4 ms·

I feel like HN is being especially pedantic and jaded about this specifically and I don't really get why. Scientifically this is absolutely a breakthrough, jus

I feel like HN is being especially pedantic and jaded about this specifically and I don't really get why. Scientifically this is absolutely a breakthrough, just like the detection of the Higgs boson was despite them already having expected it or just like LIGO's detections of gravitational waves were despite that being entirely what it was built for or just as JWST's detections of galaxies much older than those seen from other telescopes was despite that being part of the entire point of dumping billions into it. Ingenuity's first flight was also hailed as a breakthrough despite that being exactly what it was designed to do. In every case we had an idea of how to solve a problem and the outcome was generally expected. All that had changed was that the data had been collected of the solution working, just as it has been in this case. To put it differently, it's a breakthrough because after decades of work, the National Ignition Facility can actually achieve the thing in its name.

Hnrobert42 4y ago
Exactly. If you look closely enough, no breakthroughs appear completely out of nowhere.
jacquesm 4y ago
I think after decades of fusion 'breakthroughs' people have become a bit jaded and would simply like to short-cut to the point where there is a fusion reactor in a box that produces more energy out than is put in.
gaoshan 4y ago
Responding in a pedantic/jaded manner is one way to assert a form of intellectual dominance. For this audience I feel like that sort of dominance is unsurprising.
- zug_zug 4y ago
  Agreed, but I think it has the side-effect of signaling "This technology advancement isn't worth excitement/praise/prestige" which I think in this case could have effects like demotivating people who might be considering going into the field.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
No it's not a breakthrough. It is only net positive because the NIF has an exquisitely stupid and convenient place where they are defining "energy in" which let's them cheat how good it looks. If you could take other types of fusion and draw a clever line around where you start tallying energy in, then they would have had "breakthroughs" long ago.
- donquixote25 4y ago
  The definition of Q that is being used was established by the National Academy of Sciences not NIF. NIF previously tied to use the hot spot energy instead of target energy in 2013, which they were criticized for, and rightfully so. But this definition of Q is analogous to the definition of Q used by MCF.
  - zardo 4y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Q typically used for MCF does not count the energy in neutrons, only the alpha particle energy.
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    Ok. So the NAS has an exquisitely stupid definition of Q which is not at all what most engineers would use as a reasonable definition of Q
px43 4y ago
With the Higgs, we got the mass, which was not predicted by any of the theoretical models. We were basically done at that point. With LIGO we got tons of tangible data of black holes colliding. Fusion is not useful until Q>1, and for NIF to claim that when it obviously isn't true is, IMO, a bad look. They invented Qplasma where they arbitrarily get to ignore over 99% of the energy that actually went in, and don't need to worry about capturing any of the energy actually coming out. They got Qplasma>1, which is a great milestone, but the overwhelming narrative in the media is that they got more energy out than they put in, which is simply not true. Someone, and almost certainly someone *ELSE* will get to Q>1 very soon. Lots of groups are targeting 2024-2025. That will be a major breakthrough, but in the public mind, NIF already did it, and I guarantee that's going to cause a lot of confusion. It just feels like a marathon race where a bunch of competitors are competing honestly, and one participant jumps in a scooter, and blasts through the finish line, and the crowd is cheering, and they're doing interviews about how great it was to win the race, and people are going home, but the actual race is still happening, and getting super interesting, but no one cares anymore because that milestone was already claimed by someone who didn't even accomplish it.
- thereddaikon 4y ago
  I'd argue Q>1 isn't worth a press conference either. People care about commercial power generation and that needs more like Q>150.
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    Depends on the device. Q_plasms > 150 iirc is the estimate for MCF fusion. The NIF lasers take in way more energy than they put into the pellet, so that I think you want something like Q_plasma > 10,000 iirc. Iirc most engineers use a different Q, which refers to all in energy, so Q > 1.5 ish is enough
- woeirua 4y ago
  Why even have any press conferences then until we have a working commercial reactor? Come on, this is just ridiculous.
thereddaikon 4y ago
Because we've been told for decades that commercial fusion plants are a decade away. So people are understandably cynical about it. Really, physics has had a problem of late over hyping things that don't impact people's lives. Maybe that's unfair to expect every discover will directly lead to noticeable changes in technology. But I would argue that researchers over estimate how much people care about their discoveries. Laymen don't understand or care about minor milestones if they don't directly impact them. Or to put it another way, people will be receptive if you have a big achievement at your job but will get annoyed if you tell them every detail about it. So yeah, when people are told fusion is around the corner but all they hear are small improvements that to them mean nothing, its easy to see why. Now obviously not everyone is that way, there are communities of laymen and amateurs online who are interested and do care. But you don't need public press conferences to get to them. A press conference is for Joe Sixpack. And Joe Sixpack assumes when you come calling about Fusion its to say that it works, global warming has been solved and his electric bill will be next to nothing.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  > Because we've been told for decades that commercial fusion plants are a decade away. Even if you take the most breathless headlines about NIF at face value, we are obviously still decades away from a commercial fusion power plant. Let's say laser fusion is great and perfect, all we need to do is design a commercial facility that uses modern lasers and then construct it, with commercial turbines/etc, as well as commercial production of the fuel pellets. Just that will take decades. Even basic bitch coal power plants take several years to construct and there's nothing novel about those. But the reality is that even with the best lasers available today, they wouldn't get enough energy out to make this commercially viable. Decades more development time is needed before they can even think about designing a commercial power plant. No sooner than 50 years.
walnutclosefarm 4y ago
Actually, I think the pedanticism is on the part of the people announcing this "breakthrough." The definition of "break even" used here (that is, Q>1) is highly technical, and but one factor in the actual "break even" equation. This experiment didn't prove you could get more energy out of a fusion burn than you put in (which is the notion they want to evoke), but rather that they could raise the ratio of energy absorbed in one part of the burn, from the NIF lasers, to that released in another, from 0.7, which they had achieved in August of 2021, to 1.5. That's it. That, and the fact that it's funding season in Washington, so not a bad time blow NIF's horn. Milestone, yes. You have to get Q above one if you're starting at .01, and need to get to 100 and 1 is a great mile marker. But, But breakhrough - I don't think so.
- donquixote25 4y ago
  I mean NIF has spent a majority of its life (11 years) seeing yields below 200 kj. Only in 2021 did it jump above 1 mj and in 2022 above 3 mj. If your definition of breakthrough is rapid improvement, I think this demonstrates it: See below for previous yields of NIF shots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility#/media/File:NIF_output_over_10_years.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility#/me...
  - ipdashc 4y ago
    I realize this may be too complicated to explain in one comment, but as a layperson... can anyone summarize what they actually did to achieve this sudden gain in power? Like, what have they been doing for those 11 years? Upgrading the lasers, improving the optics, refining the design of the hohlraum, changing up the fuel? I know this is the cutting edge of physics and all, and maybe there's some DoE secrecy involved, but it's interesting that I haven't seen a single article yet attempt to summarize what changes were actually made in order to achieve the "breakthrough".
    - donquixote25 4y ago
      I don't think anyone specifically knows. If you ask the physics, they will point to changes (like pulse shape or component sizes) they made due to their increased understanding of the physics. If you ask the target design people, they will point to decrease fill-tube size and number of defects in the capsule. If you ask the facility, they will say their ability increase both power and control power delivery. Likely, it is a combination of everything. The other point that has been mentioned to me is when you in the self heating regime, there are exponential returns on increasing "quality" of a shot.
MarcelOlsz 4y ago
>I feel like HN is being especially pedantic and jaded about this specifically and I don't really get why. It reminds us how pointless our Javascript-based existence is.
bawolff 4y ago
Milestones can be impressive too. I think the distinction is that with a breakthrough there is something new to learn, where a milestone you basically say "good job, keep up the good work". With a breakthrough there is more content to engage with because you can try and understand what is new. A milestone is great, but there isn't anything new to really engage with, so it has a shorter news cycle. As a comparison - stable diffusion is a breakthrough - we are still trying to figure out what it all means and how it will or wont change society. its been months now and we are still talking about it. We wont be talking about this fusion thing months from now. That doesn't mean its less important only a different type of event.

Hnrobert42 4y ago

Exactly. If you look closely enough, no breakthroughs appear completely out of nowhere.

jacquesm 4y ago

I think after decades of fusion 'breakthroughs' people have become a bit jaded and would simply like to short-cut to the point where there is a fusion reactor in a box that produces more energy out than is put in.

gaoshan 4y ago

Responding in a pedantic/jaded manner is one way to assert a form of intellectual dominance. For this audience I feel like that sort of dominance is unsurprising.

zug_zug 4y ago
Agreed, but I think it has the side-effect of signaling "This technology advancement isn't worth excitement/praise/prestige" which I think in this case could have effects like demotivating people who might be considering going into the field.

throwawaymaths 4y ago

No it's not a breakthrough. It is only net positive because the NIF has an exquisitely stupid and convenient place where they are defining "energy in" which let's them cheat how good it looks. If you could take other types of fusion and draw a clever line around where you start tallying energy in, then they would have had "breakthroughs" long ago.

donquixote25 4y ago
The definition of Q that is being used was established by the National Academy of Sciences not NIF. NIF previously tied to use the hot spot energy instead of target energy in 2013, which they were criticized for, and rightfully so. But this definition of Q is analogous to the definition of Q used by MCF.
- zardo 4y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Q typically used for MCF does not count the energy in neutrons, only the alpha particle energy.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  Ok. So the NAS has an exquisitely stupid definition of Q which is not at all what most engineers would use as a reasonable definition of Q

px43 4y ago

With the Higgs, we got the mass, which was not predicted by any of the theoretical models. We were basically done at that point. With LIGO we got tons of tangible data of black holes colliding. Fusion is not useful until Q>1, and for NIF to claim that when it obviously isn't true is, IMO, a bad look. They invented Qplasma where they arbitrarily get to ignore over 99% of the energy that actually went in, and don't need to worry about capturing any of the energy actually coming out. They got Qplasma>1, which is a great milestone, but the overwhelming narrative in the media is that they got more energy out than they put in, which is simply not true. Someone, and almost certainly someone *ELSE* will get to Q>1 very soon. Lots of groups are targeting 2024-2025. That will be a major breakthrough, but in the public mind, NIF already did it, and I guarantee that's going to cause a lot of confusion. It just feels like a marathon race where a bunch of competitors are competing honestly, and one participant jumps in a scooter, and blasts through the finish line, and the crowd is cheering, and they're doing interviews about how great it was to win the race, and people are going home, but the actual race is still happening, and getting super interesting, but no one cares anymore because that milestone was already claimed by someone who didn't even accomplish it.

thereddaikon 4y ago
I'd argue Q>1 isn't worth a press conference either. People care about commercial power generation and that needs more like Q>150.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  Depends on the device. Q_plasms > 150 iirc is the estimate for MCF fusion. The NIF lasers take in way more energy than they put into the pellet, so that I think you want something like Q_plasma > 10,000 iirc. Iirc most engineers use a different Q, which refers to all in energy, so Q > 1.5 ish is enough
woeirua 4y ago
Why even have any press conferences then until we have a working commercial reactor? Come on, this is just ridiculous.

thereddaikon 4y ago

Because we've been told for decades that commercial fusion plants are a decade away. So people are understandably cynical about it. Really, physics has had a problem of late over hyping things that don't impact people's lives. Maybe that's unfair to expect every discover will directly lead to noticeable changes in technology. But I would argue that researchers over estimate how much people care about their discoveries. Laymen don't understand or care about minor milestones if they don't directly impact them. Or to put it another way, people will be receptive if you have a big achievement at your job but will get annoyed if you tell them every detail about it. So yeah, when people are told fusion is around the corner but all they hear are small improvements that to them mean nothing, its easy to see why. Now obviously not everyone is that way, there are communities of laymen and amateurs online who are interested and do care. But you don't need public press conferences to get to them. A press conference is for Joe Sixpack. And Joe Sixpack assumes when you come calling about Fusion its to say that it works, global warming has been solved and his electric bill will be next to nothing.

LarryMullins 4y ago
> Because we've been told for decades that commercial fusion plants are a decade away. Even if you take the most breathless headlines about NIF at face value, we are obviously still decades away from a commercial fusion power plant. Let's say laser fusion is great and perfect, all we need to do is design a commercial facility that uses modern lasers and then construct it, with commercial turbines/etc, as well as commercial production of the fuel pellets. Just that will take decades. Even basic bitch coal power plants take several years to construct and there's nothing novel about those. But the reality is that even with the best lasers available today, they wouldn't get enough energy out to make this commercially viable. Decades more development time is needed before they can even think about designing a commercial power plant. No sooner than 50 years.

walnutclosefarm 4y ago

Actually, I think the pedanticism is on the part of the people announcing this "breakthrough." The definition of "break even" used here (that is, Q>1) is highly technical, and but one factor in the actual "break even" equation. This experiment didn't prove you could get more energy out of a fusion burn than you put in (which is the notion they want to evoke), but rather that they could raise the ratio of energy absorbed in one part of the burn, from the NIF lasers, to that released in another, from 0.7, which they had achieved in August of 2021, to 1.5. That's it. That, and the fact that it's funding season in Washington, so not a bad time blow NIF's horn. Milestone, yes. You have to get Q above one if you're starting at .01, and need to get to 100 and 1 is a great mile marker. But, But breakhrough - I don't think so.

donquixote25 4y ago
I mean NIF has spent a majority of its life (11 years) seeing yields below 200 kj. Only in 2021 did it jump above 1 mj and in 2022 above 3 mj. If your definition of breakthrough is rapid improvement, I think this demonstrates it: See below for previous yields of NIF shots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility#/media/File:NIF_output_over_10_years.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility#/me...
- ipdashc 4y ago
  I realize this may be too complicated to explain in one comment, but as a layperson... can anyone summarize what they actually did to achieve this sudden gain in power? Like, what have they been doing for those 11 years? Upgrading the lasers, improving the optics, refining the design of the hohlraum, changing up the fuel? I know this is the cutting edge of physics and all, and maybe there's some DoE secrecy involved, but it's interesting that I haven't seen a single article yet attempt to summarize what changes were actually made in order to achieve the "breakthrough".
  - donquixote25 4y ago
    I don't think anyone specifically knows. If you ask the physics, they will point to changes (like pulse shape or component sizes) they made due to their increased understanding of the physics. If you ask the target design people, they will point to decrease fill-tube size and number of defects in the capsule. If you ask the facility, they will say their ability increase both power and control power delivery. Likely, it is a combination of everything. The other point that has been mentioned to me is when you in the self heating regime, there are exponential returns on increasing "quality" of a shot.

MarcelOlsz 4y ago

>I feel like HN is being especially pedantic and jaded about this specifically and I don't really get why. It reminds us how pointless our Javascript-based existence is.

bawolff 4y ago

Milestones can be impressive too. I think the distinction is that with a breakthrough there is something new to learn, where a milestone you basically say "good job, keep up the good work". With a breakthrough there is more content to engage with because you can try and understand what is new. A milestone is great, but there isn't anything new to really engage with, so it has a shorter news cycle. As a comparison - stable diffusion is a breakthrough - we are still trying to figure out what it all means and how it will or wont change society. its been months now and we are still talking about it. We wont be talking about this fusion thing months from now. That doesn't mean its less important only a different type of event.