5 ms·

> They've proven they can do something impressive If what they claim can't be reproduced, then what's the basis for asserting anything was proven?

vlovich123 4y ago
They’ve analyzed the data from the experiment to prove that they achieved it (i.e. ruling out all possible other explanations). Assuming there’s been no fraud, then it’s likely they did achieve it. They’re trying to figure out what the problems are that make reproducibility difficult & I think there’s a new reactor being built that addresses the challenges with reproducing in the current design. It’s an early signal indicating that we may have line of sight to someone demonstrating working fusion within the next 5 years. Is that not impressive?
- Retric 4y ago
  Without reproducing the result it can be extremely difficult to prove something wasn’t a measurement error of some kind.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  That do you mean by "working fusion"? This is a weapons research program wearing a very thin figleaf as a kinda sorta maybe possible power generation option. And fusion weapons have existed for decades - so nothing that nivel here.
  - DennisP 4y ago
    It's a bit odd how people think nuclear weapons research needs a fig leaf in the US, where overt nuclear weapons funding is about a hundred times more than the government's fusion energy funding. It seems more likely that scientists used the weapons angle to dip into that massive flow of military money for their energy program.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Isn't this at the NIF? The goal was weapons all along.
      - DennisP 4y ago
        So, you have a source proving the motivations of the people who founded it and run it now? Because I argued above that it makes little sense to simply assume that weapons are the only goal, or even necessarily the primary goal.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        > I argued above that it makes little sense to simply assume that weapons are the only goal, or even necessarily the primary goal. You can argue all you want. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility managed through a contract between the LLNS Board of Governors and the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The NNSA in turn works to ensure that the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons is safe and secure.
        DennisP 4y ago
        None of that contradicts what I said, or explains why they bother doing energy research at all.
        sudosysgen 4y ago
        This isn't energy research. It's really fundamental research that is directly useful to nuclear weapons. The funding source being mandated solely for nuclear weapons goes against your claim it's not primarily for weapons.
    - pxhb 4y ago
      https://wci.llnl.gov/ https://wci.llnl.gov/ Note that in the US nuclear weapons are controlled by the DOE, and not the DOD.
- D-Coder 4y ago
  "They’ve analyzed the data from the experiment to prove that they achieved it (i.e. ruling out all possible other explanations)." All possible other explanations that they have thought of.
mannykannot 4y ago
They have achieved ignition multiple times. If reproducibility demanded getting the exact same numbers, a lot of good results would be thrown out for no good reason.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  If they claim they achieved 1.3MJ and can only reproduce some hundreds of KJ, that's not exactly close the exact same numbers.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Nevermark 4y ago
That is a remarkably pedantic take on the situation, no? Difficult tasks are difficult. Difficult tasks take time. A credible indicator that they have achieved something significant is the widespread acclaim they have received from the global physics and fusion communities. Repeatability isn’t the only tool in science and nobody is claiming reproducibility isn’t a goal. If five years from now nobody can reproduce the results, people will take notice. But the evidence is they did what they think they did.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by pedantic. But... > A credible indicator that they have achieved something significant is the widespread acclaim they have received from the global physics and fusion communities. How do those people know the result wasn't spurious, if it can't be reproduced? This comment and the one above are questions, do you have an answer?

vlovich123 4y ago

They’ve analyzed the data from the experiment to prove that they achieved it (i.e. ruling out all possible other explanations). Assuming there’s been no fraud, then it’s likely they did achieve it. They’re trying to figure out what the problems are that make reproducibility difficult & I think there’s a new reactor being built that addresses the challenges with reproducing in the current design. It’s an early signal indicating that we may have line of sight to someone demonstrating working fusion within the next 5 years. Is that not impressive?

Retric 4y ago
Without reproducing the result it can be extremely difficult to prove something wasn’t a measurement error of some kind.
tsimionescu 4y ago
That do you mean by "working fusion"? This is a weapons research program wearing a very thin figleaf as a kinda sorta maybe possible power generation option. And fusion weapons have existed for decades - so nothing that nivel here.
- DennisP 4y ago
  It's a bit odd how people think nuclear weapons research needs a fig leaf in the US, where overt nuclear weapons funding is about a hundred times more than the government's fusion energy funding. It seems more likely that scientists used the weapons angle to dip into that massive flow of military money for their energy program.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Isn't this at the NIF? The goal was weapons all along.
    - DennisP 4y ago
      So, you have a source proving the motivations of the people who founded it and run it now? Because I argued above that it makes little sense to simply assume that weapons are the only goal, or even necessarily the primary goal.
      - IncRnd 4y ago
        > I argued above that it makes little sense to simply assume that weapons are the only goal, or even necessarily the primary goal. You can argue all you want. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility managed through a contract between the LLNS Board of Governors and the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The NNSA in turn works to ensure that the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons is safe and secure.
        DennisP 4y ago
        None of that contradicts what I said, or explains why they bother doing energy research at all.
        sudosysgen 4y ago
        This isn't energy research. It's really fundamental research that is directly useful to nuclear weapons. The funding source being mandated solely for nuclear weapons goes against your claim it's not primarily for weapons.
  - pxhb 4y ago
    https://wci.llnl.gov/ https://wci.llnl.gov/ Note that in the US nuclear weapons are controlled by the DOE, and not the DOD.
D-Coder 4y ago
"They’ve analyzed the data from the experiment to prove that they achieved it (i.e. ruling out all possible other explanations)." All possible other explanations that they have thought of.

mannykannot 4y ago

They have achieved ignition multiple times. If reproducibility demanded getting the exact same numbers, a lot of good results would be thrown out for no good reason.

tsimionescu 4y ago
If they claim they achieved 1.3MJ and can only reproduce some hundreds of KJ, that's not exactly close the exact same numbers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Nevermark 4y ago

That is a remarkably pedantic take on the situation, no? Difficult tasks are difficult. Difficult tasks take time. A credible indicator that they have achieved something significant is the widespread acclaim they have received from the global physics and fusion communities. Repeatability isn’t the only tool in science and nobody is claiming reproducibility isn’t a goal. If five years from now nobody can reproduce the results, people will take notice. But the evidence is they did what they think they did.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by pedantic. But... > A credible indicator that they have achieved something significant is the widespread acclaim they have received from the global physics and fusion communities. How do those people know the result wasn't spurious, if it can't be reproduced? This comment and the one above are questions, do you have an answer?