2 ms·
There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s how hard problems get solved - you tinker with them until a new understanding and clever ideas emerge. Then you build ne
by SkyMarshal 8y ago
There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s how hard problems get solved - you tinker with them until a new understanding and clever ideas emerge. Then you build new and better things based on those ideas, and continue tinkering with them. Etc etc.
Some things are so complex, like nuclear fusion and the Standard Model of physics, you have to build big complex things like tokamaks and particle colliders to be able to tinker with them. No one should be surprised or put out by that, it’s part of the process.
- pfdietz 8y agoThe problem with this argument is that in engineering, the goal is not just to get something that works, it's to get something that works better than the alternatives. That means it's inescapable that there will be losers, regardless of how much is invested. There's no guarantee that fusion will win this competition, and good reasons to think it won't. Fusion may well go into the bin (with lighter than air passenger aircraft, superconducting digital computers, and MHD coal powerplants) of technologies that just couldn't cut it.
- SkyMarshal 8y agoPossibly, but it’s way too early to give up on fusion now, especially considering its benefits - clean fuel, clean byproducts, less risk of meltdown and similar disaster vs fission.
- pfdietz 8y agoActually, it's long past time to give up on fusion, at least DT fusion. It's been known since at least the 1980s it would have lousy power density. DT fusion's putative advantages don't make up for that, nor for its grave operating issues (frequent replacement of major components and serious reliability/repairability problems.)