Slashdot Mirror
'Quark Fusion' Produces Eight Times More Energy Than Nuclear Fusion (futurism.com)
walterbyrd shares a report from Futurism: This new source of energy, according to researchers Marek Karliner and Jonathan Rosner, comes from the fusion of subatomic particles known as quarks. These particles are usually produced as a result of colliding atoms that move at high speeds within the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), where these component parts split from their parent atoms. It doesn't stop there, however, as these disassociated quarks also tend to collide with one another and fuse into particles called baryons. It is this fusion of quarks that Karliner and Rosner focused on, as they found that this fusion is capable of producing energy even greater than what's produced in hydrogen fusion. In particular, they studied how fused quarks configure into what's called a doubly-charmed baryon. Fusing quarks require 130 MeV to become doubly-charmed baryons, which, in turn, releases energy that's 12 MeV more energy. Turning their calculations to heavier bottom quarks, which need 230 MeV to fuse, they found that a resulting baryon could produce approximately 138 MeV of net energy -- about eight times more than what hydrogen fusion releases. The new study has been published in the journal Nature.
The ability to generate sufficient quarks for such a thing to be sustaining is decades to centuries off but it's nice to know how it works.
100MT should be enough for anyone.
This should be enough power, right?
This means that ubiquitous fusion energy is 50 years away again!
This is NOT a usable source of energy. The quarks are so short-lived that a sustained reaction is impossible
Trump and Kim will love that.
Well... From TFA:
However, their fears that this quark fusion could be weaponized soon fizzled out as they realized in subsequent experiments that quarks exist only for about one picosecond. That’s too short a time to create a chain reaction to set off more baryons, as the quarks quickly decay into less volatile, lighter quarks.
(In short, they decay faster than Trump's attention span.)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Anyone who knows anything about subatomic physics would know that you can't have fusion of individual quarks because quarks never occur individually outside of a baryon, so the summary is simply incoherent nonsense.
just a ghost in the machine.
What about Rom Fusion?
#DeleteChrome
Since 99% of an atom's mass is the binding energy of the quarks, I would say that would be a great source of energy. But since we don't have a pile of loose quarks sitting around, I don't see how that would be much use. We would have to expend energy to break them apart first.
Eight times more? This is in line with rules of acquisition.
I'll take a pound of quarks please. Put it on my tab, I'm good for it.
University of Utah demonstrated cold fusion in 1989, but notice that the Republicans haven't allowed us to have it yet.
Hmmm...
Maybe that movie was prophetic and they'll produce a Q-bomb, with more power than all the A-bombs and H-bombs of the world combined...
A.
You'll actually be a Ferengi
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
(In short, they decay faster than Trump's attention span.)
Nope, Scientific tests have proven that nothing decays faster than Trump's attention span. However, it seems like a Twitter containment field can prevent such decay
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
8 x The energy but at what cost?
I wonder what the current Gold Pressed Latinum exchange rate is?
Pull my finger.
Why not instead of wording it so utterly retardedly go with something like:
releases bigness that's 12 MeV more bigger
This is very interesting from a theoretical / experimental point of view. Its an analog of nuclear fusion but done with quarks. That is fun and interesting and well worth a nature paper. It is NOT however in any way a possible source of energy. The quarks in normal matter are already in their lowest energy state. The lambda_c particles they are fusing have a half life of a fraction of a picosecond - not something you might find lying around. Making lambdas would take far more energy than comes out of the "fusion".
So its an interesting example of a large binding energy between charmed quarks, but since you have to create the input particles out of energy, its not a path to net energy production. The abstract of the paper says as much.
Whomever downmodded you is a fucking idiot that has never heard of Tsar Bomba.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
...your post is lacking any truth or beauty!
Unfortunately, unlike nuclear fusion where the things you want to fuse can be found lying around because they are stable, exotic baryons containing c or b quarks have to be created. Since their mass is several thousand MeV - even more if you are using baryons with b-quarks - this will require vastly more energy than this fusion will release.
In fact, just the decay of these baryons releases far more energy that this fusion process so it's not the short lifetime that prevents practical application it's making the constituents in the first place and, even if you find someway to do that, you are better off just waiting for them to decay.
And to a picnic every labor day.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Everyone knows that soft fresh cheese has fewer calories than aged hard cheese. Even Mascarpone is more energetic.
*sigh*
Fuck, when will people ever get it right. The Twitter Containment Field (or TCF) only creates a snapshot, it does not conserve a state. And even though to the untrained eye the TCF seems to conserve a state, its attention half life is even shorter than what is contained therein, making it even less important than what it contains.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Is this the Solarmanite described in Plan Nine from Outer space?
... and I'll agree that Quark fusion is even better. I tend to fuse it with fresh fruits or berries, some linseed and one drop of honey.
Ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(dairy_product)/
Irradiated foods, on the other side, tend to wear me out, so the headline seems about correct.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
... but right now I can't think of a good source of quarks.
It's using the strong nuclear force rather than the weak one, but as long as you don't have a free supply of free quarks (you don't) it's not really a power source. Don't expect to see quark fusion reactors at any time in the future, sure you can make them in the LHC, but only by using vastly more energy than you'll get fusing the quarks back together again.
A witty
...that soon we'll hear that Iran and DPRK have both independently begun development of 'quark bombs'.
-Styopa
Reversed my ass. Democrats just switched tactics to keep black people down. Democratic controlled black areas seldom recover and do better, they are kept in a state of perpetual poverty and reliance on welfare. Coupled with programs to send black males to prison (super predators anyone) and they ensure black communities are reliant on them thus ensuring votes. The ONLY thing the parties appear to have switched on is freedom of speech and personal liberties. The party once known for being "liberal" is now trying to curb speech any way it can.
Well hopefully, if we really put our minds to it, we can still figure out how to turn this thing into a big ass bomb
Whoops! Used the P-word! Sorry! Sorry!
Still. Is this process any more manageable, efficient or economical than nuclear fusion?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
While quarks may have a lifetime too short to use as a DIRECT weapon, quantum action at a distance should allow us to attack North Korea without them being aware.
Trigger Kim's bombs to explode in their silos. Then play Trump's tweets over an over again in his head until he goes (even more) mad.