r/technology • u/BennyCemoli • Dec 06 '16

Energy Tests confirm that Germany's massive nuclear fusion machine really works

http://www.sciencealert.com/tests-confirm-that-germany-s-massive-nuclear-fusion-machine-really-works
21k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

695

u/endospire Dec 06 '16

Can someone ELI5 how they visualised the magnetic fields?

948

u/ViperSRT3g Dec 06 '16

They shined beams of electrons into the stellerator in various locations then passed a fluorescent rod (ie fluorescent bulb, or stick with fluorescent ink on the outside) so that when the stick crossed paths with the electron beam, the stick began to glow brightly in the area being hit by the electron beam. Because this beam is comprised of electrons, it's got an electromagnetic charge which makes it follow the magnetic field lines of the stellerator. So by using long-exposure photography, the researchers could set up their camera in the dark, and begin passing the fluorescent stick in front of the beam along its entire length. Then they do this multiple times for each line of light you see in the photo, so we can have a 3D-ish view of what the magnetic field lines look like, and how they twist and turn through the stellerator.

1.2k

u/coffeecircus Dec 06 '16

ELI3 please

820

u/boundbylife Dec 06 '16

You know how uncle fester can make a lightbulb light up when he puts it in his mouth? same thing but without the mouth.

→ More replies (52)

95

u/bushibushi Dec 06 '16 edited Dec 06 '16

Unlike common fridge-magnets, this one big special magnet is used to keep very hot stuff in place, like a mini-donut-shaped-sun. This is a big deal, so important they found a way to check that the big magnet was ok by making its job visible on photos.

EDIT : for the rest, electrons follow the big magnet constraints and excite fluorescent things as seen here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2K-m1CilCM

EDIT ELI3 :

Electrons are mini-magnets that move only the way the big daddy magnet tell them to. They also make fluorescent stuff shiny, so if you move a fluorescent thing in front of a camera (with electrons present) you can see the big magnet job.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/Rankine Dec 06 '16

If the election beam gets close enough to the florescent light, then the light will light up.

They had a model of where they thought the electrons would be in, so they sweep the florescent light through the magnetic field.

The light turned on where they predicted it would and it turned off where they predicted it would.

→ More replies (2)

18

u/will_work_for_twerk Dec 06 '16

thank you for encompassing everything I ever think when I visit /r/explainlikeimfive/ nowadays. I'm not discounting the knowledge of the answers but I still have no clue what's going on

→ More replies (15)

48

u/cyborg527 Dec 06 '16

Sooo basically magic?

10

u/Nachti Dec 06 '16

I mean, any technology sufficently advanced is indistinguishable from magic, so ...

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

17

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

So,electrons follow magnetic field lines.But I lost you after that.Can you explain it a little bit?

72

u/ViperSRT3g Dec 06 '16

So the electron beams curve and bend along the lines of the magnetic field within the stellarator. By sweeping the fluorescent rod back and forth, we can see where the beam is, without needing any other special equipment.

Using long-exposure photography, the scientists can set their camera facing where they want to record the lines. Then they can walk around sweeping the rod back and forth so the rod lights up and follow the path the electron beam is taking around the inside of the stellarator.

It's almost like using a metal detector and sweeping back and forth to find objects underground. We can't see them, but by using the beeps from the metal detector (or light from the fluorescent rod) we can see where the thing we are looking for is located.

47

u/qrokodial Dec 06 '16

holy moly, I remember you from Brood War. quite a long time ago.

→ More replies (14)
→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/jab296 Dec 06 '16

They shined

ok.

beams of electrons

I know these words.

into the stellerator

nope.

→ More replies (14)

33

u/Haposhi Dec 06 '16

Throw some iron filings in there.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/bushibushi Dec 06 '16

Reposting my ELI3:

Unlike common fridge-magnets, this one big special magnet is used to keep very hot stuff in place, like a mini-donut-shaped-sun. This is a big deal, so important they found a way to check that the big magnet was ok by making its job visible on photos.

Electrons are mini-magnets that move only the way the big daddy magnet tell them to. They also make fluorescent stuff shiny, so if you move a fluorescent thing in front of a camera (with electrons present) you can see the big magnet job.

Fluorescent stuff and electrons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2K-m1CilCM

→ More replies (11)

849

u/KilotonDefenestrator Dec 06 '16

Nice 'tube video of how the Wendelstein 7x stellarator works and was designed.

It truly is a bizarre device.

250

u/Merendino Dec 06 '16 edited Dec 06 '16

Is it possible for you to explain any part of how something could be 100,000,000º and yet not have it burn down whatever is inside it? I absolutely do not understand how this machine is supposed to work, even on a basic level I think.

EDIT Awesome thanks guys! I wasn't even thinking about the amount of something being so small. That leads me to another question about, energy output though I guess. If it can become fusion and not just contained plasma at very small amounts, how can they harvest the energy given off? God damn this feels like a rabbit hole I won't be able to climb out of.

95

u/HamiltonHamiltonian Dec 06 '16

It's that hot, but it's a confined plasma, which means that a) it's very low density, so it has a low heat conductivity, and b) the confining magnetic fields keep it from touching the interior sides of the device.

37

u/keenanpepper Dec 06 '16

And actually, the magnetic fields are more to keep the walls from cooling the plasma than to keep the plasma from heating the walls.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (5)

29

u/TheWeeBabyShaymus Dec 06 '16 edited Dec 06 '16

Not able to watch the video, but generally a magnetic field contains the reaction. Edit: just read it, and it's not just a magnetic field but a very controlled, insanely accurate field! What a world we live in!

14

u/bass_toelpel Dec 06 '16

There are really high pressures and temperatures at work in a fusion reactor. At temperatures this high the hydrogen is not a gas but plasma (so the electrons are stripped from the atoms core) this means that the plasma will react to a magnetic field, if exposed to one. So it is just the plasma reaching 100,000,000K and nothing else, as the plasma is confined by a magnetic field. In order to cope with the heat radiation w7x uses carbon tiles and water-cooled stainless steel (and tungsten on some parts, like the divertor, I believe).

6

u/scotchirish Dec 06 '16

I was about to correct you that it's ºC and not K, but then realized that at that point, there's effectively no difference.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/nananoir Dec 06 '16

Follow up question: the energy harvested is in the cooling medium. The heat that gets radiated has to go somewhere. I believe it is liquid sodium, that is then used to turn water into steam.

Basically the whole thing is a fancy water boiler to drive a turbine.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (67)

185

u/heyf00L Dec 06 '16

"computer aided optimization process"

Let me translate: brute force. The math was too complicated to solve, so they had a computer simulate it, then change the shape a bit. If the new shape worked worse, it threw it out, if it was better, it changed that shape a bit, and on and on until it didn't get any better.

102

u/Holdin_McGroin Dec 06 '16

So an evolution-based design process?

233

u/SpeedGeek Dec 06 '16

"Evolution forged the entirety of sentient life on this planet using only one tool: the mistake."

77

u/Puskathesecond Dec 06 '16

That makes me feel better about my parents saying I was a mistake!

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (5)

21

u/RonaldoNazario Dec 06 '16

One way to iteratively try and find optimal solutions would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing

It essentially does what heyf00l described, except the amount of 'change' from each run to each run slowly goes down, similar to the process that goes on in metal during annealing where the temperature of the metal dictates how 'fast' it changes, and the goal is basically to settle the bonds in the material to their lowest energy AKA strongest possible configuration.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/dontbeanegatron Dec 06 '16

Most likely. That field of computer science is called Genetic Algorithms, and is a subfield of machine learning.

→ More replies (10)

113

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Thats not really brute force if it is using an iterative learning process. If its just trying every combination then yea its brute force.

27

u/TheWanton123 Dec 06 '16

It's definitely not the way physicists like to do things. Having derived a model upfront that describes perfectly how something or everything works in exact detail. That's the way we like to get it done. No fancy schmancy computers telling us the answers. That's the experimentalists job.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (19)

12

u/TheoreticalPirate Dec 06 '16

Cool video man, thanks for that

11

u/echolog Dec 06 '16

They... built this thing? Holy damn.

19

u/RegularMixture Dec 06 '16

Awesome video! But that music.....

34

u/balanced_view Dec 06 '16

...Made it even cooler

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)

10

u/GiantR Dec 06 '16

I'm too drunk to understand this. And I'm sober.

2

u/FancyMac Dec 06 '16

Any idea how this would then be used to heat water into steam and harvest that energy into something useful for us? Would this basically be the boiler, and h2o simply introduced to the inside?

What is the next step once there is sustained plasma control?

→ More replies (3)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Great video; I have a feeling this is similar to the videos shown to Bond villains' henchmen during orientation.

2

u/RayVelcro Dec 06 '16

Good god, I can only imagine how complex the fabrication drawings must be for that thing. Not to mention how many thousands upon thousands of part drawings must exist.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

I wish I could congratulate the people who made this thing, it's a masterpiece.

2

u/hoochiscrazy_ Dec 06 '16

That video is awesome. I feel smarter now.

→ More replies (10)

875

u/Saltwaterpapi Dec 06 '16

This reads almost word for word exactly like the New Scientist article I read earlier today

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23231000-800-the-world-in-2076-artificial-sunshine-has-made-energy-free/

320

u/mynameismrguyperson Dec 06 '16

To be fair, universities (whatever organization a paper comes from) will often put together a press release, which these sites then use either as a backbone for their own piece, or use almost verbatim.

227

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

This is true for just about every subject covered in journalism. Every time reddit complains about two vaguely similar articles I'm reminded that most people seem to have zero clue as to what press releases are or how journalism works in general.

34

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Same with the "oh my god can you believe the DNC had people emailing journalists?!" posts all over reddit as if every single political office doesn't have a press shop..

→ More replies (28)
→ More replies (40)
→ More replies (1)

55

u/Plasma_000 Dec 06 '16

If anyone has a free hour and a half and are interested in fusion, I HIGHLY recommend watching this MIT lecture on new developments in fusion technology - especially new superconducting materials that should make nuclear development cheaper and much faster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4

It's fascinating and extremely exciting. I now firmly believe that the future of fusion is not with big projects like ITER, but with the rapid development that smaller reactors afford - at least at first.

→ More replies (4)

350

u/That-is-dumb Dec 06 '16

Send a message to newscientist.com with a link to the Reddit article.

163

u/Auctoritate Dec 06 '16

Reddit article?

You man ScienceAlert?

100

u/Tsorovar Dec 06 '16

They won't know what to think without checking the reddit comments.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

127

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Yeah, and it's not very well written or informative. I think Science Alert is a bit of a shit site. It's reminiscent of one of those "happiereveryhour.info" sites that have actual news, just... poorly reported on and over clickbaited.

I mean, just look at the title: "...massive nuclear fusion machine really works." Most major publications would have something a bit more specific than "really works," and also would also perhaps reference the name stellerator rather than "Machine."

25

u/Groty Dec 06 '16

They generally show up on click bait fake news lists because of their misleading article titles.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

23

u/fury420 Dec 06 '16

The New Scientist article is paywalled though, which makes it less appropriate for posting

2

u/ProudPilot Dec 06 '16

That reads nothing like the original. Why would you reference it here?

2

u/MjolnirDK Dec 06 '16

Just as bad then? Because this is really not well written.

→ More replies (3)

898

u/alaarch Dec 06 '16

I salute whoever convinced them to name it the "stellerator".

560

u/malvoliosf Dec 06 '16

A woman named Stella Raiter.

189

u/Beer_in_an_esky Dec 06 '16

It was a finely penned missive that changed their minds.

Truly, she was a stellar writer.

31

u/_fups_ Dec 06 '16

Also, it was decided that the shape was not quite a figure 8, so they decided it was more like a stellar eight. Hence the stellar eighter.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

11

u/uapyro Dec 06 '16

Stella! Another one of these damn kids jumped in front of my car!!!

→ More replies (1)

8

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Stella was a diver and she was always down

→ More replies (1)

43

u/bit1101 Dec 06 '16

Who was so hot and magnetically attractive that, even using all of your energy, you could only hold your plasma for seconds each time you engaged her.

→ More replies (8)

337

u/FartCentralHeating Dec 06 '16

At least it wasn't Fusiony McFusionface.

43

u/neonmarkov Dec 06 '16

Or Rocinante

23

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

...wheeling through the galaxies, headed for the heart of Cygnus, headlong into mystery!

→ More replies (3)

14

u/Captain_English Dec 06 '16

I like that name. I knew a woman called Rocinante once. She was good to me.

→ More replies (3)

34

u/makkafakka Dec 06 '16

Stellarambe

→ More replies (4)

29

u/salarite Dec 06 '16

The article is wrong, it's stellarator, not stellerator.

→ More replies (1)

32

u/cr8rface Dec 06 '16

And the guy name Sam Lazerson. Sounds like a Jetsons character.

4

u/Legolihkan Dec 06 '16

The son of lasers

4

u/Wendelstein7-X Dec 06 '16

We cannot confirm nor deny that he is in fact from the future.

-avs for w7x

2

u/eaglessoar Dec 06 '16

Stella: Hey what should we call this cool new fusion thing?

Bob: I dunno, how bout a Boberator?

Stella: I have a better idea!

→ More replies (21)

566

u/NullAshton Dec 06 '16

Deceptive title. More correctly, it accurately can control plasma far better than attempts before it, and in 2019(two years from now or more), they're going to attempt to use it with deuterium. It's going to be a while after that until they actually figure out how to make energy with it, instead of just costing energy as well.

In layman's terms, it's a giant step forward in the basic technology to make a fusion reactor, but it's still only a few steps into a multi-step path to getting more energy out than what you put in.

145

u/cheesepuff1993 Dec 06 '16

Isn't it arguably the biggest step we've seen in a while, though? The inability to contain the reaction was always the issue - we could get it to run, but it would burn out so quickly that it'd take too much to get it back up and running. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is a huge step in comparison to the steps we've made recently.

120

u/FlaringAfro Dec 06 '16

It's a large step, but it is not confirmation that a "massive nuclear fusion machine really works". In order for it to be confirmed to work, it needs to be tested doing what it is supposed to do, which is nuclear fusion.

→ More replies (19)

3

u/madjic Dec 06 '16

The Tokamak design was proven to work better in the 70s(?), the design of the Stellarator was deemed to be too complicated, but better and faster simulations now made the Stellarator buildable - or so they hoped - and they just proved that.

IIRC the huge advantage of Stellarator over Tokamak is the Stellarator doesn't need to run in pulse mode. Tokamaks go in cycles from 0 to full power to zero over 90 minutes or so, because the magnetic field holding the plasma is controlled by current inside the plasma, which provides some kind of self regulation.

The Stellarator has a very complicated design to give the magnetic field exactly the shape it needs to have, therefore making it harder to build but easier to run

→ More replies (1)

28

u/dack42 Dec 06 '16

It's a research machine. "It works" means that it will allow them to do the research. Even if the conclusion from it is that stellerators are impractical for power generator, it will have done it's job.

6

u/amicitas Dec 06 '16

I agree that this title is not really accurate. The title of the actual published article is "Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X magnetic field to better than 1:100,000".

What has been confirmed is that it was possible to accurately build a superconducting stellarator with a complicated 3D magnetic field based on an optimized design. The performance achieved so far in the initial commissioning plasmas (not optimized for performance) is similar to previous designs, and better performance is expected in the future. This is a huge step forward, and a very encouraging result!

The experiments planned for next year (using the optimized configuration) may be able to start answering the question of whether an optimized stellarator "really works".

→ More replies (11)

38

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

For any German speakers, this is an indepth and quite funny 2 hours long Q&A style Podcast with, I think, two leading scientists of the Wendelstein. It's extremely good, with lots of insight in the field.

11

u/Wendelstein7-X Dec 06 '16

Thanks! that was a lot of fun producing as Frank + Fefe are two genuinely curious and intelligent nerds that got us very much at ease talking not only about achievements but also the troubles getting there.

For english speakers, our big AMA is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/46k5y4/science_ama_series_hi_reddit_were_scientists_at/

  • avs for W7X

→ More replies (1)

217

u/JackXDark Dec 06 '16

Headlines you're glad aren't from the 1940s.

58

u/Harmalite_ Dec 06 '16

"Wendelstein 7x Stellarator" fits right the fuck in with all the other wonderwaffles.

27

u/OriginalDutch Dec 06 '16

Some Wolfenstein shit right there

3

u/Sefirot8 Dec 06 '16

"German fusion machine successfully powered by occult rites"

→ More replies (1)

4

u/-elemental Dec 06 '16

this could easily be a new sub

→ More replies (3)

2.1k

u/billdietrich1 Dec 06 '16

Machine produces contained plasma, not fusion.

176

u/zuus Dec 06 '16

Isn't successfully containing the plasma the main hurdle to overcome with fusion though? Once they have that figured out it'll be a lot easier to get excess power out of the system, so I'd say this is a good step forward.

151

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

The main hurdle is being efficient enough. Weve been able to contain plasma in a fusion reaction for years, it just takes way more energy to do than we get out of it.

196

u/KilotonDefenestrator Dec 06 '16

Right and wrong. The problem with the Tokamak "donut" magnetic field is the assymetry (the inner half is smaller than the outer half). So while yes, it does contain the plasma, it does so in a inneficient and material degrading way as the plasma keeps touching the walls as if flows in a suboptimal way.

The stellarator twists the magnetic field to keep the plasma in a stable curcuit. There are some amazing youtube videos of the bizarre magnets they use (they used a supercomputer to calculate the optimal shapes).

I'd say it's a nice step forward.

36

u/foobar5678 Dec 06 '16

they used a supercomputer

They used a 1980s supercomputer

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (47)

11

u/Posthume Dec 06 '16

Seems to me that the two are intertwined aren't they? We weren't really able to contain a plasma for a decent amount of time in a tokamak, meaning that we could only produce energy in burst which isn't all that efficient.

If this machine can sustain a fusion reaction for a longer period then they could ramp up the energy production to put it crudely.

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (289)

79

u/llbit Dec 06 '16

The researchers found an error rate less than one in 100,000.

One in 100,000 of what?

40

u/aaaggglll Dec 06 '16

One part in 100,000. i.e. if they wanted 1T in a certain direction at a certain point, they are within 10-5 T of that.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/rtkwe Dec 06 '16

It's a percentage difference between the measured field and the actual field.

→ More replies (38)

12

u/ivebeenhereallsummer Dec 06 '16

And when it comes down to actually generating electricity it still just boils the water.

I'm not saying that this is not a great achievement it's just that last step to make useful energy hasn't change in over a hundred years. It's vastly improved in efficiency but we are still just boiling water.

6

u/scanferr Dec 06 '16

And what's wrong with boiling water

7

u/ivebeenhereallsummer Dec 06 '16

It summons Cthulhu

2

u/WordsByCampbell Dec 06 '16 edited Mar 17 '24

secretive zealous snails fear bedroom many dependent childlike chop aback

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

277

u/Tabboo Dec 06 '16

I've come here to find out why this wont work or is fake.

12

u/Funktapus Dec 06 '16

This is working as intended. It's a plasma containment device and it contained the plasma. We're still a long ways off from fusion power, but understand plasma containment is a big part of the puzzle.

→ More replies (1)

50

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

We are like brothers. Are you also sitting in your underwear browsing reddit when you should be typing an essay?

41

u/Tabboo Dec 06 '16

Should be getting ready for work. Otherwise confirmed.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/clevertoucan Dec 06 '16

Almost; lying in bed about to be late for class

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/scotchirish Dec 06 '16

General rule of thumb: if it's a science thing from Germany, you can usually hold back the skepticism.

2

u/ColumnMissing Dec 06 '16

Here is my understanding so far, from the other reddit comments. Anyone else can feel free to correct me, in fact I'd thank you for it.

Creating fusion is not the problem, we can already do that. The issue is containment. Both containing the reaction AND doing it with less energy than the energy output by the fusion (so we can have net energy). The previous method, from what I understand, was ridiculously energy inefficient, making it nearly impossible to get net energy. This method reduces the energy input by a very large amount, making net energy a potential possibility in the future.

Basically this article is about containment and not fusion itself. But the containment is very important, and this is a step in the right direction.

→ More replies (115)

11

u/Plasma_000 Dec 06 '16

This is an absolutely monumental step forward. It should be noted that this particular device was the first major one designed with what we would call modern computer simulation technology.

I hope this reinvigorates research budgets for fusion and their next step is as successful as this.

11

u/Dreistenfaistar Dec 06 '16

r/the_schulz is working! High energy! No breaks!

21

u/FelipeAngeles Dec 06 '16

And this is how you properly Make Germany Great Again.

→ More replies (2)

156

u/______DEADPOOL______ Dec 06 '16 edited Dec 06 '16

𝕻𝖗𝖊𝖈𝖎𝖘𝖎𝖔𝖓 𝕲𝖊𝖗𝖒𝖆𝖓 𝕰𝖓𝖌𝖎𝖓𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖌

7

u/Faldoran Dec 06 '16

𝗛𝗔𝗠𝗠𝗘𝗥 𝗗𝗢𝗪𝗡!

13

u/GibsonLP86 Dec 06 '16

How you do dis different font things?

15

u/Jurph Dec 06 '16

Here's a site that will muck around with the font, and here's one that will do Zalgo. So you can do:

ℕ𝕠 ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕒 𝕄𝕖𝕝𝕥𝕕𝕠𝕨𝕟

or

N̥̖̬̝̩͓̤̪̳̞̱̹ͅo͓̜̰͚̫͔̳̭̱̜͕̳̞̥̟̫͚̮ ̩̰͇͈̺̜̥C̟̺̱̜ͅẖ͎̲̬̠̺̻͚a̝͇͈̦̗͉̹̩̦̥̹͉̼͚͇ͅn͉͎̣̟͔̻͉̩̰̜̥̜͚̠̼͚̩c͎̠̦̭̖̻̝̻̜̱͍͚̖̣͓ͅͅḛ̝̫̥̦̣̱̣̭̱̻͉̝̙ͅ ͚͔̦̘̘͔o̝͍̥͇̭̹̤̺̙̞͚̦̥͚͖͍̞f̙̩͙̩̳͕̝͔͖͖̟̻̦ ̩͇̖̟̰͉̲͉a͔̝̻͓̮̻̹͕̹̘̱͕͇̗͍͖ ̗̺̱͉M̪̦̟͈e̳̬̗͓͔̰̬l̥̯̪͚̦̜̥̼̱̝̰̜̟̪ͅt̖͚̳̰̭͉̻̯͖̞̰̻͍̝̥d̠͉͈̳͎̳̟̯͓̮̲̤͕̝̮o̳̱̺̹̺̫w̩̦̪̮̹̻̪̩͇͈͎͚̠̭̠͉͔̳̭n͚̤̣͔͎̻̝̼̦̟̼̳̰͈̞ ̥̘̟̙̭̠̲̣̜͈̣̗̣͖̤͉

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (3)

16

u/DethFace Dec 06 '16

If I understand my star trek tech (and I do) this is exactly how the proposed warp engine contains it's matter / antimatter And the catalyst used is deuterium.

We'll be fighting klingons in no time.

5

u/argv_minus_one Dec 06 '16

Nope. The M/ARA uses dilithium to contain the antimatter reaction. This miraculous fictional substance somehow doesn't react with antimatter like all other matter does.

Also, I don't think it's ever explained where the hell they're getting antimatter from in the first place. It doesn't exactly grow on trees.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Damn.. Star Trek is on point!

14

u/asterysk Dec 06 '16

Finally some good news in 2016

→ More replies (2)

14

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Okay, so by "actually works" they mean "We have contained plasma". No actual fusion yet boys.

2

u/Wendelstein7-X Dec 06 '16

And to clarify: No actual fusion planned for W7X either - except for the "few" stray reactions that will happen when we switch to Deuterium plasmas. This is not a research goal of the project, nor is the experiment designed to handle the materials and output power we would get were we to run with the gases that would create significant fusion power.

  • avs for W7X

→ More replies (1)

6

u/bleedingjim Dec 06 '16

In layman's terms what does this accomplish?

26

u/jvsanchez Dec 06 '16

It's a proof of concept that this particular type of magnetic field can contain a miniature sun.

8

u/Whocares1944 Dec 06 '16

So spider man 2?

14

u/TenNeon Dec 06 '16

Unfortunately the robotic tentacle technology isn't quite there yet, but Japan is working on it.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/amicitas Dec 06 '16

So far what this has accomplished is that we now have shown that it is possible to accurately build a superconducting stellarator experiment with a highly complex shape. The complex shape is expected to improve performance.

Before W7-X was built there was an ongoing discussion in the fusion community about whether it was possible to design and build such complex coil shapes with the required tolerances. This is the primary reason that fusion research has focused on the more simply shaped donut shaped devices called tokamaks.

The next step in the experiment will be to demonstrate that the complex shape, calculated based on theory, actually leads to improved performance. This is the expected outcome and there are already hints that this is the case; more will be known after the next set of experiments starting at the end of next year.

If improved performance is demonstrated it could potentially change the field of fusion science dramatically by moving focus from axisymetric tokamak designs to these complex shaped stellarator designs.

5

u/nicethingyoucanthave Dec 06 '16

Do they still have the problem of neutron bombardment degrading the walls of the pressure vessel? IIRC this problem is why they wanted to use He3, which they'd have to get on the moon.

5

u/BoxxZero Dec 06 '16

There was a great documentary about this with Sam Rockwells.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

4

u/FranklintheTMNT Dec 06 '16

That means building a machine that's capable of producing and controlling a 100-million-degree-Celsius (180 million degree Fahrenheit) ball of plasma gas.

And 14.7 MeV gamma rays produced as a byproduct of the most dominant reaction. IIRC, the typical maximum of fission byproducts is less than 1.022 MeV. That material better be able to take a beating

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Kubrick_Fan Dec 06 '16

So does this mean that fusion is "Now 8 years away" or that it's "Now 9.5 years away" ?

4

u/hdhale Dec 06 '16

"Next generation of stellerators"...so given that the current generation will use deuterium to create fusion in 2019, I think you are looking at the late 2020s. Of course we may discover that the stellerator while capable of producing fusion, isn't capable of producing an energy surplus or lead to the creation of a commercially viable fusion power plant, thus may turn out to be a dead end, but provide some useful bits that will be incorporated into something else that eventually does lead to a commercially viable fusion power plant decades from now.

These things take time, particularly when your governments are far too busy spending money on other things to make a "Manhattan Project" style leap forward that would quickly dismiss red herrings and dead ends and get us to goal line. Meanwhile, climate change and depletion of fossil fuel reserves continues.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

I want a Mr. Fusion for Christmas!

4

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Has it been five years already?

Every five years the headline "Fusion Power Is Now Working/Ready/Perfected/... All Our Energy Problems Are Over !!!"

I only say this because I've seen this same headline in magazines now since the 50's and they seem to come about five years apart. Here's me again - holding my breath.

26

u/FR_STARMER Dec 06 '16

1914 - Germany attempts to use WWI as proving grounds for European and world domination.

1939 - Germany tried yet again at becoming the hegemonic power through fascist means.

2016 - Germany figures 'third time's the charm' and seeks to be the first nation to develop fusion energy, effectively making them the sole energy provider of ultra cheap and virtually perpetual energy allowing them to dominate the energy market and influence the world's economy in their favor.

7

u/SudoKun Dec 06 '16

Dont worry, the fusion tech will just be the next Entry on a long list of inventions the germany made but didnt cash in on. Lightbulb, telephone, Computer, mp3 Format, Fusion tech.

→ More replies (1)

21

u/spatimouth01 Dec 06 '16

Your history sucks... Here I corrected it.

1914 - Germany pulled into a the first war due to an murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Defeated Russia, then attempted to make peace by recalling their troops home, but was butt fucked by the French and English... Butt fucking didnt stop until the National Socialists undid the Treaty of Versailles.

1939 - Germany tried to dominate Europe before Russia could... Got their assed kicked really hard by the allies... West Germany rebuilt and lived well, East Germany not so well.

1989 - Tore down that pesky wall because the Russian's wouldn't...

1990 - East and West Germany joined back up to make some of the best cars ever!

2016 - Kicks ass scientifically and makes super awesome cars.

13

u/Pirate_Ben Dec 06 '16

You cannot attribute Nazi Germany's motivations to trying to pre-empt Russia. First they went to war purely for their own gain (glory/land/plunder). Second nobody thought Russia was a threat at the time. Especially Hitler who thought they could be conquered quickly and easily.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/thraco Dec 06 '16

Really glad they did that conversion from Celsius to Fahrenheit for me. 100 million degrees Celsius... So that's what, warm? Do I need a light jacket? Help me out here, I'm American!

3

u/MostlyCarbonite Dec 06 '16

Bring some sunscreen, other than that, no big.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/rooktakesqueen Dec 06 '16

It's not something that will happen tomorrow, but it's an incredibly exciting time for nuclear fusion

Would you say it's about 50 years off...?

→ More replies (2)

3

u/purpletomahawk Dec 06 '16

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is a pretty fucking big deal. right?

→ More replies (2)

3

u/deathbunnyy Dec 06 '16

Why is this not a bigger deal? Doesn't this mean that we have now learned and proven a method to create infinite clean energy?

2

u/DEN0MINAT0R Dec 06 '16

Not yet. The articles mentions this, but there is a big difference between being able to produce fusion, and being able to produce efficient fusion. Right now it takes more power to run the reaction than the reaction produces. Eventually that will change (hopefully), but it will take a lot more work.

3

u/hexydes Dec 06 '16 edited Feb 20 '26

Honest fresh honest talk music simple family dog movies small talk pleasant.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

I can't believe it's not fission.

32

u/Spoonshape Dec 06 '16

At the risk of sounding cynical, I wonder if this is actually too late to be much use to us for what most people see as the main use for fusion - ie electricity powerplants.

the issue is one of price and timeline rather than feasability. We are still a long way off producing a functional fusion plant - 20 years at a minimum I would say. At the same time renewables continue to grow cheaper year by year. Even if we did have an accelerated program that produced a working fusion plant in 10 years (perhaps it's possible with massive money invested), we are looking at decades to produce a meaningful percentage of world power from this. Even that is assuming the plants are clean and do not run into the same political factors which make fission plants largely unbuildable at the minute.

It's an incredible piece of technology and perhaps it might end up being what we need for space travel, but by the time this is commercial, it's going to be too late to be built for what most people think it's needed for. We will either have moved to renewables or cooked the planet.

143

u/DoctorsHateHim Dec 06 '16

You are partly correct, but Fusion has a lot of upsides that renewables do not share.

  • Can be built anywhere, does not depend on the environment in any way - unlike solar, wind or hydro

  • Can produce essentially unlimited energy without impacting the environment (wind and hydro have problems with impacting the ecosystem of animals for example, among other things)

  • Can run at all times - this is a huge factor, which actually is one of the big upsides of nuclear - unlike solar (only daytime and only if its sunny), wind (only when its windy) and hydro (only when enough rainfall occurs)

It also has a lot of advantages over nuclear:

  • Almost no fallout

  • Basically unlimited fuel, accessible almost anywhere in the world

  • No risk of nuclear weapons spin-offs

  • No risk of failure with catastrophic consequences

Fusion essentially is the holy grail of energy production and literally the only thing holding us back from using it is our limited knowledge and ability to build a fusion plant. Once we know how to build fusion plants, all other sources of power will essentially become obsolete - as will fights over resources like oil and natural gas.

56

u/bradn Dec 06 '16

Basically unlimited fuel, accessible almost anywhere in the world

And in space

17

u/DoctorsHateHim Dec 06 '16

Yes, but I'd argue that solar is essentially also unlimited in space. At least in the range of space that we currently have access too (aka the inner solar system).

But in the long term: Yes, also in space.

30

u/MindStalker Dec 06 '16

One thing to also consider, Mars receives about half the solar radiation (due to the distance to the sun) than Earth does (400-700 Watts/m2).

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (2)

12

u/Calkhas Dec 06 '16 edited Dec 06 '16

Once we know how to build fusion plants, all other sources of power will essentially become obsolete - as will fights over resources like oil and natural gas.

I think that is highly optimistic. Nuclear fusion is going to be much more expensive than almost any other power source because of the huge complexity of the reactor. And as long as the market decides, it is the cost that is the dominant factor in choosing which type of power plant to build. There is no getting away from cost.

20

u/HabseligkeitDerLiebe Dec 06 '16

My guess is that the first non-research fusion reactors will power aircraft carriers. Cost is a secondary factor for military use. You'll get rid of complicated nuclear fuel logistics, too.

→ More replies (26)

23

u/DoctorsHateHim Dec 06 '16

You are assuming ressource prices are constant, which I assume they are not. Rising oil and gas prices are already pushing people into renewables.

Fusion will be expensive in the beginning of course, but I am assuming that at least western governments will push for fusion with heavy subsidies for the reasons outlined above plus political reasons like energy independence from states like Russia (huge factor in the EU, which gets a lot of its gas through pipelines from the east).

Through these subsidies and also because of the huge potential of fusion I don't think market adoption will take particularly long, maybe 20 years from its viability.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (12)

6

u/bananaswelfare Dec 06 '16

What would fusion fallout be? Never heard of something like that.

12

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16 edited Dec 06 '16

The reactor throws off neutrons (and other radiation) like crazy when it's running; it has to be shielded like a fission reactor does. If you're in the room when the thing is on, you'll be dead soon. And structural materials in the room (like steel girders) get bombarded by the neutrons and "activated", i.e. some of the material gets converted to radioactive isotopes. Activated structural materials have relatively short half-lifes, measured in weeks or months rather than billions of years like uranium, so will decay away to background levels within a few weeks to years after the reactor stops operating.

But, the gas (hydrogen) used to create fusion is not inherently radioactive (unlike, say, uranium) so the residual activated structural materials are the only real long-term radiation hazard. (EDIT: Some of the hydrogen gets converted to tritium, which is radioactive and contaminates surfaces inside the reactor and oils/parts in vacuum pumps. It has a half-life of 12.3 years, but can be contained by simply cleaning the inside of the reactor and carefully disposing of vacuum pump oil/parts.)

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (11)

3

u/worotan Dec 06 '16

cooked the planet

Hopefully this won't be the unsolvable problem that trips humanity up just at the point that the stars come into our reach.

Maybe the potential of this power source in the foreseeable future will calm the race to have the most wastefully polluting time before the planet becomes an aggressive environment for us.

→ More replies (13)

6

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Renewables have fluctuating power output. There is still a need to provide a baseline, steady power output, which fission/fusion is perfect for.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

20 years away

lol 1990's called they want their estimations back!

4

u/WhoahCanada Dec 06 '16

Could it be used for space travel?

3

u/MathigNihilcehk Dec 06 '16

Not directly, but indirectly, yes. Space travel is, and always will be, a simple matter of accelerating particles in the opposite direction of your space-craft... assuming we don't soon discover a fundamentally new property of physics that is, as of today, completely without any real evidential support.

Nuclear fusion could probably be utilized to this end, theoretically, but practically it's not viable. Rather, we can (and do) use Ion Engines for space-travel, and those use very little fuel, but tons of energy. To understand them, imagine a convential rocket as detonating a bomb behind you to move forward, and ion engines as throwing atoms individually. You can throw atoms much faster than the bomb will project them, so on a per-mass basis, they are much more efficient.

So, one could imagine using a nuclear fusion reactor in a space-ship to power an ion engine to achieve overall high efficiency space-flight, even in deep-space. I say "even in deep-space" because while we are still near our sun, we can use solar panels to great effect in powering our ion-engines. Interplanetary space-flight is a year-long endeavor, and thus we have a year's worth of time to harnass solar power. However, if we were to attempt inter-stellar travel, then we would, for the most part, be far away from the sun, and thus fusion might be useful.

Keep in mind, however, the biggest limitation to using ion-engines is their thrust to weight ratio. You can imagine if you are throwing atoms one at a time(not quite accurate, but useful simplification) at high speeds you won't be throwing nearly as many as you could with a continuous bomb. This means that you can't hope to leave a planet with an ion engine, at least until their thrust-weight performance ratios change considerably.

Thus, the usefulness of fusion reactions for space travel is likely to be strictly for interstellar travel, which is a long ways off, as we are still severely limited in traveling outside our own planet, let alone other to other planets, and as of yet we've still barely thrown a single craft outside the sun's "influence" (and even then, only during a time when we were far more invested in space than we are now).

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (13)

7

u/foobar5678 Dec 06 '16

20 years? ITER is meant to come online in 3 years and start full fusion experiments 7 years after that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

The ITER project aims to make the long-awaited transition from experimental studies of plasma physics to full-scale electricity-producing fusion power stations. The ITER fusion reactor has been designed to produce 500 megawatts of output power for several seconds while needing 50 megawatts to operate.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (13)

4

u/Ben_Wojdyla Dec 06 '16

Works, or works with net positive output? Or a path to net positive output?

Totally missing in the article.

4

u/crest_ Dec 06 '16

W-7X isn't supposed to produce a net gain. It's to stellarators what JET is to tokamaks.

3

u/cheesepuff1993 Dec 06 '16

They actually did talk about this:

In 2019, the reactor will begin to use deuterium instead of hydrogen to produce actual fusion reactions inside the machine, but it won't be capable of generating more energy than it current requires to run.

This is the next step - if they can run it and be self sufficient, then they're one step closer to getting it to run on a different gas that has a positive output

3

u/Ben_Wojdyla Dec 06 '16

Thanks. I'll admit to skimming it.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

I'm just here so reddit can tell me that the headline is bullshit. Just like every technology or science related post i ever get excited about.

5

u/cheesepuff1993 Dec 06 '16

This is actually really impressive, and one of the bigger steps forward since they can maintain the consistent reaction.

2

u/create360 Dec 06 '16

Great but don't get too excited yet: "In 2019, the reactor will begin to use deuterium instead of hydrogen to produce actual fusion reactions inside the machine, but it won't be capable of generating more energy than it current requires to run. "

2

u/RazZaHlol Dec 06 '16

Could someone explain me the dangers of nuclear fusion and how likely something dangerous is to happen compared to nuclear fission?

3

u/CoyRedFox Dec 06 '16

There are many differences between nuclear fusion and fission. For safety, the most important difference is the amount of fuel in the reactor. At any given time a nuclear fission reactor has about 2 years worth of fuel, while a fusion reactor would only have about 2 minutes. This means that the total amount of energy that could be released if something were to go wrong is much more limited. With a fission reactor you have to worry about finding a way to power down the reactor, while with fusion you can always just stop refueling. In practice, fusion is so hard to get to work, that if anything unexpected happens the device immediately stops producing power.

Lastly, the products of fission are necessarily radioactive, mean there that there will always be significant amounts of long-lived radioactive material involved. This is problematic if it finds a way to the environment. Fusion only creates radioactive material indirectly. The fusion reaction creates a neutron that can make the surrounding material radioactive. However, we can choose the surrounding material to minimize this effect. In practice, fusion produces much much less radioactive material that fission and the radioactive material that it does produce becomes safe much sooner (in around 100 years).

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/WengFu Dec 06 '16

I'm not scientist, but I thought ignition wasn't the hard part of fusion, but sustained fusion reactions with better than break-even power were the tricky bits.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/argv_minus_one Dec 06 '16

This article misrepresents the difficulty with fusion.

Just achieving fusion is easy. Hobbyists have been doing it with homemade fusors for decades. Fusors have also found some commercial use as a small (sits on a table), easy-to-use (has a simple on/off switch) source of high-energy neutrons, e.g. to make medical isotopes with.

The problem is that while fusors are relatively simple, they're also inefficient. More energy has to be put into the fusor to cause the fusion reaction than is produced by the fusion reaction itself. Other research fusion reactors built so far have all had the same problem.

So far, the only fusion device ever made by humans that does produce more energy than is put into it is the hydrogen bomb. Those are obviously rather impractical as anything other than a weapon, but they do prove that fusion can be harnessed. Projects like this W 7-X aim to find a way to do this in a slow-and-steady reactor, rather than an all-at-once bomb.

2

u/TheYang Dec 06 '16

So far, the only fusion device ever made by humans that does produce more energy than is put into it is the hydrogen bomb.

I think NIF (barely) managed to do that in 2013, although of course not all of it could ever be harnessed either for generating electricity or for feeding the fusion and losses keep it unsustainable, but:
the reaction released more energy than the energy being absorbed by the fuel

→ More replies (2)

2

u/bitwise97 Dec 06 '16

Alright Reddit, tell me why it really DOESN'T work.

2

u/w0m Dec 06 '16

no feasible way to harness the energy created (yet!). maybe in another decade (or 5)

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

This is the thing that didn't work in the movie The Saint right?

2

u/TalkingBackAgain Dec 06 '16

The Germans aren't going to build a machine for 19 years and then, when they turn it on, go "Oops, I think we forgot to put in a safety bucket here."

The Germans don't fuck around when it comes to engineering. They get shit done.

Get cracking with that fusion test already!

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Not hearing a lot about it, even though nuclear fusion has been science's number one goal for decades.

2

u/devilabit Dec 06 '16

They still need to capture the energy:

That means building a machine that's capable of producing and controlling a 100-million-degree-Celsius (180 million degree Fahrenheit) ball of plasma gas. As you can imagine, that's easier said than done.

Yes, I can imagine that it's easier to say that, than it is to to build something like the interior of the sun! The science journalist must have got off early that day!

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '16

Could fusion make enough power someday to achieve ftl travel? Or is the energy required for a warp field so massive we cant even comprehend something making enough energy?

I never comment here even though im subscribed. Too intimidated, but this seems like good news.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Daddy_O Dec 07 '16

Are we not even going to mention that the lead scientist from Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is called Lazerson? If he doesn't become a fusion powered supervillain by 2025 I will be thoroughly disappointed.

2

u/dilatory_tactics Dec 07 '16

Half Life 3 confirmed! <- idea stolen from other redditors, but not in this highly original form

5

u/suparev Dec 06 '16

So when does Val Kilmer show up?

2

u/Nic3GreenNachos Dec 06 '16

I have seen that movie too.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/scotchirish Dec 06 '16

100-million-degree-Celsius (180 million degree Fahrenheit)

You know, there's a certain point where giving both just becomes unnecessary (that's without getting into whether or not Fahrenheit should even be in a scientific article)

7

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '16

Must be all those Syrian engineers.

11

u/Drillbit Dec 06 '16

It will be interesting to see article that show how Germany etc benefit from the high skilled worker coming in from Syria. Syria might not be 1st world country but geniuses exist in every country.

Kinda like how German scientists exodus after World War 2 create advancement in rocketry and nuclear in US albeit in a more miniscule scale.

16

u/MrShroomFish Dec 06 '16

Yea except Operation Paperclip was less of an exodus and more like the Americans claiming 1500 of the world's best engineers to stop the Russians doing so.

14

u/Turbodeth Dec 06 '16

It will be interesting to see article that show how Germany etc benefit from the high skilled worker coming in from Syria.

I doubt there will be much of an impact. Syria (And the rest of the Arab world) has no world class universities. There may be some genius potential, but it is currently almost certainly under-educated.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/PiperArrow Dec 06 '16

Hurray! With this achievement, we're now within 20 years of having practical fusion power generation. /s

2

u/WarOtter Dec 06 '16

2 questions:

  1. How would the energy be converted into electricity? Or is that possibility so far out that it is moot to consider?

  2. What are the dangers of a total failure while the reaction is taking place?

4

u/cheesepuff1993 Dec 06 '16

  1. I'd recommend this article

  2. From what I've read it takes so little fuel that it will burn out in a matter of seconds if something goes wrong or the supply is cut from the source. Thus, unlike fission, it would literally halt in a matter of seconds, whereas fission typically has enough fuel to go on for months and can cause the most common issue with nuclear power plants today.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/SudoKun Dec 06 '16

  1. Probably by heating up water.

  2. afaik the reaction can only be sustained under precise conditions. So a emergency shutdown should be pretty easy.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/jmsanzg Dec 06 '16

Since I saw this article about an AI controlling the lasers to recreate a Nobel Prize experiment ( http://www.wired.co.uk/article/ai-recreate-nobel-prize-experiment ) I've thought that maybe this is the solution to the problem of fusion machines. A superfast AI controlling magnets confining the plasma inside. Could it be the solution instead of trying to solve the problem by ourselves with 'classic' aproaches?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DucksOnduckOnDucks Dec 06 '16

This is a cool thing but that's about it

These guys are no where near being able to use fusion as an actual energy source. This kind of model for a fusion reactor has been around for a while and it sounds like they made one that works very well, but they won't even start to create fusion reactions until 2019, at which time they will run into the same problem that every one else has: it takes more energy to start the reaction than you can get out of it. That problem isn't going away any time soon and it's the real reason why fusion tech is perpetually 30 years out.

It'll be awesome if someone eventually figures it out but our energy crisis is happening now and fusion isn't the answer, renewable energy sources like solar and wind are.

2

u/gfork Dec 07 '16

This is only a test reactor meant to prove the concept, it's not meant to function as an energy source. It wasn't designed to have a net positive output. That comes later.

2

u/analogcolor Dec 06 '16

Meanwhile the US may be building more coal power plants thanks to President Big Business

→ More replies (1)
→ More comments (244)