6 ms·

What about this: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2333346-ignition-confirmed-in-a-nuclear-fusion-experiment-for-the-first-time/ https://www.newscientist.com

What about this: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2333346-ignition-confirmed-in-a-nuclear-fusion-experiment-for-the-first-time/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2333346-ignition-confir... Allegedly ignition was achieved a year ago. How is this different?

ceejayoz 4y ago
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7 > In August 2021, NIF scientists announced that they had used their high-powered laser device to achieve a record reaction that crossed a critical threshold on the path to ignition, but efforts to replicate that experiment, or shot, in the following months fell short. Fluke or measurement error, it seems.
dogma1138 4y ago
Because now it’s reproducible, controllable and consistently net positive in terms of energy output. It’s not a fluke anymore and I assume the engineering behind this is now understood well enough to develop it further and scale it up. Fusion for the most part isn’t a physics problem it’s an engineering problem the difficulty was always in how to implement it in the real world rather than in math at ideal white paper conditions.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  What information available to the public suggests this is reproducible and consistent? They do hundreds of shots every year. Why do we think that this energetic shot wasn't just a result of getting luckier this time than they did a few years ago?
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Because they’ve been able to do it multiple times, which is better than the zero or one times before.
    - civilized 4y ago
      Curious where you found this? I skimmed the press release for a minute and didn't immediately see discussion of the repeatability.
      - itishappy 4y ago
        This was the second time. The energy out/in ratio was higher this time, hence the claim of better scaling.
  - dogma1138 4y ago
    Because the press release stated that they’ve ramped up the reaction and got higher energy output and the scaling wasn’t linear in a good way.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jbverschoor 4y ago
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  The B-21 isn't unmanned, the nuclear-capable B-2 already existed, and we've had fusion bombs since the 1950s.
  - dotnet00 4y ago
    The B-21 is stated to be capable of uncrewed operation.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      It's capable of maybe later on being made uncrewed. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/12/03/air-force-reveals-new-b-21-bomber-keeping-pilot-now.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/12/03/air-force-rev... > The service has not fully delivered on, or explained what, that unmanned concept or capability would look like. Defense experts told Military.com prior to the rollout that it is unlikely we’d see a fully autonomous bomber anywhere in the near future. They also canceled the drone wingman: > In 2021, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall publicly discussed the idea of having a drone counterpart to the B-21 that would essentially act as a wingman alongside the bomber. But Kendall later backtracked, telling Breaking Defense in July that the concept was not as “cost-effective” and “less attractive” than previously thought.
  - p1esk 4y ago
    I thought they said it could fly unmanned.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      They've said it might, someday, be modified to do so. The current iteration of it requires a manned crew.
- tmccrary55 4y ago
ericmay 4y ago
A better question to ask yourself is if this isn't any different, why are the entire scientific community, the Lawrence Livermore lab, the DOE, and others so excited about it? If these are the same thing, why didn't they make a big deal about it before? What's the material difference?
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  The hype machine is fully engaged, and may lead to an influx of budget, something of deadly seriousness to DoE. They have had trouble getting funding increases for this kind of weapons work when it was represented as weapons work. Pretend it's not, and people fall all over themselves to praise it. But it is weapons work, first, last, and always.

ceejayoz 4y ago

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7 > In August 2021, NIF scientists announced that they had used their high-powered laser device to achieve a record reaction that crossed a critical threshold on the path to ignition, but efforts to replicate that experiment, or shot, in the following months fell short. Fluke or measurement error, it seems.

dogma1138 4y ago

Because now it’s reproducible, controllable and consistently net positive in terms of energy output. It’s not a fluke anymore and I assume the engineering behind this is now understood well enough to develop it further and scale it up. Fusion for the most part isn’t a physics problem it’s an engineering problem the difficulty was always in how to implement it in the real world rather than in math at ideal white paper conditions.

jeffbee 4y ago
What information available to the public suggests this is reproducible and consistent? They do hundreds of shots every year. Why do we think that this energetic shot wasn't just a result of getting luckier this time than they did a few years ago?
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  Because they’ve been able to do it multiple times, which is better than the zero or one times before.
  - civilized 4y ago
    Curious where you found this? I skimmed the press release for a minute and didn't immediately see discussion of the repeatability.
    - itishappy 4y ago
      This was the second time. The energy out/in ratio was higher this time, hence the claim of better scaling.
- dogma1138 4y ago
  Because the press release stated that they’ve ramped up the reaction and got higher energy output and the scaling wasn’t linear in a good way.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jbverschoor 4y ago

ceejayoz 4y ago
The B-21 isn't unmanned, the nuclear-capable B-2 already existed, and we've had fusion bombs since the 1950s.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  The B-21 is stated to be capable of uncrewed operation.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    It's capable of maybe later on being made uncrewed. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/12/03/air-force-reveals-new-b-21-bomber-keeping-pilot-now.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/12/03/air-force-rev... > The service has not fully delivered on, or explained what, that unmanned concept or capability would look like. Defense experts told Military.com prior to the rollout that it is unlikely we’d see a fully autonomous bomber anywhere in the near future. They also canceled the drone wingman: > In 2021, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall publicly discussed the idea of having a drone counterpart to the B-21 that would essentially act as a wingman alongside the bomber. But Kendall later backtracked, telling Breaking Defense in July that the concept was not as “cost-effective” and “less attractive” than previously thought.
- p1esk 4y ago
  I thought they said it could fly unmanned.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    They've said it might, someday, be modified to do so. The current iteration of it requires a manned crew.
tmccrary55 4y ago

ericmay 4y ago

A better question to ask yourself is if this isn't any different, why are the entire scientific community, the Lawrence Livermore lab, the DOE, and others so excited about it? If these are the same thing, why didn't they make a big deal about it before? What's the material difference?

moloch-hai 4y ago
The hype machine is fully engaged, and may lead to an influx of budget, something of deadly seriousness to DoE. They have had trouble getting funding increases for this kind of weapons work when it was represented as weapons work. Pretend it's not, and people fall all over themselves to praise it. But it is weapons work, first, last, and always.