US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved • Hacker News Board

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#121

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

bmmayer1 wrote: post #103

jkelleyrtp wrote: post #33

> LLNL’s experiment surpassed the fusion threshold by delivering 2.05 megajoules (MJ) of energy to the target, resulting in 3.15 MJ of fusion energy output, demonstrating for the first time a most fundamental science basis for inertial fusion energy (IFE) Yesterday, everyone was complaining about the 2.2:2.0 ratio, but now we're working with 3.15:2.05. With modern lasers, that'd be a total Q of 0.375 assuming 100% ef…

This is a stupid question but I don't know anything about fusion: How is it possible for X energy to create X+Y energy in output? Doesn't that violate some fundamental law of physics?

[deleted]

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#122

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

simiones wrote: post #112

bioemerl wrote: post #20

Here's your most exciting paragraph > LLNL’s experiment surpassed the fusion threshold by delivering 2.05 megajoules (MJ) of energy to the target, resulting in 3.15 MJ of fusion energy output, demonstrating for the first time a most fundamental science basis for inertial fusion energy (IFE). Many advanced science and technology developments are still needed to achieve simple, affordable IFE to power homes and busines…

That's a very apt analogy, as both this and Manhattan are weapons research programs. I'm not very excited in hearing we'll get even more powerful thermo-nuclear bombs.

Do more powerful bombs really make any difference? Seems a bit like worrying about the impact of climate-driven ocean rise on the pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#123

Post by Victerius » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

rllearneratwork wrote: post #73

bioemerl wrote: post #20

Here's your most exciting paragraph > LLNL’s experiment surpassed the fusion threshold by delivering 2.05 megajoules (MJ) of energy to the target, resulting in 3.15 MJ of fusion energy output, demonstrating for the first time a most fundamental science basis for inertial fusion energy (IFE). Many advanced science and technology developments are still needed to achieve simple, affordable IFE to power homes and busines…

I would love to see "fusion Manhattan project", this planet is well overdue for new gigantic R&D projects such as Manhattan and Apollo.

Who are our modern J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, Edward Teller, John Von Neumann, and Stanislaw Ulam?

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#124

Post by alexose » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

raydiatian wrote: post #60

> achieve President Biden’s goal This seems unnecessarily partisan to mention

The full quote is

> This historic, first-of-its kind achievement will provide unprecedented capability to support NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship Program and will provide invaluable insights into the prospects of clean fusion energy, which would be a game-changer for efforts to achieve President Biden’s goal of a net-zero carbon economy.

That is his administration's goal, and it's the directive that DoE is working under during his presidency.

Unless you have another party in mind that's been vocally championing a net-zero carbon economy?

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#125

Post by karpierz » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

bmmayer1 wrote: post #103

jkelleyrtp wrote: post #33

> LLNL’s experiment surpassed the fusion threshold by delivering 2.05 megajoules (MJ) of energy to the target, resulting in 3.15 MJ of fusion energy output, demonstrating for the first time a most fundamental science basis for inertial fusion energy (IFE) Yesterday, everyone was complaining about the 2.2:2.0 ratio, but now we're working with 3.15:2.05. With modern lasers, that'd be a total Q of 0.375 assuming 100% ef…

This is a stupid question but I don't know anything about fusion: How is it possible for X energy to create X+Y energy in output? Doesn't that violate some fundamental law of physics?

You take a lighter and light gasoline on fire, using X energy. Then once the gasoline catches on fire, it'll burn on its own, releasing Y energy.

Same principle, different means.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#126

Post by dharmab » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

thehappypm wrote: post #45

brofallon wrote: post #30

I'm still a little unclear on the benefits that fusion offers compared to things like wind and solar. I understand that we need to develop better storage technologies for the energy produced by wind and solar, but that seems so much easier than the challenges currently facing fusion. Wind and solar just seem so far ahead of fusion already - they're pretty cheap and very widely deployed on a global scale. In compariso…

It’s potentially just a much better version of fission. Fusion won’t cause a runaway reaction — in fact it’s brutally difficult to get it to react at all, hence why this is an achievement. It also doesn’t use materials that can be used for a bomb, again unlike fission. As a result it has the potential to be cheaper to implement, cheaper to fuel, with no meltdown risk.

Isn't tritium used in fusion and a potential weapons material?

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#127

Post by hackernewds » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #71

jkelleyrtp wrote: post #33

> LLNL’s experiment surpassed the fusion threshold by delivering 2.05 megajoules (MJ) of energy to the target, resulting in 3.15 MJ of fusion energy output, demonstrating for the first time a most fundamental science basis for inertial fusion energy (IFE) Yesterday, everyone was complaining about the 2.2:2.0 ratio, but now we're working with 3.15:2.05. With modern lasers, that'd be a total Q of 0.375 assuming 100% ef…

The Q needs to be something like 500 to 1000, not because of energy breakeven, but to produce enough energy that the shot is financially positive. The amount of fusion energy produced in this shot is worth a penny or two. (And even then, it's dubious a laser fusion scheme will be competitive with other energy sources.)

Offset the financial viability with the cost of freedom from energy reliance and the need (more like craving) for military interventions

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#128

Post by jeffbee » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #13

Buttons840 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about this: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2333346-ignition-confir... Allegedly ignition was achieved a year ago. How is this different?

Because now it’s reproducible, controllable and consistently net positive in terms of energy output. It’s not a fluke anymore and I assume the engineering behind this is now understood well enough to develop it further and scale it up. Fusion for the most part isn’t a physics problem it’s an engineering problem the difficulty was always in how to implement it in the real world rather than in math at ideal white paper…

What information available to the public suggests this is reproducible and consistent? They do hundreds of shots every year. Why do we think that this energetic shot wasn't just a result of getting luckier this time than they did a few years ago?

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#129

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

jbverschoor wrote: post #37

Buttons840 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about this: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2333346-ignition-confir... Allegedly ignition was achieved a year ago. How is this different?

Quoted post unavailable.

The B-21 isn't unmanned, the nuclear-capable B-2 already existed, and we've had fusion bombs since the 1950s.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#130

Post by trilobyte » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

anfilt wrote: post #70

trilobyte wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I was trying to figure out. So is it still a net-negative overall?

Yea very curious as well would need to dig a little deeper. If it's the beam energy it means we need more efficient lasers or to scale larger to overcome the energy losses from making a laser beam. Still even if it's just the beam we are at an energy positive which is still great news because it mean the fundamentals are working. Still other issues though, the biggest in my opinion are an effective way to produce Tri…

Looks like the Nature article (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7) is more clear about it still being a net loss. Still an important step forward, but it's important to contextualize it.