• Echo Dot
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The whole point is that they put less energy into the target material than they got out of it, however much energy they had for the rest of the experiment isn’t relevant. The only part of this design that they are researching here is the fusion, everything else is supporting that research and is not been actively developed by this team.

    There are other teams working on other reactor designs which increase efficiency in other areas.

    It’s like saying that a rocket engine demonstration model doesn’t work because it doesn’t fly.

    • @CanadaPlus
      link
      3
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s a good example. I’d actually say test-firing a rocket and claiming you’re almost on the moon is still misleading, though.

      Energy in over energy generated at the target has no practical significance. More output is better but that’s it. This is for marketing to funders.

    • PM_me_your_vagina_thanks
      link
      fedilink
      211 months ago

      And the whole point of my comment is that people shouldn’t be wetting their pants thinking that fusion is right around the corner. This is just further proof of concept and does nothing to actually advance fusion power.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        711 months ago

        It’s research research advances technology that’s how it works you don’t get big huge exciting developments most of the time you get iterative development if you want big and exciting well that’s not sciences job it’s not there to entertain you. I don’t know what you want.

      • @that_one_guy@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        311 months ago

        Only appreciating the big flashy outcomes of science is exactly how you end up with no science funding. Iterating and improving something is important work that should be applauded.