Their goal was to produce a fusion reaction not to improve laser efficiency. That's a bit like complaining they didn't account for the energy used to structure the fuel. I don't think it's 'specific accounting' when (output/input)>1 was their goal from the start
The goal in the eyes of the layman is to produce a stable fusion reaction that outputs more than input.
While this is great progress, I feel that it's important to have the full picture. There's a lot of "fusion reaction breakthrough fatigue" stemming from the misunderstanding that fusion power isn't a technology that requires a singular breakthrough.
There are many breakthroughs required to get to fusion powered energy, and this is an important one (worth celebrating) on a long road ahead.
yeah but why is that a worthy goal? does anyone know how to make the lasers 100x more efficient? or did we shift the problem from one impossibility (efficient fusion) to another (efficient lasers)
Because their mandate is to study a different part of the puzzle from what the laser researchers do. The NIF uses really old laser tech, and in parallel the world has moved onto 20x more efficient lasers. The NIF just wanted to prove they could get a laser (bad one) to hit a pellet and the pellet would send out more energy than the laser put on it. Improving the laser, improving the pellet materials, improving transfer from pellet to usable energy are all different problems being solved by different people.
