• @sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    02 months ago

    Didn’t read the article.

    I have no clue wtf that technology is in detail but wouldn’t it be easy to have a longer reaction time by supplying enough energy? The news should not be how long the reaction lasted but how long it lasted selfreliant.

        • @brad_troika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I haven’t read the original comment and don’t know anything about how conversations work but would it not be easier to Google chatgpt?

        • @blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 month ago

          Seems like the person wants to learn something, but with zero effort. (i.e. won’t read the article; and certainly won’t look for additional context or information.) So maybe it would be better to post the question into an AI chatbot. You can just ask whatever question, and get some plausible but possibly-bullshit answer; then feel good for satisfying your curiosity.

    • @vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I read thorough it for the details.

      It was net negative power, requiring 2MW of power to maintain fusion. The major achievement of this particular experiment was doing so without the fusion reaction damaging the containing assembly.

      It was purely a test/demonstration of the containment of fusion-like conditions.