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!

New Type of Chemical Bond Predicted To Exist In White Dwarfs

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the played-by-sean-connery dept.

Space 97

ananyo writes "A previously unknown type of powerful chemical bond should be induced by the ferocious magnetic fields of white dwarfs and neutron stars, according to computer simulations. If the effect can be harnessed in the lab, 'magnetized matter' could be exploited for quantum computing. Chemists identify two classes of strong molecular bonds: ionic bonds, in which electrons from one atom hop over to another, and covalent bonds, in which electrons are shared between atoms. But researchers at the University of Oslo accidentally discovered a third bonding mechanism when they simulated how atoms should behave under magnetic fields of about 105 tesla — 10,000 times the biggest fields that can be generated on Earth (abstract)."

cancel ×

97 comments

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

105 Tesla (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40712309)

Should be 10 to the 5 Tesla, or 10^5, or 10**5 if you're a Fortran guy...

Re:105 Tesla (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40712707)

This is amazing to see this posted. I was doing some lab work myself on this and I just wanted to share this [imageshack.us] imagery I had taken when doing my work. Science as ever makes lufe way more interesting!

Re:105 Tesla (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#40712747)

Anyone who clicks on Parent's link deserves it.

Re:105 Tesla (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40713261)

Lemme guess: He's more interested in black hole research than one in white dwarfs?

Re:105 Tesla (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#40713779)

Actually, these are clearly two closely orbiting white dwarfs in a binary system, in the process of mass transfer via a matter bridge. Considering their mass and proximity, the future evolution of the system is likely to involve the two white dwarfs getting closer and closer together, accompanied by a lot of gravity waves, until they finally smash into each other.in a rather big bang of a Type Ia supernova with a lot of hot mass squirting out of them.

Re:105 Tesla (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40713897)

So you are copying gag comments from Nature now?

Re:105 Tesla (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40713067)

or Python guy. /pedant

Re:105 Tesla (5, Informative)

Annirak (181684) | about 2 years ago | (#40714137)

You're correct, but even so, the statement

10,000 times the biggest fields that can be generated on Earth

is complete bullshit. Superconducting MRIs produce 3T fields just fine. And check out the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory; they have the record field strength of 100.75T [fsu.edu]

Re:105 Tesla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40718139)

So it's only 1000 times that much. Sure, that's pretty big error if you're engineering something, but when we're talking about mindless hyperboles.. not so much. Magnitude here or there.

Re:105 Tesla (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#40718609)

The hard drive you are working on right now produces a field strength of ~1T I believe. It just happens to be a rather small field :)

Re:105 Tesla (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40715377)

Heh heh heh. He said Fortran. Heh heh heh.

Re:105 Tesla (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#40718595)

Yea, 105 tesla isnt 10,000 times bigger than what we can create on earth. Hard drive magnets are around 1T, IIRC, as are MRI magnets (though substantially larger and with a correspondingly bigger field).

Plus, neutron star magnetic fields arent close at all to MRI fields-- im pretty wood becomes magnetic (in addition to the other changes it experiences :P ) in the vicinity of a neutron star or white dwarf.

Re:105 Tesla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727351)

Yes we should go by a computer????????????????

A machine programmed BY MAN, and MANS knowledge (or lack of)!!!!!!!!

105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1, Interesting)

locofungus (179280) | about 2 years ago | (#40712315)

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-06/german-lab-generates-highest-magnetic-field-ever-created-lab [popsci.com]

Using a two-layer, 440-pound copper coil the size of a water bucket, they managed to coax 91.4 teslas from their creation for just a few milliseconds, surpassing the previous record of 89 teslas.

Now I'll have to go and read the abstract...

Tim.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40712347)

TFS is wrong. It's not 105 T, it's 10^5 T.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#40712391)

Submission has the mistake as well, so either the cut-and-paste or the Slashdot filter ate the sup tag.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

NixieBunny (859050) | about 2 years ago | (#40714149)

sup, dawg?

I look forward to the folks in my radio astronomy group asking me to make a 10,000 Tesla magnetic field for their molecular spectroscopy rig.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (3, Insightful)

locofungus (179280) | about 2 years ago | (#40712397)

Indeed. I've read the abstract now. But 10^5 Tesla is about 100x what can be created in the lab, not 10000x

No idea where that 10000x came from. I might have guessed at the meaning if it hadn't been for that 10000x.

Tim.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40712549)

10^5 = 100 x 100?

It's 1000x our best non-destructive pulsed fields, and 2000x our best constant fields.

Unless you're counting destructive pulse apparatuses, in which case I think the record is something like 3kT, it's only 30x that.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40712951)

No one said non-destructive

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40713623)

Well, 100x is kinda bogus it you're counting destructive ones, so... wrong either way.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (4, Funny)

Teresita (982888) | about 2 years ago | (#40712719)

Scientists discover an exotic fundamental particle called the ficton with the rest mass of a small moon that only existed in the unimaginable pressures and temperatures of the first 10^-25 seconds after the universe began its expansion. They promise it will allow users with next-generation PDAs to play Angry Birds with quantum computing.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#40713311)

You know what's the saddest thing about your joke? That you're right. We'll get quantum computers that can do calculations at speeds we cannot even fathom today, yet in the end they'll be used to play silly games that could have run on a C64. And watching porn, of course.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

Apu de Beaumarchais (2023822) | about 2 years ago | (#40714599)

We'll get quantum computers... yet in the end they'll be used to play silly games... and watching porn, of course.

Quantum states of entertainment and arousal... interesting.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

merxete (1965396) | about 2 years ago | (#40716297)

but fully immersive 3d reality porn with AI. Can't wait!!!

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40718181)

Even the crappiest porn AI would be better than most porn actresses' acting.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

melikamp (631205) | about 2 years ago | (#40717821)

And watching quantum porn, of course.

TFIFY

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

ExploHD (888637) | about 2 years ago | (#40720023)

So you can watch it and not watch at the same time?

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40724399)

Then you can get solace and porn, a quantum at a time.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40725943)

And watching porn, of course.

Whew, for a second there, I thought you were going to claim it would only be used for frivolous activities.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (2)

Rei (128717) | about 2 years ago | (#40714345)

While an insightful post, note that stranger things have happened. A lot of things can seem totally out of reach from practicality before a technological breakthrough or rapid series of continuous advances totally changes the picture.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#40716529)

Yes but this will be rediscovered then and only nerds with obscure knowledge will credit the original discovery.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

fritsd (924429) | about 2 years ago | (#40715419)

They promise it will allow users with next-generation PDAs to play Angry Birds with quantum computing.

I for one welcome our new avian, brick-tunneling overlords!

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 years ago | (#40714205)

Indeed. I've read the abstract now. But 10^5 Tesla is about 100x what can be created in the lab, not 10000x

10^5 is actually over 1000x what can be created in the lab, last I checked.

Or did we manage a 1000 Tesla field when I wasn't looking?

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (1)

locofungus (179280) | about 2 years ago | (#40728915)

Around 1000 Tesla has been achieved using destructive measures (explosive compression).

I believe almost 3k Tesla has been reached but that wasn't just destructive of the apparatus but also destructive of the laboratory!

100 Tesla is about the non-destructive limit at present.

Of course, these things are constantly being worked on and it's not something I follow so the above figures might be out of date.

Tim.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (2)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | about 2 years ago | (#40714959)

NOPE.

105 Chuck Tesla

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40712441)

TFA says 10^5 Tesla.

Re:105 Tesla isn't that strong a field... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40712457)

Yeah, it's 10^5 T in TFA -- fucking copy-paste morons.

And after that correction, the "10000x" implies the highest fields on earth are ~10T -- wikipedia [wikipedia.org] suggests we've reached above 100T pulsed, and 45T static field.

Racist. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40712341)

Why does it always have to be about race with you kids?

Re:Racist. (2)

fatbuckel (1714764) | about 2 years ago | (#40712351)

I believe they prefer 'little people' now.

Re:Racist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40712383)

First it's chinks in math, then white dwarfs. What's next, dark matter?

Re:Racist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40725957)

You don't want to hear about the black hos.

Re:Racist. (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#40712435)

No, they are vertically and pigment challenged.

In the interests of fairness... (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40712439)

Our magnet crazed Floridians [fsu.edu] have a 45 tesla magnet that can operate for short periods without destroying itself and the most powerful 'destructive pulsed electromagnets' can reach ~1000 tesla, for their quite brief operational lives. (.flv of such a magnet giving its life for science [fsu.edu] )

Re:In the interests of fairness... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#40712933)

/. fucked up the formatting - it's supposed to read "10^5 Tesla", not "105 Tesla". Or, to be more explicit, 100,000 Tesla, which in indeed roughly 10,000x the strength of the magnetic field we can sustain.

Re:In the interests of fairness... (1)

solidraven (1633185) | about 2 years ago | (#40713667)

Not really, 50 Tesla is perfectly doable with current super conductors. 10-12 Tesla is what you'll find in commercial NMR spectroscopy set-ups. So the number you're looking for is actually 2000 times the strength of what we can sustain. (For reference: experimental NMR imaging goes up to 7 Tesla at this point)

Re:In the interests of fairness... (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 2 years ago | (#40713893)

So the number you're looking for is actually 2000 times the strength of what we can sustain

Phew! Thank goodness! When someone said that we had to create a field 10,000x than currently possible, I was really worried. But here you go and say it's only 2,000x - that's downright easy.

Re:In the interests of fairness... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#40714315)

Same order of magnitude. 1.0E1, 1.2E1, 5.0E1, they're all effectively the same distance from 1.0E5.

Re:In the interests of fairness... (1)

solidraven (1633185) | about 2 years ago | (#40725417)

A factor of 5 isn't negligible though. If you wish to claim otherwise I advice you to look up the difference between a 1 Tesla magnetic field and a 5 Tesla magnetic field. The former can be produced using neodymium rare earth magnets fairly easily, the latter we tend to resort to super conductors and liquid helium. People often underestimate the difference 1 Tesla can have on the magnetic field and the device used to generate it. So yes, a factor of 5 is very significant in this case.

Re:In the interests of fairness... (2)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#40714241)

The NMR machine I use daily is 10 Tesla, and that's the baby one.

We can do much better than 10T sustained.

Re:In the interests of fairness... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40716585)

How did you get modded to a 5? Not quite correct, I work at the NHMFL (I am at my desk right now) and I can assure you that the 45T runs continuously for many hours at a time. The only real limit is the power bill. It is a hybrid magnet, where a resistive electro-magnet sits inside a superconducting one. As for all superconducting, we are currently building a 32T which will shatter the current records that are closer to 25T.

mod doWn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40712623)

serves to 8einforce area. It is the d3velopers. The

God hates white dwarfs! (5, Funny)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#40712689)

They're destroying the sanctity of traditional chemical bonding!

"Though shalt not lie with an atom magnetically as one would lie with an atom electrostatically. It is an abomination."

- Pauliticus 18:22

Re:God hates white dwarfs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40718811)

"For those shall be gravitationally crushed by a green, big fellow. They will have a deadly death by a big boom and a grunt."
- Pauliticus 18:23

Re:God hates white dwarfs! (1)

jd (1658) | about 2 years ago | (#40722035)

Nonono, Mr Sit-down [youtube.com] is a yellow, big fellow.

Re:God hates white dwarfs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40724523)

That was impossible made possible even better than a teeth melting beverage!

Third type of chemical bond? (3, Informative)

Phase Shifter (70817) | about 2 years ago | (#40712889)

Apparently the author of TFA has never heard of a type of material known as a metal [wikipedia.org] either.

I think I'll have to dig up the Science article to get really meangful info on this.

Re:Third type of chemical bond? (1)

Phase Shifter (70817) | about 2 years ago | (#40713009)

OK, to be fair they did specify molecular bonds, now that I've read more closely...but then that would exclude ionic bonding, one would think.

Re:Third type of chemical bond? (2)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 2 years ago | (#40713373)

To me it looks like another variant of covalent bond, which is already known to have stranger forms, such as dative and single-electron bonds.

Re:Third type of chemical bond? (3, Funny)

Luyseyal (3154) | about 2 years ago | (#40714121)

Great, next you'll be telling me about nominative, accusative, and ablative bonds.

-l

Re:Third type of chemical bond? (3, Funny)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about 2 years ago | (#40714563)

And Barry Bonds, and James Bonds, ...

Re:Third type of chemical bond? (1)

merxete (1965396) | about 2 years ago | (#40716343)

(to continue this lame, not funny post)

and US Bonds... Or wait, those will actually go extinct soon as they lose their efficacy in the real world.

Re:Third type of chemical bond? (1)

jd (1658) | about 2 years ago | (#40722041)

Yeah, but they don't matter. Brooke Bond, on the other hand...

Re:Third type of chemical bond? (3, Interesting)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 2 years ago | (#40714873)

Well, I guess you could talk about ablative bonds when they are breaking apart, but chemists would probably call it cleavage [wikipedia.org] . Then again, I'm just a single electron and not currently in a dative mode.

Re:Third type of chemical bond? (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#40716595)

It is my experience that chemists are indeed mislead with regard to the nature of cleavage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleavage_(breasts) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Third type of chemical bond? (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 2 years ago | (#40718219)

Cleavage, anatomically known as the intermammary cleft or the intermammary sulcus, is the space between a woman's breasts

Whoa, hold it, right there. What is this "wo-man" you speak of?

Re:Third type of chemical bond? (1)

lorinc (2470890) | about 2 years ago | (#40717809)

I prefer those dating bonds over your accusative ones.

Applications in chemistry (2)

avandesande (143899) | about 2 years ago | (#40712997)

I was disappointed that the best thing they could come up with was applications in quantum computing- there could be a host of novel synthesis based on this bond.

Re:Applications in chemistry (2)

Njoyda Sauce (211180) | about 2 years ago | (#40713313)

there could be a host of novel synthesis based on this bond.

I had a few novel ideas myself, but I'm too lazy to write that much.

Re:Applications in chemistry (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40713529)

Maybe you could use it to create a super-strong, bulletproof material... then you could wear it when you went to see a movie in the U.S.A.

Re:Applications in chemistry (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#40714087)

Given the density of white dwarfs, I'm sure it would be bulletproof, however the armor would weigh more in tons than Romney has in dollars invested offshore. Not exactly something you could walk around in unless you are superman (and he is already bulletproof)

Re:Applications in chemistry (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#40715135)

Maybe that's why. Comics were always light in explaining how normal matter could contain energies on that level without immediately disintegrating.

Normal Trek or Who technobabble sounds like Nobel Prize theses compared to comics.

Re:Applications in chemistry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40715375)

Normal Trek or Who technobabble sounds like Nobel Prize theses compared to comics.

It was the Alan Parsons Project who did Technobabble, not The Who. Or was that Psychobabble? Either way, it never sounded like a thesis.

Re:Applications in chemistry (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#40716637)

True. It's just a matter that one must dig to discover the hidden technology that powers super heros in comic books. If only the writers would let scientists know so we could all be super!

Every so often the scientists get lucky and find part of the puzzle. Eventually they'll figure out the real source of superman's powers.

Re:Applications in chemistry (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40715287)

Maybe you could use it to create a super-strong, bulletproof material... then you could wear it when you went to see a movie in the U.S.A.

But then how would your kids grow up to be Batman?

Re:Applications in chemistry (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about 2 years ago | (#40713949)

I was disappointed that the best thing they could come up with was applications in quantum computing- there could be a host of novel synthesis based on this bond.

If it stays bonded out of the magnetic field.

If not, and you could create such a field, and such bonds, even for a fraction of a second, you could put it to useful work in quantum computing, since you might only need a few atoms per bit. A 1Mb quantum computer could do some amazing things before it disintegrated. 1 million molecules of unobtanium that only lasted a few milliseconds would have limited uses, other than studying the properties of unobtanium.

Re:Applications in chemistry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40715617)

If not, and you could create such a field, and such bonds, even for a fraction of a second, you could put it to useful work in quantum computing

Yay! Finally a sequel to Real Genius has become practically possible.

Re:Applications in chemistry (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 2 years ago | (#40715645)

You could create highly reactive intermediates that would allow you to do new things (what for instance would this do to carbon dioxide and hydrogen)?

Re:Applications in chemistry (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#40716417)

I wouldn't bet on this bound being hightly reactive. The oposite is more likely, that this thing is extremely stable.

Quantum computing? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#40715189)

I read this as basically saying that we are a millimeter closer to a quantum computer. Whatever apparatus is used to create these fields would cease to exist, according to the scientists who published the paper -- not surprising, given how chemistry changes under those conditions. The engineering challenges involved with making a scalable quantum computer remain just as big as they were before; this looks like a drop in a nearly-empty swimming pool to me.

Some comments beyond the 10 teslas correction... (4, Informative)

lvxferre (2470098) | about 2 years ago | (#40713939)

First of all, why seems everybody forgets about the metallic bonds?
Covalent: that old, nice and sharing couple;
Ionic: same as above, but one of them is abusive and electron digger;
Metallic bond: communism of electrons (or orgy, if you prefer).You know, covalent and ionic aFirst: covalent and ionic aren't two "types" of bonds but extremes of the same continuum. Some bonds - like in hydrogen fluoride - lie pretty much between them, not being fully ionic or fully covalent.


Second thing: ironically, there is no such thing as "types" of bonds. These three categories above aren't "unmixable", you have "metallic" bonds with covalent properties (like gold loves to make), you have borderline covalent-ionic bonds (like HF), this kind of thing. Think in them as extremes in a triangle, while most real life bonds lie inside this triangle.


Lastly, about the article itself... seems like "quantum computing" is what they put when they cannot think in an application to a Chem or Phys discovery nowadays. And I understood they didn't found a new bond type or whatever; their discovery was "oh look, orbitals can be deformed by magnetic fields!".

Re:Some comments beyond the 10 teslas correction.. (3, Informative)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#40716447)

And I understood they didn't found a new bond type or whatever; their discovery was "oh look, orbitals can be deformed by magnetic fields!".

Everybody and their dog already knew that orbitals are deformed by magnetic fields. What they found is that the model of how they deform is wrong at very intense fields.

Re:Some comments beyond the 10 teslas correction.. (1)

madboson (649658) | about 2 years ago | (#40716927)

Don't forget disperson dominated van der Waals bonding.
The application to quantum computing is probably there to attract attention from slashdotters.

From the chemistry noob (2)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 2 years ago | (#40713967)

So, two atoms fused together via this magnetic bonding, do they need to be in this ludicrous magnetic field to remain bonded?
If we, somehow, got the teslas to make a molecule or two of these, would they continue to exist outside of the lab? OR, if we went skinny-dipping in a white dwarf and picked up a handful of this crazy goop, and brought it back to earth, would they persist?

Also, does anyone really have even the slightest clue to the properties of these molecules?

Re:From the chemistry noob (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#40715147)

So, two atoms fused together via this magnetic bonding, do they need to be in this ludicrous magnetic field to remain bonded?

That's how I read it -- the field makes it possible for the atoms to remain bonded even when the electron enters an excited state, which would typically break the bond (in layman's terms: it would be much harder to get hydrogen to combust under such conditions). Take the field away, and the atoms should return to normal bonding states, where the excited electrons break the bond and things still operate like we expect.

Of course, this is still pretty exciting for manufacturing things. If you could sustain this field somehow, you could probably induce previously unknown chemical reactions, which would be useful in making new classes of materials.

Use this in a computer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40714295)

I don't see how this is applicable to computing. Good luck getting a magnetic field this strong in anything without destroying it. According to the scientists any attempt to reproduce fields like this always results in the equipment being completely destroyed.

Re:Use this in a computer? (2)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#40720029)

Its not good for the floppy disks either.

White Dwarfs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40714449)

That's racist.

Re:White Dwarfs? (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about 2 years ago | (#40716109)

Does Snow White know about this "bonding"?

10^5 Tesla is doable in a Dense Plasma Focus (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40714559)

A Dense Plasma Focus [wikipedia.org] can produce Giga Gauss fields (1GG = 10^5 Tesla), though only in a very small space.

See for example:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/1770673_Advances_towards_pB11_Fusion_with_the_Dense_Plasma_Focus" [researchgate.net]

(Was the first link that came up at Google searching for "dense plasma focus gg")

Re:10^5 Tesla is doable in a Dense Plasma Focus (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#40720049)

And they've done 91.4T in a plain coil here [popsci.com] .

P.S. Anyone seen my car keys?

Re:10^5 Tesla is doable in a Dense Plasma Focus (1)

jd (1658) | about 2 years ago | (#40722049)

Yes. They're in geostationary orbit.

Bond. (0)

Ryanrule (1657199) | about 2 years ago | (#40714921)

James Bond.

Typo? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40715221)

Shouldn't that be a ferrocious magnetic field?

Sorry, somebody had to say it...

Racist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40717331)

Are they saying that african-american dwarves are made from different particles?

Macro artifacts? (1)

mattr (78516) | about 2 years ago | (#40723645)

IANAP but it sounds like this suggests white dwarfs could be surrounded by something like
- partial shells and tissues of hydrogen, helium and perhaps other molecules with the necessary geometries
- onion like concentric shells
- or even if constantly jostling and not broadly connected, there are a lot of molecules all lined up end to end like antenna wires
- possibly coronal ejections would be made of such tissues, and would become disrupted with increasing distance from start

I wonder if any kind of observation could prove/disprove any of these conceivable structures.

Check for New 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>