4 ms·

You can be optimistic when you’re just making an app to rent your room out or to find a dog walker. You can hustle and sell useless SaaS services long enough to

You can be optimistic when you’re just making an app to rent your room out or to find a dog walker. You can hustle and sell useless SaaS services long enough to get acquired for no real reason except managerial power plays in large companies. In the world of software you can kinda make almost any idea work with sweat and political maneuvering. You can literally see that they’re trying to play the same games here. However when it comes to startups dealing with biology or physics you’re literally battling the laws of nature. You can’t just hustle out of it. I’ve been laughing at the type of biotech companies that get funded by SV (nano diamonds for cancer detection? Gut Micro biome sequencing?) and it’s looking like similar story with fusion. In this case if you want real reasons why Helion looks suspect check out this good summary of all the issues with their approach and promise: https://youtu.be/3vUPhsFoniw https://youtu.be/3vUPhsFoniw I won’t get my life against someone figuring out fusion in the next two decades but I wouldn’t bet money towards it either.

sebzim4500 3y ago
That's almost exactly what they said to Elon Musk when he started SpaceX, and now they are on a streak of >100 successful missions in a row.
- slaw 3y ago
  SpaceX uses technology that started to work in 1961.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    And if you squint a lot then Helion is continuing a development process that started in the 1950s.
    - slaw 3y ago
      Yes, Helion is continuing what didn't work since 1950s.
- ramraj07 3y ago
  Yes but spacex didn’t promise anything physicists said is impossible. Engineers saying impossible is different from physicists saying it. The equivalent would be if spacex said something that violated the rocket equation. They didn’t. And also while they promise the Mars, they can settle for the largest reusable rocket as a consolation prize. In fields like biotech and fusion there’s often no consolation prize. So spacex was well managed with the right level of optimism and practicality. Not so here.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    What has Helion promised that physicists say is impoossible?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
stevenhuang 3y ago
There are worse ways to destroy capital, and the VC capital destruction is going to happen anyways. Might as well put it towards fusion. The criticisms raised in the video are fair, and also the first youtube comment has an interesting point: > Why would he allow this reckless behavior? Why would he himself be standing right there with them next to the device while it was in operation? Then I watched the video more closely again - he never takes the grid potential higher than 6kV. There was no fusion and no x-rays that could penetrate the wall of the vessel or the glass window. It was a ruse. You need to have a potential difference on the grids of AT LEAST 30kV to even begin seeing any fusion reactions at all. He knows enough physics to be aware of all of this. He was therefore deliberately allowing them, and the credulous audience, to believe they were actually doing fusion reactions when nothing of the sort was happening at all - they were merely staring at a pretty glowing pink cool deuterium plasma in a bottle. I believe this to be very suspicious behavior from a CEO of a commercial nuclear fusion company.
- sfpotter 3y ago
  A better way to destroy that capital: have it appropriated by the government and used to fund actual science.
  - Rnonymous 3y ago
    But (academic) science doesn't usually develop commercial products. Science would develop the concept underlying helion, for instance, but then a startup should bring it to market.
  - pinewurst 3y ago
    Where "actual science" is defined (from a NSF/big granter perspective) by various science in-groups to benefit their respective communities. Having served my time in the grant-funded science world, this is hardly a panacea.
    - sfpotter 3y ago
      I'll take the lesser of two evils, thanks.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
You say that but biological medicine and Technology continues to improve. The trajectory is positive. Will every startup be successful? Of course not! But as a whole, technology continues to March forward and improve.
- ramraj07 3y ago
  It doesn’t seem to be improving through Silicon Valley VC money though. Name one SV funded biotech startup. Ginkgo is cool though.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    BioNTech's mRNA vaccine technology is a pretty great example of a VC funded startup success story that had huge impact and profit. If you want to constrain your question to Silicon Valley specifically, which isnt the center of biotech VC, there are still lots to look at[1]. You can also just hook at the helthcare portfolios of the SV VCs themselves and find several sucessful exits. Venrock [2], e.g Anacor, regenxbio https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/28/home-run-exits-happen-stealthily-for-biotech/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHIo5l9l8_NiPunXYXR7Xcj1hIXadCE5kHx-_im0kjncvRTc9xCbYTziVxJ4xJgqeITgRIOyzs7_G3pj1yYT2Nem9fMWrZv_7U5mVT4tAUNtB9pUDJYGzov0AzFJC18-j_0VGyjOQLQolqSC9HzNEiHztZbGA_x2SxWacawriGyF https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/28/home-run-exits-happen-stea... https://www.venrock.com/companies https://www.venrock.com/companies
    - ramraj07 3y ago
      I did make the SV (especially YC) VC funding distinction. Biotech has long been funded by VC money and while not perfect it worked better than what is happening now. I was particularly a fan of 3rd Rock ventures, their investments all followed (in my opinion) the most scientifically sound ideas.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
> You can’t just hustle out of it. I’ve been laughing at the type of biotech companies that get funded by SV Yes, SV funds incredibly stupid biotechs. It also passes over really good biotechs. I think it's because honest founders are likely to do good work, and won't pitch with a $$ ask that doesn't make sense, and SV equity raises don't make sense for such capital intensive activities.

sebzim4500 3y ago

That's almost exactly what they said to Elon Musk when he started SpaceX, and now they are on a streak of >100 successful missions in a row.

slaw 3y ago
SpaceX uses technology that started to work in 1961.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  And if you squint a lot then Helion is continuing a development process that started in the 1950s.
  - slaw 3y ago
    Yes, Helion is continuing what didn't work since 1950s.
ramraj07 3y ago
Yes but spacex didn’t promise anything physicists said is impossible. Engineers saying impossible is different from physicists saying it. The equivalent would be if spacex said something that violated the rocket equation. They didn’t. And also while they promise the Mars, they can settle for the largest reusable rocket as a consolation prize. In fields like biotech and fusion there’s often no consolation prize. So spacex was well managed with the right level of optimism and practicality. Not so here.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  What has Helion promised that physicists say is impoossible?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

stevenhuang 3y ago

There are worse ways to destroy capital, and the VC capital destruction is going to happen anyways. Might as well put it towards fusion. The criticisms raised in the video are fair, and also the first youtube comment has an interesting point: > Why would he allow this reckless behavior? Why would he himself be standing right there with them next to the device while it was in operation? Then I watched the video more closely again - he never takes the grid potential higher than 6kV. There was no fusion and no x-rays that could penetrate the wall of the vessel or the glass window. It was a ruse. You need to have a potential difference on the grids of AT LEAST 30kV to even begin seeing any fusion reactions at all. He knows enough physics to be aware of all of this. He was therefore deliberately allowing them, and the credulous audience, to believe they were actually doing fusion reactions when nothing of the sort was happening at all - they were merely staring at a pretty glowing pink cool deuterium plasma in a bottle. I believe this to be very suspicious behavior from a CEO of a commercial nuclear fusion company.

sfpotter 3y ago
A better way to destroy that capital: have it appropriated by the government and used to fund actual science.
- Rnonymous 3y ago
  But (academic) science doesn't usually develop commercial products. Science would develop the concept underlying helion, for instance, but then a startup should bring it to market.
- pinewurst 3y ago
  Where "actual science" is defined (from a NSF/big granter perspective) by various science in-groups to benefit their respective communities. Having served my time in the grant-funded science world, this is hardly a panacea.
  - sfpotter 3y ago
    I'll take the lesser of two evils, thanks.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

You say that but biological medicine and Technology continues to improve. The trajectory is positive. Will every startup be successful? Of course not! But as a whole, technology continues to March forward and improve.

ramraj07 3y ago
It doesn’t seem to be improving through Silicon Valley VC money though. Name one SV funded biotech startup. Ginkgo is cool though.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  BioNTech's mRNA vaccine technology is a pretty great example of a VC funded startup success story that had huge impact and profit. If you want to constrain your question to Silicon Valley specifically, which isnt the center of biotech VC, there are still lots to look at[1]. You can also just hook at the helthcare portfolios of the SV VCs themselves and find several sucessful exits. Venrock [2], e.g Anacor, regenxbio https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/28/home-run-exits-happen-stealthily-for-biotech/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHIo5l9l8_NiPunXYXR7Xcj1hIXadCE5kHx-_im0kjncvRTc9xCbYTziVxJ4xJgqeITgRIOyzs7_G3pj1yYT2Nem9fMWrZv_7U5mVT4tAUNtB9pUDJYGzov0AzFJC18-j_0VGyjOQLQolqSC9HzNEiHztZbGA_x2SxWacawriGyF https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/28/home-run-exits-happen-stea... https://www.venrock.com/companies https://www.venrock.com/companies
  - ramraj07 3y ago
    I did make the SV (especially YC) VC funding distinction. Biotech has long been funded by VC money and while not perfect it worked better than what is happening now. I was particularly a fan of 3rd Rock ventures, their investments all followed (in my opinion) the most scientifically sound ideas.

throwawaymaths 3y ago

> You can’t just hustle out of it. I’ve been laughing at the type of biotech companies that get funded by SV Yes, SV funds incredibly stupid biotechs. It also passes over really good biotechs. I think it's because honest founders are likely to do good work, and won't pitch with a $$ ask that doesn't make sense, and SV equity raises don't make sense for such capital intensive activities.