Dear Trident Reader,
2011 has started in Turmoil..... But, will it finish that way?
Investors, particularly Australian investors, had a pretty mediocre year in 2010 with most funds and individual investors lucky to break even. This year is shaping up to be the same, another year of poor returns and underperforming stocks.
However, not all stocks are the same. There are stocks that go up, stocks that go sideways, and stocks that go down. Yes, pretty obvious, I know. US writer, Mark Twain was quite a good investor and when asked about his success, he stated quite simply, "Well, I only ever buy stocks that go up!". Quite the comedian? Well, not really, there are ways to improve your chances of buying stocks that only go up. Some are very simple, some take work.
For example, last year my newsletter returned 78% by using these methods to identify stocks that will go up, rather than down, for the most part.
Here's how my process works, in very simple terms:
I identify economic themes that will determine which economies and which industries are set to do well, in the medium to long term. I identified early in 2010 that the Australian market would do poorly and it did. I have again said the fundamentals of the Australian economy are weak for 2011 and US stocks will again outperform Australian stocks in 2011. A good thing for Australians, as our buying power is so strong right now, if investing in US shares with Australian dollars - US stocks are cheap.
I then identify which companies within the industry and economic themes are the innovation and market leaders in their field.
I apply thorough fundamental analysis on their balance sheets, cash flow and profit and loss statements. In addition, I take a hard look at management and their history of performing well in difficult times.
I then ask the question, does the company not only offer good value, but does it also provide strong earnings growth potential in the short, medium and long term. (GAARP - Growth At A Reasonable Price)
Only then will I know, like Mark Twain, that I'm buying a stock with a good chance of going up.
Sounds all pretty simple, but it's not really. Sometimes it takes many hundreds of hours to find one winner, other times the best stocks are pretty obvious. It is the best stocks that are revealed to our Trident Confidential subscribers each week. Our average stock pick returns 67% in an average of around 18 weeks, based on our current portfolio.
So, where do we see the markets heading right now?
We favour the US market right now, although we are still investing is some great Australian stocks, but they tend to be in niche markets and small to medium in size. We believe that the Australian market will end 2011 in positive territory, but only on the back of a good year on Wall St, not through any dramatic economic lift in Australia.
The US market will do very well in the second half due to the continuation of their economic recovery and an improvement in employment, which we are starting to see right now. The US$ will strengthen as the year goes on despite further attempts by the US Federal Reserve to keep it weak so as to further strengthen US exports.
Currently, markets are caught up with issues in Japan and Libya and to a lesser extent the debt of some European countries, but I see these being short term issues that within the next month will be very much market irrelevant and as you well know you never invest based on short term events, but rather on long term trends.
In Japan, while we see short term disruption caused by the tsunami and the Fukushima Nuclear Plant, in the second half of 2011 we'll see enormous investment into reconstruction that will actually be a positive not only for Japan, but will provide a general lift for world GDP. As for Libya, we are weeks from resolution there, rather than months, and we'll see the oil price slip back well under $100 per barrel soon easing inflationary fears and lifting markets.
I see any current market turmoil as an opportunity to buy stocks cheap and even better, using over valued Australian dollars to do so. I've always believed today's headlines wrap tomorrow's fish and chips.
Right now, I see fabulous opportunities still exist in technology stocks and industrial stocks involved in infrastructure, commmodities and energy (not necessarily the miners themselves), agriculture and specialised construction.
Also, medical innovation and pharmaceuticals will be an exciting sector in the second half of 2011 as economic conditions improve and normalise.
Investing while there is still a degree of uncertainty in the world is an ideal time, before the problems begin to fade and the markets happily move higher. Being ahead of the crowd is not only wise, but it provides you with great returns, as we have been demonstrating year after year since 2005.
Our new Trident Investment website is now up and running at www.TridentInvestment.com.au. This new site features the Trident Global Growth Fund and has the PDS available for download as well as the application to invest. In addition, the site provides readers with a lot of information about the fund, our investing philosophy, methodology and answers to many of the questions you may have about investing in the fund.
Click here to visit Trident Investment - Trident Global Growth Fund
If you have any questions about our new fund, Please call Alicia Hunt on (02) 9241 7959
Kind Regards,
Lance Spicer
Trident Global Growth Fund - Fund Manager
Trident Confidential - Editor
Investment Manager
Trident Investment Management Pty Ltd
ACN: 136 841 426
Authorised Representative no. 339798. Authorised
Representative for Australian Mutual Holdings Ltd
7-9 Tonkin Street, Cronulla, NSW 2230
2011/04/05
Risk Sharing and Minimizing in Modern Rep-Manufacturer Relationship
Rep and Manufacturer business relationship dates to medieval times in Europe. Ever since medieval hand workers produced more than local market could bear, they needed a rep who would bring their product to most remote places on earth. However the Rep could not carry the risk of taking goods and losing them to robbers or not being able to sell them to local resellers. Thus came the need for risk management on both sides. Surely risks did have change, and profoundly so, but not the need for them even so risk management became a tool to win the edge over the competition.
From capitalization point of view a Rep is a midget, when comparing him to the manufacturer. Thus Manufacturer is trying to strengthen his supply chain by adding a Distributor in between them. Distributor carries hundreds of product lines which mitigates his risk, should some part of their business falter on the market. They muscle themselves for large orders and care little for smaller opportunities. They leave Rep with smallish sizes of business opportunities, marginalized completely, especially during recessions. They get paid commissions, several times smaller than Distributors.
Manufacturer often does not notice the down side of this business model is under-performing in revenues, instability in supply chain, due to exceedingly high risk in this channel often forced us to cut loses and abandon the opportunity altogether.
1 Classic Rep-Manufacturer model with unmitigated risk for the Rep who is promised relatively large reward at the end of the project. Manufacturer risks nothing until he gets the purchase order. Risk for Rep is high, cash outlay also, often difference to commission is v. small.
US association MANA gathering Reps under one umbrella has tried for several years to introduce its business model back to Europe, has finally given up for no interest from European Reps.
2 Below is the older and stabler version, prevalent in Europe. In this model Vendor is engaging financially into the project at early stage, building up his stake in the project. Once that happens, he is more responsive to any need for technical support during testing and certification.
This adds to mutual dependence and as risk is shared by both, the venture is geared for higher revenues than in the previous model.
To illustrate the previous model: a project value of $K million, the Rep must invest up to $x (where $x is his commission) to win the project and in the end is being paid the $x commission. Not a good business at all, no profit.
He is forced to save on every expense to keep himself profitable, at the expense of his performance to his loss and in greater value loss to Vendor. He has to play several vendors at the same time to spread his risk thus his loyalty is split and dedication is nil, vendors must close the deal himlesf.
Contrary to (No.1), the old Rep model (No.2) requires Rep to invest only $0.4x of his own, he gets help from Vendor of $0.6x which is commission in advance, allowing him to work at full capacity, and in the end Rep gets the rest of his commission of $0.4 and 100% on ROI. It changes relationships and profitability dramatically, at the same cash flow!
Competition is so fierce right now that a difference of several percentage points in risk level or revenue can mean either loss or win against competitors.
Vendor pays the same commission in the end, but Rep, risking less is performing much better and produces more. Rep is following project over the entire Customer Journey. Rep smoothens out any possible wrinkles during production, delivery, training and installation.
These Reps are almost all exclusive and experience shows it is not unusual to have several generations of Rep working with the same vendor.
By Stefan F. Baginski
Lugano, April 5, 2011
© Copyright to @sbaginski22
From capitalization point of view a Rep is a midget, when comparing him to the manufacturer. Thus Manufacturer is trying to strengthen his supply chain by adding a Distributor in between them. Distributor carries hundreds of product lines which mitigates his risk, should some part of their business falter on the market. They muscle themselves for large orders and care little for smaller opportunities. They leave Rep with smallish sizes of business opportunities, marginalized completely, especially during recessions. They get paid commissions, several times smaller than Distributors.
Manufacturer often does not notice the down side of this business model is under-performing in revenues, instability in supply chain, due to exceedingly high risk in this channel often forced us to cut loses and abandon the opportunity altogether.
1 Classic Rep-Manufacturer model with unmitigated risk for the Rep who is promised relatively large reward at the end of the project. Manufacturer risks nothing until he gets the purchase order. Risk for Rep is high, cash outlay also, often difference to commission is v. small.
US association MANA gathering Reps under one umbrella has tried for several years to introduce its business model back to Europe, has finally given up for no interest from European Reps.
2 Below is the older and stabler version, prevalent in Europe. In this model Vendor is engaging financially into the project at early stage, building up his stake in the project. Once that happens, he is more responsive to any need for technical support during testing and certification.
This adds to mutual dependence and as risk is shared by both, the venture is geared for higher revenues than in the previous model.
To illustrate the previous model: a project value of $K million, the Rep must invest up to $x (where $x is his commission) to win the project and in the end is being paid the $x commission. Not a good business at all, no profit.
He is forced to save on every expense to keep himself profitable, at the expense of his performance to his loss and in greater value loss to Vendor. He has to play several vendors at the same time to spread his risk thus his loyalty is split and dedication is nil, vendors must close the deal himlesf.
Contrary to (No.1), the old Rep model (No.2) requires Rep to invest only $0.4x of his own, he gets help from Vendor of $0.6x which is commission in advance, allowing him to work at full capacity, and in the end Rep gets the rest of his commission of $0.4 and 100% on ROI. It changes relationships and profitability dramatically, at the same cash flow!
Competition is so fierce right now that a difference of several percentage points in risk level or revenue can mean either loss or win against competitors.
Vendor pays the same commission in the end, but Rep, risking less is performing much better and produces more. Rep is following project over the entire Customer Journey. Rep smoothens out any possible wrinkles during production, delivery, training and installation.
These Reps are almost all exclusive and experience shows it is not unusual to have several generations of Rep working with the same vendor.
By Stefan F. Baginski
Lugano, April 5, 2011
© Copyright to @sbaginski22
2011/03/31
Rising Internet Expansion to Float All Domains
Just news on continuing growth in Internet:
Rising Internet Expansion to Float All Domains
Rising Internet Expansion to Float All Domains
2011/03/29
Social Networking hype
Have you hear the news? A german media consulting company has just published new and exciting numbers for SocialMedia in Business. The use of Facebook has raised to over 20 million. Only in Düsseldorf the registered 515k users. I agree the city is very rich, is a center for Japanese and Korean diaspora in Europe. All fine, but the city has 590k population, surely some may have double accounts, but it means that all adults do use Facebook. Not so sure.
Myself I use some of these social media mainly for experimental use. I have made well over 500 twitts, am following some 130 twitters and my own following gyrates at about 100 followers. My problem is: how do I converge my work (all those twitts) into useful business audience. Mind you I follow only reputable, professional sources I mostly know and trust. My followers are mainly companies or individuals moonlighting perhaps but still interest is to furthers it business goals.
In effect we all try to figure out how this can help us during those hard times to grow businesses.
The use of social networks in business is still very questionable. Speaking not only form my own experience. Gartner recently announced that over 70% of all business social media projects are to fail. Miserably. Based on hype goals are placed to high, bound to fail. Standard prescription. I have published the same in my blog: http://sfbaginski.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/gartner-is-predicting-up-to-70-of-social-media-projects-to-fail-in-2011/
Judging from my experience plus discussions with over 25 of my business executive partners, the jury is: wait until next interrupting technology would allow for easy convergence of limited format chats. Until there is a clear and secure way to converge networked contacts into interested parties, it is not going to work. Just being there is not enough.
There is another threat to this branch of industry and that is potential for another Dot.com bubble. With Facebook valued as a billion dollar company is bigger than the biggest bank in Switzerland whose capitalization is about 60% of Facebook's.
Read at http://pressetext.com/news/110225020 for the article on Web 2.0 Bubble potential. Myself I am skeptical about drawing parallels between 2001 and 2011. Certainly in 2000 there were altogether 250 million. user in total, now we have over 2 billion users. Spreading this risk over larger sample reduces the risk significantly. On the other hand we observe that economy in general still suffers, with structural deficiency within the system. In States there is deficit and in EU currency crisis, sovereign defaults in Greece, Ireland, Island, and now Portugal. Lat year out of 27 economies only Poland was holding itself in the black.
All in all, I see the possibility for growth, in some sectors rather steep one, but remain skeptic to exalted growth numbers geared purely to crank the economy, jump start it and such. If somethings is too good to be true, it probably is. Nothing new but I advise caution.
Myself I use some of these social media mainly for experimental use. I have made well over 500 twitts, am following some 130 twitters and my own following gyrates at about 100 followers. My problem is: how do I converge my work (all those twitts) into useful business audience. Mind you I follow only reputable, professional sources I mostly know and trust. My followers are mainly companies or individuals moonlighting perhaps but still interest is to furthers it business goals.
In effect we all try to figure out how this can help us during those hard times to grow businesses.
The use of social networks in business is still very questionable. Speaking not only form my own experience. Gartner recently announced that over 70% of all business social media projects are to fail. Miserably. Based on hype goals are placed to high, bound to fail. Standard prescription. I have published the same in my blog: http://sfbaginski.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/gartner-is-predicting-up-to-70-of-social-media-projects-to-fail-in-2011/
Judging from my experience plus discussions with over 25 of my business executive partners, the jury is: wait until next interrupting technology would allow for easy convergence of limited format chats. Until there is a clear and secure way to converge networked contacts into interested parties, it is not going to work. Just being there is not enough.
There is another threat to this branch of industry and that is potential for another Dot.com bubble. With Facebook valued as a billion dollar company is bigger than the biggest bank in Switzerland whose capitalization is about 60% of Facebook's.
Read at http://pressetext.com/news/110225020 for the article on Web 2.0 Bubble potential. Myself I am skeptical about drawing parallels between 2001 and 2011. Certainly in 2000 there were altogether 250 million. user in total, now we have over 2 billion users. Spreading this risk over larger sample reduces the risk significantly. On the other hand we observe that economy in general still suffers, with structural deficiency within the system. In States there is deficit and in EU currency crisis, sovereign defaults in Greece, Ireland, Island, and now Portugal. Lat year out of 27 economies only Poland was holding itself in the black.
All in all, I see the possibility for growth, in some sectors rather steep one, but remain skeptic to exalted growth numbers geared purely to crank the economy, jump start it and such. If somethings is too good to be true, it probably is. Nothing new but I advise caution.
2011/03/08
Embedded World 2011 edition
The newest event from Nürnberg is Embedded World (www.embeddedworld.de) and it is done, closed another biggest event in the world gathering embedded industry professionals and business people. It was a bit bigger than last year by about 30 exhibitors (some 5% growth over past year). This would confirm progress after the crisis, but crisis still lingers on the lips of many attendees. The main question was "are we over the worst this time around?" That was followed by "what trends do we see to appear on the horizon?"
Neither of them was really and honestly answered with definite yes! Maybe who was there, how big was the booth, and other indicators would lead us with correct valuation of the show. Interesting to observe was that Microsoft with its Embedded product range was located in hall 10 next to QNX a real time OS vendor from Canada, whose big booth full of apps from Partners have made respectful challenge to that of neighbouring MS.
Lots of friends I meat asked me about what did I notice to be novel, creative, outstanding. To be honest I did say, "no". The new pin connectors with flat pads, some VPX board from Kontron, new cPCI, every year Barbara Schmitz is introducing something elegant. Im my view this show was "business almost as usual", next year should be even better. There is a room from growth.
In the Embedded market new opportunities are booming. Those who have noticed, big changes in government, like Ireland, Egypt, even new lady President in Brazil, brought new civil servants, new layer with people distributing money from government kofers. This amounts for huge earthquake which destroyed "mafia structures" which for years sucked on big projects. For obvious reasons I shall refrain from naming them, mostly european and american conglomerates have to reconnect to new ruling elite. This may take some time to rebuild to former arrangements. Companies offering Open Systems, based on open standards have their chance to appeal and save governments some money.
Neither of them was really and honestly answered with definite yes! Maybe who was there, how big was the booth, and other indicators would lead us with correct valuation of the show. Interesting to observe was that Microsoft with its Embedded product range was located in hall 10 next to QNX a real time OS vendor from Canada, whose big booth full of apps from Partners have made respectful challenge to that of neighbouring MS.
Lots of friends I meat asked me about what did I notice to be novel, creative, outstanding. To be honest I did say, "no". The new pin connectors with flat pads, some VPX board from Kontron, new cPCI, every year Barbara Schmitz is introducing something elegant. Im my view this show was "business almost as usual", next year should be even better. There is a room from growth.
In the Embedded market new opportunities are booming. Those who have noticed, big changes in government, like Ireland, Egypt, even new lady President in Brazil, brought new civil servants, new layer with people distributing money from government kofers. This amounts for huge earthquake which destroyed "mafia structures" which for years sucked on big projects. For obvious reasons I shall refrain from naming them, mostly european and american conglomerates have to reconnect to new ruling elite. This may take some time to rebuild to former arrangements. Companies offering Open Systems, based on open standards have their chance to appeal and save governments some money.
2011/01/22
IC capacity use will forecast the near future of electronics
Many pundits are looking to crystal ball to predict the future of IC industry for next few years. IC business is notorious for its cylic ups and downs. Superimposed on those cycles are other business influences like markets changes, financial crises etc.
To see really what is coming to us is to look at Capacity Utilization, and investments in CU over the past 3 years and in the next 3 more. According to IC Insights investment in 2010 grew by 98% against 2009, the revenues grew by only 16% what is below the average of 20% which is by many a minimum revenues growth to sustainable development in the industry. In 2011 this investment would grow only by 6% and in 2012 by 12%. This chronic under-invesment will produce effects not entirely desirable. Not until new fabs would come into operation in 2014 we should experience often acute shortages, affecting many smaller vendors.
Semicon equipment manufacturers who use large chunk of ICs from the world production would sell less and buy less electronic to support and control such equipment. We would see then shortages, allocation lists would continue, but they would be less severe if investment in IC production would keep up with the tradition. The financial crisis is still affecting most of us and should continue so in the next year.
To see really what is coming to us is to look at Capacity Utilization, and investments in CU over the past 3 years and in the next 3 more. According to IC Insights investment in 2010 grew by 98% against 2009, the revenues grew by only 16% what is below the average of 20% which is by many a minimum revenues growth to sustainable development in the industry. In 2011 this investment would grow only by 6% and in 2012 by 12%. This chronic under-invesment will produce effects not entirely desirable. Not until new fabs would come into operation in 2014 we should experience often acute shortages, affecting many smaller vendors.
Semicon equipment manufacturers who use large chunk of ICs from the world production would sell less and buy less electronic to support and control such equipment. We would see then shortages, allocation lists would continue, but they would be less severe if investment in IC production would keep up with the tradition. The financial crisis is still affecting most of us and should continue so in the next year.
2010/11/20
Antimatter atoms produced and trapped at CERN
PR21.10 - 17.11.2010
Geneva, 17 November 2011. The ALPHA experiment at CERN* has taken an important step forward in developing techniques to understand one of the Universe’s open questions: is there a difference between matter and antimatter? In a paper published in Nature today, the collaboration shows that it has successfully produced and trapped atoms of antihydrogen. This development opens the path to new ways of making detailed measurements of antihydrogen, which will in turn allow scientists to compare matter and antimatter.
Antimatter – or the lack of it – remains one of the biggest mysteries of science. Matter and its counterpart are identical except for opposite charge, and they annihilate when they meet. At the Big Bang, matter and antimatter should have been produced in equal amounts. However, we know that our world is made up of matter: antimatter seems to have disappeared. To find out what has happened to it, scientists employ a range of methods to investigate whether a tiny difference in the properties of matter and antimatter could point towards an explanation.
One of these methods is to take one of the best-known systems in physics, the hydrogen atom, which is made of one proton and one electron, and check whether its antimatter counterpart, antihydrogen, consisting of an antiproton and a positron, behaves in the same way. CERN is the only laboratory in the world with a dedicated low-energy antiproton facility where this research can be carried out.
The antihydrogen programme goes back a long way. In 1995, the first nine atoms of man-made antihydrogen were produced at CERN. Then, in 2002, the ATHENA and ATRAP experiments showed that it was possible to produce antihydrogen in large quantities, opening up the possibility of conducting detailed studies. The new result from ALPHA is the latest step in this journey.
Antihydrogen atoms are produced in a vacuum at CERN, but are nevertheless surrounded by normal matter. Because matter and antimatter annihilate when they meet, the antihydrogen atoms have a very short life expectancy. This can be extended, however, by using strong and complex magnetic fields to trap them and thus prevent them from coming into contact with matter. The ALPHA experiment has shown that it is possible to hold on to atoms of antihydrogen in this way for about a tenth of a second: easily long enough to study them. Of the many thousands of antiatoms the experiment has created, ALPHA’s latest paper reports that 38 have been trapped for long enough to study.
"For reasons that no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter. It is thus very rewarding, and a bit overwhelming, to look at the ALPHA device and know that it contains stable, neutral atoms of antimatter,” said Jeffrey Hangst of Aarhus University, Denmark, spokesman of the ALPHA collaboration. “This inspires us to work that much harder to see if antimatter holds some secret.”
In another recent development in CERN’s antimatter programme, the ASACUSA experiment has demonstrated a new technique for producing antihydrogen atoms. In a paper soon to appear in Physical Review Letters, the collaboration reports success in producing antihydrogen in a so-called Cusp trap, an essential precursor to making a beam. ASACUSA plans to develop this technique to the point at which beams of sufficient intensity will survive for long enough to be studied.
“With two alternative methods of producing and eventually studying antihydrogen, antimatter will not be able to hide its properties from us much longer,” said Yasunori Yamazaki of Japan’s RIKEN research centre and a member of the ASACUSA collaboration. “There’s still some way to go, but we’re very happy to see how well this technique works.”
“These are significant steps in antimatter research,” said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer, “and an important part of the very broad research programme at CERN.”
Full information about the ASACUSA approach will be made available when the paper is published.
For further information on the ALPHA experiment, please read here:
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/30577
Pictures available here:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1307522
Footage available here:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1307524
Contacts:
- CERN Press Office
press.office@cern.ch
+41 22 767 34 32
+41 22 767 63 33
- Jeffrey Hangst, ALPHA experiment spokesperson
+41 76 487 45 89
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is the world's leading laboratory for particle physics. It has its headquarters in Geneva. At present, its Member States are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. India, Israel, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, Turkey, the European Commission and UNESCO have Observer status.
If you would rather not receive future communications from CERN - European Organization for Nuclear Research, let us know by clicking here.
CERN - European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN CH-1211, Genève 23, Switzerland
Geneva, 17 November 2011. The ALPHA experiment at CERN* has taken an important step forward in developing techniques to understand one of the Universe’s open questions: is there a difference between matter and antimatter? In a paper published in Nature today, the collaboration shows that it has successfully produced and trapped atoms of antihydrogen. This development opens the path to new ways of making detailed measurements of antihydrogen, which will in turn allow scientists to compare matter and antimatter.
Antimatter – or the lack of it – remains one of the biggest mysteries of science. Matter and its counterpart are identical except for opposite charge, and they annihilate when they meet. At the Big Bang, matter and antimatter should have been produced in equal amounts. However, we know that our world is made up of matter: antimatter seems to have disappeared. To find out what has happened to it, scientists employ a range of methods to investigate whether a tiny difference in the properties of matter and antimatter could point towards an explanation.
One of these methods is to take one of the best-known systems in physics, the hydrogen atom, which is made of one proton and one electron, and check whether its antimatter counterpart, antihydrogen, consisting of an antiproton and a positron, behaves in the same way. CERN is the only laboratory in the world with a dedicated low-energy antiproton facility where this research can be carried out.
The antihydrogen programme goes back a long way. In 1995, the first nine atoms of man-made antihydrogen were produced at CERN. Then, in 2002, the ATHENA and ATRAP experiments showed that it was possible to produce antihydrogen in large quantities, opening up the possibility of conducting detailed studies. The new result from ALPHA is the latest step in this journey.
Antihydrogen atoms are produced in a vacuum at CERN, but are nevertheless surrounded by normal matter. Because matter and antimatter annihilate when they meet, the antihydrogen atoms have a very short life expectancy. This can be extended, however, by using strong and complex magnetic fields to trap them and thus prevent them from coming into contact with matter. The ALPHA experiment has shown that it is possible to hold on to atoms of antihydrogen in this way for about a tenth of a second: easily long enough to study them. Of the many thousands of antiatoms the experiment has created, ALPHA’s latest paper reports that 38 have been trapped for long enough to study.
"For reasons that no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter. It is thus very rewarding, and a bit overwhelming, to look at the ALPHA device and know that it contains stable, neutral atoms of antimatter,” said Jeffrey Hangst of Aarhus University, Denmark, spokesman of the ALPHA collaboration. “This inspires us to work that much harder to see if antimatter holds some secret.”
In another recent development in CERN’s antimatter programme, the ASACUSA experiment has demonstrated a new technique for producing antihydrogen atoms. In a paper soon to appear in Physical Review Letters, the collaboration reports success in producing antihydrogen in a so-called Cusp trap, an essential precursor to making a beam. ASACUSA plans to develop this technique to the point at which beams of sufficient intensity will survive for long enough to be studied.
“With two alternative methods of producing and eventually studying antihydrogen, antimatter will not be able to hide its properties from us much longer,” said Yasunori Yamazaki of Japan’s RIKEN research centre and a member of the ASACUSA collaboration. “There’s still some way to go, but we’re very happy to see how well this technique works.”
“These are significant steps in antimatter research,” said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer, “and an important part of the very broad research programme at CERN.”
Full information about the ASACUSA approach will be made available when the paper is published.
For further information on the ALPHA experiment, please read here:
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/30577
Pictures available here:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1307522
Footage available here:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1307524
Contacts:
- CERN Press Office
press.office@cern.ch
+41 22 767 34 32
+41 22 767 63 33
- Jeffrey Hangst, ALPHA experiment spokesperson
+41 76 487 45 89
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is the world's leading laboratory for particle physics. It has its headquarters in Geneva. At present, its Member States are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. India, Israel, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, Turkey, the European Commission and UNESCO have Observer status.
If you would rather not receive future communications from CERN - European Organization for Nuclear Research, let us know by clicking here.
CERN - European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN CH-1211, Genève 23, Switzerland
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)