They've proven they can do something impressive, that's a huge leap. Understanding the underpinnings better so you can do it reliably: that's a matter of research effort and engineering. But they've already done the hard part, let them do their work.
If what they claim can't be reproduced, then what's the basis for asserting anything was proven?
It’s an early signal indicating that we may have line of sight to someone demonstrating working fusion within the next 5 years. Is that not impressive?
It seems more likely that scientists used the weapons angle to dip into that massive flow of military money for their energy program.
But, ICF is simply not a viable way to produce fusion power, it is far far far too expensive to operate such a device. So, we can only conclude that they are either deluding themselves, or they are in fact doing fusion weapons research (or, at best, simply fundamental theoretical research into how fusion works) - since the same kinds of conditions or forces are what happens inside a fusion bomb.
Note that in the US nuclear weapons are controlled by the DOE, and not the DOD.
It's arguable how much of the NIL is still validating models useful for simulating nuclear weapons vs fundamental research vs energy research. And it’s likely the relative importance of each factor has changed over the programs lifetime.
You can argue all you want. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility managed through a contract between the LLNS Board of Governors and the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The NNSA in turn works to ensure that the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons is safe and secure.
The funding source being mandated solely for nuclear weapons goes against your claim it's not primarily for weapons.
All possible other explanations that they have thought of.
Difficult tasks are difficult. Difficult tasks take time.
A credible indicator that they have achieved something significant is the widespread acclaim they have received from the global physics and fusion communities.
Repeatability isn’t the only tool in science and nobody is claiming reproducibility isn’t a goal.
If five years from now nobody can reproduce the results, people will take notice. But the evidence is they did what they think they did.
> A credible indicator that they have achieved something significant is the widespread acclaim they have received from the global physics and fusion communities.
How do those people know the result wasn't spurious, if it can't be reproduced? This comment and the one above are questions, do you have an answer?
If reproducibility demanded getting the exact same numbers, a lot of good results would be thrown out for no good reason.
Seriously some large % of "breakthrough" results are just errors in methodology/measurement. It's why no one serious gives a damn about results until they're replicated(or at least they shouldn't). And that's before you get into outright fraud where they just claim they measured something.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim you've gotten that kind of fusion reaction, and can't reproduce it, then it casts doubt on if you ever really got that reaction at all.
To be clear I'm not supporting/rejecting either F&P or this article's writers at all as I'm not knowledgable in the field, merely pointing out that the need for reproducibility was reinforced by their reported results and the inability of others to duplicate it. It's a good lesson - nothing is proven until it is repeated.