Austin (TX) – Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin have turned on the Texas Petawatt laser on March 31 for, well, a very brief period of time. The specs of the device are mind-boggling: It has the power output of thousands of power plants and is brighter than the surface of the sun. Yet, the total power output of the atom-splitting laser is just enough to keep a light bulb burning for only a few seconds.

The laser achieved a power of more than 1 Petawatt this week, nearing the 1.5 Petawatt peak performance of the Lawrence Livermore Petawatt laser that went into operation in 1996 and was closed down in 1999 (to make room for the National Ignition Facility). One Petawatt is one quadrillion watts (in numbers: 1,000,000,000,000,000).

Currently being the only operating Petawatt laser in the United States, the Texas laser is claimed to have a power output of more than 2000 times the entire electrical generating capacity in the United States. The laser is generated using 20 20,000-volt capacitors that retrieve electricity from the University of Texas's power grid. Over several stages of tubes and sheets of glass, the laser beam is amplified and is eventually concentrated at a point with the diameter of a human hair.  

Of course, this massive amount of energy created cannot be sustained over a longer period of time. In fact, the Texas Petawatt laser unloads is energy within 100 femtoseconds, which is 1/10th of a trillionth of a second (0.0000000000001 seconds). In that time frame the target gets exposed to 200 joules of energy, which is enough to split atoms and simulate supernovas, tabletop stars and very high-density plasmas that mimic exotic stellar objects known as brown dwarfs. In practical life and applied to a larger surface, this energy isn’t huge and just enough to run a light bulb for about two seconds.

“We can learn about these large astronomical objects from tiny reactions in the lab because of the similarity of the mathematical equations that describe the events,” said Todd Ditmire, who is leading the project.

The Lawrence Livermore Petawatt laser was significantly more powerful. According to the specifications available on the Internet, the device achieved 680 joules on an area with a diameter of 1054 nm. The lab was also able to sustain the laser over a longer period of time, half a picosecond (0.0000000000005 seconds), to be exact.  

The total cost of the Texas Petawatt laser is estimated at about $7 million. It is housed in an underground bay near Robert Lee Moore Hall on Speedway. The three-story bay previously contained the Texas Experimental Tokamak (TEXT), a plasma-confining device used by the Physics Department for fusion energy studies.

How powerful is ...

Apr 08, 2008 14:02     

... that compared to the Death Star? Your real numbers confuse me.
Justin report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +13

Cheap but not so cheap

Apr 08, 2008 15:00     

If you get one for $7million, get me one, too. It's been $14 million.
AJ report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -5

all these energy waster.

Apr 08, 2008 17:00     

All these emergy could have been used to save a few trees to save the world. Instead, it's used to try to split an atom...for what? to create a death star? weapon?
ha report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -18

Output = output = input

Apr 08, 2008 18:09     

Ummm.... "It has the power output of thousands of power plants ... Yet, the total power output ... just enough to keep a light bulb burning for only a few seconds. " I think you mean the INPUT, is thousands of power plants. Not output. You kind of contradict yourself there.
twister report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -2

Energy Star Compliant?

Apr 08, 2008 18:19     

Probably not... but I sure hope it is worth it. :S
Henrik Gustavsson report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +2

earth hour wasted

Apr 08, 2008 18:22     

lol so how many earth hour's will it take to make up for this usage of electricity. what a waste of time for this year's earth hour and nexts 1's to come.
9 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -6

Re: earth hour waster

Apr 08, 2008 19:05     

it would talke a lot of earth hours to make up for this one! Especially because nobody did it!
Caeden report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +2

Real Energy Usage

Apr 08, 2008 21:41     

The energy usage rating in watts is NOT the amount of energy this thing takes to fire. A Watt is the measure of joules of energy over one second unit of time. If the laser fired for 1 full second, then it was be 1 Petawatts, but since it doesn't last for mor than 100 femtoseconds it only uses a handfull of joules. Hence the 2 second light bulb analogy.
David report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Not a waste of energy!

Apr 09, 2008 04:44     

To the complaining people: The actual used energy (as in "bad for the environment") is, as written, the equivalent of a light bulb that is lit for 2s. The significant difference is that this energy is 1. applied in a very small area (diameter of ~20µm) 2. applied in a very small timeframe (not 2s but 1*10^-10s, that's 20000000000 times shorter!) Thus the "wasted" electricity is not an issue at all (looking at a single pulse, and since it takes time to charge the capacitors they can't fire a pulse that often, keeping the total usage to a reasonable amount).

Johannes report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

small time frame.

Apr 09, 2008 09:44     

if it's applied just for a short period of time, and use little energy...then the article should not have convert this to a full sec and say it's equal to "power output of thousands of power plants" Why don't they convert this to a million year and say it's using up all the earth's energy if run for a million year... just a trick to get reader then. missleading title.
ha report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -2

Learn to spell!!!!!

Apr 09, 2008 15:13     

This article was a pain to read, I can't believe it.
a report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

Energy vs. Power

Apr 10, 2008 00:53     

Obviously, some people are confused about electricity. This laser has a _power_ output of thousands of power plants. However, it only has the _energy_ output of a light bulb running for 2 seconds. The relationship between energy and power is simple: Energy = Power * Time So a thousand times the power for one thousandth the time yields the exact same amount of energy. Similarly, a very low power device run 24/7 for years on end winds up using a lot of energy.

anonymous report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Energy vs Power

Apr 10, 2008 03:05     

*Energy* and *power* are different things people. More specifically, *power* is the rate of *energy* consumptions/production. Ie 1 Watt is the same as 1 joule per second. There is nothing wrong about saying the *power* output from the laser is equivalent to X power stations. It is, however, wrong to say that the *power* consumption is only that of running a light bulb for two seconds. That doesn't make sense. The article should instead say the *energy* consumption is the same as running a light bulb for two seconds. Liken it to saying, 'I ran at a speed of 1 mile' when you meant to say, 'I ran for a mile'. And for those whinging about green-house gas emissions, it's the *energy* consumption that you would be concerned about. This is small and not, directly, a concern.

Will report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Even if this was using a great deal of power, it would be good for the environment.

Apr 10, 2008 21:16     

Lets forget the energy/time argument just for a picosecond. This is research into fusion power. If you want cheep carbon free power without any of that nasty radioactive waist, we need research into high power lasers.
Ralf The Dog report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +2