Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion
1–10 of 194 posts
Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion
#2Oh please. That whole "fusion" thing from that facility is a trick to get taxpayers to fund more nuclear weapon research.
We should have finished this instead, what a waste:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider
Take a guess why congress only funded the one useful for weapons.
Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion
#3Hurricane says no one knows for sure whether NIF can really reach the point of ignition. "It's not up to me; it's up to Mother Nature," he says. "But we're certainly going to try."
Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion
#4Oh please. That whole "fusion" thing from that facility is a trick to get taxpayers to fund more nuclear weapon research. We should have finished this instead, what a waste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider Take a guess why congress only funded the one useful for weapons.
Given that hydrogen bombs are fusion bombs such a claim can be leveled at all fusion research. Maybe nuclear weapons research is the way they get the US government to shell out for fusion research, like the optics researchers did with SDI.
Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion
#5This sentiment is interesting "Over the past few years, NIF has been getting a fat 'F.'" Perhaps now that 'grade' will change.
Actually, I think framing it as a grade is beyond silly; it is irresponsible. Giving a letter grade to long-term scientific project makes little sense. It is not a one-shot thing with a predefined notion of correctness. What can we compare such a grade to?
Instead, we should be asking what we've learned and how the project has advanced science.
Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion
#6This sentiment is interesting "Over the past few years, NIF has been getting a fat 'F.'" Perhaps now that 'grade' will change. Actually, I think framing it as a grade is beyond silly; it is irresponsible. Giving a letter grade to long-term scientific project makes little sense. It is not a one-shot thing with a predefined notion of correctness. What can we compare such a grade to? Instead, we should be asking what we…
That's not enough. Learning what doesn't work is sort of useful, but only if it ever leads to something that DOES work. There's an infinite supply of dead ends out there. You need a higher bar than 'learned something' if that something is a negative.
Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion
#7"Strictly speaking, while more energy came from fusion than went into the hydrogen fuel, only about 1 percent of the laser's energy ever reached the fuel. Useful levels of fusion are still a long way off."
The rest was lost to energy conversion losses. Yeah, not the best breakthrough I've heard today. Their best breakthrough was this CAD-flythrough video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sp1sDpn_M0
Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion
#8[deleted]
Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion
#9This sentiment is interesting "Over the past few years, NIF has been getting a fat 'F.'" Perhaps now that 'grade' will change. Actually, I think framing it as a grade is beyond silly; it is irresponsible. Giving a letter grade to long-term scientific project makes little sense. It is not a one-shot thing with a predefined notion of correctness. What can we compare such a grade to? Instead, we should be asking what we…
That's not enough. Learning what doesn't work is sort of useful, but only if it ever leads to something that DOES work. There's an infinite supply of dead ends out there. You need a higher bar than 'learned something' if that something is a negative.
It depends what question you are asking. If the question is "should we fund projects even if we don't know if or when they will have demonstrable results?" then I would argue that, yes, some portion of research should go towards that.
How long is "long enough" to deem that a line of experimentation "didn't work out?" There is no period long enough. Sometimes a negative result is quite useful down the road. Some research just comes together when the right things are learned and tried. So any notion of a "dead end" is really just a tentative assessment, frozen in time.
Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion
#10This sentiment is interesting "Over the past few years, NIF has been getting a fat 'F.'" Perhaps now that 'grade' will change. Actually, I think framing it as a grade is beyond silly; it is irresponsible. Giving a letter grade to long-term scientific project makes little sense. It is not a one-shot thing with a predefined notion of correctness. What can we compare such a grade to? Instead, we should be asking what we…
That's not enough. Learning what doesn't work is sort of useful, but only if it ever leads to something that DOES work. There's an infinite supply of dead ends out there. You need a higher bar than 'learned something' if that something is a negative.
I would assume that they are only working with a narrow subset of dead ends. They probably have promising leads and work on those. I think it's a constant process of refinement.