3 ms·
This was explained by another commenter yesterday, but this is not an issue. The 3.15:2.05 ratio is the news as it is the part that was difficult to achieve. Th
by belval 4y ago
This was explained by another commenter yesterday, but this is not an issue. The 3.15:2.05 ratio is the news as it is the part that was difficult to achieve. The 300MJ accounts for significant laser inefficiencies in much the same way that the 3.15MJ of output won't convert to 3.15MJ of electricity as the conversion is not loss less.
In other words: it's a net-positive output for that reaction, not the whole process, there is still a lot of work to be done before you and I exchange comments on a server powered by fusion energy in homes powered by fusion energy.
- _a_a_a_ 4y agoGranted... > in much the same way that the 3.15MJ of output won't convert to 3.15MJ of electricity as the conversion is not loss less ...and very much touche! That's a good point. But I do feel the overall loss should have been made clear and distinct from the gain in one part of the whole. Gross vs net perhaps?
- jasonhansel 4y agoIIRC part of the issue is that NIF's lasers are very old and much less efficient than more modern ones. So the 300 MJ needed to power the lasers is higher than would be expected if this were commercialized.