Actual power plants are self sustaining as in they use the electricity they produce to operate, it’s mandatory though not sufficient for any commercial fusion power plant.
So, this isn’t about a different way to “calculate reaction efficiency better than the physicists doing the work” he was directly quoting their numbers from the paper. It’s only a question of communicating the meaning of efficiency.
> this is about more energy leaving the reaction chamber than went in.
The exact same energy was there before and after fusion only it’s form changed. It might seem pedantic to point that out, but if you don’t make it clear people will misunderstand.
Also, the applied laser energy also leaves the reaction chamber so any fusion would be net positive thermal energy by that yardstick.
this is about more power leaving the reaction chamber than what entered it. that's all the announcement is about.
this is NOT about how much energy it takes to ready the lasers. this is NOT about the electricity consumed by lighting, computers, cooling, or measurement or anything else-- none of that counts when you are measuring the efficiency of the reaction itself.
this is about more energy leaving the reaction chamber than went in.
understanding that is key to understanding the significance of the announcement, and this is significant.
and I maintain that the poster I originally called arrogant is arrogant, because they indicated in their comment that they knew how to calculate reaction efficiency better than the physicists doing the work. I called it arrogant because it is --objectively-- an arrogant position to take.
if that makes me arrogant, then so be it. my arrogance is independent of theirs and has no bearing on comments made before my own, and my comment did not influence theirs. (they were being arrogant before I pointed it out.)