The US National Ignition Facility has achieved even higher energy yields since breaking even for the first time in 2022, but a practical fusion reactor is still a long way off
I will say as I always have. The sun is not going to be put into a bottle. Not in our lifetime, nor the lifetime of our children or grandchildren. And it is almost a certainty not to be ever in the lifetime of man.
There was an article in 1902 about how ridiculous powered flight was and that humans would never be able to fly,
The next year the wright brothers achieved the first powered flight.
There was also an article in The mid 1960s that reaching the moon was at least a century away and that NASA wouldn’t achieve it’s goal until the late 21st century,
We had boots on the moon before the end of that decade.
We will “bottle the sun”, and we’ll do it before the turn of the century.
You fall under the former though. Have you actually looked into this at all or do you just feel that fusion is impossible and then bother all of us with that?
Do you think I would say such a thing based on feelings? If so, you are wrong. Fusion isn’t impossible, it happens all the time in stars. It’s the containment that is the problem and at the present that problem is insurmountable. That problem will remain insurmountable for the near future and I would say unless we find a way to contain gravity (as in a star) we are not going to be able to contain fusion on Earth. I do find it surprising just as almost everyone ignored the Hyperloop’s G-force problem and thought it was the next big thing, you guys are doing the same here with fusion.
Perhaps you didn’t understand me. I’m saying there’s a difference between a problem which cannot be reasonably solved (humans can only sustain X amount of g-force) and a problem which is merely difficult (plasma containment).
Of course. Upon reflection though, I will update what I said: Containment was mostly science fiction but now it is mostly fiction. Why you might ask. I’ll tell you, we wouldn’t be alive if the power of nuclear fusion did not leak out of stars as slowly as that leak maybe it is still there. It is nothing short of hubris to expect that one can achieve more than what nature did in 14 billion years.
That’s because your comment is on a post that is literally one of the sources you’d get. More efficiency, overcoming total input, making it a generator, etc are all ancillary.
I am not saying nothing will never work, I am saying nothing that is currently being used, trialed, tested, presently or in the past, and the foreseeable future, will not work. That is a far cry from what you are accusing me of saying. I suggest you and a few others should read more critically and with less emotion when you disagree and you might not make such a gross misinterpretation of what was written.
This reads kind of like Derrida, or JB Peterson, where it almost seems like the goal is to deliberately avoid communicating in a way that is clear. To paraphrase, “You all misinterpret what I say, not because I’m bad at communication but because you all are.” If one person misunderstands or misinterprets, maybe that’s on them. If everyone does, it’s more likely that it’s on you.
Why will a tokamak never work, exactly? We’ve been running fusion experiments in them for 60 years and have a pretty good idea that we can make one big enough to produce power. We’re just baby stepping through the work so we don’t build a $30 billion dollar power plant that’s missing a design element.
K-DEMO, JT-60, DEMO, CFETR, STEP, and the US DoE’s planned reactor suggest a high level of confidence that the science is already there. It’s just an engineering problem, much like the nuclear bomb in 1935.
I mean, it’s what the whole article is about. If you mean successfully generating sustainable electricity from fusion then yeah, maybe. Maybe not. People said flight was impossible too, you never know.
I read the whole thread and didn’t see you mention it. Anyways, there were some promising improvements on that a while ago with new shapes for the plasma to hold that are easier to contain. That’s also only an issue for reactors that use sustained plasma instead of short-fire bursts.
I will say as I always have. The sun is not going to be put into a bottle. Not in our lifetime, nor the lifetime of our children or grandchildren. And it is almost a certainty not to be ever in the lifetime of man.
We’re actually closer than ever. If people like you ruled the world we would still have rock tools and would still be wearing animal skins.
There was an article in 1902 about how ridiculous powered flight was and that humans would never be able to fly,
The next year the wright brothers achieved the first powered flight.
There was also an article in The mid 1960s that reaching the moon was at least a century away and that NASA wouldn’t achieve it’s goal until the late 21st century,
We had boots on the moon before the end of that decade.
We will “bottle the sun”, and we’ll do it before the turn of the century.
There is a huge difference between misunderstanding science and trying to apply science fiction.
You fall under the former though. Have you actually looked into this at all or do you just feel that fusion is impossible and then bother all of us with that?
Do you think I would say such a thing based on feelings? If so, you are wrong. Fusion isn’t impossible, it happens all the time in stars. It’s the containment that is the problem and at the present that problem is insurmountable. That problem will remain insurmountable for the near future and I would say unless we find a way to contain gravity (as in a star) we are not going to be able to contain fusion on Earth. I do find it surprising just as almost everyone ignored the Hyperloop’s G-force problem and thought it was the next big thing, you guys are doing the same here with fusion.
The g-force problem is unimprovable-- humans themselves have a limit. The containment problem is not.
Ok, Show us you’re work.
Perhaps you didn’t understand me. I’m saying there’s a difference between a problem which cannot be reasonably solved (humans can only sustain X amount of g-force) and a problem which is merely difficult (plasma containment).
There is a difference in degree yes. So?, People still ignore them and that is the point.
ITER will probably work. It’ll be a long and expensive process, but it’ll work. Question is if something else gets there sooner and cheaper.
How did you make the leap from probably in the first sentence to WILL in the second sentence?
I dunno. How do you get through life completely missing the point while getting hung up on minor issues?
I’m missing the point? You can’t even explain something you said. Who are you Donald Trump?
You do understand ‘lifetime of man’ is the larger of those time frames, right?
And that may not necessarily be so the way things are going.
Of course. Upon reflection though, I will update what I said: Containment was mostly science fiction but now it is mostly fiction. Why you might ask. I’ll tell you, we wouldn’t be alive if the power of nuclear fusion did not leak out of stars as slowly as that leak maybe it is still there. It is nothing short of hubris to expect that one can achieve more than what nature did in 14 billion years.
It already has?
Citation please.
Asking for a citation gets downvoted? Wow, that is scary. Am I in the midst of a bunch of Luddites?
That’s because your comment is on a post that is literally one of the sources you’d get. More efficiency, overcoming total input, making it a generator, etc are all ancillary.
I mean … the article is literally what it’s about.
You’re being downvoted because you’re being a cynical contrarian.
Asking For A citation is not being cynical.
You Don’t know the difference between cynical and skeptical.
Saying nothing will ever work ever and nothing is ever good is not being skeptical.
The article you’re commenting on is the citation, you’re being cynical and acting in bad faith.
People disagree with you, I’d wager if you used a little more tact you might have more reasonable discussion.
I am not saying nothing will never work, I am saying nothing that is currently being used, trialed, tested, presently or in the past, and the foreseeable future, will not work. That is a far cry from what you are accusing me of saying. I suggest you and a few others should read more critically and with less emotion when you disagree and you might not make such a gross misinterpretation of what was written.
“And it is almost a certainty not to be ever in the lifetime of man.”
Let’s just sliiiiide those goalposts a few hundred more feet huh?
This reads kind of like Derrida, or JB Peterson, where it almost seems like the goal is to deliberately avoid communicating in a way that is clear. To paraphrase, “You all misinterpret what I say, not because I’m bad at communication but because you all are.” If one person misunderstands or misinterprets, maybe that’s on them. If everyone does, it’s more likely that it’s on you.
Sure sounds like never.
Why will a tokamak never work, exactly? We’ve been running fusion experiments in them for 60 years and have a pretty good idea that we can make one big enough to produce power. We’re just baby stepping through the work so we don’t build a $30 billion dollar power plant that’s missing a design element.
K-DEMO, JT-60, DEMO, CFETR, STEP, and the US DoE’s planned reactor suggest a high level of confidence that the science is already there. It’s just an engineering problem, much like the nuclear bomb in 1935.
Those crazy sons of bitches actually did it!
Can’t drink it though, tastes like burning.
Got 'em
the reactor exist, isn’t comercially viable but it exist
I mean, it’s what the whole article is about. If you mean successfully generating sustainable electricity from fusion then yeah, maybe. Maybe not. People said flight was impossible too, you never know.
We’ve harnessed the power of fusion in nuclear weapons for decades already.
We’ve literally put it in a small container.
You never know is the crack in the armor that allows snake oil salesmen and other charlatans in.
You’re calling the US National Ignition Facility at LLNI snake oil salesmen?
Explain exactly how I did that.
Bro 😭
Combined with actual progress and scientific methods “you never know” is how you fly helicopters on other planets too.
I’m all for skepticism but, like, how are you gonna hoodwink someone into nuclear fusion power? Can that even happen?
Reminds me of the Librarian in W40K, “An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.”
November 1, 1952. Enewetak Atoll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike
The technology exists. There’s huge funding going into it recently. Europe’s ITER project is working towards it also, but in a different way.
The only major issue faced right now is how to increase the efficiency.
Yes, and that is the problem that isn’t going to be surmounted anytime soon if at all.
Citation?
Do you want me to cite all of nuclear science?
No, just the rate of improvement in efficiency of fusion reactors.
It is being surmounted now. Slowly but surely, it’s happening. And progress is accelerating also.
Citation please.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fusion+news
I think you’re wrong and furthermore, that your attitude is unsavory.
Shallow, and pedantic.
Shallow is debatable but what have I said that’s even remotely pedantic?
Pretty sure they were not talking about you, but riffing on what you were saying.
Specifically, a Family Guy reference
They were agreeing with you
https://youtu.be/OpbdGnJbneE?si=UfT_79ONTVFxYWlA
Mmm, yes, shallow and pedantic.
Sounds like solid reasoning to me
No, using a bottle would be ridiculous, they use a reactor of course!
Tokamak is Russian for magnetic bottle and is one method being explored for thermonuclear fusion containment.
Yeah, but it’s not a literal bottle.
Well that depends what you think defines a bottle
And that is a perfect example of a containment system with insurmountable problems.
I’ll bite. What problems are insurmountable?
Containment. How many times do i have to say that?
I read the whole thread and didn’t see you mention it. Anyways, there were some promising improvements on that a while ago with new shapes for the plasma to hold that are easier to contain. That’s also only an issue for reactors that use sustained plasma instead of short-fire bursts.