Hot gas

[iago]

Scientists produce gas at 2,000,000K, which is hotter than the core of our sun.  And they don't how they did it! 

The question is: do we want something that hot on our planet?

[Newby]

I'm surprised everything around it didn't melt.

[ZeroX]

Something that hot would melt everything in a 20 mile radius. 

[MyndFyre]

This is a cool breakthrough.  We might finally get a step in the nuclear fusion power source.

Oh and iago -- it's 2,000,000,000K.  You're short by a power of 1,000.    Still, I would like to know how they measured this reliably.

Something that hot would melt everything in a 20 mile radius. 

According to whom?  Cuz....  I'm pretty sure it didn't.

[deadly7]

I don't believe this was accurately measured, that is to say I think they're bullshitting us.  If the gas was hotter than the core of our sun, where the gas released would literally be melting and boiling.  Also, what did they use to measure temperature?  Any electronic readings would not work because NOTHING is heat resistant for 2 BILLION kelvins.  Also, any thermometer non-electronic would not work either.  The liquid inside the thermometer would boil nearly instantly.

[Nate]

We are talking fractions of a second it takes to heat up and cooldown.  Also they probably measure temperature based on change in the temperature of the water/oil heat shield.

[Sidoh]

We are talking fractions of a second it takes to heat up and cooldown.  Also they probably measure temperature based on change in the temperature of the water/oil heat shield.

Exactly.

You can measure one object's temperature from the change in temperature in another substance.

You're forgetting (Not you, Nate) that they're probably not talking about very much gas that reached this temperature.  You don't need a thermometer to measure temperature.

[igimo1]

If you read some of the comments from Slashdot (which I assume where iago found it), it explains most of that. They contain it with a powerful magnetic field that focuses it into something like the size of mechanical lead.

But, the real question here is, how did they manage to get it to output more than the input? We could create a perpetual motion machine with this discovery if we figured out how they did it...

[iago]

It's doubtful that they produced more output than input.  I'm sure the energy came from somewhere. 

[Nate]

So like nuclear explosions don't produce more energy then is introduced?

[iago]

No.  The energy in a nuclear explosion comes from the energy of atoms and stuff.  E=MC² and all that stuff. 

[Sidoh]

So like nuclear explosions don't produce more energy then is introduced?

No, they don't.  Exactly what iago said.  Nuclear fusion and fission reactions are simply releases of potential energy.  Mass and energy are interchangable.

From every single observation we've made, every single calculation that has been run and every single bit of logic in the Universe says that energy is always conserved.

[MyndFyre]

You're all not really getting to the point (iago and Sidoh).  This *does* have the potential for energy because if we can produce fusion in this matter and keep it inexpensive (in terms of input energy to start the reaction), good.  Hydrogen is a cheap fuel to use, but its potential for output energy (released) is enormous because of the reaction that takes place during the fusion process.

[Sidoh]

You're all not really getting to the point (iago and Sidoh).  This *does* have the potential for energy because if we can produce fusion in this matter and keep it inexpensive (in terms of input energy to start the reaction), good.  Hydrogen is a cheap fuel to use, but its potential for output energy (released) is enormous because of the reaction that takes place during the fusion process.

We've known how to do this for a long time.  At the moment, it has no potential.  There's simply too much energy to deal with.  If you produce it in the concentration you need to produce the power that an average power plant pumps out, the reaction would melt through twenty feet of solid concrete.

I'm not missing the point, I'm simply correcting invalid observations that some of the people who've replied.

[MyndFyre]

We've known how to do this for a long time.  At the moment, it has no potential.  There's simply too much energy to deal with.  If you produce it in the concentration you need to produce the power that an average power plant pumps out, the reaction would melt through twenty feet of solid concrete.

I disagree.  You may be right in that there's simply too much energy -- but what if we could slow the production speed, or be able to store the energy in a usable form outside of the reaction?  As they describe the gaseous fission reactor, it seems like it may have been consistent with what Topaz suggest, insofar as we can contain the heat electromagnetically, which would negate the need for walls.

I think that true progress in science only comes when we're not looking.