←back to thread

243 points greesil | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.408s | source
Show context
chris_va ◴[] No.44637630[source]
A better link: https://www.ipp.mpg.de/5532945/w7x?c=5481737

(there is some irony in using the iter.org link for a stellarator announcement)

1.8GJ over 360 seconds, beta of 0.03

replies(2): >>44639356 #>>44643375 #
greesil ◴[] No.44643375[source]
The irony is delicious.

Especially considering the total budget of it is $340 millions vs ITER's tens of billions.

replies(5): >>44643735 #>>44643772 #>>44644705 #>>44645851 #>>44646617 #
1. Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe ◴[] No.44643772[source]
To be fair, they might not be totally independent figures in the sense of, I would be surprised if the cheaper project did not benefit at all from the knowledge created by the larger project.
replies(2): >>44644634 #>>44645113 #
2. ygra ◴[] No.44644634[source]
Help on either project actually flows both ways. If I remember correctly, Wendelstein 7-X provided experience and know-how regarding microwave heating and welding large plasma vessels. In the end they're scientists and engineers and don't seem to see the other project so much as competition than a way to learn more than just with one of them.
3. greesil ◴[] No.44645113[source]
They're both riding on the back of the past 70 years of R&D on fabrication, scientific instruments and data acquisition, and plasma physics. My point is what's the marginal research value per euro spent on one vs the other? Tokamaks are sort of a known thing. It's almost pointless to discuss now because the money is spent, but ITER has always felt to me a a very inefficient use scientific funding.