of 50 million Raspberry Pi's.

    2. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How did they get the ant to stay still why they blast it?

      Superglue-flavored bubble gum

    3. Re:The real question by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The ant was allowed to roam. The laser's tracking system was running on a Beowulf cluster of 50 million Raspberry Pi's.

      And it nearly missed, barely getting the base leg joint.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:The real question by modecx · · Score: 1

      In other news, the world's leading myrmecologists were on scene and they translated the pheromone trail of the common black garden ant turned ant-amputee: "It's just a flesh wound!"

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    5. Re:The real question by slashdottedjoe · · Score: 1

      Forget tracking, they used duct tape. You cannot have a multi-billion dollar project or even a $100 project that doesn't have a piece of duct tape holding something. It's almost a law of physics.

  10. Fusion Ignition by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One application of this type of engineering is to serve as an ignition swith for a fusion energy plant. In order to get a reaction going, you either need high temperatures and pressure or abslutely unbelievable temperatures and low pressure. Our sun, due to its massive size, has a lot of pressure. Here on earth we need temperatures that far exceed our sun to get fusion started. I understand we currently have laser ignition systems in tokamak (spelling?) systems, but this system would generate much higher temperatures in a quicker time period than we could with other systems.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Fusion Ignition by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Funny

      One application of this type of engineering is to serve as an ignition swith for a fusion energy plant.

      They should totally tell the guys at the National Ignition Facility about this. </sarcasm>

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    2. Re:Fusion Ignition by jbeaupre · · Score: 2

      I believe this system is intended to create high pressures needed for fusion. The high temperatures of the surface are to create a shock wave.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusion#ICF_mechanism_of_action

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    3. Re:Fusion Ignition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, this setup technically does not aim to achieve fusion by purely thermal means, i.e. extreme temperature (which a tokamak does in its low pressure plasma), but mainly through the extreme pressure (and thus density) generated at the center of the pellet by the converging lasers blowing off its surface and sending implosion shockwaves through it. It it called inertial confinment fusion, since the fuel plasma stays where it is, only confined by the compression applied to it, contrary to tokamaks' magnetic confinment systems where the plasma moves around in a complex magnetic toroid.

    4. Re:Fusion Ignition by drdread · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lasers are not normally used in Tokamak reactors. In those systems, the idea is to use magnetic fields to hold a plasma tight enough (and long enough) for fusion to initiate. The energy input (i.e. "heating") is done ohmically, that is, by radio waves that induce electric currents in the gas. The NIF pursues a different approach, called "inertial confinement fusion." The idea in these systems is to supply a whole load of energy in a very short time, so the hydrogen nuclei don't have time to move apart before the fusion reaction takes place. That is, their inertia is what confines them long enough for the reaction to go. In order to do this, you need a giant load of energy delivered into a very small volume in a very short time. That's why they quote the number as terawatts. The interesting part of this announcement is not just the TW energy rate, but the nanosecond-scale pulse width. This is actually pretty cool news...

    5. Re:Fusion Ignition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One application of this type of engineering is to serve as an ignition swith for a fusion energy plant.

      It really isn't. The NIF may produce results that are relevant to those studying fusion or high-temperature plasmas in general, but they are now and always have been interested in nuclear weapons research.

      To my knowledge, no-one is actually considering this method for use in an actual power plant (fs precision is a bitch). Lasers have indeed been used with tokamaks but AFAIK they're strictly used for measurement purposes.

    6. Re:Fusion Ignition by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      One application of this type of engineering is to serve as an ignition swith for a fusion energy plant.

      Not really, as the ignition and heating systems for a tokomak in no way resembles the NIF (National Ignition Facility). Nor is such a system practical for a tokomak because you cannot get the spherical access required.
       
      The NIF, despite massive amounts of greenwash, is a tool for studying fusion for nuclear weapons - not an energy production research project.

    7. Re:Fusion Ignition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the nanosecond-scale pulse width.

      Closer to the 1/3000 nanosecond scale.

    8. Re:Fusion Ignition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you get such hilariously wrong information from? The Cranio Rectal Institute of "It Sounds Good Enough" Sci-Fi Engineering and Made-Up Science?? Do they also offer courses in Space Nuttery?

    9. Re:Fusion Ignition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no. There was no high temperatures or pressures in space to start the sun. Just time.... Lots of it. Hydrogen will fuse by itself given time for very small amounts of hydrogen. After time... in very large quantities, the helium with a slightly larger gravity pull, attracts more hydrogen and the process repeats. The build up of heat in the growing mass, help fuse helium to Beryllium, Carbon, and oxygen. But, but for very large amounts of time.

      Now I hear you yell and scream that you have never read that in some text book so you know it isn't true.

      With lasers, there is no way to repeat the process or move the spent fuel out of the way, unless you can have a large mass at the center that will hold the thermal energy to have the process repeat by itself.

    10. Re:Fusion Ignition by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Even with its high pressure, our sun is a very sluggish fusion reactor. At the core, the sun is said to generate about as much heat as a compost heap by unit of volume (not mass, and we're talking about material more than six times as dense as osmium). So, if we could actually replicate solar conditions, a power plant that could power the city of New York would have to weigh many times what the city itself weighs. So, we're not just competing with the conditions in the Sun, we have to do far, far better.

    11. Re:Fusion Ignition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The energy input (i.e. "heating") is done ohmically, that is, by radio waves that induce electric currents in the gas

      With tokamaks, ohmic heating refers specifically from heating by inducing an electric field, and hence current, inductively by treating the plasma as the secondary of a transformer. This is the simplest form of heating, as the current is usually needed anyway to form the required magnetic fields for the tokamak geometry, but as the plasma gets hotter and less resistive, ohmic heating kind of craps out. This is where other heating takes over, such as RF heating that accelerates particles moving in sync with the RF field, or neutral beam injection. In the end actually, an important element has become the bootstrap current, where the pressure profiles created by heating drive a current instead of visa versa. This is important as bootstrap current can be made to be DC, while inductive current from a transformer is inherently AC preventing a steady state system if the sole source of current.

    12. Re:Fusion Ignition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A helium nucleus would have essentially the same gravitational pull as the four hydrogen nuclei before they fused. If anything, it has a slightly less gravitational pull due to having slightly less mass, having shed the rest into forms of energy that are easier to radiate away into deep space. Unless you mean the gravitational pull between a nucleus and its neighbour, but that is so incredibly small. Even at separations on the order of a helium nucleus size, the gravitational force between protons induce velocities on the order of picometers/second, while thermal velocity and effects would dominate that for anything hotter than ~10^-27 kelvin (if ignoring the huge electric force involved).

      You might be trying to hint at quantum tunnelling being a factor, as that would allow hydrogen to fuse even at low temperatures and pressures. But at low temperatures and pressures, the effects of tunnelling would be even slower than astronomically slow. It comes back to requiring high temperatures and pressures doing the bulk of the work. The tunnelling is a factor in working out the quantitative details (which would show up in appropriate level textbooks), but is not the dominant effect.

    13. Re:Fusion Ignition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I left off a response to the last paragraph:

      Most inertial confinement schemes involve a cyclic process, like an internal combustion engine. Spent fuel in bulk is removed by thermal expansion and pumped away elsewhere in the vacuum vessel. There is no need for the reaction area to hold thermal energy as each cycle starts with a new pellet of fuel and as long as the walls of the reactor to receive heat at a useful rate. Although one of the engineering problems (as opposed to a fundamental issue) is removing the last tiny bit of fuel fast enough so it doesn't interfere with the lasers of the next burst.

    14. Re:Fusion Ignition by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      One application of this type of engineering is to serve as an ignition swith for a fusion energy plant.

      Not really, as the ignition and heating systems for a tokomak in no way resembles the NIF (National Ignition Facility). Nor is such a system practical for a tokomak because you cannot get the spherical access required. The NIF, despite massive amounts of greenwash, is a tool for studying fusion for nuclear weapons - not an energy production research project.

      Exactly, every once in a while the NIF releases another article about this or that "breakthrough" to satisfy the public and give something for politicians to latch on to sell it. Its a cash grab for weapons advancement. I once went to their site and was wowed by all the promises of fussion power, but after further research I just dont care what they "discover" next. Because everything they release to the public is simply a product of their secondary PR program.

  11. Has the NIF... by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Has the National Ignition Facility managed to ignite anything yet?

    1. Re:Has the NIF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's budget:)

    2. Re:Has the NIF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is budget. But what did it manage to ignite?

    3. Re:Has the NIF... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. I don't think they've passed breakeven, though.

    4. Re:Has the NIF... by slew · · Score: 1

      Has the National Ignition Facility managed to ignite anything yet?

      As I understand it, the NIF's original intent wasn't to explore ignition related to practical fusion generators. Original funding for NIF came under the guise of providing experimental data to support nuclear fusion bomb simulation required by the stockpile stewardship program (since we can't just blow up fusion bombs anymore because the test ban treaties).

      From what I can tell, the NIC (national ignition campaign) is basically "earmark stimulus" funding by Senator Diane Feinstein (and company in California) to get more money for the NIF facility (located in Livermore, CA). The purported goal of the NIC was to spend additional money in the NIF facilities to actually try to ignite something with positive net energy instead of just plodding along hoping for ignition and collecting data to be used as the basis for fusion weapons simulations.

      On ignition, so far... Nada. Although I "hear" the whole effort has been "stimulating" to the local economy ;^)

    5. Re:Has the NIF... by PiSkyHi · · Score: 1

      This is the real question, they were discussing this stuff years ago, like it should achieve ignition any moment now. I am hoping they are just keeping it quiet since this one is more of a research facility for future fusion devices. Even if they do get more out than they put in, this thing is not viable as an power plant in any way - containment of that output energy is going to be very tricky, plus it gets so darned hot they have to wait half a day before they can fire it again and I think some of the parts like the huge lenses may be too easily damaged. It will be something like, yes we achieved ignition, but we only proved it, most of the energy went into heating up the facility and melting parts

  12. In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "To put those numbers into perspective, 500 TW is more than one thousand times the power that the entire United States uses at any instant in time."

    So what you're saying is that the US is no longer the biggest waster of energy on the planet? Nice.

    1. Re:In other words by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Biggest user != Biggest waster. What do you describe as waste?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:In other words by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Please continue. Specifically, what units do you use to compare heat and pixels?

    3. Re:In other words by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Move to Nigeria then. I am sure you will have very little of what you despise.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I could have all that (other than the high temps in the winter, the plasma tv and the gas tank that needs to be filled on the suv) but alas I am 1 of the 99% that doesn't live up to the european standard.

    5. Re:In other words by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      ... shall I continue?

      You could, but you'd just be wasting your energy...

    6. Re:In other words by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      We don't need it. But then, we don't technically need houses, or cars, or heating, or highways...etc. We could all just live in teepees. Nobody wants to live in teepees though. The drive for a higher standard of living propels society to be productive and invent new things.

    7. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bllah blah crybaby can't even quantize what he sees as waste. Stupid characterization made from the excesses of a small percentage of the population in order to damn the whole country. Yeah, generalizations work well for your type, who doesn't want to let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

    8. Re:In other words by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      LOL. You are KIDDING, Right? You getting all of your info from North korea or Iran?

      60" plasma TV? Got news for you. The biggest buyer of those are NOT Americans,but Asians. We do have a 30" CRT tv on the main floor, a 40" LCD in the main bedroom, and a 32" lcd TV in the basement. No game machines. A single linux server and then 4 computers (to be fair, this is NOT normal for Americans; few have servers, let alone a decent set-up).
      Temperature in our house is 18-19C in the winter and 24-25C in the summer.
      Our house size is 275 m^2, though to be honest, this IS large by American standards. The average American is probably about 150-170 m^2. And to be fair, there are homes around here that are as big as 700 m^2. But FEW of them in this area.
      Food? We eat cereal or eggs in the AM (oatmeal or grapenut flakes, though my kids love to eat waffles with small turkey sausage), a decent meal for lunch, and then salad for dinner (though the kids like mac/cheese at night). Every couple of days we will cook chicken, burgers, maybe a steak to add to the salad.
      As to our cars, my wife drives a 2005 Toyota highlander, while I drive her old honda accord. Though to be fair, we have a Tesla Model S on order. When it comes, I will drive the highlander and she will drive the Electric car.

      So, our highlander and accord are the same as what is sold in China, Japan, South America, and Europe.

      BTW, I do know one home that is pretty cool. It is 7000 m^2, has geo-thermal HVAC, and has a 50/month HVAC bill. Why? Super insulated. This house is insulated to the same level as the home that I grew up and we built in the 70's. Back there, they still pay less than 10/month in HVAC on that home (and it was 300 m^2).

      Other than house size, what I described is much closer to average American life than what you and others like you claim. And as one that has spent time in Germany, I would say that we eat about the same as Germans. Likewise, the cars are similar, similar Tv, etc. The only difference that I could see is that the homes were close to the place of work and it had decent transportation. America has suburbs and most use cars to get to work or elsewhere. BUT, we Americans are about to introduce a number of Natural Gas and electric cars. Over time, that will allow us to drop our oil imports and instead export oil.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heat -> watts -> J/s
      pixels/sec x size of television -> cd/m^2/s x m^2 -> J/s

      Power consumed by game console ~150W (> 95% of power emitted as heat)
      Power consumed by TV when playing a game... ~100W (~50% of power emitted as heat)

    10. Re:In other words by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I see the "my way or the highway" moderators are out in full force today...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  13. Stellar application potential by LordStormes · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm thinking, mount this bad boy on a turret on an island somewhere, and use it to destroy asteroids in threat range. I'm much more inclined to do this on a turret on the ground than a satellite; although the satellite would make the weapon more effective against space-based targets, it would also allow it to be directed at points on the earth. As a laser beam can't bend, all you could do to attack terrestrial enemies with it is shoot planes/satellites out of the sky.

    1. Re:Stellar application potential by LordStormes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a means to prevent malicious use of the weapon, require multiple access keys to activate it, and provide one each to the governments of the UN Security Council members. Unanimous, active participation would then be required to fire the weapon, which would only realistically be achieved due to a true threat to the entire planet.

    2. Re:Stellar application potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the energy of the shot is only 2MJ. so about the same as 1/2 Kg of TNT http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2+MJ

      The power is high because it is a very short shot, but it wont do much to an asteroid.

    3. Re:Stellar application potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apart from the one evil person who goes 'pay me a million pounds or I won't do it'. Like terrorism but with real things.

    4. Re:Stellar application potential by Svartormr · · Score: 1

      Can't aim well through an atmosphere and at useful ranges, the beam will disperse (see Gausian beam on how the wavefront changes from planar to spherical), and there's insufficient energy delivered to significantly affect the target.

    5. Re:Stellar application potential by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      A laser can bend. Ever shone a laser pointer at a mirror?
      A suffeciently engineereg targeting mirror system in orbit could aim a ground based laserand probably be cheaper. Question, how colimated (sp) is the beam, and over what range?

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    6. Re:Stellar application potential by vlm · · Score: 2

      I think you'd find the range of a UV laser in the atmosphere to be pretty depressing. Also the deployment problem is focusing.

      Its sorta like being able to set off a small pile of unconfined gunpowder in a lab vs having an actual deployment-ready cannon.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Stellar application potential by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      That depends on the waist size, or smallest diameter anywhere on the beam. This is normally (a bit less than) the width of the beam at the source. If you can get a 10 m mirror, and are content to hit a 10 m target, you can shoot pretty far. Of course, the total amount of energy in this system is not tha impressive, as somebody else pointed out, it is enouh to turn 1 liter of boiling water into vapor.

    8. Re:Stellar application potential by MiniMike · · Score: 2

      I'm thinking, mount this bad boy on a turret on an island somewhere, and use it to destroy asteroids in threat range.

      This laser system is perfect for that use... as long as the asteroids are 2 mm in diameter, stay still long enough to focus 192 lasers on them, and are close enough that the beam path won't be distorted so much that the lasers will miss (i.e. about 1 mm).

      For the rest of the asteroids out there (~ 100%) I guess we're still screwed.

    9. Re:Stellar application potential by Yvan256 · · Score: 2
    10. Re:Stellar application potential by LordStormes · · Score: 1

      Good thing comets are made out of ice.

    11. Re:Stellar application potential by LordStormes · · Score: 1

      Even if you lost 90% of the power, you're still talking about 50 TW. That's not small change, when what you're shooting is made out of ice.

    12. Re:Stellar application potential by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      "I'm thinking, mount this bad boy on a turret on an island somewhere, and use it to destroy asteroids in threat range. " Given the amount of actual power involved, I'm thinking, "Mount this bad boy on a toilet somewhere, and use it to destroy hemorrhoids in threat range."

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    13. Re:Stellar application potential by LordStormes · · Score: 1

      Oww.

    14. Re:Stellar application potential by tempest69 · · Score: 1

      Nope, you place it on the dark side of the moon. makes it way harder to hit earth.

    15. Re:Stellar application potential by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Using that logic, we can just send up a couple of Brits with a tea kettle and we'll have that asteroid moved before supper!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re:Stellar application potential by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Watts measure power, not energy. Power is the rate of energy use and energy is the actual amount. Energy is measured in Joules and power is measured in Watts, which are Joules/second. 500 TW of power for one second would be 500 Terajoules. That's about eight times the energy released by the nuclear weapon that the US dropped on Hiroshima, or about one quarter the energy in a typical nuke from the US or Russian arsenals today. That would be a lot of energy. Problem is, this laser array (not a single laser) only fires for a tiny fraction of that time. The actual energy in one firing is more on the order of a walk around the neighborhood or a shot glass of gasoline to use examples that have been given by others commenting on this article.

    17. Re:Stellar application potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to rain on your parade but these are pulsed lasers specifically designed to have very high powers for really short times. Even if you only deliver a single joule of energy if it's emitted over a nanosecond it becomes a laser with a peak power of 10^9 watts. Nano-, pico- and femtosecond pulse durations are nothing new in research labs and even 100 attosecond (10^-16 s) lasers exist now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_laser#Pulsed_operation

    18. Re:Stellar application potential by rHBa · · Score: 1

      It'd also be a great way to keep people of my lawn...

  14. so how long before we get phasers??? by logicassasin · · Score: 1

    'Cause it won't belong before we see a "commercial" application for something like this.

    --
    Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
    1. Re:so how long before we get phasers??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you can duct tape the 192 lasers and the capacitor bank for the 1.85MJ for a single shot and hold it in your hand...
      For now, you are better off lighting a stick of dynamite and throwing it.

    2. Re:so how long before we get phasers??? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      . . . as soon as the batteries for it are fully charged . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  15. And let me guess by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    It still won't ignite a sustainable fusion reaction.

    1. Re:And let me guess by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By that logic, we shouldn't have useful electricity since flying kites in storms doesn't produce a sustainable current.

      --
      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...
    2. Re:And let me guess by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      No. This more like "doing the same thing over and over again hoping it will work." The hope is that with enough power it will eventually ignite. At this point, a layman such as myself wonders what the hope:science ratio is. It has been several decades.

    3. Re:And let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same way they found the Higgs boson.

    4. Re:And let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not for another 20 years.

    5. Re:And let me guess by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Important difference: The LHC was built to be a certain level of massively powerful because there were (apparently accurate) calculations of what would be required. Ignition of sustained fusion in the lab has been Real Soon Now for decades. Evidently the theory behind sustained fusion reactions is not nearly as good as that behind the Higgs boson. That was the point behind my typically snarky /. remark. Of course I support further research into nuclear fusion, but there are moments where humor and sarcasm are just too damn tempting. Sorry to hurt your feelings or whatever.

    6. Re:And let me guess by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Somebody provided an interesting reply here.

    7. Re:And let me guess by tsotha · · Score: 1

      No, of course not, and it never will. However, fusing a hundred pellets a second is the functional equivalent of a sustainable reaction.

    8. Re:And let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Important difference: The LHC was built to be a certain level of massively powerful because there were (apparently accurate) calculations of what would be required.

      It's called the fusion triple product. And they did the calculations for ITER.

    9. Re:And let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is the point where a layman such as yourself needs to stop thinking your opinion is educated. It has never been about not having enough power to ignite fusion. It has always been about not having a mechanical system that can precisely contain the fusion reaction long enough to pull energy from it.

      I'm an amateur physicist (Master's degree in solid state, but employed outside my field), so I've read a lot about this. But I don't have the delusion that my ideas are useful on the topic. You should adopt that attitude if you don't have three to five years to devote to the topic.

    10. Re:And let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. This more like "doing the same thing over and over again hoping it will work." The hope is that with enough power it will eventually ignite.

      At this point, a layman such as myself wonders why you consider throwing more power at the target in a shorter time frame is considered "the same thing".

  16. sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sheesh, is that why my energy prices have gone up so much over the past few years. Do we really need more weapons?
     

    1. Re:sigh by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Sheesh, is that why my energy prices have gone up so much over the past few years.

      No

      Do we really need more weapons?

      Yes, but this isn't one.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    2. Re:sigh by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It's not a weapon. It's energy research (fusion in particular) - you know, for power generation?

      --
      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...
    3. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well this is actually weapons research.

    4. Re:sigh by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. I suggest you do some reading before spouting off. This weapons BS is mongering by gizmag for page views.

      --
      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...
    5. Re:sigh by drwho · · Score: 1

      The measurement is in watts, not watt-hours. Since the burst is so short, the ELECTRIC POWER consumed is very small. Now, if you had paid attention in 7th grade science class, I wouldn't have to be telling you this.

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

      No it's for weapons testing.

      The Nation Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will be an integral part of the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) mission of maintaining the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear testing.

  17. Why does everyone mention sharks? by zapyon · · Score: 1

    I thought this "lamp" is meant so "turn off" (permanently) enemy missiles, aircraft, tanks, whatever.

    --
    I like my spaghetti with source.
    1. Re:Why does everyone mention sharks? by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Not a lamp. Also not a weapon.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    2. Re:Why does everyone mention sharks? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's fusion research stuff. Nothing to do with weapons.

      The shark thing comes from here.

      --
      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...
    3. Re:Why does everyone mention sharks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. It's fusion research stuff. Nothing to do with weapons.

      Unless you count understanding what happens to little bits of deuterium under extreme conditions. Hey, all technology is dual-use once you get down to it.

    4. Re:Why does everyone mention sharks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder, how are thy gonna fit it on sharks?

    5. Re:Why does everyone mention sharks? by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nothing to do with weapons.

      NIF is, in part, a nuclear weapon stockpile research program. Substantial periods of the NIF operational calendar are devoted to defense research. This fact is frequently used to smear the program.

      One common attack is that the fusion energy aspect of NIF is a cover for nuclear weapons research. How one is supposed to believe the US needs cover to do things it often does in public view I'm not sure, but that's the claim.

      NIF offers the possibility, however remote, of abundant `clean' energy. As such it has a lot of enemies. Energy scarcity – self inflicted or otherwise – is an important enabler of hair-shirt statism.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  18. Putting the hyperbole in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Off the cuff, 500 TW divided by 1.58 MJ implies the beam lasted only a few nanoseconds. So, "To put those numbers into perspective", 500 TW is more than one thousand times the power that the entire United States uses for a few nanoseconds."

    1. Re:Putting the hyperbole in perspective... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You find the concept "power" a bit tricky hey?

      The summary is correct. YOU are confusing power and energy.

    2. Re:Putting the hyperbole in perspective... by necro81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Off the cuff, 500 TW divided by 1.58 MJ implies the beam lasted only a few nanoseconds. So, "To put those numbers into perspective", 500 TW is more than one thousand times the power that the entire United States uses for a few nanoseconds."

      Sigh...

      You are conflating power with energy. Don't feel bad: the press gets it wrong more than half the time.

      Energy is a bulk quantity: a total amount. Power is a rate: how energy over how much time. Because this is /., I'll use a car analogy: energy is analogous to how large the gas tank is (gallons, liters, etc.), power is how quickly that gas gets consumed (g/sec, mL/sec, L/100km, mpg). The average power consumption of the U.S. is a few hundred gigawatts...period. There is no gigawatts per second, or any other monstrous measure that pretends to be power, because the "per second" is already built into the Watt unit.

      Correcting your statement: 1.85 MJ is more than one thousand times the energy that the entire United States uses in a few nanoseconds The original statement comparing 500 TW to the (average) power consumption of the U.S. was correct.

    3. Re:Putting the hyperbole in perspective... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      mpg is "miles per gallon", and under certain fixed circumstances is a measure of efficiency. It is in no way a measure of power.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Putting the hyperbole in perspective... by Junta · · Score: 2

      I think the parent understood energy/power (else he couldn't do the math to express duration). I think he phrased the last part poorly, but trying to convey that TFA is exploting a general misunderstanding of the nature of power to create a very different conceptual picture in the minds of the reader. If you took average US power consumption over a whole second during one firing of these lasers and a second where the lasers weren't fired, you wouldn't be able to make out the difference that one might intuitively expect given the headline. For simplicity, ignoring the situation suggests that the energy for the system was likely charged over at least the course of a few seconds and not instantly drawn from the grid).

      Of course, struggling to express the magnitude of this acheivement in an intuitive way is a losing proposition.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:Putting the hyperbole in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the OP was merely trying to communicate that the 500TW is only sustained for a few nanoseconds. There's nothing to indicate he/she doesn't understand what the difference between power and energy is.

    6. Re:Putting the hyperbole in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are conflating power with energy. Don't feel bad: the press gets it wrong more than half the time.

      Speaking as a lazy physicist who forgot his /. password the GP is correct in what he said (1.58 MJ/500 TW = 3.16 ns), he just wrote the order of the division wrong. He also used the word power when referring to watts so where's the so-called power/energy confusion?

    7. Re:Putting the hyperbole in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, nobody's noticed that "one thousand times the power that the entire United States uses" is quoted directly from the summary. +1 for correctly describing power, -1 for failing reading comprehension; net zero points to necro81

  19. I wonder if this could be missle defense source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a networks of massive underground tunnels that reflect the laser as demanded to one of 1000s of turrets around a nation's borders. Once aligned for a shot, it fire and travel through the network to the turret which would targeting incoming missiles. Heck, the laser could be split into 3 at some point and 3 turrets could target the same object for increased accuracy.

    Yeah, impractical, but cool.

  20. These guys were professionals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an amateur, if I go over 1.5KW I get into trouble with the FCC.

    Then again, maybe this would qualify under Part 15 or 18.

    1. Re:These guys were professionals by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      As an amateur, if I go over 1.5KW I get into trouble with the FCC.

      Whats the problem? you got a 1.5kW laser to zap them with.

    2. Re:These guys were professionals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fairly certain the FCC doesn't give a shit about UV light.

  21. Instant of Time by Shamanin · · Score: 1

    ... what the hell is an instant of time? Is it as t approaches zero?

    --
    come on fhqwhgads
    1. Re:Instant of Time by jxander · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes.

      Given the magnitude of the laser, compared with the total energy consumed (1.85 MJ) the laser show lasted a few hundredths of a second at best. But saying instant of time sounds more impressive than the actual numbers. Though I suppose they could have said "about as long as my last marriage" and still been in the ballpark

      --
      This signature is false.
    2. Re:Instant of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. This is the definition of a derivative!

  22. Paging Doc Brown by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

    What does this translate to in jiggawatts?

    1. Re:Paging Doc Brown by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      What does this translate to in jiggawatts?

      500,000. Aren't SI units wonderful?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    2. Re:Paging Doc Brown by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Actually, "jigga" is an acceptable though rarely heard way to pronounce "giga". So your answer is 500,000. This does, however, highlight that watts are units of power and joules or watt-hours are the actual energy expenditure. If only gigawatts were necessary for the car's time travel, then one could use an arbitrarilly small amount of energy as the time expenditure approaches zero.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Paging Doc Brown by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      And it would be enough to fire 413,223 DeLoreans through time simultaneously.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    4. Re:Paging Doc Brown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nigga, wat?

  23. your far too trusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now to test the full power of this fully armed and OPERATIONAL battle station.

  24. you scare me by ooocmyooo · · Score: 1

    you scare me you frickin US-Americans. First thing I thought was: Oh, nice, now they can correct the eyeballs of a lot of shortsighted people - but all comments are about attacking someone, tstststs

    1. Re:you scare me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think a 500 TW laser could be useful for surgery (let alone eye surgery, you're scarier than all those Americans you're talking about, though for a different reason.

    2. Re:you scare me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your first thought is to direct 500 TW into someone's eyes AND we scare you?

    3. Re:you scare me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laser eye surgery is shifting to shorter time-scale lasers, having work its way into femtosecond lasers. Those easily have peak powers in the megawatts, and I wouldn't be surprised if they could find better use of orders of magnitude higher power levels on shorter timescales. The megajoule energy level of the NIF lasers on the other hand, that is not so useful in eye surgery, short of defending ourselves from asteroid sized eyeballs from outer space that are trying to commit suicide via collision with Earth due to the lack of self-esteem instilled by their need to wear corrective glasses.

  25. I love this quote snippet... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    "However, though the potential national security benefits of such a powerful laser are clear...."

    All we need is a few mirror wielding satellites and the world will be our oyster!

    "Hello I am President EVIL, deposit 1 billion dollars in this swiss bank account or your capitol city will be lazered!"

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  26. Carbon Footprint? by Dareth · · Score: 0

    Don't worry about the scientist's carbon footprint. Apparently they charged the electricity to Al Gore who thought it was a rounding error on his electric bill.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Carbon Footprint? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It'd be a rounding error on my bill too. 500 TW over the pulse time is about 0.5 kilowatt-hours, which would cost about 5 cents.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Carbon Footprint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your bills contain rounding errors as large as 5 cents, I think you should do something about it.

  27. Depends on your perspective by Jeff1946 · · Score: 2

    This is impressive, of course another way to state it would be: it delivers the energy of one laptop battery in one pulse. One must keep in mind the difference between energy and power.

  28. Not much energy. by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The power is high, but there's not much total energy. 1.85 megajoules is only about half a kilowatt-hour. Energy cost about $0.10. No asteroid-melting potential here.

    The National Ignition Facility is for nuclear weapons testing. It's for studying H-bomb type events without having to detonate a nuclear weapon. It's not a prototype for energy production.

    1. Re:Not much energy. by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      Actually the center is designed for fusion energy research. Their website is more informative:

      https://lasers.llnl.gov/

      Nuclear Weapons Testing is done at Los Alamos : http://www.lanl.gov/ ; most testing is now simulated.

      It really is an interesting project. I wonder how they will harvest the energy produced by this method, as it would seem rather hard to contain by the nature of the 192 beams.

    2. Re:Not much energy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The National Ignition Facility is for nuclear weapons testing. It's for studying H-bomb type events without having to detonate a nuclear weapon. It's not a prototype for energy production.

      Citations please? My understanding was that it is intended to ignite a fusion reaction for energy production. When I interviewed for a software engineering position there, the ability to obtain Secret level security clearance wasn't even in the job description. Anything weapons related always requires Secret or Top Secret clearance.

    3. Re:Not much energy. by jerpyro · · Score: 1

      They do fusion research there for DoE, but yes it's heavily subsidized by DoD (since they're not allowed to do detonation tests on nuclear weapons anymore). The University of Rochester has a similar facility: http://www.lle.rochester.edu/ , and they get grants from both DoD and DoE.

    4. Re:Not much energy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The beams are for ignition. Once the reaction starts, you turn the beams off.

    5. Re:Not much energy. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      It can do both. It has dual use capabilities. It is mostly for fusion energy research, but given that most US nuclear weapons are, in fact, fission-fusion weapons (H-bombs), learning more about ignition of fusion helps with weapons research. There is even some interest in pure fusion weapons that do not require more unstable and much more "dirty" fission devices as triggers. NIF can help with that if they can show how to get fusion started without having to use uranium or plutonium to do it.

  29. THX for the meme hint. by zapyon · · Score: 1

    But don't you think after doing fusion research on millimeter targets they might be tempted to try fusing (sic!) larger, unfriendly objects as they come along? ;-)

    --
    I like my spaghetti with source.
    1. Re:THX for the meme hint. by drwho · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between being able to focus a large amount on energy in a small area for a very short time, and being able to transfer enough power to 'blow shit up'. Think static electricity versus a soldering iron.

    2. Re:THX for the meme hint. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't you think after doing fusion research on millimeter targets they might be tempted to try fusing (sic!) larger, unfriendly objects as they come along? ;-)

      No. By studying inertially confined fusion, they learn what happens in the juicy fusiony bits of a weapon, without having to go through all that tedious mucking about with an actual nuke.

      The fact that NIF also provides an opportunity to achieve clean renewable energy is a side effect of the weapons research; a very happy and beneficial side effect, and one that justifies the research in its own right.

      The physical processes that take place in the heart of an H-Bomb are the same as those that will be used to power an inertially-confined fusion reactor, albeit under much more controlled circumstances. Just as advances in civilian research can be applied to weapons development, weapons research can drive civilian technological advancement.

      That's what dual-use means. These lasers aren't offensive weapons, and never will be. They're research tools. (Very, very, very awesome research tools :)

  30. X-actly: Dual use by zapyon · · Score: 1

    –– that was the term I was looking for.

    --
    I like my spaghetti with source.
  31. Quote: by zapyon · · Score: 1

    "However, though the potential national security benefits of such a powerful laser are clear, NIF also provides unique opportunities for wholly scientific pursuits." (article @ )

    --
    I like my spaghetti with source.
  32. Not such a big deal by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Record Setting 500 Trillion-Watt Laser Shot Achieved

    I once did a 180 proof jello shot.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  33. Plank time by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    Not quite zero. Plank time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

    Now I have "Can't time this!" set to the music of MC Hammer in my head.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  34. Anyone got a house full of popcorn? by phrackthat · · Score: 1

    N/T

  35. So what in the implication for fusion reactors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So will it be easier now to implement fusion power? Was ignition a problem before? Now we only need to successfully contain the plasma for the reactor to successful and commercially viable?

  36. Obligatory warning label by davidwr · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Do not look into laser with remaining eye."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  37. Put simply, out of deference to you, Kent... by JSC · · Score: 2

    ...it's like lasing a stick of dynamite

    --
    Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog
    1. Re:Put simply, out of deference to you, Kent... by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Almost exactly interestingly enough. Since a stick of dynamite is right around 2MJ and this laser outputs 1.85MJ.

    2. Re:Put simply, out of deference to you, Kent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a real genius ; )

  38. 1.85 MJ by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

    Or, only about 0.5 killowatt-hours, or the same amount of energy used by your microwave being on for 30 minutes.

    The time duration is a critical detail to these "mind-boggling" numbers.

  39. Equivalent projectile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like thinking of laser pulses in terms of equivalent kinetic energy of an object travelling at the speed of a bullet (500 meters per second)
    From what I've found online I think the pulse duration was about 4 nanoseconds. That means at that power the total energy delivered was about 2 megajoules.
    The formula for kinetic energy is 0.5 * mass * velocity^2
    Therefore if the velocity is 500 m/s then the mass would be 2 million / (500*500) * 2 = 16 kg.
    So it's about the equivalent of a 16 kg or 35 pound projectile travelling at the speed of a bullet.
    Ouch.

    1. Re:Equivalent projectile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops did not see that they posted the total energy - 1.85 megajoules
      That means it's actually a 14.8 kg (32.6 pound) projectile. I wasn't far off.

  40. LHC Power Comparison Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, here we have 1/2 a petawatt (500 terawatts).

    How does that compare to the LHC's giga-electronvolts (gEv) and tera-electronvolts (tEv)?

    1. Re:LHC Power Comparison Conversions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, here we have 1/2 a petawatt (500 terawatts).

      How does that compare to the LHC's giga-electronvolts (gEv) and tera-electronvolts (tEv)?

      Not at all (and BTW, you've got your cases reversed: it's GeV and MeV). One is laser power, the others are particle energies. The particle (i.e. photon) energy in those lasers were the same as in normal light of the same wavelength (i.e. negligible compared to LHC particle energies); it was the luminosity (number of photons) which was large. I guess the LHC has much lower luminosity (but I don't really know).

  41. World's most expensive cigarette lighter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or can it start a bbq?

  42. How did they . . . by Traciatim · · Score: 1

    fire 192 beams in to a target area of 2mm without crossing the streams?

    1. Re:How did they . . . by treeves · · Score: 2

      lots of optics, very precisely aligned.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  43. Surprising how little power we actually use by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 2

    The 500 trillion watts thing made me think and do some math about how much power the US actually uses at any given moment. According to the EIA, in 2010 the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,496 kWh. So doing some math, that's only about .21 watts per second, and based on an estimated 115 million houses in the US, that's only just over 24.1 million watts per second. Of course this doesn't take into account commercial power use which is likely a lot higher, but I found it surprising that in a given second, the nation's households only consume 24.1 million watts.

    1. Re:Surprising how little power we actually use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watts is already per second. Leave on a singlle lighht and you are using 30watts, there might be something wrong with your math.

  44. An excess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Submitter and "editor" - you suck.

  45. yet more slashdot bias. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    Every week i hear a new story about advances in laser technologies, but shark related advancements (laser mounts, shark compatible targeting for lasers, and underwater shark optics) are NEVER covered.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:yet more slashdot bias. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You either missed this, or have a very short memory.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  46. Re:astonishingly inefficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There has got to be a better way to get a quick sun tan.

  47. Laser riffle selected, by sp4ni3l · · Score: 1

    Headshot!

  48. Petawatt laser? by smaddox · · Score: 1

    500 Trillion Watts is old news. A petawatt laser has existed for years, now. The record set by NIF is energy per pulse. The petawatt laser has only 190J per pulse, whereas the NIF has ~100000 times more energy per pulse.

  49. Suntan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good way to get a quick suntan?

  50. Math Dammit by tempest69 · · Score: 1

    gaaa ok
    11496kWhper year/365=31.5 kWh per day
    31.5 kWh per day/24= 1.31 kWh/ hour (or 1.31kW)
    1.31 kWh per hour /60 = .022 kWh/minute (still 1.31 kW)
    .022 kWh/minute /60= .365 Wh/second (still 1.31 kW)
    ______________________________________________________
    When you find a number that is back of the envelope crazy, check your numbers.
    That number would mean that every person has one 30 watt bulb going for 8 hours a night, and that's it.. no fridge, no fans, no pc.

    1. Re:Math Dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not even close. Watts is a power measurement. The average wattage per home is, according to your numbers 1.31kW, which is like 13 100 watt bulbs on all the time. That's the average power usage of a typical home, even per second. If there are 80 million residences, that would be 104.8 GW. Industry and infrastructure uses even more.

  51. but.. but... by Budgreen · · Score: 1

    Will it do BluRay?

    --
    The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
  52. Caution: by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

    Do not look into laser with remaining charred neck-stump.

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

      Do not look into shark with remaining charred neck-stump.

      FTFY :)

  53. No, NIF is 90% for nuclear weapons research by mbkennel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its budget is from the NNSA, the part of the Department of Energy which deals with weaponry.

    The design is ill-suited for civilian energy production research, and there is little attention to investigating cost-effective engineering necessary to get fusion power. By contrast the large tokamak being built in France does have significant engineering application (e.g. materials which could withstand the neutron flux in semi-commercial powerloads) as part of its scientific program.

    The underlying facts: There is nothing important to learn in the nuclear reactions of fusion. Everything difficult is in the complex radiative transfer and fluid dynamics and thermodynamics in extreme circumstances. The goal of the NIF is to generate calibration data for the classified software simulation codes for nuclear weaponry without nuclear test detonations. You can do certain kinds of "subcritical" experiments to test the explosives and fission primary without a full yield nuclear explosion, but there isn't anything equivalent for the secondaries without the NIF.

    The target of the NIF is, in some ways, a miniature recreation of the thermonuclear secondary of H-bombs. In fact, until about 15-20 years ago the actual setup used in the DOE laser fusion experiments was classified: the lasers are not directly heating or compressing the fusion fuel. They are heating a metal outer-surface called a "hohlraum (German for hollow room)" named so in the initial breakthrough Ulam-Teller design for the fusion weapon.

    The outer metal shell fully ionizes which then releases a dense gas of X-rays which equilbrate themselves as the speed of light inside the container and themselves heat and ablate the surface of the inner fusion pellet. The gas being pushed off from the inner pellet imparts momentum inward imploding and fusing the inner pellet.

    This is how an H-bomb works, except the initial x-rays are provided by a fission primary implosion. The real key is that you do not want the heat/blast from the primary---that would ruin the fusion assembly. You just want a clean X-ray pulse first.

    Personally, I don't favor excess spending on nuclear weapons, and would favor funding into a variety of heterodox experimental fusion configurations which have a chance, if small, of eventually providing commercially successful power generation.

  54. Hmm, application for optical media? by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    I am sure Hollywood (and maybe environmentalists) would love the idea of a one time use optical disk that disintegrates while being watched.

    Most movies these days are barely watchable one time so if the disk disappears in a puff of smoke you have achieved all the enjoyment you are going to get out of it anyways.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:Hmm, application for optical media? by cheros · · Score: 1

      It'll be crap to eject that disk though, as it will have become a spiral :).

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  55. So did the laser open a worm hole or wat? by srk2040 · · Score: 0

    There's a point to firing that much power at a point to prove something. Did they open a worm hole or a micro black hole? If not, they'll face a big electric bill at the end of the month.

  56. In unrelated news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...there was an unexplained bright flash at Iran's Bushehr-1 nuclear complex and the facility is no longer visible to high-resolution spy satellites.

  57. For how long? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    1.85 MegaJoules / 500 Terawatts = 3.7 nanoseconds.

    3.7 nanoseconds

    Think about it... that much energy delivered... in 3.7 nanosecond.

    That truly does boggle the mind.

  58. bah by TempestRose · · Score: 2

    post to remove incorrect mod. Never mod after 2 gin & tonics! Always wait until 4...

  59. More info about NIF - Start Trek connection by iiii · · Score: 2

    Seeing a lot of discussion, but not much real information here, so I'll contribute.

    For starters, here is the website: https://lasers.llnl.gov/

    And here is a page of that site that has some explanation about how it works: https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/nic/icf/how_icf_works.php

    I've actually toured this facility, and it was pretty damn cool. A few points that stuck in my memory:

    The generally do one shot each night. They prep it during the day, then they all go home and it goes off at night with not many people there, because that's safer.

    The electricity usage is intense but very short, lasting only around 20 billionths of a second. They do this by charging up their capacitors and then discharging them very rapidly. They said the air conditioning for the building actually uses more power than the laser.

    They talk about the "seven wonders of NIF", which are seven advances in materials and technology that were made during the project which made it all possible. I thought the rapid crystal growing was pretty wicked. Info on them here: https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/seven_wonders.php

    In the actual ignition step itself, while you might think you shine the powerful laser on the thing you want to heat up, that's actually not how it works. They have the thing they want to heat, and near it (like 1mm) is this little metallic trough thing. They blast the laser into the trough thing and when the light hits that it creates microwaves, and the microwaves heat the target. Of course by the time it's done all those parts are completely vaporized.

    Also of interest, around April this year the place was shut down for maintenance for a month. For about two weeks during that period some filming for the next Star Trek movie took place inside the NIF facility. So check out the pix and see if you can spot the NIF scenes when the movie comes out. It does kinda look like the engine room of a starship: https://lasers.llnl.gov/multimedia/photo_gallery/target_area/?id=5&category=target_area Obviously, the whole lab is full of nerds who like Star Trek, but they were not allowed to see what was going on.

    --
    Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
  60. So Perhaps create a warm spot on the asteroid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, I'm guessing the moment was a very little moment :-)

  61. Re:No, NIF is 90% for nuclear weapons research by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

    Thank you much for the informative post. I was just reading the blurb on their website, and it gives the impression that it is for fusion energy. I suppose it is mostly for PR reasons, but the blurb gives the impression that it is solely for fusion research (from their site) :

    <quote>
    The National Ignition Facility: Ushering in a New Age for Science

    Scientists have been working to achieve self-sustaining nuclear fusion and energy gain in the laboratory for more than half a century. Ignition experiments at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) are now bringing that long-sought goal much closer to realization.
    [...]
    Experiments conducted on NIF will make significant contributions to national and global security, could lead to practical fusion energy, and will help the nation maintain its leadership in basic science and technology. The project is a national collaboration among government, academia, and many industrial partners throughout the nation.
    </quote>

    Your post makes a lot more sense however.

  62. Way more than the USS Enterprise produces in TNG. by master_p · · Score: 1

    According to the show, the USS Enterprise in TNG produces 12.75 billion GW at any moment in time, so we have already the capability to produce more energy than that.

    More info here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-D)

  63. Re:Way more than the USS Enterprise produces in TN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but 500 trillion Watt are just 500 Gigawatt. So the Enterprise produces 25.5 million times the power of that laser. Also, the Enterprise can sustain that power for a bit longer than just a few nanoseconds.

    Indeed, 12.75 billion Gigawatt is the energy equivalent of 141.7 kg per second. The mass equivalent of 500 Gigawatt on the other hand is a mere 5.56 micrograms per second.

  64. Commence Primary Ignition by MEC2 · · Score: 1

    All stories about high powered lasers should be captioned thusly...

  65. Re:Way more than the USS Enterprise produces in TN by petteyg359 · · Score: 1

    Uh, no. Mega is million. Giga is billion. Tera is trillion. 500 trillion is in fact 500 TW.

  66. a patent on clean sustainable fusion energy by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    if apple doesn't snatch it first, that could really give the us economy a boost i suppose ... until the tech gets copied

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  67. Finally! by Dabido · · Score: 1

    Finally something I can use to keep those awful Kzinti off my lawn!!!!

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)