4 ms·

We should require every fusion breakthrough article to state Q in the title

• JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  q is more of the fan way to look at it than the engineer way to look at it people throw it around like "you need q=1.35 to be economical" but that's kind of nonsense
  • arnaudsm 4y ago
    What are the other relevant numbers to summarize the progress? $/kWh?
    • tinco 4y ago
      No, that's just a different way of writing Q. There is not a continuous gradient along which nuclear fusion research progresses. It will have a negative $/kWh ratio until the first commercial plant is built. Until then it's milestones that show possibilities.
    • JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      That's like claiming that gas mileage is the only way to evaluate a car, and when hearing someone say "only a fan would think you can make a decision like this from a single number," asking what you would use instead of gas mileage You can't even evaluate if a good choice for location 1 is still a good choice for a different location without knowing what the other location is There is no easy number for a casual to try to make these decisions with
• mlindner 4y ago
  The undue focus on Q caused by the likes of Sabine Hossenfelder is itself a problem.