4 ms·

It’s a reasonable misunderstanding though. They pretty deliberately obscure this fact.

by cameldrv 3y ago

itishappy 3y ago
I think they've been quite clear on their goals and accomplishments. Do you have an example in mind?
- boxed 3y ago
  The big press releases claiming it has implications for fusion?
  - itishappy 3y ago
    This one? https://www.llnl.gov/article/49301/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st https://www.llnl.gov/article/49301/shot-ages-fusion-ignition... What do you find misleading? The ability to study self sustaining fusion reactions without nukes certainly does have implications for fusion, which aligns with their stated goals of researching nuclear physics.
    - throwawaymaths 3y ago
      What is misleading is that nowhere in the press release do they say: 1) this research is weapons research (much less primarily weapons over power research) 2) this research does not currently contend a viable avenue towards breakeven power generation
      - itishappy 3y ago
        > DOE Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby said in achieving ignition, LLNL researchers have “opened a new chapter in NNSA’s science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program,” one that enables scientists to modernize nuclear weapons and explore new avenues of research in nuclear science. > Following Hruby, NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Marvin “Marv” Adams showed a NIF target capsule and explained the science behind fusion reactions. Adams said ignition will enhance national security by helping NNSA maintain confidence in the nuclear deterrent, advance the country’s non-proliferation goals and increase national security. > “The science and technology challenges on the path to fusion energy are daunting but making the seemingly impossible possible is when we're at our very best,” Budil explained. “Ignition is a first step — a truly monumental one that sets the stage for a transformational decade in high energy density science and fusion research — and I cannot wait to see where it takes us.” > While optimism reigned for the event, Budil cautioned there are still “significant hurdles” and engineering challenges to solve before the commercialization of fusion energy becomes a reality, such as the ability to reproduce ignition many times per minute and making fusion reactions simpler and more efficient. > “I think it's moving into the foreground and, probably with concerted effort and investment, a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant,” Budil said.
        throwawaymaths 3y ago
        > the seemingly impossible possible Did anyone seriously believe it was impossible to get "q" > 1 fusion by blasting a pellet of hydrogen hard enough? --- Significant hurdles != "There is not currently a/no known path" I'm still toning down from "a path is impossible" which ought to be the consensus. > a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant No.
    - cameldrv 3y ago
      From that press release: > Granholm added that the unprecedented accomplishment will strengthen national security and moves the world closer to the possibility of an abundant, carbon-free energy source for the future. > “It would be like adding a power drill to our toolbox for building a clean-energy economy,” Granholm said. “Today, we tell the world: America has achieved a tremendous scientific breakthrough — one that happened because we invested in our national labs and fundamental research. And tomorrow, we will continue to work toward a future powered in part by fusion energy.” Since the start of the program they have been promoting ICF as a method of power generation. The very fact that they're crowing about net energy gain is because a minimum requirement for a power plant is that the energy that comes out has to be more than the energy that goes in. This is not a requirement for a fusion research machine.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  Since we're on the topic of "dragging in big funding based on the dream of fusion", can you point to a press release where they explicitly mention that this research is for weapons research and not for power research?
  - itishappy 3y ago
    Have you checked their website? > MAINTAINING THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT > Stockpile Stewardship > NIF is a key element of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the reliability, security, and safety of the U.S. nuclear deterrent without full-scale testing. https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/what-is-nif https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/what-is-nif > For more than 70 years, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has applied science and technology (S&T) to make the world a safer place. While keeping our crucial mission-driven commitments in mind, we apply cutting-edge science and technology to achieve breakthroughs in nuclear deterrence, counterterrorism and nonproliferation, defense and intelligence and energy and environmental security. https://www.llnl.gov/ https://www.llnl.gov/ It's also intended for energy research, but there's an important distinction between "energy research" and "energy production."
    - throwawaymaths 3y ago
      Website != Press release
      - firedaemon 3y ago
        At this point the claim seems to be but I think that some people think it is all about energy, as if your random interpretation of other peoples’ belief is relevant. They do weapons. They said they do weapons. What’s the problem.
        throwawaymaths 3y ago
        They don't say that in their press releases. None of the popular media coverage talks about the weapons aspect, much less that it's primary. I challenge you to prove me wrong. The general public is not stupid (but they are lazy), when the dust settles and people see that nif never resulted in anything but very tangential results useful for power, they're going to complain about the lack of transparency. Just as they are doing with the whole COVID masking debate. Scientists really dig their own graves sometimes.

It’s a reasonable misunderstanding though. They pretty deliberately obscure this fact.

itishappy 3y ago

I think they've been quite clear on their goals and accomplishments. Do you have an example in mind?

boxed 3y ago
The big press releases claiming it has implications for fusion?
- itishappy 3y ago
  This one? https://www.llnl.gov/article/49301/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st https://www.llnl.gov/article/49301/shot-ages-fusion-ignition... What do you find misleading? The ability to study self sustaining fusion reactions without nukes certainly does have implications for fusion, which aligns with their stated goals of researching nuclear physics.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    What is misleading is that nowhere in the press release do they say: 1) this research is weapons research (much less primarily weapons over power research) 2) this research does not currently contend a viable avenue towards breakeven power generation
    - itishappy 3y ago
      > DOE Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby said in achieving ignition, LLNL researchers have “opened a new chapter in NNSA’s science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program,” one that enables scientists to modernize nuclear weapons and explore new avenues of research in nuclear science. > Following Hruby, NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Marvin “Marv” Adams showed a NIF target capsule and explained the science behind fusion reactions. Adams said ignition will enhance national security by helping NNSA maintain confidence in the nuclear deterrent, advance the country’s non-proliferation goals and increase national security. > “The science and technology challenges on the path to fusion energy are daunting but making the seemingly impossible possible is when we're at our very best,” Budil explained. “Ignition is a first step — a truly monumental one that sets the stage for a transformational decade in high energy density science and fusion research — and I cannot wait to see where it takes us.” > While optimism reigned for the event, Budil cautioned there are still “significant hurdles” and engineering challenges to solve before the commercialization of fusion energy becomes a reality, such as the ability to reproduce ignition many times per minute and making fusion reactions simpler and more efficient. > “I think it's moving into the foreground and, probably with concerted effort and investment, a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant,” Budil said.
      - throwawaymaths 3y ago
        > the seemingly impossible possible Did anyone seriously believe it was impossible to get "q" > 1 fusion by blasting a pellet of hydrogen hard enough? --- Significant hurdles != "There is not currently a/no known path" I'm still toning down from "a path is impossible" which ought to be the consensus. > a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant No.
  - cameldrv 3y ago
    From that press release: > Granholm added that the unprecedented accomplishment will strengthen national security and moves the world closer to the possibility of an abundant, carbon-free energy source for the future. > “It would be like adding a power drill to our toolbox for building a clean-energy economy,” Granholm said. “Today, we tell the world: America has achieved a tremendous scientific breakthrough — one that happened because we invested in our national labs and fundamental research. And tomorrow, we will continue to work toward a future powered in part by fusion energy.” Since the start of the program they have been promoting ICF as a method of power generation. The very fact that they're crowing about net energy gain is because a minimum requirement for a power plant is that the energy that comes out has to be more than the energy that goes in. This is not a requirement for a fusion research machine.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
Since we're on the topic of "dragging in big funding based on the dream of fusion", can you point to a press release where they explicitly mention that this research is for weapons research and not for power research?
- itishappy 3y ago
  Have you checked their website? > MAINTAINING THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT > Stockpile Stewardship > NIF is a key element of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the reliability, security, and safety of the U.S. nuclear deterrent without full-scale testing. https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/what-is-nif https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/what-is-nif > For more than 70 years, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has applied science and technology (S&T) to make the world a safer place. While keeping our crucial mission-driven commitments in mind, we apply cutting-edge science and technology to achieve breakthroughs in nuclear deterrence, counterterrorism and nonproliferation, defense and intelligence and energy and environmental security. https://www.llnl.gov/ https://www.llnl.gov/ It's also intended for energy research, but there's an important distinction between "energy research" and "energy production."
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    Website != Press release
    - firedaemon 3y ago
      At this point the claim seems to be but I think that some people think it is all about energy, as if your random interpretation of other peoples’ belief is relevant. They do weapons. They said they do weapons. What’s the problem.
      - throwawaymaths 3y ago
        They don't say that in their press releases. None of the popular media coverage talks about the weapons aspect, much less that it's primary. I challenge you to prove me wrong. The general public is not stupid (but they are lazy), when the dust settles and people see that nif never resulted in anything but very tangential results useful for power, they're going to complain about the lack of transparency. Just as they are doing with the whole COVID masking debate. Scientists really dig their own graves sometimes.