Skip to content
FusionBenchmark

Magnetic vs inertial confinement

The two dominant routes to fusion. One holds a thin plasma steady for seconds; the other crushes a fuel capsule in nanoseconds. They are not measured with the same yardstick, which is where most confusion starts.

Magnetic confinement

Doughnut-shaped magnetic confinement using a strong toroidal field plus a current driven through the plasma itself. The most-studied configuration, and the one ITER uses.

87 devices · 26 organisations · 425 measurements

Definition and every record using it

Inertial confinement

Compressing fuel so fast that its own inertia holds it together long enough to burn — nanoseconds, not seconds.

8 devices · 10 organisations · 6 measurements

Definition and every record using it

The differences that matter

Magnetic vs inertial confinement compared
  Magnetic confinement Inertial confinement
How confinement works Magnetic fields hold a low-density plasma continuously. A driver implodes a fuel capsule; its own inertia confines it for nanoseconds.
Density and duration Low density, long duration — seconds to minutes. Extreme density, durations measured in nanoseconds.
How gain is quoted Plasma gain: fusion power over external heating power coupled into the plasma. Target gain: fusion yield over laser energy delivered to the target. These denominators are not interchangeable.
What has been achieved JET released 69.26 MJ in a single pulse; no device has exceeded plasma gain of 1. NIF exceeded target gain 1 in December 2022, reaching 1.5.
The comparison trap A magnetic device quoting plasma gain is counting heating power only. An inertial device quoting target gain excludes the laser system’s own vast inefficiency. Same shot, wall-plug gain 0.0077.

Read this before comparing. Comparing a target gain to a plasma gain is comparing two different fractions. See the gain page. More on that here.

Devices in this dataset

Organisations