3 ms·

It's yet another "over unity" announcement. The fact that it comes from NIF at LLNL makes it a bit more credible that fusion actually occurred than some of the

It's yet another "over unity" announcement. The fact that it comes from NIF at LLNL makes it a bit more credible that fusion actually occurred than some of the profit-motivated announcements of late. However it will still take decades (if ever) to turn this into a working electric power system.

chrsw 4y ago
I feel like most of these "breakthrough" announcements are just PR for reasearchers, startups and the energy industry in general. I get it, they need the money. Everyone needs money. But they're going about it in a clickbait-y way: appealing to anxiety over losing our comfortable way of living. Nobody wants to hear about deep sacrifices to recover from reckless human development over the last few hundred years. Instead, people are more interested in hearing about a quick fix that isn't going to require them to lift a finger, however unlikely it will be realized.
MPSimmons 4y ago
I didn't think _fusion_ was the problem, but rather fusion that generated energy in excess of what was put into the system?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Correct. The two hard problems are sustaining a reaction over a period of time and, given that first constraint, having that reaction generate more collectible energy than is being used to sustain it. We solved the problem of using fusion to create vast amounts of energy in a short amount of time half a century ago, but the primary application for that approach is excavation (and all ways that word can be applied euphemistically), not energy production.
- thereddaikon 4y ago
  Indeed, you can build a fusor in your garage that fuses quite happily. The hard part is making a practical power generation system from this. Net energy is very hard.
- dreamcompiler 4y ago
  Yes. I should have said "fusion ignition actually occurred" rather than merely "fusion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition
ludsan 4y ago
> It's yet another "over unity" announcement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there haven't been "over unity" announcements before this -- aside from bombs. The Q of 1.5 here is the story. All Qs before have been under 1.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  You're right up to a delta of maybe some private companies claiming something which was false.
- AlanSE 4y ago
  Huh, ok. After some quick Googling, Wikipedia paints JET has having tried, and failed, to reach Q=1, only getting 0.67, which was way back in 1997. It's very strange to read that we get Q=0.67 in 1997 in a tokomak, and then Q=1.5 in 2022 with a totally different laser inertial confinement design. That... seems to be the written history. I know Iter would be surpassing the record, but the timelines are long to the point that one loses hope in the project.

chrsw 4y ago

I feel like most of these "breakthrough" announcements are just PR for reasearchers, startups and the energy industry in general. I get it, they need the money. Everyone needs money. But they're going about it in a clickbait-y way: appealing to anxiety over losing our comfortable way of living. Nobody wants to hear about deep sacrifices to recover from reckless human development over the last few hundred years. Instead, people are more interested in hearing about a quick fix that isn't going to require them to lift a finger, however unlikely it will be realized.

MPSimmons 4y ago

I didn't think _fusion_ was the problem, but rather fusion that generated energy in excess of what was put into the system?

shadowgovt 4y ago
Correct. The two hard problems are sustaining a reaction over a period of time and, given that first constraint, having that reaction generate more collectible energy than is being used to sustain it. We solved the problem of using fusion to create vast amounts of energy in a short amount of time half a century ago, but the primary application for that approach is excavation (and all ways that word can be applied euphemistically), not energy production.
thereddaikon 4y ago
Indeed, you can build a fusor in your garage that fuses quite happily. The hard part is making a practical power generation system from this. Net energy is very hard.
dreamcompiler 4y ago
Yes. I should have said "fusion ignition actually occurred" rather than merely "fusion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition

ludsan 4y ago

> It's yet another "over unity" announcement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there haven't been "over unity" announcements before this -- aside from bombs. The Q of 1.5 here is the story. All Qs before have been under 1.

whimsicalism 4y ago
You're right up to a delta of maybe some private companies claiming something which was false.
AlanSE 4y ago
Huh, ok. After some quick Googling, Wikipedia paints JET has having tried, and failed, to reach Q=1, only getting 0.67, which was way back in 1997. It's very strange to read that we get Q=0.67 in 1997 in a tokomak, and then Q=1.5 in 2022 with a totally different laser inertial confinement design. That... seems to be the written history. I know Iter would be surpassing the record, but the timelines are long to the point that one loses hope in the project.