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."

53 of 252 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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
  2. 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 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
  3. 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 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!
    2. 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.

  4. 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 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...
  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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 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...

  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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 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.

    2. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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...
  16. 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.

  17. Re:To put that in perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    correction: rubbing your hands together saying 'muahahaa'

  18. 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.

  19. 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!
  20. 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.

  21. 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.
  22. Re:Stellar application potential by Yvan256 · · Score: 2
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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.

  26. 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!
  27. 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.
  28. 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.

  29. 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!
  30. Caution: by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

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

  31. 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.

  32. bah by TempestRose · · Score: 2

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

  33. 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