3 ms·

> The project, a collaboration between scientists at MIT and a private company, will take a radically different approach to other efforts to transform fusion fr

> The project, a collaboration between scientists at MIT and a private company, will take a radically different approach to other efforts to transform fusion from an expensive science experiment into a viable commercial energy source. The team intend to use a new class of high-temperature superconductors they predict will allow them to create the world’s first fusion reactor that produces more energy than needs to be put in to get the fusion reaction going. Etc.

SubiculumCode 9y ago
The article talks about new, smaller, and more powerful magnets that could enable real advancement toward positive energy fusion.
- zeth___ 9y ago
  Fusion is the energy of the future and always will be.
  - Zeta_Function 9y ago
    “Always” is a long time, but its definitely fair to say that barring a series of unforeseen and radical breakthroughs in a number of disciplines, fusion as a reliable source of power is nowhere near being a reality.
  - berbec 9y ago
    That seems to be the sad point; fusion is always in the future.
- gus_massa 9y ago
  Until they have a working prototype, this is the equivalent of vaporware. Moreover, it's not clear if they will have a working reactor in less or more than 15 years, it's not clear if they are building a research reactor or a production reactor, it's not clear if they are going to collect the heat and use it to produce electricity, ... Also, the article say that: > A newly available superconducting material – a steel tape coated with a compound called yttrium-barium-copper oxide, or YBCO – has allowed scientists to produce smaller, more powerful magnets. but if I understand correctly the new material is just a new type of superconductor wire that is more efficient than the current wires, it is not a superconductor magnet. If they have better wires, they can make better electromagnets, but it is confusing. Also is not clear if they have tested the new kind of magnets or it is just a theoretical application. Also, 15 years is a lot of time, usually it means they don't have a clear idea of how to solve all the technical details. https://xkcd.com/678/ https://xkcd.com/678/
  - jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
    > but if I understand correctly the new material is just a new type of superconductor wire that is more efficient than the current wires, it is not a superconductor magnet. If they have better wires, they can make better electromagnets, but it is confusing. Also is not clear if they have tested the new kind of magnets or it is just a theoretical application. Both: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=32m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=32m35s This work is being done by the head of MIT's Nuclear Science department, in collaboration with most of the top grad students there. You can go look through all the publications that have resulted. They're going into great detail with practical engineering concerns, not just vague concept. It's really disappointing and frustrating to me to see all the shallow dismissals here. The original article/press release didn't have much concrete information. But instead of making the reasonable assumption that some of the best people in the field actually know what they're talking about, and the article is poor, instead HN commenters are deciding their zero content, zero knowledge, shallow dismissals are more likely than what the experts are saying. Nearly all the information about the ARC project is out there in the literature. If you don't want to read it that's fine, just try to have some awareness that you can't dismiss things without actually knowing what they are.
    - gus_massa 9y ago
      I've read too many papers published in peer review journals where a tiny advance is sold like a groundbreaking game changing advance, so I'm very difficult to impress. The most popular cases of overstatement are the improvement of the batteries life and the cure of cancer. but there are similar bad reporting in less popular fields. In this case it's easy to decide. We can just wait until April 1st 2033 and see if there is a tokamak fusion reactor that can break even without creative accounting.
  - oldgradstudent 9y ago
    > Until they have a working prototype, this is the equivalent of vaporware. Even better, it's plasmaware.
- IshKebab 9y ago
  But that is the basis of all the new fusion startups. It didn't really explain what is unique about this one. http://csef.ru/en/nauka-i-obshchestvo/direction-topics/obzor-termoyadernyh-startapov-mira-6408 http://csef.ru/en/nauka-i-obshchestvo/direction-topics/obzor...

SubiculumCode 9y ago

The article talks about new, smaller, and more powerful magnets that could enable real advancement toward positive energy fusion.

zeth___ 9y ago
Fusion is the energy of the future and always will be.
- Zeta_Function 9y ago
  “Always” is a long time, but its definitely fair to say that barring a series of unforeseen and radical breakthroughs in a number of disciplines, fusion as a reliable source of power is nowhere near being a reality.
- berbec 9y ago
  That seems to be the sad point; fusion is always in the future.
gus_massa 9y ago
Until they have a working prototype, this is the equivalent of vaporware. Moreover, it's not clear if they will have a working reactor in less or more than 15 years, it's not clear if they are building a research reactor or a production reactor, it's not clear if they are going to collect the heat and use it to produce electricity, ... Also, the article say that: > A newly available superconducting material – a steel tape coated with a compound called yttrium-barium-copper oxide, or YBCO – has allowed scientists to produce smaller, more powerful magnets. but if I understand correctly the new material is just a new type of superconductor wire that is more efficient than the current wires, it is not a superconductor magnet. If they have better wires, they can make better electromagnets, but it is confusing. Also is not clear if they have tested the new kind of magnets or it is just a theoretical application. Also, 15 years is a lot of time, usually it means they don't have a clear idea of how to solve all the technical details. https://xkcd.com/678/ https://xkcd.com/678/
- jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
  > but if I understand correctly the new material is just a new type of superconductor wire that is more efficient than the current wires, it is not a superconductor magnet. If they have better wires, they can make better electromagnets, but it is confusing. Also is not clear if they have tested the new kind of magnets or it is just a theoretical application. Both: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=32m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=32m35s This work is being done by the head of MIT's Nuclear Science department, in collaboration with most of the top grad students there. You can go look through all the publications that have resulted. They're going into great detail with practical engineering concerns, not just vague concept. It's really disappointing and frustrating to me to see all the shallow dismissals here. The original article/press release didn't have much concrete information. But instead of making the reasonable assumption that some of the best people in the field actually know what they're talking about, and the article is poor, instead HN commenters are deciding their zero content, zero knowledge, shallow dismissals are more likely than what the experts are saying. Nearly all the information about the ARC project is out there in the literature. If you don't want to read it that's fine, just try to have some awareness that you can't dismiss things without actually knowing what they are.
  - gus_massa 9y ago
    I've read too many papers published in peer review journals where a tiny advance is sold like a groundbreaking game changing advance, so I'm very difficult to impress. The most popular cases of overstatement are the improvement of the batteries life and the cure of cancer. but there are similar bad reporting in less popular fields. In this case it's easy to decide. We can just wait until April 1st 2033 and see if there is a tokamak fusion reactor that can break even without creative accounting.
- oldgradstudent 9y ago
  > Until they have a working prototype, this is the equivalent of vaporware. Even better, it's plasmaware.
IshKebab 9y ago
But that is the basis of all the new fusion startups. It didn't really explain what is unique about this one. http://csef.ru/en/nauka-i-obshchestvo/direction-topics/obzor-termoyadernyh-startapov-mira-6408 http://csef.ru/en/nauka-i-obshchestvo/direction-topics/obzor...