HADRON

To produce data it would have to be fully functional, which means everything is working and atoms are being accelerated to near the speed of light and smashed together.

To produce data it would have to be fully functional, which means everything is working and atoms are being accelerated to near the speed of light and smashed together.

But do they have to be accelerated to their design energy (7+7 TeV) for this to pay out, or just accelerated to any energy (e.g. 5+5 TeV)? They'll still get data at 5+5 TeV energies....

I would say yes that the machine is functioning. I would assume they wouldn't fire the thing up to full speed when they start using it. But the machine would be functioning and providing data.

Functioning, yes...but fully functioning? Obviously they're going to do some test runs at lower energies and luminosities as they finish commissioning the machine.

Yesterday, the LHC was switched on and protons were excellerated around the entire machine. They received data on a computer screen confirming that the machine was indeed fully functioning.

I have to ask the same question. Does anyone know what "fully functioning" means for the purpose of this stock?

One principle design parameter of is of course the design maximum energy level particle it can produce. In order for a device to be fully functioning it must be able to operate across its entire design operating range. A 200kW solar panel would not be fully functioning if it could produce only 50kW. Had Apollo 11 taken off but failed to attain earth orbit I don't think it would have been considered fully functioning. If the LHC is not able to produce high energy particles that it was designed to produce or if it is not able to collect the data it is designed to collect then it would appear to have failed to be fully functioning.

Well, then by that theory my car is not fully functional. It has a top end around 165mph and I've never driven it that fast.

Strange that it is not quite right as I've been quite happy with it up till now.

I believe fully functional means that the system is operating correctly in the power range you've chosen to operate in. Now if they were not running at full power because stuff was breaking down at low power I'd lean the other way.

When a governmental agency puts out tons of money for a new high performance high tech tool it is not going to declare the thing FULLY functioning just because the contractor got the thing going. Well as least it should seriously consider holding the contractor's feet to the fire. It would not be right to give the contractor its final payment and say it is fully functional and just hope that it will work and do the job later, after the final check clears. But I guess governments have done that. And I guess reasonable people would believe that paying for fully functioning when it is really just functioning is fine. Maybe that is enough, to just operate. I mean I would not consider it fully functioning if it has not proven to be capable of operating at the full design capability, but maybe others if not most people would be fine with such unproven operations.

It seems like poor management to declare a device that has not proven its design operational capability as fully functioning.

Let's see what Popular Science does. Will Popsci find it fully functioning just cause it can be turned on?

Now it not functional by any definition. Short it!

"Well, then by that theory my car is not fully functional. It has a top end around 165mph and I've never driven it that fast."

You've never driven the car that fast, but that doesn't mean your particular car will not function at 165mph. Unlike the LHC, car manufacturers produce thousands of vehicles of a given model each year. And, of course, the design for that model goes through several tests - including a full test of an assembled vehicle (probably several vehicles) - as well as tests of individual components.

While they may not actually drive the vehicle to 165mph (or maybe they do), the interactions among all the components in the vehicle are very well understood - unlike the LHC. While the general characteristics of all the components are understood, there has simply never been a machine quite like it - Fermilab's Tevatron comes close, but it's still a much smaller machine, both in terms of physical size and beam energy. As such, you cannot make comparisons between it and cars, planes, etc.

"Well, then by that theory my car is not fully functional. It has a top end around 165mph and I've never driven it that fast."

You've never driven the car that fast, but that doesn't mean your particular car will not function at 165mph. Unlike the LHC, car manufacturers produce thousands of vehicles of a given model each year. And, of course, the design for that model goes through several tests - including a full test of an assembled vehicle (probably several vehicles) - as well as tests of individual components.

While they may not actually drive the vehicle to 165mph (or maybe they do), the interactions among all the components in the vehicle are very well understood - unlike the LHC. While the general characteristics of all the components are understood, there has simply never been a machine quite like it - Fermilab's Tevatron comes close, but it's still a much smaller machine, both in terms of physical size and beam energy. As such, you cannot make comparisons between it and cars, planes, etc.

considering anyone still watching this stock has most likely pulled their stock out (the 90 to 80 drop) while others who came to dump their money in and ignore it have left it at 80, its probobly safe to short it considering the helium leak and the fact that fully accelerated atoms are to be smashed in spring.

I'm not a member of anything relating to the LHC though so I'm not one to say that its "fully" functional or not, but I'm guessing its not.

Any idea when this stock will pay out? It is listed as de-listed but the funds haven't been released as per my transaction log.
Thx.