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. 

[igimo1]

Additionally, the need for safety equipment would be very limited, besides  the field. If there was an accident, it would likely expand, become deformed by whatever's left by the field, and dissipate quickly.

[Sidoh]

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. 

Since most of the energy released in the reaction is in the form of thermal energy, I don't see how we're going to harness that energy when it's damped in an electromagnetic field.

Additionally, the need for safety equipment would be very limited outside the field. If there was an accident, it would likely expand, become deformed by whatever's left by the field, and dissipate quickly.

I fully agree.  The equipment used would have to be almost failsafe to prevent what could be one of the most catistrophic mishaps in history.

[igimo1]

I edited my post, but what I really meant was,

If we were to figure out how to harness this energy, we would be able to build several hundred of these at low cost (I estimate 14 million USD per). Because something like this would dissipate quickly, an accident wouldn't endanger many people.

[Sidoh]

I edited my post, but what I really meant was,

If we were to figure out how to harness this energy, we would be able to build several hundred of these at low cost (I estimate 14 million USD per). Because something like this would dissipate quickly, an accident wouldn't endanger many people.

I predict we'd use heat to evaporate water, which obviously is capable of doing mechanical work.

I think the devestation of a leaked reaction would be heavily dependant on the mechanics used in the reactor.

In any case, this is pretty neat.  If they can find a way to use the EM field without nullifying all usefulness of the energy released in this reaction, it would be hugely powerful.

[MyndFyre]

I edited my post, but what I really meant was,

If we were to figure out how to harness this energy, we would be able to build several hundred of these at low cost (I estimate 14 million USD per). Because something like this would dissipate quickly, an accident wouldn't endanger many people.

On what grounds do you base your estimate?

Since most of the energy released in the reaction is in the form of thermal energy, I don't see how we're going to harness that energy when it's damped in an electromagnetic field.

I didn't say "damped," I said "contained."  I hope.  I *definitely* didn't say "damped."

[igimo1]

Assuming "upgrade" means "re-build"

http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_041104.html

Since we're working on the basis that it violates the law of conservation of energy, we'd only need something like a tenth of the power thats required for this 'Z-Machine'. I'll pretend that once we start the process, it should be able to power itself and run indefinitely.

[Sidoh]

I didn't say "damped," I said "contained."  I hope.  I *definitely* didn't say "damped."

That's like hoping you can keep a beam of light going by firing it at two mirrors.  It just isn't possible.  The energy is dampened.  I meant to say dampened, not damped.  Sorry for typos, I'm trying to keep up with my raid in BWL.

I will have to do research on this before I can say anything on it for sure.  What's going to power the EM field?  To me, it seems as if it's going to have to use more energy than the reaction produces.

[MyndFyre]

Since we're working on the basis that it violates the law of conservation of energy, we'd only need something like a tenth of the power thats required for this 'Z-Machine'. I'll pretend that once we start the process, it should be able to power itself and run indefinitely.

Why are we operating on this premise?  We don't need to operate outside the law of conservation of energy to produce this energy.  It comes from mass.  E = mc².

That's like hoping you can keep a beam of light going by firing it at two mirrors.  It just isn't possible.  The energy is dampened.  I meant to say dampened, not damped.  Sorry for typos, I'm trying to keep up with my raid in BWL.

I will have to do research on this before I can say anything on it for sure.  What's going to power the EM field?  To me, it seems as if it's going to have to use more energy than the reaction produces.

Well, since we don't know the properties of the EM field we cannot say with certainty whether it will consume more energy.  But to challenge your analogy, what I'm suggesting is more like the proposition of maintaining the movement rate of an electron within a volume surrounded by a negative electrical field in a vacuum. 

[Joe]

the gas released would literally be melting and boiling.

Hah.. Forgetting the stages of matter? That stuff comes before it gets to a gas.

[Sidoh]

Why are we operating on this premise?  We don't need to operate outside the law of conservation of energy to produce this energy.  It comes from mass.  E = mc².

If I remember correctly, the energy in a nuclear fusion reaction comes from the nuclear strong force finally overcoming the electroweak force.  When it does, it releases energy.  There are some matter anti-matter reactions included in this, but I'm pretty sure most of the energy comes from the energy released do to the formation of nuclear bonds.

Well, since we don't know the properties of the EM field we cannot say with certainty whether it will consume more energy.  But to challenge your analogy, what I'm suggesting is more like the proposition of maintaining the movement rate of an electron within a volume surrounded by a negative electrical field in a vacuum. 

It only makes logical sense to conclude that it takes more energy.  I do, however, agree that none of us know for sure.  I don't think that such an intensely strong EM field could be produced without consuming massive amounts of energy.  Also, how do you propose that spacial area contained inside of the EM field is a vacuum?  If it's a vacuum, there's no potential for thermal energy and the entire experiment/idea is useless.

You'd have to concentrate the heat to a pretty confined area.  That means they're going to have to find a way to provide a path for the heat to travel or break the entire barrier for fractions of a second.

Regardless of the progress made in these experiments, we're still a long way from using nuclear fusion as a power source.

Hah.. Forgetting the stages of matter? That stuff comes before it gets to a gas.

Matter behaves in unpredictable ways (to someone with only elementary knowledge, anyway) when its under extreme conditions.  Look at the core of the Earth.  It's solid.

[iago]

Matter behaves in unpredictable ways (to someone with only elementary knowledge, anyway) when its under extreme conditions.  Look at the core of the Earth.  It's solid.

I wouldn't call that weird.  At first glance, it may seem like it would be molton.  But it's also got a whole bunch of gravity pushing on it, and mountains are pretty heavy.  Just from the pressure, it seems like it would be a solid. 

That could be totally wrong, that's just how I think about it

[Sidoh]

I wouldn't call that weird.  At first glance, it may seem like it would be molton.  But it's also got a whole bunch of gravity pushing on it, and mountains are pretty heavy.  Just from the pressure, it seems like it would be a solid. 

That could be totally wrong, that's just how I think about it

It's still sort of strange without thinking about it much.  Yes, it's caused by everything "above" the center of mass accelerating towards it due to the force of gravity.  That was a bad example.

[iago]

I wouldn't call that weird.  At first glance, it may seem like it would be molton.  But it's also got a whole bunch of gravity pushing on it, and mountains are pretty heavy.  Just from the pressure, it seems like it would be a solid. 

That could be totally wrong, that's just how I think about it

It's still sort of strange without thinking about it much.  Yes, it's caused by everything "above" the center of mass accelerating towards it due to the force of gravity.  That was a bad example.

I like my wording better.  "a whole bunch of gravity"

[Sidoh]

I like my wording better.  "a whole bunch of gravity"

It's not "pushing" on it, though.

[zorm]

Keep in mind this work is being done at a national lab so using it generate power probably isn't a priority. However, that being said using it to toast some asshole in a tank is more likely to be a future use for this technology.

[Sidoh]

Keep in mind this work is being done at a national lab so using it generate power probably isn't a priority. However, that being said using it to toast some asshole in a tank is more likely to be a future use for this technology.

Why can't we all think constructively? >_>

It's quite obvious that producing power from this reaction isn't a priority at the moment.  It can't be a priority.