3 ms·
SPARC is in fact a heavily marketed continuation of ARC, which has been around since 2014 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3540 https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3540 - not
by sigmoid10 4y ago
SPARC is in fact a heavily marketed continuation of ARC, which has been around since 2014 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3540 https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3540 - note the same authors). So the commercialization ideas would have started way earlier. But a project lead believing in the project shouldn't matter in any objective analysis anyways. The guys over at Lockheed also certainly believed in their compact fusion reactor design when they started working on it (which was, incidentally, one year before ARC), but they too had to learn by now that belief alone is not enough when it comes down to the laws of physics.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love for SPARC to be a success. I just haven't seen any objective, external review that would confirm (or at least try to show) how they solved the problem of controlling turbulent plasma in a high gradient field. It's not even fully clear that ITER will be able to do that, and they'll have a much easier time due to the larger reactor radius.
- DennisP 4y agoThe guys over at Lockheed weren't in charge of one of the leading academic fusion programs in the US. ARC in 2014 was just a design created by students in one of Whyte's classes. At this point, as a woefully ignorant layman, I'm forced to weigh two contrary claims. One is by the head of MIT's fusion program. The other is by a commenter on HN, helpfully linking an impressive-looking paper I don't understand, which does not appear to say with layman-friendly clarity that higher magnetic fields make fusion plasmas less stable.
- sigmoid10 4y agoHey, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. In fact I couldn't care less what people think of this specific project. It's not my money that these VC funds are spraying. I'm just trying to convey a modicum of common sense when it comes to evaluating sources for particularly extraordinary claims. I see Elon Musk get torn to shreds regulalry around here whenever he says something slightly optimistic about electric cars or rocket science, so I frankly find it astounding how easily people eat stuff that comes from guys behind private fusion companies. I guess plasma physics and continuum mechaniccs are less impugnable than rockets and cars for most people.
- DennisP 4y agoWell I was hoping you were trying to convince me, and would have an easier-to-digest source handy, or a simple explanation of the relevant part of the paper. You certainly don't owe me that, and I don't mean to doubt you, and for all I know you're a professional fusion researcher. Plenty of people like that are on HN. But I don't know, so I'm just muddling through as best I can, trying to get things right. Personally, the claim that stronger fields make plasma more stable doesn't seem all that extraordinary to me, and certainly not one that's contrary to simple common sense. And when it comes to evaluating sources, Dennis Whyte seems like a fairly reputable one.