Fusion breakthrough: break-even met and surpassed.

James Snover

The Ill-Advised Physics Amplification Co
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
8,863
Location
Cypress
Lawrence Livermore Labs, and the National Ignition Facility have just announced a major fusion milestone: for the first time, they got more energy out of the reaction than they had to pump into to it to make it happen. For over 60 years, "break-even" has been the dream, where we finally get as much energy out of it as it took to produce it. Researchers have gotten incrementally closer, but until now, no luck.

At the NIF, they pumped in 2.05Mega Joules of energy to create the reaction. They got 3.15 Mega Joules of energy out of it. They considerably exceeded the hoped-for "break-even." They use a process called "laser inertial confinement." Basically, you blast the fuel on all sides, causing it to compress to the densities we find in stars. This particular process uses a "Hohlraum," a small metal cylinder, in which the fuel is suspended. The lasers blast the inside of the metal cylinder, converting the incoming laser light into xrays that blast the fuel pellet. The Hohlraum is destroyed in the process.

Don't go investing in fusion power plants, just yet, though. This method is utterly impractical for generating power. The whole point of this exercise is proof-of-concept. Net energy gain is no longer theoretical. We know now that it can be done. There's a lot more work to bring this into the realm of commercial power production.

And while they're working on this method, the other main contender for fusion is still also being very actively researched: magnetic confinement. These use large machines, loosely based on a design called a "Tokamak," which is like a large, hollow donut. Fill it with hydrogen, heat it up to 300,000,000 million degrees or so, and you get fusion. Right now, though, they are nowhere near break-even. And instead of insanely huge banks of very expensive gigantic lasers, mag confinement uses superconducting magnets to build a magnetic field strong enough to keep the hot plasma from touching the walls of the vessel. Several innovative designs are about to be turned on, and we'll see what happens.

There's a couple of other ideas out there, too. One uses a sphere of molten lead. You spin the superheated sphere, creating a vacuum void in the center of the lead, inject the fuel, then hydraulic hammers spaced around the vessel slam into the lead., collapsing the bubble. The lead transfers the compression to the fuel pellet via the magic of the incompressibility of fluids. Sounds insane, right? But there's a real-world phenomenon that hints that this could work: propeller cavitation in water. Spin a prop in water too fast, and it creates a vacuum bubble. As the bubble collapses, it creates a type of blue light called Cherenkov radiation. The term for that is sonoluminescence. It has also created a few neutrons, here and there, and those are a byproduct of fusion in the isotopes of hydrogen found in water. If you can get that in water at atmospheric pressure, you should be able to get it in liquid lead, at many, many times atmospheric pressure. So the theory goes.
 

specracer

SVTOA MCA
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
2,176
Location
MA
I remember being very young, and the concepts of fission and fusion were so briefly discussed. I remember thinking wow, fusion is a big deal...... And here it happened.

Thanks for taking the time to white that. Its profoundly over my head, but still fascinating to learn.
 

Double"O"

N2S come get some
Established Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
22,480
Location
PA
While i actually understand what you are talking about it completely blows my mind how a person thought that up and applied it and or will continue to apply and develope it

Then again the stars blew my mind a few mins ago while i was scoping out gemini for the geminids meteor shower 10min ago lol
 

Tezz500

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Established Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
13,834
Location
Home for the Mentally Retarded
Lawrence Livermore Labs, and the National Ignition Facility have just announced a major fusion milestone: for the first time, they got more energy out of the reaction than they had to pump into to it to make it happen. For over 60 years, "break-even" has been the dream, where we finally get as much energy out of it as it took to produce it. Researchers have gotten incrementally closer, but until now, no luck.

At the NIF, they pumped in 2.05Mega Joules of energy to create the reaction. They got 3.15 Mega Joules of energy out of it. They considerably exceeded the hoped-for "break-even." They use a process called "laser inertial confinement." Basically, you blast the fuel on all sides, causing it to compress to the densities we find in stars. This particular process uses a "Hohlraum," a small metal cylinder, in which the fuel is suspended. The lasers blast the inside of the metal cylinder, converting the incoming laser light into xrays that blast the fuel pellet. The Hohlraum is destroyed in the process.

Don't go investing in fusion power plants, just yet, though. This method is utterly impractical for generating power. The whole point of this exercise is proof-of-concept. Net energy gain is no longer theoretical. We know now that it can be done. There's a lot more work to bring this into the realm of commercial power production.

And while they're working on this method, the other main contender for fusion is still also being very actively researched: magnetic confinement. These use large machines, loosely based on a design called a "Tokamak," which is like a large, hollow donut. Fill it with hydrogen, heat it up to 300,000,000 million degrees or so, and you get fusion. Right now, though, they are nowhere near break-even. And instead of insanely huge banks of very expensive gigantic lasers, mag confinement uses superconducting magnets to build a magnetic field strong enough to keep the hot plasma from touching the walls of the vessel. Several innovative designs are about to be turned on, and we'll see what happens.

There's a couple of other ideas out there, too. One uses a sphere of molten lead. You spin the superheated sphere, creating a vacuum void in the center of the lead, inject the fuel, then hydraulic hammers spaced around the vessel slam into the lead., collapsing the bubble. The lead transfers the compression to the fuel pellet via the magic of the incompressibility of fluids. Sounds insane, right? But there's a real-world phenomenon that hints that this could work: propeller cavitation in water. Spin a prop in water too fast, and it creates a vacuum bubble. As the bubble collapses, it creates a type of blue light called Cherenkov radiation. The term for that is sonoluminescence. It has also created a few neutrons, here and there, and those are a byproduct of fusion in the isotopes of hydrogen found in water. If you can get that in water at atmospheric pressure, you should be able to get it in liquid lead, at many, many times atmospheric pressure. So the theory goes.
"Don't go investing in fusion power plants, just yet, though. This method is utterly impractical for generating power."


LMAO.... Still 20 years out eh?
 

Junior00

Hurter Of Delicate Vaginas
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,591
Location
Ga
Proof of concept sure but this little snippet kills me…

“And although the experiment got more energy out than the laser put in, this did not include the energy needed to make the lasers work - which was far greater than the amount of energy the hydrogen produced.”

I’d like to know exactly how much energy was required for input to produce enough output via the lasers in achieving the fusion. Methinks they’re not really as close as the announcement makes it seem. More like a look at me, give us your money type announcement.
 

James Snover

The Ill-Advised Physics Amplification Co
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
8,863
Location
Cypress
As per usual, I forgot the link:

Proof of concept sure but this little snippet kills me…

“And although the experiment got more energy out than the laser put in, this did not include the energy needed to make the lasers work - which was far greater than the amount of energy the hydrogen produced.”

I’d like to know exactly how much energy was required for input to produce enough output via the lasers in achieving the fusion. Methinks they’re not really as close as the announcement makes it seem. More like a look at me, give us your money type announcement.
They did bend the truth a bit, there. The lasers are something less than 75% efficient. But of the energy sent to the fuel, i.e., the energy pumped into the lasers that was converted to laser photons, more energy did come out.

If we had more efficient lasers, the energy required to create the reaction still would have been more than the 2.05 Mega Joules delivered, because there are always losses in energy conversion. Kind of like how it takes a lot more energy to boil water with electricity, than it does to boil water with gas. But to get the water to boil either way, regardless of how efficient, or not, the method used, it still takes a certain irreducible amount of energy to boil the water.

It took about 20 years just to develop the lasers for this. It took another ten to figure out how to refine it to the right wavelengths, focus it, control it, time and synchronize it, etc.
 

Adamn

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
408
Location
Ohio
I love explaining this kind of stuff to my 10 and 12 year old kids. Their reactions are great
 

T.Man

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
1,198
Location
The Desert
Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for when they actually have a need to go this route. I look forward to the various types of alternative energy systems and methods (no, not that fairytale shit they continue to promote).

The reality? They don't need it yet. There's still too many humans to deal with.
 

black4vcobra

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Party Liquor Posse
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,474
Location
Cottage Grove, WI
Huge breakthrough. My understanding is that we need to make some large breakthroughs in material science to handle the massive heat generated by the reaction.

When I was 10 and played Sim City 2000 in 1994, that game said fusion generating plants would be invented by 2050. I think scientists have a lot of work to do before we get there.
 

James Snover

The Ill-Advised Physics Amplification Co
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
8,863
Location
Cypress
Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for when they actually have a need to go this route. I look forward to the various types of alternative energy systems and methods (no, not that fairytale shit they continue to promote).

The reality? They don't need it yet. There's still too many humans to deal with.
I disagree. We need it now.

If the standard of living over the rest of the world is to be brought up to par with that of the USA and Europe, we're going to have to have lots more nuclear power plants or fusion plants. Fusion would be better, but we could do it with nukes as they currently exist. Renewables and Green (non)-Tech aren't even going to allow us to exist at our current standard of living, much less bring anybody else up.

We could probably do it with oil, even. Oil will probably last for another 1,000 years, because we seem to keep finding new ways to get it, and find it in places we hadn't expected. But my bet is that long before we eliminate fossil fuels, one day we're going to realize oil is a lot better as chemical feed stocks and for use in making things, and way too valuable to keep burning the stuff.
 

Relaxed Chaos

Just another Gen X Hero
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
2,197
Location
Wisconsin
I disagree. We need it now.

If the standard of living over the rest of the world is to be brought up to par with that of the USA and Europe, we're going to have to have lots more nuclear power plants or fusion plants. Fusion would be better, but we could do it with nukes as they currently exist. Renewables and Green (non)-Tech aren't even going to allow us to exist at our current standard of living, much less bring anybody else up.

We could probably do it with oil, even. Oil will probably last for another 1,000 years, because we seem to keep finding new ways to get it, and find it in places we hadn't expected. But my bet is that long before we eliminate fossil fuels, one day we're going to realize oil is a lot better as chemical feed stocks and for use in making things, and way too valuable to keep burning the stuff.
I think what we need is a break through in viable high density energy storage systems. Gasoline has high energy density and is safe and easy and light to transport and use.

Current alternates, including batteries or hydrogen, are none of those things. A viable alternative must be better in enough real and perceived ways that the free market selects it naturally.
 
Last edited:

Tezz500

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Established Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
13,834
Location
Home for the Mentally Retarded
I disagree. We need it now.

If the standard of living over the rest of the world is to be brought up to par with that of the USA and Europe, we're going to have to have lots more nuclear power plants or fusion plants. Fusion would be better, but we could do it with nukes as they currently exist. Renewables and Green (non)-Tech aren't even going to allow us to exist at our current standard of living, much less bring anybody else up.

We could probably do it with oil, even. Oil will probably last for another 1,000 years, because we seem to keep finding new ways to get it, and find it in places we hadn't expected. But my bet is that long before we eliminate fossil fuels, one day we're going to realize oil is a lot better as chemical feed stocks and for use in making things, and way too valuable to keep burning the stuff.

Honest question here…

Do you think uranium Nuke plants littered throughout the planet in countries where people still live in mud huts is REALLY a good idea?

Molten Salt Thorium Reactors with competent staffing not the tribal locals would probably be a viable option as they don’t cook off and try to irradiate half the globe when someone ****s up….

Nor do they produce weapons grade waste…
 
Last edited:

BigPoppa

Hope you enjoy the show
Established Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2016
Messages
2,253
Location
Your mom
Thorium salt reactors make the quest for fusion pretty much irrelevant. If we could only convince the feds to let someone build a full size prototype instead of other countries beating us to the punch because of some silly moratorium.
 

Tezz500

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Established Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
13,834
Location
Home for the Mentally Retarded
Thorium salt reactors make the quest for fusion pretty much irrelevant. If we could only convince the feds to let someone build a full size prototype instead of other countries beating us to the punch because of some silly moratorium.
That was done back in the 60s.

Nixon Axed the program. Its 100% workable, safer and cheaper.... and China is already moving passed us in this field.
 

James Snover

The Ill-Advised Physics Amplification Co
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
8,863
Location
Cypress
I think what we need is a break through in viable high density energy storage systems. Gasoline has high energy density and is safe and easy and light to transport and use.

Current alternates, including batteries or hydrogen, are none of those things. A viable alternative must be better in enough real and perceived ways that the free market selects it naturally.
Agreed on all points.
 

James Snover

The Ill-Advised Physics Amplification Co
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
8,863
Location
Cypress
Honest question here…

Do you think uranium Nuke plants littered throughout the planet in countries where people still live in mud huts is REALLY a good idea?

Molten Salt Thorium Reactors with competent staffing not the tribal locals would probably be a viable option as they don’t cook off and try to irradiate half the globe when someone ****s up….

Nor do they produce weapons grade waste…
Anyone can be trained. The U.S. Navy, for one, does it every year. Modern designs (like the Thorium Salt type) also limit the dangers involved in mis-handling of fission reactors. It's a good question, but one that can be dealt with.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top