Finally, a Fusion Reaction Has Generated More Energy Than Absorbed by The Fuel:
A major milestone has been breached in the quest for fusion energy.
For the first time, a fusion reaction has achieved a record 1.3 megajoule energy output – and for the first time, exceeding energy absorbed by the fuel used to trigger it.
Although there's still some way to go, the result represents a significant improvement on previous yields: eight times greater than experiments conducted just a few months prior, and 25 times greater than experiments conducted in 2018. It's a huge achievement.
[...] Inertial confinement fusion involves creating something like a tiny star. It starts with a capsule of fuel, consisting of deuterium and tritium – heavier isotopes of hydrogen. This fuel capsule is placed in a hollow gold chamber about the size of a pencil eraser called a hohlraum.
Then, 192 high-powered laser beams are blasted at the hohlraum, where they are converted into X-rays. These X-rays implode the fuel capsule, heating and compressing it to conditions comparable to those in the center of a star – temperatures in excess of 100 million degrees Celsius (180 million Fahrenheit) and pressures greater than 100 billion Earth atmospheres – turning the fuel capsule into a tiny blob of plasma.
And, just as hydrogen fuses into heavier elements in the heart of a main-sequence star, so too does the deuterium and tritium in the fuel capsule. The whole process takes place in just a few billionths of a second. The goal is to achieve ignition – a point at which the energy generated by the fusion process exceeds the total energy input.
The experiment, conducted on 8 August, fell just short of that mark; the input from the lasers was 1.9 megajoules. But it's still tremendously exciting, because according to the team's measurements, the fuel capsule absorbed over five times less energy than it generated in the fusion process.[...]
Your humble editor often gets a little snarky about the presentation of fusion energy results, possibly due to sloppy journalism or press releases, possibly due to scientists who don't want the magnitude of the shortfalls to be obvious, but finally it seems all the figures are non-misleading, and finally it seems they're actually getting close. Time for tokamaks to up their game - the race is on!
Related Stories
Ignition confirmed in a nuclear fusion experiment for the first time
A 2021 experiment achieved the landmark milestone of nuclear fusion ignition, which data analysis has now confirmed – but attempts to recreate it over the last year haven't been able to reach ignition again.
Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion Energy: Ignition Confirmed in Record 1.3 Megajoule Shot
Exactly one year later, the scientific results of this record experiment have been published in three peer-reviewed papers: one in Physical Review Letters and two in Physical Review E, according to a press release by LLNL.
"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.
"Achieving the conditions needed for ignition has been a long-standing goal for all inertial confinement fusion research and opens access to a new experimental regime where alpha-particle self-heating outstrips all the cooling mechanisms in the fusion plasma."
[...] Since their success last August, the researchers have been trying to recreate the record-breaking performance in order to understand its experimental sensitivities.
[...] While the researchers have not been able to recreate the same level of fusion yield as the August 2021 experiment, all of them have showcased capsule gain greater than unity with yields in the 430-700 kJ range, significantly higher than the previous highest yield of 170 kJ from February 2021.
"It is extremely exciting to have an 'existence proof' of ignition in the lab," Hurricane concluded. "We're operating in a regime that no researchers have accessed since the end of nuclear testing, and it's an incredible opportunity to expand our knowledge as we continue to make progress."
Previously: Finally, a Fusion Reaction Has Generated More Energy Than Absorbed by the Fuel
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 5, Insightful) by datapharmer on Thursday December 16 2021, @01:52AM (5 children)
“input from the lasers was 1.9 megajoules.” But the output was only 1.3, so this was still a major loss of energy over the course of a fraction of a second.
I love the thought of fusion, but calling this “close” is a bit misleading.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16 2021, @04:27AM
The article title is poorly worded. The abstract of the talk that this story derived from is actually pretty descriptive and better than the science alert overview:
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16 2021, @06:21AM (3 children)
I would assume that the fixed cost of igniting the fuel is ignored since it is relatively irrelevent once you have been burning the plasma for some time.
The test itself is how efficient it can be over time, not how expensive it is to kick start.
If this is NOT what they are doing, then they are shit scientists and need to be called out.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Thursday December 16 2021, @05:21PM (2 children)
Alas no. Laser fusion is inertial confinement, so each pulse of the laser system briefly produces fusion then the whole cycle starts over again. The gold pellet with the deuterium-tritium center is expended in the process.There can be no sustained reaction in that design.
A practical laser fusion scheme will have to produce enough power to cover the INPUT to the lasers (not to the pellet) and produce enough excess energy to pay for the gold and the difficult fabrication process to make the pellet. Not to mention the huge cost of building and maintaining the lasers.
(Score: 2) by sgleysti on Friday December 17 2021, @01:38AM (1 child)
I thought the National Ignition Facility was mostly about getting better data to model how nuclear weapons work, not about generating energy.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday December 17 2021, @02:53AM
It is, but too frequently we see talk of it as a way to bring us fusion as an energy source. It is not.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Sulla on Thursday December 16 2021, @02:25AM (3 children)
Happened at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Not gonna lie, former German barbarian lover here. This is fucking hilarious watching aborted donuts as imagined on acid crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let these barbarians get the nuclear fusion codes.
That aside, what's the progress with the W7-X?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16 2021, @02:46AM
Sounds like donuts aren't the only thing on acid , you might enjoy this tripping video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxugaMpt1vU [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 16 2021, @02:59AM (1 child)
...what.
You love German barbarians, or you're a German who loves barbarians?
The plasma torus? What makes it "aborted", that they shrunk it to a point? It doesn't sound like it was ever a donut to begin with, then.
If you say so...
They just said the experiment was successful? Or is this some sort of "fusion is solar and suns burn" joke?
So very confused.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 16 2021, @03:05AM
Also unclear on what "German barbarian lover" has to do with this.
"Barbarian" was a term Greeks and Romans used to mean "people who aren't like us", of which Germans were one of the primary groups they used it to refer to.
...and the research laboratory is in the U.S.
...and Germany is busy phasing out its nuclear plants entirely.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jimbrooking on Thursday December 16 2021, @02:46AM (8 children)
What the hell is "five times less than" something? Say 100 eggs (or megajoules). It it 20% of the eggs, or 20 eggs? Is it 500 eggs fewer than 100 eggs, so -400 eggs, or what? I have never understood this term!
/s/ Jim, M.S., Mathematics
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 16 2021, @02:53AM
Divide it 5 times? "Penta-root"?
I'd assume they mean "one fifth as much" but it's a terribly stupid way to phrase it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Michael on Thursday December 16 2021, @03:00AM (5 children)
X is five times less than Y when Y is five times more than X.
Maybe the best correspondence between the systems of logic underlying language and maths would be to use 'five times smaller' and 'five times larger' instead, but does anyone really (no, I mean really) not understand what's meant?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 16 2021, @06:53AM (4 children)
It would be accurate to say "uses 1/5 the energy", and it would be accurate to say "uses 20% of the energy used in previous experiments". There are various ways to state the equation, but "5 times less" is not one of them. How many genuine mathematicians have you heard, or read, saying that? It's always reporters, managers, and politicians who use that phrase, none of whom can be counted on to get the same result if they count their own fingers ten times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16 2021, @05:24PM (1 child)
In order to avoid fractions and stick to whole numbers, in today's parlance, "5 times less" really means "1/5 as much".
"5 times more" would be taken to mean "5 times as much, or 5x", when really that expression means "6 times as much." Reporters are dumb as shit.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 16 2021, @06:47PM
In order to avoid fractions, we need only use terms like 20%, or multiply by .2. No fractions, and no confusing, inaccurate terms.
(Score: 1) by Michael on Thursday December 16 2021, @06:50PM (1 child)
I don't know, if one was particularly desperate to manufacture an "ackshually" type objection, that could be called inaccurate too.
For example, reference to "the energy" leaves it ambiguous whether you're talking about a proportion of the exact same energy as used in the past, or simply some other energy which is a proportion of the magnitude of that other energy. It's obvious from context and the way natural languages work that it's the latter, but someone could raise that objection if that's (for some reason I prefer not to delve into) what makes them happy.
Of course even a person literal minded enough to constitute an intellectual disability can probably see which is meant by context.
As far as insisting that structures in one logical system must be isomorphic to whatever your favourite one happens to be, that's obvious nonsense.
When someone says "I wandered lonely as a cloud", nobody is going to be impressed by your meteorological chops if you leap up and shout "Ha, clouds are just water droplets and can't experience loneliness, gotcha !", or your linguistic abilities if the objection you manufacture is "that could equally mean that you were lonely while transmogrified into the form of a literal cloud."
You know what it means. I know what it means. Everyone without institutional grade cognitive difficulties knows what it means.
Anything else you might wish (for reasons!) to pantomime is an affectation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 17 2021, @01:08AM
This might be a new record of most words spent to say nothing
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16 2021, @09:24AM
obviously the M.S. is not enough and you need the Ph. D.
or you need to also account for context, not just text.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16 2021, @03:51AM (2 children)
Only the editors are illiterate, the whole damn SN is illiterate.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16 2021, @06:55AM
Yeah, well, you're illegitimate, so THERE, you bastard!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 16 2021, @10:32AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by WeekendMonkey on Thursday December 16 2021, @10:08AM (1 child)
The summary makes hohlraum sound like some futuristic, high-tech magic, but it is simply German for cavity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16 2021, @11:58AM
Why does someone always have to bring up goatse?