TE
테크에코
홈24시간 인기최신베스트질문쇼채용
GitHubTwitter
홈

테크에코

Next.js로 구축된 기술 뉴스 플랫폼으로 글로벌 기술 뉴스와 토론을 제공합니다.

GitHubTwitter

홈

홈최신베스트질문쇼채용

리소스

HackerNews API원본 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 테크에코. 모든 권리 보유.

Progress toward fusion energy gain as measured against the Lawson criteria

146 포인트작성자: sam약 9시간 전

10 comments

edran약 7시간 전
This is a great update! I hope the authors continue publishing new versions of their plots as the community builds up towards facility gain. It&#x27;s hard to keep track of all the experiments going on around the world, and normalizing all the results into the same plot space (even wrt. just triple product &#x2F; Lawson criteria) is actually tricky for various reasons and takes dedicated time.<p>Somewhat relevant, folks here might also be interested in a whitepaper we recently put up on arXiv that describes what we are doing at Pacific Fusion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2504.10680" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2504.10680</a><p>Section 1 in particular gives some extra high-level context that might be useful to have while reading Sam and Scott&#x27;s update, and the rest of the paper should also be a good introduction to the various subsystems that make up a high-yield fusion demonstration system (albeit focused on pulser-driven inertial fusion).
CGMthrowaway약 6시간 전
I heard that NIF was never intended to be a power plant, not even a prototype of one. It&#x27;s primarily a nuclear weapon research program. For a power plant you would need much more efficient lasers, you would need a much larger gain in the capsules, you would need lasers that can do many shots per second, some automated reloading system for the capsules, and you would need a heat to electricity conversion system around the fusion spot (which will have an efficiency of ~1&#x2F;3 or so).<p>Any truth to that?
评论 #43930122 未加载
评论 #43932527 未加载
评论 #43931330 未加载
评论 #43932403 未加载
评论 #43931695 未加载
评论 #43930620 未加载
评论 #43931035 未加载
评论 #43932153 未加载
dale_glass약 4시간 전
It should be noted that &quot;breakeven&quot; is often misleading.<p>There&#x27;s &quot;breakeven&quot; as in &quot;the reaction produces more energy than put into it&quot;, and there&#x27;s breakeven as in &quot;the entire reactor system produces more energy than put into it&quot;, which isn&#x27;t quite the same thing.
评论 #43932227 未加载
评论 #43931782 未加载
评论 #43932421 未加载
actinium226약 8시간 전
Why is the last plot basically empty between 2000 and 2020? I understand that NIF was probably being built during that time, but were there no significant tokamak experiments in that time?
评论 #43929243 未加载
评论 #43928568 未加载
评论 #43929013 未加载
评论 #43928525 未加载
jamiek88약 1시간 전
I’m excited about the new Squids design from the max Planck institute, it’s a design using the lessons learned from the existing stellarator the W7x.
damnitbuilds약 2시간 전
Hmm. How much of this progress is <i>really</i> progress to actual useful fusion power ?<p>I want to believe, but this does not make that easier.
评论 #43932422 未加载
gene-h약 3시간 전
This will probably need to be updated soon. There are rumors NIF recently achieved a gain of ~4.4 and ~10% fuel burn up. Being able to ignite more fuel is notable in and of itself.
NervousRing약 3시간 전
I&#x27;ve heard of q-plasma and q-total. What is q-science?
评论 #43931816 未加载
UltraSane약 5시간 전
The money being spent on fusion should be being spent building next generation fission power plants and liquid salt reactors.
评论 #43930742 未加载
评论 #43930715 未加载
arghandugh약 7시간 전
Maybe someday we’ll finally achieve the ultimate dream: an extremely expensive nuclear power plant that needs vast amounts of coolant water and leaves radioactive waste behind.
评论 #43930464 未加载
评论 #43929626 未加载
评论 #43930211 未加载