3 ms·
Since I absolutely decided to take this in the worst possible way (get the downvotes ready) What is the timeframe for those lasers to light a bulb somewhere, v
by phtrivier 4y ago
Since I absolutely decided to take this in the worst possible way (get the downvotes ready)
What is the timeframe for those lasers to light a bulb somewhere, vs the timeframe of those lasers killing someone on a battlefield ? (As in, how much of is applicable for the military?)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- adventured 4y agoI'm not sure what you're talking about. What is it you think you took in the worst possible way? The lasers in question are mediocre for battlefield use. The consequences for the military are trivial, unless you're talking about 70 years from now when the US military is using fusion to power some of its military bases, subs or carriers.
- phtrivier 4y agoI decided to take this "fusion breakthrough" with a massive dose of salt additionned with twice it's weight in pepper and bile. At least the Nature article had a good ratio of actual information about the experiment, its limitations and prospect, as opposed to massive hyperbole from other commenters already popping the champagne as if the energy crisis was over. This made sound grumpy, which, truth be written, I am. (And, jealous, too, of course. I wouldn't mind a bit of actual success, once in a while.) Or maybe the grunts working on the experiment know better, and are _also_ grinding their teeths at the PR effort ? Maybe _they_ also feel unsatisfied because they still haven't met their own goal ? I suppose nuclear fusion physicists must have imposter syndrome, too ? Who knows.