3 ms·

It just seems a little strange to take credit for a milestone when the milestone everyone cares about is yet to be reached. (More energy out than in.) Good to

It just seems a little strange to take credit for a milestone when the milestone everyone cares about is yet to be reached. (More energy out than in.) Good to hear that there's a laser design that might achieve that.

nilsbunger 4y ago
It's a significant milestone because demonstrating you can get net energy from the reaction removes a lot of uncertainty of whether it's possible in the real world. It starts to turn inertial fusion into an engineering problem of how you increase the efficiency of each stage.
simplicio 4y ago
I think the confusion here is at least partially due to most articles obscuring the primary purpose of the NIF. Its not supposed to support commercial energy development, its supposed to support nuclear weapons development under the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, where testing bombs via setting them off is banned. So the NIF is supposed to give a testbed to study implosion created fusion reactions that produce enough energy to "ignite", that is, propegate the reaction to the rest of a hypothetical bomb. In that case, the amount of energy needed for the infrastructure to produce the initial implosion doesn't matter, what matters is that the energy coming out is more then the actual energy that triggered the reaction, so that the hypothetical bomb would blow up and not fizzle.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Exactly! It's so strange this is somehow made to be about fusion as an energy source. I'm happy to announce that Q>>1 has already been achieved on multiple occasions. In the cores of the thermonuclear devices tested by the US and USSR in the 50s. (Unfortunately that technology proved unviable as a path to civilian fusion power.)
ganbatekudasai 4y ago
Don't take it too personally, but you, and many others here, need to rethink their approach. You see a short tweet without context about a topic you clearly know nothing about (which is totally, fully okay, it's a complex topic), and think you are now able to criticize milestones in this impossibly complex topic. Not even ask questions, not something like "hey, I saw this tweet, I know it's just a tweet, but can someone help me understand context?", no, you actually go ahead and criticize work that you know nothing about, and when confronted, you double down. On some level, you must know yourself that it might be better to ask as many unloaded questions as you want, but otherwise sit this one out in terms of assessment.
- sillysaurusx 4y ago
  No thanks. I get that people are emotional about this, but it’s important to treat science with a critical eye. The claim is that more energy came out than was put in. This is false. It’s not just me saying it. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVP5Pmg/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVP5Pmg/ There is no “context” to understand. Yes, it’s an impressive feat. Yes, other laser designs might fix the huge ignition costs. But that hasn’t happened yet, and until it does, it’s completely fair to point that out. Will it win me any friends? Probably not. It’s like showing up to a party and saying the reason for the party is mistaken. Very few people care. But scientists should, and I am one. Doubly so for incorrect reporting to laymen. We have a responsibility to convey what was actually achieved, not what we wish was achieved.
  - boc 4y ago
    - sillysaurusx 4y ago
      Which criticism am I dismissing? People do seem to be getting emotional about fusion, and pointing that out is hardly edgy. Once fusion achieves more output than input, I’ll be celebrating right there with you. But until then, ignoring the Doberman in the room is a worse look, from a scientific standpoint. I even cited a source from someone with a phd in mathematical physics, who is likely far more qualified to be talking about this than most of us here. So in terms of dismissing criticism, the stack seems to be in the other direction. Scientific reporting matters. Reporting something false is generally a bad idea. Saying “we got more energy out than we put in” is false. Which link in this chain of reasoning is invalid?
      - twojacobtwo 4y ago
        > It just seems a little strange to take credit for a milestone when the milestone everyone cares about is yet to be reached. (More energy out than in.) That comment/criticism is a little strange in and of itself. I would say it's the oddness or seeming petulance of the above comment that brought on boc's comment. A silly, but illustrative analogy: Kid: Dad, look! I scored a home-run! Father: Who cares? Have you won the game yet? Stop celebrating until you do something that everyone cares about!
CuriousCosmic 4y ago
Worth noting that the milestone achieved was positive Q_plasma (more energy out of the plasma than in). They are using inefficient lasers because they are cheaper to buy/maintain/modify for research purposes. Determining the conditions for positive Q_plasma is largely a matter of science/research so the external system doesn't matter as long as the variables are controlled and results are reproducible. Once positive Q_plasma is well understood/reproducible, achieving positive Q_total (more energy produced than spent running the infrastructure) is just a matter of engineering and potentially waiting for the SOTA for components (like lasers or materials) to catch up. TLDR: This is the scientists proving the theory. Now it's the scientists' job to refine the theory. Then the engineers get to put it into production.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  The theory was proven to everybody's satisfaction in 1950. There will be no production, except of new, smaller thermonuclear warheads. That is their legislated remit.
kelnos 4y ago
It is a milestone, and I do think the researchers deserve credit for that. Getting more energy out of the reaction than was delivered to it by the lasers is actually important. No one (except perhaps poor science "reporters") is claiming that this means we now have free and cheap fusion power. Of course the energy put in to operate the lasers themselves needs to be accounted for -- and it is! -- but that doesn't make what they've achieved useless. It's also useful to remember that the researchers involved are not the people writing press releases and articles; let's not minimize their achievement just because of sloppy, sensationalist reporting. I like the analogy downthread of a kid being excited about scoring a home run in baseball, but the dad chastising the kid for celebrating before actually winning the game. That's what it feels like is happening here. This is a huge step in the right direction, and it should be celebrated as such.

nilsbunger 4y ago

It's a significant milestone because demonstrating you can get net energy from the reaction removes a lot of uncertainty of whether it's possible in the real world. It starts to turn inertial fusion into an engineering problem of how you increase the efficiency of each stage.

simplicio 4y ago

I think the confusion here is at least partially due to most articles obscuring the primary purpose of the NIF. Its not supposed to support commercial energy development, its supposed to support nuclear weapons development under the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, where testing bombs via setting them off is banned. So the NIF is supposed to give a testbed to study implosion created fusion reactions that produce enough energy to "ignite", that is, propegate the reaction to the rest of a hypothetical bomb. In that case, the amount of energy needed for the infrastructure to produce the initial implosion doesn't matter, what matters is that the energy coming out is more then the actual energy that triggered the reaction, so that the hypothetical bomb would blow up and not fizzle.

geysersam 4y ago
Exactly! It's so strange this is somehow made to be about fusion as an energy source. I'm happy to announce that Q>>1 has already been achieved on multiple occasions. In the cores of the thermonuclear devices tested by the US and USSR in the 50s. (Unfortunately that technology proved unviable as a path to civilian fusion power.)

ganbatekudasai 4y ago

Don't take it too personally, but you, and many others here, need to rethink their approach. You see a short tweet without context about a topic you clearly know nothing about (which is totally, fully okay, it's a complex topic), and think you are now able to criticize milestones in this impossibly complex topic. Not even ask questions, not something like "hey, I saw this tweet, I know it's just a tweet, but can someone help me understand context?", no, you actually go ahead and criticize work that you know nothing about, and when confronted, you double down. On some level, you must know yourself that it might be better to ask as many unloaded questions as you want, but otherwise sit this one out in terms of assessment.

sillysaurusx 4y ago
No thanks. I get that people are emotional about this, but it’s important to treat science with a critical eye. The claim is that more energy came out than was put in. This is false. It’s not just me saying it. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVP5Pmg/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVP5Pmg/ There is no “context” to understand. Yes, it’s an impressive feat. Yes, other laser designs might fix the huge ignition costs. But that hasn’t happened yet, and until it does, it’s completely fair to point that out. Will it win me any friends? Probably not. It’s like showing up to a party and saying the reason for the party is mistaken. Very few people care. But scientists should, and I am one. Doubly so for incorrect reporting to laymen. We have a responsibility to convey what was actually achieved, not what we wish was achieved.
- boc 4y ago
  - sillysaurusx 4y ago
    Which criticism am I dismissing? People do seem to be getting emotional about fusion, and pointing that out is hardly edgy. Once fusion achieves more output than input, I’ll be celebrating right there with you. But until then, ignoring the Doberman in the room is a worse look, from a scientific standpoint. I even cited a source from someone with a phd in mathematical physics, who is likely far more qualified to be talking about this than most of us here. So in terms of dismissing criticism, the stack seems to be in the other direction. Scientific reporting matters. Reporting something false is generally a bad idea. Saying “we got more energy out than we put in” is false. Which link in this chain of reasoning is invalid?
    - twojacobtwo 4y ago
      > It just seems a little strange to take credit for a milestone when the milestone everyone cares about is yet to be reached. (More energy out than in.) That comment/criticism is a little strange in and of itself. I would say it's the oddness or seeming petulance of the above comment that brought on boc's comment. A silly, but illustrative analogy: Kid: Dad, look! I scored a home-run! Father: Who cares? Have you won the game yet? Stop celebrating until you do something that everyone cares about!

CuriousCosmic 4y ago

Worth noting that the milestone achieved was positive Q_plasma (more energy out of the plasma than in). They are using inefficient lasers because they are cheaper to buy/maintain/modify for research purposes. Determining the conditions for positive Q_plasma is largely a matter of science/research so the external system doesn't matter as long as the variables are controlled and results are reproducible. Once positive Q_plasma is well understood/reproducible, achieving positive Q_total (more energy produced than spent running the infrastructure) is just a matter of engineering and potentially waiting for the SOTA for components (like lasers or materials) to catch up. TLDR: This is the scientists proving the theory. Now it's the scientists' job to refine the theory. Then the engineers get to put it into production.

moloch-hai 4y ago
The theory was proven to everybody's satisfaction in 1950. There will be no production, except of new, smaller thermonuclear warheads. That is their legislated remit.

kelnos 4y ago

It is a milestone, and I do think the researchers deserve credit for that. Getting more energy out of the reaction than was delivered to it by the lasers is actually important. No one (except perhaps poor science "reporters") is claiming that this means we now have free and cheap fusion power. Of course the energy put in to operate the lasers themselves needs to be accounted for -- and it is! -- but that doesn't make what they've achieved useless. It's also useful to remember that the researchers involved are not the people writing press releases and articles; let's not minimize their achievement just because of sloppy, sensationalist reporting. I like the analogy downthread of a kid being excited about scoring a home run in baseball, but the dad chastising the kid for celebrating before actually winning the game. That's what it feels like is happening here. This is a huge step in the right direction, and it should be celebrated as such.