pips@lemmy.film to Technology@beehaw.orgEnglish · 1 year agoUS scientists achieve net energy gain for second time in a fusion reactionwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square23fedilinkarrow-up144arrow-down10cross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
arrow-up144arrow-down1external-linkUS scientists achieve net energy gain for second time in a fusion reactionwww.theguardian.compips@lemmy.film to Technology@beehaw.orgEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square23fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
minus-squareTokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·edit-21 year ago *Edit: OK, so this article is missing a bunch of vital context. Here’s a better one: https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/physicists-achieve-fusion-net-energy-gain-for-second-time/
minus-squareCanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-21 year agoThe laser energy. In the beam in the chamber. All the energy to make the situation happen is significantly higher. It’s sneaky.
minus-squareexscape@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoThe key words are “delivered to the target”. They use WAY, way more power than they deliver to the target, so if you take the energy generated divided by the total energy used, the number is WAY, way below 1. Probably a fair bit below 0.1 too.
*Edit: OK, so this article is missing a bunch of vital context. Here’s a better one: https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/physicists-achieve-fusion-net-energy-gain-for-second-time/
The laser energy. In the beam in the chamber. All the energy to make the situation happen is significantly higher. It’s sneaky.
The key words are “delivered to the target”. They use WAY, way more power than they deliver to the target, so if you take the energy generated divided by the total energy used, the number is WAY, way below 1. Probably a fair bit below 0.1 too.