5 ms·

"in 2024 to 1) demonstrate Q > 1 fusion" You wish :) I used to work in CERN a long time ago and still keep in touch with a few physicists. All of them are ver

"in 2024 to 1) demonstrate Q > 1 fusion" You wish :) I used to work in CERN a long time ago and still keep in touch with a few physicists. All of them are very skeptical about commercial nuclear fusion before 2050 - 2070. It's going to take huge advances in science and engineering and a lot of money (on a scale similar to Manhattan or Apollo projects).

hef19898 4y ago
Nay sayers! All it takes is some innovative, VC backed start-up. Until IPO / SPAC that is.
- Shadonototra 4y ago
  VCs funding a company has nothing to do with innovation Their goal is to make a profit That's why we don't have fusion energy yet And that's why Nuclear plants have stagnated for many decades already Education is where innovation comes from, it's been like this for centuries (scientific, health, industry) and yet it's been neglected for decades, go look at the salaries of teachers, even in private schools VC backed startups prevent innovation, look at today, we living a recession since 2008 because the market invested and moved their wealth in for profit pockets If you invest in schools, you don't expect profit in return, you expect innovation in return If you invest in a startup, you don't expect innovation in return, you expect profit in return It is very simple Galileo wasn't a VC and he wasn't backed by a VC Even Tesla and SpaceX couldn't be where they are with only just VCs, they had to get massive help from the fed and the government to stay afloat, as well as a shit ton of internships from all around the world to sustain their R&D efforts
DennisP 4y ago
The Manhattan project cost $23 billion in 2020 dollars. The ITER project alone is spending more than that. Helion is spending a couple billion, but draws on decades of published research.
- borissk 4y ago
  How many % of the country GDP did the Manhattan cost? How much would that percentage be in dollars today?
  - DennisP 4y ago
    How does that matter? It's the same size project, no matter how much is going on in the rest of the economy. Also, the Manhattan Project took three years. Fusion has been actively researched for seventy years. We can spend all day quibbling but it seems clear that fusion research is at least roughly "on a scale similar to Manhattan."
    - borissk 4y ago
      Nothing like it. Nearly all the best physicists and mathematicians in the free world were employed in Manhattan, a minuscule amount of the top scientists in the world today work on fusion.
      - DennisP 4y ago
        You said "a lot of money (on a scale similar to Manhattan", so I've been arguing that specific point. Money on the scale of Manhattan is in fact being spent. I don't think there's any way to quantify whether the "best" physicists are working on fusion so I'm not going to argue that one.
        borissk 4y ago
        As I tried to explain, what I meant was the Manhattan project cost 0.8% of 1945 US GDP. To spend the same percentage today would be 184 billion. Obviously nothing like that is being spent. If you read physics journals, you'll know there is very little research being done and published on fusion today.
        spurgu 4y ago
Ancalagon 4y ago
I am definitely not in the know wrt fusion, but I certainly wish this venture is successful.
thepasswordis 4y ago
I wish too. I think we all do
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
To be fair, Q > 1 in a research system and “commercial nuclear fusion” are two different things. I’m a lay person but it feels to me like SPARC has a good chance of Q > 1 this decade and reasonable that they could build a commercial system before 2040. I’m reminded of all the NASA people that were highly skeptical of SpaceX when they were getting started and I feel like these big institutions end up with a bias against new companies with new ideas.
- borissk 4y ago
  Sure, I'm not an expert either and future is hard to predict. It's possible that someone will solve the outstanding technical challenges in the next few years. Regarding SpaceX, I believe when they started all their top rocket engineers where ex-NASA.
ramraj07 4y ago
Please ask your physicists if they’ve heard of the Alcubierre drive. Not if they believe in it or if they have a debunk or it; but if they’ve even heard of it. I’ve talked to multiple ex cERNs and none of them have even heard of it but will be happy to say FTL is stupid. (I’m perfectly aware of the outrageous requirements of the various Alcubierre configurations, but the point is before this it was considered mathematically impossible to do FTL. Now it’s just physical. The point is modern day academics are quite good at being very confident that everything except what they do is crap.)

hef19898 4y ago

Nay sayers! All it takes is some innovative, VC backed start-up. Until IPO / SPAC that is.

Shadonototra 4y ago
VCs funding a company has nothing to do with innovation Their goal is to make a profit That's why we don't have fusion energy yet And that's why Nuclear plants have stagnated for many decades already Education is where innovation comes from, it's been like this for centuries (scientific, health, industry) and yet it's been neglected for decades, go look at the salaries of teachers, even in private schools VC backed startups prevent innovation, look at today, we living a recession since 2008 because the market invested and moved their wealth in for profit pockets If you invest in schools, you don't expect profit in return, you expect innovation in return If you invest in a startup, you don't expect innovation in return, you expect profit in return It is very simple Galileo wasn't a VC and he wasn't backed by a VC Even Tesla and SpaceX couldn't be where they are with only just VCs, they had to get massive help from the fed and the government to stay afloat, as well as a shit ton of internships from all around the world to sustain their R&D efforts

DennisP 4y ago

The Manhattan project cost $23 billion in 2020 dollars. The ITER project alone is spending more than that. Helion is spending a couple billion, but draws on decades of published research.

borissk 4y ago
How many % of the country GDP did the Manhattan cost? How much would that percentage be in dollars today?
- DennisP 4y ago
  How does that matter? It's the same size project, no matter how much is going on in the rest of the economy. Also, the Manhattan Project took three years. Fusion has been actively researched for seventy years. We can spend all day quibbling but it seems clear that fusion research is at least roughly "on a scale similar to Manhattan."
  - borissk 4y ago
    Nothing like it. Nearly all the best physicists and mathematicians in the free world were employed in Manhattan, a minuscule amount of the top scientists in the world today work on fusion.
    - DennisP 4y ago
      You said "a lot of money (on a scale similar to Manhattan", so I've been arguing that specific point. Money on the scale of Manhattan is in fact being spent. I don't think there's any way to quantify whether the "best" physicists are working on fusion so I'm not going to argue that one.
      - borissk 4y ago
        As I tried to explain, what I meant was the Manhattan project cost 0.8% of 1945 US GDP. To spend the same percentage today would be 184 billion. Obviously nothing like that is being spent. If you read physics journals, you'll know there is very little research being done and published on fusion today.
        spurgu 4y ago

Ancalagon 4y ago

I am definitely not in the know wrt fusion, but I certainly wish this venture is successful.

thepasswordis 4y ago

I wish too. I think we all do

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

To be fair, Q > 1 in a research system and “commercial nuclear fusion” are two different things. I’m a lay person but it feels to me like SPARC has a good chance of Q > 1 this decade and reasonable that they could build a commercial system before 2040. I’m reminded of all the NASA people that were highly skeptical of SpaceX when they were getting started and I feel like these big institutions end up with a bias against new companies with new ideas.

borissk 4y ago
Sure, I'm not an expert either and future is hard to predict. It's possible that someone will solve the outstanding technical challenges in the next few years. Regarding SpaceX, I believe when they started all their top rocket engineers where ex-NASA.

ramraj07 4y ago

Please ask your physicists if they’ve heard of the Alcubierre drive. Not if they believe in it or if they have a debunk or it; but if they’ve even heard of it. I’ve talked to multiple ex cERNs and none of them have even heard of it but will be happy to say FTL is stupid. (I’m perfectly aware of the outrageous requirements of the various Alcubierre configurations, but the point is before this it was considered mathematically impossible to do FTL. Now it’s just physical. The point is modern day academics are quite good at being very confident that everything except what they do is crap.)