7 ms·

I mean isn't that accurate? The same could be said for the moon landing. We knew all the requisite physics by the 1900. The rest was engineering. No one said th

I mean isn't that accurate? The same could be said for the moon landing. We knew all the requisite physics by the 1900. The rest was engineering. No one said that engineering was the easy part.

somewhat_drunk 4y ago
Well said, and I fucking love it.
- smaudet 4y ago
  Except they are not even in the same ballpark. Nobody is denying fusion can be done, but if you told me moon landing tickets were available to the general public I would say you were lying. It is not an engineering problem, they haven't solved half the physics still. You can't just tell the fuel pellets to burn hotter please, would you mind transferring your energy to this battery on the way out, they have none of the required steps to do this yet. Once it's actually possible to get net positive energy, then yes by all means engineer away the inefficiencies, before that it's still as much a pipe dream.
  - baandang 4y ago
    We also always ignore economics in these situations. The reason we all don't have a Boston Dynamics level robot right now is because of the economics of mass producing such a robot. To call that an engineering problem is too simplistic to me. We don't need to just solve fusion. We need to produce fusion in a manner that undercuts the price of fossil fuels. Then stack "renewable" on top of that. Sociologically, people operate on self interest and will in-group into team Fossil Fuels, Team Wind/Solar and we might even end up with Team Fossil Fuels and Team Wind/Solar forming an alliance to oppose Team Fusion. Of course, outwardly and individually we play make believe that we are all impartial 3rd party observers that just want the best for Team Human. It is those self interested jerks on the other team that are the problem. Never you and I.
petilon 4y ago
The idea of using nuclear fusion as a source of energy dates back to the 1920s and 1930s, when Rutherford first began exploring the possibility. By the 1950s and 1960s significant progress was made in understanding the complex scientific processes involved in nuclear fusion and in developing the technology needed to harness this form of energy. So based on your criteria you could have said the "rest is engineering" back in the 60s! In reality though we are still far away from engineers being able to take over, even now. Because we need way more than 1.5x coming out of fusion in order to compensate for the inefficiencies in generating laser from electricity, and also the inefficiencies in converting heat output into electricity.
labster 4y ago
Mostly we did. The Apollo Guidance Computer used integrated circuits on silicon, and we needed quantum to get a good handle on semiconductors. And transistors were first theorized in 1926. Getting funding was probably the easy part, all it took was a superpower Cold War.

I mean isn't that accurate? The same could be said for the moon landing. We knew all the requisite physics by the 1900. The rest was engineering. No one said that engineering was the easy part.

somewhat_drunk 4y ago

Well said, and I fucking love it.

smaudet 4y ago
Except they are not even in the same ballpark. Nobody is denying fusion can be done, but if you told me moon landing tickets were available to the general public I would say you were lying. It is not an engineering problem, they haven't solved half the physics still. You can't just tell the fuel pellets to burn hotter please, would you mind transferring your energy to this battery on the way out, they have none of the required steps to do this yet. Once it's actually possible to get net positive energy, then yes by all means engineer away the inefficiencies, before that it's still as much a pipe dream.
- baandang 4y ago
  We also always ignore economics in these situations. The reason we all don't have a Boston Dynamics level robot right now is because of the economics of mass producing such a robot. To call that an engineering problem is too simplistic to me. We don't need to just solve fusion. We need to produce fusion in a manner that undercuts the price of fossil fuels. Then stack "renewable" on top of that. Sociologically, people operate on self interest and will in-group into team Fossil Fuels, Team Wind/Solar and we might even end up with Team Fossil Fuels and Team Wind/Solar forming an alliance to oppose Team Fusion. Of course, outwardly and individually we play make believe that we are all impartial 3rd party observers that just want the best for Team Human. It is those self interested jerks on the other team that are the problem. Never you and I.

petilon 4y ago

The idea of using nuclear fusion as a source of energy dates back to the 1920s and 1930s, when Rutherford first began exploring the possibility. By the 1950s and 1960s significant progress was made in understanding the complex scientific processes involved in nuclear fusion and in developing the technology needed to harness this form of energy. So based on your criteria you could have said the "rest is engineering" back in the 60s! In reality though we are still far away from engineers being able to take over, even now. Because we need way more than 1.5x coming out of fusion in order to compensate for the inefficiencies in generating laser from electricity, and also the inefficiencies in converting heat output into electricity.

labster 4y ago

Mostly we did. The Apollo Guidance Computer used integrated circuits on silicon, and we needed quantum to get a good handle on semiconductors. And transistors were first theorized in 1926. Getting funding was probably the easy part, all it took was a superpower Cold War.