5 ms·

> This experiment didn't prove you could get more energy out of a fusion burn than you put in. Haven't H-bomb tests already proven that beyond all doubt?

• rini17 4y ago
  I think he meant _useful_ energy. Is it so surprising that HN is primarily interested about civilian applications and cynical when none are in foreseeable future?
• delecti 4y ago
  The existence of stars already did. This is more like "it's plausible to do so in a reactor that won't destroy itself". The "that won't destroy itself" part is what this demonstrates, but annoyingly reporting often shortens it to the "is plausible to do so" part.
  • horsawlarway 4y ago
    Except... correct me if I'm wrong here... The "reactor" did destroy itself. > The fuel and canister get vaporized within a few billionths of a second during the experiment. Researchers then hope their equipment survived the heat and accurately measured the energy released by the fusion reaction. It didn't necessarily blow up like a fusion bomb, but the energy was hardly produced in any sort of sustainable, ongoing form that we can harvest. Worse - it's not even just the chamber that essentially destroys itself - the lasers that create the event also damage themselves: https://lasers.llnl.gov/news/controlling-backscatter-damage-nif-optics https://lasers.llnl.gov/news/controlling-backscatter-damage-...
• walnutclosefarm 4y ago
  Yeah, I really meant in a controlled reaction situation. Should have been more clear.