US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

Post by steam_raven » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 8:06 PM UTC

stock_toaster wrote: post #338

eklitzke wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangentially related, but I think this is an interesting fact, all the atoms in our universe/galaxy/solar system with a mass up to that of iron are formed in the core of stars in stellar fusion. Hydrogen fuses into helium, and as a star nears the end of its lifetime you get heavier elements like lithium, carbon, and so on. Under normal stellar fusion no elements heavier than iron will be produced, and iron is only el…

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of star stuff”. – Carl Sagan

  We have calcium in our bones, 
  iron in our veins, 
  carbon in our souls, 
  and nitrogen in our brains.
  93 percent stardust,
  with souls made of flames, 
  we are all just stars 
  that have people names"
  Nikita Gill

Post by EamonnMR » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 8:06 PM UTC

mlindner wrote: post #434

The design of the National Ignition Facility was never intended to study commercially viable fusion power. It's exclusively a physics testing facility with origins for testing the physics of thermonuclear fusion weapons for better bomb design. Nothing that happens at the NIF is very useful in heading towards commercially viable fusion. The design of the testing apparatus is also similarly incompatible with making a s…

Post by dpacmittal » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 8:07 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?

Post by supergirl » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 8:09 PM UTC

sigmar wrote: post #179

micromacrofoot wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that while this is important progress, it's a bit of specific accounting. The entire system still requires more energy input than output, but this isolated piece can now output a little more than input. > This is indeed a promising and exciting result, but we need to remember that this does not take into account the energy required to run the lasers that confine the reaction and other inefficiencies and losses.…

Their goal was to produce a fusion reaction not to improve laser efficiency. That's a bit like complaining they didn't account for the energy used to structure the fuel. I don't think it's 'specific accounting' when (output/input)>1 was their goal from the start

Post by supergirl » Tue, Dec 13, 2022, 8:11 PM UTC

Ancapistani wrote: post #102

prvc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since there will necessarily be overhead in any kind of finished design, this "threshold" is an arbitrary one to pass, no more significant that 90% or 125%, or any other round number.

Sort of. We don't have a commercially viable technology here yet, but we've proven that it's at least viable for the part that needs to produce energy actually can produce energy. As I understand it, now we start down the road of improving the ratio and optimizing the process. FWIW, from my lay perspective it seems like the research NIF is doing is significantly smaller scale than the work being done elsewhere. That'…