Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   We may have nuclear fusion   (msn.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, MSN  
•       •       •

3121 clicks; posted to STEM » on 12 Aug 2022 at 11:20 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



89 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-08-12 10:54:32 AM  
universetoday.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-12 11:09:44 AM  
great. just need to add a few more nanoseconds of ignition to have it be useful.  surely only 20y away this time.
 
2022-08-12 11:24:57 AM  
Again?
 
2022-08-12 11:25:24 AM  
Pffft, I was building fusion power plants back in the 90s, son.

/SimCity 2000 for life, yo.
 
2022-08-12 11:26:38 AM  
"The record shot was a major scientific advance in fusion research, which establishes that fusion ignition in the lab is possible at NIF," said Omar Hurricane, chief scientist for LLNL's inertial confinement fusion program.

Larry Thunderstorm and Susan Tornado also assisted with the research, but were not available for comment due to inclement weather.
 
2022-08-12 11:31:11 AM  
I'm on the phone, but 1.3 MJ * 1 nanosecond is a staggering ... 1.3 mW.

For reference, a mild static electrical shock is about 50 W.  Which is over 4 orders of magnitude more than this record breaking reaction.

As always, it sounds like Nuclear Fusion is just 20 years away.
 
2022-08-12 11:36:20 AM  
The only thing required to make it viable is this simple perpetual motion device!
 
2022-08-12 11:38:44 AM  
media-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-12 11:39:04 AM  
I want that wacky piston fusion machine from Canada to work and not just because Canada is less likely to use it for evil. It just has that feeling of "it's so crazy, it has to work!"

https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/07/31/30440/a-new-approach-to-fusion/
 
2022-08-12 11:40:00 AM  

BeesNuts: I'm on the phone, but 1.3 MJ * 1 nanosecond is a staggering ... 1.3 mW.

For reference, a mild static electrical shock is about 50 W.  Which is over 4 orders of magnitude more than this record breaking reaction.

As always, it sounds like Nuclear Fusion is just 20 years away.


1.3 PJ
/ not *
 
2022-08-12 11:42:12 AM  

wamba: BeesNuts: I'm on the phone, but 1.3 MJ * 1 nanosecond is a staggering ... 1.3 mW.

For reference, a mild static electrical shock is about 50 W.  Which is over 4 orders of magnitude more than this record breaking reaction.

As always, it sounds like Nuclear Fusion is just 20 years away.

1.3 PJ
/ not *


Note to self
PW not PJ
 
2022-08-12 11:44:27 AM  
But will it provide enough usable power for a computer to run Crysis... uh, 4.
 
2022-08-12 11:47:29 AM  
"In this latest milestone at the LLNL, researchers recorded an energy yield of more than 1.3 megajoules (MJ) during only a few nanoseconds. For reference, one MJ is the kinetic energy of a one tonne mass moving at 100mph."

Well Holy shiat
 
2022-08-12 11:49:42 AM  

BeesNuts: I'm on the phone, but 1.3 MJ * 1 nanosecond is a staggering ... 1.3 mW.

For reference, a mild static electrical shock is about 50 W.  Which is over 4 orders of magnitude more than this record breaking reaction.

As always, it sounds like Nuclear Fusion is just 20 years away.


And my 8.4Kw solar array makes about 1.2MW a year. Baby steps, baby steps.
 
2022-08-12 11:52:10 AM  

wamba: wamba: BeesNuts: I'm on the phone, but 1.3 MJ * 1 nanosecond is a staggering ... 1.3 mW.

For reference, a mild static electrical shock is about 50 W.  Which is over 4 orders of magnitude more than this record breaking reaction.

As always, it sounds like Nuclear Fusion is just 20 years away.

1.3 PJ
/ not *

Note to self
PW not PJ


i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size

1,300,000 GW
 
2022-08-12 12:07:23 PM  

wamba: wamba: BeesNuts: I'm on the phone, but 1.3 MJ * 1 nanosecond is a staggering ... 1.3 mW.

For reference, a mild static electrical shock is about 50 W.  Which is over 4 orders of magnitude more than this record breaking reaction.

As always, it sounds like Nuclear Fusion is just 20 years away.

1.3 PJ
/ not *

Note to self
PW not PJ


Let's call a mulligan on the thread and let everyone double check their decimal points.
 
2022-08-12 12:25:28 PM  
ignition - where the reaction releases enough energy to sustain the reaction, even if only for a short time - is a good step, but you don't have useful fusion power until energy in is significantly less than energy out.

NIF's original goal was positive energy, then they backed it off to ignition as they discovered how hard laser driver inertial confinement was.

I honestly don't think inertial confinement will ever be useful as a power generation system, but having NIF able to reach fusion ignition means much more research can be done on the process of the fusion reaction itself, which will help other fusion methods that may be practical for power, since they'll have more experimental evidence on the reaction itself, and will be in a better place to design the reactors to take advantage of them.
 
2022-08-12 12:26:49 PM  

GrogSmash: They did it once.  Now, they can't even remotely come close again under the same circumstances.


Do not underestimate the power of "did it once." Before then, "impossible to do" was in the pool of possible results.  Now we know it is possible. Knowing that something can be done makes it vastly easier to figure out ways to do it again and do it better.
 
2022-08-12 12:34:45 PM  

scumm: great. just need to add a few more nanoseconds of ignition to have it be useful.  surely only 20y away this time.


And a way to extract the energy into something useful.
 
2022-08-12 12:38:14 PM  

tedthebellhopp: BeesNuts: I'm on the phone, but 1.3 MJ * 1 nanosecond is a staggering ... 1.3 mW.

For reference, a mild static electrical shock is about 50 W.  Which is over 4 orders of magnitude more than this record breaking reaction.

As always, it sounds like Nuclear Fusion is just 20 years away.

And my 8.4Kw solar array makes about 1.2MW a year. Baby steps, baby steps.


I was also ass backwards.  1.3 MJ in 1 nS is 1.3E6/1E-9, not 1.3E6*1E-9.

Which is an unironically staggering 1.3E15 Watts.  Or 1.3 petawatts.  Womba caught it right away.
 
2022-08-12 12:38:55 PM  

GrogSmash: Ah, this is the one-shot-wonder!

They did it once.  Now, they can't even remotely come close again under the same circumstances.

They refined what they were doing, and they are getting a lot better results, but the experiment in question had an 'unknown variable' in it that made it actually feasible, and they haven't got a clue what it is.


As I understand it (might be completely wrong), it's the fuel pellet itself - the fusion is insanely sensitive to the actual geometry of the pellet at like nanometer resolution.  Make enough pellets as carefully as you can, and one of them was juuust right.  Now do it again.
 
2022-08-12 12:41:34 PM  

GrogSmash: Sliding Carp:
And a way to extract the energy into something useful.

That's the easy part, relatively speaking.


From that facility?  It's a big space with a lot of big lasers shooting at a little bitty target from all directions.  How do you get something in there that can collect the energy and send it somewhere else?

I'm no expert at all, but this approach doesn't seem commercially feasible in the least.
 
2022-08-12 12:43:14 PM  
How close is nuclear fusion power?
Youtube LJ4W1g-6JiY


The problem isn't getting fusion to happen at all, it's getting energy out of the system.
 
2022-08-12 12:49:55 PM  

Russ1642: [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/LJ4W1g-6JiY]

The problem isn't getting fusion to happen at all, it's getting energy out of the system.


Yea how is that going to happen?  are they going to use the heat generated to create steam or put it into a different medium like the molten salt solar plants and then covert water to steam?  does all the heat generated need to be used to sustain the reaction?  if that's the case...how do you get energy from this system?
 
2022-08-12 12:53:28 PM  

You Are All Sheep: Russ1642: [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/LJ4W1g-6JiY]

The problem isn't getting fusion to happen at all, it's getting energy out of the system.

Yea how is that going to happen?  are they going to use the heat generated to create steam or put it into a different medium like the molten salt solar plants and then covert water to steam?  does all the heat generated need to be used to sustain the reaction?  if that's the case...how do you get energy from this system?


They'll likely extract the energy from the cooling water like they do with current nuclear power plants.
 
2022-08-12 1:03:57 PM  
FTFA: No fossil fuels would be required as the only fuel would be hydrogen, and the only by-product would be helium, which we use in industry and are actually in short supply of.

Well, that and a metric butte load of neutron-irradiated concrete and steel that has to be replaced regularly, which itself is a carbon-intensive process.

But, still better than the alternatives such as fission or burning fossil fuels for baseload.
 
2022-08-12 1:08:57 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size


We definitely have nuclear fusion.
 
2022-08-12 1:14:22 PM  
That's hot. Giggity!
 
2022-08-12 1:21:47 PM  

BeesNuts: tedthebellhopp: BeesNuts: I'm on the phone, but 1.3 MJ × 1 nanosecond is a staggering ... 1.3 mW.

For reference, a mild static electrical shock is about 50 W.  Which is over 4 orders of magnitude more than this record breaking reaction.

As always, it sounds like Nuclear Fusion is just 20 years away.

And my 8.4Kw solar array makes about 1.2MW a year. Baby steps, baby steps.

I was also ass backwards.  1.3 MJ in 1 nS is 1.3E6÷1E−9, not 1.3E6×1E−9.

Which is an unironically staggering 1.3E15 Watts.  Or 1.3 petawatts.  Womba caught it right away.

Wamba. If you want to give a Farker credit in a comment in a way they'll find out about, you have to spell the username correctly.

leeksfromchichis: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 498×616]

We definitely have nuclear fusion.

But can we do it outside the core of a star? H-bombs, yes, but sustained?
 
2022-08-12 1:22:16 PM  

GrogSmash: Ah, this is the one-shot-wonder!

They did it once.  Now, they can't even remotely come close again under the same circumstances.

They refined what they were doing, and they are getting a lot better results, but the experiment in question had an 'unknown variable' in it that made it actually feasible, and they haven't got a clue what it is.


That's the whole point of research.  They figured out and controlled nearly all the variables, now they have one (or more, if "it" is hidden they can hardly claim just one) left to control.

Still, it really helps that your "National Ignition Facility" has finally done what it says on the sign.  Been a few years, and billions of dollars.
 
2022-08-12 1:22:37 PM  

Nimbull: That's hot. Giggity!

More like Petagity!
 
2022-08-12 1:28:27 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-12 1:45:05 PM  

GrogSmash: HugeMistake: FTFA: No fossil fuels would be required as the only fuel would be hydrogen, and the only by-product would be helium, which we use in industry and are actually in short supply of.

Well, that and a metric butte load of neutron-irradiated concrete and steel that has to be replaced regularly, which itself is a carbon-intensive process.

But, still better than the alternatives such as fission or burning fossil fuels for baseload.

Yup, this particular version of fusion does spit out a shiatload of neutron radiation.  Dueterium plus tritium is 2 protons, 3 neutrons...  so every successful fusion reaction kicks out a spare neutron (or creates a radioactive Helium atom that you have to deal with).

And here is the kicker... it uses tritium.  The H3 isotope (one proton, 2 neutrons).  Unstable, half life of about 15 years...  And only produced in breeder reactors that use heavy water (deuterium) as a coolant... aka fission.  Most reactors of that type, outside of the US and Russia, have been decommissioned.  The reactors those countries maintain to produce it do so to produce the tritium needed for the nuclear stockpile, since as I mentioned, it's got a damned short half life.  (Most nukes in US and Russia are variable yield fusion bombs, which require tritium to 'dial in' the correct yield).

In theory, you can also produce it from a lithium isotope available in seawater...  but you can also mine gold from seawater.  You'd burn as much energy produced by the fusion reactor trying to gather and process the lithium to produce the tritium fuel.


There are still quite a few CANDU reactors in operation, and there's lots of lithium. The "...from seawater" bit is an irrelevant distraction. You could take the lithium from recycled batteries and bake it for a while in a fission reactor to make tritium. Isotope separation improves the yield but isn't required.
 
2022-08-12 1:53:35 PM  

GrogSmash: HugeMistake: FTFA: No fossil fuels would be required as the only fuel would be hydrogen, and the only by-product would be helium, which we use in industry and are actually in short supply of.

Well, that and a metric butte load of neutron-irradiated concrete and steel that has to be replaced regularly, which itself is a carbon-intensive process.

But, still better than the alternatives such as fission or burning fossil fuels for baseload.

Yup, this particular version of fusion does spit out a shiatload of neutron radiation.  Dueterium plus tritium is 2 protons, 3 neutrons...  so every successful fusion reaction kicks out a spare neutron (or creates a radioactive Helium atom that you have to deal with).

And here is the kicker... it uses tritium.  The H3 isotope (one proton, 2 neutrons).  Unstable, half life of about 15 years...  And only produced in breeder reactors that use heavy water (deuterium) as a coolant... aka fission.  Most reactors of that type, outside of the US and Russia, have been decommissioned.  The reactors those countries maintain to produce it do so to produce the tritium needed for the nuclear stockpile, since as I mentioned, it's got a damned short half life.  (Most nukes in US and Russia are variable yield fusion bombs, which require tritium to 'dial in' the correct yield).

In theory, you can also produce it from a lithium isotope available in seawater...  but you can also mine gold from seawater.  You'd burn as much energy produced by the fusion reactor trying to gather and process the lithium to produce the tritium fuel.


One correction, there are significant amounts of Tritium produced outside the US and Russia through Pressurized Heavy Water reactors (notably the CANDU and its Indian derivatives). They already provide a large proportion of the tritium used in research and have more untapped potential.
 
2022-08-12 1:54:05 PM  

BeesNuts: 1.3 petawatts.


What the hell is a petawatt?
 
2022-08-12 1:55:32 PM  

ImpendingCynic: BeesNuts: 1.3 petawatts.

What the hell is a petawatt?


A million jigawatts. Great Scott!
 
2022-08-12 1:56:41 PM  

ImpendingCynic: BeesNuts: 1.3 petawatts.

What the hell is a petawatt?


They're watts that convince college girls who love animals to get naked for provocative ad campaigns but don't actually hold up to their own ideals about animal treatment as an organization.
 
2022-08-12 1:58:20 PM  

Autoerotic Defenestration: [Fark user image 595x419]


Once you use the either you'll always need it. -the either bunny
 
2022-08-12 2:08:51 PM  
Trump probably sold the specifications to the Saudis already.
 
2022-08-12 2:27:43 PM  
Dateline: Mar-a-Lago?
 
2022-08-12 2:33:36 PM  

bighairyguy: Dateline: Mar-a-Lago?


Exactly.  Guy was trying to SAVE THE WORLD and reverse global warming, and the damn FBI tries to shut him down, just like when he infiltrated Epstein's sick world and was vilified for it.
 
2022-08-12 3:04:09 PM  
Why do people hype this? Their technique for creating fusion has no hope of ever being used for power production. You will never power the grid by taking hours to set up in between each sub second duration blasts.
 
2022-08-12 3:11:42 PM  

Obscene_CNN: Why do people hype this? Their technique for creating fusion has no hope of ever being used for power production. You will never power the grid by taking hours to set up in between each sub second duration blasts.


That's what she said.
 
2022-08-12 3:34:20 PM  
We're saved!
 
2022-08-12 3:47:51 PM  

Obscene_CNN: Why do people hype this? Their technique for creating fusion has no hope of ever being used for power production. You will never power the grid by taking hours to set up in between each sub second duration blasts.


Because stuff like this has to start somewhere. So they go through all the "almost-did-its" and "worked for a second" to make discoveries to piggyback on and eventually comes the breakthrough they've been looking for.

I mean, Edison didn't get the light bulb right the first time.
 
2022-08-12 3:54:30 PM  
FTFA: 'The problem with fusion energy at the moment is that we do not have the technical capabilities to harness this power. Scientists from across the world are currently working to solve these issues.'

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-12 4:17:16 PM  

PunkTiger: Obscene_CNN: Why do people hype this? Their technique for creating fusion has no hope of ever being used for power production. You will never power the grid by taking hours to set up in between each sub second duration blasts.

Because stuff like this has to start somewhere. So they go through all the "almost-did-its" and "worked for a second" to make discoveries to piggyback on and eventually comes the breakthrough they've been looking for.

I mean, Edison didn't get the light bulb right the first time.


We have done fusion with hydrogen bombs  Shooting lasers at a little pellet isn't telling us much more than the bombs did.

We have tokamak reactors that can sustain fusion for several seconds. Soon the ITER is going to be finished and it will be capable of sustained fusion for several minutes to hour long runs. This is where research money needs to be spent. Not on this dead end path.
 
2022-08-12 4:22:28 PM  
external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-12 4:23:13 PM  

Obscene_CNN: Why do people hype this? Their technique for creating fusion has no hope of ever being used for power production. You will never power the grid by taking hours to set up in between each sub second duration blasts.


This totally shows that you are smarter than the scientists, who just aimlessly join into groups performing sciencey things with no understanding of the science involved.
 
2022-08-12 5:03:58 PM  

covfefe: Obscene_CNN: Why do people hype this? Their technique for creating fusion has no hope of ever being used for power production. You will never power the grid by taking hours to set up in between each sub second duration blasts.

This totally shows that you are smarter than the scientists, who just aimlessly join into groups performing sciencey things with no understanding of the science involved.


Unfortunately he's right.

Of all the fusion reactor schemes which could plausibly be useful for one day producing power, inertial confinement fusion is the most not-happening idea that ever didn't happen.

The NIF uses a bank of lasers the size of a football field, and the optics take a full hour just to cool down and fully return to shape. That alone is a 100% guarantee nothing like it will ever produce power. As is the other minor little problem of "no way to collect the energy, the entire inner surface is glass lenses."
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.