Major Nuclear Fusion Milestone: Ignition Achieved

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the recent achievement of ignition in nuclear fusion experiments at the National Ignition Facility (NIF). Participants explore the implications of this milestone, the technical definitions of ignition, and the differences from previous experiments. The conversation includes theoretical, experimental, and conceptual aspects of fusion energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the recent experiment achieved over one mega-joule of energy output, marking a significant increase from previous trials.
  • There is uncertainty regarding the exact differences in methodology from earlier experiments, with questions about what "ignition" technically means.
  • One participant suggests that ignition is the point where fusion reactions become self-sustaining, while others clarify that the latest results still required more energy input than output.
  • Concerns are raised about the focus of NIF on military applications versus energy production, with some arguing that inertial confinement fusion could potentially lead to commercial reactors.
  • Several participants express skepticism about whether the entire fuel pellet was consumed during the latest shot, suggesting that the energy output would have been higher if it had been.
  • Discussions include the efficiency of the laser systems used and the challenges of scaling up for practical energy production, with estimates suggesting a need for significant improvements in efficiency and shot repetition rates.
  • Some participants express a historical perspective, noting that advancements in laser fusion have been anticipated for decades without achieving practical results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the ignition milestone, the technical definitions of ignition, or the future of fusion energy production. Multiple competing views remain regarding the focus of NIF and the feasibility of commercial applications.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the energy input-output dynamics and the efficiency of the laser systems. There is also mention of the cooling requirements for the amplification crystals after each shot, which may impact the feasibility of using this technology for power generation.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in nuclear fusion research, energy production technologies, and the implications of military versus civilian applications of fusion may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
Astronuc said:
As I recall from about 4 decades ago, inertial confinement systems imagined a pellet per second (or so) dropping into a chamber and then blasted. At the time, I wondered how a burst would affect subsequent pellets arriving at the target location.
Another part I forgot to mention is the consistency with subsequent shots, or the lack thereof. As far as I know, it is difficult to replicate the shots, which if one was using for energy generation, it would require reliable repetition within some uncertainty/variability, kind of like 60 Hz +/- δ Hz. However, that is moot as long as the energy produced is much less than the energy input, which seems to be the showstopper currently.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
phyzguy said:
TL;DR Summary: Recent article claims ignition has been achieved at NIF

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-major-nuclear-fusion-milestone-ignition.html

Anybody know any more? Like what they did differently from earlier trials.
They lied a little tiny bit less. 1.8MJ in, 3.5MJ out. HOWEVER 400MJ used to get the 1.8MJ in. And that is the whole of their shabby little secret.
 
  • #34
Rusty123 said:
They lied a little tiny bit less. 1.8MJ in, 3.5MJ out. HOWEVER 400MJ used to get the 1.8MJ in. And that is the whole of their shabby little secret.
I don't know why you would call it a"shabby little secret". It was all very clearly publicized. Those numbers were never hidden. You just rely too much on popularizations of the results rather than reading the true stories.
 
  • #35
phyzguy said:
I don't know why you would call it a"shabby little secret". It was all very clearly publicized. Those numbers were never hidden. You just rely too much on popularizations of the results rather than reading the true stories.
Well truth be told in their recent press video they talked about many things but the total laser input power wasn't at the forefront. IIRC it wasn't mentioned at all.

If you only (the NIF team) present this as a purely scientific experimental success at plasma research then sure no need to even talk about total input electrical energy , but if you also promote this as a possible future electricity generation source then I believe those numbers should be at the forefront together with the capsule input energy and it's released energy.

Because if you put those numbers together then every lay person can easily see how NIF as a potential fusion energy producer is "30 years away"
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K