• AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          No, but some guy proved that we could use that to our advantage. If you don’t use the magnetic constrictors to compensate for the heat from the fusion expanding the vessel, you can have it enter fusion and leave fusion several times a second. Wrap the thing in copper wire coils, and you have now got your vessel in a state of flux, and producing enough power to blackout your local grid, and get lots of fines from the feds in less than 5 seconds of runtime. He obviously didn’t continue working on that particular method of generating power with a Tokomak

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      2 days ago

      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”.

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

        I think this energy density math really depends on whether only the core or the whole surface area is taken into consideration.

      • lurklurk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Arguably, the nearby sun scale fusion reactor has been fairly useful for us. Nowadays we can convert its output directly into electricity using solar cells

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I never said it wasn’t useful, just a very low efficiency reactor. Then again, if it was better, it would burn out faster, which would be bad for life on earth.

    • yogurt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days 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.

  • tomkatt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    2 days ago

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

  • LostWon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

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

    • Pumpkin Escobar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Or the world blows up and it’s all over. I guess what I’m saying is, no downside, fire it up and let’s see what happens.

    • Obelix@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m sceptical. Even if somebody would present a working fusion reactor today, what would the timeline to replace everything based on fossil fuels even be? Build several thousand of expensive fusion reactors in every country of the world, even in geopolitical rivals like China, Russia or North Korea or war-torn third world countries? Replace every car with an electrical one? Replace home heating everywhere? Rebuild every ship and airplane worldwide?

  • Placebonickname@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

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

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    3 days ago

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

    I know why.

  • DataDisrupter@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 days ago

    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?

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • DataDisrupter@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I wasn’t aware of that distinction about the energy for the laser to generate the heat energy within the reaction not being factored into the Q value, very interesting, thank you! Would that energy for the laser still be required in a “stable reaction” continuously, or would it be something that would “trail off”?

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • ZJBlank@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        2 days ago

        Good shit. I’d rather this be a global cooperative effort rather than a jingoistic dick-waving contest.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Good. The only thing that was quite remotely good about the cold war was the competition.

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s not what this is, and even then, that competition wasn’t even good. You had two countries hoarding technological advancements for themselves, with everything having to be discovered twice.

        This is a worldwide collaboration, where each assists the others, and it’s a much better way of making progress. See ITER.

        • Akasazh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I should’ve replaced ‘quite’ with a more clear ‘remotely’ but you’re absolutely correct

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          3 days ago

          We’re using graphene! Almost entirely for it’s electrical properties true, but we’re using graphene doped batteries in consumer electronics currently. We also use fusion and ITER research for a whole lot more than just power generation - plasma dynamics, just one tiny subfield concerned with physics, has applications in everything from radio transmission beam forming techniques to satellite engines to magnetodynamic modeling to the EMI shielding on your vacuum cleaner.

        • meco03211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          What about my racist and misogynist views I try to hide underneath my crazed and incompetent rantings about DEI? Is there room for someone like me?

  • sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    Didn’t read the article.

    I have no clue wtf that technology is in detail but wouldn’t it be easy to have a longer reaction time by supplying enough energy? The news should not be how long the reaction lasted but how long it lasted selfreliant.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I read through it for the details.

      It was net negative, requiring 2MW of power to maintain hydrogen plasma in a state analogous to fusion. The major achievement of this particular experiment was doing so without energies equivalent to a fusion reaction damaging the containing assembly.

      It was purely a test/demonstration of the containment of fusion-like conditions.

        • Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 days ago

          You need to be the right amount of high to properly understand fusion. Too far either way, and it doesn’t make sense.

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Eh, fusion isn’t that complicated. You push things together and heat them up until they get even hotter on their own. That’s all that’s happening.

  • Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Doesn’t sound that impressive when Wendelstein 7-X achieved 17 minutes of plasma in 2021.

    • Naz@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yes but 22 minutes is longer than 17 minutes

      Think of it like a pizza oven

      How well done is your pizza?

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      I can’t find a reference to that but China did 17 minutes in January this year. I think you’re confusing the announcement that they increased power by 17x while maintaining plasma.

      This test was 20 minutes at a higher power setting without being incredibly destructive, that’s their milestone.

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

      Agreed. Plus, when talking about that reactor you get to say “stellarator”, which is always fun.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well nuclear is great, so even “not much better” would be great.

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yea one of the most interesting applications of fusion reactor research is the requirements in advancements for material science also benefits fission and even solar power generation, so the research bears fruit well and above the stated goals.

    • Golden Lox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      not to say its the greatest form of energy production ever, but, what are your gripes with nuclear these days anyway?

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well, really it’s the opposite, nuclear works already. So why not just build nuclear plants at 1/20 the cost? (and actually get some net positive energy)

        Just saying…

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I understand that, it can’t be. Because fusion power generation hasn’t all been worked out yet. Unlike fission. That’s my point.

            Also, once fusion does work, it will still be the most expensive way to generate energy man has ever devised, so there’s that too.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      if I remember correctly, the output of a nuclear fission reactor can be used in a nuclear fusion reactor for a near-net zero loss in materials.

      there’s like three different fusion reactors, so it’s likely one of the three that can do this, but still better than fossil fuels.