Slashdot Mirror


A Stable Plasma Ring Has Been Created In Open Air For the First Time Ever (futurism.com)

New submitter mrcoder83 shares a report from Futurism: Engineers from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have been able to create a stable plasma ring without a container. According to the Caltech press release, it's "essentially capturing lightning in a bottle, but without the bottle." This remarkable feat was achieved using only a stream of water and a crystal plate, made from either quartz and lithium niobate. The union of these tools induced a type of contact electrification known as the triboelectric effect. The researchers blasted the crystal plate with an 85-micron-diameter jet of water (narrower than a human hair) from a specially designed nozzle. The water hit the crystal plate with a pressure of 632.7 kilograms of force per centimeter (9,000 pounds per square inch), generating an impact velocity of around 305 meters per second (1,000 feet per second) -- as fast as a bullet from a handgun. Plasma was formed as a result of the creation of an electric charge when the water hit the crystal surface. The flow of electrons from the point of contact ionizes the molecules and atoms in the gas area surrounding the water's surface, forming a donut-shaped glowing plasma that's dozens of microns in diameter. Caltech posted a video of the plasma ring on their YouTube channel.

113 comments

  1. Lightsaber Chakrams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely I'm not the only one who thought it.

  2. 1950s technology by boudie2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Gharib’s team also noticed another peculiar phenomenon: the plasma ring emitted distinct radio frequencies, as evidenced by the high levels of static the engineers’ mobile phones picked up during the experiment. “That’s never been seen before. We think it’s because of the piezo properties of the materials that we used in our experiments,” Pereira explained."
    Sounds to me like he's never heard of the plasma speaker.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Millennials have never heard of anything. The 1950s never happened except in fairy tales.

    2. Re:1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, you know, how it's nothing like that. A plasma speaker creates vibrations in the air which you hear as audible sound. What does that have to do with radio waves?

    3. Re:1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demo video: http://www.easternvoltageresearch.com/plasmaspeaker.html.

    4. Re:1950s technology by boudie2 · · Score: 1

      I'm no electrical engineer, but what do radio waves have to do with their mobile phones picking up static?

    5. Re:1950s technology by boudie2 · · Score: 1

      And here's a video of a plasma speaker interfering with an AM radio
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    6. Re:1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably having a ring gives a wider curve area on the RF. That could trip some measurements of amplitude.

    7. Re:1950s technology by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      A neat magic trick for parties!

      Now, how does this get us any closer to plasma nuclear fusion power . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:1950s technology by boudie2 · · Score: 1

      It's (always) just around the corner ...

    9. Re:1950s technology by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      It's easier to keep the black projects secret when you don't teach people the history leading up to them and just let them relive the same 20-40 years of technological development over and over again.

    10. Re:1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only 20 years away!

    11. Re:1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what do radio waves have to do with their mobile phones picking up static?

      Radio waves have a lot more to do with a mobile phone picking up noise than sound...

      Plasma speakers can emit some radio noise (or a lot) depending on how well they are made. But that is far from the only possible source of RF noise, especially since you can make plasma speakers that are relatively RF quiet. For stable plasma arcs that aren't being interrupted or even modulated, you can make it much quieter.

      Saying they haven't heard of plasma speakers is as insightful as telling someone that discovered a new light emitting but room temperature chemical reaction, "Gee, I guess you never heard of incandescent light bulbs."

    12. Re:1950s technology by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Please be precise about this "incandescent light bulks" operate at thousands of degrees, in Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin. Their shells are at room temperature. The filaments are much hotter when in operation.

    13. Re:1950s technology by hlavac · · Score: 1

      Just wait, when they pitch this to the military US will have plasma weapons in 3 years! Financed by uncovered debt like the rest of it...

    14. Re:1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm an electrical engineer.

      First of all I want to clarify that they mean static noise, not static charge. The first one is the "waterfally" sound you get from your regular AM/FM radio not tuned into a channel. The second one is what happen when you rub a balloon against a cat.

      There is no physical difference between a wire and an antenna. If you want to design an antenna you can just cut a wire to an appropriate length (Or any length, it doesn't have to be a good antenna to work as one.)
      Every trace on a PCB, like the ones between the CPU and the the memory, or the ones to the speaker works exactly like antennas.

      You usually don't care about this property of wires and traces since the impact of the radio waves is so insignificant.
      The signals you work with are much stronger than the impact the radio waves have.

      So what happened here is probably that there is a DA converter in the phone that requires some filtering to not sound like crap and that filter is placed too far away from the amplifier for the speaker. The trace between the filter and the driver picked up radio noise from the plasma.
      The DA is probably integrated into the CPU so they couldn't move it closer to the amplifier and if they moved the filter closer to the amplifier they would emit more radio signals themselves.
      You typically won't encounter open air plasmas in your daily life so it isn't really a big problem.

      There is a lot more to talk about here, but I hope this clarifies what the two of them has to do with each other sufficiently for now.

    15. Re: 1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to just post the requisite "whoosh," but this one is so egregious that it bears pointing out that you have to be REALLY stupid to miss the point as badly as you do.

      Bravo.

    16. Re: 1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything interfers with AM radio. Even the small spark from touching metal when you're charged, if you're close enough. That's why FM was invented.

    17. Re:1950s technology by arth1 · · Score: 2

      First of all I want to clarify that they mean static noise, not static charge. The first one is the "waterfally" sound you get from your regular AM/FM radio not tuned into a channel. The second one is what happen when you rub a balloon against a cat.

      A hiss, a bang, a squeal, a slash, a scream?

    18. Re:1950s technology by arth1 · · Score: 1

      A neat magic trick for parties!

      For very small parties, given that these rings are no more than microns across.

    19. Re:1950s technology by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But that is far from the only possible source of RF noise

      Indeed.
      You're hitting crystal plates with a water jet. Oscillating crystals causing electromagnetic noise was pretty much how radio transmitters were born.

    20. Re: 1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't get static from a digital signal. So the static is later than the RF stage.

    21. Re:1950s technology by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

      Oh boy I'm so looking forward to the invention of the steam engine but not before they unveil the Spinning Jenny. Seriously what the fuck are you talking about?

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    22. Re: 1950s technology by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You have it right and explained it well, with one exception. A DA is a District Attorney. You can loosely refer to a DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) in casual conversation as a "D to A", but in formal written explanations and documentation it is "DAC", not "DA".

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    23. Re:1950s technology by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      Oh boy I'm so looking forward to the invention of the steam engine but not before they unveil the Spinning Jenny. Seriously what the fuck are you talking about?

      All the "breakthrough" tech coming out in the realm of quantum mechanics and such today was discovered in the 60's. The black projects run by the government are so far beyond the science known in the civilian world it's absurd. It might help if you look up the definition of the term "black project" and find the associated (known) budgets (i.e. missing money.) Take all the scientific funding from every nation combined over the last several decades, now multiply it by about 10. That's the difference between the civilian sciences and the black budget sciences (monetarily at least, probably a bit more since the civilian side keeps retracing the black project side.)

    24. Re:1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheldon Cooper has already made a plasma sword in the form of a kliongon bath'let, using this teknologi. The instruction manual is in klingon.

    25. Re: 1950s technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have it right and explained it well, with one exception. A DA is a District Attorney. You can loosely refer to a DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) in casual conversation as a "D to A", but in formal written explanations and documentation it is "DAC", not "DA".

      DA converter works too, if the reader isn't a pedantic moron.

  3. PPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The standard sidearm on Babylon 5 was a plasma gun almost exactly like this one.

    1. Re: PPG by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      It was useless and couldn't cause any damage, but could annoy teenagers as they try to talk on their phones all night?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re: PPG by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      not useless, it squirts water

      --
      Nullius in verba
  4. Now.. by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

    To figure out the rest of Minovsky physics

  5. "kilograms of force" by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The hell kind of weird bastardized units are these writers using? Kilograms are mass. Newtons are force. Do you mean 9.8N, which is about the force of 1kg under 1g (g-force, not grams) of acceleration?

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:"kilograms of force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't understand what you do and do not know, why do you speak?

    2. Re:"kilograms of force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're replying to the wrong person, considering the kilogram-force is an actual unit that was way too common not long ago. It was in my experience more often called a kilopond, but that is field dependent. It has been around for over a hundred years.

    3. Re:"kilograms of force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A kilogram-force, aka kilopond, is defined as 9.80665 N: the force from one kilogram under a "standard gravity" which is a fixed, defined constant acceleration.

    4. Re:"kilograms of force" by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Mass is, in fact, measured in kg. It has the same unit as what is used for weight, but outside of the environment of earth, they are not the same thing.

      As you said. mass is constant and weight will vary. That doesn't mean I'm not still 85kg if I go to the moon. I will only weigh about 14kg there, but my mass is still the same. Weight is a measurement of force that depends on the environment, and mass is a measurement of inertia, which is considered an intrinsic property of matter. Nonetheless the units are the same, because prior to the discovery of inertia by Newton, mass and weight were always thought of as the same thing

    5. Re:"kilograms of force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The kilogram and kilogram-force are different units, even if the latter often gets lazily abbreviated in name to the former. They've been defined as fundamentally different units for over a hundred years, so the deprecated, historic definitions of kilogram are no longer relevant to anyone still alive. And that time line has nothing to do with Newton, as the original weight based definition of the kilogram came well after Newton's death.

    6. Re:"kilograms of force" by skullandbones99 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, many people confuse weight with mass because of the environment in which they were taught. For example, if you go to your doctor, and the doctor asks you for your weight, no-one says I weigh 850 Newtons which is technically the correct scientific answer.

      Newton's equation of force = mass x acceleration which tells us that the force due to gravity aka weight is proportional to the mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.

      In the metric system:
      force is in Newtons
      mass is in kilograms
      acceleration is in metres per second per second

      This means kilograms is mass and is proportional to weight. Unfortunately, this proportionality allows people to pretend that kilograms are a force which is not the case.

    7. Re:"kilograms of force" by skullandbones99 · · Score: 2

      On the moon your mass would still be 85kg.

      Force (Netwons) = mass (kilograms) x acceleration (metres per second per second)

      The moon has 1/6 the acceleration due to gravity than the earth:

      On the surface of the earth, acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s/s.

      On the surface of the moon. acceleration due to gravity is 1.620 m/s/s.

      Therefore your weight is as follows:

      On Earth, your weight (force) = 85 x 9.81 = 834 Newtons

      On the moon, your weight (force) = 85 x 1.620 = 138 Newtons

      One of the reasons you say your "weight is 14kg on the moon" is because conceptually it is easier to understand what 14kg is than what 138 Newtons is. But scientifically speaking weight is not measured in kg.

      When you tell your doctor your weight, you are actually telling your doctor your mass. For example in the UK, doctors use the BMI (Body Mass Index) to calculate how overweight you are but despite mass being mentioned in the term they ask for your "weight" in kilograms, doh!

    8. Re:"kilograms of force" by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Actually kilograms, i.e. weight, are never a unit of mass.

      Found the DeVry grad!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re: "kilograms of force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weight is force, Newton's. It depends on your acceleration. Mass is kilograms. It's a property.

      US units are confusing you. We have pounds and the pound force, also called a pound but to avoid confusion use the slug

    10. Re:"kilograms of force" by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      That's only true on Earth though, What about slashdot readers who are browsing this article on other planets because they have joined the Space Cadet corps?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    11. Re:"kilograms of force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Actually kilograms, i.e. weight, are never a unit of mass.

      Welcome to /. , students of Law, Medicine, Literature and US Engineers, but please refrain from talking about units. Leave it to people from more advanced countries on which the SI system is used, mkay?

      Mass _is_ measured in kg. Kilogram is a unit of mass.

      There is an ancillary unit of force (just like the liter is used for volume) which is explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force .

    12. Re:"kilograms of force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The water hit the crystal plate with a pressure of 632.7 kilograms of force per centimeter (9,000 pounds per square inch)

      Everyone seems to have missed the really important detail.

      The strange quantum effect which changes the dimensionality of the effect from 2D to 1D depending on the units used to make the measurement.

    13. Re: "kilograms of force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you write Newton's, but not depend's, mas's, kilogram's, unit's, pound's?

    14. Re:"kilograms of force" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Good spot. I'm a pedantic twat of the first order and I missed it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re: "kilograms of force" by pD-brane · · Score: 1

      I agree. Even the CalTech press release uses non-standard units.

      The stream of water is an 85-micron-diameter jet blasting from a specially designed nozzle at 9,000 pounds per square inch that strikes the crystal plate with an impact velocity of around 1,000 feet per second. For reference, that's a stream narrower than a human hair moving about as fast as a bullet fired from a handgun.

      If they are giving an intuitive comparison after the numbers in any case (which is a good idea for a press release), just stick with both physical sensible and SI units!

    16. Re:"kilograms of force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as the DeVry dropout.

    17. Re:"kilograms of force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relatives might disagree but my observation is that the mass of an object at rest is not constant with the mass of the same object in motion.

    18. Re:"kilograms of force" by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The kilogram and kilogram-force are different units, even if the latter often gets lazily abbreviated in name to the former

      That is true, yes. It would be more correct for me to say that the *names* of the units are the same than it to just say (as I had) that the units are the same, but for some reason I didn't think of putting it that way when I was responding, above.

      As for Newton having nothing to do with how the kilogram came to be defined today, I know that Newton actually used imperial units. The kilogram-force unit is basically just a metric equivalent to the notion of the concept of pounds of force, which would have actually been the primary expression for the notion of force prior to Newton (long before it was understood that force was actually the product of acceleration and mass, and not just the mass). The creation of the SI unit called a Newton deprecated the notion of using a weight/mass unit to describe force entirely, but the reference to the force experienced by a given mass at 1G persisted, and is still frequently used because it is often more intuitively understood by people without a physics background.

      So the expression "kilograms of force" always explicitly refers to the kilogram-force unit, but it is redundant to say that so many kilograms-force of force were used to do work XYZ, so the 'force' suffix on the unit is often dropped from the unit name itself. Since the word appears almost immediately afterwards anyways, no ambiguity about the term's usage remains, but when you see "pounds of force" or "kilograms of force", the actual units being measured to are pound-force and kilogram-force.

    19. Re:"kilograms of force" by ortholattice · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is curious is that they needed precisely 632.7 kilograms of force per centimeter [sic], to 4 significant figures. Even more remarkable is that this evaluates to almost exactly 9,000 pounds per square inch (8999.1 psi to be precise).

    20. Re:"kilograms of force" by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the dead giveaway isn't it. Obviously the original figure was 9000 psi and someone tried to "helpfully" convert it into SI units but failed their most basic unit analysis, turning force into mass and, as an AC points out above, square inches into centimeters, ultimately converting a measurement of pressure into a measurement of linear density. What?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    21. Re: "kilograms of force" by chihowa · · Score: 1

      US units are confusing you.

      It's not US units that are confusing anyone, it's the tendency of the unenlightened to turn every system of measure into a customary system.

      The metric system is great, so it has to be corrupted by things like using weight and mass units interchangeably (to the point that people are genuinely confused about which is which) and making up non-systematic units where it's convenient (tonnes, hectares, etc).

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    22. Re: "kilograms of force" by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      US units are confusing you.

      It's not US units that are confusing anyone,

      I don't know about that - try using ounces. Is that weight or volume?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    23. Re: "kilograms of force" by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Oh, US units are definitely not easy to work with, being part of a customary system of measure with arbitrary (or no) base units, arbitrary conversion factors, and identically named units. The ounce isn't even that bad of an example, since an ounce (weight) of water occupies an ounce of volume (under specific conditions). That's similar to a gram of water occupying a milliliter of volume (under specific conditions).

      But the US system wasn't causing any confusion in this thread, since it's all in metric units. The confusion here is due to people deliberately adding arbitrary conversion factors and identically named units to the metric system and turning it into another shitty customary system of measure. The foundations of the metric system were enlightened and rational, but the current users aren't so much.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    24. Re:"kilograms of force" by segwonk · · Score: 1

      *meta*

      I've been lurking on slashdot for around 18 years now, so I have some perspective....

      I know it's de rigueur these days to bitch and moan about how awful slashdot is. But to the skeptics I say: parent's comment is exactly why I keep coming back. Thank you for that neat bit of sleuthing ortholattice! /meta

      --
      - ------ Go 'til ya know.
  6. Re:samrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good comment. Also, suck my dick.

  7. 632.7 kilograms of force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    632.7 kilograms of force per centimeter (9,000 pounds per square inch)

    AAAAaaaAARrrrgh!

    1. Re:632.7 kilograms of force by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Cut them some slack, they worked on this for over a lightyear!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:632.7 kilograms of force by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Maybe third time's the charm and they'll correctly write 62 megapascals? ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:632.7 kilograms of force by Megane · · Score: 3, Funny

      How long is that in parsecs? I want to figure out how many Kessel runs that is.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:632.7 kilograms of force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know which is worst -- kilograms as force, the unsquared centimeter, or the extra THREE MAGICAL SIGFIGS -- but the trifecta makes me want to go on a nerderous rampage.

  8. Alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what the hell is it good for? Why do i want a plasma ring?

    1. Re:Alright by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Plasma containment is the main power draw limiting the feasibility of fusion power production. Magnetic containment, etc. now have potential replacements though it will require significant development with more research for application.

    2. Re:Alright by arth1 · · Score: 1

      But what the hell is it good for? Why do i want a plasma ring?

      This is /.
      Think of the goatse opportunities.

      Anyhow, the key point here, I think, is the word stable. Applications tend to follow. Few inventions were made for a purpose; the purposes are added later. I'm sure one of your ancestors said "What the hell is it good for? Why do I want a wooden ring?" after the wheel was invented, before there were any rolling applications taking advantage of it.

  9. What sort of quartz - by sheramil · · Score: 2

    .. is "either quartz", and did anyone else find their youtube video a little short of details?

    1. Re:What sort of quartz - by Megane · · Score: 1

      I think it might have been "aether quartz". That would even make some sense.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:What sort of quartz - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they mean between the choices of either the mineral 'Milk Quartz', commonly found by kids in their backyards & driveway gravel- or 'Rolex Quartz Watches'.
      Unless they're going with 'Quarts' as a measurement, then I'm out of my league because I don't do a lot of baking.

  10. Re:samrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It probably needs a recharge.

  11. Holy shit basic grammar by Khyber · · Score: 2

    Either/or, Neither/nor.

    Come the fuck on. Try being less lazy than using a simple spelling check.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Holy shit basic grammar by tsa · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I didn't understand that sentence at all. Either quarz and lithium??? WTF??

      --

      -- Cheers!

  12. And all of the authors were foreign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    big surprise... as is the case of most "American" science these days, highly educated visiting foreign scientists do the work, the American universities take the credit.

    When is this country going to fix its education and start doing its own science work?

    1. Re:And all of the authors were foreign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the "highly educated visiting foreign scientist" in the story got his degree at the same American university he works for... so that makes it look like the American education is working fine.

    2. Re:And all of the authors were foreign by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately not on Americans. Maybe it's the lower education levels that suck.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:And all of the authors were foreign by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, the universities themselves were basically founded by visiting foreign peoples. ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:And all of the authors were foreign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is a well known fact that the majority of research papers and scientific work today that america takes credit for is being done by first or second generation immigrants, many of whom are not students but already educated when they come to america. look it up.

  13. Now the must move elsewhere to continue work by Jzanu · · Score: 0, Troll

    Pack it up and send it all to Germany and Canada, the US just killed its entire research capacity. Any project left there is effectively abandoned now. Scientists and researchers can travel easily, so this is really retarded politicians killing your economic future for a stupid game. 20 years ago, who would have thought the end of US power would come so quickly?

    1. Re:Now the must move elsewhere to continue work by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you had told me half a century ago that there could be any land that might eclipse the US in terms of technology and progress, I would have called you insane. Remember? The time when the US built those huge rockets to go where nobody has gone before?

      20 years ago I would probably have said something along the lines of "Yeah, Japan. but they can't compete in raw production power"

      Today, I'd probably ask if there is actually still any research and development done in the US, and whether there is actually any US-owned corporation left, or whether the Chinese are finally done taking over.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Now the must move elsewhere to continue work by skullandbones99 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, check your facts. The US space program used many German scientists and engineers recruited after the 2nd World War. The most famous German being Wernher von Braun the architect of the Saturn V.

    3. Re:Now the must move elsewhere to continue work by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      You might also remember that a lot more happened in the 60s that made the US the top of the world science hub. But let's stay with the moonshot, while the engineering was important, the whole mission hung on WAY more than the ability to make a large rocket go up. There's logistics, process management, raw manpower and on top of all an economy to power the whole deal. Frankly, making a rocket go up was certainly the most visible of the whole endeavor, but in the end only the tip of the iceberg.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Now the must move elsewhere to continue work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't marry a young girl in the US anymore, this ain't the 60s.

      Why would male scientists want to help a woman's country?

    5. Re:Now the must move elsewhere to continue work by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Why are you even posting this here? The article and numerous others refute your claim.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:Now the must move elsewhere to continue work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an idiot

  14. Nice beginning by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Wake me up when some students can create a stable plasma penis in the air, then I believe they can handle the tech.

  15. Maniacal claim by slashrio · · Score: 1
    If I compare the following quotes from the quoted article:

    ...it’s “essentially capturing lightning in a bottle, but without the bottle.”

    and

    ...forming a donut-shaped glowing plasma that’s dozens of microns in diameter.

    then I can't help it, but I have to LOL!

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    1. Re:Maniacal claim by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      ...forming a donut-shaped glowing plasma that’s dozens of microns in diameter.

      Dozens I tell you! My penile length is dozens of millimeters, you should be impressed.

      --
      We'll make great pets
  16. Measurements! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "generating an impact velocity of around 305 meters per second (1,000 feet per second)"

    Ok, the actual science was done measuring meters per second, the press release rounds it to a nice round number of 1000f/s for American audience, and then that rounded number is converted to a quite exact figure of 305m/s.

    In the actual paper, the experiment was done with a wide range of velocities. Over 200 m/s was required velocity to generate the effect.

  17. u haz grammer by zifn4b · · Score: 2

    made from either quartz and lithium niobate

    1) Either quartz or niobate? 2) Quartz and niobate? 3) Either quartz and niobate or _____?

    --
    We'll make great pets
    1. Re:u haz grammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This remarkable feat was achieved using only a stream of water and a crystal plate, made from either quartz and lithium niobate."

      Is this theory or the description of an actual fact. If it is theory, then why "it was achieved".
      If it was actually achieved, why wouldn't they know what type of crystal plate they used, "either quartz or lithium niobate" but i'm not sure which. LOL

  18. Feels like a fusor analog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are getting inertial confinement which isn't enough to produce a self sustaining reaction. It is neat, but a dead end.

  19. Jump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now lets see if they can get a police dog to jump through it.
    POOF!

  20. so that's where I leftit by sucko · · Score: 0

    I *knew* I left my plasma ring someplace.

  21. Ball Lightning by InterGuru · · Score: 1

    Ball Lightning is a stable plasma structure. Paul Koloc thought that they were a field-reversed configuration and created these is his garage on his Plasmak machine. I saw it myself. Paul was a plasma physicist, not a nut job.

    Since his death (he was near eighty) his website went down. I found this article https://www.wired.com/2009/02/... .

    As the article notes it received very little funding.

    1. Re:Ball Lightning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly there was quartz in this experiment and possibly silicon and quartz in the sandy areas capable of producing ball lightning in some of those ball lighting experiments. At my grandparent's summerhouse there was a ball lightning in the 50's which actually came inside the house, slowly levitated and moved according to the small air currents. The children were told to hold their breaths. The ball exploded on impact, causing a small fire. This house is located in just the right kind of sandy area with frequent thunderstorms from the sea. Crystal structures might have interesting applications in the future.

  22. WTF /. by drewsup · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I submitted this FOUR DAYS AGO, with links to the Caltech aticle!

    1. Re:WTF /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It took 4 days to put all those errors in the summary.

    2. Re:WTF /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol

    3. Re:WTF /. by enigma32 · · Score: 1

      People around here aren't smart enough to read Caltech press releases anymore. They need simpler, more error-ridden summaries.
      The comments from the youtube peanut gallery on the video are even worse. I miss intelligent discourse.

  23. You guys know what this means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are developing our own Stargate without needing the Goa'uld!

  24. A digital signal is still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...an analog waveform.

  25. I don’t see this as a sustained ring by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

    This is more like a sustained ring shaped plasma emission. Difference! What can it be used for that can’t be done with microwave electronics?

  26. kilograms as a unit of force... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're not. Get over it.

    SI has a perfectly good unit of force (the newton). It will be really great when SI advocates actually start using SI, rather than bastardizing it with things like "kilograms of force"....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:kilograms as a unit of force... by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      they meant kilogram-equivalents of force, which is valid, you can even buy pressure gauges using those.

  27. 3 simple steps by McFortner · · Score: 1

    Step 1: {F, M}ake plasma ring
    Step 2: ?
    Step 3: Profit!

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
  28. Re:Maniacal claim FNORD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fnord is evaporated herbal tea without the herbs.

    http://fnord42.blogspot.com/

  29. "you could use it for energy storage" by Z80a · · Score: 2

    Oh yes,i barely can wait for a galaxy note phone with a plasma ring as it's battery.
    Nothing possibly could go wrong.

  30. what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >pressure of 632.7 kilograms of force per centimeter

    ???

    >9,000 pounds per square inch

    ???????

  31. Slashdot... by ShamblerBishop · · Score: 1

    News for grammar/mathematical-unit nerds - fuck off with actual tech discussion.