Still used orders of magnitude more energy to perform the experiment than the experiment output
The article literally explains that is not true. All you have to read the first paragraph.
they have no way to harvest that energy
Yes because it’s a research reactor. The first theoretical nuclear reactors also did not have any way to retrieve the energy. That’s what happens in production systems, not research systems. Adding in all of the equipment to capture the energy makes it harder to iterate on the design. It really is not a valid criticism of the research being done.
The whole point is that they put less energy into the target material than they got out of it, however much energy they had for the rest of the experiment isn’t relevant. The only part of this design that they are researching here is the fusion, everything else is supporting that research and is not been actively developed by this team.
There are other teams working on other reactor designs which increase efficiency in other areas.
It’s like saying that a rocket engine demonstration model doesn’t work because it doesn’t fly.
And the whole point of my comment is that people shouldn’t be wetting their pants thinking that fusion is right around the corner. This is just further proof of concept and does nothing to actually advance fusion power.
It’s research research advances technology that’s how it works you don’t get big huge exciting developments most of the time you get iterative development if you want big and exciting well that’s not sciences job it’s not there to entertain you. I don’t know what you want.
Only appreciating the big flashy outcomes of science is exactly how you end up with no science funding. Iterating and improving something is important work that should be applauded.
The article literally explains that is not true. All you have to read the first paragraph.
Yes because it’s a research reactor. The first theoretical nuclear reactors also did not have any way to retrieve the energy. That’s what happens in production systems, not research systems. Adding in all of the equipment to capture the energy makes it harder to iterate on the design. It really is not a valid criticism of the research being done.
You are being somewhat disingenuous do not think.
In the 1st paragraph is a link to the previous article of the same experiment a few months ago, that has some more details mentioned:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/12/breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion-could-mean-near-limitless-energy
The article literally does not explain that’s not true, you literally have no idea what you’re talking about.
The whole point is that they put less energy into the target material than they got out of it, however much energy they had for the rest of the experiment isn’t relevant. The only part of this design that they are researching here is the fusion, everything else is supporting that research and is not been actively developed by this team.
There are other teams working on other reactor designs which increase efficiency in other areas.
It’s like saying that a rocket engine demonstration model doesn’t work because it doesn’t fly.
It’s a good example. I’d actually say test-firing a rocket and claiming you’re almost on the moon is still misleading, though.
Energy in over energy generated at the target has no practical significance. More output is better but that’s it. This is for marketing to funders.
And the whole point of my comment is that people shouldn’t be wetting their pants thinking that fusion is right around the corner. This is just further proof of concept and does nothing to actually advance fusion power.
It’s research research advances technology that’s how it works you don’t get big huge exciting developments most of the time you get iterative development if you want big and exciting well that’s not sciences job it’s not there to entertain you. I don’t know what you want.
Only appreciating the big flashy outcomes of science is exactly how you end up with no science funding. Iterating and improving something is important work that should be applauded.
The article is misleading by leaving out critical details about the amount of energy actually used in the test.
That said, progress is progress.