Wow. I was in middle school and had to do a creative writing assignment, and I wrote a science fiction short story set in a colony on that boundary of Mercury. I thought Mercury was tidal locked. I was praised for my creativity.

I was today years old when I found that Mercury is not tidal locked.

The largest stellerator currently operating in the US is. HSX at UW-Madison. The copper magnet coils had to be explosively formed. The coils were delivered one at a time. At one point one was stolen off the loading dock. This caused a lot of panic, as the budget was spent. There was no way to replace the stolen coil.

Something like a day later the sheriff called the university asking the if they were missing a hunk of copper. The thieves took the coil to a scrap yard for scrap value. The yard figured there was no way this bonkers shaped thing wasn’t made to a particular purpose so they played along long enough to call the cops to find the rightful owner.

It’s worth recognizing stellerators since HSX have all been periodic, that is every coil isn’t unique. The designs used to be even more insane.

It’s interesting to me that in the medieval period the term outlaw applied to persons who broke the law and were no longer protected by it. They were entirely outside its auspices.

I guess around the enlightenment philosophy changed, and a class of rights were considered unalienable. Society protects itself from law breakers, but even the worst offenders have some protection under law, even if the case law considers their life forfeit.

When Popper posed the paradox of tolerance one imagines he supposed a tolerant society extending tolerance as an unalienable right. I quite agree the social contact resolution to the paradox of tolerance neatly solves the paradox, but I think it introduces interesting questions about what behavior is beyond the pale, and how we as a society resolve what we find acceptable. The extremes are easy, but edge cases are introduced. I hope we assess those cases with our eyes open.

In both cases, maybe I’d more frequently be able to resist the temptation to talk about both subjects if I had the option to use them at work.

In my experience the community will usually distinguished between “scientific Q” and “wall plug Q” when discussing fusion power gain. Scientific is simply the ratio of power in vs power out, whereas wall plug includes all the power required to support scientific Q. Obviously the difference isn’t always clearly delineated or reported when talking to journalists…

OK, so we should be clear there are broadly two approaches to fusion: magnetic confinement and inertial drive.

In magnetic confinement a plasma is confined such that it can be driven to sufficient density, temperature and particle confinement time that the thermal collisions allow the fuel to fuse. This is what the OP article is talking about. This Tokamak is demonstrating technologies that if applied to a larger the experiment could probably reach a positive energy output magnetically confined plasma.

The article you referenced discusses inertial drive experiments, where a driver is directly pushing the fuel together, like gravity in the sun, a fission bomb shockwave in a hydrogen bomb, or converging laser beams in Livermore’s case.

Livermore’s result is exciting, but has no bearing on the various magnetic confinement approaches to fusion energy.

This is a good video on the subject