4 ms·

>It's so strange to see someone use a PR logic process ("optics") to evaluate a technical claim, rather than using physics and engineering. I think it’s fair t

>It's so strange to see someone use a PR logic process ("optics") to evaluate a technical claim, rather than using physics and engineering. I think it’s fair to apply the “smell test” in this case. We’ve recently see several high profile collapses of fraudulent companies like Nikola and Theranos that claimed to have miraculous technology breakthroughs. Nikola claimed to have solve problems in hydrogen synthesis, transportation, fueling, electricity generation, engine miniaturization, and more. They didn’t have a piece of that technological chain and yet made some incredibly bold claims so they could continue inflating the hype around the company and skyrocket its valuation. I’m not saying Helion is in the same boat as Nikola but it’s fair to be skeptical.

moloch-hai 4y ago
Helion is anyway the least obviously fraudulent of all the fusion startups. So if your skepticism budget is limited, save it for the other guys.
- kabouseng 4y ago
  Just like FTX was the least fraudulent looking of all the crypto exchanges a couple of months ago... :-)
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    My exposure to crypto exchange fraud and to fusion startup fraud are both zero. People with different levels of exposure will need to evaluate accordingly.
schiffern 4y ago
Be skeptical. But use engineering and science to evaluate the claims, not PR 'optics' thinking and analogies. Nikola was always an obvious fraud if you looked at the technology. Tech claims demand tech analysis.
- tim333 4y ago
  We are a bit lacking in data to use engineering and science. For me the biggest reason to take them seriously is their biggest investor, Sam Altman, believes in them and he's smart and presumably can see the data. Maybe they've conned him - who knows? Still I think they'll do ok.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    So, refrain from reaching a judgment then? Or at least, use plausibility: try to imagine something that would rule out what they're claiming. If you can't, consider that moderate evidence that their claims are good.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    That doesn't prevent us from performing a technical (vs PR) "smell test." IMO Helion passes that test, unlike most fusion proposals. Commercial success is one of the possible outcomes.™ That's more than I can say for ITER et al.

moloch-hai 4y ago

Helion is anyway the least obviously fraudulent of all the fusion startups. So if your skepticism budget is limited, save it for the other guys.

kabouseng 4y ago
Just like FTX was the least fraudulent looking of all the crypto exchanges a couple of months ago... :-)
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  My exposure to crypto exchange fraud and to fusion startup fraud are both zero. People with different levels of exposure will need to evaluate accordingly.

schiffern 4y ago

Be skeptical. But use engineering and science to evaluate the claims, not PR 'optics' thinking and analogies. Nikola was always an obvious fraud if you looked at the technology. Tech claims demand tech analysis.

tim333 4y ago
We are a bit lacking in data to use engineering and science. For me the biggest reason to take them seriously is their biggest investor, Sam Altman, believes in them and he's smart and presumably can see the data. Maybe they've conned him - who knows? Still I think they'll do ok.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  So, refrain from reaching a judgment then? Or at least, use plausibility: try to imagine something that would rule out what they're claiming. If you can't, consider that moderate evidence that their claims are good.
- schiffern 4y ago
  That doesn't prevent us from performing a technical (vs PR) "smell test." IMO Helion passes that test, unlike most fusion proposals. Commercial success is one of the possible outcomes.™ That's more than I can say for ITER et al.