Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

geek66 t1_j3raouq wrote

While not news - this was reported weeks ago - this to me is a Milestone, but not a "breakthrough" as it was referred to - is is the result of multiple innovations and improvements. Conceivably a tipping point - but the size and the cost of the apparatus - relative to the energy gain is huge and we are still 20 years away

21

dun-ado t1_j3rnjxg wrote

Why is it a milestone and not a breakthrough?

1

geek66 t1_j3rpxsg wrote

"a sudden, dramatic, and important discovery or development." ? It was just an inevitable step in the long road of development.

Like people posting that their car reached 100000 miles - there really is not particular magic about that number.

5

dun-ado t1_j3rqa7d wrote

Do you know anything about fusion? Your statement is pathologically ignorant.

−20

Freethecrafts t1_j3sdh6v wrote

Fusion has been done multiple ways by multiple different types of mechanisms. The people trying to get more funding or sell off run their numbers in favorable ways to themselves. Some forget how much work went into the setup. Some forget how much cooling costs. Some forget there’s no form of heat engine or magnetic bottle system attached. Some forget that their system can’t be used repeatedly, in fast succession, to power an electrical system. There’s nothing new to another “fusion milestone” that isn’t any closer than the last scam, only with newer materials developed by a different third party.

A fusion milestone is a system that can run from ignition into a standard electrical line using less electricity than it requires. It’d still be way underwater, but it’d be a functional milestone. Not just another funding round for a multibillion dollar boondoggle that lets a few frontmen feel important.

7

dun-ado t1_j3sigiq wrote

You're a total ignoramus regarding fusion.

−18

Freethecrafts t1_j3sip9i wrote

Go on then. Let’s hear your lecture on how this is a milestone any different than every other boondoggle that produced nothing.

4

dun-ado t1_j3sjcja wrote

Your pathological ignorance is beyond repair. You can hold onto as much stupidity as you want.

−17

Freethecrafts t1_j3sjj76 wrote

Excellent. I’ll take that as you have no idea on any of the history, mechanics, nor shortfalls.

12

[deleted] t1_j3skhus wrote

[removed]

−5

Freethecrafts t1_j3skvif wrote

I’ll be here waiting on your basic assignment. I can get away with open deadlines because those late assignments never show up.

6

[deleted] t1_j3sl5qw wrote

[removed]

−1

Freethecrafts t1_j3slfjl wrote

Excellent. I didn’t realize you were only here to make friends and had no grounding in any of the subject matter. Carry on.

4

kobullso t1_j3t4zy4 wrote

Not gonna lie this feels like another in a long line of fusion "breakthrough" announcements. We are still a long way off from a Q value that might actually be viable.

1

Independent-Ad-8531 t1_j3ty3mv wrote

Because it didn't produce net energy and it is literally impossible it ever will. It is the least possible way of fusion power there is.

0

bripi t1_j3vas6z wrote

> we are still 20 years away

As a physicist, the running joke is "Ah, fusion is the energy of the future! And it always will be."

1