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

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#661

Post by stonepresto »

opportune wrote: post #584
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…

100% agree. We should be dumping as much as we can in getting fusion up and running ASAP. It could be a silver bullet to stop climate change alone, and by driving energy costs lower, enable huge innovations in AI/automation and increasing material wealth. $1T to move fusion forward just 5 years from eg 2040 to 2035 could alone have a huge ROI in terms of climate mitigation and decarbonization

Way more than that. This would shift the entire geopolitical structure of the world. Humanity would never be the same.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#662

Post by julienreszka »

dqpb wrote: post #627

> maintaining a nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing What is meant by this?

Since the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water was signed in 1963, all nuclear weapons tests must be performed underground. This is typically done by digging a deep shaft or tunnel in the earth and detonating the weapon at the bottom of the shaft or tunnel. The explosion is monitored by a variety of equipment, such as seismographs, radiation detectors, and air samplers. The data gathered from these tests helps to understand the weapon's performance and its potential impact.

In addition, computer simulations are often used to test the effects of a nuclear weapon, such as the predicted fallout and atmospheric effects. These simulations are based on data collected from previous nuclear tests as well as theoretical models.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#663

Post by geysersam »

simplicio wrote: post #284
sillysaurusx wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just seems a little strange to take credit for a milestone when the milestone everyone cares about is yet to be reached. (More energy out than in.) Good to hear that there's a laser design that might achieve that.

I think the confusion here is at least partially due to most articles obscuring the primary purpose of the NIF. Its not supposed to support commercial energy development, its supposed to support nuclear weapons development under the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, where testing bombs via setting them off is banned. So the NIF is supposed to give a testbed to study implosion created fusion reactions that produce enough energ…

Exactly! It's so strange this is somehow made to be about fusion as an energy source. I'm happy to announce that Q>>1 has already been achieved on multiple occasions. In the cores of the thermonuclear devices tested by the US and USSR in the 50s. (Unfortunately that technology proved unviable as a path to civilian fusion power.)

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#664

Post by lkbm »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #516
pfdietz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Q is irrelevant, you need throughput. If your Q is one million, but you are processing one tiny capsule per second, you are producing too little money to pay for the facility. If you can process a tanker worth of hydrogen per second, Q can be just above break even and you will still make money.

Irrelevant? Seems like Q is one of two factors in that calculation. If the throughput is tiny, you're useless, but if your Q is too small, the same is true.

The higher the Q, the lower throughput needed for feasibility.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#665

Post by caf »

galangalalgol wrote: post #581
short_sells_poo wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always fascinated by the sheer and unfathomable amounts of energy that is thrown around in these events. Just thinking about the fact that a single spoonful of neutron star matter contains more mass than Mount Everest fills me with wonder about the world we live in.

What happens whena tablespoon of neutron soup gets thrown out of the well of a neutron star? Does it suddenly expand to the size of everest? Where do the electrons come from?

In terms of "where do the electrons come from", an ordinary neutron in free space has a half-life of about 10 minutes, decaying through beta decay which produces a proton, an electron and a neutrino.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#666

Post by kragen »

alchemyromcom wrote: post #646
gretch wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand this is a poem that is focused on artistic expression and not scientific accuracy, but I find the line about “carbon in our souls” to be out of place. I guess the rest of the poem is incidentally correct (when not abstract)

>Carbon in our souls I think it might be an allusion to alchemy. Basically, the alchemists believed that ash (what was left after burning something) was the soul of all things...And-- this is where my complete lack of understanding about science shows-- I'm pretty sure Ash has lots of carbon? It's, you know, poetic. Many have claimed that poems are the "language of paradox" so it's okay for it to be a little non-lite…

ash has no carbon

carbon's oxides are all gaseous at standard temperature and pressure

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#667

Post by lkbm »

pfdietz wrote: post #213
azinman2 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because sustainable positive energy out has never been achieved before in 60 years of research. This is gigantic. It’s potential to decarbonize the world is massive, and now it became a whole lot less theoretical. It’s an incredible milestone, not a solved problem.

That's a circular argument. It's big because the people doing it call it big. Why should I, an outsider, care about their internal goals, their egoes, or their status in their field? What does it do or imply for me?

> It's big because the people doing it call it big.

How does "[It's big b]ecause sustainable positive energy out has never been achieved before in 60 years of research" translate to "because we say it's big" in your head?

You might not consider it big, but a specific reason was provided and it had zero similarity to your rephrasing.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#668

Post by schiffern »

eklitzke wrote: post #262
spullara wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the mass before of their fuel, 1 deuterium atom + 1 tritium atom: 2.01410177811 u + 3.01604928 u = 5.03015105811 u vs the mass of the fusion products of 1 helium atom and 1 neutron: 4.002602 u + 1.008 u = 5.010602 u You'll notice that even though we started with 5 neutrons and 2 protons and ended up with the same number there was some additional binding energy that is unaccounted for in the new configu…

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…

  >all the atoms in our universe/galaxy/solar system with a mass up to that of iron are formed in the core of stars
Note that this is not, strictly speaking, true.

Roughly 90% of the helium atoms in the universe were created via Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#669

Post by oreilles »

opportune wrote: post #584
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…

100% agree. We should be dumping as much as we can in getting fusion up and running ASAP. It could be a silver bullet to stop climate change alone, and by driving energy costs lower, enable huge innovations in AI/automation and increasing material wealth. $1T to move fusion forward just 5 years from eg 2040 to 2035 could alone have a huge ROI in terms of climate mitigation and decarbonization

Cheaper and cleaner energy has never in the history of enery lead to global reduction of pollution, actually pretty much the opposite. Plus, nuclear power is already virtually free and has been available since the 1970s. If stopping climate change was an energy source problem, it would have already been solved then.

Re: US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved

#670

Post by dejj »

hibbelig wrote: post #642
emmelaich wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what I thought! I checked with google translate. star stuff = sternzeug. stern stoff = star fabric

Stoff had more than one translation into English. One is cloth. Another refers to substances. Eg hydrogen is called Wasserstoff in German: water-stuff

See “waterstuff” in the Uncleftish Beholding:

https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/110/docs/uncleftish_beh...

Post reply on HN