digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Friendly 'Death Star' Laser to Recreate Sun's Power

livescience.com — Lasers have usually represented weapons of mass destruction in movies such as "Star Wars," but a newly completed facility has begun harnessing lasers to create a fusion reaction rivaling the power of a miniature sun.

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 9, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

59 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Pxtl, on 04/09/2009, -1/+25This is Digg. Presumably, people who come here are at least somewhat geeky and know what lasers and nuclear fusion are.

    Can we stop with the childish "death star" and "recreate the sun" crap? This isn't the Daily Mail.
  • sibernetik, on 04/09/2009, -2/+17the power of the sun in the palm of my hand
  • yuanzhoulu, on 04/09/2009, -2/+10complete ***** *****. do they realise what the "power of the sun" means? do they realise that the entire Earth gets approximately 1/10^9 of the sun's power, and that much is sustaining all life here?

    perhaps they meant power density (power transmitted/unit area). but it's a different thing, and they ought to get their physics right.
  • protodon, on 04/09/2009, -2/+10So instead, let's just figure out how much wire we need to hook up to the actual sun because it's right there and it works. Then we can skip to a Type II civilization.
  • norman619, on 04/09/2009, -3/+11Excellent! The sooner we learn how to produce and control fusion ractions the sooner we will have clean fusion power to replace the dirty fission reactors to power our world.
  • RealmDown, on 04/09/2009, -1/+8Mice
  • UselessTrivia, on 04/09/2009, -2/+8FTA:

    "Serious ignition testing scheduled for 2010 would focus 500 trillion watts of power on the pea-sized capsule containing deuterium and tritium fuel. NIF has already produced 25 times more energy than any other existing laser system, and also became the first fusion laser facility to break the megajoule barrier and create enough energy to power 10,000 100-watt light bulbs for a second."


    You know what else can power 10,000 100-watt light bulbs for a second? a ***** of a lot less than 500 trillion watts of power used to run those lasers.
  • Ljay90, on 04/09/2009, -0/+6Yeah, because that didn't end poorly. At all.
  • diggB, on 04/09/2009, -2/+6Needs a shark. A really big shark.
  • CedEx, on 04/09/2009, -0/+4Whatever they mean... but all I know is that "There's never enough POWAH!!!"
  • DephexTwin, on 04/09/2009, -0/+3"We promise to use it only for good!"
  • UselessTrivia, on 04/09/2009, -0/+3You might be right about starting versus maintaining, but there is a limit to how much energy is produced...and that's the amount of fuel you have in there when the reaction starts. If I'm reading this correctly it sounds like they have this little fuel pellet which starts in the center and stays until the reaction burns out., which will happen once all of the tritium/deuterium has been fused into helium.

    I don't see how you'd continually add fuel to sustain the reaction indefinitely. If it can do that, then kudos to them.

    I really am a fan of fusion power. This is progress, and progress is good. I just kid them because they say they need 500 trillion watts of power to run 10,000 light bulbs, which should require a measly 1 million watts. Basically they're boasting about an energy return of 0.000000002 percent.
  • randman70, on 04/09/2009, -0/+3I have a bad feeling about this.
  • GrooTheWanderer, on 04/09/2009, -1/+4Who rules it now?
  • yuanzhoulu, on 04/09/2009, -0/+2Bird.
  • Jpatano, on 04/09/2009, -0/+2I think the idea is that it only takes all that energy to START the fusion reaction, and after that it is self sustaining. One of the lines FTA was something to the effect of " the reaction would produce far more energy than it takes to start the reaction"

    so, if it takes 500 trillion watts to start the reaction, maybe it generates 4 times that.... which, considering how little fuel it uses, would basically mean limitless energy produced.

    of course i'm no expert on this stuff at all, these are just the impressions i'm getting from reading the article.
  • Jarasmen, on 04/09/2009, -0/+2Also you can't see them in space.
  • fungusmonkey, on 04/09/2009, -0/+2I'm okay with this as long as the tests are all being run by a pudgy guy with motor assisted servo arms, and as long as it's near a body of water so that if the miniature sun starts to get out of hand we can just plop it in and put it out.

    That's how it works, right?
  • afireinside13t, on 04/09/2009, -0/+2There's a couple schemes being tossed around to continuously add fuel. One is to drop fuel pellets into the chamber, and have the laser fire when it exactly hits the center. The big problem with this is that you have to let the equipment cool down for a while after every shot.

    As for the energy return, the system at NIF is expected to break even or have a small net gain in energy (approximately 30x is possible under the right conditions). If you are efficiently compressing and heating the fuel, you can get out much more energy than you put in.

    And the apparent difference in power has to do with time scales. 10,000 light bulbs x 100W x 1 sec = 1 million joules. 500 trillion W x short pulse = comparable amount of energy.
  • shandromand, on 04/09/2009, -0/+2dugg for epic hitchhiker reference
  • inactive, on 04/09/2009, -3/+5They should call it the Happy Beam or something. The Death Star comparison draws a few too many negative.

    Although Alderaan had it coming. They shot first.
  • DifferentAngle, on 04/09/2009, -1/+2There's nothing dirty about fission and this ***** that people keep spewing is why we have new coal plants being built.
  • EmperorAwesome, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1Yes but when will I get my ***** LIGHTSABER?!?
  • neoq36, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1"The power of the Death Star is insignificant compared to the power of the force."
  • lordmike, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1That's no moon...
  • PReitz, on 04/09/2009, -2/+3Giant Hurt Ball.
  • LacanX, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1Yeah, but whatever your thinking of probably doesn't put all that energy into one spot in a matter of nanoseconds. =P
  • Grueslayer, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1For a second there I was going to send out the troops to get you for being part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor... but that last line saved your life.
  • DifferentAngle, on 04/10/2009, -0/+1The "waste" of nuclear power is comprised of metal rods. I'd say they're a little easier to clean up than smog.
  • alais, on 04/09/2009, -2/+3http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v285/romanwaters ...
  • WhaneTheWhip, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1This will be perfect for the machines when the upcoming human-machine war begins.
  • MikeSD34, on 04/09/2009, -1/+2That's *****. To say that it's not dirtier than coal could be arguable, but to claim there's nothing dirty about nuclear fission completely ignores the waste aspect of it. That would be like claiming coal is clean, while completely ignoring the CO2 waste aspect of it. Nuclear is arguably cleanER than coal, because the waste is localized and contained as opposed to being discharged into the air, but you can't just say that it's clean. We need balanced opinions, nuclear has negatives just like ALL of the other technologies and they have to be weighed against their benefits and their alternatives.
  • cre8tivate, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1Would you rather have a top 10 list of some kind?
  • dxprog, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1A bunch of lasers focused on a tiny bit of tritium.... why does this all sound very familiar?

    For the record, there's deuterium involved in this version, as well.
  • misterwrite, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1Do you realize what a "metaphor" means? Just becaue its science doesn't mean the people involved can't wax poetic about it. Science needs a little philosophy involved to remain innovative.

    And, if you're referring to the movie, keep in mind its just that: a movie. See above points in reference.
  • bluffcityjk, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1This sounds like the Watchmen plot.
  • inactive, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER!!!
  • bunk3rk1ng, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1The picture of the interior chamber looks a lot like the core from Event Horizon. Oh shiiii
  • rayen99, on 04/09/2009, -0/+1If they can use this to create a sustainable fusion reaction and generate power that's wonderful. But there's also a "dark" side to this technology; the US gov has expressed interest in using lasers as an H-Bomb trigger. Currently these devices are started with a fission reaction which causes major fallout, but if the bomb can be detonated without the need for the fission reaction fallout will be minimal. Armed with this one could level a whole metropolis and then move troops in almost immediately after.
  • matude, on 04/09/2009, -2/+2Buried for the whole "sun's power" and "death star laser" *****. It's not kindergarden, I believe people have heard of words like nuclear fusion already and don't need a stupid comparison with the sun.
  • m4ttGT, on 04/09/2009, -5/+5Didn't Doc Oc show what recreating the sun's power can do to the planet in Spiderman 2? Tsk tsk...
  • LupeFiasco, on 04/09/2009, -1/+1A "Friendly" Death Star is an oxymoron.
  • marktastic, on 04/09/2009, -1/+1Star Forces or something
  • 0M3GA, on 04/09/2009, -0/+0NIFty
  • Chebsi, on 04/09/2009, -1/+1BUT DEATH STAR SOUNDS SO COOL
  • TheSkunkMonkey, on 04/09/2009, -2/+1Only in sci-fi movies would a laser be considered as a "weapon of mass destruction" .

    The reality is that lasers have a very narrow area of effect and comparing them to WMDs is bad journalism. Coming from a supposed science site makes it even worse.
  • DangerIsGo, on 04/09/2009, -1/+0pew pew pew
  • aristotle0dude, on 04/09/2009, -2/+1Nerd.
  • Susarodr1981, on 04/09/2009, -4/+3We will rule the galaxy
  • inactive, on 04/09/2009, -6/+4pew pew Pew Pew PEW PEW PEW !! PEW!! PEW!! POW!! POW!!!!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.