<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: LHC: First Magnet Failure</title>
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Phil</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-74783</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 18:29:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-74783</guid>
		<description>12-year, 

Due to the differential nature of transversal matter waves, the gravitational pull can interact with ordinary flat space time only in a restricted range of frequencies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>12-year, </p>
<p>Due to the differential nature of transversal matter waves, the gravitational pull can interact with ordinary flat space time only in a restricted range of frequencies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LHC Restart &#124; Cosmic Variance &#124; Discover Magazine</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-73571</link>
		<dc:creator>LHC Restart &#124; Cosmic Variance &#124; Discover Magazine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:39:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-73571</guid>
		<description>[...] and is making its way to Sector 3-4 (between collision points 3 and 4). Last September&#8217;s incident led to 53 magnets - about half a kilometer of the 27-km ring - having to be removed, repaired or [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] and is making its way to Sector 3-4 (between collision points 3 and 4). Last September&#8217;s incident led to 53 magnets - about half a kilometer of the 27-km ring - having to be removed, repaired or [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 12 year old wiz</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-65155</link>
		<dc:creator>12 year old wiz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:29:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-65155</guid>
		<description>Hello, I'm just wondering about the ideologist who thought that the LHC could create a micro black hole, it can, but can it not suck up completely nothin due to the fact it is, once again, micro sized has little or no power what so ever to even have a gravitational pull? So it would just fade? Someone please tell me!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, I&#8217;m just wondering about the ideologist who thought that the LHC could create a micro black hole, it can, but can it not suck up completely nothin due to the fact it is, once again, micro sized has little or no power what so ever to even have a gravitational pull? So it would just fade? Someone please tell me!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chicago Boyz &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Brain Rinse</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-64618</link>
		<dc:creator>Chicago Boyz &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Brain Rinse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-64618</guid>
		<description>[...] think twice about the safety of the machine? Other than the very mundane, but very real concern of mechanical failure, that [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] think twice about the safety of the machine? Other than the very mundane, but very real concern of mechanical failure, that [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Delay for the LHC &#124; Cosmic Variance</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43392</link>
		<dc:creator>Delay for the LHC &#124; Cosmic Variance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:02:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43392</guid>
		<description>[...] of my last post on the LHC, following the quench incident on Sept. 19, little was known about the cause of the incident nor the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] of my last post on the LHC, following the quench incident on Sept. 19, little was known about the cause of the incident nor the [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Metal-eating bacteria vs. the Tevatron, the next Hollywood blockbuster &#171; Peculiar Velocity</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43391</link>
		<dc:creator>Metal-eating bacteria vs. the Tevatron, the next Hollywood blockbuster &#171; Peculiar Velocity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43391</guid>
		<description>[...] after some talk about the LHC, and the consternation about the recent magnet failure and helium leak, he told me some entertaining stories about troubles at the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] after some talk about the LHC, and the consternation about the recent magnet failure and helium leak, he told me some entertaining stories about troubles at the [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam A.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43367</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam A.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:09:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43367</guid>
		<description>@Sili -

I would doubt that someone will come up with a better way to make anti-protons.  The current way is to shoot protons as a spinning metal target and to sift through the spray on the other side. Some small fraction of that spray will be anti-protons, so it's just a matter of keeping those and putting them into a storage ring.  The energy of the incoming beam is tuned to maximize the yield of anti-protons. There are not convenient caches of anti-protons laying around, so you'll always have to do something like this.

The LHC magnets have a novel design - instead of having one beam pipe down the middle of the magnet, the magnets have two separate beam pipes in the, and the windings of the magnet are such that the magnetic field points in opposite directions for each beam pipe.  With all of the effort put in to designing magnets that could contain counter-rotating proton beams, it would be a waste to use anti-protons.  Anyway, you'll always be able to make protons easier than anti-protons - protons only need hydrogen gas and some manner of ionizing system.  Anti-protons always start off with protons, so you'll never reach parity, even if you increase the yield.  Finally, storing and cooling (reducing the momentum spread transverse to the beam) anti-protons is difficult.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Sili -</p>
<p>I would doubt that someone will come up with a better way to make anti-protons.  The current way is to shoot protons as a spinning metal target and to sift through the spray on the other side. Some small fraction of that spray will be anti-protons, so it&#8217;s just a matter of keeping those and putting them into a storage ring.  The energy of the incoming beam is tuned to maximize the yield of anti-protons. There are not convenient caches of anti-protons laying around, so you&#8217;ll always have to do something like this.</p>
<p>The LHC magnets have a novel design - instead of having one beam pipe down the middle of the magnet, the magnets have two separate beam pipes in the, and the windings of the magnet are such that the magnetic field points in opposite directions for each beam pipe.  With all of the effort put in to designing magnets that could contain counter-rotating proton beams, it would be a waste to use anti-protons.  Anyway, you&#8217;ll always be able to make protons easier than anti-protons - protons only need hydrogen gas and some manner of ionizing system.  Anti-protons always start off with protons, so you&#8217;ll never reach parity, even if you increase the yield.  Finally, storing and cooling (reducing the momentum spread transverse to the beam) anti-protons is difficult.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: teadrinker</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43390</link>
		<dc:creator>teadrinker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:50:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43390</guid>
		<description>I would accuse McCain-Palin of delaying the LHC so it would start up and destroy Earth right around election time so Obama could be blamed for this, but those two probably don't know how their toasters work, let alone a giant particle accelerator.

Get well soon, LHC.  I want to see that Higgs Boson!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would accuse McCain-Palin of delaying the LHC so it would start up and destroy Earth right around election time so Obama could be blamed for this, but those two probably don&#8217;t know how their toasters work, let alone a giant particle accelerator.</p>
<p>Get well soon, LHC.  I want to see that Higgs Boson!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sili</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43366</link>
		<dc:creator>Sili</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:38:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43366</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the clarification on p-bars. I'd understood that the problem was luminousity, but the the details are interesting.

If someone has a stroke of brilliance and figures out how to make lossa anti-protons, will it be possible to use the LHC &lt;em&gt;as is&lt;/em&gt; or does the design not allow for that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the clarification on p-bars. I&#8217;d understood that the problem was luminousity, but the the details are interesting.</p>
<p>If someone has a stroke of brilliance and figures out how to make lossa anti-protons, will it be possible to use the LHC <em>as is</em> or does the design not allow for that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam A.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43389</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam A.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:02:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/09/19/lhc-first-magnet-failure/#comment-43389</guid>
		<description>Hi Blake -

It's a good question about why the beams don't collide all the time in the Tevatron.  There are two mechanisms to prevents this:

1) Electrostatic separators - periodically throughout the accelerator, there are charged plates to pull the two beams apart.

2) Beam focus - in the non-colliding sections of the accelerator, the beams are much larger than at the interaction point.  Because of the decreased focus, the beams can largely pass straight through each other without many interactions.  On both ends of each interaction points, there are sets of quadrupole magnets to focus the beam  significantly.

I would encourage you to look up the design of the accelerator complex at Fermilab - It's very cool.  There are many accelerators in the complex which all work in concert to get counter rotating beams of protons and anti-protons into the Tevatron (the anti-proton side of the complex is very interesting - making antimatter is hard).   Working in the CDF control room during shot setups (preparing the beam for entry into the Tevatron) was one of the coolest things I've done as a grad student, and one of the most informative.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Blake -</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a good question about why the beams don&#8217;t collide all the time in the Tevatron.  There are two mechanisms to prevents this:</p>
<p>1) Electrostatic separators - periodically throughout the accelerator, there are charged plates to pull the two beams apart.</p>
<p>2) Beam focus - in the non-colliding sections of the accelerator, the beams are much larger than at the interaction point.  Because of the decreased focus, the beams can largely pass straight through each other without many interactions.  On both ends of each interaction points, there are sets of quadrupole magnets to focus the beam  significantly.</p>
<p>I would encourage you to look up the design of the accelerator complex at Fermilab - It&#8217;s very cool.  There are many accelerators in the complex which all work in concert to get counter rotating beams of protons and anti-protons into the Tevatron (the anti-proton side of the complex is very interesting - making antimatter is hard).   Working in the CDF control room during shot setups (preparing the beam for entry into the Tevatron) was one of the coolest things I&#8217;ve done as a grad student, and one of the most informative.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
