Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough....What Does This Mean?

AI Thread Summary
The recent confirmation of a nuclear fusion breakthrough by a California team, achieving ignition, is viewed as a significant milestone in fusion research. However, some experts argue that this achievement is incremental and may not lead to practical, affordable fusion energy in the near future. Critics emphasize that the National Ignition Facility's primary focus is nuclear weapons research rather than developing commercial fusion energy. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the facility's ability to replicate the ignition results consistently. Overall, while the breakthrough is noteworthy, its implications for energy transformation remain uncertain.
Engineering news on Phys.org
It is an incremental improvement past an arbitrary "milestone". Don't count your neutrons before they hatch.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes bob012345, Klystron, Borek and 2 others
hutchphd said:
It is an incremental improvement past an arbitrary "milestone". Don't count your neutrons before they hatch.
I would not chacterize ignition as an arbitrary milestone. One the other hand, I am not selling my oil stocks.
 
  • Like
Likes kyphysics and hutchphd
kyphysics said:

Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Confirmed: California Team Achieved Ignition​

BY JESS THOMSON ON 8/12/22 AT 9:20 AM EDT
https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-fusion-energy-milestone-ignition-confirmed-california-1733238

For those of us not literate in the field, how significant is this and what are the prospects for a true energy transformation from here?
Of course the National Ignition Facility is going to claim achieving ignition is a big success since it's in the name but the reality is a sport-stadium size laser is not going to bring about an era of cheap fusion. The main purpose of the NIF is nuclear weapons research, not practical fusion.

Also, it seems NIF has not been able to repeat the experiment of August 2021 so has resorted to 'confirming' the earlier result.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02022-1
 
  • Informative
Likes Alex A and kyphysics
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top