Jump to content

Science Thread


Nigel

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
2 hours ago, sne said:

 

Dreadful sensationalist reporting. There's nothing "impossible" about it.

It's also probably nowhere near to being a useable tech yet, and may not be the best bet for large-scale fusion energy generation anyway.

And the story also points out that it ignores the 500MJ of energy used to power the lasers, so in fact it is nowhere near to outputting more energy than it put in.

So, yeah, still not an actual thing we can use yet nor even close. But it is at least another small step closer, which is important.

Edited by Lichfield Dean
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Dreadful sensationalist reporting. There's nothing "impossible" about it.

It's also probably nowhere near to being a useable tech yet, and may not be the best bet for large-scale fusion energy generation anyway.

And the story also points out that it ignores the 500MJ of energy used to power the lasers, so in fact it is nowhere near to outputting more energy than it put in.

So, yeah, still not an actual thing we can use yet nor even close. But it is at least another small step closer, which is important.

Probably 30 years away yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Dreadful sensationalist reporting. There's nothing "impossible" about it.

It's also probably nowhere near to being a useable tech yet, and may not be the best bet for large-scale fusion energy generation anyway.

And the story also points out that it ignores the 500MJ of energy used to power the lasers, so in fact it is nowhere near to outputting more energy than it put in.

So, yeah, still not an actual thing we can use yet nor even close. But it is at least another small step closer, which is important.

You sure about this? The articles I have seen appear to take the power consumption of the lasers into account, leading to net positive output. It's still a ways off to be sure, but it's a big step forward, and more necessary now than ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

You sure about this? The articles I have seen appear to take the power consumption of the lasers into account, leading to net positive output. It's still a ways off to be sure, but it's a big step forward, and more necessary now than ever.

I've learnt to wait for the papers when it comes to fusion.

I also heard that this was net energy production, but I'll wait for the peer reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HKP90 said:

You sure about this? The articles I have seen appear to take the power consumption of the lasers into account, leading to net positive output. It's still a ways off to be sure, but it's a big step forward, and more necessary now than ever.

Not 100% sure. The Guardian says it doesn't include the power needed to power up the lasers in the first place. I'm not sure exactly how that affects things... Is it a one-off "startup" cost and once going over a long period it becomes irrelevant?

Any way, fusion isn't "impossible" obviously, it's just really really hard, and it annoys me when they sensationalise stuff like that.

Edited by Lichfield Dean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, limpid said:

I've learnt to wait for the papers when it comes to fusion.

I also heard that this was net energy production, but I'll wait for the peer reviews.

^ It is not clear how they measured the energy of the resulting reaction. The shape of the pellet/chamber is complex and measuring the energy output presents a significant challenge and how this is accounted for is complicated. Clearly a step forward with this type of technology, which will be useful for studying fusion plasmas, but details, details.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Nothing can cure a hangover except time. 

You can speed up time a bit with milk or water which are probably the best ways to rehydrate yourself as most of the hangover symptoms are caused by the ethanol being a diuretic making you piss a lot and becoming dehydrated as a result

But they are certainly no magic bullet, there isn't one as you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matching alcohol ingestion with water, even if it means getting up two or three times through the night for more water and bog trips, has meant I've not had a debilitating hangover for years.

I avoid wine too, it doesn't like company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â