top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 313 points 2 years ago (10 children)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 214 points 2 years ago (20 children)

    A headline without calling it an "Artificial Sun"?!

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    The amusing thing is that the sun is actually quite a shit fusion reactor. It's power per unit volume is tiny. It just makes it up in sheer volume. A solar level fusion reactor would be almost completely useless to us. Instead we need to go far beyond the sun's output to just be viable.

    It's like describing one of the mega mining dumper trucks as an "artificial mule".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago*

    They say "artificial sun" because that's what it is though, there's no fusion reactions here they're just microwaving hydrogen to millions of degrees to study the kind of thing that would happen IF somebody runs a fusion reactor for 22 minutes.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 150 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    Meanwhile in America we’re trying to make macdonalds cheaper by bundling an extra sandwich to go along with a value meal…

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 137 points 2 years ago (9 children)
  • [–] 110 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Maybe if it runs longer, we all get to jump to a better timeline. 😅

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 110 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    This is freaking awesome. Only a few years ago it was exciting to see a fusion reaction last a fraction of a second.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 107 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    1,337 seconds? That... that number used to mean something, but now i can't recall what...

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 83 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Why don't we use "shatters world record" like the pro-China articles where they did this for 16 minutes?

    I know why.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 80 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Oh shit. Things are heating up in the fusion race.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 92 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    IIRC it was expected because previous record from China was essentially a trial for this one. It all happens under ITER project so it’s not that much of a race.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 58 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Mr. Fusion now 1 step closer... 10 years late, but still!

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    I didn't see any mention of the output in the article. 22MW injected, but does anyone know if the reaction was actually generating a positive output?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 77 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    No magnetic confinement fusion reactor in existence has ever generated a positive output. The current record belongs to JET, with a Q factor of 0.67. This record was set in 1997.

    The biggest reason we haven't had a record break for a long time is money. The most favourable reaction for fusion is generally a D-T (Deuterium-Tritium) reaction. However, Tritium is incredibly expensive. So, most reactors run the much cheaper D-D reaction, which generates lower output. This is okay because current research reactors are mostly doing research on specific components of an eventual commercial reactor, and are not aiming for highest possible power output.

    The main purpose of WEST is to do research on diverter components for ITER. ITER itself is expected to reach Q ≥ 10, but won't have any energy harvesting components. The goal is to add that to its successor, DEMO.

    Inertial confinement fusion (using lasers) has produced higher records, but they generally exclude the energy used to produce the laser from the calculation. NIF has generated 3.15MJ of fusion output by delivering 2.05MJ of energy to it with a laser, nominally a Q = 1.54. however, creating the laser that delivered the power took about 300MJ.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
  • [–] 58 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 52 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Has DOGE cut funding to ITER yet?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
    [–] 28 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Just one more giga joule guys ...

    Pro fusion research btw just a chronic shitposter

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 24 points 2 years ago (31 children)

    Well, I'm still skeptical, but I have far more trust in France's reporting than Chinese claims.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • load more comments (31 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›