Large Hadron Collider (LHC) generates a 'mini-Big Bang'

[DigitalSoldier]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11711228


The Large Hadron Collider has successfully created a "mini-Big Bang" by smashing together lead ions instead of protons.

The scientists working at the enormous machine on Franco-Swiss border achieved the unique conditions on 7 November.

The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than the centre of the Sun.

The LHC is housed in a 27km-long circular tunnel under the French-Swiss border near Geneva.

Up until now, the world's highest-energy particle accelerator - which is run by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (Cern) - has been colliding protons, in a bid to uncover mysteries of the Universe's formation.

And we are still here :eek:

:whistle:

[ToxicBunny]

Thats actually awesome news....

[Ronjay]

So what are the real world applications of this? At a million times hotter then the Sun, I'm thinking alternative energy source here. Will it be possible to harness the energy?

[nakedpeanut]

Imagine downsizing this technology! You could start powering all forms of vehicles, towns, space stations lunar stations... I'm assuming the power you get back is alot more than what you put in I'm sure..

[Fudzy]

Fantastic, I wish Discovery had more on the LHC

[CrzWaco]

Fantastic, I wish Discovery had more on the LHC

Well after this they might have, looking forward to that day.

/puts his freeman away

[dudesweet]

I've enver seen so many people welcome the end of days with open arms...Repent, the beginning is nigh!

[Fudzy]

Lol!

[EnchanterG]

Yeah, downsize is the thing, would we still be able to accelerate the particles to the required speed without a 27km run-up? I think we're a few decades from harnessing it as an energy source.
But these doomsayers are just silly.
1) Just because it's new doesn't mean it's going to kill us all. (They had a problem with bicycles too remember? And Nuclear Energy...ok...so Chernobyl screwed that one for all of us...but think of the great fishing you can get with them giant earthworms? See? Silver lining!)

2) I can safely say this, because if I'm wrong and the world ends when it unwittingly plays host to a black hole, it'll be over too quickly for anyone to say, "I told you so."
At best we might get a, "oh sh..."

3)What if (/load geek protocol) we can harness what this teaches us to make LIGHTSABERS (/endof geek protocol)

*sits backs and observes the impending pandemonium*

[dudesweet]

If you want a very brief but interesting little bit on the LHC then have a look for Michio ***u's iTunes U podcast on itunes. He speaks a little bit about what they are hoping to achieve with the LHC (at a time when it was yet to be fully built yet).

[AfricanTech]

Yeah, downsize is the thing, would we still be able to accelerate the particles to the required speed without a 27km run-up? I think we're a few decades from harnessing it as an energy source.
But these doomsayers are just silly.
1) Just because it's new doesn't mean it's going to kill us all. (They had a problem with bicycles too remember? And Nuclear Energy...ok...so Chernobyl screwed that one for all of us...but think of the great fishing you can get with them giant earthworms? See? Silver lining!)

2) I can safely say this, because if I'm wrong and the world ends when it unwittingly plays host to a black hole, it'll be over too quickly for anyone to say, "I told you so."
At best we might get a, "oh sh..."

3)What if (/load geek protocol) we can harness what this teaches us to make LIGHTSABERS (/endof geek protocol)

*sits backs and observes the impending pandemonium*

Liightsabers! We want Lightsabers!!

[TonyHawk]

Its all interesting.. but think they are just fronting these positives for more money... IMO
I'd believe it more when we see better results and maybe watch it on Nat. Geo doc show ;)

[murraybiscuit]

I'm assuming the power you get back is alot more than what you put in I'm sure..

i don't think the point of the lhc is to find an alternative nuclear energy source - it's to observe the behaviour of subatomic forces.
i stand to be corrected, but i fail to see how yield can be greater than input.

[Knyro]

I'm assuming the power you get back is alot more than what you put in I'm sure..

Nope, what you put in is what you get out (Law of the Conservation of Energy), most of the time you get less than what you put in (Second Law of thermodynamics). Even if a practical application is never developed it's still awesome as it enhances our understanding of the universe

[EnchanterG]

And may potentially gives us lightsabers...
;)

[dudesweet]

Just in case it wasn't obvious that I was edited out by a bot error - It's Michio Ka-ku ...it's japanese, and not a swearword...lol.

[Fudzy]

And may potentially gives us lightsabers...
;)

I buy one of those! My fake one is awful, it's even stopped making the woosh noise :(

[Ninja'd]

I'M ALIVE!

[Madman88]

So its a mini big bang. Where's my new galaxy? :mad: I WANT MY GALAXY!
One of those key-chain thingy's from MIB will do.

[Ronjay]

i don't think the point of the lhc is to find an alternative nuclear energy source - it's to observe the behaviour of subatomic forces.
i stand to be corrected, but i fail to see how yield can be greater than input.

Um, because the yeild energy was a million times hotter then the sun. I don't know where on earth you are going to find a input that can generate energy like that to yeild a reaction equal to itself and be a million times hotter then the sun.

[blunomore]

Up until now, the world's highest-energy particle accelerator - which is run by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (Cern) - has been colliding protons, in a bid to uncover mysteries of the Universe's formation.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is in it for us and/or the scientists if they find out how the universe was formed 308930987209487024978024877 years ago ?

[Geriatrix]

Misleading title. Still interesting though.

[Keeper]

So what are the real world applications of this? At a million times hotter then the Sun, I'm thinking alternative energy source here. Will it be possible to harness the energy?

Bingo!

It is theoretically possible, they just havent figured out a way how to do it yet.

There are plenty of these LHC-type sites doing these types of experiments.
(not all collide particles together, and not all are looking to harness the energy.)




Fantastic, I wish Discovery had more on the LHC

Why not just download some docu's :confused:
there are plenty!

[Messugga]

Um, Ronjay, you're completely misunderstanding this. Thermodynamics: go read up on it. There's no way that this thing is outputting more than they're putting into it.

[Scooby_Doo]

Um, because the yeild energy was a million times hotter then the sun. I don't know where on earth you are going to find a input that can generate energy like that to yeild a reaction equal to itself and be a million times hotter then the sun.

It may be that hot, but only for a nano second plus this is all happening in a super cooled chamber, so no you will not be using this for energy.

[The_Assimilator]

Um, because the yeild energy was a million times hotter then the sun. I don't know where on earth you are going to find a input that can generate energy like that to yeild a reaction equal to itself and be a million times hotter then the sun.

Just because the output energy was a million times hotter than the sun has no bearing on the input energy. I can tell you for a fact that to create that much heat the LHC had to input a far larger amount of energy. See first law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics).

[Keeper]

Just because the output energy was a million times hotter than the sun has no bearing on the input energy. I can tell you for a fact that to create that much heat the LHC had to input a far larger amount of energy. See first law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics).


Um, Ronjay, you're completely misunderstanding this. Thermodynamics: go read up on it. There's no way that this thing is outputting more than they're putting into it.


You are both looking at it wrong.
Yes, when you convert energy into a different form, you always get less, as energy is lost.

But look at it this way.
how much energy do you put INTO drilling for oil, and how much do you get OUT?

Sure, the energy potential of oil gets less as we use it (combustion/etc), but the energy output of oil is still more than the energy required to drill it.


So, if we can explode plutonium into mini nukes, and harness it, sure the plutonium energy is wasted as we move it from one form to the next (lost in heat/light/etc), but that doesn't make a difference if we have 15 billion tons of plutonium. if would STILL cost less to harvest it and turn it into energy.

(i'm not saying we have 15bil tones, just an example)

[dudesweet]

Email Ka-ku. He'll reply, I promise. Would be better than speculating?And you'll get your very own section in his next podcast!

[EnchanterG]

Dear Dr. Ka-Ku (Dr. or Mr.?)

Can this technology and research lead us to the development of lightsabers?
Failing that, what about mini keychains?

Sincerely,

Llama

Dear Llama Guy
No. For the 15, 900, 327, 30th time, this will not help us make lightsabers within your lifetime (whatever the lifetime of a llama is) or mine.
Keychains...thats an idea. Will look into for marketing purposes. "I went to see the LHC and all I got was this lousy keychain"?

Sincerely,
Ka-ku (Not cuckoo, thats a bird)

Dear Ka-ku
Re: No lightsabers

So..then whats the point?

Sincerely,

Llama

:D - Not an actual conversation, but it was fun to have in my head....

[dudesweet]

Dear Dr. Ka-Ku (Dr. or Mr.?)

Can this technology and research lead us to the development of lightsabers?
Failing that, what about mini keychains?

Sincerely,

Llama

Dear Llama Guy
No. For the 15, 900, 327, 30th time, this will not help us make lightsabers within your lifetime (whatever the lifetime of a llama is) or mine.
Keychains...thats an idea. Will look into for marketing purposes. "I went to see the LHC and all I got was this lousy keychain"?

Sincerely,
Ka-ku (Not cuckoo, thats a bird)

Dear Ka-ku
Re: No lightsabers

So..then whats the point?

Sincerely,

Llama

:D - Not an actual conversation, but it was fun to have in my head....

Dude, that's way too accurate for it not be the actual correspondence. He often has to entertain pretty weird questions about parallel universes being entered through one's pc monitor...He's not against them, but he tries to keep em scientific. And he's a Star Trek fan, so you might want to ask him about how to set your phaser to stun first...

[Leostar]

Just because the output energy was a million times hotter than the sun has no bearing on the input energy. I can tell you for a fact that to create that much heat the LHC had to input a far larger amount of energy. See first law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics).

I read the link on the first law of thermodynamics and it is all “Greek” to me. :confused:

Please help me here. How is the energy output by a nuclear power station (or coal fired one for that matter) use more energy than that being generated? If it takes more energy to mine and enrich plutonium/deuterium and deliver to nuke station, then we are at a loss here?

I might be wrong but does the Hydrogen and Atom bombs not release more energy than being put into them? The same with any type of explosion, I know that we cannot get free energy or can we? The mirrors collecting suns rays, solar heaters and wind turbines all collect energy generated by the sun for free gratis and nothing. (the total energy in the universe remains constant via E=mc2)

I have read that one of the side benefits from the LHC might be splitting Hydrogen atoms and releasing enormous amounts of energy. This must be a possibility why else would governments spend mega big bucks.

Looking for the ultimate light sabre and chain ring I am sure :D

[ponder]

Fantastic, I wish Discovery had more on the LHC

They do. They covered the building of it and then it broke after which they covered the repair of it and now it's working again so you will probably see something in the near future.

It's not Discoveries fault that the LHC has been down 1/3 of it's life and the rest of the time it does not run during winter due to expensive energy costs.

Why not give them a hand http://lhcathome.cern.ch/ as it might speed things up a bit ;)

[Knyro]

I read the link on the first law of thermodynamics and it is all “Greek” to me. :confused:

Please help me here. How is the energy output by a nuclear power station (or coal fired one for that matter) use more energy than that being generated? If it takes more energy to mine and enrich plutonium/deuterium and deliver to nuke station, then we are at a loss here?

I might be wrong but does the Hydrogen and Atom bombs not release more energy than being put into them? The same with any type of explosion, I know that we cannot get free energy or can we? The mirrors collecting suns rays, solar heaters and wind turbines all collect energy generated by the sun for free gratis and nothing. (the total energy in the universe remains constant via E=mc2)

I have read that one of the side benefits from the LHC might be splitting Hydrogen atoms and releasing enormous amounts of energy. This must be a possibility why else would governments spend mega big bucks.

Looking for the ultimate light sabre and chain ring I am sure :D

The laws basically mean that no system is 100% efficient. A nuclear power plant will always lose some of the energy produced by fission as it is converted to heat, light etc. as well as electricity. So it is impossible to get more than you put in. Remember matter is made from energy (e=mc^2) so you have to include the potential energy in the uranium as well not just the energy required to mine it etc. If you include this the entire system is running at a loss in terms of energy but not at a loss financially because potential energy is not taken into account. Same principle applies to atomic bombs.

Solar/wind energy may be "free" to us but as a system including the sun/wind runs at a loss in terms of energy put in and energy produced.

There does not have to be a practical application when it comes to theoretical physics. Scientists run multimillion/billion dollar experiments all the time to understand physical phenomena with no practical goal in mind but usually engineers come up with a use somewhere down the line.

[Ronjay]

The laws basically mean that no system is 100% efficient. A nuclear power plant will always lose some of the energy produced by fission as it is converted to heat, light etc. as well as electricity. So it is impossible to get more than you put in. Remember matter is made from energy (e=mc^2) so you have to include the potential energy in the uranium as well not just the energy required to mine it etc. If you include this the entire system is running at a loss in terms of energy but not at a loss financially because potential energy is not taken into account. Same principle applies to atomic bombs.

Solar/wind energy may be "free" to us but as a system including the sun/wind runs at a loss in terms of energy put in and energy produced.

There does not have to be a practical application when it comes to theoretical physics. Scientists run multimillion/billion dollar experiments all the time to understand physical phenomena with no practical goal in mind but usually engineers come up with a use somewhere down the line.

So what are the losses in energy when it comes to nuclear bombs? The amount of energy to start the reaction is small compared to the event of nuclear fission. We just want to know if the end result of the experiment at LHC could be used as a new source of energy, like nuclear fission? Or is it impossible to harness the energy created by the reaction?

[STS]

i don't think the point of the lhc is to find an alternative nuclear energy source - it's to observe the behaviour of subatomic forces.
i stand to be corrected, but i fail to see how yield can be greater than input.

think of it, the first computers started out as giant houses :D

we can have spaceships! whoosh!

[porchrat]

Please help me here. How is the energy output by a nuclear power station (or coal fired one for that matter) use more energy than that being generated? If it takes more energy to mine and enrich plutonium/deuterium and deliver to nuke station, then we are at a loss here?

As others have said overall we lose energy in a conversion. Meaning that while the energy doesn't get destroyed it is converted into a form that nothing in the system is able to use at that time. So no system is 100% efficient.

This is true but for us it doesn't really matter at the moment. While overall we generate less usable energy than was put in remember that we didn't put all the energy in in the first place. Those atoms that we split in the reactor already contained the potential energy that is released when we split them. So we harness that energy that (at least from our perspective) is more than we put in.

[Datura]

Isn't a 'mini big bang' just a bang?

I don't get what all the hoohaa is about then....

[Ronjay]

As others have said overall we lose energy in a conversion. Meaning that while the energy doesn't get destroyed it is converted into a form that nothing in the system is able to use at that time. So no system is 100% efficient.

This is true but for us it doesn't really matter at the moment. While overall we generate less usable energy than was put in remember that we didn't put all the energy in in the first place. Those atoms that we split in the reactor already contained the potential energy that is released when we split them. So we harness that energy that (at least from our perspective) is more than we put in.

Thank you. That makes more sense. So there is a chance that the LHC experiment can be of use on a practical level then, if we can harness it. I think the energy from the reaction is created from the collision of the ions, not by the amount of energy that is needed to accelerate the ions into the collision. So the energy from the collision can be higher then the energy needed to start the collision.

But I'm not a physicist, and stand to be corrected.

[Knyro]

So what are the losses in energy when it comes to nuclear bombs? The amount of energy to start the reaction is small compared to the event of nuclear fission. We just want to know if the end result of the experiment at LHC could be used as a new source of energy, like nuclear fission? Or is it impossible to harness the energy created by the reaction?

Yes it is true that the energy required to start the reaction is small compared to the energy released by nuclear fission. When you factor in the potential engery in the plutonium or whatever radio active substance is being detonated there is a loss in the total amount of explosive energy is released. This is because some of the energy is converted to light, heat and sound energy as opposed to 100% explosive energy.

I don't know if it is possible to harness the energy produced by the LHC but I would assume so.

[porchrat]

Thank you. That makes more sense. So there is a chance that the LHC experiment can be of use on a practical level then, if we can harness it. I think the energy from the reaction is created from the collision of the ions, not by the amount of energy that is needed to accelerate the ions into the collision. So the energy from the collision can be higher then the energy needed to start the collision.

But I'm not a physicist, and stand to be corrected.

Well an ion is just a charged particle (#electrons != #protons). It can be an atom or a molecule. I think in this case they were smashing lead together (could be wrong I only skimmed a few of the articles).

Indeed the energy is released as a result of the collision but you need to be able to accelerate the particles up to a rather large speed (just below the speed of light) in order to be able to create a collision with enough force to liberate that energy. If I understand it correctly right now we achieve those speeds by using electromagnetic fields to push and pull the ions (I imagine we use ions because particles with no charge don't get influenced by electromagnetic fields like ions would) through a vacuum tube (needs to be a vacuum to make sure there are no other particles in the way of the ions being accelerated). It is kind of like a big really long version of a cathode ray tube in an older TV or computer monitor except it doesn't just shoot electrons.

The odds of us being able to accelerate ions to the speeds required to make a collision with the required energy invested to create this mini big-bang in something as small as a car is unlikely. That doesn't mean you can't store the energy released in a particle accelerator for later use though. I mean we have electric cars and some of that electricity was originally generated in a nuclear power station. That doesn't mean we need to carry nuclear reactors in our cars to harness power from fission.

Likewise I'm not a physicist.

[Ronjay]

Well an ion is just a charged particle (#electrons != #protons). It can be an atom or a molecule. I think in this case they were smashing lead together (could be wrong I only skimmed a few of the articles).

Indeed the energy is released as a result of the collision but you need to be able to accelerate the particles up to a rather large speed (just below the speed of light) in order to be able to create a collision with enough force to liberate that energy. If I understand it correctly right now we achieve those speeds by using electromagnetic fields to push and pull the ions (I imagine we use ions because particles with no charge don't get influenced by electromagnetic fields like ions would) through a vacuum tube (needs to be a vacuum to make sure there are no other particles in the way of the ions being accelerated). It is kind of like a big really long version of a cathode ray tube in an older TV or computer monitor except it doesn't just shoot electrons.

The odds of us being able to accelerate ions to the speeds required to make a collision with the required energy invested to create this mini big-bang in something as small as a car is unlikely. That doesn't mean you can't store the energy released in a particle accelerator for later use though. I mean we have electric cars and some of that electricity was originally generated in a nuclear power station. That doesn't mean we need to carry nuclear reactors in our cars to harness power from fission.

Likewise I'm not a physicist.

Yeah, the energy required to start the reaction is smaller then the energy released by the reaction. The energy from the reaction comes from the collision of the particles not from the acceleration of the particles to create the collision. So, the energy needed to start the reaction can be less then the resultant reaction because the potential energy of the particles upon collision is higher then the energy needed to accelerate the particles. When they collide, that potential energy is released. Therefor my previous post about this experiment is correct. I cannot see any energy source on earth capable of supplying energy equal to a million times the Sun so the energy comes from the reaction not from the source used to accelerate the particles.

What exactly is the power source at LHC? What is the required level of energy needed to accelerate the ions (lead ions as you said) to near light speed to get the reaction? If the energy needed to accelerate the particles is less then the resultant energy from the collisions, then it is a viable energy source (I strongly suspect it is). If it can be harnessed, that is.

[Kompete]

...soon we will all have pocket universes - like in MIB 2 where the dog carried a little universe on his collar :D

[h0ll0w]

Excellent.

We reproduce the conditions needed for the big bang with a super insanely complicated machine, then maybe we can start a new universe ? Would that make it a "parrallel universe" ? Hmm..

Ok whatever, the cool thing is we'll have fusion power plants in no time, and that'll enable us to feed the ethiopians and give all the somalians a job, so the pirates can work to earn a living.

Then soon global warmings will be a thing of the past and the lions will eventually start eating grass.

oh and then pride, greed, jealousy and hate will dissolve and the aliens will deem the human race fit for a visit from space.

[phenom]

Where would we be without particle accelerometers?

[Knyro]

I thought you might all like to know that experimental fusion reactors already exist. The type I'm most interested in is a tokamak. The largest one in Europe is in the UK and is run by the JET programme. It can however sustain fusion for only a few seconds however but still pretty interesting stuff

[Nothxkbi]

I would just like to add something. The temperature recorded was a million times hotter than the sun however that might've only existed for nano second after the big bang and may not necessarily indicate the amount of energy required to create that temperature.

There is a creature known as a Pistol Shrimp. It uses a sonic blast of energy to maim it's victims. For a tiny fraction of a second, the temperature of the energy released by snapping it's claw shut creates an energy blast the same temperature as the surface of the sun by using an implosion, the same implosion caused by LHC only on a massive scale.

Remember Einstein's E=MC 2 basically means that one can derive vast amounts of energy from a tiny energy source hence splitting a tiny atom releases a charge equal to a lightning bolt.

The Amazing Killer Pistol Shrimp From Sun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeFUO2F7Gvw)

[EnchanterG]

Note to self...Pistol Shrimp bad. Rifle Shrimp - worse I imagine.

I like the positive bent to this. Fission started with a large scale experiment that gradually got made smaller, now we can drive submarines with it. In a couple of years/decades we'll see some sort of progress (specifically because Eskom has no stake in this). So, maybe no particle accelerated cars, but space travel? Air travel? Lightsabers?
I'm excited for it. :)

[Ronjay]

Excellent.

We reproduce the conditions needed for the big bang with a super insanely complicated machine, then maybe we can start a new universe ? Would that make it a "parrallel universe" ? Hmm..

Ok whatever, the cool thing is we'll have fusion power plants in no time, and that'll enable us to feed the ethiopians and give all the somalians a job, so the pirates can work to earn a living.

Then soon global warmings will be a thing of the past and the lions will eventually start eating grass.

oh and then pride, greed, jealousy and hate will dissolve and the aliens will deem the human race fit for a visit from space.

LOL. people were saying that nuclear fission was impossible until a nuclear device destroyed Hiroshima. I predict that in ten years time, when (hopefully) fusion is cracked and providing super cheap, sustainable and clean energy to everyone, those giggling now are going to be looking pretty stupid.

[porchrat]

Yeah, the energy required to start the reaction is smaller then the energy released by the reaction. The energy from the reaction comes from the collision of the particles not from the acceleration of the particles to create the collision. So, the energy needed to start the reaction can be less then the resultant reaction because the potential energy of the particles upon collision is higher then the energy needed to accelerate the particles. When they collide, that potential energy is released. Therefor my previous post about this experiment is correct.

I agree that the energy comes from the reaction. The acceleration of the particles presents a sort of "activation energy" though and that can't be overlooked (activation energy is a chemistry term but it helps me to put these things in chemistry terms :p).



I cannot see any energy source on earth capable of supplying energy equal to a million times the Sun so the energy comes from the reaction not from the source used to accelerate the particles.

While it may reach a temperature a million times hotter than the surface of the sun that doesn't mean that it is a massive amount of energy overall if it is exceptionally short lived. As demonstrated by Nothxkbi even individual tiny organisms on this planet can generate temperatures as hot as the sun for exceptionally short periods. If it is short lived then the energy isn't necessarily that great. The reaction needs to be sustainable to provide the sort of power we need to push through cables to our homes.



What exactly is the power source at LHC? What is the required level of energy needed to accelerate the ions (lead ions as you said) to near light speed to get the reaction? If the energy needed to accelerate the particles is less then the resultant energy from the collisions, then it is a viable energy source (I strongly suspect it is). If it can be harnessed, that is.
The LHC doesn't generate it's own power they pull it from the grid. Though I imagine they would have backup generators for when the grid goes down for their essentials.

The accelerator doesn't operate in the winter but despite that it chews a lot of power: 800,000 MWh annually. On average over a year just the magnets use more power than the city of Geneva. :eek:

Apparently the electricity bill for 2009 was around $30 million.

[alloytoo]

Apparently the electricity bill for 2009 was around $30 million.

Not good for the carbon Credits.

[Ronjay]

I agree that the energy comes from the reaction. The acceleration of the particles presents a sort of "activation energy" though and that can't be overlooked (activation energy is a chemistry term but it helps me to put these things in chemistry terms :p).




While it may reach a temperature a million times hotter than the surface of the sun that doesn't mean that it is a massive amount of energy overall if it is exceptionally short lived. As demonstrated by Nothxkbi even individual tiny organisms on this planet can generate temperatures as hot as the sun for exceptionally short periods. If it is short lived then the energy isn't necessarily that great. The reaction needs to be sustainable to provide the sort of power we need to push through cables to our homes.



The LHC doesn't generate it's own power they pull it from the grid. Though I imagine they would have backup generators for when the grid goes down for their essentials.

The accelerator doesn't operate in the winter but despite that it chews a lot of power: 800,000 MWh annually. On average over a year just the magnets use more power than the city of Geneva. :eek:

Apparently the electricity bill for 2009 was around $30 million.

Yikes, who funds LHC at that cost just for power?

[STS]

seriously guys, i can't look at the name hadron collider without sometimes thinking "hardon collider". is it just me?

[zippy]

LOL. people were saying that nuclear fission was impossible until a nuclear device destroyed Hiroshima. I predict that in ten years time, when (hopefully) fusion is cracked and providing super cheap, sustainable and clean energy to everyone, those giggling now are going to be looking pretty stupid.

As stupid as those who predicted this event would destroy the planet.

[zippy]

Yikes, who funds LHC at that cost just for power?

The taxpayers in the EU mostly.

[eclipsedx]

So what are the real world applications of this? At a million times hotter then the Sun, I'm thinking alternative energy source here. Will it be possible to harness the energy?

May i suggest doing some reading on ths size of an ion. Then you could understand how stupid the idea is of using this as a energy source. To move ions close to the speed of light they use a huge amount of power. Here is the basic idea if you move something really fast their mass increases. And when at light spead anything with mass its mass becomes infanate.

You can never use this energy as the amount that it puts out is far less than you would have to put in. Please inform yourselfs on facts and reallity instead of reading and flaming on forums perhaps?

I know a little bit of a lot. But its much more than any intellegent person here that could ever thing that partical collisions could be a source of energy.

Be informed.

[h0ll0w]

And when at light spead anything with mass its mass becomes infanate.

wow that must be k@k heavy indeed, to make up a new word for it.

[eclipsedx]

yeah i cant spell... so? Really dont care as its the understanding of communication not the meens thats important.

[h0ll0w]

yeah i cant spell... so? Really dont care as its the understanding of communication not the meens thats important.

Be literate

[Knyro]

May i suggest doing some reading on ths size of an ion.

There is no set size of an ion, any positively or negatively charged atom or molecule can be an ion.


To move ions close to the speed of light they use a huge amount of power. Here is the basic idea if you move something really fast their mass increases. And when at light spead anything with mass its mass becomes infanate.

This is true, but that's why for fusion power you would use fusion reactors, not particle accelerators.


You can never use this energy as the amount that it puts out is far less than you would have to put in. Please inform yourselfs on facts and reallity instead of reading and flaming on forums perhaps?

I think it's been pretty well established on this thread that the energy to START the reaction is very small compared to the energy released by the reaction


I know a little bit of a lot. But its much more than any intellegent person here that could ever thing that partical collisions could be a source of energy.

I think you need to read up on fusion. Fusion is how stars produce their colossal amounts of energy. When the hydrogen ions (protons) in a tokamak (type of experimental fusion reactor) collide and fuse they collide and produce ionised helium atoms. The energy released when this happens is VERY large compared to initial input. Tokamaks get hydrogen atoms to fuse by enclosing a plasma (higly ionised gas) in a very tiny space. As we all know when you compress a gas its temperature rises, and temperature is a measure of the speed of the individual particles a substance is made of. As the plasma is compressed more and more the ions get faster and faster using only a fraction of the energy particle accelerators use. Soon they are going so fast they can no longer avoid each other even though they are all positively charged and collide, fusing together, releasing a great amount of energy and creating helium ions.

This is how stars work as well, creating heavier and heavier elements until they start making iron atoms, at which point fusion can no longer be sustained

[davemc]

Seriously, I am missing 2 lead ions and I am hectically pissed off.
Who goes around destroying lead ions anyway?
That's HEAVY man!

For some reason, I cannot explain a collision involving these 2 ions in known terms at all whatsoever.
I mean, so a couple of electrons and protons and neutrons ended up in each other's orbit .. and then suddenly all this energy! Hu?

[Ronjay]

May i suggest doing some reading on ths size of an ion. Then you could understand how stupid the idea is of using this as a energy source. To move ions close to the speed of light they use a huge amount of power. Here is the basic idea if you move something really fast their mass increases. And when at light spead anything with mass its mass becomes infanate.

You can never use this energy as the amount that it puts out is far less than you would have to put in. Please inform yourselfs on facts and reallity instead of reading and flaming on forums perhaps?

I know a little bit of a lot. But its much more than any intellegent person here that could ever thing that partical collisions could be a source of energy.

Be informed.

LOL, you do know that we collide particles to make energy all the time, dude? It's called nuclear fission. Also ions are not the smallest sub atomic particles as ions can be any particle with an unequal amount of protons and electrons. In other words an atom can be an ion.

I wont pick you out on your spelling, but at least don't pick me out about reading on a subject until you have actually done so yourself.

FYI, the smallest sub atomic particle is the quark.

[Leostar]

There is no set size of an ion, any positively or negatively charged atom or molecule can be an ion.



This is true, but that's why for fusion power you would use fusion reactors, not particle accelerators.



I think it's been pretty well established on this thread that the energy to START the reaction is very small compared to the energy released by the reaction



I think you need to read up on fusion. Fusion is how stars produce their colossal amounts of energy. When the hydrogen ions (protons) in a tokamak (type of experimental fusion reactor) collide and fuse they collide and produce ionised helium atoms. The energy released when this happens is VERY large compared to initial input. Tokamaks get hydrogen atoms to fuse by enclosing a plasma (higly ionised gas) in a very tiny space. As we all know when you compress a gas its temperature rises, and temperature is a measure of the speed of the individual particles a substance is made of. As the plasma is compressed more and more the ions get faster and faster using only a fraction of the energy particle accelerators use. Soon they are going so fast they can no longer avoid each other even though they are all positively charged and collide, fusing together, releasing a great amount of energy and creating helium ions.

This is how stars work as well, creating heavier and heavier elements until they start making iron atoms, at which point fusion can no longer be sustained

Thanks for info.

How do they compress the gas?

Compression or super magnets?

[Leostar]

FYI, the smallest sub atomic particle is the quark.


LOL. Is that an up or down quark? :)
I read a tiny bit as well. :D
Thanks for your info

[Ronjay]

LOL. Is that an up or down quark? :)
I read a tiny bit as well. :D
Thanks for your info

LOL, the kid needed to get his facts right. u quarks are the lightest of the quarks.

[Leostar]

LOL, the kid needed to get his facts right. u quarks are the lightest of the quarks.

Must be a good scale top weigh that amount of mass?

Shall we tell him that quantum particles can be in two different places at the same time? :)
The mind (well mine) boggles when I read about quantum mechanics and the hunt for elusive particles.

There must be a lot to gain for governments to spend so much money on these pursuits,
I see that they are planning a new straight line particle accelerator, Must be to iron out the “kinks” in the current LHC LOL. :)

[Ronjay]

Must be a good scale top weigh that amount of mass?

Shall we tell him that quantum particles can be in two different places at the same time? :)
The mind (well mine) boggles when I read about quantum mechanics and the hunt for elusive particles.

There must be a lot to gain for governments to spend so much money on these pursuits,
I see that they are planning a new straight line particle accelerator, Must be to iron out the “kinks” in the current LHC LOL. :)

LOL. Mine does too. I'm no physicist. But i love to find out things and challenge my mind.

[Knyro]

Thanks for info.

How do they compress the gas?

Compression or super magnets?

They generate a magnetic field with electromagnets and alter it's size accordingly to contain the plasma as its way too hot for any known material to contain