3 ms·
The only purpose of my comment was to provide context for the numbers in the article via a thought experiment involving doubling. Since the calculation involve
by dfdz 5y ago
The only purpose of my comment was to provide context for the numbers in the article via a thought experiment involving doubling.
Since the calculation involves taking log_2, even if the estimate for the "used power" is off by a factor of 4 the result will only change by 50 years.
Can you make your qualitative comment quantitative and update the numbers in my doubling thought experiment?
I would be curious about what you think is more realistic.
- willis936 5y agoA quantitative approach is no virtue here, just a more convincing way to lie. ITER will use roughly the same amount of power as JET, produce 10x the power 40 years later. Even using poor metrics such as Q you have enough data points to p-hack whatever incorrect timeframe model you want. ITER isn't even using HTS coils. If you really want a quantitative projection of MCF performance over time, here you go. Don't lie with numbers if you don't know what you're talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fustion_triple-product_diagram_Horvath.webp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fustion_triple-product_di...