Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 194 posts

Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

#31

Post by DougMerritt »

fophillips wrote: post #24
JackFr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this even basic science? It sounds more like an engineering problem, albeit a very hard one. I am not a physicist, but I would consider this more like the Manhattan project -- the science being done is not of the 'deeper under standing of nature' type, but rather 'how do you make a controllable explosion' type. Given that, the way to evaluate the project is not on grants received, articles published or citations i…

You go tell Feynman the Manhattan project wasn't about science.

Good way of putting it so that people can understand. Feynman was a scientist, not an engineer, so that's a clue that the Manhattan project involved science, not just engineering.

The same is true of fusion research. That's why it's "research", not merely "development".

In particular, the physics of plasma instabilities has always been quite imperfectly understood, and that has been one of the key problems with controlled fusion since the 1950s.

Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

#32

Post by lisper »

Kroem3r wrote: post #18

This is newsworthy despite "They didn't get more fusion power out than they put in with the laser"? After decades of work they are orders of magnitude away from break-even. Makes me wonder if the goal is actually break-even and/or power generation. Not really; but it's a revealing question. I'm no great fan of the budgets these huge projects pull down; I think the bang-for-the-buck is greater elsewhere. But modelling…

> This is newsworthy despite "They didn't get more fusion power out than they put in with the laser"?

It's not newsworthy, but most reporters are not educated enough to tell the difference between a real breakthrough and a bogus press release.

Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

#34

Post by valarauca1 »

Oculus wrote: post #22

> led NIF's critics to label the facility an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars > government shifted NIF away from its fusion goals to focus on its other mission: simulating the conditions inside nuclear weapons I think right there lies the problem with our world. People take up more issue with a multi-billion dollar research facility for science than one for military applications. If we spent a small fraction of the…

The cost of the B-2 Bomber program has cost as much as ~5 Large Hadron Colliders.

B-2 bomber program cost 44.75 billion[1] LHC cost ~7.5 Billion Euro ~9billion USD.[2]

[1] http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost

Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

#35

Post by batmansbelt »

fophillips wrote: post #24
JackFr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this even basic science? It sounds more like an engineering problem, albeit a very hard one. I am not a physicist, but I would consider this more like the Manhattan project -- the science being done is not of the 'deeper under standing of nature' type, but rather 'how do you make a controllable explosion' type. Given that, the way to evaluate the project is not on grants received, articles published or citations i…

You go tell Feynman the Manhattan project wasn't about science.

Can't tell him anything. He's dead.

Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

#36

Post by jonmrodriguez »

Oculus wrote: post #22

> led NIF's critics to label the facility an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars > government shifted NIF away from its fusion goals to focus on its other mission: simulating the conditions inside nuclear weapons I think right there lies the problem with our world. People take up more issue with a multi-billion dollar research facility for science than one for military applications. If we spent a small fraction of the…

Totally agree.

Just so you know, the purpose of the NIF was for military testing right from the beginning. The reason it initially got funded (shortly after the end of the cold war) was to help with stockpile stewardship (making sure our aging weapons still work via simulation, without having to do actual weapon tests).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility#NIF_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_Stewardship_and_Manag...

Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

#37

Post by icegreentea »

Oculus wrote: post #22

> led NIF's critics to label the facility an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars > government shifted NIF away from its fusion goals to focus on its other mission: simulating the conditions inside nuclear weapons I think right there lies the problem with our world. People take up more issue with a multi-billion dollar research facility for science than one for military applications. If we spent a small fraction of the…

Do not want to argue with the main thrust of your argument (because I agree with it), but at least part of the reason why people had an issue with the NIF as energy research, but less so as a nuclear test simulator is because the NIF as a device is pretty clearly designed to simulate nuclear detonations. If the problem is "you're wasting taxpayer money", the issue isn't the dollar amount spent, its the return on the money. As a science experiment, the return of the NIF is probably pretty crappy. As a nuclear arms tester, its almost invaluable (infinite return!!!) if you accept the dual propositions that America should obey its nuclear test treaties obligations, and that America gains significant benefits from maintaining their nuclear arsenal.

The NIF was clearly built to maintain America's nuclear arms capabilities, both in providing employment to nuclear physicists, as well as maintaining the viability of the current stockpile. It was practically transparent from the beginning.

Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

#38

Post by catkin »

fophillips wrote: post #24
JackFr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this even basic science? It sounds more like an engineering problem, albeit a very hard one. I am not a physicist, but I would consider this more like the Manhattan project -- the science being done is not of the 'deeper under standing of nature' type, but rather 'how do you make a controllable explosion' type. Given that, the way to evaluate the project is not on grants received, articles published or citations i…

You go tell Feynman the Manhattan project wasn't about science.

That's not what was said. OP said it's not about fundamental science, which is somewhat true. Nuclear weapons research isn't fundamental, although it does require some fundamental research.

Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

#39

Post by vezzy-fnord »

Oculus wrote: post #22

> led NIF's critics to label the facility an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars > government shifted NIF away from its fusion goals to focus on its other mission: simulating the conditions inside nuclear weapons I think right there lies the problem with our world. People take up more issue with a multi-billion dollar research facility for science than one for military applications. If we spent a small fraction of the…

Not necessarily true.

A lot of great innovations have originated from military research. War necessitates innovation.

Not to say that we should just funnel everything into the military, but one should not underestimate its importance in the technological landscape.

Re: Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

#40

Post by Oculus »

valarauca1 wrote: post #34
Oculus wrote: post #22

> led NIF's critics to label the facility an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars > government shifted NIF away from its fusion goals to focus on its other mission: simulating the conditions inside nuclear weapons I think right there lies the problem with our world. People take up more issue with a multi-billion dollar research facility for science than one for military applications. If we spent a small fraction of the…

The cost of the B-2 Bomber program has cost as much as ~5 Large Hadron Colliders. B-2 bomber program cost 44.75 billion[1] LHC cost ~7.5 Billion Euro ~9billion USD.[2] [1] http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost

The B-2 Bomber is child's play compared to the F-35's 1 Trillion USD program [1], but the comparison to the LHC's pricetag really puts things in prespective.

1: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighte...

Post reply on HN