The science is cool thread

[Uncle fester]

First up, fusion power generation is a reality provided your ambition is to boil a kettle (for the moment).

BBC News - Breakthrough in nuclear fusion energy announced
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63950962

[Sandstorm]

Hopefully Spiderman is around to chuck it into the river when the next test gets out of control!

[Guy Smiley]

It's weird... the breakthrough was achieved at a facility set up to test the validity of nuclear weapons and used relatively low powered lasers that can't deliver the sustained energy required to push the reaction further...

but they did it. Leaving aside the energy required to run the lasers, the fusion reaction delivered more energy than it took to establish. That's a first.

[Ymx]

It sounds pretty bloody amazing.

[fishfoodie]

It's weird... the breakthrough was achieved at a facility set up to test the validity of nuclear weapons and used relatively low powered lasers that can't deliver the sustained energy required to push the reaction further...

but they did it. Leaving aside the energy required to run the lasers, the fusion reaction delivered more energy than it took to establish. That's a first.

That's the bit that sounds like Mafia accounting to me ?

My Physics is rusty, but am I correct in assuming that what they're saying is that, the energy delivered by the lasers to the tiny fuel pod, was "x", & the heat produced by the subsequent fusion was, "y"; & that because y > x, it's all champagne corks popping, & please renew our grants; while ignoring the value of "z", the power necessary to produce "x" ?

[Guy Smiley]

It's weird... the breakthrough was achieved at a facility set up to test the validity of nuclear weapons and used relatively low powered lasers that can't deliver the sustained energy required to push the reaction further...

but they did it. Leaving aside the energy required to run the lasers, the fusion reaction delivered more energy than it took to establish. That's a first.

That's the bit that sounds like Mafia accounting to me ?

My Physics is rusty, but am I correct in assuming that what they're saying is that, the energy delivered by the lasers to the tiny fuel pod, was "x", & the heat produced by the subsequent fusion was, "y"; & that because y > x, it's all champagne corks popping, & please renew our grants; while ignoring the value of "z", the power necessary to produce "x" ?

Yeah... because the reaction is the magical part. More modern lasers with better efficiency would bring down the external input factor considerably so while that aspect of the overall experiment is entirely relevant, it's not relevant.... man.


*I am not a scientist. I read an article on this.

** Do your research, sheeple.

[Raggs]

I'd have thought that larger, more powerful lasers are potentially more efficient too. Usually just making things bigger like this will increase efficiency, but you needed that net positive first, otherwise you're just growing the negative.

Has a stellerator/tokamak style reactor produced a positive yet?

[GogLais]

Not convinced. Has a sinclair C5 vibe to it. Had the scientist announcing it a beard?

Sexist pig. Better put a in I suppose.

[Kawazaki]

I listen to a lot of physics podcasts/YT that attempt to explain how big the universe is, black holes, neutron stars, big bang, particle physics etc etc and it just blows my mind. If only my physics lessons at school had been just 10% as interesting and I'd have been hooked many years ago. The distances between things is just mind-blowing and that's just in our own galaxy. The old saying that there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches in the world at well is such a huge understatement, in fact it's massively wrong as there are at least 10,000 stars for every grain of sand in the universe, and that's just the bit of the universe we can see. And on the scale of a grain of sand being equal to the size of a star, the average distance the grains would be apart, on the same scale would be about 6 miles! Each of those stars will have multiple planets as well. The scale is just unimaginable. A cubic centimeter - a sugar lump size - taken from a neutron star would weigh 100 million tons!

Crazy.

[Kawazaki]

I listen to a lot of physics podcasts/YT that attempt to explain how big the universe is, black holes, neutron stars, big bang, particle physics etc etc and it just blows my mind. If only my physics lessons at school had been just 10% as interesting and I'd have been hooked many years ago. The distances between things is just mind-blowing and that's just in our own galaxy. The old saying that there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches in the world at well is such a huge understatement, in fact it's massively wrong as there are at least 10,000 stars for every grain of sand in the universe, and that's just the bit of the universe we can see. And on the scale of a grain of sand being equal to the size of a star, the average distance the grains would be apart, on the same scale would be about 6 miles! Each of those stars will have multiple planets as well. The scale is just unimaginable. A cubic centimeter - a sugar lump size - taken from a neutron star would weigh 100 million tons!

Crazy.

[GogLais]

Speaking of big things, the Tree(3) number thing is amazing albeit largely incomprehensible to me.

[mat the expat]

I'd have thought that larger, more powerful lasers are potentially more efficient too. Usually just making things bigger like this will increase efficiency, but you needed that net positive first, otherwise you're just growing the negative.

Has a stellerator/tokamak style reactor produced a positive yet?

Once Fusion is running at industrial levels, the lasers are only used for starting the reaction - Fusion is self-sustaining

[Uncle fester]

It's weird... the breakthrough was achieved at a facility set up to test the validity of nuclear weapons and used relatively low powered lasers that can't deliver the sustained energy required to push the reaction further...

but they did it. Leaving aside the energy required to run the lasers, the fusion reaction delivered more energy than it took to establish. That's a first.

That's the bit that sounds like Mafia accounting to me ?

My Physics is rusty, but am I correct in assuming that what they're saying is that, the energy delivered by the lasers to the tiny fuel pod, was "x", & the heat produced by the subsequent fusion was, "y"; & that because y > x, it's all champagne corks popping, & please renew our grants; while ignoring the value of "z", the power necessary to produce "x" ?

Yes, there is an imaginary border used to define the energy input and ignoring everything outside but it is progress.

Now to get it working before we melt the planet.

[Guy Smiley]

The laser input is an understandable distraction…

They are needed to heat the ‘capsule’ containing the source material. The key is in what happens next…

The material basically continued to cook on its own. That is the magic… no one has managed to achieve that until now. This is a huge breakthrough. It’s bigger than say… Ireland making it past a semi final at a RWC.

It’s that big.

[PornDog]

Now that's just crazy talk.

[Biffer]

This is my wheelhouse, it's what I do for a living. I get to hear all sorts of mad talks from scientists and the engineers I work with do some pretty amazing things. I'll chuck the wild / cool stuff in here every now and again.

For example, I heard someone talking about quantum radar a while back. Makes your stealth technology completely useless

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/quantum ... detection/

I also know some folk looking at quantum gravimetry from space

https://ggos.org/item/quantum-gravimetry/

This is basically star trek sensors. I kid you not.

[PornDog]

This is my wheelhouse, it's what I do for a living. I get to hear all sorts of mad talks from scientists and the engineers I work with do some pretty amazing things. I'll chuck the wild / cool stuff in here every now and again.

For example, I heard someone talking about quantum radar a while back. Makes your stealth technology completely useless

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/quantum ... detection/

I also know some folk looking at quantum gravimetry from space

https://ggos.org/item/quantum-gravimetry/

This is basically star trek sensors. I kid you not.

I always wondered about stealth tech - surely the counter is just more computing power. The more computing power you have the more you can investigate the smaller items that show up on your radar rather than just dismissing them. So you can then figure out that that albatross sized thing that's flying at 500 knots isn't actually an albatross. With the speed of advancement of computing power and the corresponding reduction in cost, I always figured stealth had a pretty short lifespan.

[Biffer]

This is my wheelhouse, it's what I do for a living. I get to hear all sorts of mad talks from scientists and the engineers I work with do some pretty amazing things. I'll chuck the wild / cool stuff in here every now and again.

For example, I heard someone talking about quantum radar a while back. Makes your stealth technology completely useless

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/quantum ... detection/

I also know some folk looking at quantum gravimetry from space

https://ggos.org/item/quantum-gravimetry/

This is basically star trek sensors. I kid you not.

I always wondered about stealth tech - surely the counter is just more computing power. The more computing power you have the more you can investigate the smaller items that show up on your radar rather than just dismissing them. So you can then figure out that that albatross sized thing that's flying at 500 knots isn't actually an albatross. With the speed of advancement of computing power and the corresponding reduction in cost, I always figured stealth had a pretty short lifespan.

No, it's a bit more involved than that.

With stealth tech, you are basically reducing your radar cross section so that you're at the same level as background noise. Noise comes from two places, actual background noise and instrument noise. You can reduce the instrument noise, which has been done massively, but background noise is just there and it doesn't matter how good your instrument is, your stealth tech can just make you fade into the background.

Quantum radar is different. Whenever you send a normal radar signal out, you're sending out photons of electromagnetic radiation (in radar's case in the radio wavelengths). If you make your outgoing signal up entirely of quantum entangled pair photons, then you can look at the the other half of the pairs that you keep locally and spot when emitted ones interact with something. There's absolutely nothing you can do to stealth tech your planes against this.

[PornDog]

Fair enough, I thought it just reduced the cross section to the size that was auto dismissed by radar computers (like flocks of birds are detected, but dumped from the system before they show up on displays) - which I guess you could classify that as "background noise".

Certainly back in the F-117 days they would talk about using flight plans that deliberately flew equidistant from known radars, because getting too close they would greatly reduce the effectiveness of their stealth. The pitch was always about reducing the cross section to that of a large bird.

I thought that even going back and crunching the raw data after a known stealth plane fly over should be able to reveal a good amount of info to aid in future detection.

Those are all assumptions I've made on limited understanding of course.


As an aside, this is an interesting article on how the Serbs shot down the F-117 - https://theaviationgeekclub.com/an-in-d ... ied-force/

[Biffer]

Fair enough, I thought it just reduced the cross section to the size that was auto dismissed by radar computers (like flocks of birds are detected, but dumped from the system before they show up on displays) - which I guess you could classify that as "background noise".

Certainly back in the F-117 days they would talk about using flight plans that deliberately flew equidistant from known radars, because getting too close they would greatly reduce the effectiveness of their stealth. The pitch was always about reducing the cross section to that of a large bird.

I thought that even going back and crunching the raw data after a known stealth plane fly over should be able to reveal a good amount of info to aid in future detection.

Those are all assumptions I've made on limited understanding of course.


As an aside, this is an interesting article on how the Serbs shot down the F-117 - https://theaviationgeekclub.com/an-in-d ... ied-force/

Yeah, basically that's part of background noise, there's also the random radiation floating about which disguises you as well. Crunching data can only get you so far. The quantum stuff is also going to be very slightly quicker as there's no return travel time for reflected photons.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

This is my wheelhouse, it's what I do for a living. I get to hear all sorts of mad talks from scientists and the engineers I work with do some pretty amazing things. I'll chuck the wild / cool stuff in here every now and again.

For example, I heard someone talking about quantum radar a while back. Makes your stealth technology completely useless

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/quantum ... detection/

I also know some folk looking at quantum gravimetry from space

https://ggos.org/item/quantum-gravimetry/

This is basically star trek sensors. I kid you not.

Awesome, keep this stuff coming! Obviously a head-wreck for someone without a degree in something like astrophysics (i.e. me), but very cool to read about this stuff.

[inactionman]

This is my wheelhouse, it's what I do for a living. I get to hear all sorts of mad talks from scientists and the engineers I work with do some pretty amazing things. I'll chuck the wild / cool stuff in here every now and again.

For example, I heard someone talking about quantum radar a while back. Makes your stealth technology completely useless

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/quantum ... detection/

I also know some folk looking at quantum gravimetry from space

https://ggos.org/item/quantum-gravimetry/

This is basically star trek sensors. I kid you not.

Awesome, keep this stuff coming! Obviously a head-wreck for someone without a degree in something like astrophysics (i.e. me), but very cool to read about this stuff.

Seconded.

I did a year at DERA bending bits of metal in the mid 90s, and some of the research the other groups were doing around the Cody Gate site looked so much more interesting.

Biffer, do you work at a place next to a large supermarket and across a roundabout from a petrol station? If so, I know a couple of people there, I've only had very superficial talking shop conversations with them but one is sponsored for a PhD in this stuff (not the quantum bit, as far as I'm aware)

[TB63]

This is my wheelhouse, it's what I do for a living. I get to hear all sorts of mad talks from scientists and the engineers I work with do some pretty amazing things. I'll chuck the wild / cool stuff in here every now and again.

For example, I heard someone talking about quantum radar a while back. Makes your stealth technology completely useless

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/quantum ... detection/

I also know some folk looking at quantum gravimetry from space

https://ggos.org/item/quantum-gravimetry/

This is basically star trek sensors. I kid you not.

Awesome, keep this stuff coming! Obviously a head-wreck for someone without a degree in something like astrophysics (i.e. me), but very cool to read about this stuff.

Seconded.

I did a year at DERA bending bits of metal in the mid 90s, and some of the research the other groups were doing around the Cody Gate site looked so much more interesting.

Biffer, do you work at a place next to a large supermarket and across a roundabout from a petrol station? If so, I know a couple of people there, I've only had very superficial talking shop conversations with them but one is sponsored for a PhD in this stuff (not the quantum bit, as far as I'm aware)

You're making it sound like he's deve!oping the anti McStealthBurger....

[Biffer]

This is my wheelhouse, it's what I do for a living. I get to hear all sorts of mad talks from scientists and the engineers I work with do some pretty amazing things. I'll chuck the wild / cool stuff in here every now and again.

For example, I heard someone talking about quantum radar a while back. Makes your stealth technology completely useless

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/quantum ... detection/

I also know some folk looking at quantum gravimetry from space

https://ggos.org/item/quantum-gravimetry/

This is basically star trek sensors. I kid you not.

Awesome, keep this stuff coming! Obviously a head-wreck for someone without a degree in something like astrophysics (i.e. me), but very cool to read about this stuff.

Seconded.

I did a year at DERA bending bits of metal in the mid 90s, and some of the research the other groups were doing around the Cody Gate site looked so much more interesting.

Biffer, do you work at a place next to a large supermarket and across a roundabout from a petrol station? If so, I know a couple of people there, I've only had very superficial talking shop conversations with them but one is sponsored for a PhD in this stuff (not the quantum bit, as far as I'm aware)

No.

[inactionman]

Awesome, keep this stuff coming! Obviously a head-wreck for someone without a degree in something like astrophysics (i.e. me), but very cool to read about this stuff.

Seconded.

I did a year at DERA bending bits of metal in the mid 90s, and some of the research the other groups were doing around the Cody Gate site looked so much more interesting.

Biffer, do you work at a place next to a large supermarket and across a roundabout from a petrol station? If so, I know a couple of people there, I've only had very superficial talking shop conversations with them but one is sponsored for a PhD in this stuff (not the quantum bit, as far as I'm aware)

You're making it sound like he's deve!oping the anti McStealthBurger....

The place I was thinking of develop a load of stuff that drag billions of pounds out of the MoD - it was at one point Marconi but its now Leonardo, and I get a bit lost in all the name and ownership changes.

They're developing/have developed the upgraded radar for Eurofighter, amongst quite a few other things.

[inactionman]

Awesome, keep this stuff coming! Obviously a head-wreck for someone without a degree in something like astrophysics (i.e. me), but very cool to read about this stuff.

Seconded.

I did a year at DERA bending bits of metal in the mid 90s, and some of the research the other groups were doing around the Cody Gate site looked so much more interesting.

Biffer, do you work at a place next to a large supermarket and across a roundabout from a petrol station? If so, I know a couple of people there, I've only had very superficial talking shop conversations with them but one is sponsored for a PhD in this stuff (not the quantum bit, as far as I'm aware)

No.

OK

[Biffer]

Seconded.

I did a year at DERA bending bits of metal in the mid 90s, and some of the research the other groups were doing around the Cody Gate site looked so much more interesting.

Biffer, do you work at a place next to a large supermarket and across a roundabout from a petrol station? If so, I know a couple of people there, I've only had very superficial talking shop conversations with them but one is sponsored for a PhD in this stuff (not the quantum bit, as far as I'm aware)

No.

OK

don’t mean to be abrupt but I’ve had my knuckles rapped previously for talking about stuff in public forums without permission. It’s not secret squirrel stuff or anything, and not defence, they’re just fucking paranoid. Big science research and technology organisation.

[inactionman]

No.

OK

don’t mean to be abrupt but I’ve had my knuckles rapped previously for talking about stuff in public forums without permission. It’s not secret squirrel stuff or anything, and not defence, they’re just fucking paranoid. Big science research and technology organisation.

No probs - I was a bit obtuse in my question as I know many don't want to broadcast where they work, or what they're doing.

[fishfoodie]

I always wondered about stealth tech - surely the counter is just more computing power. The more computing power you have the more you can investigate the smaller items that show up on your radar rather than just dismissing them. So you can then figure out that that albatross sized thing that's flying at 500 knots isn't actually an albatross. With the speed of advancement of computing power and the corresponding reduction in cost, I always figured stealth had a pretty short lifespan.

Awhile ago I watched an old series about the Cold War; & there were a few really interesting episodes about MAD, & Star Wars, & when the US was trying to convince the USSR to agree to not develop anti-ICBM defenses; the Soviet's were outraged; their attitude was that defense is always moral; offense is immoral* !!

The Irony then was the recent interview with the Ex-Soviet General admitting that McNamara was completely correct, & they would have been better off agreeing, to not develop these anti-missile systems, because all doing that achieves, is make your opponent build more missiles, & more, anti-anti-missile systems; & these are a shitload cheaper than the defensive systems !!!

For ICBMs, the bus might carry 3-5 actual MIRVs, but it'll have twenty decoys, that look enough like a MIRV, that by the time your systems can tell the difference, they'll be outside the time they had to respond, & they'll be vaporized.

If you develop a system detecting stealth bombers, they'll swamp you with a hundred drones, that have the same radar cross section, & you'll have to build more systems, & more missiles, etc, etc

In the technology race between arrows & armor; arrow always wins !

The US is the richest, most technologically advanced Country, & spends more on weapons systems than anyone else on the planet, & even they don't have the defensive capacity to protect themselves from a backward shit hole like North Korea !

* The Irony is strong at the moment

[Biffer]

I always wondered about stealth tech - surely the counter is just more computing power. The more computing power you have the more you can investigate the smaller items that show up on your radar rather than just dismissing them. So you can then figure out that that albatross sized thing that's flying at 500 knots isn't actually an albatross. With the speed of advancement of computing power and the corresponding reduction in cost, I always figured stealth had a pretty short lifespan.

Awhile ago I watched an old series about the Cold War; & there were a few really interesting episodes about MAD, & Star Wars, & when the US was trying to convince the USSR to agree to not develop anti-ICBM defenses; the Soviet's were outraged; their attitude was that defense is always moral; offense is immoral* !!

The Irony then was the recent interview with the Ex-Soviet General admitting that McNamara was completely correct, & they would have been better off agreeing, to not develop these anti-missile systems, because all doing that achieves, is make your opponent build more missiles, & more, anti-anti-missile systems; & these are a shitload cheaper than the defensive systems !!!

For ICBMs, the bus might carry 3-5 actual MIRVs, but it'll have twenty decoys, that look enough like a MIRV, that by the time your systems can tell the difference, they'll be outside the time they had to respond, & they'll be vaporized.

If you develop a system detecting stealth bombers, they'll swamp you with a hundred drones, that have the same radar cross section, & you'll have to build more systems, & more missiles, etc, etc

In the technology race between arrows & armor; arrow always wins !

The US is the richest, most technologically advanced Country, & spends more on weapons systems than anyone else on the planet, & even they don't have the defensive capacity to protect themselves from a backward shit hole like North Korea !

* The Irony is strong at the moment

You’d need the same physical cross section to fool quantum radar like that.

[fishfoodie]

I always wondered about stealth tech - surely the counter is just more computing power. The more computing power you have the more you can investigate the smaller items that show up on your radar rather than just dismissing them. So you can then figure out that that albatross sized thing that's flying at 500 knots isn't actually an albatross. With the speed of advancement of computing power and the corresponding reduction in cost, I always figured stealth had a pretty short lifespan.

Awhile ago I watched an old series about the Cold War; & there were a few really interesting episodes about MAD, & Star Wars, & when the US was trying to convince the USSR to agree to not develop anti-ICBM defenses; the Soviet's were outraged; their attitude was that defense is always moral; offense is immoral* !!

The Irony then was the recent interview with the Ex-Soviet General admitting that McNamara was completely correct, & they would have been better off agreeing, to not develop these anti-missile systems, because all doing that achieves, is make your opponent build more missiles, & more, anti-anti-missile systems; & these are a shitload cheaper than the defensive systems !!!

For ICBMs, the bus might carry 3-5 actual MIRVs, but it'll have twenty decoys, that look enough like a MIRV, that by the time your systems can tell the difference, they'll be outside the time they had to respond, & they'll be vaporized.

If you develop a system detecting stealth bombers, they'll swamp you with a hundred drones, that have the same radar cross section, & you'll have to build more systems, & more missiles, etc, etc

In the technology race between arrows & armor; arrow always wins !

The US is the richest, most technologically advanced Country, & spends more on weapons systems than anyone else on the planet, & even they don't have the defensive capacity to protect themselves from a backward shit hole like North Korea !

* The Irony is strong at the moment

You’d need the same physical cross section to fool quantum radar like that.

Forty years later, the same arguments reappear, from the MX episode.

During 80s, the plan for siting the MX missile involved having one missile, but ten silos, & the real missile would be in one, & the other nine would contain decoys. Enter the troublesome scientist, who suggests that they'd have to make sure the decoy looked, smelt, & emitted just like the real one, because otherwise the whole scheme would fail ..... & you end up with a decoy which is exactly the same as the real one, except for some tiny difference that means it can't detonate ; so you end up making ten times as many missiles as you wanted.

[Kawazaki]

Reminds me of the arguments that the moon landings were faked. Somebody did the sums and it would have actually been just as expensive to fake it than to just do it.

[Biffer]

Reminds me of the arguments that the moon landings were faked. Somebody did the sums and it would have actually been just as expensive to fake it than to just do it.

It would also have been technically impossible with the computing power of the time and without some of the CGI tech that's been available in the last ten or fifteen years.

[Hal Jordan]

These lasers, are they attached to sharks?

[Kawazaki]

Reminds me of the arguments that the moon landings were faked. Somebody did the sums and it would have actually been just as expensive to fake it than to just do it.

It would also have been technically impossible with the computing power of the time and without some of the CGI tech that's been available in the last ten or fifteen years.

That kind of answer adds grist to the mill of the conspiracy theorists.

[Biffer]

Reminds me of the arguments that the moon landings were faked. Somebody did the sums and it would have actually been just as expensive to fake it than to just do it.

It would also have been technically impossible with the computing power of the time and without some of the CGI tech that's been available in the last ten or fifteen years.

That kind of answer adds grist to the mill of the conspiracy theorists.

I've never seen anyone who could explain the dust motion on the lunar surface and how you'd fake it.

[Guy Smiley]

Slight change of tack here...

Biffer, your contributions on all things science are nearly always both fascinating and easily digested. Please keep it up when you feel so inclined

[Biffer]

Slight change of tack here...

Biffer, your contributions on all things science are nearly always both fascinating and easily digested. Please keep it up when you feel so inclined

Thanks

I try to take the science terms out when they’re unfamiliar for most people.

[Biffer]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66407099

When We find this, it's fucking huge. Another fundamental force rewrites everything we know in the same way Einstein rewrote Newton.

[Slick]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66407099

When We find this, it's fucking huge. Another fundamental force rewrites everything we know in the same way Einstein rewrote Newton.

Just been reading about this. As usual with anything to do with particles and such like I only understood 1 in four or 5 words but sounded cool.