5 ms·

Then what is the meaning of "have built a generator that produces electricity" other than meaningless hype? Edit: fix quote

qeternity 5y ago
Because building a reactor that actually works is part of the process. The next step is making it efficient. It's like any other business: you invest to establish it, and then you make it profitable.
- OnlineGladiator 5y ago
  Investing in a prototype and believing it will turn into a successful product, when that prototype can't even demonstrate the fundamental technology itself, just seems like wishful thinking. And I see no evidence to suggest they have a path to viability other than "trust me bro." I see a bunch of patents and hand-waving that seems intentionally complicated. I spent much of my career helping companies raise money based on demos (I'm talking billions of dollars) and this just seems like more bullshit to me. And all of those demos I worked on were smoke and mirrors, despite building quasi-functional prototypes you could interact with. I'd love to be wrong but they aren't make an effort to convince me otherwise, they just want to raise a shitload of money.
  - kneel 5y ago
    Sam is probably one of the most well connected VCs around. I'm willing to bet his due diligence is decent.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    It's called Research. It's much riskier than traditional investments and you need to know the technology deeply and have high trust in the team in order to effectively make such risky investments. But the payoffs of net-positive fusion energy are nearly incalculable. Step change in humanity type of thing. > I spent much of my career helping companies raise money based on demos And I've made a bunch of money sitting on my ass watching a few stocks go to the moon. Knowing how to invest in webshit or getting lucky picking stocks can make you rich much easier than R&D can make you rich. Sam isn't investing because this is the best risk-adjusted return for his portfolio. He's investing because, if it does pay out, it also very literally changes the course of humanity in the process. > And all of those demos I worked on were smoke and mirrors, despite building quasi-functional prototypes you could interact with. The investment isn't being made on the basis of an existing reactor. There are tons of existing fusion reactors. The investment is being made on the basis of the team's plan to get to net positive energy. * I'd love to be wrong but they aren't make an effort to convince me otherwise* Luckily there are other folks in this world who are willing to make risky investments in important ideas. (BTW, no one's getting rich on fusion research until fusion works... every year the fusion community leaks a bunch of folks to finance and tech because even entry level positions pay 3x and offer more stability.)
    - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
      > Knowing how to invest in webshit or getting lucky picking stocks can make you rich much easier than R&D can make you rich. It seems like you missed my point, because I make all my money investing nowadays too after failing forever trying to turn R&D into viable products. It's easy to raise money on bullshit and almost impossible to actually make it work. In fact, it likely is actually impossible, we just don't know yet. > Sam isn't investing because this is the best risk-adjusted return for his portfolio. He's investing because, if it does pay out, it also very literally changes the course of humanity in the process. I've met Sam and I don't think he cares about making the world a better place. I think he just likes money and attention. You seem awfully idealistic. I'm terribly cynical. We're not going to agree and that's fine.
      - throwawaygh 5y ago
        Maybe. I don't really care. My point wasn't about him per se. I'm willing to concede you're right about Sam. Sure. Investing in fusion is a terrible way to make money. If rich folks' egos get more money thrown at the right problems, so be it.
      - DennisP 5y ago
        Some day some billionaire is going to save the Earth from a giant asteroid impact and there will be a bunch of people saying "meh, he only did it as an ego trip."
        OnlineGladiator 5y ago
        I'm happy to thank people when they give me a reason to thank them. Having personally met Sam I feel confident in my assessment he does not merit your gratitude. If the founders of Helion pull it off and actually usher in a new era of plentiful cheap energy I will be ecstatic to congratulate them on their success.
        DennisP 5y ago
        If someone does a good thing, I don't much care why they did it. And if this works out, between (a) Sam funded the project that cracked cheap fusion and saved the planet, and (b) HN's OnlineGladiator met him and disliked him, I think the balance will tilt toward feeling some gratitude towards Sam.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  My understanding is that most of the fusion net balance problems are proportional to scale. Machinery to initiate fusion must be at least this big, consume at least this much power, and cannot be scaled down arbitrarily. However, if one were to scale it up in size, the same doesn't hold. Output power scales faster than increased input requirements. Consequently, most current fusion work is (a) find a design that theoretically has those scaling characteristics, (b) build a prototype to investigate / prove any unknowns (net negative power, but not ITER/NIF expensive), & (c) if able to prove (b) then scale up into a net positive example.
moralestapia 5y ago
It produces less energy than what it spends producing it.
- creeble 5y ago
  What is the point of that? Edit: I'm not trying to be (too) pedantic. But the brief investment announcement went to the trouble of saying "they built a generator that produces electricity" and (effectively) "but no net electricity". Isn't thathat generator a nothing-generator then? Why even mention it?
  - qeternity 5y ago
    Proof of concept.
    - creeble 5y ago
      What concept has been proven? Have they achieved fusion? Or the concept of generating electricity from heat, proven long ago?
      - apendleton 5y ago
        Neither: their proposed design doesn't generate electricity from heat, so what they're talking about here is proving out the alternative mechanism of electricity generation that they propose to use. That's a valuable to demonstrate because it's novel, and necessary to eventually being net-positive, so showing that's possible shows that their eventual plan could work.
        creeble 5y ago
        Yes, I figured that out long after my original post. It's just that Sam's post didn't mention any (semi-)novel method for generating electricity from fusion, so the actual words - "they and their team have built a generator that produces electricity" - appear as either hype or non-information outside that context.
jccooper 5y ago
You don't think there's some benefit to working subscale hardware?

qeternity 5y ago

Because building a reactor that actually works is part of the process. The next step is making it efficient. It's like any other business: you invest to establish it, and then you make it profitable.

OnlineGladiator 5y ago
Investing in a prototype and believing it will turn into a successful product, when that prototype can't even demonstrate the fundamental technology itself, just seems like wishful thinking. And I see no evidence to suggest they have a path to viability other than "trust me bro." I see a bunch of patents and hand-waving that seems intentionally complicated. I spent much of my career helping companies raise money based on demos (I'm talking billions of dollars) and this just seems like more bullshit to me. And all of those demos I worked on were smoke and mirrors, despite building quasi-functional prototypes you could interact with. I'd love to be wrong but they aren't make an effort to convince me otherwise, they just want to raise a shitload of money.
- kneel 5y ago
  Sam is probably one of the most well connected VCs around. I'm willing to bet his due diligence is decent.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  It's called Research. It's much riskier than traditional investments and you need to know the technology deeply and have high trust in the team in order to effectively make such risky investments. But the payoffs of net-positive fusion energy are nearly incalculable. Step change in humanity type of thing. > I spent much of my career helping companies raise money based on demos And I've made a bunch of money sitting on my ass watching a few stocks go to the moon. Knowing how to invest in webshit or getting lucky picking stocks can make you rich much easier than R&D can make you rich. Sam isn't investing because this is the best risk-adjusted return for his portfolio. He's investing because, if it does pay out, it also very literally changes the course of humanity in the process. > And all of those demos I worked on were smoke and mirrors, despite building quasi-functional prototypes you could interact with. The investment isn't being made on the basis of an existing reactor. There are tons of existing fusion reactors. The investment is being made on the basis of the team's plan to get to net positive energy. * I'd love to be wrong but they aren't make an effort to convince me otherwise* Luckily there are other folks in this world who are willing to make risky investments in important ideas. (BTW, no one's getting rich on fusion research until fusion works... every year the fusion community leaks a bunch of folks to finance and tech because even entry level positions pay 3x and offer more stability.)
  - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
    > Knowing how to invest in webshit or getting lucky picking stocks can make you rich much easier than R&D can make you rich. It seems like you missed my point, because I make all my money investing nowadays too after failing forever trying to turn R&D into viable products. It's easy to raise money on bullshit and almost impossible to actually make it work. In fact, it likely is actually impossible, we just don't know yet. > Sam isn't investing because this is the best risk-adjusted return for his portfolio. He's investing because, if it does pay out, it also very literally changes the course of humanity in the process. I've met Sam and I don't think he cares about making the world a better place. I think he just likes money and attention. You seem awfully idealistic. I'm terribly cynical. We're not going to agree and that's fine.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      Maybe. I don't really care. My point wasn't about him per se. I'm willing to concede you're right about Sam. Sure. Investing in fusion is a terrible way to make money. If rich folks' egos get more money thrown at the right problems, so be it.
    - DennisP 5y ago
      Some day some billionaire is going to save the Earth from a giant asteroid impact and there will be a bunch of people saying "meh, he only did it as an ego trip."
      - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
        I'm happy to thank people when they give me a reason to thank them. Having personally met Sam I feel confident in my assessment he does not merit your gratitude. If the founders of Helion pull it off and actually usher in a new era of plentiful cheap energy I will be ecstatic to congratulate them on their success.
        DennisP 5y ago
        If someone does a good thing, I don't much care why they did it. And if this works out, between (a) Sam funded the project that cracked cheap fusion and saved the planet, and (b) HN's OnlineGladiator met him and disliked him, I think the balance will tilt toward feeling some gratitude towards Sam.
ethbr0 5y ago
My understanding is that most of the fusion net balance problems are proportional to scale. Machinery to initiate fusion must be at least this big, consume at least this much power, and cannot be scaled down arbitrarily. However, if one were to scale it up in size, the same doesn't hold. Output power scales faster than increased input requirements. Consequently, most current fusion work is (a) find a design that theoretically has those scaling characteristics, (b) build a prototype to investigate / prove any unknowns (net negative power, but not ITER/NIF expensive), & (c) if able to prove (b) then scale up into a net positive example.

moralestapia 5y ago

It produces less energy than what it spends producing it.

creeble 5y ago
What is the point of that? Edit: I'm not trying to be (too) pedantic. But the brief investment announcement went to the trouble of saying "they built a generator that produces electricity" and (effectively) "but no net electricity". Isn't thathat generator a nothing-generator then? Why even mention it?
- qeternity 5y ago
  Proof of concept.
  - creeble 5y ago
    What concept has been proven? Have they achieved fusion? Or the concept of generating electricity from heat, proven long ago?
    - apendleton 5y ago
      Neither: their proposed design doesn't generate electricity from heat, so what they're talking about here is proving out the alternative mechanism of electricity generation that they propose to use. That's a valuable to demonstrate because it's novel, and necessary to eventually being net-positive, so showing that's possible shows that their eventual plan could work.
      - creeble 5y ago
        Yes, I figured that out long after my original post. It's just that Sam's post didn't mention any (semi-)novel method for generating electricity from fusion, so the actual words - "they and their team have built a generator that produces electricity" - appear as either hype or non-information outside that context.

jccooper 5y ago

You don't think there's some benefit to working subscale hardware?