And even if you don't know the context, the article says it's the first in the world to achieve 100M for 20 seconds, good luck doing that in your microwave.
And the specific temperature of 100M degrees might seem arbitrary because it's such a funny sounding amount, but it is actually the precise temperature at which the plasma theoretically starts becoming net positive.
Whether it actually was net positive will obviously be the focus of the researchers for the next weeks, and even if they find the plasma generated energy consistently (which we'd surprised about if it didn't) it still doesn't mean the reactor was net positive as a whole because of inefficiencies.
They will not have fried their expensive reactor intentionally, so if they did that will be sad news. The scale of the experiment is clearly visible from the video. It's a room sized spherical tokamak style device. I'm pretty sure the density of the plasma inside those is a given but I'm not 100% on the physics there.
---
KSTAR is setting the world record for ultra-high temperature plasma driving every year since raising the plasma temperature to 100 million degrees for the first time in 2018 and maintaining it for 1.5 seconds. [...] The fusion reactor aims to reach the stage of maintaining 100 million degrees of plasma at KSTAR for more than 300 seconds by 2025. "Most of the physical variables that act as obstacles to commercialization appear within 300 seconds after the plasma temperature rises to 100 million degrees." It means that it is no different from that.” It means that commercial development is possible only after reaching this stage. Director Yoon added, "We plan to maintain it until 30 seconds next year, and then achieve 50 seconds in 2023, 100 seconds in 2024, and 300 seconds in 2025 through facility upgrades."
https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2020112318570005798?d...
Can you explain a bit more for the unlearned?
For example, a common way to reach "millions of degrees" is to pump the air out of a container to an extreme degree, then introduce trace amounts of a gas, and then accelerate or otherwise heat those few particles.
If this happened under normal pressures, there would be no container material that could withstand these temperatures. But in a near-vacuum, the collisions between the accelerated particles and the walls can be kept low. In an experimental fusion setting like this, they also employ a magnetic field to keep the plasma away from the container.
Aaand he had to break all of his beakers afterwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqVMbAQhBs
That'll get you in the temperature range. You can also up the voltage to get more exciting effects, fusion is fairly easy to achieve here. Just not net positive fusion.
I cant create 100 tonnes of nuclear waste in my garage either. However, it's not means for celebration when a giant institution does it.
As OP pointed out, with fusion -- net positive power output is important. Not the temperature achieved.
- Was net energy produced during this time?
- How much plasma was there, ie, how large of a scale was the experiment at?
- How dense was the plasma?
- How repeatable is the experiment? Could it be run again sustainably, or did it fry all the equipment with fast neutron radiation?
The article doesn't seem to mention any of these, and without them, "100 million degrees" is meaningless.