Slashdot Mirror


Google Enters Race For Nuclear Fusion Technology (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Google and a leading nuclear fusion company have developed a new computer algorithm which has significantly speeded up experiments on plasmas, the ultra-hot balls of gas at the heart of the energy technology. Tri Alpha Energy, which is backed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, has raised over $500 million in investment. It has worked with Google Research to create what they call the Optometrist algorithm. This enables high-powered computation to be combined with human judgement to find new and better solutions to complex problems. Working with Google enabled experiment's on Tri Alpha Energy's C2-U machine to progress much faster, with operations that took a month speeded up to just a few hours. The algorithm revealed unexpected ways of operating the plasma, with the research published on Tuesday in the journal Scientific Reports. The team achieved a 50% reduction in energy losses from the system and a resulting increase in total plasma energy, which must reach a critical threshold for fusion to occur.

150 comments

  1. Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    *twitch*

    1. Re: Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First thing I noticed as well. Actually, might be the only thing I noticed... What was this scientific article about again?

    2. Re:Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grammatically "Speeded" is equally as valid as "Sped".

      Long ago "Speeded" was preferred for past-tense, and "Sped" for present and future-tense, however that rule has not been taught for a very long time now and the two are now treated as equal.

      Please don't complain about grammatical rules you do not understand.

    3. Re:Speeded.... by sanosuke001 · · Score: 2

      Man I'm glad I wasn't the only one; it made me want to punch a baby...

      --
      -SaNo
    4. Re: Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cite the OED and the point shall be conceded.

    5. Re:Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://grammarist.com/usage/sp... Sorry but I must revoke your Grammar Nazi License.

    6. Re: Speeded.... by Khyber · · Score: 0

      Cite the OED, a shitty thing that's now defining internet slang? Give me a fucking break and find me a better source that doesn't fall into those shenanigans.

      Oxford lost all credibility years ago.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re: Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cite the OED and the point shall be conceded.

      The dictionary doesn't cover grammar, but it is clearly in there as a word:
      http://www.dictionary.com/browse/speeded

      "verb (used with object), sped or speeded, speeding."

      Then there's the usage:
      http://grammarist.com/usage/sped-speeded/

      Not to mention you seem to be under the mistaken belief that a words existence follows the dictionary, instead of the other way around.
      Again, if you don't understand a topic...

    8. Re:Speeded.... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      being a grammar nazi is what concerned you? not the "want to punch a baby" thing?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuckng hate baby. hhope it dies from cerebral hemmorhage, like a piece of shit

    10. Re:Speeded.... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      you know you, uh, are one, right?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    11. Re:Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ur baby is a gay shit

    12. Re: Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want prescriptive dictionaries speak French.

    13. Re:Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > *twitch*

      Seems to be OK in UK.

    14. Re:Speeded.... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And really other than historical accident there's no compelling reason for irregular verb conjugations. We should be saying speeded, eated, etc. Some are awkward to say, such as "goed", but most are pointless and make English as a second language that much harder to learn. This is also true for the crazy spelling.

    15. Re: Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a problem. The grocer's apostrophe, now...

    16. Re:Speeded.... by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Well yea. The baby was an actual nazi and it's acceptable to punch a nazi. #punchanazi

    17. Re:Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it made me wanting to punched a baby...

      FTFY.

    18. Re: Speeded.... by rdelsambuco · · Score: 1

      I have a degree in English. You're full of shit.

      --
      I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
    19. Re: Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usage in the UK seems to be that you can say "the car sped up" or "I sped up the process" or "I speeded up the process" (less commonly) but almost never "the car speeded up". At least as far as I can tell.

    20. Re:Speeded.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because a dictionary equivocates usage doesn't mean it's not stylistically atrocious. Ignorance and condescension don't mix well, by the way...

    21. Re:Speeded.... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The only "rule" in language is whatever sounds natural to a natural speak is the correct way. Not ending a sentence with a preposition may be grammatically correct but almost no one speaks that way, making it the wrong way to speak. Language is a living thing and the rules are defined by how it is used, not what a book says. A book about the rules of a language is nothing more than a point in time documentation of how people are using at that moment.

  2. Umbrella Corporation by intellitech · · Score: 1

    I'm just waiting for them to build a hive complex somewhere under the bay area.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
  3. I would laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they are serious. I don't even know what to say anymore. May Silicon Valley burn in hell.

    1. Re:I would laugh by jandersen · · Score: 1

      May Silicon Valley burn in hell.

      That's certainly a viewpoint - but why? Isn't solving a problem like our dependency on fossil fuels important enough that we should be pragmatic about it? As Terry Pratchett once said (different context, though): "I'd gnaw the arse of a dead mole, if I thought it would help".

    2. Re:I would laugh by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. What exactly annoys you about this story?

    3. Re:I would laugh by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 0

      > Isn't solving a problem like our dependency on fossil fuels

      Already solved. While these guys are wasting everyone's time with a system that has repeatedly demonstrated not to work:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migma
      we're installing wind and PV faster than any other power source in history.

    4. Re:I would laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with Google involved, all you have to do to get in on this clean power revolution is agree to use all of Google's other services! Unless you are in the EU, where that's illegal.

    5. Re:I would laugh by ctilsie242 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If fusion were to be able to be done, it would fundamentally change every aspect of our society.

      I will propose an assertion: Energy = wealth.

      If fusion becomes inexpensive and commercially available, perhaps along the "too cheap to meter" line, there would be a lot of things that are doable, which we could do, which we couldn't before:

      1: Desalination plants on a large scale, combined with water pipelines. Once the warlords are out of the way, African droughts and famines would be over, and there would be a lot more arable, fertile land available.

      2: Thermal depolymerization can be used as a very effective way to recycle plastics. Combine that with a ship, and it can actually harvest the plastic in the Pacific Gyre and turn it back into fuel.

      3: Direct CO2 extraction out of the atmosphere, perhaps reusing it as fuels.

      4: The ability to create stuff that would be prohibitivily expensive. Same thing happened with aluminum. Before electricity was available, getting aluminum from bauxite was extremely expensive. With energy cheaply available, titanium would be able to be used more.

      5: The ability to do transportation networks which are wasteful on fuel right now. Cheap fuel + electric vehicles mean a bus service that can even handle rural areas with 1-2 hours on a street.

      So, all, and all, if fusion is available, it will fundamentally change life as we know it, just as electricity changed things. So, it is worth keeping at it.

    6. Re:I would laugh by rjstegbauer · · Score: 1

      Agree 100%. I have always thought that cheap/free energy would cause a huge societal shift. Think about anything you consume and estimate how much energy it requires to manufacture and deliver. With cheap energy, you don't need to work as much to live.

      (But you said this so much better.)

    7. Re:I would laugh by SMACX+guy · · Score: 1

      Energy is the currency of the future.

      And when at last it is time for the transition from megacorporation to planetary government, from entrepreneur to emperor, it is then that the true genius of our strategy shall become apparent, for energy is the lifeblood of this society and when the chips are down he who controls the energy supply controls Planet. In former times the energy monopoly was called "The Power Company"; we intend to give this name an entirely new meaning.

      Planet's Primary, Alpha Centauri A, blasts unimaginable quantities of energy into space each instant, and virtually every joule of it is wasted entirely. Incomprehensible riches can be ours if we can but stretch our arms wide enough to dip from this eternal river of wealth.

      -- CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"

      Humans: correct in making leap from wealth as currency to wealth as energy. But logic failure: wealth ultimately is extension of desires, fluctuating with emotions and state of mind. Desires: when all are supported in purely adaptable system, true wealth is achieved.

      -- Usurper Judaa Marr, "Human: Nature"

    8. Re:I would laugh by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      You're promoting alternatives that are going to cost ordinary people A LOT more money.

      I'd rather Google continue the research that isn't coming out of my pocket.

    9. Re:I would laugh by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      If fusion were to be able to be done, it would fundamentally change every aspect of our society.

      I will propose an assertion: Energy = wealth.

      If fusion becomes inexpensive and commercially available, perhaps along the "too cheap to meter" line, there would be a lot of things that are doable, which we could do, which we couldn't before:

      OK, but energy will never be "too cheap to meter" unless we develop Tesla (the original guy) wireless energy transfer as the main cost of energy is not the fuel but the lines and infrastructure needed to move the electricity around. My state is almost completely hydro and has no fuel cost and energy to ship elsewhere, but still needed to be metered. Plus fusion has many of the issues that fission has. Fusion plants will also have issues with radioactivity and disposal as we can't really stop neutrons which will be colliding with the rest of the plant.

    10. Re:I would laugh by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      1: Desalination plants on a large scale, combined with water pipelines. Once the warlords are out of the way, African droughts and famines would be over, and there would be a lot more arable, fertile land available.

      So, you're saying that Africa's population would have constraints removed and the number of people in Africa would consequently explode. I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through...

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:I would laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason why there will never be home fusion devices producing electricity is because with very little effort, that fusion device can easily be turned in to something that would lay waste to very large cities.

      It isn't going to happen. Producing fusion energy is simple to do and if it hasn't happened by now, there are people trying their best to keep that genie in the bottle.

    12. Re:I would laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need distribution infrastructure once it becomes possible to shrink production systems enough.

    13. Re:I would laugh by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      You don't need distribution infrastructure once it becomes possible to shrink production systems enough.

      Thank your for your input Ray Palmer.

    14. Re:I would laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was a paper a while back that showed that once an area was stable, populations stabilized. In areas where the economy is bad, there is a higher population growth, just because of mortality rates. If one kid lives out of three, people will have more children. Heck, even Kurzgesacht has an episode on this topic exactly.

      And what's so bad about Africa taking a turn at becoming a developed continent? Haven't they have more than their share of the world shitting on them?

    15. Re:I would laugh by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The biggest existential threat facing Europe right now is an exploding African population that don't want to stay in Africa because it's full of Africans. Somehow I don't think even more Africans is going to solve the problem.

      The world doesn't shit on Africa, Africans shit on Africa.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    16. Re: I would laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't follow that if fusion could be done on a small scale then people could make city destroying devices from it. There is only so much fuel within a reactor at any given time, and that limits what could be done on a short time scale like an explosion. If future/hypothetical fusion devices are anything vaguely resembling current devices, there are hard limits to how much fuel you could try to cram into the reactor and have it still work (e.g density gradient limits and things like the Greenwald limit). Things like fusion bombs are rather different than reactors, and require a large input of energy up front.

      Your logic is analogous to saying because fuel-air bombs exist that can take out a city block, gasoline engines could do the same... When you're ignoring there is a limit to how much fuel you can cram in an engine and you also need considerable energy to get the fuel distributed correctly for a large fuel air explosion.

    17. Re: I would laugh by KGIII · · Score: 1

      To be fair, gasoline powered engines actually have a whole bunch of explosions. They have multiple explosion per second, even.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re: I would laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP doesn't say there are no explosions in or from a gasoline engine, only wording like "limits what could be done on a short time scale like an explosion" and that it is wrong to say "gasoline engines could do the same [take out a city block]." A run away diesel or badly installed nitrous system can make a mess of a garage, but not a city.

    19. Re: I would laugh by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Humor doesn't always translate well to text. However, I know what they said. It was much funnier in my head.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:I would laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colonization and continual meddling in government affairs since then didn't help, but I guess that excuse can't last forever. Now it's mostly rich elites stealing everything that's not locked down, often with the aid of elites in other countries.

      GP isn't completely wrong, and neither are you. Reality is, as always, somewhere in the middle, and a solution will have to address both issues.

    21. Re:I would laugh by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > If fusion becomes inexpensive and commercially available

      And if you know absolutely nothing about how the energy world works, this sounds possible. If you do know a bit, then you know it's not. And the power companies have been telling the fusion folks this continually since the 1970s. But they don't listen - really, when you try to have this conversation they get mad and run away. Literally.

      Consider this: any energy producing machine requires a certain amount of money to build. That money has a payback rate based on the riskiness of the investment. For investments like this where there's little salvage value, the rate is the "unsecured rate", about 6.5%. So very simply, if your machine does not sell enough energy in a year to cover those payments and make a profit, no one will build it. You get that, right?

      Which is precisely why fission plants are being ignored. They have many technical merits, but at current prices, they cost about 5x as much as a wind turbine to build, but deliver about 3x as much power. And they have fuel, and more expensive maintenance. So no one is building them. That is the only reason.

      We know that any possible fusion plant that's been presented will cost much more than a fusion plant. Even in their wildest predictions, assuming everything goes right, power from a fusion plant will be at least 50% more than a fission plant even if you look 100 years into the future:

      http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/p1250-cd/papers/sese-v.pdf

      > Cheap fuel + electric vehicles

      You can do that now with PV. PV's down around 4 cents, 1/3rd the predicted value of fusion power, if it works, 100 years from now.

  4. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome our new clean energy overlords.

  5. So Google is now working on: by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fusion reactor
    Curing cancer
    Life extension (fountain of youth)
    Driverless cars
    Flying cars
    Sentient AI

    Did I miss anything?

    1. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably, that's just what they've gone public with.

      They literally have so much money they don't know how to spend it.

    2. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fusion research is one good way to spend it. Too bad they aren't creating an alternate stock market, banking system, etc. that isn't evil.

    3. Re:So Google is now working on: by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Does Sergei Brin own a cat?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It kinda makes sense: a bucketload of money on its own doesn't do much until you spend it, so the question is on what. You could pay yourself an obscene bonus and spend it on over-the-top consumer crap - I don't know, a gold hotel room, an ostentatious car, a shiny yacht, a cellar full of dusty old wine or whatever - that gets boring about a week after you buy it, or you could live out your geekiest childhood dreams and employ people to do a bunch of cool blue-sky research in fun areas that could have a freakin' *awesome* impact on life, the universe and everything. Now which do you think would make you happier in all respects?

    5. Re: So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one who dies with the most widely read Wikipedia page, wins!

    6. Re:So Google is now working on: by pntkl · · Score: 1

      I've seen people blow through fairly obscene amounts of money. Drugs, sex, and rock n' roll were a recipe for a stroke for one. For another, a fatal heart attack. I'd much rather see people uplifting those around them. To me, that's the mark of true wealth, and it sits next to a well of happiness.

    7. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe.

    8. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enslaving the human race.

    9. Re:So Google is now working on: by sheramil · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fusion reactor Curing cancer Life extension (fountain of youth) Driverless cars Flying cars Sentient AI

      Did I miss anything?

      Sexbots

      Faster-than-light travel

      Nanotechnology

      Atomic-powered jetpacks

      Apps, apps and more apps, because APPS!

    10. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did I miss anything?

      Augmented reality, a.k.a. parallel universes.

      Also, something with internet on balloons.

    11. Re:So Google is now working on: by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      I would much prefer to see it spread around more fairly, want to see what philanthropy truly looks like watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?..., enjoy your crumbs as those who feed them to you feed their ego, hmm, yum crumbs.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:So Google is now working on: by Petfish · · Score: 1

      Maybe.

      A funnier answer than most will give credit for.

    13. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be an actual, credible cure for cancer decades before fusion power becomes usable for power generation. And that will be decades before it becomes economically viable. Not in the lifetime of most people alive now.

    14. Re:So Google is now working on: by rkordmaa · · Score: 2

      They made their business by pulling the rug from under previous search engine giants and they know same could happen to them one day. They need the next money machine in case that happens, they have money to invest so they do, fishing for the next moonshot. Its completely sound business strategy in their position. If any of these listed goals actually plays out, they should be golden regardless to what happens with their search core business in the long run.

    15. Re:So Google is now working on: by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Of those, which are they most likely to achieve?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driverless cars and flying cars.

    17. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @ingrate

      Well said.

      Masculine dudes prefer dogs, which are pack-animals, subservient.

      Creative dues prefer, or at least appreciate, cats -- they do their own thing if it pleases them, which completely undermines the owner's control of said cat.

      Completely rattles "command and control" dudes (mostly males), hence why they prefer dogs (subservient).

    18. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open the box and find out.

    19. Re:So Google is now working on: by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      I might expect the reverse. Fusion is one problem. Cancer is dozens of different problems.

    20. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The leisure society with guaranteed minimum living conditions for all. This was doable 30 years ago.

    21. Re:So Google is now working on: by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

      Killer robots

      The Matrix

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    22. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. All of these are nothing more than propagandistic illusions of an intangible future. Google is like the Donald Trump of IT.

    23. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, truly fusion will bring energy too cheap to meter, and a post scarcity socialist utopia for all of humanity. :P

    24. Re:So Google is now working on: by Maritz · · Score: 1

      AC who thinks a 'cure for cancer' would ever be a thing, as in one unitary thing, assures us fusion is a much more intractable problem. No reason to credit you, no evidence, no fuck all.

      I believe you.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    25. Re: So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes: going to Mars (they have a stake in SpaceX.)

    26. Re:So Google is now working on: by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Not in the lifetime of most people alive now.

      Depends on how well that life extension research goes. If their goal is "fusion in our lifetime" they'd probably be better off researching life extension first.

    27. Re:So Google is now working on: by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      Did I miss anything?

      Reaction-less engines

      Space Elevator

      Hyperloop

      Vat grown meat

      Having infinite amounts of money is pretty cool actually.

    28. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think driverless cars fit in the "pipe dream" category anymore. HUGE improvement were made in the last 10 years and it seems some commercial car (I'm thinking tesla autopilot) brough concret advancement

    29. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe they are working on some kind of internet search engine too, and online advertising.

    30. Re:So Google is now working on: by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I believe that is the Science Victory in Civ V

      --
      Time to offend someone
    31. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, idiot.

    32. Re:So Google is now working on: by pntkl · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about amplifying an economy more than philanthropy; things that raise the global minimum uplifts others. Crumbs are pretty tasty, while they last, if the standard is low enough.

    33. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World peace

    34. Re:So Google is now working on: by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      My initial question was actually intended as a Blofeld (James Bond arch-villain) reference.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    35. Re:So Google is now working on: by soc_cost_priv_gains · · Score: 1

      I have read about Bill Gates' philanthropy particularly towards Africa which is fine but I would like to see him invest in something that the whole world will be able to appreciate, namely funding the cancelled Overwhelmingly Large Telescope. Imagine viewing exoplanets with that monster scope!

    36. Re: So Google is now working on: by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think they used to have something to do with search. Maybe...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    37. Re:So Google is now working on: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexbots: the cold heartless steel. Put two of them together and they clang.

  6. Google Nukes . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1, Funny

    Well, that ought to finally put an end to those meddlesome European kids and their lawsuits!

    Google has nukes!

    Don't like way Google runs their business in your country!?

    Eat neutrons, baby!

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Google Nukes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eat neutrons, baby!

      If you think trialpha has a device that can get anywhere near producing neutrons, you're an idiot.

    2. Re:Google Nukes . . . by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Huh? A Farnsworth Fuser can produce neutrons and can be made in most physics labs. I'd be very surprised if any company working on fusion doesn't have at least one.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Google Nukes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Google Nukes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a "Fuser"? Is it like a "Fusor"?

    5. Re:Google Nukes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? A Farnsworth Fuser can produce neutrons and can be made in most physics labs. I'd be very surprised if any company working on fusion doesn't have at least one.

      Trialphas device isn't a Fuser it's an FRC. And FRC's don't get anywhere near the energy confinement times necessary to produce fusion.

    6. Re:Google Nukes . . . by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Fusors are a reasonable way to produce neutrons but so far there doesn't seem to be a way to scale them to net energy production.

      There are a variety of ways to do nuclear fusion. What is not known is how to produce net energy with fusion. ITER will probably work, but may never be economical. Other ideas (like the tri-alpha scheme) might end up being more practical but I don't think tri-alpha has released enough information to know.

    7. Re:Google Nukes . . . by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Huh? A Farnsworth Fuser can produce neutrons and can be made in most physics labs.

      That's GOOD NEWS for EVERYONE.

    8. Re: Google Nukes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only need good energy confinement times to get thermal neutrons. Plenty of experiments generate nonthermal neutrons because there are mechanisms that create non-Maxwellian tails with a small population of higher energy ions. These processes aren't enough to produce significant fusion energy, but still produce neutrons from even just DD reactions and make for a great diagnostic. Neutral beams also make it really easy to get a population of high energy ions.

        Even ZETA decades ago produced a lot of neutrons when their confinement was actually crap. But before the researchers understood that and thought it was thermal neutrons, they thought they were really close and proclaimed fusion power was at solved and 20 years away... birthing that meme.

      Even without nonthermal neutrons, 1+keV temps with not much density will produce a small but measurable amount of thermal neutrons.

      Making neutrons is way easier than getting anywhere near fusion power plant conditions.

    9. Re:Google Nukes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think trialpha has a device that can get anywhere near producing neutrons, you're an idiot.

      They've already published results from neutron diagnostics at APS-DPP in 2010 at least, if not earlier. As another post points out, it is easy to make neutrons and just about any fusion research project with non-trivial temperatures will produce measurable neutrons from DD reactions. Of course there are more than a dozen orders of magnitude difference in the minimum neutron rate measurable and what one would expect from something resembling a fusion reactor, so they still have a ways to go. But you should be a bit more careful throwing names around on a subject you've read very little about.

    10. Re: Google Nukes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get thus through your thick fucking skull. Tri alphas device doesn't get anywhere near the conditions to produce neutrons.

    11. Re: Google Nukes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point you're just delusional, as they've already measured neutrons. If you have densities of 10^19 m^-3 and ion temperatures of 500-1000 eV, you can measure neutrons with small, off the shelf detectors. 100+ keV neutral beams produce a crap ton of neutrons inefficiently too.

      Tri alphas device doesn't get anywhere near the conditions to produce neutrons.

      Maybe you would be more convincing if you discussed actual plasma conditions instead of skull thicknesses...

      Or maybe you can just get out your NRL pocket formulary, and see that the DD reaction rate at 1 keV is about 10^-28 m^3/s, so that 10^19 m^3 density over a volume of about 0.1 m^3 gives you about 10^8 neutrons/second just from assuming thermal distribution (i.e. ignoring the neutral beams).

    12. Re:Google Nukes . . . by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      What is not known is how to produce net energy with fusion.

      Pile about 2*10^29 kg of average matter (*) in one place and wait for a couple of million years.

      Oh, you mean how to do it when you've only got about 10^27 kg of material within easy reach? That's harder. Do you want steady power output, or pulsed output?

      (Average matter : 1 part helium ; 3 part hydrogen ; trace dandruff.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now it's only 49 years away from commercial use!

  8. Unimpressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this is just a standard inverse method. We've been doing the same thing on fusion devices for years. We call it reconstruction. Wake me up when a FRC lasts more than a few milliseconds.

    1. Re: Unimpressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, this has nothing to do with reconstruction/inversion. It is an optimization algorithm that has a human in the loop to ensure safe and reasonable operating conditions for the machine and to help with qualitative metrics. There have been plenty o f previous experiment optimization schemes, although many require quantitative, well defined boundaries and goals. The latter can be particularly difficult when trying to determine weights for different simultaneous goals. The people operating machines like this can get a decent intuition of what looks good, but can be bad at picking new parameters without a massive scan (or end up imitating a badly tuned pid controller in my experience on experiments with accumulating effects).

    2. Re: Unimpressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't matter when u did it, a GAMFA (Google Amazon Microsoft Facebook Apple) is doing it now so now it matters!

    3. Re: Unimpressive by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You need another M for Musk.

  9. Well, great, except for one thing by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google's corporate attention span is roughly equivalent to that of a hyperactive two year old.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Well, great, except for one thing by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      for things that are of no benefit to its business, yes.

      let me guess, your favorite free google toy-thingie's plug was pulled.

    2. Re:Well, great, except for one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So combined with how far off nuclear fusion still is for practical use you would agree that Google will pull out again by next year?

    3. Re:Well, great, except for one thing by iggymanz · · Score: 0

      google may realize we already have practical fusion, solar panel efficiency and storage systems have arrived.

    4. Re:Well, great, except for one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... they lie incessantly and pretend to work on something impossible to "confound their enemies" which just coincidentally includes everyone not working for or married into Google? Or is the plan just to dump money into things that will spin off useful side technologies in the hope that the money won't be spent by someone "evil"?

  10. Call me... by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    when the algorithm builds a very large power plant that produces enough power to provide continuous, perpetual electricity for a large American city, say the size of the Denver metropolitan area.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you even comment on an article about research of any kind with an attitude like that?

  11. To be precise... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Oxford lost all credibility years ago.

    808 years ago ;-)

  12. Stamping out Zika by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fusion reactor
    Curing cancer
    Life extension (fountain of youth)
    Driverless cars
    Flying cars
    Sentient AI

    Did I miss anything?

    They just released 20 million modified mosquitos in an attempt to wipe out Aegypti and eliminate Zika in Long Beach Ca.

    1. Re:Stamping out Zika by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Modified how? Lasers?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Stamping out Zika by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      Fresno

      But I can totally see how you'd confuse Long Beach for Fresno

      Yes, Aegypti have been found in Long Beach, but that's not where Google is releasing Mosquitos. Yet.

    3. Re:Stamping out Zika by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They just released 20 million modified mosquitos in an attempt to wipe out Aegypti and eliminate Zika in Long Beach Ca.

      Not wipe out, wipe out this year. We're talking about a non-native species that can fly and which is easily transported upon humans or in their possessions. It'll be back. I don't think what Google did was harmful, I just don't think it will turn out to have been worth the effort. You'll have Zika mosquitoes back in a hot minute.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Stamping out Zika by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      cooked up a project to infect the bugs with the Wolbachia bacteria

      WOLBACHIA???

      Vocal chord parasites... Metallica archaea... Diné... Copulation...

      Looks like Konami had an Act 3 up their sleeve the whole time, and it's playing out in SoCal. Somebody call Keifer.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  13. optometrist algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Is it better like this, or like this?" ...
    "I, I can't tell..."
    "like this, or like this?"
    "I.."
    "like this or like this?"
    "they look the same"
    "like this or like this?"

    I DON'T KNOW!

    1. Re:optometrist algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Binary search

    2. Re:optometrist algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dun' werk so gud when you add astygmatism

  14. Google is having it all. by fortiustechnologies · · Score: 1

    I recently read some updates about Google's sister company releasing 20 million mosquitoes infected with some kind of Virus. Is google taking over all the domains that effect human existence.

    1. Re: Google is having it all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virus? Read the story again.

  15. New meaning to ... by thadtheman · · Score: 0

    So we have a Microsoft founder backed company getting involved in fusion, probabl,y grabbing some critical patents.

    Gives new meaning the the phrase "blue screen of death".

  16. It's really weapon research by johanw · · Score: 2

    Inertial fusion attempts will never be able to compete against tokamak or stellarator designs. This type of experiments delivers knowledge that is mostly usefull for nuclear weapons, so it's no wonder nthat this type of fusion research is the dominant one in the US.

    1. Re:It's really weapon research by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tri-Alpha isn't doing inertial confinement fusion. They use a plasma based design with an unusual field configuration (termed "reversed field". The machine does collide two plasmas but it is still magnetic confinement, not inertial.

      Laser driven inertial has little chance of being practical without a huge breakthrough in lasers. Heavy ion driven inertial could potentially work since accelerators can be quite efficient, but there are a number of huge hurdles.

  17. Prometheus, Icarus and Hubris by hughbar · · Score: 1
    The phrase that catches my eye in this is

    the algorithm revealed unexpected ways of operating the plasma

    . Optimisation and MI is fragile for edge/unexpected cases, so I'm not sure I want this piece of maths used to control an over-white-hot stream of plasma. At least, I'd want decades of testing before deployment and not anywhere near my house or family.

    I'm not a big believer in fusion anyway, except that large, conveniently placed fusion reactor that we call 'the Sun'. If we must fiddle around with this, it's worth looking at the Stellerator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that's come on, since 1951.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
    1. Re:Prometheus, Icarus and Hubris by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      You seem to be a very contradicting person.
      You know nothing about plasma but point to page about a Stellerator, strange.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Prometheus, Icarus and Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phrase that catches my eye in this is

      the algorithm revealed unexpected ways of operating the plasma

      .
      Optimisation and MI is fragile for edge/unexpected cases, so I'm not sure I want this piece of maths used to control an over-white-hot stream of plasma. At least, I'd want decades of testing before deployment and not anywhere near my house or family.

      I'm not a big believer in fusion anyway, except that large, conveniently placed fusion reactor that we call 'the Sun'. If we must fiddle around with this, it's worth looking at the Stellerator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that's come on, since 1951.

      Congratulations on pretending to be an idiot I guess.

    3. Re:Prometheus, Icarus and Hubris by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      The Wendelstein setup looks very promising, been following that thing since they started their experiments. Plus, it looks like what you'd get if you asked Giger and Gaudí to collaborate on the design. Extra points. But at this stage I wouldn't even write off tokamaks just yet.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re: Prometheus, Icarus and Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing convenient about the placement of the sun is that it isn't carrying us anyplace guaranteed to kill us.

    5. Re: Prometheus, Icarus and Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Optimisation and MI is fragile for edge/unexpected cases, so I'm not sure I want this piece of maths used to control an over-white-hot stream of plasma. At least, I'd want decades of testing before deployment and not anywhere near my house or family.

      RTFA, the whole point of this algorithm is that it includes a human in the loop, including for the purpose on evaluating the safety of the parameters. And this is about material safety, as in preventing damage to the machine. Human safety with fusion experiments is pretty easy and on par with most other industrial sites (be careful around high voltage power and around moving heavy objects). Unless your house is built inside the same warehouse or you let your kids wander unsupervised through industrial park, there is no danger to house or family regardless of control schemes.

    6. Re: Prometheus, Icarus and Hubris by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am not sure why you don't believe in fusion. It's real. If you don't believe me, go outside and look up.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  18. We're getting closer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So fusion is only 20 years away now?

    1. Re:We're getting closer. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      It's the shit joke that everyone is expecting, and you're not even the first to make it. Give yourself a medal.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  19. Race for Fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What race? This technology is difficult physics, but not unknown. It has been 10years away since the 1950s. There is a reason, and Google software is most likely not going to change that reality.

    ITER, this is where the money should go. Either that, or show us a new structure, and the math/simulations that say it will get to break even more efficiently. Or don't show us... just do it.

    It's a hard problem. I had a Venture guy say something along the lines of "we expect the trend of everything becoming software defined to continue" as an explanation why hardware doesn't matter. Here is exhibit A that this is neither here nor there. Simulate the crap out of it, but something real still has to underpin it.. the world is, ultimately, physical.

    So, yeah, fusion is hard.

    1. Re:Race for Fusion? by Lord+Crc · · Score: 2

      ITER, this is where the money should go. Either that, or show us a new structure, and the math/simulations that say it will get to break even more efficiently. Or don't show us... just do it.

      I just watched this presentation yesterday by Dennis Whyte from MIT, and I must say it looked quite promising. His main point was that the recent development of commercially available high-temperature superconductors has radically changed the fusion playing field.

      This is due to HTSC's having much larger operating windows compared to traditional superconductors. This allows one to scale down the reactor size while maintaining the magnetic field strength. And smaller size means cheaper and faster development.

      He probably glossed over some hard problems, but I must admit it sounded a lot more realistic than other fusion proposals I've heard about.

  20. You saw the word "nuclear"... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    ... and immediatelly went into full riverdance knee-jerk mode clearly without even having a clue about what nuclear fusion is. The worrying thing is that people like you have a vote.

  21. Them again? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > Tri Alpha Energy, which is backed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen

    The design leads of TriAlpha described their design in a late 1997 paper in Science.
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/278/5342/1419

    Issues over the next year contained responses from other researchers. They invariably point out that the design simply will not work. In one specific instance, the original paper describes the "Q" of the reactor running on p-B to be about 2.3. One of the responses goes into this calculation in depth and calculates it to be 0.02.
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/281/5375/307

    This system will not work. As demonstrated at about the same time, it is HIGHLY unlikely any non-thermal-equilibrium system ever can due to massive energy losses through radiation. We've known this for almost 70 years, but the evidence by this point in time is absolutely overwhelming.

    1. Re:Them again? by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      Probably right, but there seems to be some disagreement on the analysis. The key seems to be getting the ion temperature high wihtout heating up the electrons (the colliding plasma rings do this), and then the neutral beam injection can continue to heat ions. There seems to be some disagreement on how to calculate the time for the electrons to reach equilibrium.

      I'd agree at least as far as "unlikely".

      To some extent its a matter of scale. With a sufficiently large plasma I think a variety of configuration will work. (tokomaks, stelerators etc). The question is which will work at the most practical scale. At a sufficiently large scale gravitational confinement works just great...

  22. Deja Vu from 1978 by InterGuru · · Score: 2

    As far as I can tell, it looks like a high tech variation of the Trisops machine I worked on 40 years ago.

    Trisops was an experimental machine for the study of magnetic confinement of plasmas with the ultimate goal of producing fusion power. The configuration was a variation of a compact toroid, a toroidal (doughnut-shaped) structure of plasma and magnetic fields with no coils penetrating the center. It lost funding in its original form in 1978.

    The configuration was produced by combining two individual toroids produced by two conical pinch guns, located at either end of a length of Pyrex pipe with a constant magnetic guide field. The toroidal currents in the toroids were in opposite directions, so that they repelled each other. After coming to an equilibrium, they were adiabatically compressed by increasing the external field.
     

    1. Re: Deja Vu from 1978 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fusion reactor concepts are more of a single large family tree than a forest of unrelated, independent ideas. Pretty much every idea developed derived from a smaller or simpler version, or is heavily based on variations of ideas from different machines (what if we take this machine, but allow the magnetic field profile to reverse, what if we collide two of these together, what if use a different symmetry scheme...)

  23. If ultra-hot balls of gas.... by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    ...are all we need then I'm your man. Get me a box of Taco Bell taco supremes and I could fuel the world.

  24. In other news... by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

    "The technology is expected to be 5 to 10 years away from commercial application."


    Yawn.

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  25. Nuclear Fusion had been 20 years away for 50 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Practical nuclear fusion power have been 20 years away for the past 50 years. It's like Brazil, a country of the future, always.

  26. Re:To be precise... and funny! by openfrog · · Score: 2

    This makes it into my 'ten funniest jokes on Slashdot ever'.

    To understand how clever the parent's joke is, you have to reach the third sentence in the article linked, which you will first believe to be a misdirection, and then realize it to be an insider joke like they have loong liked to pull on each other.

    Of course, if you're from 'there' or 'the other place', you might have caught it at once.

  27. Gee, I can't wait for my ... by aix+tom · · Score: 1

    ... Google MrFusion (Beta) to be publicly available.

  28. Robotic Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google bought Boston Dynamics, then got bored with them and attempted (and failed) to sell them again.

    Google has now successfully sold Boston Dynamics to Softbank.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/business/dealbook/boston-dynamics-softbank-robots.html