×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LHC To Start Back Up In November At Half Power

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-blackholes-here dept.

Science 110

mcgrew writes to mention that the Large Hadron Collider, smasher of particles, will get another chance to prove itself this November. The restart will begin with tests at half power, a mere 7 trillion electron volts (TeV), and ramp up slowly to the designed goal of 14 TeV. "Measurements indicate that some of the electrical connections could not safely handle the amount of current needed to run at the full 14 TeV, so will need to be replaced before dialing up the energy that far. But even 7 TeV is much higher than physicists have ever probed in the laboratory before. The Tevatron accelerator at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, is the current record holder, with collisions at 2 TeV."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

110 comments

Oh no the black holes will eat us all! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28989135)

Wont someone think of the children!

Don't try hiding it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28989231)

Calling it the LHC won't mean people won't think of it as the Linear Hardon Collider.

Only half (5, Funny)

swaq (989895) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989137)

Good, only half the universe will be destroyed. =)

Re:Only half (0, Offtopic)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989275)

Nope, the universe will be intact. Only half of the large hardon will be destroyed.

Re:Only half (2, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989415)

Get this "hardon" two bath tubs outside side-by-side and some Levitra* stat!

*is it Levitra? I don't remember, as I'm not a user of said pills**...yet.

**YMMV

Re:Only half (2, Funny)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990601)

I talked to one of scientists the other day and he said that there's nothing to worry about. He did admit that they had never driven the hardware as hard as this before and kept calling me Gordon though... Bah! All those damn scientists look the same to me.

Re:Only half (5, Funny)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989285)

Looks like they are right on schedule for their planned full power-up on December 21, 2012.

Re:Only half (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28989317)

but if half the universe is destroyed that means there is at least a 50/50 chance that niggers will be harmed. that means the LHC is profoundly racist. the sickness is deep, the sickness is deep!! we cannot allow this because then the cameralovers like Jesse Jackson will never EVER shut up. seriously that guy doesn't have an inflatable girlfriend, he gets his jollies from fucking an inflatable TV camera.

Re:Only half (5, Funny)

epiphani (254981) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989363)

There is actually a website available here [hasthelarg...rldyet.com] that monitors the situation and gives real-time updates on the status of the LHC.

Re:Only half (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989491)

There is actually a website available here [hasthelarg...rldyet.com] that monitors the situation and gives real-time updates on the status of the LHC.

Drats. You beat me to it.

Re:Only half (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28989807)

Two opposing beams travelling at near the speed of light collide. Yet they don't collide at near twice the speed of light. The LHC is destroying my brain.

Re:Only half (3, Interesting)

TheGeniusIsOut (1282110) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990783)

It is actually fairly simple relativity, the faster an object moves relative to another, the slower its time reference to the other is. Even though relative to each other from an outside viewpoint they seem to be travelling passed each other at greater than the speed of light, Each experiences a time dialation relative to mass and velocity, so in the frame of reference where the particles collide, they are moving much slower than the speed of light due to time taking longer. When the collision occurs, velocity is mostly cancelled out relative to the surrounding environment, and all of the energy that was contained in the high-speed sub-atomic particles is released in a cloud of elementary particles, which recombine into new and interesting matter. It is out of this cloud that the quark-gluon plasma is formed, which in turn is theoretically capable of forming quantum singularities at high enough energy densities. The faster you can get a particle moving, the higher its energy level is, the higher the density of energy will be at moment of collision.

Re:Only half (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28991263)

Get a fucking education.

Re:Only half (4, Funny)

Woogiemonger (628172) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989817)

There is actually a website available here [hasthelarg...rldyet.com] that monitors the situation and gives real-time updates on the status of the LHC.

What's amusing is if you view the page source of that link. There's even a nifty comment there: "if the lhc actually destroys the earth & this page isn't yet updated please email mike@frantic.org to receive a full refund" Going to email Mikey and ask for a refund. Maybe he won't check.

Re:Only half (3, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989901)

Alternately, if the web site is down, assume the black hole has expanded enough to suck in the web server...

Re:Only half (1)

zig007 (1097227) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990345)

I kind of like this part of the code, pretty safe, really : if (!(typeof worldHasEnded == "undefined")) { document.write("YUP."); } else { document.write("NOPE."); } Should work. :-)

Re:Only half (1)

zig007 (1097227) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990461)

*reposting, better laid out*
I kind of like this part of the code, pretty safe, really :
if (!(typeof worldHasEnded == "undefined")) {
document.write("YUP.");
} else {
document.write("NOPE.");
}

Should work. :-)

Re:Only half (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28990961)

My favourite bit is the comment in the source:
"if the lhc actually destroys the earth & this page isn't yet updated please email mike@frantic.org to receive a full refund"

Re:Only half (1)

saibot834 (1061528) | more than 4 years ago | (#28991115)

NoScript will save the world! Thanks god, I'm save!

<script type="text/javascript">
if (!(typeof worldHasEnded == "undefined")) {
document.write("YUP.");
} else {
document.write("NOPE.");
}
</script>
<noscript>NOPE.</noscript>

Re:Only half (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28990389)

Because of quantum mechanics, we can only know about half of the quantum state of a system.

I'm hoping the LHC destroys only the half we don't know about. Out of sight, out of mind, I say.

Re:Only half (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28991795)

Good, only half the universe will be destroyed. =)

As long as it's the *other* half. :)

So, (1)

ioshhdflwuegfh (1067182) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989139)

they've been soldering those wires. They should you thicker ones if they want higher current. Doh!

Re:So, (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989197)

-10 gauge 100% pure palladium wire is hard to come by. they've had to go with the 75% platinum / 25% palladium 0 gauge for the time being but it just doesn't perform like the real thing...

Re:So, (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989277)


they've been soldering those wires. They should you thicker ones if they want higher current

I was at BestBuy a few years ago and heard the blue-shirted drone tell these guys "Look, you have to use Monster Cable for your Hadron collider."

Did they listen? No!

.

Re:So, (2, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990021)

Did they listen? No!

Not true. I heard they tried to buy the proper cable but attempted [thathomesite.com] to pay with $2 bills and were promptly arrested ;)

A ton of marshmallows! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28989219)

Om nom nom nom nom nom!

Temporary! (4, Informative)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989245)

One thing missing from the summary is that 3.5 TeV/beam is only (hoïpefully) a very temporary setup. The ramp up to 5TeV/beam, or 10 TeV centre of mass energy should be quick rapid if everything works. Going to the full 7 TeV will take longer though.

Re:Temporary! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28989341)

... that 3.5 TeV/beam is only (hoÏpefully) ...

Did anyone else envision one of the three stooges in a lab coat saying "hoyepfully" when they read this?

Re:Temporary! (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989507)

Curly: "Well, I put in the antimatter."
Larry: "You put in the antimatter?!? You're crazy - I put in the antimatter!"
Moe: "You're both wrong, I put in the antimatter."

Re:Temporary! (3, Funny)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990219)

I see. So whty're starting off at 3.5 TeV, moving to 5 and 7 TeV. They will get to 10 TeV at one point.

I wonder if it would be be louder if they turned the dial all the way up to 11 TeV.

Feats of engineering miscommunication. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28989251)

I'm still skeptical... I'd like to see the all the work that was done on the LHC that was outsourced. There had to be quite a bit of miscommunication for the scale of the problems this machine has had. Still, I hope they get this working! I want to hear about Higgs boson!

Fun with units... (5, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989287)

It always kinda amuses* me to remember that 7 TeV is equal to ~1 microJoule. So this incredibly massive and complicated machine is required just to reach energies that are a million times less than what I can get by flicking my pinky finger. Though they do put all that energy into a single subatomic particle and carefully guide them into hitting each other right in front of their detectors, while every time I try to flick a proton with my finger I end up hitting a ton of them and they go flying off every which way, so I guess we still need the LHC.

* Yes I am easily amused, why do you ask?

Re:Fun with units... (1)

Ardaen (1099611) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989451)

So what your saying is you need a pin with a really REALLY sharp point so you can search for new exotic particles?

Re:Fun with units... (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989483)

It seems like we live a universe where the knowledge and secrets of reality are kept well hidden and very difficult to access, like it is trying to keep us as ignorant fools who dont know what anything is or why its here. We have a better grasp in recent years, but we are still a long way to knowing what this is all about on a scientific level (thought religions propose their own speculative/intuitive ideas about this).

Re:Fun with units... (1)

Terwin (412356) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989963)

It seems like we live a universe where the knowledge and secrets of reality are kept well hidden and very difficult to access, like it is trying to keep us as ignorant fools who dont know what anything is or why its here. We have a better grasp in recent years, but we are still a long way to knowing what this is all about on a scientific level (thought religions propose their own speculative/intuitive ideas about this).

Perhaps because much of the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked.
Such unimportant things as: F=(m1 * m2)/d^2 for example.

Then again, just because it could be discovered without hugely expensive equipment does not mean it was easy, just less expensive.

Re:Fun with units... (1)

TheGeniusIsOut (1282110) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990847)

It seems like we live a universe where the knowledge and secrets of reality are kept well hidden and very difficult to access, like it is trying to keep us as ignorant fools who dont know what anything is or why its here. We have a better grasp in recent years, but we are still a long way to knowing what this is all about on a scientific level (thought religions propose their own speculative/intuitive ideas about this).

The religion of Science demands we question everything, rather than accept all on blind faith.

Re:Fun with units... (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989935)

while every time I try to flick a proton with my finger I end up hitting a ton of them and they go flying off every which way

I, for one, welcome our newly cloned elephant [wikipedia.org] overlord!

Re:Fun with units... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990277)

I, for one, welcome our newly cloned elephant overlord!

What can I say? I have a very large pinky (and of course I flick it very slowly).

Re:Fun with units... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990623)

Well it does not accelerate just *one* particle. According to the CERN people, a typical single beam will have enough energy to melt half a ton of copper. Your hand waving must be pretty strong, I guess.

Re:Fun with units... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990799)

a typical single beam will have enough energy to melt half a ton of copper.

Humm... beginning from what temperature, I wonder?

Re:Fun with units... (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28991689)

Even if it begins at its fusion temp, it would take 13.050 kJ/mol * 5E5g / 63.5g/mol = approximately 100MJ

Re:Fun with units... (2, Informative)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 4 years ago | (#28991047)

Your post is modded funny, but it is absolutely correct.

The key point, however, is that when you flick your finger, and end up hitting a huge number of protons, the energy is therefore distributed among all these protons, neutrons, electrons, etc., and so nothing very interesting happens. When all the energy is is concentrated in one collision between two subatomic particles, then very interesting things happen, the most important of which is the creation of a shower of short-lived particles which we don't see in ordinary matter. The most interesting of these particles don't live long enough to even propagate into the detectors, but their decay products do give clues to their existence. It is hoped that the current holy grail of particle physics, the Higgs boson, will be found this way.

Re:Fun with units... (2, Informative)

burtosis (1124179) | more than 4 years ago | (#28991217)

http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/beam.htm [web.cern.ch]

What you say is very misleading. While that is true on a proton basis, you are neglecting the 115 billion protons per packet, with 2808 packets per beam. This puts your calculation off by 15 orders of magnitude. Unless your finger can flick a typical scobie up to mach 2.

Re:Fun with units... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28991533)

7 TeV is the energy of one proton, and that's the value I was talking about. My "calculation" was just a conversion between two units of energy. Yeah I didn't accurately represent the power of the entire LHC beam. I guess that's misleading, if you thought that was the point, rather than some yucks and an observation about how much energy a TeV really is.

Re:Fun with units... (1)

Mt._Honkey (514673) | more than 4 years ago | (#28992667)

Indeed an interesting mix of scales. However, just so nobody gets confused, they aren't just accelerating one proton at a time. The LHC website claims there will be 2835 bunches each of 10^11 protons in each ring. Suddenly that 1 microjoule (each proton brings to one collision) becomes 565 megajoules (carried by entire beams)

That's the same energy as a 14 ton truck moving at mach 1. Stay out of the way.

Re:Fun with units... (1)

cybrpnk2 (579066) | more than 4 years ago | (#28992911)

You flick a TON of subatomic particles around every time you flick your PINKY FINGER? Are you ... GOD?

True, but... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989307)

But even 7 TeV is much higher than physicists have ever probed in the laboratory before.

This is true, but is that probable to lead to anything special? Can for example the Higgs particle be found at such low energies?

Re:True, but... (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989567)

Every mention of LHC coincides with how they're trying to find the Higgs. Say they find it within a year, what happens then? I understand the LHC is designed for hadrons and for lead nuclei, so that would indicate more experiments down the pipe, but could someone explain what they plan to do, or will they just party for 10 years after the Higgs is found and then shut the thing down?

I realize I could go try to search for the answer, but if the average /.'er won't even read TFA, how many do you expect to do some light research?

Re:True, but... (1)

raymansean (1115689) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990039)

It will be 10 years before they have realized that they made the observation. The amount of data that will be generated will be huge and then someone has to analyze it to understand what the detectors detected.

Re:True, but... (2, Informative)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 4 years ago | (#28993603)

On the contrary. The Higgs is discoverable at a 5 sigma significance level (PhysRev standard for "discovery") with about 1 year's worth of data at design energy and luminosity.[1] Furthermore, since people have already worked on analyses, it will only take probably about 6 months to run the analyses on the data and get the results approved by the collaboration. So, with the current startup schedule, barring any more problems, we should expect to see a Higgs discovery paper from CMS and ATLAS in time for the Winter 2011-12 conference cycle.

[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1458 [arxiv.org]

Re:True, but... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990643)

Remember the old saying: the most exciting phrase in science is not 'eureka' it's 'that's odd...'

Finding the Higgs boson is not particularly exciting. The interesting things that happen at an experiment like this are things that don't fit with established models. Obviously, you can't tell what these are until after you've run the experiment.

Science works by making an observation, constructing a theory, and then testing it. If the tests don't contradict the theory then it's nice, but it's not particularly useful. If the tests contradict the theory then the theory gets refined to fit the new observations. The theory is then a closer match for the universe and science has just advanced a little bit.

Re:True, but... (2, Informative)

Gromius (677157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990997)

Well when you find the Higgs, you want to measure its properties and see if you really have a Higgs and not some random new particle. And then if it is the Higgs, you want to see which Higgs it is. All this takes time and lots and lots of data.

And unless we are very unlucky, there should hopefully be lots of other werid and wonderful things to find. I'm personally not interested in the Higgs at all but much more exotic things. But for the media, its easier to say "we are looking for X" rather than we are looking for "X, Y, Z oh and dont forget about B but to be honest, we dont know what happens at these energies and would like to find out"

Dammit, will you stop posting LHC articles?! (2, Funny)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989315)

Now I can't get that song out of my head again. "LHCB sees where the anti-matter's gone. ALICE looks at collisions of lead ions. CMS and ATLAS are two of a kind. They're looking for whatever new particles they can find..."

Argh!

Re:Dammit, will you stop posting LHC articles?! (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989413)

gah!

the lhc accelerates the protons and the lead, and the things that it discovers will rock you in the head

Only 7TeV? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28989353)

I'll be more impressed when they turn it up to 11.

It's like a casino... (3, Funny)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989441)

"LHC To Start Back Up In November At Half Power"

Any bets that it will not?

Vegas should start a pool, I'm sure it would be a hit with the betters.

Re:It's like a casino... (1)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989717)

Hey, just be thankful they're thinking of backing up. Most people I know don't backup until their hard drives crash and they lose everything!

Re:It's like a casino... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990675)

Vegas should start a pool

Somehow I read that as Vega [wikipedia.org] should start a pool. If the LHC does destroy the Earth, then Vega will get a good view of it in around 25 years...

Meh. (2, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989487)

I'll start paying attention when they start running at ludicrous speed or plaid.

Re:Meh. (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989683)

If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour ... you're gonna see some serious shit.

Re:Meh. (1)

Publikwerks (885730) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990319)

No, no, no, no, no. This sucker's electrical. But I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 7 TeV of electricity I need.

Looks ever more like The Time Tunnel? (1)

lorddarthpaul (730954) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989511)

"Measurements indicate that some of the electrical connections could not safely handle the amount of current needed to run at the full 14 TeV..."

So, if they dial it up now, we'll get all those 1960s visual effects explosions: as seen on TV in "The Time Tunnel"? I'm sure that doing effects for those old shows might have been exciting on occasion, but since we're paying for this hadron collider research, I suppose it's counterproductive. The collider now seems like a much better investment than those other billions Congress is busy spending for us.

Re:Looks ever more like The Time Tunnel? (1)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 4 years ago | (#28991373)

Sounds like they should get to work on passing the Cash for Colliders funding.

Slow news day? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989547)

Off topic, but this is the only story on the front page from today. Quit slackin!

Re:Slow news day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28989737)

Exactly, how am I supposed to slack of, when the editors are slacking off and not giving me anything to slack off to?

This has never happened before, I swear! (3, Funny)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 4 years ago | (#28989655)

The restart will begin with tests at half power, a mere 7 trillion electron volts (TeV), and ramp up slowly to the designed goal of 14 TeV.

So I guess you could say that the Large Hadron Collider is being treated for electron dysfunction.

Rob

Let me get this straight.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28990053)

Worldwide we have spent billions of dollars building a machine to get two atoms (or parts thereof) to smash into one another that has had nothing but years of problems, setbacks and assorted expenditures, but we are still without Duke Nukem Forever? Talk about misappropriated funding...

Re:Let me get this straight.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28991203)

What's a few billions between friends when the US govt. can just give trillions to bankers who lost other people's money?

How much is an electronvolt? (1)

dutt (738848) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990335)

In case you were wondering...

One electron volt is equal to 1.60217653(14) x 10^19 joules.

And they are talking about 7 and 14 Trillion eV which is a bunch of joules! Pretty nice ;)

Re:How much is an electronvolt? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28990651)

One electron volt is equal to 1.60217653(14) x 10^19 joules.

And they are talking about 7 and 14 Trillion eV which is a bunch of joules! Pretty nice ;)

You missed by a factor of 10^38

1 eV = 1.6 x 10^MINUS19 Joules

Re:How much is an electronvolt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28990689)

No, it is x 10^-19

Re:How much is an electronvolt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28990743)

http://www.google.com/search?q=7TeV+to+J&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

mmm..

7 teraelectron volts = 1.12152352e-6 joules
1 teraelectron volt = 1.60217646e-7 joules

Re:How much is an electronvolt? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990751)

Uh, no. It's 1.60217646 Ã-- 10^-19 Joules. A trillion eV is therefore 1.60217646 Ã-- 10^-7 J. This is a small number.

Re:How much is an electronvolt? (2, Informative)

FrangoAssado (561740) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990791)

Actually, 1 electron volt is closer to 10^(-19) Joules, so

14 TeV = 2.2 x 10^(-6) J

(When in doubt, ask google [google.com] ! :-))

Magnets DUH! (1)

don depresor (1152631) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990631)

Did anyone else get the "free zero point magnet elecrticity" scam adds?

Lately i'm getting a lot of crap adds like this from google adds... It's a shame.

To boldly go where no .....oh, it's broken. (1)

Aatahua (1602231) | more than 4 years ago | (#28990887)

Look at it this way, If the tin foil hat brigade are right, the end will be fairly quick. If, however, things go as planned, some of the potential gains for mankind would go a long way to paying some of their power bill. I wonder if their electricity company gives them a discount for paying by direct debit?

The actual plan (5, Informative)

andre.david (1373517) | more than 4 years ago | (#28991137)

Hi,

We were just briefed at CERN of the plan. It is a plan. Plans can change. With that proviso:

0 - get the beams circulating at injection energy (from last year's experience, this happened in one week)

1 - take some collision data at injection energy (450 GeV/c per beam => 900 GeV at center-of-mass or half the Tevatron) (from last year's experience, this could be only another week)

2 - CERN will observe the annual closure from Dec 19 to Jan 3.

3 - ramp the energy up to 3.5 TeV/c per beam (7 TeV center-of-mass energy, 3.6x more than the Tevatron)

4 - take enough data to be competitive with 20 years of Tevatron in some topics

5 - ramps the energy to 5 TeV/c per beam (10 TeV center-of-mass energy, 5 times more than the Tevatron)

6 - inject lead-ions and have some Pb+Pb collisions at around 2.75 TeV center-of-mass energy? (that would be 13 times more energy than Brookhaven's RHIC Au+Au)

7 - shutdown and work on getting the machine ready for 7 TeV/c per beam

Thank you for your attention.

Re:The actual plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28993321)

You forgot:

8 - ????

9 - Profit!

Proton Beam Welding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28991347)

My hardware store recommended the LHC for some welding on my car.
He said to use half power to reduce the likelihood of blackhole production.
Is he trying to snow me?

I'm no Half-Life fan, but I have to ask. (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 4 years ago | (#28992025)

Why is this tagged "blackmesa"? Wouldn't Aperture Science be more appropriate, because these are black holes we're dealing with?

bad math? (1)

pbjones (315127) | more than 4 years ago | (#28992317)

Half power does not usually mean half voltage, unless the value of the load also changes, just thought I'd toss this in.

Re:bad math? (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#28993551)

We're not talking about voltage, we're talking about energy. Energy = voltage * charge. A volt is a unit of voltage and an electron is a unit of charge.

Think of the possibilties (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28993485)

I, for one, can not wait to be goatse'd in 3D.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...