3 ms·

What is "energy turnover" in this usage? [edit] Found it: "Energy turnover is defined as the amount of heat multiplied by the duration of the discharge[1]."

What is "energy turnover" in this usage? [edit] Found it: "Energy turnover is defined as the amount of heat multiplied by the duration of the discharge[1]." By "amount of heat" I assume they mean "heating power delivered to the plasma" b/c the the only way to multiply by time and get Joules is to start with power. 1: https://gigazine.net/gsc_news/en/20230227-wendelstein-7-x-energy-turnover/ https://gigazine.net/gsc_news/en/20230227-wendelstein-7-x-en...

snarkconjecture 3y ago
Yes, it's a little buried but the article says > The energy turnover results from the coupled heating power multiplied by the duration of the discharge The numbers: > The energy turnover of 1.3 gigajoule was achieved with an average heating power of 2.7 megawatts, whereby the discharge lasted 480 seconds Also: > Within a few years, the plan is to increase the energy turnover at Wendelstein 7-X to 18 gigajoules, with the plasma then being kept stable for half an hour i.e. 10 megawatts for 30 minutes
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  How long does it take to restart after losing stability? Ie, would it be feasible in a power plant scenario to settle for 30-60 minutes of stability, and just restart?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
amelius 3y ago
Isn't this similar to the monetary meaning of the word turnover? Like turnover : profit <==> energy turnover : net energy output?
- runako 3y ago
  Possibly the poster is from a country like America where "turnover" is not a preferred term to refer to gross receipts of a business. (Americans typically use "revenue" instead.)
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    I am indeed from the US and had never heard "turnover" to mean gross receipts.
    - segfaltnh 3y ago
      I'm also from the US and recently had an apple turnover. It was delicious. I lost money on the endeavor, though.
- alkonaut 3y ago
  So when this had a turnover of 1.3 GJ (361 kWh), was that with a net loss in the end? How much electricity did they put in?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    My layman's understanding: There has never been a net-positive-energy magnetic confinement fusion experiment. Inertial confinement fusion has had 2 events that were "more energy out of the fuel than delivered to the fuel." But is still about a factor of 100 away from what is needed for "more electricity in than out"
  - vilhelm_s 3y ago
    The 1.3 GJ is how much electricity they put in. There is no fusion reaction or energy production, it's just an experimental device to study plasma containment.

snarkconjecture 3y ago

Yes, it's a little buried but the article says > The energy turnover results from the coupled heating power multiplied by the duration of the discharge The numbers: > The energy turnover of 1.3 gigajoule was achieved with an average heating power of 2.7 megawatts, whereby the discharge lasted 480 seconds Also: > Within a few years, the plan is to increase the energy turnover at Wendelstein 7-X to 18 gigajoules, with the plasma then being kept stable for half an hour i.e. 10 megawatts for 30 minutes

magicalhippo 3y ago
How long does it take to restart after losing stability? Ie, would it be feasible in a power plant scenario to settle for 30-60 minutes of stability, and just restart?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

amelius 3y ago

Isn't this similar to the monetary meaning of the word turnover? Like turnover : profit <==> energy turnover : net energy output?

runako 3y ago
Possibly the poster is from a country like America where "turnover" is not a preferred term to refer to gross receipts of a business. (Americans typically use "revenue" instead.)
- aidenn0 3y ago
  I am indeed from the US and had never heard "turnover" to mean gross receipts.
  - segfaltnh 3y ago
    I'm also from the US and recently had an apple turnover. It was delicious. I lost money on the endeavor, though.
alkonaut 3y ago
So when this had a turnover of 1.3 GJ (361 kWh), was that with a net loss in the end? How much electricity did they put in?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- aidenn0 3y ago
  My layman's understanding: There has never been a net-positive-energy magnetic confinement fusion experiment. Inertial confinement fusion has had 2 events that were "more energy out of the fuel than delivered to the fuel." But is still about a factor of 100 away from what is needed for "more electricity in than out"
- vilhelm_s 3y ago
  The 1.3 GJ is how much electricity they put in. There is no fusion reaction or energy production, it's just an experimental device to study plasma containment.