25
submitted 9 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/physics@mander.xyz
all 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] silver_wings_of_morning@feddit.dk 18 points 9 months ago

The article probably explains it but I think it's important to mention every time. It's not the total energy put into the experiment (charging up the equipment etc); It's the energy put into the collision.

It's an important measure but it must also produce more than is put into the entire system, and even more than that to be financially viable and cover costs.

[-] CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi 5 points 9 months ago

Thank you for repeating it. It is important to indicate when engineering break even occurs. Before that... Neat, but still a long way to go.

[-] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago

I heard somewhere that it needs to be at least 10:1 to become economic.

[-] Lath@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Tl;DR: Still not viable for production.

Extra paraphrasing:
Further testing needs funding and the construction of specialized facilities as the current ones have already reached their limits.
Too late to solve climate crisis with it. Current alternatives are recommended instead.

this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
25 points (96.3% liked)

Physics

1332 readers
30 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS