It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Huge Laser Aims to Create Star on Earth

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Huge Laser Aims to Create Star on Earth


www.cnn.com

Livermore, California (CNN) -- Scientists at a government lab here are trying to use the world's largest laser -- it's the size of three football fields -- to set off a nuclear reaction so intense that it will make a star bloom on the surface of the Earth.

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's formula for cooking up a sun on the ground may sound like it's stolen from the plot of an "Austin Powers" movie. But it's no Hollywood fantasy: The ambitious experiment will be tried for real, and for the first time, late this summer.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Sorry if I'm not the first one to post this. If the thread is redundant, go ahead and kick it to the curb. I know there were some threads earlier this year when the existence of this fusion laser was first announced, but I am intrigued by both the content and the presentation of this article.

There is, of course, the double-edged sword of potential: a possible solution to the world's energy problems (replaced with the balance of power problems caused by "ownership" of this technology) also the potential for massive cataclysmic destruction.

More interesting to me is the way the article is worded and presented. CNN is as MSM as it gets and this articles seems as if they are trying to play up the cataclysm angle. Get people worried about this advancement so that when it "fails" (or its success is not made public) there will be relief rather than demands that researchers attempt to harness this potential windfall to humanity.

The creating a star on Earth verbiage is remarkably similar to the talk of CERN creating black holes. What is the value in using this kind of language to describe scientific endeavors that are far beyond the comprehension of the lay population?

I mean, if you were to tell a cave man (assuming a capacity for language) that you are going to burn the part of the air that makes breathing work, would he have been in favor of fire? I think not.

So we have ideas and projects to big and significant to be kept under wraps, yet the MSM and TPTB seem intent on demonizing them in the minds of the public. To what end?

Conversely, what if the worst possible outcome of these various projects is the actual intent? Immanetize the Eschaton much?

Paranoia could put many different spins on this. Thoughts?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 28-4-2010 by RobertAntonWeishaupt]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
this is awesome news!
i work in livermore. the interesting thing about testing new technology is that there are variables in play that yield a "never done before" issue, that 'could' introduce an unexpected outcome.

interesting times we do live in though.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Am I the only one who thinks this might have some serious problems? A star on earth..... Shouldn’t we study our sun more first instead of making stars on our planet?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Does anyone else see this to be a huge waste of time and money?

I mean come on there are so many other energy technologies, why even try to make a sun, there is the possibility something bad happens.

This is article is saying to me, "Lets make a black hole," people these days don't think things through.


Just my thoughts, good find



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Quickfix
 


The financial side of this is another intriguing question. How much does it cost to build a laser the size of three football fields? Considering the various known technologies that are just a leap or two away from viability, it seems that much more could have been accomplished by trying to perfect/streamline/economize things like solar, wind and kinetic power generation.

Instead we have the world's largest laser and an attempt to "create a star on Earth" (really just alarmist talk for generating fusion). Interesting indeed.

Add to that the fact that we have not yet perfected a technique for economically obtaining the fuel for this clusterfornication and that 2 Billion dollars since 2005 into the project, we are being told that the technology is at least 20 years from being able to maybe use this technology to create steam and power a "fusion" reactor that works the exact same way as current nuclear and geothermic power facilities.



[edit on 28-4-2010 by RobertAntonWeishaupt]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   


Does anyone else see this to be a huge waste of time and money?

I mean come on there are so many other energy technologies, why even try to make a sun, there is the possibility something bad happens.
I think lasers are the best known mechanism for inducing nuclear fusion (and nuclear fusion is looking like our best option)...but I could be wrong.

IMO, we should be fine...I really don't expect a bad outcome...there isn't any way for it to get out of control...the "star" (if they create one), will fizzle out quickly...unless it starts transmuting particles in the air and potentially start a chain-reaction, growing larger, and consuming the Earth as it uses it for fuel in its nuclear processes...the Earth would become a small star for a short while...


[edit on 28/4/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
--UPDATE--

CNN has removed the alarmist headline in favor of the more optimistic "Can World's Largest Laser Zap Earth's Energy Woes?".

The lede remains the same with talk of creating a tiny sun etc . . .

The more I look at this Livermore facility, the more I see a classic boondoggle. Nobody looking at this from a strict standpoint of Energy Generation would think that this is the most efficient or helpful way to use 2 Billion dollars. Admittedly, 2 Billion is a relative drop in the federal bucket, but still a lot of money to research an energy source that might not make any sense.

After all, I see nothing here about the energy required to fire the laser versus the energy created in a "commercial fusion power plant" After all, this "star" is expected to die in a trillionth fo a second. An entirely different approach would need to be used to create/fuel a continuous fusion reaction to fuel a power plant. Considering the energy required to procure/implement the needed fuel, this thing may not even have a positive energy yield.

From a strict energy creation standpoint, we are looking at a 2 Billion dollar proof-of-concept that only proves the possibility of one tiny element of the overall concept.

What else can be accomplished by the creation of a "Star on Earth"?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt
 



CNN has removed the alarmist headline in favor of the more optimistic "Can World's Largest Laser Zap Earth's Energy Woes?".

The lede remains the same with talk of creating a tiny sun etc . . .
To be honest...with all this LHC and 2012 stuff...I think they realize they need to inform people about the experiment in a delicate fashion, because people often don't like the idea of recreating black-holes and stars on Earth...admittedly, I do think trying to create a black-hole is highly insane when they are one of the least understood phenomena in our universe...but we understand the Sun and lasers enough in my opinion...I think they can safely attempt this...but as you've stated, it's not easy to explain this sort of stuff to people...



The more I look at this Livermore facility, the more I see a classic boondoggle. Nobody looking at this from a strict standpoint of Energy Generation would think that this is the most efficient or helpful way to use 2 Billion dollars.
I think this is an efficient and helpful way to use 2 billion dollars...nuclear fusion technology (using lasers) could be the future of energy production...it's certainly better than a lot of the other crazy stuff they spend ridiculous amounts of money on...the black budget is also mighty hefty, and I wonder how much crap they fund, and how much of it is spent on projects that are breaking the law and deceiving the people.

[edit on 28/4/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Quickfix
 


I think that is a very narrow minded point of view. Why pump hundreds of billions of dollars into existing technologies which are very limited? When this becomes reality we will achieve the ultimate goal, limitless clean power and I think this is what we should focus on.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phlegmi
reply to post by Quickfix
 


I think that is a very narrow minded point of view. Why pump hundreds of billions of dollars into existing technologies which are very limited? When this becomes reality we will achieve the ultimate goal, limitless clean power and I think this is what we should focus on.


This would be great if that happened, however, I think the military would put a quick stop to that rather suddenly.. They have a history of weaponizing things like this, and to have anything the public could benefit from would be decades later, if ever..



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I believe I've heard that when they set off the first nuclear bomb, they weren't really sure if it would just cause a chain reaction across the entire Earth. It didn't...LUCKY!



You play with fire, as the saying goes.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Phlegmi
 


There are still an awful lot of "ifs" involved in the idea of laser fusion power.

For starters, the way that electricity is generated from this tech is the same steam driven turbines of today's plants. You have the same burdensome cost considerations, NIMBY hysterics and potential risks as with current nuclear power. Sure, the waste products are cleaner and the fuel itself is theoretically limitless, but we are still dealing with a nuclear reaction that could have the potential for a variety of problems. Educating the population to get them on board 20+ years from now when the technology might be viable will be a tough sell.

Besides, the overall power generation model is very limited, still relying on corporate/government centralization of power generation. This means "limitless" but far from free power. Seeing as how no government or corporation would give away the electricity (or even run with a restricted profit margin), the population has even less reason to support the venture as it presents no tangible change in their immediate situation.

Then you have the still questionable nature of the process to procure the key fuel elements involved in the process. Sure, the hydrogen isotopes can be taken from seawater. We still need a process to pull this off.

It just seems to me that anytime we get too far down the path of a given energy source; the funding, support, research and innovation get shifted some new snipe to hunt.

Solar technology is only slightly further along than it was in the 70s. Wind power has started to become viable and we are plateauing on that. What would happen if we focused our researches on perfecting that which exists before (not instead of) trying to create that which is unproven?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phlegmi
 


There are current technologies that can beat the pulp out of this laser fusion idea.

Solar, hydrogen, magnetic, just give those a browse and I'm sure you can find facts of solar being one of the greatest forms of energy harnessing.

Here's something to think about, America has a nice portion of desert states, put some solar grids in those states and watch the building costs of the solar grid disappear in 2-3 years.

Don't be closed minded to available technologies that can be purchased right now.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The way I see it, who not go ahead and take risks like melting your planets face off? Can't get much worse than the current situation of things really. Sometimes you have to take a 'leap-o-faith' so to say, if you have any chance of progression.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
When will you all learn to do your own research. Please read what this technology is and how they can achieve this technology.

lasers.llnl.gov...

I am a scientist in the field of Hydrogen technology; having spent the better part of twelve and half years with the US Army Corps of Engineers. I know many of the scientists that are involved in this project and have been to the SUN-Labs Center personally . I'm currently developing this type of technology myself only on a much smaller scale. This is the holy grail of energy technology and I personally believe it can be achieved in a safe manner. The uses of this type of fusion/fission technology is great indeed and could lead to a more peaceful environment for the human race. The quicker we can make a clean renewable fuel source available to us all; the quicker we can achieve the goal of eliminating fossil based fuels.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


Aren't their cars that burn water already as fuel?

What is the emission? Water vapor? Cool it down and recycle it. Maybe add a chemical to add extra hydrogen molecules to the water and presto a new form of fuel.

Don't forget the recycling, it is of utmost importance, and adding solar to the mix makes for more efficient energy production.

There really is no need for nuclear fusion or fission reactions. Unless you want to power something of limited size that must last for a certain period of time and be self-contained.

Magnetism is also a very interesting area for achieving energy.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Quickfix
 


I would like to point out that you are wrong, Solar is 28% efficient in its ability to exchange energy for energy. There are several scientists in the field of Solar Energy that are currently working on Photosynthetic inks they believe could achieve a 31% goal mark of efficiency.

Wind Energy is 17% at best; all though there have been many claims to be higher with no empirical data to back up that claim.

Hydro and Fossil are the two leading energy sources with Coal being the number one with roughly 65% efficiency.

Hydrogen on the other hand could be used to achieve a much higher efficiency goal close to 97% efficiency; with a hybrid mixture of fossil base fuel and hydrogen/oxygen induction. This could be achieved if there were funding made available to those researchers working on these types of technologies.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Quickfix
 


Although there have been many claims made about water burning cars; and I have seen some these up close, the inherent problem is sustainability. The process of breaking the water molecule down into it parts of hydrogen and oxygen by way of electrolysis; has many, many problems, the biggest being sustained production levels of the HHO Gas. The second problem is the core material breaking down in the fluid solutions, causing formation of toxic gasses, incomplete burn cycles in the upper cylinder, or pre-ignition problems. all of these are solvable problems that can be achieved but the funding for these projects are stifled by big oil and lack of Angle Capital.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt
 


This really doesnt sound good.

Infact it worries me somewhat...summer test? summer catastrophe?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join