backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by MCKENZIE1130.. on Nov 29 at 8:12 PM


The ALPHA team at CERN has been able to trap antimatter for longer than ever before possible.  (Source: N. MADSEN, ALPHA/SWANSEA via Nature)

The rival ATRAP team is cooling antiparticles in a nested Penning Trap to try to trap antimatter atoms with a simpler design than ALPHA's by dropping the temperature of the antimatter.  (Source: Physical Review Letters/CERN)

Stored plasma could be delivered in shells as a potentially lethal weapon to armored vehicles like tanks.  (Source: BBC News)
Research could yield improved insight into the laws of our universe, new weapons technology

The laws of our universe allow for a strange exotic type of material far different from the kind that dominates the world as we know it.  This material, antimatter, has its own unique characteristics, the most notable of which is its ability to annihilate normal matter, releasing energy.

Scientists at CERN, Europe's particle-physics lab near Geneva, Switzerland, have taken an important step forward to better understanding and perhaps one day using antimatter.  They have created the long lasting manmade antihydrogen-1 (more on this later) particles in the history of experimental particle physics.

What is Antimatter?

Antimatter was theorized as early as Arthur Schuster in a paper entitled "Potential Matter -- a Holiday Dream" published in the journal Nature in 1898.  In the piece, Schuster speculated on antiatoms and the possibility of "antimatter", a special kind of atom which could destroy normal matter.  Even earlier papers from the 1800s speculated on similar concepts.  These works proved prescient.

Material in the universe is asymmetric in that it is divided into unequal amounts of antimatter and matter, matter being the dominant material.  Matter is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.  Antimatter is composed, respectively, of antiprotons, antineutrons, and positrons.  Just as protons, neutrons, and electrons form matter atoms, antimatter's elementary particles form antimatter atoms.  A one-antiproton antimatter atom is dubbed antihydrogen-1, a two antiproton (plus one antineutron) antihelium-3, and so on.

When matter and antimatter collide, they undergo a process known as annihilation, which can  produce a massless photon, imbued with energy, if the collision substituents are certain kinds of particles/antiparticles.  There are plenty of caveats, though.  At high energy, they can instead produced exotic particles -- so energetic annihilation does not 
always occur.  

And the process can work in reverse -- photons can decay into matter and antimatter.  In fact, this is how physicists first observed the antimatter atom.

Positrons, which are positively charged antielectrons, so to speak, were first observed experimentally in a gas chamber by Carl David Anderson at the California Institute of Technology in 1932.  In 1955, Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain -- working at the University of California, Berkeley Bevatron – collided two protons together at 5 GeV, releasing a photon with enough energy to decay into a proton and antiproton.  The field of antimatter was born.

Record Survival Times at CERN

Even as production techniques of antiparticles and antimatter atoms have refined, the problem of annihilation remains the biggest obstacle to studying antimatter and using it.

Researchers on two rival CERN teams -- ALPHA and ATRAP -- are trying to get enough antimatter atoms to survive for a great enough timespan to get a spectroscopic energy measurement.  

That energy measurement would allow them to compare the energy in a hydrogen-1 atom to that of an antihydrogen-1 atom.  Despite the charges being flipped, the energy, under the standard model, is hypothesized to be the same.  If either team can achieve this measurement, they would effectively have offered a piece of conclusive evidence in support of the standard model, one of the fundamental models of modern physics.  Or they might disprove it, showing that a more complex model was necessary -- an equally valuable discovery.

To do that, though, they need to trap 100 antihydrogen-1 atoms for long enough to take a measurement.  They're having trouble just trapping one now.

But the ALPHA team has devised a clever solution.  They take advantage of weak magnetic interactions created by spins of the constituent particles to trap the antihydrogen within a magnetic chamber with a field created by an octupole (eight wire) magnet.  While the particles don't get sucked into the field as strongly as a charged particle might, the apparatus was sufficient to trap an antihydrogen atom within the field for 38 out of 335 trials.

The antihydrogen atoms remained trapped, and thus in existence for more that 170 milliseconds, before escaping and annihilating matter within the walls of the containment vessel.

The ALPHA team is billing the success as the most important breakthrough since ATRAP and an earlier experiment, ATHENA produced large quantities of extremely short-lived antihydrogen in 2002.  That discovery showed that mass-production of antiparticles was feasible.  Now the ALPHA team believes they've answered a critical second question -- how to trap them.

Jeffrey Hangst, spokesman for the ALPHA collaboration at CERN comments, "We're ecstatic. This is five years of hard work."

The results were published in the journal 
Nature, perhaps fitting given that it was the journal in which antimatter was first theorized in over a century prior.

Don't Count Out ATRAP

The ATRAP points out that the ALPHA team isn't out of the woods yet.  They've just trapped one particle and they need 100 simultaneously trapped.  

The ATRAP team is trying a different tack, attempting to leapfrog the ALPHA team's breakthrough.  They are using positrons to cool antiprotons within a magnetic trap (a so-called nested Penning Trap) and then recombining the cool positrons (which are cooled separately via radiation cooling) with antiprotons.

This approach relies on making a cool, more easily trapped atom, rather than using a higher-energy, more complex trap to snare high-energy antihydrogen atoms.

Their plans and progress is published in the journal 
Physical Review Letters.

Both teams feel they're on the verge of getting enough trapped particles to get the spectroscopic measurement.  Thus, within the next year or two, expect a major announcement as evidence is delivered either supporting or invalidating the standard model.

What's Next -- Antimatter Guns and Spaceships

Positrons are useful in medical imaging.  Thus mass production and storage of antimatter could offer imaging advances to better detect disease.

But more exciting (or scary), perhaps, is the possibility of using antimatter to produce weapons.  An antimatter bomb could literally destroy the buildings, whole, and destroy the atmosphere over a city, creating a secondary pressure implosion, causing yet more destruction.  Smaller scale weapons could be used to destroy heavily armored, slow moving vehicles like tanks, mechas, or battleships.  In space antimatter weapons would be even more dangerous as premature annihilation would be less of an issue.

Another exciting, more peaceful use would be to use the energy created by annihilation to generate a huge amount of thrust, propelling a rocket to near lightspeed.  Thus antimatter, a material that typically is only found in small quantities in the stars, might someday allow an enterprising future man to 
get to those stars.

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Let me ask...
By kontorotsui on 11/19/2010 3:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Despite the charges being flipped, the energy under the standard model is hypothesized to be the same under the standard model.


... did you read it before publishing?




RE: Let me ask...
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2010 3:11:05 PM , Rating: 5
Fixed, thanks.


RE: Let me ask...
By bah12 on 11/19/2010 4:38:02 PM , Rating: 5
Have to say I'm liking this "Mick" better than previous articles. Acknowledging errors, giving thanks, and fixing them rapidly. Much better. Given time, the sarcasm in pointing them out should calm down so keep it up. Commenter's should not be chastised for pointing out editing errors, they should be thanked. Good work.


RE: Let me ask...
By bah12 on 11/19/2010 4:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
Just to clarify, I'm not saying you chastise them rather other commenter's do. Your appreciation diffuses those that would blast someone for pointing out a simple error.


RE: Let me ask...
By BugblatterIII on 11/19/2010 4:56:47 PM , Rating: 5
I'm also seeing fewer glaring errors these days, and Jason's articles have gone from being a bit of a joke to probably the most interesting on the site.

I think this is partly because they're written more as editorials, i.e. they have a lot of Jason's own opinion in them. Not textbook journalism but it makes the articles more interesting.

Although he has written helium insetad of antihelium and 'different tact' instead of 'different tack'. Still the quality has improved, so well done.


RE: Let me ask...
By DKantUno on 11/20/2010 1:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
"I think this is partly because they're written more as editorials, i.e. they have a lot of Jason's own opinion in them"

Oh that's not exclusive to just the one journalist here. Almost every DailyTech article has opinion sprinkled into them for a little extra taste.

I'd personally rather have a straight up news article than a blog post. If I wanted that I'd go elsewhere. But hey maybe that's just my thing.

DT does have a nice iGoogle widget that does the job for me, so, cake all around.


RE: Let me ask...
By MCKENZIE1130 on 11/29/2010 8:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
In order to meet Christmas, Some commodities have been, discount .In addition Buy $ 300 and receive a free glasses or a wallet, as a Christmas gift . welcome all friends to order. Reputation, quality, absolute guarantee. please log in: http://www.fashionsb.com . so what, move your mouse .


weapons?
By albundy2 on 11/20/2010 4:31:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
An antimatter bomb could literally destroy the buildings, whole, and destroy the atmosphere over a city , creating a secondary pressure implosion, causing yet more destruction.


THIS scares the hell out of me! is this possible? who needs global whatever? the chemical composition of the atmosphere does not matter if it does not exist.

if it is possible to destroy the atmosphere, i think antimatter weapon development needs to banned from the planet [before oops!]. i wouldn't mind them experimenting on the moon with it [we can live without the moon right?], but no erasing the atmosphere please.




RE: weapons?
By JKflipflop98 on 11/20/2010 1:06:42 PM , Rating: 3
We'd be pretty cocked if the moon ceased to be tomorrow. Not quite as cocked as no air, but still cocked none-the-less.


RE: weapons?
By osalcido on 11/20/2010 1:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
I can't figure out if you're a troll or serious... but you don't have to worry about your precious atmosphere being vaporised by antimatter weapons in your lifetime


RE: weapons?
By albundy2 on 11/20/2010 3:01:31 PM , Rating: 3
not a troll. thats just one hell of a concept "destroying the atmosphere".

something did pop up in my mind though. i thought matter could not be created or destroyed, just changed from one form to another.

i was really hoping one of the resident scientists would step up with some answers, or even a reasonable theory.


RE: weapons?
By aegisofrime on 11/20/2010 7:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
When Trinity (the first A-Bomb) was being developed, there were fears that the heat produced would be so intense that the entire atmosphere (not just the atmosphere near the bomb) would ignite. I'm guessing that this "destroying the atmosphere" fear is kinda related to that.


RE: weapons?
By melgross on 11/21/2010 5:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
Matter and energy are equivalent, as Einstein showed a century ago, so nothing is being created or destroyed here. However, if what is thought to be true about vacuum energy, is, then matter and energy is being created through that path.

One thing we likely don't have to worry about is antimatter bombs. I can't forsee a way of making one of these. The energy requirements for making antimatter are so high, that it won't become feasible unless we find some way of producing free energy, a very unlikely scenario.


RE: weapons?
By DKantUno on 11/20/2010 1:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing...NOTHING...can ever fruitfully be banned, or prevented. Just to take a fun example, I'm sure puritans everywhere have tried for practically centuries to put an end to prostitution, religious zealots to science and scientists to religious zeal! Who the heck has succeeded, and these are things that a large number of us actually comprehend.

All you can do is wake up and make sure you walk in a straight line (or a curve of your choice). Nothing beyond that is in your control.

Well, that'll be all of the preaching.


RE: weapons?
By mooty on 11/22/2010 6:05:01 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I know, a sufficiently powerful a-bomb or H-bomb could blow out the atmosphere in an about 30km radius.

But in all honesty, when these super-high energy photons and matter particles are flying around you, the least of your worries is the secondary vacuum implosion...


RE: weapons?
By KIAman on 11/22/2010 1:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
The whole weapons point is pretty ludicrous, no need to worry. The energy spent to create antimatter would cause more destruction than the antimatter reaction. The laws of thermodynamics guarantee this.


RE: weapons?
By Ammohunt on 11/22/2010 1:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
The air is just displaced by the reaction like any other explosion. I am not sure an anti-matter explosion would be any different.


A little more fact checking.
By MrTeal on 11/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: A little more fact checking.
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2010 3:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

No. Two antineutrons.


http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/5/1/301/

Am I missing something? Antihelium 3 has been produced since the 1990s (see paper). That would have 2 antiprotons, one antineutron, yielding a weight of 3 amu, right?

quote:
No. For instance, in an electron-positron annihilation, it's impossible to have a single photon produced.


Fixed the typo and hopefully clarified this, thanks!


RE: A little more fact checking.
By MrTeal on 11/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: A little more fact checking.
By Reclaimer77 on 11/19/2010 3:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ok I'm not usually one to defend Jason Mick, but I think we can get the gist of the subject matter without turning this into a seminar. Can't we? The article is long enough as is.


RE: A little more fact checking.
By karielash on 11/19/10, Rating: 0
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2010 3:55:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Antihelium-3 has been produced, but you should write it with the description to clarify it. Otherwise it would be like saying antihydrogen and antideuterium are the same as they're the same element


Honestly, while I agree if this was a formal report the distinction would be significant, I think calling a 2 antiproton, 1 antineutron atom "antihelium" is sufficient. For example, you didn't complain about me labeling antihydrogen- "antihydrogen". Many such formalisms were left of this paper.

Nonetheless, for your pleasure I have added the AMU count after the first mention these antimatter elements.

</thread> let's return to discussing the work please, unless you see the need for a further correction...


RE: A little more fact checking.
By Goty on 11/20/2010 12:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
Well, to be entirely precise, they are the same element; Deuterium is just an isotope of Hydrogen.


RE: A little more fact checking.
By Fenixgoon on 11/20/2010 11:58:44 AM , Rating: 3
hydrogen and deuterium are the same element, since they both have 1 proton. deuterium having a neutron makes it an isotope of hydrogen.

the only number that determines the element is the number of protons.


RE: A little more fact checking.
By amanojaku on 11/19/10, Rating: -1
Great article...
By MrBlastman on 11/19/2010 3:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
This is the kind of stuff I enjoy reading on here about... not phones, Apple or a lot of the other things. :)

A few quirks though--as I have a difficult time seeing how we can expect antimatter to exist in any great endurance of time, at least, in _our_ universe given the majority of standard matter that is present. There is just so much going against antimatter in our own realm that having it last for any considerable length of time is amusing to think about at best and potentially destructive at worst. Proving the standard model though--as this experiment gets us closer to, is a step forward at least. Bravo to CERN, I hope the progress continues.

As for the last bit though, alluding towards utilization of antimatter in weaponry and propulsion. I think as a weapon it could be nifty but, once again, we run into the problem of containing the antimatter long enough for weapon delivery (unless of course we generate the antimatter on the spot which, debateably so--may or may not net a positive effect given the energy will just be converted), a magnetic field could be appropriate.

For propulsion though, I think it is primitive to consider approaching the speed of light (.9 or higher) via conventional means as efficient or very likely. I really, strongly feel that in order to reach those speeds, spacetime itself will need to be manipulated rather than simply trying to move according to euclidean geometry (remember, our reality is Minkowskian). Antimatter might allow us to propel ourselves to great speeds--to contain the amount neccessary to achieve that miniscule area of .9 to 1.0, at least taking into account the dramatic acceleration of the Lorentz factor, strongly shows us having very little to no chance at containing the amount of required antimatter to do thus so.

It is neat to think about however. I just think that if we are to broach such speeds, it will be done through either direct manipulation of spacetime (remember, of the four known forces, gravity is the one we least understand) via possibly gravity or, to go further, by tampering with the very fabric itself from a higher dimension peering back into our own. The amount of energy required to broach it in a convensional means is just far too great (I'll dare say practically infinite given just how much spacetime flattens out at least in that point at such speeds).

To argue this though, I'd have to admit the speed of gravity is vastly underestimated--and I think it is (though, this is nearly blasphemous in the scientific community there certainly is room to consider it given the implications alluded by M-Theory).

Anyways, that's my nerd thought for the day. We need more pure science articles on here. :)




RE: Great article...
By Miggleness on 11/20/2010 12:38:47 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting indeed. I've lost touch in Physics. Anyone can recommend a book or site so I can catch up?


RE: Great article...
By MrBlastman on 11/20/2010 10:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene (for String Theory)

A Brief History in Time by Stephen Hawking

Those are good starts.

A good non-Wikipedia resource you might enjoy:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

Has stuff on strings, particle physics and beyond. Great resource for general things. Beyond that--read read read and search, start with general and special relativity and go from there. :) Once you've read enough, you'll start doing the math!


RE: Great article...
By DKantUno on 11/20/2010 1:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
"not phones, Apple or a lot of the other things. :)"

Amen. Had gotten sick of those. And I can't believe now how much time I've sunk into reading them AND the (mostly partisan) comments.


RE: Great article...
By melgross on 11/21/2010 5:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
While it's fun to speculate what can be done beyond what the known laws of physics allow, it's fruitless. i'm a very big SiFi fan. I've got over 3,000 SiFi books in my library at home. But while I wish much of it could come true, I'm saddened by the thought that much of it won't. Doing things such as manipulating space-time seems to be impossible, as is traveling faster than the speed of light, and a host of other things we read about.

I hate to be a party pooper, but that's life. There's enough spectacular things that we can do as it is.


RE: Great article...
By MrBlastman on 11/21/2010 11:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately for you, everything I mentioned is the subject of real, factual (sometimes experimental) hard science. Read, learn, prosper. :)


Enjoyed this topic
By Spacecomber on 11/19/2010 10:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoyed this report of what sounds like the frontiers of real science; however, I was confused by this:

quote:
Material in the universe is asymmetric and divided into antimatter and matter. Matter is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Antimatter is composed, respectively, of antiprotons, antineutrons, and positrons.


I believe you meant symmetric, not asymmetric, unless I'm missing something, here.




RE: Enjoyed this topic
By Goty on 11/20/2010 12:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
The universe is overwhelmingly composed of matter, with very little antimatter, hence the asymmetry.

If there were equal amounts, we'd expect the universe to be predominantly radiation dominated because of matter-antimatter annihilation instead of matter dominated as it is now (ignoring dark energy, of course).


RE: Enjoyed this topic
By Spacecomber on 11/20/2010 9:07:04 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for clarifying what is meant by the asymmetric relation between matter and anti-matter. In the context of the article, it was not elaborated, and it was followed by what seemed to be a series of symmetrical comparisons between matter and anti-matter particles. So, I gather that anti-matter and matter are asymmetric in their distribution but symmetric in their form (putting together what Jason and you are saying).


RE: Enjoyed this topic
By mooty on 11/22/2010 6:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
This is exactly why these measurements would be so interesting, because it could shed some light on why is the universe made of matter. The beautiful thin is that no matter what the measurements show, there will be some major rethinking to be done afterwards...


Just do it
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2010 3:21:25 PM , Rating: 5
Name the next experiment Ackbar.




RE: Just do it
By MozeeToby on 11/19/2010 3:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
Active
Collection of
Kilograms of
Baryonic
Antimatter
Research


By Tag on 11/20/2010 10:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
I know you can't predict where quantum virtual particle pairs are going to appear and disappear, and that it's unlikely to occur, but hypothetically what would happen if a virtual particle pair appeared ontop of/next to/in collision course with an anti-matter atom?

Would it be possible for the anti-matter atom to annihilate with >1< of the virtual particle (pairs) finally leaving evidence of the other virtual particle (pair) behind?




By Tag on 11/20/2010 10:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
Clarification:

1 pair of quantum virtual particles. 1 positive, 1 negative.

As I understand it, according to quantum mechanics normally they appear and disappear, routinely. Even in a vacuum. But if they don't annihilate eachother, then they for lack of a better word, exist, and shift from "virtual" particles to become "real" particles. According to Quantum theory.

So my Q is, can the anti-matter atom collide with one of the virtual particles in the vp pair, leaving the other virtual particle to survive and thus become a real particle?

or would all 3 annihilate?


By JessusChristDoOTcom on 11/21/2010 12:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As I understand it, according to quantum mechanics normally they appear and disappear, routinely. Even in a vacuum. But if they don't annihilate each other, then they for lack of a better word, exist, and shift from "virtual" particles to become "real" particles. According to Quantum theory. So my Q is, can the anti-matter atom collide with one of the virtual particles in the vp pair, leaving the other virtual particle to survive and thus become a real particle? or would all 3 annihilate?


Anti-matter particles are located on the anti-matter plane of existence which is where virtual particles are located as well because a "virtual" item or concept is located on the anti-real 'matter' anti-matter plane as we know it. In short? What happens on the virtual plane stays on the virtual plane. I believe various permutations are possible. The only possible exception to this rule is the stipulation of the existence of more than two planes of existence.


BUT...
By wiz220 on 11/19/2010 4:57:07 PM , Rating: 3
When it comes to propulsion systems, the real question is: How is research into Dilithium crystals coming along?




at least a 100 years out
By kattanna on 11/19/2010 2:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
its interesting to get a glimpse of things our great-great-great grand children will hopefully be able to utilize.

but first we will need to get past our current inabilities to generate power in enough quantities and cheaply enough.




Wow...
By JDoobs on 11/19/2010 4:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Dear God, look at all the pretentious nerds and grammar nazis in this comment section.

I find this article informative and an interesting read.




Weapons?
By sweatshopking on 11/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Weapons?
By FoundationII on 11/19/2010 4:14:52 PM , Rating: 3
Don't worry, all the antimatter ever made (so far) could only power a lightbulb for a couple of minutes.
By the time we see antimatter weaponry we'll more than likely see space based combat with unmanned crafts.
Also the ever improving active protection systems would probably shoot the antimatter shells/warheads out of the air by then. Especially since antimatter payloads will likely be rather fragile compared to current weapons.
I imagine kinetic kill vehicles and energy based weaponry will be the most feasible.
Of course this is all mere speculation about what might happen within several centuries. Who knows what fascinating discoveries we'll make by then?


RE: Weapons?
By AstroGuardian on 11/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Weapons?
By theslug on 11/19/2010 4:52:35 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, there's a single paragraph about weapons. What was your point again?


RE: Weapons?
By AstroGuardian on 11/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: Weapons?
By melgross on 11/21/2010 5:30:47 PM , Rating: 3
What an idiotic post.


RE: Weapons?
By AstroGuardian on 11/23/2010 9:14:05 AM , Rating: 1
Yea i agree. Your post is idiotic. Mine is true to the bone.


RE: Weapons?
By Iketh on 11/20/2010 2:34:54 AM , Rating: 1
hahaha you mortal!


RE: Weapons?
By Shatbot on 11/20/2010 5:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair to Jason antimatter is difficult to photograph.


RE: Weapons?
By Zhriver on 11/21/2010 4:34:05 AM , Rating: 1
I'm curious, but wouldn't the energy/explosion from a antimatter bomb yield far more damage than the resulting implosion?
Also someone mentioned hydrogen bombs earlier.
Didn't the Russians have to remove the neutron reflector from their Tzar bomb out of fear from having it blow a hole through our atmosphere.


RE: Weapons?
By JessusChristDoOTcom on 11/21/2010 12:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm curious, but wouldn't the energy/explosion from a antimatter bomb yield far more damage than the resulting implosion?


Not necessarily. If you sprinkle multiple antimatter injectors in the atmosphere over a city there could be greater damage due to the imploding atmosphere vs. one detonator being detonated in the city itself causing destructive shockwave.

quote:
Also someone mentioned hydrogen bombs earlier. Didn't the Russians have to remove the neutron reflector from their Tzar bomb out of fear from having it blow a hole through our atmosphere.


I think you might be referring to the changes to the Tsar bomb's internal components but I don't think it was out of fear of making a hole in the atmosphere but in order to reduce nuclear fallout on the territory of the former USSR--they accomplished it by using lead tamper instead of Uranium-238 in tetriary and possibly in secondary stages of the construct which reduced destructive projected yield from 100Mt to 50Mt making it the 'greenest' hydrogen bomb detonated with relatively low radioactive fallout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba


Don't give up the day job
By shanegl on 11/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Don't give up the day job
By PorreKaj on 11/20/2010 3:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
And yet you come here and give DT another Page hit, making them think the work they do is good enough.

You sound like a woman... Grow some balls and just go away if you don't like what you are reading.


RE: Don't give up the day job
By AstroGuardian on 11/23/2010 9:15:35 AM , Rating: 2
You are saying women are lame? What kind of idiot are you? I guess one of a kind


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki