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

US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

energy.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#351

Post by rsync »

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…

"Yesterday, everyone was complaining about the 2.2:2.0 ratio, but now we're working with 3.15:2.05."

What is the difference between todays announcement and yesterdays ?

I thought we were just getting re-submitted headlines, but apparently this news is different than yesterday ?

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#352

Post by pfdietz »

orthecreedence wrote: post #319
pfdietz wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What scheme do you imagine that fusion could be used to replace petroleum that would not also work when powered by solar? Production of synfuels using hydrogen, for example, would also deal with solar's intermittency, leaving the energy sources to compete on the basis of levelized cost. The levelized cost of solar has become quite low, and it's very difficult to see how any fusion scheme, and DT fusion in particular,…

I specifically asked about the production of solar panels. Are you assuming that we already have all the panels we need to replace petrolium sitting in a warehouse? What good is solar in an energy independence plan if we can't build our own panels?

What? Production of solar panels is just a matter of building and running more factories. There's no significant limit to this.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#353

Post by makestuff »

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…

> It's nice to see this milestone recognized, even if the funding it still rather small.

Just wait until the DoD figures out they can use this for some military application and it will get 100x funding overnight.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#354

Post by m4rtink »

pfdietz wrote: post #171
echelon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will get there. It's just a matter of time and resources. The destination will be a milestone for humanity, so we should not give up.

Why should I agree with this article of faith? The obstacles appear quite grave to me. Moreover, even reaching that Q doesn't mean we're there. That's a necessary, not sufficient, condition. A large, complex machine that explodes the equivalent of 500 lb. bombs to generate heat to drive a turbine sounds like an engineering nightmare.

I wonder how much energy each stroke in the largest diesel ship engines has when compared to the energy released by individual bombs/high explosives.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#355

Post by DesiLurker »

jpeter wrote: post #163
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…

Imagine if Musk spend 44 Billion fusion

Imagine if we've spent 10% of the current military budget ($600B+) on renewables & fusion. We wouldn't have to fight those wars for resources.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#357

Post by zaroth »

spullara wrote: post #335
aaroninsf wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an A+ comment—helpful, well-formatted, concise, with bonus interesting additional detail. Thank you.

Thanks, finally got to use my physics masters degree.

First time for everything!!

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#358

Post by aliqot »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #259
trillic wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd imagine commodity tritium breeders would be a part of the infrastructure build out and that it will be a highly competitive space as fusion-to-the-home nears reality.

What is fusion-to-the-home?

Power derived from a fusion power plant delivered through conventional powerlines leading to the consumer.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#359

Post by leephillips »

Palpatineli wrote: post #196

Calling this fusion ignition is stupid. Laser fusion is unlike other fusion devices in that the efficiency of laser is extremely low. It is true that the reaction created 3MJ when the laser energy input INTO THE REACTION CHAMBER is 2MJ. But the whole laser system took 300MJ to run for this one shot. Thus the real Q value is extremely low compared to other fusion methods.

Note that the announcements refer to laser energy supplied to the target, not laser energy entering the chamber. The former is a fraction of the latter, and the basis for the term “scientific gain”. The actual target gain may be < 1.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#360

Post by pmarreck »

anotherman554 wrote: post #348
pmarreck wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fission power you probably meant "fusion" > My father still finds it novel that he basically gets to wear Dick Tracy’s watch. Well, except for the front-facing camera, but that's trivial to add at this point. And as a 50 year old, I agree. I feel like being incarnated in '72 has gotten me ethereal tickets to the greatest technological expansion/brouhaha in all of human history, and I don't know what my soul did to…

The original Dick Tracy Watch introduced in 1946 didn't have a camera. A newer model featuring a camera came out in a 1964 comic. I haven't read Dick Tracy in a long time, but if it's still being made I bet Tracy's watch has been upgraded with a bunch of new features the Apple Watch lacks.

I did not know that!
Post reply on HN