История изменений

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor#Practical_example

Using the traditional definition of Q, Pfus / Pheat, ICF devices have extremely low Q. This is because the laser is extremely inefficient; whereas {\displaystyle \eta _{heat}}{\displaystyle \eta _{heat}} for the heaters used in magnetic systems might be on the order of 70%, lasers are on the order of 1%.

For this reason, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the leader in ICF research, has proposed another modification of Q that defines Pheat as the energy delivered by the driver to the capsule, as opposed to the energy put into the driver by an external power source. That is, they propose removing the laser’s inefficiency from the consideration of gain. This definition produces much higher Q values, and changes the definition of breakeven to be Pfus / Plaser = 1. On occasion, they referred to this definition as «scientific breakeven».[19][20] This term was not universally used; other groups adopted the redefinition of Q but continued to refer to Pfus = Plaser simply as breakeven.[21]

Ну да, им проще, чем плазменным машинам с сильными магнитными полями и токами, «отсечь» неудобное (эффективность лазеров порядка 1%), взяв соотношение полной выделенной энергии к энергии лазерного луча, попадающего в мишень.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor#Practical_example

Using the traditional definition of Q, Pfus / Pheat, ICF devices have extremely low Q. This is because the laser is extremely inefficient; whereas {\displaystyle \eta _{heat}}{\displaystyle \eta _{heat}} for the heaters used in magnetic systems might be on the order of 70%, lasers are on the order of 1%.

For this reason, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the leader in ICF research, has proposed another modification of Q that defines Pheat as the energy delivered by the driver to the capsule, as opposed to the energy put into the driver by an external power source. That is, they propose removing the laser’s inefficiency from the consideration of gain. This definition produces much higher Q values, and changes the definition of breakeven to be Pfus / Plaser = 1. On occasion, they referred to this definition as «scientific breakeven».[19][20] This term was not universally used; other groups adopted the redefinition of Q but continued to refer to Pfus = Plaser simply as breakeven.[21]

Ну да, им проще, чем плазменным машинам с сильными магнитными полями и токами, «отсечь» неудобное (эффективность лазеров порядка 1%), взяв соотношение полной полученной энергии к энергии лазерного луча, попадающего в мишень.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor#Practical_example

Using the traditional definition of Q, Pfus / Pheat, ICF devices have extremely low Q. This is because the laser is extremely inefficient; whereas {\displaystyle \eta _{heat}}{\displaystyle \eta _{heat}} for the heaters used in magnetic systems might be on the order of 70%, lasers are on the order of 1%.

For this reason, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the leader in ICF research, has proposed another modification of Q that defines Pheat as the energy delivered by the driver to the capsule, as opposed to the energy put into the driver by an external power source. That is, they propose removing the laser’s inefficiency from the consideration of gain. This definition produces much higher Q values, and changes the definition of breakeven to be Pfus / Plaser = 1. On occasion, they referred to this definition as «scientific breakeven».[19][20] This term was not universally used; other groups adopted the redefinition of Q but continued to refer to Pfus = Plaser simply as breakeven.[21]