In my experience the community will usually distinguished between "scientific Q" and "wall plug Q" when discussing fusion power gain. Scientific is simply the ratio of power in vs power out, whereas wall plug includes all the power required to support scientific Q. Obviously the difference isn't always clearly delineated or reported when talking to journalists...
BalderSion
joined 3 weeks ago
OK, so we should be clear there are broadly two approaches to fusion: magnetic confinement and inertial drive.
In magnetic confinement a plasma is confined such that it can be driven to sufficient density, temperature and particle confinement time that the thermal collisions allow the fuel to fuse. This is what the OP article is talking about. This Tokamak is demonstrating technologies that if applied to a larger the experiment could probably reach a positive energy output magnetically confined plasma.
The article you referenced discusses inertial drive experiments, where a driver is directly pushing the fuel together, like gravity in the sun, a fission bomb shockwave in a hydrogen bomb, or converging laser beams in Livermore's case.
Livermore's result is exciting, but has no bearing on the various magnetic confinement approaches to fusion energy.
I've been using Here we go for years. I think it started as a Nokia project, that spun off to it's own thing. I started using to conserve data. You download the map of your region when you have Wi-Fi, and it's pretty low data load from there, directions and traffic updates mostly. I've been happy with it for a long time. I haven't opened g-maps in ages. I know there are other options out there, open source and what not, but I never felt the need to try anything else out.
Something like this wiki page? There are some good charts showing trends at this site. That site also gives more context if you're interested in digging.
In both cases, maybe I'd more frequently be able to resist the temptation to talk about both subjects if I had the option to use them at work.