miskFrance runs fusion reactor for record 22 minutes
jordanlundMr. Fusion now 1 step closer… 10 years late, but still!
very_well_lostOnly ten more years, and we’ll have it!
…you said 10 more years 50 years ago
In just 10 more years, it’ll only be 40 more years!
So, some as graphene.
We’re using graphene! Almost entirely for it’s electrical properties true, but we’re using graphene doped batteries in consumer electronics currently. We also use fusion and ITER research for a whole lot more than just power generation - plasma dynamics, just one tiny subfield concerned with physics, has applications in everything from radio transmission beam forming techniques to satellite engines to magnetodynamic modeling to the EMI shielding on your vacuum cleaner.
I would like to subscribe for more graphene facts.
I feel like the awesome back to future reference was missed completely.
TropicalDingdong1,337 seconds
Flexing
Flexing is not good for the containment
No, but some guy proved that we could use that to our advantage. If you don’t use the magnetic constrictors to compensate for the heat from the fusion expanding the vessel, you can have it enter fusion and leave fusion several times a second. Wrap the thing in copper wire coils, and you have now got your vessel in a state of flux, and producing enough power to blackout your local grid, and get lots of fines from the feds in less than 5 seconds of runtime. He obviously didn’t continue working on that particular method of generating power with a Tokomak
Can you link to something so I can read more about this please?
Wish I could. Only reason I know about it, is that it was mentioned briefly in the Navy Nuclear Power Program training materials.
NOT_RICKLe et
CheemsRumor is next they are trying for 11.6858˙3 hours
Elven time conversion is the worst.
5,318008 seconds should be a new goal.
Oh shit. Things are heating up in the fusion race.
IIRC it was expected because previous record from China was essentially a trial for this one. It all happens under ITER project so it’s not that much of a race.
Good shit. I’d rather this be a global cooperative effort rather than a jingoistic dick-waving contest.
SceptikskyIt’s several cooperative and competitives projects. Diversity is not bad for science anyway. ITER itself involve tons of countries.
AkasazhGood. The only thing that was quite remotely good about the cold war was the competition.
ByteJunkThat’s not what this is, and even then, that competition wasn’t even good. You had two countries hoarding technological advancements for themselves, with everything having to be discovered twice.
This is a worldwide collaboration, where each assists the others, and it’s a much better way of making progress. See ITER.
ITER Members
As signatories to the ITER Agreement, the ITER collaboration Members China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States will share in the cost of project construction, operation and decommissioning, and also share in the experimental results and any intellectual property generated by the project. Twenty years of collaborative research experiments are planned on the machine.Europe* is responsible for the largest portion of construction costs (45.6 percent); the remainder is shared equally by China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States (9.1 percent each). The Members contribute very little monetary contribution to the project: instead, nine-tenths of contributions are delivered to the ITER Organization in the form of completed components, systems or buildings. In this way, the scientific and industrial fabric in each Member is prepared for the step after ITER collaboration—the conception and realization of the type of prototype fusion reactor that will demonstrate industrial-scale fusion electricity within this half of the century. For all Members, the benefits of participation are significant: by contributing a portion of the project's costs, Members benefit from 100 percent of the scientific results and all generated intellectual property.Each Member has created a Domestic Agency to fulfil its procurement responsibilities to ITER. These agencies employ their own staff, have their own budget, and contract directly with industry. Communication between the ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies is facilitated by state-of-the-art collaborative CAD design tools, integrated project teams for specific components or projects, and video conferencing. The working language for the project is English.Taken together, the ITER Members represent three continents, approximately 40 languages, half of the world's population and 73 percent of global gross domestic product. In the offices of the ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies, in laboratories and in industry, literally thousands of people are working toward the success of ITER.The ITER Organization has also concluded non-Member technical cooperation agreements with Australia (through the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO in 2016); Kazakhstan (through Kazakhstan's National Nuclear Center in 2017), and Canada (2020).*Update January 2025: The nations participating in ITER include the 27 member countries of the European Union plus China, India, Japan, Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States. Switzerland: Whereas Switzerland participated in the ITER Project through the Euratom research and training program and the European Joint Undertaking for ITER (Fusion for Energy) from 2014 to 2020, negotiations on a continued association agreement after that date were not conclusive. With a status of “non-associated third country” Switzerland was considered by Europe to be a non-participating member in ITER construction. This changed with the conclusion of negotiations on the association of Switzerland to the Euratom research and training program in late 2024. As of 2026, Switzerland will again become a full member of Fusion for Energy, allowing Swiss companies and research institutes to take part in the ITER project. (See the announcement here.) United Kingdom: Following Brexit, and the subsequent withdrawal from Euratom, the United Kingdom discontinued its participation in the ITER project. In September 2023, the United Kingdom announced that while it will no longer pursue an association agreement with Euratom, it will seek to continue and enhance its international partnerships, including with ITER. For the present, the ITER Project is honouring any existing contracts with UK companies and research institutes but not concluding new contracts.
I should’ve replaced ‘quite’ with a more clear ‘remotely’ but you’re absolutely correct
Meanwhile in America we’re trying to make macdonalds cheaper by bundling an extra sandwich to go along with a value meal…
That’s called McFusion
And it only takes 22 seconds to consume.
And only 12 seconds to regret.
Which means you are still consuming the burger for 10 seconds fully regretting your decision.
110% commitment to the burger and the regret. USA! USA!
That’s way better than Taco Bell, where the regret sinks in when you consider going there.
Spoken like someone who’s never had a cheesy gordita crunch
Oh I have, and they’re delicious. I still regret it every time though because of how low quality everything is.
AppoxoAnd keeps you sated for another 22 seconds.
Then you want seconds.
America would blow up a fusion reacto, call it dangerous, elon musk has a lot of things to say about it and then it would be illegal worldwide. Have you guys heard about coal? We already fixed it, just burn coal.
JackFrostNColaWhen the fuck did maccas start doing a sandwich?
Day one? A hamburger is a sandwich.
That was such a culture shock when I went to the us for the first time.
In Germany and many places in Europe do not think of burgers as sandwiches. I was so confused when I ordered a sandwich and got something like a burger.
I expected something like this. My confusion must’ve been quite the sight, the waitress even seemed concerned. Tasted great though.
Only difference between that and a burger is a burger is usually on a roll, not slices of bread. (And a burger is always hot, but then so are some sandwiches.)
Garantee you they weren’t generating a whole lot of power though… And if you can’t do that part then what’s the point?
garretbleThe first planes only flew for a few seconds.
Yeah, and we measured them to the purpose of flight… Not wingspan, or how soft the wheels were.
So maybe we should measure technology that’s about generating power by…
I’ll let you fill in the blank.
A fusion reactor has already output more power than its inputs 3 years ago. Running a reactor for an extended period of time is still a useful exercise as you need to ensure they can handle operation for long enough to actually be a useful power source.
Generating massive amounts of heat and harvesting that and converting it to power are two (or three) different problems.
Agreed. But just to go along with the flight analogy proposed earlier, it took hundreds of years from Da Vinci’s flying machine designs to get to one that actually worked.
In 1932, Walton produced the first man-made fission by using protons from the accelerator to split lithium into alpha particles.[5]
We’ve been at this for coming up to 100 years too.
Let me know when they actually generate power. I don’t want another article about a guy jumping off the eifle tower in a bird suit. A successful flight should be measured by the success of the flight.
Power generators should be measured by the power generated.
0 watts. Franz Reichelt went splat on the pavement having proven nothing.
America, the UK, France, Japan, and no doubt other places have been toying with fusion “power” for 90 years… We’ve created heat and not much else as far as I can tell.
Fission isn’t fusion, the first artificial fusion was two years later in 1934. That gives us a mere 332 years to beat the time from Da Vinci’s first design to the Wrights’ first flight
0 watts. Franz Reichelt went splat on the pavement having proven nothing
He demonstrated pretty clearly his idea didn’t work.
At least learn a little bit about the technology you’re criticizing, such as the difference between fission (aka not fusion) and fusion (aka…fusion), before going on a rant about it saying it’ll never work.
None of the reactors are being built with output capture in mind at the moment, because output capture is trivial compared to actually having an output, let alone an output that’s greater than the input and which can be sustained. As you’ve clearly learned in this thread, we’re already past having an output, are still testing out ways to have an output greater than an input, with at least one reactor doing so, and we need to tackle the sustained output part, which you’re seeing how it’s actively progressing in real time. Getting the energy is the same it’s always been: putting steam through a turbine.
Fission is what nuclear reactors do, it has been used in the entire world, it’s being phased out by tons of countries due to the people’s ignorance of the technology as well as fearmongering from parties with a vested interest in seeing nuclear fail, is still safer than any other energy generation method, and would realistically solve our short term issues alongside renewables while we figure out fusion…but as I said, stupid, ignorant people keep talking shit about it and getting it shit down…remind you of anyone?
LLNL has achieved positive power output with their experiments. llnl.gov/…/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough…
No fusion reactor today is actually going to generate power in the useful sense.
These are more about understanding how Fusion works so that a reactor that is purpose built to generate power can be developed in the future.
Unlike the movies real development is the culmination of MANY small steps.
Today we are holding reactions for 20 minutes. 20 years ago getting a reaction to self sustain in the first place seemed impossible.
A shot for the ages: Fusion ignition breakthrough hailed as ‘one of the most impressive scientific feats of the 21st century’
Call it the shot heard 'round the world. The monumental, first-ever demonstration of fusion ignition by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL) National Ignition Facility (NIF) marks a potentially world-changing breakthrough for fusion energy and a key initial step in a decades-long quest for limitless clean energy, U.S. government officials and LLNL scientists said Tuesday. At an historic press conference held at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) headquarters in Washington, D.C., officials with DOE, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National Nuclear
Predicted fusion energy and energy actually harvested and converted to usable electricity are not the same thing. Your article is about “fusion energy” not experimentally verified electrical output.
If you’re not sure how the fire works, it seems kind of stupid to build a turbine for it.
We were absolutely not sure how fire really works when we used it in caves eons ago.
We also did not build turbines then.
Also, a campfire is not plasma, so you probably shouldn’t be building any turbines either.
Fire is low temperature plasma. A campfire has fire.
Very hot flames can contain enough ions / free electrons to be considered a plasma but a wood campfire the likes of which cavemen built, which is what we are discussing here, do not achieve such temperatures. If cavemen wielded acetylene torches then they might have more experience with plasma.
If you were thinking something simple like “fire is plasma” that is reductive, and the cases where flame is plasma are not the everyday kind. Hence, when I said “a campfire is not plasma” I was being pretty specific. Your reply that ”fire is a low temperature plasma,” as an unqualified blanket statement, is wrong. Go read on it. It’s interesting.
We used very hot flame later. Still without full understanding of plasma.
I may have to yield this point to you as a demonstrated authority on not understanding plasma.
If you’re not sure how the fire works, it seems kind of stupid to build a turbine for it.
Leaving the arguments up to this point aside, your comment on its own doesn’t make much sense. The beauty of of a steam turbine electrical generator is that you don’t have to care how the heat gets generated. You can swap it out with any heat source, from burning fossil fuels, to geothermal, to nuclear, to whatever else and it works just fine as long as the rate of heat output is correctly calibrated for the size of the boiler.