https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:31:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

Yes, it's hard to see how that achievement justifies the headline: "Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy"

I think it's telling that it says:
The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power).

This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.

_____

For a huge project like that, to boast of merely doubling its derisory output in 25 years sounds like desperation.

Meanwhile, not far away from Culham, more progress is being made in Didcot:
<https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/12/13/is-nuclear-fusion-the-hottest-new-renewable-on-the-block>

In message <lkl70h9ghh92vnbarqnt089pe91jtkii1q@4ax.com>, at 15:07:00 on
Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:31:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633
>
>Yes, it's hard to see how that achievement justifies the headline:
>"Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy"
>
>I think it's telling that it says:
>The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11
>megawatts of power).
>
>This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.

I'm also wondering how they turned that five seconds worth of fusion
back into electricity.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 15:27:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <lkl70h9ghh92vnbarqnt089pe91jtkii1q@4ax.com>, at 15:07:00 on
>Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:31:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633
>>
>>Yes, it's hard to see how that achievement justifies the headline:
>>"Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy"
>>
>>I think it's telling that it says:
>>The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11
>>megawatts of power).
>>
>>This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
>
>I'm also wondering how they turned that five seconds worth of fusion
>back into electricity.

I assume the reactor is fitted with some sort of power collection apparatus, given that it's a research prototype for a
power generator.

In message <vkn70hhgig1101vpcrk3qmvo6ofjdinuac@4ax.com>, at 15:34:00 on
Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 15:27:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <lkl70h9ghh92vnbarqnt089pe91jtkii1q@4ax.com>, at 15:07:00 on
>>Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:31:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633
>>>
>>>Yes, it's hard to see how that achievement justifies the headline:
>>>"Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy"
>>>
>>>I think it's telling that it says:
>>>The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11
>>>megawatts of power).
>>>
>>>This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
>>
>>I'm also wondering how they turned that five seconds worth of fusion
>>back into electricity.
>
>I assume the reactor is fitted with some sort of power collection
>apparatus, given that it's a research prototype for a power generator.

The BBC has a graphic which shows Neutrons going though the chamber wall
and heating up a water jacket. Creating steam. I suspect this experiment
generated no steam (and hence no electricity), at all. It probably just
warmed up the apparatus by a very small amount.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:52:36 +0000
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:07:00 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:31:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633
>>
>>Yes, it's hard to see how that achievement justifies the headline: "Major
>breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy"
>>
>>I think it's telling that it says:
>>The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11
>megawatts of power).
>>
>>This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
>>
>>For a huge project like that, to boast of merely doubling its derisory output
>in 25 years sounds like desperation.
>
>The point is that it achieved that doubling after changing the design to
>replicate that of the much larger scale ITER facility currently under
>construction in France. It demonstrates that the IETR design is
>fundamentally sound, and works even at a relatively small scale.
>
>JET reached its maximum power production level in the late 1990s, and
>for the next ten years, no matter what the scientists did, it couldn't
>improve on that. It was then closed down in 2009 in order to be rebuilt

I remember going on school trip to JET in the 80s and being told at the
time that fusion power was only a decade way. Plus ca change.

>generate electricity on a commercial scale, even if they work. But once
>they can be made to work reliably, then getting to a production unit is
>primarily a matter of iteration. The barrier, in the past, has always

Producing more power than is input is only step 1. Step 2 is arguably even
harder because it needs to do it continously for years without the huge
temperatures and neutrons flying everywhere destroying the reactor.

On 09/02/2022 15:27, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <lkl70h9ghh92vnbarqnt089pe91jtkii1q@4ax.com>, at 15:07:00 on
> Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:31:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633
>>
>> Yes, it's hard to see how that achievement justifies the headline:
>> "Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy"
>>
>> I think it's telling that it says:
>> The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11
>> megawatts of power).
>>
>> This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
>
> I'm also wondering how they turned that five seconds worth of fusion
> back into electricity.

The BBC reckons that the neutrons warm up some water. Another report
suggests that the neutrons could split lithium, which presumably
generates heat along with the tritium and helium. These can be used
respectively to generate power, refuel the reactor and inflate a
celebratory balloon.

In message <dlq70h5i57lj9k07sq1jttuv6uuadfgc99@4ax.com>, at 16:52:36 on
Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>The new ITER facility is eight times the size of JET. If it can produce
>eight times as much energy - if it can produce four times as much
>energy - then that barrier will have been crossed.

Hold the front page! 240 kettles boiled.
--
Roland Perry

In message <pWQ92jaJ19AiFA2G@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
<roland@perry.co.uk> writes
>In message <lkl70h9ghh92vnbarqnt089pe91jtkii1q@4ax.com>, at 15:07:00 on
>Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:31:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633
>>
>>Yes, it's hard to see how that achievement justifies the headline:
>>"Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy"
>>
>>I think it's telling that it says:
>>The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11
>>megawatts of power).
>>
>>This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
>
>I'm also wondering how they turned that five seconds worth of fusion
>back into electricity.

My sums show that for 60 kettle each holding 2 litres of water, it
takes about 36MJ to get it from 15C to 100C, but to turn it into steam,
you need an additional 251MJ. Steam contains a lot of energy. If only we
could think of a way to make use of this fact,

Brian
--
Brian Howie

In message <LN10DgTfZSBiFw6L@b-howie.co.uk>, at 14:51:11 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> remarked:
>In message <pWQ92jaJ19AiFA2G@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
><roland@perry.co.uk> writes
>>In message <lkl70h9ghh92vnbarqnt089pe91jtkii1q@4ax.com>, at 15:07:00
>>on Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:31:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633
>>>
>>>Yes, it's hard to see how that achievement justifies the headline:
>>>"Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy"
>>>
>>>I think it's telling that it says:
>>>The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds
>>>(11 megawatts of power).
>>>
>>>This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
>>
>>I'm also wondering how they turned that five seconds worth of fusion
>>back into electricity.
>
>My sums show that for 60 kettle each holding 2 litres of water, it
>takes about 36MJ to get it from 15C to 100C, but to turn it into steam,
>you need an additional 251MJ. Steam contains a lot of energy. If only
>we could think of a way to make use of this fact,

Ah yes, but the spin-doctors only said it boiled the kettles, ie brought
them up to boiling temperature, not that they were entirely "boiled
away".

So perhaps that's a useful deployment of your fact!
--
Roland Perry