I didn't see any mention of the output in the article.
-
Sounds like the goal of the test wasn’t to vet ignition power in relation to output. These people are testing the durability of system designs that can maintain a reaction after ignition.
If this was a car, they wouldn’t be testing the fuel efficiency, they’d be testing how long they could drive before the wheels fell off.
-
Inertial confinement doesnt produce a "stable reaction" it is pulsed by it's nature, think of it in the same way as a single cylinder internal combustion engine, periodic explosions which are harnessed to do useful work. So no the laser energy is required every single time to detonate the fuel pellet.
NIF isnt really interested in fusion for power production, it's a weapons research facility that occasionally puts out puff pieces to make it seem like it has civilian applications.
-
I've seen a few mentions of positive output in the last few years.
-
OK, so we should be clear there are broadly two approaches to fusion: magnetic confinement and inertial drive.
In magnetic confinement a plasma is confined such that it can be driven to sufficient density, temperature and particle confinement time that the thermal collisions allow the fuel to fuse. This is what the OP article is talking about. This Tokamak is demonstrating technologies that if applied to a larger the experiment could probably reach a positive energy output magnetically confined plasma.
The article you referenced discusses inertial drive experiments, where a driver is directly pushing the fuel together, like gravity in the sun, a fission bomb shockwave in a hydrogen bomb, or converging laser beams in Livermore's case.
Livermore's result is exciting, but has no bearing on the various magnetic confinement approaches to fusion energy.
-
In my experience the community will usually distinguished between "scientific Q" and "wall plug Q" when discussing fusion power gain. Scientific is simply the ratio of power in vs power out, whereas wall plug includes all the power required to support scientific Q. Obviously the difference isn't always clearly delineated or reported when talking to journalists...
-
Article said 2.6GJ input, 2.6 output so 1Q, but I'm not certain it's really the case.Edit: I can't find my source back, so it's likely false
-
Your take is incorrect.
-
The input energy doesnt matter that much. Nobody is going to use 1980s laser tech to power a real reactor. As with OP, inertial confinement is interested in very small nuanced science aspects, not making a power plant.
-
It would be more productive if you said how you think im wrong. Just saying 'youre wrong' doesnt really add anything to the discussion.
-
Aha, thank you for clarifying. Not my area of expertise, did not know the difference.
-
T [email protected] shared this topic on
