4 ms·

I simply do not have the time or energy to dispel all of the myths Sabine's words have conjured in the past half year all over again. Her argument is convincin

I simply do not have the time or energy to dispel all of the myths Sabine's words have conjured in the past half year all over again. Her argument is convincing laypeople that scientists and engineers who devote their lives to difficult, underpaying work are trying to cheat the public. As someone who has worked in fusion I can tell you there is exactly one reason why people work in fusion and it is to secure humanity's future. No level of cynicism from outsiders will change that fact, only make their lives more difficult. The best I can do for now is point back to prior points at the cracks in the story. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28730707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28730707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28736859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28736859

lisper 5y ago
Noble motives are neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve success. The laws of physics neither know nor care how altruistic and self-sacrificing fusion researchers are. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.
- willis936 5y ago
  You're absolutely right. And fusion does work. These issues are entirely human.
  - lisper 5y ago
    > fusion does work Right. That's why we have such a thriving fusion power industry.
    - AitchEmArsey 5y ago
      If you broaden the scope of the economy beyond about 1AU, we absolutely do have a thriving fusion power industry.
    - oivey 5y ago
      I think the point he is making is that profitable fusion-based electricity generation isn’t a physics problem; it is an engineering problem. Engineering requires dealing with people in addition to physics.
    - bdamm 5y ago
      Heavier than air flying machines? Epic failures across centuries led many to believe it was fundamentally impossible, despite Leonardo Da Vinci's math in the 16th century showing it was theoretically possible. The incandescent light bulb? At one time considered to be a securities fraud! The British parliament assembled a team of investigators to probe Edison's claims. History is full of inventions that seemed impossible until the dogged inventors made it work. Obviously not all fantastical inventions are possible, but fusion has plenty of evidence that points to its eventual possibility.
      - kybernetikos 5y ago
        > The incandescent light bulb? At one time considered to be a securities fraud! The British parliament assembled a team of investigators to probe Edison's claims. I don't know this story, but maybe they were investigating patent infringement? Edison's work drew heavily on the much earlier work of British (and other) inventors and was patented after Joseph Swan's similar patent. Joseph Swan had demonstrated his practical bulb about 10 months before Edison applied for his patent, and was lighting private homes (e.g. Cragside) and theatres at about the same time Edison got going.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  Did anyone claim noble motives are sufficient to achieve success? GP said that some claim it's all a scam, but GP disagrees and has seen noble motives. That's all. Your aggressively arguing against a claim that was never made.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
belter 5y ago
Read the references you provided, but do you mind commenting briefly on the issue raised here: (At correct time) https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY?t=329 https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY?t=329 Edit: More specifically, would you argue the approximate calculation here is incorrect? (At correct time) https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY?t=521 https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY?t=521
- willis936 5y ago
  Edit: on Q of ITER. The approximation is reasonable. ITER isn't a power plant. It's being built to study burning plasmas and blanket technologies. It has always been a stepping stone. Is the number not getting large enough fast enough to please the god emperor? Which issue, exactly? She raises several flags then conflates them all. The overarching theme is that scientists are misleading the public. There is no shortage of charlatans using the guise of fusion research to spend public goodwill. She is pushing the idea that even the real scientists are doing the same. They are not. Who are these figments "touting Q"? The pop science articles? Did she sit down and actually talk to a single researcher, ever? In the comments I link above I tear apart her primary sources as they are misrepresented. She seems intent on claiming Qplasma is a bad metric and shouldn't be used. Well she isn't qualified to make that statement, certainly without some scientific basis for the claim. Astonishingly she never mentions triple product or empirical scaling laws, which are the actual metrics that real research machines use. Real machines are not nuclear, so Q is always zero. Does this mean fusion has made zero progress? This highlights her bias in the argument.
  - belter 5y ago
    I am not at all claiming your arguments are not valid but why is ITER claiming this then? "ITER will generate 10 times more heat than used to start the fusion reaction." https://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/iter/ https://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/iter/ Edit: I will half-answer or rephrase my own question so as to make clear, there are no hidden intentions behind it:-) Why did ITER decide to present Qplasma as the core metric without using the metric, most would consider the critical to decide closeness to commercial viability? Would you agree with experts that claim that a minimum Q of 100 is the minimum to target for commercial viability?
rdsubhas 5y ago
This is her summary: That people are not being unambiguous/open about Qtotal numbers. All responders who are trying to discredit her are just throwing even more diversions, jargons and ambiguity. Which proves her right even more. If people wish to prove her wrong, it's simple – just openly and unambiguously discuss the Qtotal numbers.
- willis936 5y ago
  You're doing what I take issue with what she was doing: misrepresenting the arguments. There is a kernel to what she has said, however she pours gasoline onto it to expose some sort of villain that doesn't actually exist. It's a great story though. I discredit her because she was never interested in finding truth but wears the guise of being someone who is. Now more than ever (even late 15th century) is it difficult to discern misinformation. The last thing we need are smart and capable people weaponizing misunderstanding.

lisper 5y ago

Noble motives are neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve success. The laws of physics neither know nor care how altruistic and self-sacrificing fusion researchers are. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

willis936 5y ago
You're absolutely right. And fusion does work. These issues are entirely human.
- lisper 5y ago
  > fusion does work Right. That's why we have such a thriving fusion power industry.
  - AitchEmArsey 5y ago
    If you broaden the scope of the economy beyond about 1AU, we absolutely do have a thriving fusion power industry.
  - oivey 5y ago
    I think the point he is making is that profitable fusion-based electricity generation isn’t a physics problem; it is an engineering problem. Engineering requires dealing with people in addition to physics.
  - bdamm 5y ago
    Heavier than air flying machines? Epic failures across centuries led many to believe it was fundamentally impossible, despite Leonardo Da Vinci's math in the 16th century showing it was theoretically possible. The incandescent light bulb? At one time considered to be a securities fraud! The British parliament assembled a team of investigators to probe Edison's claims. History is full of inventions that seemed impossible until the dogged inventors made it work. Obviously not all fantastical inventions are possible, but fusion has plenty of evidence that points to its eventual possibility.
    - kybernetikos 5y ago
      > The incandescent light bulb? At one time considered to be a securities fraud! The British parliament assembled a team of investigators to probe Edison's claims. I don't know this story, but maybe they were investigating patent infringement? Edison's work drew heavily on the much earlier work of British (and other) inventors and was patented after Joseph Swan's similar patent. Joseph Swan had demonstrated his practical bulb about 10 months before Edison applied for his patent, and was lighting private homes (e.g. Cragside) and theatres at about the same time Edison got going.
Buttons840 5y ago
Did anyone claim noble motives are sufficient to achieve success? GP said that some claim it's all a scam, but GP disagrees and has seen noble motives. That's all. Your aggressively arguing against a claim that was never made.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

belter 5y ago

Read the references you provided, but do you mind commenting briefly on the issue raised here: (At correct time) https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY?t=329 https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY?t=329 Edit: More specifically, would you argue the approximate calculation here is incorrect? (At correct time) https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY?t=521 https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY?t=521

willis936 5y ago
Edit: on Q of ITER. The approximation is reasonable. ITER isn't a power plant. It's being built to study burning plasmas and blanket technologies. It has always been a stepping stone. Is the number not getting large enough fast enough to please the god emperor? Which issue, exactly? She raises several flags then conflates them all. The overarching theme is that scientists are misleading the public. There is no shortage of charlatans using the guise of fusion research to spend public goodwill. She is pushing the idea that even the real scientists are doing the same. They are not. Who are these figments "touting Q"? The pop science articles? Did she sit down and actually talk to a single researcher, ever? In the comments I link above I tear apart her primary sources as they are misrepresented. She seems intent on claiming Qplasma is a bad metric and shouldn't be used. Well she isn't qualified to make that statement, certainly without some scientific basis for the claim. Astonishingly she never mentions triple product or empirical scaling laws, which are the actual metrics that real research machines use. Real machines are not nuclear, so Q is always zero. Does this mean fusion has made zero progress? This highlights her bias in the argument.
- belter 5y ago
  I am not at all claiming your arguments are not valid but why is ITER claiming this then? "ITER will generate 10 times more heat than used to start the fusion reaction." https://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/iter/ https://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/iter/ Edit: I will half-answer or rephrase my own question so as to make clear, there are no hidden intentions behind it:-) Why did ITER decide to present Qplasma as the core metric without using the metric, most would consider the critical to decide closeness to commercial viability? Would you agree with experts that claim that a minimum Q of 100 is the minimum to target for commercial viability?

rdsubhas 5y ago

This is her summary: That people are not being unambiguous/open about Qtotal numbers. All responders who are trying to discredit her are just throwing even more diversions, jargons and ambiguity. Which proves her right even more. If people wish to prove her wrong, it's simple – just openly and unambiguously discuss the Qtotal numbers.

willis936 5y ago
You're doing what I take issue with what she was doing: misrepresenting the arguments. There is a kernel to what she has said, however she pours gasoline onto it to expose some sort of villain that doesn't actually exist. It's a great story though. I discredit her because she was never interested in finding truth but wears the guise of being someone who is. Now more than ever (even late 15th century) is it difficult to discern misinformation. The last thing we need are smart and capable people weaponizing misunderstanding.