my understanding is that we still spend way too much energy in like containing the reaction, I was aware we had managed to get more energy out of the specific fusion part (idk how to word what I'm trying to say). But yes I'm aware of how massive this is, I'm more trying to say I think it's at the same tech difficulty of trying to get fusion to work, not something ridiculous like cold fusion
Well, there has been net energy created, in the sense that a reaction was made that generated more energy than the apparatus driving it used.
Just, doing this is hell on the machinery it’s done on, so it’s not really a viable power source yet. There’s a bunch of engineering problems to solve first.
yes, like we got more energy from what we actually used to ignite the fusion process, but we use a ton of energy to actually be able to keep the reactor running is what I'm saying (like all the shielding and shit)
my understanding is that we still spend way too much energy in like containing the reaction, I was aware we had managed to get more energy out of the specific fusion part (idk how to word what I'm trying to say). But yes I'm aware of how massive this is, I'm more trying to say I think it's at the same tech difficulty of trying to get fusion to work, not something ridiculous like cold fusion
Well, there has been net energy created, in the sense that a reaction was made that generated more energy than the apparatus driving it used.
Just, doing this is hell on the machinery it’s done on, so it’s not really a viable power source yet. There’s a bunch of engineering problems to solve first.
yes, like we got more energy from what we actually used to ignite the fusion process, but we use a ton of energy to actually be able to keep the reactor running is what I'm saying (like all the shielding and shit)