7 ms·

The cynicism in this threads hurts. > “This is not just a chase for cold fusion,” says Matthew Trevithick, a research programme manager at Google in Mountain V

The cynicism in this threads hurts. > “This is not just a chase for cold fusion,” says Matthew Trevithick, a research programme manager at Google in Mountain View, California. “If it were, I don’t think we would have maintained an interest of this calibre of team for so long.” Here's what I see: fusion power would be a step function in human civilization. Such step functions are pathologically hard to achieve, because new modes of thinking are hard for humans to do. Calling it cold fusion is a calling card to scientists who are serious about researching novel approaches to fusion instead of playing the politics of the research paper game. Will it work? Probably not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Also, from Google's perspective, if they're the company that owns the IP for fusion energy, that's a pretty massive win. Additionally, if they push just a few other companies into funding fusion research, then the odds that we see viable fusion energy production (not cold fusion) in our lifetimes probably increases. I would love to see a private industry race for fusion research, though, the financial requirements of such endeavors mean the game would only be open to a very small number of global megacorps. Still it would be better than not doing it.

olooney 7y ago
The skepticism is not about fusion power, it's about cold fusion specifically, as well role of proprietary IP and patents in scientific research. Tokamak[1] (and other magnetic confinement) reactors seem much more promising and have seen slow but non-zero improvements for decades[2]. Some reactors like JT-60 have come close to being energy positive[3] but are not yet self sustaining. Large ongoing projects like like ITER[4] have the potential to break past limits and provide invaluable data. There are also advances in plasma physics which improve our ability to run computer simulations[5] of Tokamaks and suggest new hypotheses for how they can be improved[6]. If Google were serious about fusion, they would invest in this kind of mainstream research. Unfortunately, that's too big for them to own end-to-end; the most they could do would be to participate in the international process. But that wouldn't result in proprietary, patent-able technology, so they instead they put resources behind fringe science that they can control. This is reminiscent of the Lockheed-Martin CFR[7], which also chose an approach which was extremely unlikely to result in a scientific breakthrough but which did yield a few patents for Lockheed-Martin. Frankly, behavior which is only one step removed from straight-up patent trolling justifies a certain degree of cynicism. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 [4]: https://www.iter.org/ https://www.iter.org/ [5]: http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/topics/plasma-fusion-theory-simulation http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/topics/plasma-fusion-theory... [6]: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-stabilizes-fusion-plasmas.html https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-stabilizes-fusion-p... [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion...
- akiselev 7y ago
  > Some reactors JT-60 have been energy positive[3] but are not yet self sustaining. Nitpick: I don't believe the JT-60 has actually gone energy positive. They achieved a point where they would be power positive if they had been able to use a 1:1 ratio of D-T fuel instead of their D-D fuel but handling D-T fuel is very complicated and the JT-60 facility doesn't have those capabilities.
  - olooney 7y ago
    Noted; I've edited the above comment to read, "have come close to being energy positive." Thank you.
- darawk 7y ago
  So, you must think one of two things, then: 1. Google, with all of the subject matter expertise they can avail themselves of, is completely wasting their money on this research that has no hope of success. 2. It'd be a bad thing for the world if we got cold fusion, but Google made some money off of it. Is that right?
  - danShumway 7y ago
    It would be a bad thing for the world if we got cold fusion and Google controlled the entire stack, yes. This is because in the long, long term, allowing a company to dictate how a technology this important is used could hamper our ability to build on it or improve it. Over a long enough timescale, it would be better if we delayed getting cold fusion so that we could get the same technology later in a less encumbered form. If cold fusion is possible, and Google stops working on it, we can still get it through other means. Other people can pick up Google's slack. If Google manages to crack it, and as a result is able to put legally enforceable restrictions on how it's used, then that's it. There's nowhere to go from there.
    - natechols 7y ago
      Those legally enforceable restrictions last for less than two decades; it's already been 30 years since the Pons and Fleischmann fiasco.
paulmd 7y ago
Humanity can already access more energy than is healthy for our planet. Even if you had a zero-greenhouse-gas source of energy, all that energy is eventually dissipated as heat, so it would not be safe to use an unlimited quantity of it. I looked at the numbers about 10 years ago and iirc I concluded that waste heat is about 10% the impact of greenhouse gasses, so not insignificant. I don't remember how I got that number though, and I could have easily messed something up.
- ErikVandeWater 7y ago
  If we had near unlimited energy, we could find a way to trap heat energy and remove it.
  - p1mrx 7y ago
    Where would the heat go?
    - de_watcher 7y ago
      To the orbital ring, then to its radiators. Alternatively we can tone down the sun with the shade satellites.
    - 0-_-0 7y ago
      Into the Sun of course!
gridlockd 7y ago
> Will it work? Probably not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The fact that it "probably will not work" (where "probably" = "almost certainly") is a strong argument for not doing something. If I told you I had this idea for an over unity generator that "probably will not work", would you invest a million dollars into it? Research is an investment, resources are extremely limited and they must be allocated prudently.

olooney 7y ago

The skepticism is not about fusion power, it's about cold fusion specifically, as well role of proprietary IP and patents in scientific research. Tokamak[1] (and other magnetic confinement) reactors seem much more promising and have seen slow but non-zero improvements for decades[2]. Some reactors like JT-60 have come close to being energy positive[3] but are not yet self sustaining. Large ongoing projects like like ITER[4] have the potential to break past limits and provide invaluable data. There are also advances in plasma physics which improve our ability to run computer simulations[5] of Tokamaks and suggest new hypotheses for how they can be improved[6]. If Google were serious about fusion, they would invest in this kind of mainstream research. Unfortunately, that's too big for them to own end-to-end; the most they could do would be to participate in the international process. But that wouldn't result in proprietary, patent-able technology, so they instead they put resources behind fringe science that they can control. This is reminiscent of the Lockheed-Martin CFR[7], which also chose an approach which was extremely unlikely to result in a scientific breakthrough but which did yield a few patents for Lockheed-Martin. Frankly, behavior which is only one step removed from straight-up patent trolling justifies a certain degree of cynicism. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT-60 [4]: https://www.iter.org/ https://www.iter.org/ [5]: http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/topics/plasma-fusion-theory-simulation http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/topics/plasma-fusion-theory... [6]: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-stabilizes-fusion-plasmas.html https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-stabilizes-fusion-p... [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion...

akiselev 7y ago
> Some reactors JT-60 have been energy positive[3] but are not yet self sustaining. Nitpick: I don't believe the JT-60 has actually gone energy positive. They achieved a point where they would be power positive if they had been able to use a 1:1 ratio of D-T fuel instead of their D-D fuel but handling D-T fuel is very complicated and the JT-60 facility doesn't have those capabilities.
- olooney 7y ago
  Noted; I've edited the above comment to read, "have come close to being energy positive." Thank you.
darawk 7y ago
So, you must think one of two things, then: 1. Google, with all of the subject matter expertise they can avail themselves of, is completely wasting their money on this research that has no hope of success. 2. It'd be a bad thing for the world if we got cold fusion, but Google made some money off of it. Is that right?
- danShumway 7y ago
  It would be a bad thing for the world if we got cold fusion and Google controlled the entire stack, yes. This is because in the long, long term, allowing a company to dictate how a technology this important is used could hamper our ability to build on it or improve it. Over a long enough timescale, it would be better if we delayed getting cold fusion so that we could get the same technology later in a less encumbered form. If cold fusion is possible, and Google stops working on it, we can still get it through other means. Other people can pick up Google's slack. If Google manages to crack it, and as a result is able to put legally enforceable restrictions on how it's used, then that's it. There's nowhere to go from there.
  - natechols 7y ago
    Those legally enforceable restrictions last for less than two decades; it's already been 30 years since the Pons and Fleischmann fiasco.

paulmd 7y ago

Humanity can already access more energy than is healthy for our planet. Even if you had a zero-greenhouse-gas source of energy, all that energy is eventually dissipated as heat, so it would not be safe to use an unlimited quantity of it. I looked at the numbers about 10 years ago and iirc I concluded that waste heat is about 10% the impact of greenhouse gasses, so not insignificant. I don't remember how I got that number though, and I could have easily messed something up.

ErikVandeWater 7y ago
If we had near unlimited energy, we could find a way to trap heat energy and remove it.
- p1mrx 7y ago
  Where would the heat go?
  - de_watcher 7y ago
    To the orbital ring, then to its radiators. Alternatively we can tone down the sun with the shade satellites.
  - 0-_-0 7y ago
    Into the Sun of course!

gridlockd 7y ago

> Will it work? Probably not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The fact that it "probably will not work" (where "probably" = "almost certainly") is a strong argument for not doing something. If I told you I had this idea for an over unity generator that "probably will not work", would you invest a million dollars into it? Research is an investment, resources are extremely limited and they must be allocated prudently.