Slashdot Mirror


Fusion "Breakthrough" At National Ignition Facility? Not So Fast

sciencehabit writes "One unintended effect of the U.S. federal shutdown is that helpful press officers at government labs are not available to provide a reality check to some of the wilder stories that can catch fire on the Internet. They would have come in handy this week, when a number of outlets jumped on a report on the BBC News website. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, it reported, had passed a 'nuclear fusion milestone.' NIF uses the world's highest energy laser system to crush tiny pellets containing a form of hydrogen fuel to enormous temperature and pressure. The aim is to get the hydrogen nuclei to fuse together into helium atoms, releasing energy. The BBC story reported that during one experiment last month, 'the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel — the first time this had been achieved at any fusion facility in the world.' This prompted a rush of even more effusive headlines proclaiming the 'fusion breakthrough.' As no doubt NIF's press officers would have told reporters, the experiment in question certainly shows important progress, but it is not the breakthrough everyone is hoping for."

71 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Wait, The Internet? by toygeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    Blowing things out of proportion and bad reporting? Say it isn't so!

    1. Re:Wait, The Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      But the 3D printing stories and private space fantasies are still safe, right?

    2. Re:Wait, The Internet? by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Just like flying cars.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:Wait, The Internet? by lxs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Space elevator went live last week. Sadly some joker pressed all the buttons. At this rate they'll reach the moon by 2035.

    4. Re:Wait, The Internet? by jambox · · Score: 1

      The Chinese will get there by 2020. Perhaps they'll put up a parking lot.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
  2. breakthrough I''m hopoing for? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

    not the breakthrough everyone is hoping for.

    The breakthrough I'm hoping for is cheap free fusion energy, generated in my backyard, from trash, branded "Mr Fusion."

    What is everyone else hoping for?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:breakthrough I''m hopoing for? by bob_super · · Score: 2

      I'm hoping you don't need the whole 1.21 Gigawatts and can share with me. My backyard's a bit small.

    2. Re:breakthrough I''m hopoing for? by chris_lukehart · · Score: 1

      Cheap Solar Panels!

    3. Re:breakthrough I''m hopoing for? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      Mr Fusion was based on the 1980s era kitchen appliance brand Mr Coffee

      This is 2013 so we would have to call it the Keurig Fusion

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:breakthrough I''m hopoing for? by SpeedRacer · · Score: 1

      The breakthrough I'm hoping for is cheap free fusion energy, generated in my backyard, from trash, branded "Mr Fusion."

      ...as opposed to expensive free fusion energy?

      Nah, he meant as opposed to cheap *constrained* fusion energy...

  3. Blowing out of proportion by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a good discussion by Jeff Hecht in the Laser Focus World blog: "Progress at NIF, but no 'breakthrough'"
    http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2013/10/progress-at-nif-but-no-breakthrough.html

    The amount of energy generated by fusion is quoted as having exceeded the amount of energy absorbed by the fusion fuel [my italics].

    The misleading part comes from the fact that the target absorbs only a small fraction of the energy in the laser pulse. The August experiments used a laser pulse of 1.7 million joules to generate 8000 joules of fusion energy (measured from neutron yield). So the fusion energy amounts to a few percent of the energy in the laser pulse (and much less if you account for the inefficiency of the laser).

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Blowing out of proportion by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like the Manhattan project?

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:Blowing out of proportion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not tough "science". The science is known since decades. It's tough ENGINEERING, which is another story altogether.

    3. Re:Blowing out of proportion by illestov · · Score: 1

      stupid question, but isn't the energy released from a fusion reaction ALWAYS larger than the energy absorbed? I thought that was in the definition somewhere

    4. Re:Blowing out of proportion by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      what happens if the laser turns out to be successful and all sorts of crazy fusion starts happening? would shit explode? sucks to live in berkeley (for many reasons)!

    5. Re:Blowing out of proportion by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      More like funded work between nuke design and maintenance cycles. A safe gov workshop until the weapons systems need work again.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Blowing out of proportion by lxs · · Score: 2

      would shit explode?

      I would hope so. That's kind of the point.

    7. Re:Blowing out of proportion by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      you know what i mean, an uncontrolled out of control runaway explosion like on my laptop battery.

    8. Re:Blowing out of proportion by fnj · · Score: 2

      a few percent of the energy

      Funny, I make it 0.47% (8000/1700000*100). I figured this out from the original submission a few days ago using no more than maybe 10 minutes checking of secondary sources.

    9. Re:Blowing out of proportion by catmistake · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the fusion energy amounts to a few percent of the energy in the laser pulse (and much less if you account for the inefficiency of the laser).

      The estimates become even more dubious when you account for all the energy expended training, feeding and housing the sharks.

    10. Re:Blowing out of proportion by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      That was actually a serious concern before we started blowing up Pacific islands for practice. It was thought that the bomb could trigger a chain reaction that fused all of the Nitrogen in the atmosphere in one very brief but spectacular flash of high energy radiation. Contrary to what some have claimed the boffins on the Manhattan project did not just cross their fingers and light the fuse, they rigorously demonstrated that it could not happen long before they had a working bomb. It's actually quite an interesting historical story and well worth a browsing in WP (ie: I can't be bothered looking it up and posting the links for you ;)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:Blowing out of proportion by crypticedge · · Score: 1

      We've got extremely good evidence fusion is a great energy source too, unless you deny the existence of the sun.

    12. Re:Blowing out of proportion by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      How would that happen?
      Under what scenario would pellets keep being introduced? What would induce them to under go fusion?

      Are you really this ignorant of the situation?

    13. Re:Blowing out of proportion by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      Isn't the energy released from a fusion reaction ALWAYS larger than the energy absorbed?

      In the case of lightweight elements, the energy released by two fusing nuclei is less than the kinetic energy smashing them together, but only a small fraction of the nuclei in a pellet fuse, and most of the energy absorbed by the pellet goes into heating and ionizing the atoms that don't undergo fusion.

    14. Re:Blowing out of proportion by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      yeah, comes from hasty editing and no "oops, I need to revise that" button. Should have been "few tenths of a percent." sorry.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    15. Re:Blowing out of proportion by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      That Tornado Machine is pretty power hungry as well...

    16. Re:Blowing out of proportion by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

      No one seems to realize the NIF is just to study fusion for weapons research. It has no hope of ever leading to an energy source.

      People don't realize this because it is NOT true.

      NIF does not have a single mission. A big part is weapons research, but that's not all they do.

      Below is a quote from their web site:

      Achieving nuclear fusion in the laboratory is at the heart of the directorate's three complementary missions:

      * Helping ensure the nation's security without nuclear weapons testing (see National Security).

      * Blazing the path to a carbon-free energy future (see Energy for the Future).

      * Achieving breakthroughs in a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including astrophysics, materials science, the use of lasers in medicine, radioactive and hazardous waste treatment, particle physics, and X-ray and neutron science (see Understanding the Universe).

    17. Re:Blowing out of proportion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what happens if the laser turns out to be successful and all sorts of crazy fusion starts happening? would shit explode? sucks to live in berkeley (for many reasons)!

      Facepalm.

      Fusion is a massively unstable process, if the conditions are even the slightest, tiniest bit wrong then the whole thing instantly comes to a grinding halt producing no energy.

      The sun only works because it's so massive that the gravity holds it together, unless we built an artificial star out of Jupiter there is absolutely no way to produce a run away fusion reaction. This is fusion's biggest advantage over fission if we can get it to work. When a fission plant breaks, it gets hotter and hotter until it melts down. When a fusion plant breaks, it vents plasma for 2 seconds then instantly stops.

  4. Actual gain 0.0077, small difference... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    So it was not more than break-even. The gain was actually 0.0077 - 1.8MJ in, 14kJ out. Just a small (i.e. about "1") mistake by the genius journalists.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Actual gain 0.0077, small difference... by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the thing seems horribly overhyped, and it still doesn't seem to be showing the kind of results already achieved with tokamaks, e.g. JET producing 5MW to 16MW fusion output power from 24MW input power for 5s. Why is the US so interested in the laser-pumped fusion approach used at NIF? UK gave up on it ages ago. There's got to be some motivation other than power generation technology. Is NIF more suitable for weapons research or something?

    2. Re:Actual gain 0.0077, small difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      JET producing 5MW to 16MW fusion output power from 24MW input power for 5s

      Even better is JT-60 has produced DD plasmas at conditions that would produce fusion power 110% more than what goes in if they had they run with DT plasma instead.

    3. Re:Actual gain 0.0077, small difference... by gman003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, most of what the NIF does is actually weapons research. The fusion power stuff seems to be mainly a political ploy to get the Democrats to sign off on it - they're never going to get actual fusion power, meaning actually turning this power back into electricity, at NIF, and unless they know something big I don't, I doubt they ever will at any inertial confinement reactor. I only hope that they're able to do some solid fundamental research for fusion power using this.

    4. Re:Actual gain 0.0077, small difference... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the thing seems horribly overhyped, and it still doesn't seem to be showing the kind of results already achieved with tokamaks, e.g. JET producing 5MW to 16MW fusion output power from 24MW input power for 5s. Why is the US so interested in the laser-pumped fusion approach used at NIF? UK gave up on it ages ago. There's got to be some motivation other than power generation technology. Is NIF more suitable for weapons research or something?

      My guess is you're being very perceptive and this approach is about weaponization, not power production per se.

    5. Re:Actual gain 0.0077, small difference... by jambox · · Score: 1

      IANAP and I don't really know what I'm talking about, but even mainstream news makes the point that it's about studying ignition, which is useful to both energy and weapons research. It'll be interesting to see how much use ITER get out of NIF's work.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
  5. Re:My worry by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    My worry is that these people don't really know what they're doing, and that they're going to ignite a fusion reaction that will be self-feeding and turn our planet into a sun.
    This is one area of research where a mistake can really ruin the environment.

    Don't worry. All you need to do is unwrap the entire roll of aluminum foil and cover your whole body. You'll be safe then.

    From quite a lot of things, actually.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. BBC reported correctly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    actually the BBC's story reports correctly -
    "The BBC understands that during an experiment in late September, the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel - the first time this had been achieved at any fusion facility in the world.

    This is a step short of the lab's stated goal of "ignition", where nuclear fusion generates as much energy as the lasers supply. This is because known "inefficiencies" in different parts of the system mean not all the energy supplied through the laser is delivered to the fuel."

    1. Re:BBC reported correctly by erice · · Score: 4, Informative

      actually the BBC's story reports correctly -
      "The BBC understands that during an experiment in late September, the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel - the first time this had been achieved at any fusion facility in the world.

      Actually, no. It still isn't correct.

      In 1995, scientists at Princeton’s TFTR achieved scientific break even, whereby their tokamak briefly produced as much energy as it consumed.

      So, not only is it not the breakthrough we were looking for, at best it replicated a feat achieved with a different technology nearly 20 years ago.

  7. Re:My worry by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    Don't worry. All you need to do is unwrap the entire roll of aluminum foil and cover your whole body. You'll be safe then.

    First, nice snark. But, it's worth mentioning that tinfoil only blocks EMR and beta radiation. Nuclear fusion emits more than those; You'd be wrapping yourself up in tin foil only to find it has been used for its intended purpose.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  8. A number of outlets jumped on the report... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    Like Slashdot, for example?

  9. Not there yet! by FoolishBluntman · · Score: 4, Informative

    The headline states, "the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel".

    This is not enough, they must be able to capture that energy and use it to produce the next laser implosion of the fuel.
    That will be a milestone.

    Also, since this is using a Deuterium-Tritium Fuel it produces very high energy neutrons which will help destroy the reactor much faster than in conventional fission reactions.

    1. Re:Not there yet! by rmstar · · Score: 1

      This is not enough, they must be able to capture that energy and use it to produce the next laser implosion of the fuel.
      That will be a milestone.

      I've heard it looks like a pie,
      and floats high up in the sky.

  10. Re:My worry by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    I'm worried that my campfire is going to burn down all the forests and destroy the atmosphere.

  11. Oh Look by The+Cat · · Score: 1

    Something good happens in science and all the neckbeards come running to shout it down.

    Sometimes I wonder why science is a religion for these people since they obviously have some kind of emotional need to destroy what it produces?

    1. Re:Oh Look by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Science is wrong by definition, most of the "neckbeards" I've met understand that but are unlikely to express it as eloquently as Asimov. Skepticism is a fundamental skill for scientists and engineers alike, sensationalism is a fundamental skill for journalists and professional propagandists...err, I mean,...lobbyists. If you can't tell the difference then you really should hand in that vintage geek card you have on display.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Oh Look by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wonder why science is a religion for these people since they obviously have some kind of emotional need to destroy what it produces?

      Same reason that many religious people do the same -- to prove they're "better" at it and satisfy their own ego, regardless of what their own faith supposedly teaches them.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  12. this is SOP for these guys by Goldsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know if NIF is snakebit or just really good at putting out bad information, but this kind of distasteful and misleading marketing of science has been associated with them since their beginning. AAAS is being generous in assuming that their press department would have stepped in and clarified things.

    The truth of the matter is that NIF is run by Lawrence Livermore National Security Corporation, a private group formed by defense contractors and academics. They're managed this way specifically to separate themselves from the government. There are plenty of people who are not on the government payroll, who are there working right now, who could have stepped in and corrected everyone's misconceptions. They chose not to.

    1. Re:this is SOP for these guys by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      It is primarily funded by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and managed and operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), a partnership of the University of California, Bechtel, Babcock & Wilcox, URS, and Battelle Memorial Institute in affiliation with the Texas A&M University System.

      Either Wikipedia is wrong, or you are, and I think you know which way I'm leaning right now. What defense contractors are involved with LLNS?

    2. Re:this is SOP for these guys by khallow · · Score: 1

      I see several right there: Bechtel, U of C, Babcock and Wilcox, URS, Texas A&M. And the DOE does a lot of work for the DOD, though I wouldn't consider them a contractor.

    3. Re:this is SOP for these guys by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      U of C and Texas A&M definitely aren't defense contractors. They're academic institutions.

      As far as I can tell: URS is a general contractor with interests in energy production. Bechtel is a company with a focus on energy production, and specialization in nuclear power. B&W is specialized heavily into nuclear power. All are government contractors for very specialized tasks within their respective fields, all of which include nuclear power, and I don't see how that has any bearing on their interest in LLNL.

    4. Re:this is SOP for these guys by khallow · · Score: 1

      U of C and Texas A&M definitely aren't defense contractors. They're academic institutions.

      They are both. Academic institutions often do work for various government agencies. And while it's a bit circular, the LLNL is one of the ways they're involved.

      As far as I can tell: URS is a general contractor with interests in energy production. Bechtel is a company with a focus on energy production, and specialization in nuclear power. B&W is specialized heavily into nuclear power. All are government contractors for very specialized tasks within their respective fields, all of which include nuclear power, and I don't see how that has any bearing on their interest in LLNL.

      Where are you going with that? I merely noted that there were a bunch of DoD contractors on that list.

  13. Re:My worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fusion doesn't work with chain reactions. You have to replicate and maintain temperatures and pressures thousands of times greater than that at the centre of the sun to get most of your reaction mass to fuse (there are actually far less fusion reactions in the sun as a proportion of its mass than most people seem to think). If you can't maintain these conditions, the fusion stops and the reactor shuts down. For inertial confinement fusion like the NIF one has to keep feeding hydrogen pellets and shooting the laser, and if one can extract enough energy from the fusion to power the laser and whatever else, one can just keep feeding hydrogen pellets to keep producing energy. Same deal with a tokamak design: high magnetic fields heat and compress a plasma of hydrogen so much that it achieves fusion, and presumably the energy produced from the fusion can be used to power the magnetic fields and whatever else. If you shut off the magnetic fields or stop providing a continuous source of usable hydrogen plasma, the fusion stops and the reactor shuts down. We only get nuclear fusion in the sun and other stars because the mass of the sun is so great that gravity produces the conditions necessary for fusion in its core.

  14. Re:My worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Good thing we did all those nuclear weapons tests to prove that possibility wrong, considering the conditions those weapons produced were much more intense than anything used in controlled reactions. You can go back to worrying about the LHC (but no one worries about RHIC...).

  15. Fact check: LLNL isn't shut down (yet) by 1729 · · Score: 1

    Because the staff and management are contractors, not Fed employees, LLNL is not shut down. The Lab will begin shutting down next week (assuming the budget boondoggle continues), but until now has been fully staffed with the exception of a very small number of people directly employed by DOE.

  16. Press free at last? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    I suppose one of the biggest advantages is that suppression of scientific advancement and the press would be a bit hard to perform at the moment.

  17. Re:My worry by Desler · · Score: 1

    Yes, they are. Just read their other posts to see this

  18. NO, It Was Reported Accurately by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
    Quote the BBC article:

    "This is a step short of the lab's stated goal of "ignition", where nuclear fusion generates as much energy as the lasers supply. This is because known "inefficiencies" in different parts of the system mean not all the energy supplied through the laser is delivered to the fuel."

    The article made it CLEAR that the energy output was more than the energy absorbed. But it also made it CLEAR that it was not as much energy as was input to the whole system.

    This is a non-article about a non-issue.

    HEADLINE: "People Read Article Wrong... Chaos Ensues!"

    1. Re:NO, It Was Reported Accurately by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      It's the articles that cited the BBC one and exaggerated the claims without including that disclaimer that're at fault. It's hard to see the NIF's press officers making any difference. If they'd ignored that part of the BBC article, they'd ignore that part of the press release and any protestations from NIF too.

      Not really.

      It's people thinking they know science and who can't read or won't bother to that blow things out of proportion.

      This, pile of crap of an article, should be bashing the ignorance of 99% of people instead. The people that understood it wrong are in the same class of folks that need to be reminded that "contents may be hot" after microwaving food. If you are THAT stupid, one article isn't going to get you to catch up to what is actually being talked about.

  19. Re:My worry by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

    This is where teamwork really pays off. All the GP has to do is enlist the assistance of a friend to make sure the foil is uniformly wrapped around every square centimeter of his body, triple check that it's tightly crimped to avoid any potential for air leaks, and wait a mere matter of minutes for whatever problems he may have been concerned about to vanish.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  20. Re: My worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, some of them downstairs, climb walls, deploy umbrellas, lemmings can do all sorts of things

  21. Government Shutdown, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought the government was shut down. If that is so, why is this government lab still operating? Is someone trying to convince the rest of us that sending a press "officer" home but keeping everyone else on the job is a "shutdown"? I suppose if the government can lie about whether or not it is operating, it can lie about achieving scientific breakthroughs.

    1. Re:Government Shutdown, Anyone? by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      Many (all?) of the labs are contracted by the the government through other organizations. For example SLAC where I work is administered by Stanford University under contract with the Department of Energy. We are not shut down yet, but presumably will be soon if the government shutdown continues. We are under various restrictions to only do critical work, so, for example, the SLAC Today publication that reports on our work is not operating.

  22. Re:My worry by sycodon · · Score: 1
    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  23. Re:My worry by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Sorry, that was for Malvin, I mean elloz.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  24. Re:My worry by stoploss · · Score: 1

    I'm worried that my campfire is going to burn down all the forests and destroy the atmosphere.

    Pshah! What a silly thing to be worried about.

    I'm worried that my five gallon plastic bucket will drain the oceans by bailing them out, and in the process drown all the land. And then people will fight over handfuls of the only remaining dirt in the world, and captains of the remaining supertankers will become warlords, and some people will evolve gills within a hundred years or so.

    I can barely sleep at night due to this imminent threat. I would bury the bucket at Yucca Mountain, but I'm worried that it isn't geologically stable for the time frames we need.

  25. Re:Also Incorrect.. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    yeah so we're still only 30 years away from it.

    just like 30 years ago.

    now call the news outlets when they figure a way to make the material absorb more of the lasers output.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  26. Re:Boring, boring, boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    We won't have actual, real, fusion producing actual, real, power in an actual, real, commercial power plant on the grid in the lifetime of anyone alive now.

    Don't be so sure. There are scientists working on increasing the human lifetime.

  27. But of course by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    We can't blame the network that brings us Dr Who for shoddy reporting, so lets blame the Americans and their shutdown.

  28. Re:My worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    but what if it massively increases the, uh, mass of the earth and does make a sun? what then?

    nuclear science = nuclear bombs. stop being so ignorant and realize that this is nothing short of evil and the scientists are probably possessed by satan

  29. nonsense, 15% of government shut down by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    the government is not shut down

    1. Re:nonsense, 15% of government shut down by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      at the national lab I worked at in the late 80s to mid 90s, there were 2500 people of which three I know of worked for the DOE. the rest worked under a consortium contractor or were contractors themselves.

  30. First Clue by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Was that the original news post had a sensational title, but nowhere in the story, nor any of the links were ANY details about the numbers used in the experiment, specifically about exactly how much power was put in, and how much came out.

    It is pretty basic stuff.

    I either thought is must be BS or the value were unrealistic to be used in anything but in an experiment (so small as to make it impossible in real scale).