> I'd give your criticism some consideration if I thought you had even the slightest knowledge of what we're talking about. Doesn't sound like an arrogant pers

> I'd give your criticism some consideration if I thought you had even the slightest knowledge of what we're talking about. Doesn't sound like an arrogant person to me... FYI I understand how magnetic confinement fusion works at a high-level, as a non-scientist. There's a lot of assumptions you're making here. First that we need hydrogen-hydrogen fusion. Many current reactor designs use deuterium and tritium (nasty stuff tritium.) It doesn't have to be plain hydrogen, it just has to be elements common enough that we won't run out (or that we can breed using neutrons - that gamma radiation you talk about - from the fusion reactor.) Some designs are more exotic with fuel using isotopes of helium, lithium, boron. Second many current reactor designs use a plasma temperature well above 15M K. I've heard of 100M K and that's not an upper limit. But you're also making assumptions about the volume of a reactor - we don't even know if magnetic confinement fusion will end up being the best design, but if we assume it does - then stronger magnetic fields really decrease the volume required. In fact development of stronger magnets based on high-temperature superconductors may be the biggest breakthrough in fusion research in the last decade - see https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major-advance-toward-fusion-energy-0908 https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major-advance-toward-fusio... > And here you are expressing doubt that we'll achieve even the easiest kind of fusion reactor. We don't have a break-even reactor yet by the way - we have achieved fusion for short periods of time and by putting in far more energy than could be produced. That milestone is probably still at least a decade away. My point again is that we don't know enough to be able to say what's possible and what isn't. History is littered with people arrogant enough to say what we can never achieve and humans keep surprising. Sometimes even things that seem impossible - like detecting planets around other stars when the physics of optics is very clear that an optical telescope could never directly image a planet in another solar system. That was wrong on two fronts, one it doesn't account for gravitational lensing, and two it didn't account that we might cheat and detect planets indirectly. And so the arrogant people were wrong again. Don't make that mistake.