alphacyberrangerChina’s “Artificial Sun” Shatters Fusion Record With Over 17 Minutes of Plasma
bleistift2Not a word about how much energy went into the process and how much was harvested…
I can create plasma using a candle and a microwave.
partial_accumenNot a word about how much energy went into the process and how much was harvested…
A 17 minute runtime in a Tokamak an incremental step on the path to success. You’re in the kitchen looking over the shoulder of the chef saying the steak he’s just put in the pan isn’t cooked enough yet. He knows, but you can’t have the steak on your plate cooked to perfection until he does this current step he’s on.
I can create plasma using a candle and a microwave.
In 1964 you could build an honest to goodness fusion reactor copying the Farnsworth Fusor, yet that would never be on a path to a sustained fusion reaction with a net energy gain. The work in the article is.
I love when online commenters who didn’t even read the article are smarter than the scientists it’s about
Gadg8eerI’ll be fair and say I admit anything I’ve said is not somehow more knowledgeable than those actually involved. I call it how I see it, and I know I can be wrong about things.
Producing energy is not the goal of this facility which is why they don’t report on it. The useful output is in refining control methods so that when power producing facilities are built, they can operate continuously. On that front, 17 minutes is very impressive. At the speeds at which the particles in a fusion plasma move, that time frame is essentially an eternity.
It’s the goal of the technology, though, isn’t it?
Yes, it’s a hard problem to solve.
Scrubbleshaw haw haw stupid science people, idiots! Don’t they know it takes more power?! Stupid idiots, my candle theory clearly invalidates all of their research and stupid “degrees”.
Seriously this is a facebook level comment here. Do you truly not understand how science works, iterative processes, incremental progress?
barkingspidersthis is just starting to be mean
Yeah well I guess I’m done being nice to people who think this way. We didn’t use to belittle science like this, we weren’t so afraid of it. We used to respect people for striving to learn more, not belittle them. I’m tired of listening to people belittle scientists because of their own issues.
You took a great deal of liberty in interpreting my comment. There is no anti-intellectualism there. That’s all in your head. My statement “I can create plasma using a candle and a microwave” was aimed at the reporters.
When the research is aimed at eventually building a power plant, then running the process for several minutes without even guesstimating an efficiency factor (or not reporting on it) seems very odd. We can be sure that energy was set free, which the researches must have had to dispose of somehow. I can’t imagine that they just blindly dumped it somehow without even checking how close their dumping process was to failing.
If you’d like to know what a constructive answer would’ve looked like, this is one: feddit.nl/comment/15463960
I was disappointed to realize this, but you’re probably right. If there’s no efficiency factor, it likely was not yet (if ever) a plausible energy source.
You have to understand, people are individuals but they are also a holistic collective. If you genuinely ignore the national borders, if race, religion, politics, wealth, sexuality, technological skill and freedom of choice are all removed from the “collective average” of the world’s opinion?
You get people who are afraid. And without those normally-acknowledged “boundaries” to muddle the numbers, you realize that collective is backed into a corner, and it is going to either die or kill whatever is planning to kill it.
That collective doesn’t actually exist or have a will of it’s own, no. The result of it’s effects are not any different than if it did, though, and that means we have a serious problem.
Even in WWII, people were taken in by nationalism in some form. We don’t have that this time. There is no overall “full unit of community” we respect. People will not join armies, people will not join cults, people will not join rebellions, parties, gangs. They, we, need to stop this now. If we do not stop, there will not be a rebuilding in the aftermath. People are too disillusioned with everything to rebuild.
When people fear the whole world, when they fear authoritarianism and anarchy in the same breath, when they cannot trust democracy because they cannot see each other as deserving of a stable, safe world? When having happiness is seen as antithetical to reality itself?
Stop. This. We can discuss how to fix this once we’ve demanded every government on the planet step down at the same time, and begin elections with ALL previous public servants barred from running, or face the consequences. If we don’t demand it, if we consider money to be worth anything anymore, we are all dead. Money is dead and it will remain so until we arrest the people adding to this pile of bullshit for treason.
If we don’t stop it, there’s no reason to be here. Let’s all just commit mass suicide if everything that exists is only there to exploit us.
I took that comment as criticizing dumbed-down science reporting and/or being suspicious of reported breakthroughs from China.
I don’t get why people still doubt China on tech progress. “Hur dur they’re commies so they had to have faked it! There’s just no incentive for them to be smart and driven because America, number one btw, has all the money.”
Like yeah, the country we’ve exported nearly all of our tech and manufacturing to for 40 years definitely has no idea how anything works, guys. Keep doubting.
Null User ObjectAny announcements like this coming from China should be taken with a huge grain of salt the size of… China.
Sir_KevinOk boomer.
LOL. You don’t even know what that means.
Yep. They‘re putting out what they call huge breakthroughs on a weekly basis for months and make headlines. By the time they have been put into perspective or straight out debunked and torn to shreds by the global scientific community, they already squeezed out another wild claim to overshadow criticism. Rinse and repeat. There is a reason the overwhelming majority of AI generated slob studies come from China. They want fast results and know the press won‘t really read them and instead just quote whatever they claim.
It’s wild that y’all feel so comfortable being so openly Sinophobic.
Skepticism of positive press (aka propaganda) from a country notorious for cracking down on negative press (i.e. any mention of Tiananmen Square) is not a phobia. It’s completely justified.
So we’re going to pretend increased financing for scientific study does not lead to better results, because you don’t appreciate them pushing back against US propaganda.
Here’s your logical fallacy.
Moving the goalposts
Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed-upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. Usually the "losing" side in an argument deploys this gambit in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve[1] into something that cannot be met no matter what (or anything will meet said standard — if the losing side is trying to meet the standard using this tactic). Usually, such a tactic is spotted quickly. Often, moving the goalposts is an exercise in slothful induction.
What goalposts do you believe were moved?
The discussion was about the unreliability of Chinese propaganda. You moved to funding scientific research. You didn’t just move the goalpost a bit. You relocated it to a different city.
Incorrect. Someone posited that China’s scientific achievements were merely propaganda, and I pointed out that they have invested heavily in research, which tends to produce outcomes.
In fact, you attempted to move the goalposts to non-scientific anti-China propaganda, and it fell flat. Then you attempted to DARVO by accusing others of what you are doing.
If you’ve actually forgotten what we’re discussing, look at the original post. We are discussing China’s scientific breakthroughs.
Incorrect. Someone
Me
posited that China’s scientific achievements
alleged achievements
were merely propaganda,
No. If true, the achievements are achievements. Actual achievements aren’t propaganda. However, the claims of the alleged achievements are coming from a country notorious for whitewashing history and making claims of scientific discoveries that later turn out to be optimistic at best, and often complete fabrications. So, skepticism of their claims of achievements (aka propaganda) is justified.
And that’s what this thread, that I started, is about. Responding to a post about some alleged scientific breakthrough, stating that such claims should be taken with a big grain of salt (aka, skepticism).
YOU then moved the goalpost to try to argue about whether increased funding for scientific research leads to better results. We don’t know that these results actually happened. We don’t know that there was actually any increase in funding. All we know is that a notorious liar is claiming so. This thread was never about whether funding scientific research can lead to discoveries. It’s about claims of discoveries from China are not reliable.
and I pointed out that they have invested heavily in research, which tends to produce outcomes.
And that’s when you moved the goalpost, likely because you don’t want to discuss China’s history of lies and propaganda.
Yes, you referenced the Tiananmen Square incident, which itself has been propagandized by the west with claims that have all been debunked.
Using a debunked western hoax as your reference really isn’t helping your point.
you
you
you
Yo if we’re throwing around logical fallacies you might wanna consider this one= rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
There’s been a whole chain of dialogue here without you substantiating your perspective on the topic at hand 👀
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "argument to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim. It can also be an attempt instead of refuting the argument to discredit[3] the person making the argument. There are many subsets of ad hominem, all of them attacking the source of the claim rather than attacking the claim or attempting to counter arguments. They are a type of fallacy of relevance.
☂️-eh. they have been verifiably meeting their goals for a long time.
Great. Now put a magnifying glass in front of it and point it at the white house
Breaking records in fusion is the scientific equivalent of flexing in a mirror—EAST’s 17-minute plasma sprint is impressive, but let’s not confuse lab theatrics with grid-ready energy. Fusion’s PR circus loves dangling “unlimited clean energy” while glossing over the actual timeline: we’re still decades from net-positive output, assuming we don’t incinerate the budget first.
China’s state-backed “artificial sun” reeks of geopolitical posturing—ITER’s bloated corpse twitches in France, and suddenly EAST is the poster child? Upgrading microwave-like heating systems to “70,000 household ovens” sounds less like innovation and more like a kitchen appliance dystopia.
The real tragedy? Fusion research remains a closed-loop cult. Open-source this tech, or watch it rot in nationalist silos. Imagine crowdfunding a reactor on GitHub—now that’s a fusion milestone worth celebrating.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it were capitalist motivation that is holding back the actual research. Those that fund it want to have exclusive rights to research akin to the nuclear rat race all over again. It would likely be a benefit to humanity if it were open-sourced but I’m sure that those countries/orgs that own these projects think otherwise.
The capitalist chokehold on fusion research is the elephant in the reactor room. These projects aren’t about humanity’s progress—they’re about patent monopolies and geopolitical leverage. The nuclear arms race never ended; it just swapped warheads for energy grids.
Open-sourcing fusion tech isn’t just a moral imperative; it’s the only way to break this cycle of greed. If nations and corporations keep hoarding breakthroughs, we’ll end up with a dystopia where energy is another tool of oppression.
Crowdfunding a reactor on GitHub might sound absurd, but it’s more realistic than trusting megacorporations or governments to prioritize global welfare over profit margins. Fusion belongs to everyone, or it belongs to no one.
I can’t remember the company name, but they were using an inertial fusion reactor and were hyped for producing positive energy from their test. Someone posted that it wasn’t going anywhere because it was actually just a cover for military tests on possible fusion bombs. I didn’t look too hard, but they did have funding from the military.
Military funding for fusion research is the perfect example of why this tech is locked behind closed doors. It’s not about solving energy crises; it’s about weaponizing the future. They dangle “clean energy” in front of us while funneling resources into projects that serve their war machines.
Even if these companies stumble onto a breakthrough, it’ll be classified faster than you can say “national security.” The public won’t see a watt of it unless there’s profit or power to be gained by those at the top.
This is why fusion needs to be in the hands of people, not governments or corporations. Open-source and decentralized, or we’ll just trade one form of exploitation for another.
I don’t know about weaponizing anything, but I do know the only energy positive fusion reaction was done by making a little pellet of hydrogen, carefully aligning a room full of lasers, and then zapping it into helium. Each time they did it, someone had to walk into the chamber to put in the pellet, and they’d have to spend a few hours aligning the lasers again.
You get more energy out than you put in, but it just doesn’t scale.
cover for military tests on possible fusion bombs
Fusion bombs have been around since the 1950s.
It would likely be a benefit to humanity if it were open-sourced but I’m sure that those countries/orgs that own these projects think otherwise.
Let’s be real here.
It would likely be a benefit to humanity if it were open-sourced but I’m sure that those countries/orgs that own these projects desire and work towards otherwise.
Rowan ThorpeValid point, but worth also mentioning an anecdote I read years ago (can’t remember from whom, perhaps Kurzweil?): when they were told the Human Genome Project had mapped 1% they were excited, saying it “had nearly finished”, and then had to keep justifying the statement by explaining the exponential nature of such work to the majority of people who couldn’t view it in any way other than as measured linearly per-result. Supposedly the project was completed only a few years later.
The Human Genome Project anecdote is a great parallel, but here’s the catch: fusion isn’t just an exponential problem; it’s a political one. While the genome folks could pivot and iterate, fusion is shackled by nationalist chest-thumping and bloated bureaucracy.
The exponential curve you’re referencing? It’s flattened every time funding gets siphoned into PR stunts or geopolitical flexing. Crowdfunding might sound naive, but at least it would decentralize the process and cut through the red tape.
Fusion isn’t stuck because of science—it’s stuck because of people. Until we stop treating it like a Cold War relic and start treating it like open-source software, we’ll be stuck in this endless cycle of “almost there” milestones. Let’s break that loop.
tetris11(Craig Ventor tried to copyright the human genome, prompting the rest of biotech community to race to beat him, so I’d claim that the HGP definitely had politics involved.)
Venter’s antics were the epitome of commodifying discovery. Patenting genes wasn’t just about competition—it was a power grab over the building blocks of life itself. The public effort had to scramble not just to finish but to ensure humanity’s genome didn’t become a corporate asset.
This wasn’t innovation; it was exploitation dressed up as progress. The fact that the race even happened shows how broken the system is when profit motives dictate the pace of science. Imagine if all that energy had gone into collaboration instead of brinkmanship.
Fusion’s stuck in the same trap: egos, politics, and profiteering. Until we dismantle these barriers, we’ll keep running in circles, chasing breakthroughs that serve shareholders instead of society.
Genuinely. I do wonder about the safeguards against such profiteering that clearly were not in place. I can understand the perspective of a company or entity that bootstraps discovery and innovation all on its own without any reference to prior art.
But it’s never the case. Behind the thin veneer of professionalism of every tech company is a bunch of grown adults cobbling together accessible open source tools or pouring through papers published in reputable scientific journals coming out of schools and universities. To re-invent the wheel would be madness, and yet every tech company implicitly makes the claim that they did it alone, instead of standing on the shoulders of the free and accessible tax-funded work that comes out of scientific institutions.
The safeguards weren’t missing—they were deliberately bypassed, or worse, designed to fail. The system isn’t broken; it’s functioning exactly as intended, funneling public knowledge into private coffers while selling us the illusion of progress.
These tech vultures don’t innovate; they appropriate. They slap a logo on what’s been painstakingly built by the collective effort of underpaid researchers and public institutions, then act like they’ve cracked the code of the universe. It’s theft, dressed up in a hoodie and a TED Talk.
The real tragedy is how we’ve normalized this parasitism. The public funds the foundation, corporations patent the result, and society foots the bill twice—once in taxes, and again when we’re sold back what was ours to begin with.
These tech vultures don’t innovate; they appropriate. They slap a logo on what’s been painstakingly built by the collective effort of underpaid researchers and public institutions, then act like they’ve cracked the code of the universe. It’s theft, dressed up in a hoodie and a TED Talk.
Well said, starred this comment
NostraDavidwatch it rot in nationalist silos
“ITER includes China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States. Members share costs and experimental results.”
That’s quite the wide “nationalist silos”, no?
Look, I agree that more open = more better, but I think you made it sound a bit as if it’s just France (implied) that’s gaining from this, where it’s really an international effort.
ITER isn’t “international” in any meaningful sense. It’s a bloated Frankenstein of geopolitical vanity projects, where nations bicker over scraps of influence while pretending to collaborate. Sharing costs? Sure, but they’re also sharing inefficiencies, delays, and mountains of red tape. France hosting isn’t just a coincidence—it’s a calculated power play.
Your defense of ITER as a global effort is laughable. Experimental results are locked behind bureaucratic walls, inaccessible to the very people who could accelerate progress. Fusion isn’t advancing; it’s stagnating under nationalist egos.
This is why it’s always decades away. However, I doubt China is being as cavalier about it.
China’s approach is less cavalier and more calculated opportunism. They’re playing the long game, but let’s not pretend it’s altruistic. Fusion isn’t about saving the planet—it’s about energy dominance. If they crack it first, it won’t be a global breakthrough; it’ll be a geopolitical flex.
The graph you shared screams one thing: chronic underfunding. The “1978 level of effort” line is a funeral procession for innovation. Actual funding is a joke compared to the projections, and every year we delay, the gap widens.
Fusion will stay “decades away” as long as it’s locked behind bureaucratic walls and nationalist agendas. Open up the research, decentralize the effort, and maybe—just maybe—we’ll see progress before the sun burns out.
Oh, I’m under no delusions that any player in the energy market is altruistic. I just bet they are devoting more resources to it. They are already making big moves on lots of stages concurrently.
But just like China rips off tech all the time, I imagine if China cracks it, it won’t be long till it’s copied.
The irony is that the same system that lets China “rip off tech all the time” is also why they’re outpacing everyone. They don’t wait for bureaucratic permission slips or endless committee debates—they just do. Meanwhile, the West pats itself on the back for “innovation” while starving critical projects of funding and drowning them in red tape.
If China cracks fusion, it won’t just be copied—it’ll be leveraged to tighten their grip on global energy markets. That’s not a tech race; it’s a strategic chokehold. The real tragedy is that instead of collaboration, we’re stuck in this zero-sum paranoia where progress is secondary to power plays. Decentralization isn’t just idealistic—it’s the only way to stop this from becoming another cold war with a hotter ending.
This reminds me of an article in a mainstream newspaper I read about BYD, that claimed beating China might be more important than winning the war on climate change. Can’t we be happy about technological progress, no matter where it comes from? Nationalism is regressive.
Technological progress isn’t some neutral, utopian march forward—it’s a weapon in the hands of whoever controls it. Pretending the source doesn’t matter is naive at best, dangerous at worst. Nationalism may be regressive, but unchecked global power dynamics are worse. If China dominates fusion, it’s not just about clean energy; it’s about leverage over every nation still burning coal.
We can celebrate progress and question its implications. Decentralization isn’t just a buzzword; it’s a survival strategy. Letting one state monopolize the future of energy is like handing them the keys to the planet. Fusion needs to be a global effort, not a geopolitical trophy. Progress without accountability is just another form of control.
Don’t you think it’s much easier to leverage an ephemeral resource like coal or oil? What you frame as China acquiring leverage is better framed as a loss of leverage by the titans of oil. Time is going to cause that leverage to be lost eventually anyway, so maybe we should be planning for that? Or maybe we should let the people interested in short term gain draft the policy and complain that China is eating our cake.
Leverage over coal or oil is transient because those resources are finite and their relevance is waning. Fusion, however, isn’t just another energy source—it’s a cornerstone for reshaping global influence. If one nation monopolizes it, they dictate the terms of humanity’s energy future. That’s not just leverage; that’s hegemony.
Planning for this inevitability isn’t optional; it’s survival. But letting the “titans of oil” steer the ship? That’s how we end up trading one monopoly for another. Decentralization isn’t a feel-good concept; it’s the only way to ensure no single entity holds all the cards.
Complaining about China eating our cake while doing nothing but drafting policies? That’s how you lose before the game even starts. Accountability and action must precede lamentation.
It’s not worth engaging with AI responses.
Flying SquidWhat we need to do is find some way to make a giant fusion reactor and put it in the sky and get energy from it that way.
But that’s just a pipe dream…
Yeah, and then that artificial sun can give us power at night