
Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion - vivin
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/12/275896094/scientists-say-their-giant-laser-has-produced-nuclear-fusion
======
throwaway_yy2Di
Here's the paper.

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13008.html)

They would like to charge you $32 to look at it, _nature_ -ally.

The fusion yield is (?) 14 kilojoules (inferring this from physicist Mark
Herrman's "5 million billion fusions" [WaPo], at 18 MeV per fusion), which is
a moderate improvement over the 8 kilojoule achivement from last fall:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6459289](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6459289)

[WaPo] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/fusion...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/fusion-energy-milestone-reported-by-california-
scientists/2014/02/12/f511ed18-936b-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html)

The "1%" energy efficiency figure [a] is misleading: 14 kJ is about 1% of 1.5
MJ of ultraviolet light hitting the fuel capsule. But creating that UV pulse
consumed 3 MJ of infrared light, which in turn took 400 MJ from the flash
bulbs driving the IR laser. So the system efficiency is more like 0.003% (and
throwing in hypothetical turbines to generate electricity, 0.001%).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility#NIF...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility#NIF_and_ICF)

[a] I'm referring to this: _" while more energy came from fusion than went
into the hydrogen fuel, only about 1 percent of the laser's energy ever
reached the fuel."_

(update: from yosyp's link, the fusion figures were 14.4 kJ, and 17.3 kJ, on
two different runs:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7227950](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7227950)

~~~
Finster
I'm on campus right now and can download the PDF. I'd upload it, but I don't
want to pull an Aaron Swartz. <_<

EDIT: Okay here, but I have limited bandwidth so get it while you can:
[https://mega.co.nz/#!CNgVhZra!JcsLGB5y0FGUffI4rdyNr-
BBl82YJD...](https://mega.co.nz/#!CNgVhZra!JcsLGB5y0FGUffI4rdyNr-
BBl82YJDNH1ah3_4kSPcU)

~~~
suprgeek
Upvoted for the sentiment. The actual paper marks just another incremental
step in a triple marathon that we seem to be running veeeery slowly.

Also, if you do "pull an Aaron Schwartz" please change the ending - we need a
very public Supreme court administered kick-in-the-teeth for all the out of
control copyright regime and its criminal sentencing farce.

~~~
Finster
Agreed. I do not plan to ever go out like he did!

------
Oculus
> led NIF's critics to label the facility an enormous waste of taxpayer
> dollars

> government shifted NIF away from its fusion goals to focus on its other
> mission: _simulating the conditions inside nuclear weapons_

I think right there lies the problem with our world. People take up more issue
with a multi-billion dollar research facility for science than one for
military applications. If we spent a small fraction of the world's military
spending on these big, as Google likes to put it, moonshot projects we could
probably solve some really fundamental world problems (i.e. energy, climate
change) in the near future vs. waiting many, many decades (if not centuries).

~~~
valarauca1
The cost of the B-2 Bomber program has cost as much as ~5 Large Hadron
Colliders.

B-2 bomber program cost 44.75 billion[1] LHC cost ~7.5 Billion Euro ~9billion
USD.[2]

[1]
[http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm](http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost)

~~~
Oculus
The B-2 Bomber is child's play compared to the F-35's 1 Trillion USD program
[1], but the comparison to the LHC's pricetag really puts things in
prespective.

1: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-
fighte...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighter-
idUSBRE82S03L20120329)

~~~
dmix
Or even better _failed_ military projects, such as the $25+ billion spent on a
spy satellite project before it was killed in 2002.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office#Future_Imagery_Architecture)

~~~
amcnett
The F-35 is not exactly a resounding success:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-
too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html)

~~~
arethuza
It _must_ be a resounding success - the UK is about to commit to buying some -
like we committed to buying Skybolt and the F-111 (cancelling the awesome home
grown TSR 2 in the process):

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2)

------
dj-wonk
This sentiment is interesting "Over the past few years, NIF has been getting a
fat 'F.'" Perhaps now that 'grade' will change.

Actually, I think framing it as a grade is beyond silly; it is irresponsible.
Giving a letter grade to long-term scientific project makes little sense. It
is not a one-shot thing with a predefined notion of correctness. What can we
compare such a grade to?

Instead, we should be asking what we've learned and how the project has
advanced science.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That's not enough. Learning what doesn't work is sort of useful, but only if
it ever leads to something that DOES work. There's an infinite supply of dead
ends out there. You need a higher bar than 'learned something' if that
something is a negative.

~~~
dj-wonk
It depends what question you are asking. If the question is "should we fund
projects even if we don't know if or when they will have demonstrable
results?" then I would argue that, yes, some portion of research should go
towards that.

How long is "long enough" to deem that a line of experimentation "didn't work
out?" There is no period long enough. Sometimes a negative result is quite
useful down the road. Some research just comes together when the right things
are learned and tried. So any notion of a "dead end" is really just a
tentative assessment, frozen in time.

~~~
JackFr
Without harsh assessments, a massive project will eventually dedicate some of
its resources into self-perpetuation, that is justifying its existence rather
than producing results.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's a risk we need to take (or mitigate) if we want to have a steady flow of
new breakthroughs. Science, just as programming or any other creative
discipline, is best done when you have more money than you need and nobody is
looking at your hands.

------
Kroem3r
This is newsworthy despite "They didn't get more fusion power out than they
put in with the laser"?

After decades of work they are orders of magnitude away from break-even. Makes
me wonder if the goal is actually break-even and/or power generation. Not
really; but it's a revealing question.

I'm no great fan of the budgets these huge projects pull down; I think the
bang-for-the-buck is greater elsewhere. But modelling nuclear weapons is an
even greater waste of time. It's all kind of a sad epigraph about national
science and technology initiatives.

Assuming the modest proposition that fusion energy is possible, why not make
fusion energy a 'man on the moon' kind of national goal? It's hardly in doubt
that we need a large source of clean energy. Is it a failure of imagination?
Is it a failure of the political system - Can't get Bubba to vote for no
fusion thing. Is the status quo energy system resistant to change? Whatever,
the NIF thing just makes me depressed.

~~~
lisper
> This is newsworthy despite "They didn't get more fusion power out than they
> put in with the laser"?

It's not newsworthy, but most reporters are not educated enough to tell the
difference between a real breakthrough and a bogus press release.

~~~
hotpockets
It is newsworthy. We generated fusion be shining light at molecules, which
never has been done before. Aside from that, if you read the article you
became slightly more science literate.

~~~
gus_massa
Fusion with laser has been done before, by the same team. The difference is
that they improve the experiment and this time they get ~50% more energy. Or
if you evaluate it in other words, the efficiency improve from ~0.6% to 1%, or
less depending on what do you define by input energy. More details in other
comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7227620](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7227620)

------
acidburnNSA
_" Strictly speaking, while more energy came from fusion than went into the
hydrogen fuel, only about 1 percent of the laser's energy ever reached the
fuel. Useful levels of fusion are still a long way off."_

The rest was lost to energy conversion losses. Yeah, not the best breakthrough
I've heard today. Their best breakthrough was this CAD-flythrough video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sp1sDpn_M0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sp1sDpn_M0)

~~~
halfdan
Considering that they previously had to use way more energy than they got out:
This is pretty awesome.

~~~
devbug
Absolutely! It's one step closer to sustainable and exploitable Q+ nuclear
fusion and to DEMO.

------
ginko
It was always my understanding that achieving nuclear fusion wasn't the
problem. You can do that with a tabletop device like a Farnsworth Fusor. The
hard part is getting more energy out of it than you put in.

------
davidklemke
Wasn't this milestone reached sometime late last year? I remember writing
about it:
[http://www.therefinedgeek.com.au/index.php/2013/10/08/fusion...](http://www.therefinedgeek.com.au/index.php/2013/10/08/fusion-
milestone-reached-many-more-to-go/)

~~~
diydsp
lessee: refinedgeek, 10/8/2013: "However NIF has announced today that, for the
first time ever for any fusion experiment, their reaction released more energy
than what was pumped into it;" where there's a link to:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-
environment-24429621](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621)

which says (10/7/2013) "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."

meanwhile NPR on 2/12/2014 says: "Omar Hurricane, a researcher at, says that
for the first time, they've produced significant amounts of fusion by zapping
a target with their laser. "We've gotten more energy out of the fusion fuel
than we put into the fusion fuel," he says."

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

------
mikehotel
_Hurricane says no one knows for sure whether NIF can really reach the point
of ignition. "It's not up to me; it's up to Mother Nature," he says. "But
we're certainly going to try."_

------
ddorian43
Explained on reddit very well:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1xq78u/scientists_h...](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1xq78u/scientists_have_created_nuclear_fusion/cfdmt5k)

------
stcredzero
One of the proposed drives for the Daedalus starship design involved laser
fusion. The pellet would detonate and would push against a magnetic nozzle to
produce thrust, like the Orion nuclear craft, but more efficient. Also, the
expanding magnetic fields could cause induced currents in networks of wires
designed to capture energy, powering the ship and the next detonation.

------
wildster
Like Thorium this does not prove that it will ever be commercially viable
source of energy.

------
evanb
Link to LLNL release:
[https://www.llnl.gov/news/aroundthelab/2014/Feb/NR-14-02-06....](https://www.llnl.gov/news/aroundthelab/2014/Feb/NR-14-02-06.html#.Uvwt3EJdWio)

------
alex_doom
> Omar Hurricane, a researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

That is one awesome name.

------
sTevo-In-VA
Sounds like a 'needs more funding' article to me.

~~~
edgarvm
I think they deserve it

------
drjesusphd
Every time the NIF PR folks make a new overindulgent claim, the press always
falls for it, and I don't know why.

Every. Fucking. Time.

------
rglover
Anybody else excited that one of the guys working on fusion power is named
"Mr. Hurricane?"

~~~
Ogre
I thought it was kind of hard to take the article seriously after that. I know
it's the guy's real name, so I feel bad about this (as bad as I can feel for
someone with an awesome name!), but it doesn't change that it sounds like
something from a comic book. A fusion scientist named Omar Hurricane? Come on!
Next thing we hear is there's been a horrible lab accident involving high
powered lasers and lead scientist Omar Hurricane has died. Only he hasn't
really, he escaped death and and went into hiding, avoiding public shame while
also training to use his new found weather controlling laser eyes. But for
good or for evil? Is Mr. Hurricane a villain or a hero? Buy the next issue to
find out!

~~~
krapp
Umm... that's Doctor Hurricane.

He didn't spend all that time in Evil Physicist School to be called Mister,
thank you very much.

------
sytelus
Bottom line: It's not self-sustaining fusion. Still long long away from that
milestone.

------
tosseraccount
Government funded science is winding up behind a private paywall?

------
blazespin
For less than a billionth of a second. Please.. It could easily be measurement
error they are using as a last ditch effort to continue funding.

------
smartistone
just have a fat person sit on it

------
acomjean
After the Fleischmann–Pons Cold fusion debacle of the late 1980's at least
journalists are asking the right questions.

did you get more energy out than you put in?

Fusion is hard.

------
ck2
Oh please. That whole "fusion" thing from that facility is a trick to get
taxpayers to fund more nuclear weapon research.

We should have finished this instead, what a waste:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider)

Take a guess why congress only funded the one useful for weapons.

~~~
EthanHeilman
Given that hydrogen bombs are fusion bombs such a claim can be leveled at all
fusion research. Maybe nuclear weapons research is the way they get the US
government to shell out for fusion research, like the optics researchers did
with SDI.

~~~
arethuza
Actually, most of the energy in most H-bomb designs actually comes from
fission - but the neutrons that cause this fission come from the fusion of the
secondary - so fusion is the key component of the whole thing working.

A notable exception to this was the Soviet Tsar Bomba which used non-
fissioning tampers in its multiple tertiary (and probably its single
secondary) stages - resulting in an explosion of over 50Mt where 97% came from
fusion:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba)

------
jackmaney
It all fits into my evil plan! You see, I plan to use this "laser" to turn the
moon into a weapon. With this "death star", all the governments of the world
will be powerless against me! If they try to stop me, I'll use the "death
star" to create "nuclear fusion"! [holds right pinky to the corner of his
mouth]

~~~
microtherion
Yeah, I was visualizing the scientists making air quotes around “Laser” at the
press conference.

