4 ms·
That's what I was trying to figure out. So is it still a net-negative overall?
by trilobyte 4y ago
That's what I was trying to figure out. So is it still a net-negative overall?
- anfilt 4y agoYea very curious as well would need to dig a little deeper. If it's the beam energy it means we need more efficient lasers or to scale larger to overcome the energy losses from making a laser beam. Still even if it's just the beam we are at an energy positive which is still great news because it mean the fundamentals are working. Still other issues though, the biggest in my opinion are an effective way to produce Tritium and energy extraction.
- trilobyte 4y agoLooks like the Nature article (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7) is more clear about it still being a net loss. Still an important step forward, but it's important to contextualize it.
- pelorat 4y agoIt's a net negative with a factor of 400 or so. This breakthrough is not really a breakthrough, it's just marketed as such because NIF needs to justify their funding. Compressing pellets of fusion fuel using lasers has no chance of ever forming the basis of a nuclear reactor. It's scientifically interesting because a self-sustaining reaction (until the fuel was consumed that is) was achieved in a lab setting (as opposed to in a hydrogen bomb). There might be fusion plasma data in there that are of importance to more serious attempts at actually building fusion reactors.
- trynewideas 4y agoIf it was net-positive today they'd already be plugging it into the grid.