h a l f b a k e r yQuis custodiet the custard?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
360 towers are erected around the moon, the base of each tower is a self-contained atomic power supply. The towers are tall enough to provide a clear line of sight with the neighboring towers. At the top of each tower is a giant super-conducting magnet and other equipment needed to accelerate and aim
the stream.
Link to article on Bush new space initiative
http://www.theage.c.../1073437480420.html
[theircompetitor, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Earth-Space Web
Earth-Space_20Web
A particle accelerator proposed for Earth orbit is mentioned a couple times here. [Vernon, May 26 2008]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Heck - why stop at the surface of the Moon, when we could build one in orbit round the sun? |
|
| |
[Buzzer] Nope. Sorry. Too much atomic hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. The particles would bash into the stuff before you could do anything with 'em. |
|
| |
Why not satellites orbiting the earth? |
|
| |
For insanely huge particles? I know where you can get a slightly used Jensen Interceptor that could stand to be launched. |
|
| |
Its already taken its walk across the periodic table ... |
|
| |
Bush is set to announce a major new space initiative in January. Maybe this is it |
|
| |
Re-election, of course. I'm all for going to space, but we keep letting politicians get involved...sigh.... |
|
| |
Notes about Bush's proposal attached |
|
| |
EEEXXXPPPEEENNNSSSIIIVVVEEE!!! |
|
| |
If such a device could be constructed, it could be extremely useful for discovering new particles that are too massive to be generated in foreseeable particle accelerators. However, you might not be thinking big enough (surprisingly). If you wanted to go ALL the way (up to the Planck energy, that is) by creating a giant version of the Stanford Linear Accelerator, it would have to be 1 lightyear in length (from what I've read). It might be possible to reach that energy with much smaller rigs, if we find better ways to accelerate particles, that is. |
|
| |
[Kryptid], is it possible to invert the mechanism of cyclotron in such a way that the magnetic flux is spiral and the charged particles are in linear acceleration along the helix axis? The acceleration is achieved also by increasing the magnetic flux by energizing the coils. I am hoping to take away the centrifugal force imparted by the circular motion of the particles. Also, I would like to have an instantaneous increase of magnetic flux by use of supercapacitors that quickly energize the coils, hoping that the particles accelerate fast enough that the accelerator would be shorter compared to other types. What are your insights concerning this scheme? |
|
| |
Couldn't we build just over half the lunar accelerator, and use Earth-orbiting particle generators to fire at the moon, have the accelerator whip the particles round the far-side and back towards Earth and a second, receiving satellite? |
|
| |
Shhhh, there really is an insanely huge particle accelerator.... In fact, there are many of them. Astronomers believe about them, yet they haven't seen them - funny. They are out there. If you have figured out that the ultimately dark spaces they occupied are black asses, then they are to be figured out as holes. |
|
| |
You could build an accelerator that big within the USA. Why go to the moon? |
|
| |
God, with, like, 3 miles of tubing, aren't they (long island) already insanely huge? |
|
| |
Gotta love monumental engineering + |
|
| |
[bad jim] because you have to demolish fewer McDonalds that way. |
|
| |
The vacuum in particle accelerators is "harder" than that in space around the inner planets .... |
|
| |
If we aren't demolishing McDonald's, we are not making progress. |
|
| |