Good videos, with context.
MIT's Pathway to Fusion Energy (IAP 2017) - Zach Hartwig

MIT's Pathway to Fusion Energy (IAP 2017) - Zach Hartwig

MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center
16 HN recommenders · discussed 2017–2023
Open YouTube ↗

About this video

Zach Hartwig of MIT introduces the key concepts of magnetic fusion energy and the state of fusion research. He then presents MIT's proposed pathway of using high-field superconducting magnets to build smaller, cheaper tokamaks on a climate-relevant timescale.

Why it appears in the archive

Recommended again and again as the best accessible overview of fusion physics, useful for judging fusion announcements and understanding why high-temperature superconducting magnets matter.

AI-generated summary and labels from the source dataset; verify important details against the video. Source & credits.

From the Hacker News discussion

kkwteh · 2017-08 · strong rec

This talk by Zach Hartwig from IAP 2017 "MIT's Pathway to Fusion Energy" is fantastic. Hartwig is an assistant professor in the Nuclear Science & Engineering department at MIT. He presents a straightforward overview of the basic science involved as well as the most promising technologies today. [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗
jabl · 2018-11 · strong rec

As there seems to be quite a lot of confusion in this thread about what this is, here's an excellent video giving an overview of the state of the art in fusion energy research that is understandable by a lay audience: [VIDEO] (somebody posted that video on another recent HN fusion thread)

Read original comment ↗
wcarss · 2020-09 · strong rec

My layman's understanding is that recently available (~last 5 years) industrial scale processes to produce rebco tape[1] is the specific advance in superconductor tech that's specifically enabling higher tesla magnetic field strengths from significantly smaller and lighter and easier to manage magnets, so you can get a system that's "powerful enough" to run net posititve at a size that's small enough to be built by a few universities rather than a few dozen nations (i.e. ITER), so the complexity of the engineering project drops from "unimaginable" to "just very high". 1 - [LINK] 2 - really great talk from a few years ago about this from MIT's Plasma Science Fusion Centre: [VIDEO] (really, if you like this stuff, give the talk a watch. It's great.)

Read original comment ↗
fusionbro · 2022-02 · strong rec

This has been by far the most informative source on Fusion I've seen and gives a clear picture on how to evaluate claims like this. MIT's Pathway to Fusion Energy (IAP 2017) - Zach Hartwig [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗
shaqbert · 2017-04 · rec

Mmmh, some of the claims in that article are debunked in this neat video from MIT (though over 1h long): [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗
dave_sullivan · 2017-07 · rec

I saw this a while back and thought it was a good summary: [VIDEO] I forget the current best efficiency, but it's getting close.

Read original comment ↗
bsder · 2017-09 · rec

Simple: people in the know realize that this technique still needs a bunch of development. This is a good talk about the various variables you need to demonstrate in fusion: [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗
Tuna-Fish · 2018-09 · rec

> Scale is everything for fusion (plasma). No. Q is everything in fusion. Scale is one way to improve Q in a Tokamak. The problem with improving Q by increasing scale is that it makes the reactors uneconomical. A reactor the size of ITER cannot ever be economically viable, even was capable of producing massive amounts of electricity. Luckily, scaling up is not the only way to increase Q. The better way is to use more powerful magnetic fields. Put more eloquently than I can: [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗