MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

Re:MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion... by pas on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @08:37PM (#28464807)

It still need a lot of the (same) support infrastructure. Plus ARC will be bigger than SPARC.

That said building the first is a lot harder than scaling it up.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion... by sbierwagen on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @09:53PM (#28465329)

I believe SPARC is a magnet demo, so it won't have tritium breeding blankets like ITER. It also has a shorter pulse time, 10 seconds vs 1000.

(That's right. ITER, which will cost more than $65 billion and take decades to build, can't run continuously!)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion... by ncmncm on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @10:29PM (#28465551)

Nor ever produce so much as one solitary erg to flash an LED.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion... by craftinator on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @10:38PM (#28465597)

You do seem to be going on quite the hatefest of Fusion, but continue to add nothing to the conversation, including sources of information. So how much energy is in an erg?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion... by ncmncm on Thursday September 09, 2021 @03:32AM (#28467234)

3000 ergs is enough to flash an LED.

When you have no turbine or any other means to extract power from a heat source, none gets extracted. Do you need a source for that?

[ Parent | on HN ]