back to article Giant super-laser passes 500 TRILLION watts

The National Ignition Facility has followed up on its March firing with yet-another record, flicking the switch on a pulse that topped 500 trillion watts and 1.85 megajoules of UV laser. Back in March, the NIF at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had previously fired a 411 trillion watt pulse. As noted by the lab, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Blunderbuss
    Mushroom

    Hmmm 2mm target?

    If it's that accurate, it'll definitely be able to hit Alderaan.

    1. Mips
      Childcatcher

      Re: Hmmm 2mm target?

      You wouldn't want to test with your finger to see if it was hot. Mind, you would probably not feel a thing.

  2. An0n C0w4rd

    Its 100 times more powerful than any other regularly operating LASER out there today? That means there is a 5 trillion watt LASER somewhere?

    (and shouldn't LASER be capitalised since it is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation? or has modern society turned 'laser' into a word?)

    1. David 164

      Modern society turned laser into a word.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      LLNL's Titan laser did PetaWatt back in the 90s but it's pulses are much shorted and so carry much less energy. Power is energy/time so if you make time small enough you can make the power very very high

    3. Katie Saucey
      Unhappy

      yup it's a frig'n word

      Every damn time it comes up on the scrabble board I challenge on principle, knowing I'll lose;(

      1. Don Jefe
        Meh

        Re: yup it's a frig'n word

        Not a word. A collection of letters and is NOT acceptable in Scrabble. I'd have to fight you on this one; just like if you tried to use SCUBA.

        1. Katie Saucey

          Re: yup it's a frig'n word

          I agree, but we would both lose, assuming the latest official Scrabble dictionary is used. They bend their own rules worst than summer cottage Monopoly players.

          1. Steven Jones

            Re: yup it's a frig'n word

            An acronym is, by definition, a word

            "A word formed from the initial letters of other words"

            As far as I'm aware, acronyms do not have to be capitalises unless the initial letters of what they refer to are capitalised (such as is the case with NASA for instance). Clearly acronyms referring to organisations are usually capitalised, but those like sonar, radar and laser rarely are.

            Of course acronyms have to be widely used enough to be accepted into recognised dictionaries before they can meet the rules of a game like Scrabble. So that means words like radar are acceptable. The sloppy tendency of many people to use the term acronym to refer to mere abbreviations doesn't help, but that doesn't change the accepted definition.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: yup it's a frig'n word

              No it's not a word

              You've misinterprested the definition.

              "Who" is a word, and also an acronym, it's an acronym BECAUSE it's a word.

              Arguably LASER is some sort of backronym as it's now a commonly accepted word, but previously meant nothing as a word, which therefore makes it just an abbreviation.

              An accronym that dosn't spell something understandable is just an abbreviation.

              Just because an abbreviation spells somethign pronouncable does not make it an acronym.

              FACT!

              1. JDX Gold badge

                Re: yup it's a frig'n word

                If an acronym becomes widely recognised as a word, it is likely to officially become a word.

    4. Darren Forster

      So what does American spelling of LASER stand for then

      if LASER stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation I'm just wondering what does the American spelling stand for as they tend to spell it Lazer rather than LASER, or is it just to fit in with American language as opposed to British (like agonize, apologize, authorize, baptize, centralize, characterize, civilize, colonize, computerize, criticize, crystalize, dramatize, organize, etc).

      1. tomban
        Joke

        Re: So what does American spelling of LASER stand for then

        You missed 'basterdize'

      2. beep54
        Meh

        Re: So what does American spelling of LASER stand for then

        Uh, as an American, I can say that we do not spell 'laser' with a 'z'. Never have, although you might find this type of spelling in some sort of brand name, something like 'lazertag' or something.

        1. Miek
          Linux

          Re: So what does American spelling of LASER stand for then

          I suspect that some folks are getting muddled up with TAZER

        2. Tom 13
          Coat

          Re: So what does American spelling of LASER stand for then

          Or his 'Merkin friendz could just be aware of how eazily he iz irritated by our spellingz, zo they just keep telling him it'z spelled with a 'z' instead of the 's' we all actually uze.

      3. John H Woods

        Re: So what does American spelling of LASER stand for then

        '-ize' are perfectly acceptable in English, a fact not always recognized by the dictionaries that accompany software. A quick scan of e.g. Jane Austen will confirm that the original English spelling was usually 'z' and the Americans simply kept it - it was the Brits that morphed to 's'.

        I'm a bit puzzled that you think that Americans 'tend to spell' laser with a Z - do you have evidence for this?

        1. Nigel 11
          Headmaster

          Re: So what does American spelling of LASER stand for then

          It's evidence that LASER has passed or is passing out of the realm of acronyms and into the realm of neologisms (as laser or US lazer). It is virtually certain to become recognised as an ordinary word in the near future if it isn't already, because it's made it into everyday life and speech (unlike, say, SCUBA, which is still used only in connection with one specialism). Compare RADAR / radar, coloquial usage "on your radar".

          The Amercans may be regularizing its spelling in line with other American spellings, regardles of the word's origins. They have a somewhat more phonetic and less etymological approach to spelling than in GB English. In passing I know that the OED has turned traitor to time-honoured GB English usage, but in my book there's only one word that should end in -ize, and that's Americanize.

          1. Thecowking

            Re: So what does American spelling of LASER stand for then

            And size of course.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So what does American spelling of LASER stand for then

        Well, the Z is clearly for Ztimulated. ;)

      5. peyton?
        Paris Hilton

        Re: So what does American spelling of LASER stand for then

        Ztimulated, obviously.

        Actually, I've never seen "lazer" used outside of the lolzpeakesque phrase "sharks with friggin lazers".

    5. Matthew 25
      Headmaster

      Laser

      Surely a Laser is a very small boat.

    6. Peter Murphy
      Stop

      Does LASER have to be capitalised?

      Nope. The word "laser" is now in dictionaries, and does not have to be capitalised. Take for example the Cambridge dictionary:

      http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/laser?q=laser

      Oxford:

      http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/laser?q=laser

      Merriam-Webster:

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laser

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yaaaay, go Sharks

    Go sharks, go

  4. Peter Rathlev
    Boffin

    As noted by the lab, 500 Terawatts is more than 1,000 times as much power as is consumed in the United States at any instant

    Except at the moment they fired it, right? It's placed inside US borders.

    1. Annihilator
      Boffin

      Well, not really, it's a bit of a FUD to be honest. Power/Energy are related by time, in this instance the laser only fired for 0.00037 of a second. If they'd dissipated the same energy in less time, it would be a more "powerful" laser despite having no impact on the US power consumption.

      The power consumed "in an instant" (t=0) has no meaning.

      1. jp1000

        Calculus...

        Well POWER consumed in any period of time has no meaning. Energy consumed over a period of time does, it IS the power. Power at an instant is defined as the derivative of Energy with respect to time which means it possible to state the instanteous power consumption in the same way it is possible to state the instantaneous speed of a car, even though over zero time the car moves zero distance. So certainly the original poster is correct, the power being dissipated during the shot IS the sum of the laser and the normal consumption of the US, however it's not actually being drained from the grid, since it got stored up earlier over a longer period of time.

    2. Chemist

      "Except at the moment they fired it, right?"

      At the moment they fired it it wasn't consuming any significant energy from the grid - that would have been built up over time into ( I presume) banks of capacitors

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Except at the moment they fired it, right?"

        Perhaps they shouldn't have shorted across the building mains. But more importantly, they did get a charge.

  5. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
    Boffin

    Units?

    How many houses full of popcorn is this?

  6. John Latham

    There's something very important I forgot to tell you

    Don't cross the streams.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There's something very important I forgot to tell you

      Mmmm, something tells me you'll get more than a mild suntan from this thing.

    2. Miek
      Linux

      Re: There's something very important I forgot to tell you

      "Don't cross the streams." -- The idea is actually TO cross the streams, all be it in a very precise manner.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There's something very important I forgot to tell you

        * ALBEIT

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: There's something very important I forgot to tell you

          It seems some people are very touchy about being advised of correct spelling and/or grammar...

  7. Chris 171
    Boffin

    Badass

    And a step closer to Fusion too? Fire a Higgs Boson up its pipe & see what happens I say.

    1. annodomini2
      FAIL

      Re: Badass

      NIF hasn't even achieved ignition let alone net energy gain.

      The fundamental problem with NIF as an energy source is the fact that it uses LASERs, which are typically about 14% energy efficient.

      As it would also use Steam generation as with a Tokamak, the net energy gain needs to be on the order of 15-20x to break even. Tokamak is about 3-5x.

      1. Nigel 11
        Mushroom

        Re: Badass

        On the other hand laser-driven implosion yields a MUCH greater plasma density, so the much higher net energy gain might also be a lot easier to achieve. Definitely worth researching.

  8. zen1
    Pint

    great for laser pointer...

    If you wanted to point out interesting sites on someting in the Oort cloud. God forbid if you accidently hit the moon, as it would probably burn half way through before the duty cycle turns off.

    Why can't I get toys like that? As for the electric bill, honestly, I'm good for it... I can make $150.00 installments for the next what, 5 or 6 thousand years?

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Practice reading and arithmetic

      The article gives to beam energy: 1.85e6 Joules. Use the magic formula Power = Energy / Time to get the amount of time this laser can fire continuously (<4nano seconds). While you are at it, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent and find that 1.85e6 Joules is less then .5kg of TNT, or less than £0.10 of electricity. While you are at it, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility and you will find "In the same month [January 2012], the NIF fired a record high of 57 shots, more than in any month up to that point." 0.5 kg of TNT twice per day is not going to put a big dent in the moon. There is some good news: $150 buys the electricity for about 10 shots (~1% efficiency).

      1. frank ly

        Re: Practice reading and arithmetic

        I see you're one of those numerate types with a technical background who understands how things work :)

      2. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Re: Practice reading and arithmetic

        "0.5 kg of TNT twice per day is not going to put a big dent in the moon."

        I disagree. I think 0.5 kg of TNT twice per day is going to make a reasonable dent in just about anything after a couple of weeks.

  9. DAN*tastik

    Question from the stupid person in the forum

    I don't know much about physics apart from not pissing uphill... Does it say in the article - cause if it did, i completely missed it - if the energy produced is more than that they used?

    Just out of curiosity, not saying it is a useless experiment if they haven't achieved that yet

    1. Oliver Mayes
      Boffin

      Re: Question from the stupid person in the forum

      It doesn't produce energy, just takes it in. One of the potential applications here is that when you fire enough energy at a small point, like they have done here with multiple lasers converging on a small area, you can ignite a fusion reaction which can then be used to generate lots of clean power, far more than you used to power the laser.

      In this scenario the laser is simply the starter motor that kicks off the fusion reactor.

      1. itzman

        Re: Question from the stupid person in the forum

        Its the spark-plug for the internal fusion motor....

      2. DaeDaLuS_015
        Mushroom

        Re: Question from the stupid person in the forum

        You mean, they can use this LASER to start a fusion reactor that can power another more powerful LASER that can blow up the moon?

        Incredible!

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @ Oliver Mayes Question from the stupid person in the forum

        I wonder who down-voted you? that is pretty much the gist of it...

        The Lasers initiate fusion, then that energy is used, the idea being they can reach break even with Intertial Confinement much easier than they expect they can with magnetic confinement, plus the advantage is when you turn it off, its off, whereas a TOMAK would still be full of hot plasma.

        Personally I think we need some combination of the two to achieve fusion efficiently without the use of a deep gravity well.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @ Oliver Mayes Question from the stupid person in the forum

          Not "TOMAK", "hawtt-donut" ;)

    2. Annihilator
      Coat

      Re: Question from the stupid person in the forum

      I think you can be sure that if they broke the laws of thermodynamics they would probably had made that their lead story, across the planet.

      Or they'd have been framed for murder a la Chain Reaction in a cover-up due to the world not being ready for free energy...

    3. annodomini2

      Re: Question from the stupid person in the forum

      They haven't even achieved fusion ignition, let alone energy gain.

  10. No such thing as an Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    Pulsed power...

    see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_power

    Same principle can be used to increase the burn efficiency of the Internal combustion engine in your car. Even ignite water.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Chemist

      Re: Pulsed power...

      "Even ignite water."

      Pray enlighten us all as to what water burns to ?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pulsed power...

        Well I ass-u-me he means the lasers split the water into hydrogen & oxygen then ignite that..

        Not actually a net gain, but still it can happen!

        1. Chemist

          Re: Pulsed power...

          "Well I ass-u-me he means the lasers split the water into hydrogen & oxygen then ignite that.."

          Oh good grief !

      2. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Pulsed power...

        silicon

        Astrophysicists do chemistry differently.

        1. Chemist

          Re: Pulsed power...

          All very well but it's not actually chemistry !

          Chemistry doesn't involve converting one element to another

          1. fch
            Meh

            Re: Pulsed power...

            Otto Hahn got his Nobel prize (on the discovery of uranium fission) for chemistry not physics. "Nuclear chemistry", alchemy's finest hour. Well, until these "elementary" particle physicists came along and got all the spotlight ;-)

            1. Chemist

              Re: Pulsed power...

              I don't give a friggin' damn - it's not chemistry !

              1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
                Mushroom

                Stellar Chemistry

                Oh, why so sour? :-P

                IIRC the OP only talked about 'igniting'. And in a discussion about fusion I would take that to mean nuclear not chemical burning. (I can't speak for nuclear physicists, but astrophysicists always use ignite and burn to describe the onset and process of nuclear fusion - so stars burn hydrogen and eventually most will get hot enough to ignite helium.) That said, I think you were right and the OP didn't know what he was talking about.

                The idea it was 'chemistry' was mine. It was meant as a joke. And you're right: they're reactions of nucleons not orbital electrons. But once you get over that, plasmas, particularly those found in stellar interiors, posses the kind of potentials and gradients and rich complexity you see everywhere else in chemistry; this is the chemistry of the Weak force, rather than the Electromagnetic one. Still I'm happy chemists aren't interested in the really hot stuff.

                *ponders whether I should tell him the real definition of a metal*

                1. Chemist

                  Re: Stellar Chemistry

                  "Still I'm happy chemists aren't interested in the really hot stuff."

                  I'm very interested but it's still not Chemistry

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pulsed power...

        Helium and seriously toasted oxygen? ;)

      4. Schultz
        Flame

        Let the water burn

        "Pray enlighten us all as to what water burns to ?"

        Ooh, simples, according to Wikipedia:

        16/8 O + 1/1 H → 17/9 F + 0.60 MeV

        17/9 F → 17/8 O + e+ +ν_e + 2.76 MeV (half-life of 64.49 seconds)

        17/8 O + 1/1 H → 14/7 N + 4/2 He + 1.19 MeV

        Please don't try this at home! Any questions?

        1. Chemist

          Re: Let the water burn

          Those are nuclear reactions !! NOT chemistry !!

  11. BillboBaggins
    Boffin

    Great!

    But can they mount this thing on a frickin' shark?!

  12. Purlieu

    No point

    you only need 1.21 jiggawatts

  13. orb8

    Ah.. A pulse like this could just be the thing for knocking small pests from flora I would rather like to protect :)

  14. devo

    Remember to not cross the streams

    I suppose that goes without saying.

  15. Silverburn
    Happy

    Non-technical dumbass asks stupid questions

    If i cranked this up for 1 second, could I:

    - put a really big hole in something

    - plunge the US into complete darkness, and trigger another recession?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Mushroom

      Re: Non-technical dumbass asks stupid questions

      Top questions, with answers of yes, and maybe.

      We have a claimed 500 trillion watt laser. That means that in one second (if it could run for that long) it would release 500 trillion joules of energy, or about five times the energy of the bomb that hit Nagasaki. That has big hole making potential, in my book, although it's small by modern nuclear weapon standards.

      Could that plunge the US into darkness? Only if carefully divided amongst critical power distribution nodes, so you'd need to move your laser energy about with pin point accuracy. People might notice when a truck labelled Silverburn Laser Services Ltd turns up, vapourises an electricity grid switching station, and drives off again. Having said that, total US electricity generating capacity is "only" about 1 terawatt. Assuming your laser is 5% efficient (OK as a ball park) then you need 10 peta watts of input, so ten thousand times more power than the entire generating capacity of the US, so if you over-rode all the safety systems and linked the US grid together (whilst stroking a long haired white cat) you could cause a national black out by sucking all the power out of the grid (and melting it at the same time).

      Trigger another recession? Probably not, as we've got a big enough one at the moment to mask most things. Added to which destruction usually begets reconstruction, and that appears to create growth. Even if you used your one second of tera-laser in downtown New York city, things would certainly be very bad indeed for the inhabitants. But would that matter in London, Los Angeles, Berlin etc? Probably not (and vice versa if you chose one of those to experiment on).

  16. Velv
    Coat

    So...

    Are they going to use it to hollow out an extinct volcano?; and then

    How are they going to get it to the moon now they've got no space shuttle?

    By fusion laser, I assume they actually mean frickin laser

  17. scub
    Flame

    Oooh!

    Anyone know anything a Masers?

    I was wonder if one could be used to power an engine cylinder full of water? How fast could it boil the water and so creating motion ?

  18. Avatar of They
    Coat

    I don't understand all these watts and power numbers.

    What is the base damage in D6. I need to know.

    1. Magani
      Linux

      Re: I don't understand all these watts and power numbers.

      In Traveller or AD&D?

    2. Fred Mbogo

      Re: I don't understand all these watts and power numbers.

      The article does not explain the mechanism of the laser. So we don't know if its a regular laser, pulse laser, x-pulse laser or a heavy laser.

      Since its pre-fusion tech, I would be willing to assign it the same damage as an Inner Sphere small laser.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I don't understand all these watts and power numbers.

        Or an Inner-Tube, like maybe from a tractor ;)

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    1.85 megajoules

    Sounds so good when you use terms like megajoules. Then you convert it, and find that the cutting edge of laser death in the twenty first century is a beam that's zipping out about half a kWh, worth about 5p when bought from the 'leccy board.

    In El Reg units, wouldn't that be about 23 cups of tea?

    "The Death Star is in firing position, Lord Vader"

    "The emperor will be pleased - put the kettle on commander"

  20. Pirate Dave Silver badge
    Pirate

    National Ignition Facility

    We have a National Ignition Facility? Holy shit, that's cool. A national facility to burn things. Man, I love this country - we have the NIF, Freedom, Liberty, The Right To Bear Arms*, and Britney Spears. What more could we ask for?

    * - which the bears aren't too happy about, TBH

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: National Ignition Facility

      The Right to Arm Bears... give em a chance against the sharks.

  21. This post has been deleted by its author

  22. James O'Brien
    Joke

    How is it...

    That everyone here missed the Death Star implication of this laser? Next stop...Alderaan

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Facepalm

      Re: How is it...

      Er... everyone, except the first post in the thread!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like