• cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    LLNL has achieved positive power output with their experiments. https://www.llnl.gov/article/49301/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st

    No fusion reactor today is actually going to generate power in the useful sense.

    These are more about understanding how Fusion works so that a reactor that is purpose built to generate power can be developed in the future.

    Unlike the movies real development is the culmination of MANY small steps.

    Today we are holding reactions for 20 minutes. 20 years ago getting a reaction to self sustain in the first place seemed impossible.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      Predicted fusion energy and energy actually harvested and converted to usable electricity are not the same thing. Your article is about “fusion energy” not experimentally verified electrical output.

      It’s a physicist doing conversion calculations (from heat to potential electricity), not a volt meter measuring actual output produced.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        23 days ago

        If you’re not sure how the fire works, it seems kind of stupid to build a turbine for it.

        • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          We were absolutely not sure how fire really works (low temperature plasma dynamics and so on) when we used it in caves eons ago.

          • scarabic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            23 days ago

            We also did not build turbines then.

            Also, a campfire is not plasma, so you probably shouldn’t be building any turbines either.

              • scarabic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                22 days ago

                Very hot flames can contain enough ions / free electrons to be considered a plasma but a wood campfire the likes of which cavemen built, which is what we are discussing here, do not achieve such temperatures. If cavemen wielded acetylene torches then they might have more experience with plasma.

                If you were thinking something simple like “fire is plasma” that is reductive, and the cases where flame is plasma are not the everyday kind. Hence, when I said “a campfire is not plasma” I was being pretty specific. Your reply that ”fire is a low temperature plasma,” as an unqualified blanket statement, is wrong. Go read on it. It’s interesting.

                • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  22 days ago

                  We used very hot flame later. Still without full understanding of plasma.