Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pyro_Light t1_j09w5ut wrote

Unfortunately this means absolutely nothing for now.

They delivered 2.05MJ into a crystal and got 3MJ out. Which is great and demonstrates that fusion is possible. However the lasers they used to deliver those 2.05MJ actually used 322MJ of power. They can’t just “make it bigger” and start powering cities. Huge leap for the science but not at all useful for implementation tomorrow.

source

−3

videoalex t1_j09xry7 wrote

They said themselves that the lasers are especially suboptimal for this-they were made in the 1980’s are very inefficient. but your point is true-but assuming this scales easily-perhaps even logarithmically-(it won’t actually be easy) we could end up on the other side of the looking glass.

4

Rippedyanu1 t1_j0biwcb wrote

The max energy output expected from NIF is 40 to 50 MJ for energy put in. That's still 8 to 10x less than what is needed to break even for the system.

Even if they swap the laser diodes and whatnot out we're still extremely far off with this design to achieve practical fusion

2

ItsAConspiracy t1_j0cr2hr wrote

Equivalent modern lasers are 40 times more efficient than NIF's lasers. 40MJ output would be plenty.

1

andrepcg t1_j0b8rzc wrote

> However, while the fusion reactions may have produced more than 3 megajoules of energy — more than was delivered to the target — NIF’s 192 lasers consumed 322 megajoules of energy in the process. Still, the experiment qualifies as ignition, a benchmark measure for fusion reactions that focuses on how much energy went into the target compared to how much energy was released.

0

Pyro_Light t1_j0c7lc9 wrote

This is meaningless to my observation. Like completely. You can’t scale up this model and net produce energy. Nor do we have a method of achieving ignition that is scalable in such a way. I’m not denying that this is important I’m denying that this means we’ll have a viable fusion reactor in the coming months or likely years.

1

andrepcg t1_j0cqf11 wrote

> I’m denying that this means we’ll have a viable fusion reactor in the coming months or likely years.

You don't have to deny because that's assumed. We WONT have fusion energy in the coming months or years

0