3 ms·

> The triple product is the correct figure of merit and JT-60U did great there. Look. If you have a graph where you show a certain point called "figure-of-meri

> The triple product is the correct figure of merit and JT-60U did great there. Look. If you have a graph where you show a certain point called "figure-of-merit" being above a so called break-even point, every layperson in this world will assume that you get more energy out than you put in. If you then say that it's breakeven for a different reaction, they'll either question your sanity, or they'll accuse you of bait-and-switch. If you don't understand why you get your funding cut, you'll think life is unjust or cruel. Other people will nod sympathetically when you'll complain of the unfairness of this world , but secretly they'll disagree with you.

petschge 7y ago
Well, lay people have no clue. And probably should not be in charge of funding.
- credit_guy 7y ago
  The money comes from them, you know? One way or another, they are in charge of funding, and the way to help them make better decision is to be truthful, not to massage the message (you want to tell me it's really ok to compare a figure of merit for a reaction with the breakeven point for another reaction? * ) So, here's what Zubrin has to say about nuclear fusion and ITER [1]: "While, driven by international rivalry, the world's national fusion programs did advance forcefully between 1960 and 1990, the decision to consolidate all of them into a unified global effort to build the International Experiment Reactor (ITER) has caused nearly all progress to screech to a halt since the 1990s." Why did this happen? Could it be because laypeople in charge of funding listened to scientists lobbying for a cool (and expensive) magaproject? [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07HDSSKHJ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07HDSSKHJ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... ( * ) in all fairness, you only argued that the figure-of-merit it a good metric, which I don't contest.

petschge 7y ago

Well, lay people have no clue. And probably should not be in charge of funding.

credit_guy 7y ago
The money comes from them, you know? One way or another, they are in charge of funding, and the way to help them make better decision is to be truthful, not to massage the message (you want to tell me it's really ok to compare a figure of merit for a reaction with the breakeven point for another reaction? * ) So, here's what Zubrin has to say about nuclear fusion and ITER [1]: "While, driven by international rivalry, the world's national fusion programs did advance forcefully between 1960 and 1990, the decision to consolidate all of them into a unified global effort to build the International Experiment Reactor (ITER) has caused nearly all progress to screech to a halt since the 1990s." Why did this happen? Could it be because laypeople in charge of funding listened to scientists lobbying for a cool (and expensive) magaproject? [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07HDSSKHJ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07HDSSKHJ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... ( * ) in all fairness, you only argued that the figure-of-merit it a good metric, which I don't contest.