3 ms·

I think there's some ambiguity in saying "The exhibit tried to explain why fusion is a good thing." One can take the view that fusion is a good thing and the ex

I think there's some ambiguity in saying "The exhibit tried to explain why fusion is a good thing." One can take the view that fusion is a good thing and the exhibit is trying to explain that fact, or take the view that the ehibit is trying to explain that fusion is a good thing, without saying anything about whether it is or isn't. I took the article as a whole as suggesting that research into fusion on this scale is not a good thing, and it specifically quoted a critic as saying that fusion was desirable, but nobody knows how to contain it. Which suggests to me that the article is in accord with you on that subject. So overall, I don't think the article is suggesting that fusion is good, or clean, but rather the article makes the point that fusion's supporters hope that in forty years or so we might have something that is good or clean.

DabAsteroid 18y ago
it specifically quoted a critic as saying that fusion was desirable ...Which is an absurd thing for that critic to say when even fusion's proponents admit that even if it could be made to work, it would not likely be economically competitive.
- raganwald 18y ago
  Well, I think you may have a different definition of desirable. The exact quote from the article is: Nobel laureate in physics Pierre-Gilles de Gennes is once supposed to have said about the problem of fusion power in general, "We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box." I'm thinking that when a Nobel laureate in physics says that an idea is pretty, he is not suggesting that it is economically feasible or even workable. Nor is he saying that we should build it regardless, he is merely saying that it's an attractive idea, but technically impossible given what he knew when he said it.
  - Retric 18y ago
    Or you can read it as: "We can't build it today so it's not useful today." Which is not the same thing as "Based on the known laws of physics this will never work."

DabAsteroid 18y ago

it specifically quoted a critic as saying that fusion was desirable ...Which is an absurd thing for that critic to say when even fusion's proponents admit that even if it could be made to work, it would not likely be economically competitive.

raganwald 18y ago
Well, I think you may have a different definition of desirable. The exact quote from the article is: Nobel laureate in physics Pierre-Gilles de Gennes is once supposed to have said about the problem of fusion power in general, "We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box." I'm thinking that when a Nobel laureate in physics says that an idea is pretty, he is not suggesting that it is economically feasible or even workable. Nor is he saying that we should build it regardless, he is merely saying that it's an attractive idea, but technically impossible given what he knew when he said it.
- Retric 18y ago
  Or you can read it as: "We can't build it today so it's not useful today." Which is not the same thing as "Based on the known laws of physics this will never work."