Beta

×

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!

Record Setting 500 Trillion-Watt Laser Shot Achieved

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the not-in-the-eyes dept.

Shark 252

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."

cancel ×

252 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664481)

[rimshot]

Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! (4, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | about 2 years ago | (#40664793)

That's not funny.
Alderaan died that way.

Re:Now all they have to do is put it on a shark! (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 years ago | (#40665149)

How many Bothans died to bring you that information?

Applying this technology... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664507)

but can it be mounted on a shark's forehead?

Now all we need... (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#40664509)

Is a BIGGER shark.

(To jump, I guess.) :-)

Re:Now all we need... (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#40664897)

Bigger Big Jaws? Or whatchamacallit?

One Thousand Times (5, Insightful)

dopaz (148229) | about 2 years ago | (#40664513)

"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.

Re:One Thousand Times (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40664931)

"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!

Re:One Thousand Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665131)

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

YES! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664519)

But can we mount it to the head of a shark yet?

Or, to put it another way ... (5, Funny)

jxander (2605655) | about 2 years ago | (#40664525)

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

Re:Or, to put it another way ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664595)

Great Scott!

Re:Or, to put it another way ... (2)

broggyr (924379) | about 2 years ago | (#40664691)

How did you know his name was Scott?

your far too trusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664771)

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

Re:Or, to put it another way ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664875)

But how much is it in burning Libraries of Congress?

Re:Or, to put it another way ... (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | about 2 years ago | (#40664927)

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

Re:Or, to put it another way ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665053)

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

To put that in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664529)

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

Re:To put that in perspective (4, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#40664597)

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...

Re:To put that in perspective (5, Informative)

dmatos (232892) | about 2 years ago | (#40664675)

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.

Re:To put that in perspective (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#40664723)

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.

Re:To put that in perspective (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664979)

correction: rubbing your hands together saying 'muahahaa'

Re:To put that in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665055)

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

Re:To put that in perspective (1)

Vellmont (569020) | about 2 years ago | (#40665221)

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

Re:To put that in perspective (5, Funny)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#40664611)

... 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. [wikia.com]

now all you need is a spinning mirror... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664545)

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

Re:now all you need is a spinning mirror... (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#40664813)

That and a phase conjugate tracking system.

Re:now all you need is a spinning mirror... (5, Funny)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#40665215)

...or pop a lot of popcorn.

Death Star is a go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664547)

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

Oww, it burns! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664551)

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

Re:Oww, it burns! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664939)

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

Re:Oww, it burns! (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#40665233)

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

The real question (2)

slazzy (864185) | about 2 years ago | (#40664555)

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

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664743)

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

Re:The real question (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665223)

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

Superglue-flavored bubble gum

Fusion Ignition (4, Interesting)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#40664557)

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.

Re:Fusion Ignition (4, Funny)

Zak3056 (69287) | about 2 years ago | (#40664795)

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>

Re:Fusion Ignition (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665191)

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

Re:Fusion Ignition (5, Informative)

drdread (770953) | about 2 years ago | (#40665251)

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...

Re:Fusion Ignition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665287)

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

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

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

Has the NIF... (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#40664571)

Has the National Ignition Facility managed to ignite anything yet?

Re:Has the NIF... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664599)

Yes, it's budget:)

Re:Has the NIF... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665245)

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

In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664585)

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

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

Re:In other words (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#40664745)

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

Re:In other words (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665237)

The wasteful USA way of life. You don't need a 60 inches plasma television, a game console that produces more heat than pixels, a gigantic house big enough for five families that you keep at near-freezing temperatures in the summer and desert heat temperatures in the winter, enough food in a week that would last nearly a month in other countries, military-grade SUVs with a single person driving it that burn more fuel in a week than five small cars with four people in them... shall I continue?

Stellar application potential (1, Funny)

LordStormes (1749242) | about 2 years ago | (#40664603)

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

Re:Stellar application potential (3, Insightful)

LordStormes (1749242) | about 2 years ago | (#40664629)

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.

Re:Stellar application potential (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664735)

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

Re:Stellar application potential (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#40664783)

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.

Re:Stellar application potential (2)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 2 years ago | (#40665285)

Re:Stellar application potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664731)

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

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

Re:Stellar application potential (1)

Svartormr (692822) | about 2 years ago | (#40664757)

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

Re:Stellar application potential (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 2 years ago | (#40664763)

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

Re:Stellar application potential (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 2 years ago | (#40664987)

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

Re:Stellar application potential (2)

MiniMike (234881) | about 2 years ago | (#40665045)

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.

so how long before we get phasers??? (1)

logicassasin (318009) | about 2 years ago | (#40664605)

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

Re:so how long before we get phasers??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664903)

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

Re:so how long before we get phasers??? (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#40665021)

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

And let me guess (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | about 2 years ago | (#40664617)

It still won't ignite a sustainable fusion reaction.

Re:And let me guess (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40664837)

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

sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664623)

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

Re:sigh (1)

f3rret (1776822) | about 2 years ago | (#40664831)

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

No

Do we really need more weapons?

Yes, but this isn't one.

Re:sigh (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40664845)

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

Why does everyone mention sharks? (1)

zapyon (575974) | about 2 years ago | (#40664643)

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

Re:Why does everyone mention sharks? (1)

f3rret (1776822) | about 2 years ago | (#40664849)

Not a lamp. Also not a weapon.

Re:Why does everyone mention sharks? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40664861)

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

The shark thing comes from here. [knowyourmeme.com]

Re:Why does everyone mention sharks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664935)

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

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

X-actly: Dual use (1)

zapyon (575974) | about 2 years ago | (#40665035)

–– that was the term I was looking for.

Quote: (1)

zapyon (575974) | about 2 years ago | (#40665087)

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

THX for the meme hint. (1)

zapyon (575974) | about 2 years ago | (#40665017)

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

Re:Why does everyone mention sharks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665091)

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

Putting the hyperbole in perspective... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664649)

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."

Re:Putting the hyperbole in perspective... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#40664943)

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

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

Re:Putting the hyperbole in perspective... (4, Informative)

necro81 (917438) | about 2 years ago | (#40665049)

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.

I wonder if this could be missle defense source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664677)

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

Yeah, impractical, but cool.

These guys were professionals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664685)

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

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

Re:These guys were professionals (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#40664805)

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

Whats the problem? you got a 1.5kW laser [youtube.com] to zap them with.

Re:These guys were professionals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664895)

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

Instant of Time (1)

Shamanin (561998) | about 2 years ago | (#40664705)

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

Re:Instant of Time (1)

jxander (2605655) | about 2 years ago | (#40664841)

Actually, yes.

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

Plank time (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 2 years ago | (#40665143)

Not quite zero. Plank time.

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

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

Re:Instant of Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665243)

Yep. This is the definition of a derivative!

Paging Doc Brown (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 2 years ago | (#40664713)

What does this translate to in jiggawatts?

Re:Paging Doc Brown (1)

Zak3056 (69287) | about 2 years ago | (#40664835)

What does this translate to in jiggawatts?

500,000. Aren't SI units wonderful?

Re:Paging Doc Brown (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#40664859)

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

you scare me (1)

ooocmyooo (1426937) | about 2 years ago | (#40664791)

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

Re:you scare me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40664913)

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

Obligatory warning label (3, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#40665255)

"Do not look into laser with remaining eye."

I love this quote snippet... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#40664899)

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

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

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

Carbon Footprint? (0)

Dareth (47614) | about 2 years ago | (#40664953)

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

Depends on your perspective (2)

Jeff1946 (944062) | about 2 years ago | (#40664965)

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.

Not much energy. (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#40665007)

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.

Re:Not much energy. (1)

Celarent Darii (1561999) | about 2 years ago | (#40665195)

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

https://lasers.llnl.gov/

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

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

Re:Not much energy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665297)

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

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

Re:Not much energy. (1)

jerpyro (926071) | about 2 years ago | (#40665299)

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

Not such a big deal (1, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#40665117)

Record Setting 500 Trillion-Watt Laser Shot Achieved

I once did a 180 proof jello shot.

Anyone got a house full of popcorn? (1)

phrackthat (2602661) | about 2 years ago | (#40665171)

N/T

So what in the implication for fusion reactors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40665235)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>