A look at the damage that halted the Large Hadron Collider
by Andy Smith | December 11, 2008 4:31am PST | Image 1 of 5
Previous | Next
On Friday, the European Center for Nuclear Research (Cern) released photos of damage to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), Cern's flagship particle accelerator. The particle accelerator was damaged by a liquid helium leak in September, nine days into an experiment to test fundamental theories of physics by colliding beams of protons inside a 27km ring.
This picture shows two of the most severely broken interconnects, which are between the magnets in LHC sectors 3 and 4. The superconducting magnets, used to direct and focus the proton beams in the experiment, are cooled by liquid helium. An electrical fault caused the liquid helium to leak, resulting in a need for repairs that has put the experiment out of action until at least summer 2009.
Captions from ZDNet UK.
Just In
There's been very little information about how the scientists at the LHC get the tons of data from the detectors, in the mind bogglingly short time scales involved. Could you do a feature on the whole system, as it is really cutting edge stuff.
Not only is it a job for the front-end detectors, it is a big job for the back end processing.
I gather for example that the older Fermi collider west of Chicago rarely does their own accelerations any more but has a big data pipe to the CERN facility and helps do some of that processing with the Fermi computers. Originally CERN and Fermi were competitors but it did not take CERN long to realize that they could use help, so now they cooperate to handle the data. I suspect that the design of the Hadron Collider also had some help from the Fermi staff who had been doing similar work since the late sixties.
I gather for example that the older Fermi collider west of Chicago rarely does their own accelerations any more but has a big data pipe to the CERN facility and helps do some of that processing with the Fermi computers. Originally CERN and Fermi were competitors but it did not take CERN long to realize that they could use help, so now they cooperate to handle the data. I suspect that the design of the Hadron Collider also had some help from the Fermi staff who had been doing similar work since the late sixties.
I'm sure they will run down to Radio Shack and pick-up a new set of magnets....
Or if they wanted to go "green" they could salvage the magnets out of dead hard drives.
They knew the output couldn't reach even the theoretical energy levels needed to reveal the primary particles they were after, so they pushed it too far and overloaded it.
People wonder why I have no respect for cern.
People wonder why I have no respect for cern.
Yes, I'm sure you're much smarter than all those idiot engineers and scientist that designed and built the largest and most sophisticated machine ever. (/sarcasm just in case)
P.S. It was a TEST run. They weren't cranking it up to full power or looking for anything other than bugs. I think they found at least one.
P.S. It was a TEST run. They weren't cranking it up to full power or looking for anything other than bugs. I think they found at least one.
First: this had little or nothing to do with how hard the system was "pushed"; this was, apparently, a component flaw - something that's a virtual statistical certainty in a project of this magnitude. Unfortunately, it was one that did *major* damage.
Fortunately, it was one that showed up *before* testing was finished and the system was in full operation. (Unlike NASA'a experiences with O-rings and insulating foam.)
I'll finish with a paraphrase of something fantasy author Terry Pratchett said to a troll who complained that Pterry's latest book was a padded travesty and explained extensively what he should hve written:
"I suppose it's all down to you being a better scentist/engineer than them. Where were you when the paper was blank?"
Fortunately, it was one that showed up *before* testing was finished and the system was in full operation. (Unlike NASA'a experiences with O-rings and insulating foam.)
I'll finish with a paraphrase of something fantasy author Terry Pratchett said to a troll who complained that Pterry's latest book was a padded travesty and explained extensively what he should hve written:
"I suppose it's all down to you being a better scentist/engineer than them. Where were you when the paper was blank?"
any time that much money is spent on ANYTHING, there will be supporters and detractors and everything in between. I assume CERN has a great deal of pressure upon it to "produce" just like the Tevatron and Cyclotron and Linear Colliders did in the USA.
Unlike how hollywood might choose to portray such ventures, where "success" and "failure" all depend upon a given instant on a given day where some handsome guy in a white lab coat and some cute dish in a tight-fitting-lab-coat stare at pictures with music in the background, the reality of the Tevatron was that they posted their "greatest hits" in the museum on the Fermi site campus, and the dates of those hits were over the period of about fifteen years.
The final analysis of Success and Failure are more of a judgment by the greater community of theoretical and particle physicists with regard to discovery of new subatomics and relationships between their behaviors and effects.
When I was there, I was surprised to learn that there were relatively few cross-pollinations between this research and nuclear physics at the "bomb" level, but I also assume there were details that the civilian scientists could not talk about freely.
Unlike how hollywood might choose to portray such ventures, where "success" and "failure" all depend upon a given instant on a given day where some handsome guy in a white lab coat and some cute dish in a tight-fitting-lab-coat stare at pictures with music in the background, the reality of the Tevatron was that they posted their "greatest hits" in the museum on the Fermi site campus, and the dates of those hits were over the period of about fifteen years.
The final analysis of Success and Failure are more of a judgment by the greater community of theoretical and particle physicists with regard to discovery of new subatomics and relationships between their behaviors and effects.
When I was there, I was surprised to learn that there were relatively few cross-pollinations between this research and nuclear physics at the "bomb" level, but I also assume there were details that the civilian scientists could not talk about freely.
It was working fine until the little window came up that said, "Windows has completed updating your computer and will now reboot."
BOOM!
BOOM!
They broke the damn thing before they could create the black hole that will swallow the earth.
i'm sure that they will try again. i hope when it happens it takes just the CERN onto the blackhole they create - or at least just Switzerland (its a small country no one would notice anyway) - haha
if having two protons collide, would cause such a swallowing-thing to happen, it would have already happened long before any of us were here: protons routinely get smashed together in the core of the sun (all stars work this way) but notice that relatively few of them become black holes, and there appear to be none of those immediately in our own stellar neighborhood, let alone Chicago, Palo Alto, and Switzerland.
ok, this has nothing to do with the topic here. but why does it take 9 clicks of "close" to close a zdnet survey that floats into my screen!!!!!!!!!!!
once is enuf
once is enuf
By no means am I generalizing this comment to all of science, but it seems like this is a lot of money spent just to prove Big Bang (sure they always say there are "endless possibilities" for science, but if they didn't, then they might not get their funding).
What's the practical end result (of success or of failure) right now? There's tons of stuff that scientists could be working on right now that would benefit the world in immediate, practical ways, but they choose instead to spend five billion euros to create a toy that breaks.
Someone said that it was almost a statistical certainty that something would break. I don't care. NASA has sent off several complicated shuttles without any of them blowing up recently. If it were just a team of 50 guys working on this huge project, maybe a slip-up or two would be acceptable.
There were thousands of people working on this with a lot of money and a lot of time. Mistakes like that are just unacceptable.
Giant waste of money and resources.
What's the practical end result (of success or of failure) right now? There's tons of stuff that scientists could be working on right now that would benefit the world in immediate, practical ways, but they choose instead to spend five billion euros to create a toy that breaks.
Someone said that it was almost a statistical certainty that something would break. I don't care. NASA has sent off several complicated shuttles without any of them blowing up recently. If it were just a team of 50 guys working on this huge project, maybe a slip-up or two would be acceptable.
There were thousands of people working on this with a lot of money and a lot of time. Mistakes like that are just unacceptable.
Giant waste of money and resources.
NASA has sent up many shuttles, but despite the talents of thousands of people and the expenditure of a lot of money and time, it has lost two shuttles and their crews. And, let's not forget how a relatively small error in creating the Hubble's mirror nearly yielded a useless billion-dollar piece of space junk.
I don't think the management of the LHC has anything to apologize for (yet).
I don't think the management of the LHC has anything to apologize for (yet).
When you spend that much money, on something that huge. Something is bound to go wrong. Like the Apollo 1 Accident. And Russia has killed 8 in space related accidents. Not to mention the R-16 disaster, in which Offically 92 people died.
So no it hasn't been a waste of money.
So no it hasn't been a waste of money.
"When you spend that much money, on something that huge. Something is bound to go wrong. Like the Apollo 1 Accident."
At the time of the Apollo 1 fire, John W Campbell jr, editor of "ANALOG" sf, said "Pioneering is discovering new ways to die unexpectely."
At the time of the Apollo 1 fire, John W Campbell jr, editor of "ANALOG" sf, said "Pioneering is discovering new ways to die unexpectely."
I notice that you say "recently" about NASA and shuttle problems.
This one didn't cost lives which is a bonus.
Re: Results. If it helps with finding cold fusion or some such, then it would be a huge success ... not sure if there IS anything in there to do with C.F. though. In general, I agree though .. the money could be better spent researching alternative energy sources, so it should be dropped .. along with NASA stuff, weapons development and manufacture, military aircraft, ships etc !.
This one didn't cost lives which is a bonus.
Re: Results. If it helps with finding cold fusion or some such, then it would be a huge success ... not sure if there IS anything in there to do with C.F. though. In general, I agree though .. the money could be better spent researching alternative energy sources, so it should be dropped .. along with NASA stuff, weapons development and manufacture, military aircraft, ships etc !.
I'm curious. Are you even REMOTELY aware of all that we now take as commonplace that is a direct result of NASA, "weapons" development, aircraft design, etc.?
Didn't think so. Have a look here: http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
Didn't think so. Have a look here: http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
that, by itself, is not the best reason not to build them. If you want to learn how to make a toy that does not break so readily, you have to start out by making toys that DO break. For example Toyota, Corvair, Edsel, the passenger airplane, the steam locomotive, the computer, the fishing boat, the sailing ship, the steamship, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Enterprise CVAN-65, the starship Enterprise NCC-1701x and probably the wheel.
All of those were expensive by terms of the economic system that existed at the time which produced them. If you want to develop an economic system, you need technology. Some of that is derived from "toys" which turn out to be entire industries unto themselves. Though, admittedly not all of them.
All of those were expensive by terms of the economic system that existed at the time which produced them. If you want to develop an economic system, you need technology. Some of that is derived from "toys" which turn out to be entire industries unto themselves. Though, admittedly not all of them.
C'mon folks, give them a fair chance. This is a seriously big undertaking. It's not a politically motivated 'throw money at it' thing either. Its budget is absolute peanuts compared to what the Wall Street slime is costing all of us. I for one will give them a lot of chances to get it doing science. BTW did you remember that the world wide web came from CERN - it was developed to handle its information dissemination needs. You surely know all the rest! Our kids and their kids will know more about the universe from stuff like this. The spin offs from science are always unpredictable: without the humble IBM PC in thousands of researchers' hands our DNA sequence would still be a mystery.
...and some folks are complaining it's not perfect 'out of the box'?!? Oh, please! \:-(
Take a few minutes, find a documentary or two on the LHC--and perhaps other 'Big Science' or 'Big Engineering' projects--and see if you can't develop a better understanding (maybe even an appreciation?) for what the scientists and engineers have built. The effort that goes into creating something like this is almost unbelievable.
Bet the 'complainers' here wouldn't have a clue how to build something as 'low-tech' as, oh, a #2 pencil. Nor how to create & manage a team to do something more complex than throw a party. \:-(
--Former 'Big Science' contractor
Take a few minutes, find a documentary or two on the LHC--and perhaps other 'Big Science' or 'Big Engineering' projects--and see if you can't develop a better understanding (maybe even an appreciation?) for what the scientists and engineers have built. The effort that goes into creating something like this is almost unbelievable.
Bet the 'complainers' here wouldn't have a clue how to build something as 'low-tech' as, oh, a #2 pencil. Nor how to create & manage a team to do something more complex than throw a party. \:-(
--Former 'Big Science' contractor
Have you ever worked on a team that built a working particle accelerator??
I have, with Lawrence Livermore Natnl Lab, Lawrence Berkely Natnl Lab and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Even the relatively small systems that are now running at Berkeley and SLAC were challenging and took considerable debugging and some redesign as well as rebuilding before they produced the results that we now take for granted.
What these folks have achieved with the LHC even to this point is truly remarkable. Like another commentator said, do some reading about this project and get a small idea of the magnitude of it before you start your sniping and criticism.
They will get it to work, and the basic physics research that they do there will produce results that we can only guess at today. That is why the research is needed.
As to the cost of the research, and the return on that investment, I still maintain that it is a better investment with a greater return than ANY of the Billion Dollar Bailouts that have been proposed or enacted in ANY industry from the banks to the auto manufacturers.
I have, with Lawrence Livermore Natnl Lab, Lawrence Berkely Natnl Lab and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Even the relatively small systems that are now running at Berkeley and SLAC were challenging and took considerable debugging and some redesign as well as rebuilding before they produced the results that we now take for granted.
What these folks have achieved with the LHC even to this point is truly remarkable. Like another commentator said, do some reading about this project and get a small idea of the magnitude of it before you start your sniping and criticism.
They will get it to work, and the basic physics research that they do there will produce results that we can only guess at today. That is why the research is needed.
As to the cost of the research, and the return on that investment, I still maintain that it is a better investment with a greater return than ANY of the Billion Dollar Bailouts that have been proposed or enacted in ANY industry from the banks to the auto manufacturers.
"As to the cost of the research, and the return on that investment, I still maintain that it is a better investment with a greater return than ANY of the Billion Dollar Bailouts that have been proposed or enacted in ANY industry from the banks to the auto manufacturers."
As an economist, I concur. In-fact the bailouts will only encourage more risk taking in the future. The auto bailout is particularly egregious as the US auto industry as a whole, is doing well. It's just the US Nameplates that are under performing, while Honda, Kia, BMW and others are doing fine in the States.
Bottom line, CERN is a /far/ better use of resources.
As an economist, I concur. In-fact the bailouts will only encourage more risk taking in the future. The auto bailout is particularly egregious as the US auto industry as a whole, is doing well. It's just the US Nameplates that are under performing, while Honda, Kia, BMW and others are doing fine in the States.
Bottom line, CERN is a /far/ better use of resources.
Hear, Hear !!
If I do not know a subject thoroughly, I will not not second guess the experts in a field.
It's amazing how dangerous a little knowledge is !!!!!
If I do not know a subject thoroughly, I will not not second guess the experts in a field.
It's amazing how dangerous a little knowledge is !!!!!
At least CERN was able to go far enough to have a bad solder joint.
Here in the US it was politics and the stroke of a pen that broke the super collider.
I would rather see a bad solder joint then no collider at all!
I'm happy to see that at least for now the 'Contest' continues and the Tevatron will not be shut down immediately.
However, I also look forward to the day that the LHC can be brought to full power. Keep Up the good work!
Here in the US it was politics and the stroke of a pen that broke the super collider.
I would rather see a bad solder joint then no collider at all!
I'm happy to see that at least for now the 'Contest' continues and the Tevatron will not be shut down immediately.
However, I also look forward to the day that the LHC can be brought to full power. Keep Up the good work!
I think this is a fascinating peek inside CERN's LHC, and the puerile responses are amusing. Hubble was hobbled at first and had a brillant career. I expect the same for the LHC. Good luck and good speed.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
