4 ms·
>The fact that W7-X results are on a par with JET is remarkable because JET had three times the plasma volume of Wendelstein 7-X. What's important here is that
by i_am_proteus 1y ago
>The fact that W7-X results are on a par with JET is remarkable because JET had three times the plasma volume of Wendelstein 7-X.
What's important here is that W 7-X is a stellarator, a different type of fusion reactor from almost all prior reactors (they are tokamaks), with a smaller volume than the co-record holder.
That a stellarator gets these results with a much smaller fusion volume is promising for the performance of future larger stellarators, since fusion reactors typically become more efficient as they get larger.
- johannes1234321 1y ago> from almost all prior reactors (they are tokamaks) Tokamak and Stllerator are about equally old, 1953 vs 1954, while both types where for a period developed in secrecy behind either side of the iron curtain till end of the 1960ies where collaboration started. IPP was founded in 1960 (by, among others, my dad) and focussed on Stllerator since then (while collaborating in JET and ITER around their tokamak projects)
- cenamus 1y agoApparently stellarators only became feasible recently, mostly due to vastly improved computing power, which they need to optimize the crazy shapes (https://www.ipp.mpg.de/w7x https://www.ipp.mpg.de/w7x gives an idea) (Heard that on a podcast with two of the lead physicists/engineers working there)
- johannes1234321 1y agoYes, they are complex and require both, complex calculation and precise manufacturing and 7x is the first one being energy-positive, but tokamaks aren't really ahead either.
- noobermin 1y agoNIF did it with an EVEN smaller plasma volume. Sorry this is nice for the Wendelstein itself but they are overselling it, albeit in a way that isn't too out of the norm with academic press releases.
- tgtweak 1y agoAll good information, entirely missing from the original article -