Dr H video on nuclear energy fusion confusion

[notFritzArgelander]

[turboscrew]

I'm not sure what to think of this.
I mean, this sort of "advertising" is quite common, but if that's what goes on in the "official circles" as well...
I guess, telling the whole truth might shut down many projects. But maybe prematurely.

[AntennaGuy]

Now announcing breakeven achieved in... inertial confinement fusion:
https://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-fi ... y-the-fuel
Note the subtleness (to some lay people) of the language used:
"This result is a historic step forward for inertial confinement fusion research, opening a fundamentally new regime for exploration and the advancement of our critical national security missions." (underlining is mine). That refers to simulating the environment of a nuclear explosion in the absence of opportunities to perform underground nuclear bomb tests. And:
"...furthering our understanding of the processes of fusion ignition and burn, which is critical for validating and enhancing our simulation tools in support of the stockpile stewardship." (underlining is mine). Again, we are referring to preserving nuclear weapons technology, not to nuclear fusion for energy purposes. But, of course, that doesn't mean one can't take advantage of the physics to learn something about controlled nuclear fusion, if the opportunity happens to arise. So, onward then!

[notFritzArgelander]

Now announcing breakeven achieved in... inertial confinement fusion:
https://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-fi ... y-the-fuel
Note the subtleness (to some lay people) of the language used:
"This result is a historic step forward for inertial confinement fusion research, opening a fundamentally new regime for exploration and the advancement of our critical national security missions." (underlining is mine). That refers to simulating the environment of a nuclear explosion in the absence of opportunities to perform underground nuclear bomb tests. And:
"...furthering our understanding of the processes of fusion ignition and burn, which is critical for validating and enhancing our simulation tools in support of the stockpile stewardship." (underlining is mine). Again, we are referring to preserving nuclear weapons technology, not to nuclear fusion for energy purposes. But, of course, that doesn't mean one can't take advantage of the physics to learn something about controlled nuclear fusion, if the opportunity happens to arise. So, onward then!

Agreed. I'm skeptical of inertial confinement for continuous energy generation. Managing the nuclear weapons stockpile is a much more credible application. The codes for thermonuclear bomb design (and supernova simulation) can be tested against inertial confinement event data.

[SkyHiker]

Now announcing breakeven achieved in... inertial confinement fusion:
https://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-fi ... y-the-fuel
Note the subtleness (to some lay people) of the language used:
"This result is a historic step forward for inertial confinement fusion research, opening a fundamentally new regime for exploration and the advancement of our critical national security missions." (underlining is mine). That refers to simulating the environment of a nuclear explosion in the absence of opportunities to perform underground nuclear bomb tests. And:
"...furthering our understanding of the processes of fusion ignition and burn, which is critical for validating and enhancing our simulation tools in support of the stockpile stewardship." (underlining is mine). Again, we are referring to preserving nuclear weapons technology, not to nuclear fusion for energy purposes. But, of course, that doesn't mean one can't take advantage of the physics to learn something about controlled nuclear fusion, if the opportunity happens to arise. So, onward then!

This link says 422MJ goes in for the 1.3 MJ that comes out, and that only for a few picoseconds, https://preparehub.org/fusion-ignition- ... -research/ . It can be fired a few 100 times per year.

[AntennaGuy]

...
This link says 422MJ goes in for the 1.3 MJ that comes out, and that only for a few picoseconds, https://preparehub.org/fusion-ignition- ... -research/ . It can be fired a few 100 times per year.

Ah, of course. They talked about energy absorbed by the fuel, not input to the laser systems, etc. So it's not really anywhere near break-even, despite its transient/one-shot nature. Sigh... Neil Sedaka not withstanding, fission (i.e., "breaking up") is easier; fusion is "hard to do."