US Nuclear Weapons Lab Discovers How To Suppress the Casimir Force 112
KentuckyFC writes "One of the frustrating problems with microelectromechanical (MEM) devices is that the machinery can sometimes stick fast, causing them to stop working. One of the culprits is the Casimir effect — an exotic force that pushes metallic sheets together when they are separated by tiny distances. Now physicists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico have worked out and demonstrated how to suppress the Casimir force. The trick is to create a set of deep grooves and ridges in the surface of one sheet so that the other only comes close to the tips of the ridges. These tips have a much smaller surface area than the flat sheet and so generate much less force. That could help prevent stiction in future MEMs devices. But why would a nuclear weapons lab be interested? MEM devices are invulnerable to electromagnetic pulse weapons that fry transistor-based switches, and so could be used as on-off switches for nuclear devices."
Invulnerable? Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
"MEM devices are invulnerable to electromagnetic pulse weapons that fry transistor-based switches,"
I don't know why that would be true. We're talking about a very small mechanical switch, right? Two metallic surfaces (presumably at the end of wires or traces) that connect to close a circuit? The high voltage surge usually associated with an EMP would jump (and weld) micro-teensy-tiny switches just as easily as big ones. You've never seen a mechanical switch welded by an unexpected high voltage or amperage surge? I have. No reason why that won't happen with an MEM device. I'll have to see a better reference to proof of that surge invulnerability before I buy into this.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...when they say EMP they mean on microscopic scales, not like the emp that is emitted when a nuke goes off.
The use of the phrase "electromagnetic weapons" in the summary kinda belies that hypothesis.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that an electromagnetic pulse weapon would not be microscopic in scale, thus negating OP's conjecture. Granted, it probably wouldn't give off nuclear-detonation-levels of EMR, but it sure as hell wouldn't be "microscopic" either.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a benefit alright, but wouldn't transistors work just as well?
Re: (Score:1)
So, yeah, they are expecting nukes to have to survive being nuked.
Re:Invulnerable? Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume that the nuke jockies use older, better hardened, stuff; but semiconducters small enough for serious computing purposes are real wimps(SCR pucks
Re: (Score:1)
The high voltage surge usually associated with an EMP would jump (and weld) micro-teensy-tiny switches just as easily as big ones
Electrical fields are expressed in V/m. If you have a micro-switch, you get a microvoltage. Now, the air breakdown is also in V/m, so you may still get a spark in all things are proportional, but the energy won't be there to weld anything shut.
Re: (Score:2)
This is no good (Score:1)
Neutralizing all weapons is a worthwhile goal. How are we going to defend ourselves against them now? More nukes? I'm hoping for something a little less harmful...
Re: (Score:2)
Neutralizing all weapons is a worthwhile goal. How are we going to defend ourselves against them now? More nukes? I'm hoping for something a little less harmful...
Engineered plague would be the obvious solution; no need to worry about nukes if there's no one alive to launch them!
OK, so maybe not an ideal solution, but hey - it solves the problem. I call that a win.
Let me guess... (Score:3)
You work for the US congress, don't you.
Re: (Score:3)
Not yet, although I do admit I've been considering taking a run at it.
Do you think a general lack of respect for human life is enough to overcome the absence of campaign funding, or do I need to pick some pet issue to go 50-kinds-of-stupid with as well?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to appeal to the floating voters then you need to acknowledge that it is only half a solution: present yourself as the reasonable middle ground candidate, willing to compromise on an engineered super-plague apocalypse.
Thermionic valves also work (Score:4, Interesting)
Totally immune to EMP. Besides, we need people to magnify the Casimir effect if we're to ever get wormhole technology. And, trust me on this, you do NOT want an evil general on the other side to go around suppressing it when you're half-way through.
Re:Thermionic valves also work (Score:5, Funny)
Totally immune to EMP. Besides, we need people to magnify the Casimir effect if we're to ever get wormhole technology. And, trust me on this, you do NOT want an evil general on the other side to go around suppressing it when you're half-way through.
Plus, ICBMs controlled by valves just have a 'warmer' trajectory. It's hard to describe; but the flight path just isn't nearly as 'harsh' as semiconductor ICBMs.
No atomic matter "immune" (Score:2)
Totally immune to EMP.
Nothing made of atoms is immune to EMP. A sufficiently large EM field will rip atoms apart and convert the object to plasma. The words you are looking for are "less susceptible".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Besides, we need people to magnify the Casimir effect if we're to ever get wormhole technology.
Increase the surface area with a series of (complementary) deep grooves and ridges?
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, Nukes DO run on tubes, lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krytron [wikipedia.org]
There are much newer variants, I'd bet, since the 40's.
It's really hard to set off that many explosives to within a few nanoseconds of "exactly the right time"; an electric plasma pretty much wins out every time. :)
Babbage targeting computers in nukes! Sweet! (Score:3)
Prior Technology (Score:1)
This is centuries-old hat in all kinds of precision equipment. Just think about the slides on the massive old machine tools. They are crisscrossed with grooves and the flat surfaces are flaked to reduce contact and let slide oil help keep the metal surfaces apart.
Whoever launched this as an amazing new discovery should be painfully embarrassed. Don't even want to spend time for links - just search if you're interested.
Re:Prior Technology (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure if I agree. I think the research is interesting. (Also, the Casimir force is _not_ like friction: it appears in conductive materials only.)
1. They've managed to make the super-tiny grooves needed at an unheard of precision. Sub-100 nm features have little in common with grooved surfaces.
2. The grating they've developed confirms the prediction that Casimir force is proportional to area.
3. The grating has effects going beyond existing theory:
Replacing a flat surface with a deep metallic lamellar grating with sub-100 nm features strongly suppresses the Casimir force and for large inter-surfaces separations reduces it beyond what would be expected by any existing theoretical prediction. (Abstract)
Re: (Score:3)
The Casimir force occurs for non-conductive materials too. Lifshitz did a famous treatment for dielectric slabs.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe what you are talking about is called knurling. It is commonly used on valve guides for high performance engines to specifically decrease what is known as sticktion. But it is often used as you say also. It has been around for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
it's called frosting, and it's done with a scraper. I took a machine rebuilding class, and we had to scrape and frost the ways. It is very tedious work, but cool to know how to do.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_scraper
What's crazy here (Score:1)
is that they've made something so small that they have to account for the Casimir force at all.
It's like General Relativity and the GPS satellites. I wonder if they launched the GPS satellites before general relativity was understood, how long would it have taken to figure out why the clocks were running slow?
Good old LANL (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, Los Alamos. Once it had more great scientists in one place than anywhere else in the world. There was a tradition in the early days that the head of Los Alamos must have a Nobel Prize. That ended in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan put a lawyer in charge.
The US has a strange approach to "national laboratories". The original ones (Los Alamos, Lawerence Livermore, Sandia, Oak Ridge, Savannah River, etc.) were originally all Atomic Energy Commission operations. The Department of Energy got the AEC operations when it was formed. So the US still has a huge nuclear weapons R&D operation, despite the fact that the US hasn't built a new nuclear weapon in decades.
This project sounds more like an excuse for funding basic research than a component needed in a nuclear weapon. EMP shielding isn't that hard. This MEMS device doesn't seem to be a likely choice for the firing switch in a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons require a symmetrical implosion squeeze, which is initiated with multiple detonators, all of which have to go off at the same time within 1ns or so. This is done with a setup like a photoflash, but more powerful - a capacitor bank is charged up, and then dumped into thin wire detonators when the discharge switch closes. It's a few KV at a few thousand amps for a nanosecond or so. That discharge switch is what the article probably refers to.
The classic device for that is a krytron. Although using a gas-filled tube is kind of retro, it works. It's probably possible to build some MOSFET device to replace krytrons, as this work at SLAC [fnal.gov] indicates. But a microscopic MEMS device? Too tiny to handle the current.
MEMs in Parallel (Score:2)
But a microscopic MEMS device? Too tiny to handle the current.
Thing about MEMs is, if they're made using semiconductor manufacturing techniques you can make huge numbers of them all at once (unless it's a one-off deviced carved with an electron beam or such). Solid-state power-handling devices can have arrays of millions of mass-produced micro-circuits on an IC, handling macro-sized load in parallel.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also agree with the funding thing; that's all I hear about is the constant chasing of funding from people at the lab here.
I'd bet the tech is a more resistant upgrade of the PAL system; from what I've heard, punching in the wrong code a certain number of times renders the bomb useless, until the board is replaced. Unless you're McGuyver, lol.
A mems keylock would be pretty hard to pick... but easy to break. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it ended after zero, none of them won a Nobel Prize, but all of them have been PhD's in science. Oppenheimer won the Fermi award.
One of the more recent problems was the transition from light management by the University of California to a commerical contractor (With minority UC involvement) at 10x the price, but an emphasis on compliance and n
Off switches? (Score:1)
On-off switches? What exactly is the function of an “off” switch on a nuclear bomb?
Does not help contact surfaces (Score:1)
Took a look at the article; their conclusion is that a significant reduction of the Casimir force can be achieved using metal gratings, at relatively large separation distances (> 200 nm). Unfortunately this does not solve the problem of high nano-scale adhesion in MEMS devices, because that implies the state is in contact (which is ~1 nm separation, depending on how you define how the atoms of different surfaces "touch" each other). At these small contact distances, the adhesion forces do not reduce wit
The Casimir effect is not an exotic force (Score:2)
Its the van der Waals force derived for a bulk material. The rest is marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Also....For a non-flat surface, the force can't be estimated from surface area and distance, it doesn't work like that. The resonances are different depending on the shape. A good estimate of the force of attraction (or repulsion) would have to be derived from first principles, which would be prohibitively difficult for all but the most trivial of geometries. Its not right to say that the reduced force is due to the reduced surface area.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'virtual particles' are photons. As far as I understand, it is one of several equivalent ways of describing an electromagnetic interaction. There is the familiar inverse-squared electromagnetic force, but the next term in the series has an r^6 in the denominator, so it matters on a much shorter distance.
Re: (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but I thought the Casimir force was due to quantum effects of particles appearing and disappearing?
That's odd... I was certain it had somthing to do with the misfortune that occurs should one bend over in front of a goat.
Re: (Score:2)
Van Der Waals is merely forces due mostly to dipole moments and induced dipole moments. nothing exotic about it
If only Los alamos were as smart as slashdot, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, to paraphrase quite a few comments on this article:
"Duh, Los alamos are so stupid - less material in contact, less force, just like friction. I can't believe they only just worked that out. I mean DUH, they could've asked me THAT. Oh, and they make nukes. Eurgh, I hate them!"
Really? You seriously think that's all there is to it? I only read the abstract, and it states that the decrease in the Casimir force is far beyond theoretical predictions. But pffth, they probably got that wrong too, right?
I dunno, the misplaced arrogance I read on here sometimes really depresses me.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that the so-called Casimir force could be made small or negative with a geometry change has been around for a long time. The outcome for a particular geometry is not easy to theoretically predict though.
The summary is bad. For the most part its not about reduction in surface area. So all the comments about how obvious it is that the force should go down with surface area are ignorant.
Almost everything one reads about the Casimir force is based on a misunderstanding of the math tricks used to der
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the Casimir force is that it is difficult to measure experimentally and difficult to calculate theoretically. The research in the past several years has focused on expanding the class of geometries and materials that can be simulated in addition to devising more accurate experiments and methods of fabricating the nanoscale structures.
With Intravaia et. al's paper, they are dealing with a phenomenon that has been predicted theoretically, but has not been verified experimentally. The novelt
Re: (Score:2)
So, to paraphrase quite a few comments on this article:
"Duh, Los alamos are so stupid - less material in contact, less force, just like friction. I can't believe they only just worked that out. I mean DUH, they could've asked me THAT. Oh, and they make nukes. Eurgh, I hate them!"
Really? You seriously think that's all there is to it? I only read the abstract, and it states that the decrease in the Casimir force is far beyond theoretical predictions. But pffth, they probably got that wrong too, right?
I dunno, the misplaced arrogance I read on here sometimes really depresses me.
There's arrogance, but then there's also the fact that this really does seem perfectly intuitive. If your surfaces have a tendency to stick to one another due to some kind of oddball "force" not quite the same as but similar to the static friction force, how is it not obvious that it might be helpful to reduce the amount of surface area that comes together between the two surfaces? After all, it works well with static friction.
I'm thinking this came out because A) they found a good way to create a micro- or
Re: (Score:2)
less material in contact, less force, just like friction.
The funny thing is I read that too, but friction is based on forces, not surface area. Sliding a bed that has a flat bottom (or a square frame bottom) will take no more force on a smooth floor than one with four posts (ideal world, frictionless friction and all that apply). In reality, the 4-post bed is easier to move because we don't just push, we lift as we push, so we put some meaning behind that, and moving one (well, 3) of the posts at a time reduces friction by reducing the force. That and carpets.
Brilliant! (Score:2)
So, the solution is to make one of them not-a-sheet!
This isn't "suppressing the Casimir force," it's avoiding it.
PAL (Score:1)
False alarm (Score:2)
Re:brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
reduction of surface area leads to reduction of effect. imagine that. duh. why didn't they try that sooner? that woulda been top on my list.
Then it is most unfortunate you didn't share this information with them years ago, asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Well technically, the technique increases surface area (they use something similar on solar cells to increase efficiency), but yeah - otherwise good point. :)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no information to share.
Contact surface area has always been a major factor in static and dynamic friction forces in conventional mechanics (ex.: ball bearings) so this "discovery" is nothing more than scientists re-discovering something obvious that they forgot for some reason: reducing contact surface area works at microscopic scales too.
On macroscopic mechanics, surface roughness is a major contributor to friction. On a microscopic scale, roughness is replaced by atomic forces but the rest is st
Re: (Score:1)
i was actually thinking the same thing
Me too.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Breakthrough?
This technique has been used for years in the manufacture of MEMS sensors.
Ridges, bumps and non-perpendicular geometries all tend to reduce the surface
to surface contact area and are standard in MEMS gyroscope and accelerometer
designs, used to combat "Stiction".
While interesting, this is not new news.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, you are right. That should have read "non-parallel surfaces"
Thanks for the feedback
Re: (Score:3)
"Breakthrough?
This technique has been used for years in the manufacture of MEMS sensors."
There are other uses of it too, here's the link to the video from the Orchid orientation tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY3dY3Cx-DM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Read the actual paper, they did more than TFS implies.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
So they didn't really suppress anything, they just prevented the circumstances that would be subject to the effect.
Wouldn't it be the case that if they actually manipulated a fundamental nuclear force that it would be a very notable achievement? Rght up there with negating gravity or something.
Re: (Score:1)
Um, it is a INCREASE in the surface area.
It's that very increase in the area, coupled with the geometry of the object that negates the force as the average space between the two objects is now large enough to allow enough virtual particles to form and negate the the push of the virtual particles on the outside of the objects.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
not in the part (the 'pointy' bits) that's closest to the other (flat) surface...
___ ___
--- ^^^
Re: (Score:2)
While the idea is trivially obvious, the implementation is a bit difficult. What they've discovered isn't theory, but technology. And telling them what they should try first wouldn't help if you don't also tell them how to try it.
FWIW, the Casimir effect is normally quite difficult to observe, because it only appears when two extrememly flat pieces of conductor are brought close enough together to suppress virtual particle pair production. This causes the space between the two flat pieces of metal to hav
Not Nuclear Weapons Lab (Score:5, Informative)
Los Alamos is a National Laboratory. It's not a "Nuclear Weapons Laboratory". It sequences Genomes, it works on carbon nanotubes, it develops remote sensing, it does particle physics, it works on biofuels, and proteins, and medicine. You might as well say Stanford University is a place where they develop internet search engines, and General electric makes nuclear reactors.
Re:Not Nuclear Weapons Lab (Score:4, Funny)
You might as well say Stanford University is a place where they develop internet search engines, and General electric makes nuclear reactors.
Well, neither of those would be untrue.
Re: (Score:1)
Well my wife might say it does...
Re: Not Nuclear Weapons Lab (Score:1)
Better a producer than a consumer
Re: (Score:2)
not valid at all. Saying primary activity of General Electric is to make electrical devices, and the primary activty of Los Alamos is to design nuclear weapons would be a valid. Those other miniscule programs are overshadowed by the work done on nuclear weapons.
Your ignorance is astounding.
Re:Not Nuclear Weapons Lab (Score:5, Informative)
Los Alamos is a National Laboratory. It's not a "Nuclear Weapons Laboratory". It sequences Genomes...
Los Alamos is very much a nuclear weapons laboratory, one of three in the US. Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore are responsible for the (about a dozen) nuclear parts of nuclear weapons whereas Sandia, considered an engineering rather than physics laboratory, is responsible for the (thousands of) non-nuclear parts of nuclear weapons. All three are national laboratories and work on all sorts of other things, but they are the only ones responsible for designing the US nuclear arsenal.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but if you want to pick semantics, well...
Los Alamos has a "Nuclear Weapons Laboratory" on the premises, and it is that laboratory (or more specifically, the scientists within it that work on nuclear weaponry and related concepts) which produced the switch with the funny pattern on the contacts. ...but then "Scientist At The Nuclear Weapons Laboratory Sited Within The Realm Of What Is Known As Los Alamos" just doesn't quite fit too well on a business card (let alone a headline), does it? ;)
(...mind y
Re: (Score:2)
<0)
. ( \
8=x=D
LANL budget: mostly nuclear weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
NNSA Weapons programs 57%: 1.263B
NNSA Nonproliferation (also about nuclear weapons): 9% 210M
NNSA Safeguards & Security (also about nuclear weaopns) 7% 152M
DOE Environmental Management (cleanup junk) 8% 187 M
DOE Energy and other Programs, 4% 84M (unclear, nuclear reactors perhaps?)
DOE Office of Science, 4% 94M
Work For Others, 4%, 98M
Work For Others (National Security), 7% 154M
So by far most of LANL's budget involves nuclear weapons, and cleaning up from producing and testing nuclear weapons. Then after that unspecified work for "National Security", which is probably scientific services to the Intelligence Community.
Then, there's the 4% which is basic science like "particle physics, it works on biofuels, and proteins, and medicine" and there may be some science in the 4% of "DOE Energy and Other Programs".
I too was pretty surprised how small the basic science budget is, and I'm a physicist.
Calling LANL a "Nuclear Weapons Laboratory" is about as correct as calling Microsoft a "software company", even though they do make keyboards and mice and a tablet.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Los Alamos National Laboratory's primary mission and purpose is the design of nuclear weapons. that has always been true, it is true today. those other programs are puny in scope and budget by comparison.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)