5 ms·

I do enjoy how mindless some of the fusion advocacy is. Why do you think a result like this would make anyone less skeptical of fusion? Ability to run a devic

I do enjoy how mindless some of the fusion advocacy is. Why do you think a result like this would make anyone less skeptical of fusion? Ability to run a device for this long is not the obstacle to success for nuclear fusion. This is just another vastly overhyped "breakthrough", which we seem to have every week. I've followed fusion for probably longer than you've been alive, and there are fundamental showstoppers for the common approaches, particularly tokamaks and stellarators. Fusion may have a chance with unconventional approaches, like Helion's, but the consensus approach looks like an exercise in groupthink that won't lead anywhere.

arrobbiato 2y ago
Agreed with all of this. And, there’s an implicit criticism of science journalism here. Any article that suggests useful fusion reactors are X years away should address the massive unsolved engineering problems that have to be surmounted. But no news source is going to spend five or six extra paragraphs explaining neutron metal activation or hydrogen embrittlement.
1970-01-01 2y ago
>Why do you think a result like this would make anyone less skeptical of fusion? Just 9 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43000301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43000301 >>Ability to run a device for this long is not the obstacle to success for nuclear fusion. What an odd take. Do you also consider the list of flight endurance records to be immaterial to aircraft evolution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_endurance_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_endurance_record
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Focus on relatively unimportant subtasks has a name. It's called "bikeshedding". This achievement is relatively unimportant. It's not the major issue that would block a DT fusion reactor. As such, achieving it doesn't move the needle much on the plausibility of DT fusion in tokamaks.
  - 1970-01-01 2y ago
    This is not the definition of bikeshedding.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Bikeshedding is focusing on triviality at the expense of important issues. That is just what is happening here. The showstopper issues with tokamaks are size, cost, reliability, materials. This has nothing to do with any of those.
      - 1970-01-01 2y ago
        >The showstopper issues with tokamaks are size, cost, reliability, materials. Plasma runtime in not a showstopper then?
        pfdietz 2y ago
        It's an issue that wasn't high risk. I mean, sure, check off the box, but don't pretend this moves the needle much. This was minor compared to those issues that have no clear solutions, or reasons to think there won't be solutions.

arrobbiato 2y ago

Agreed with all of this. And, there’s an implicit criticism of science journalism here. Any article that suggests useful fusion reactors are X years away should address the massive unsolved engineering problems that have to be surmounted. But no news source is going to spend five or six extra paragraphs explaining neutron metal activation or hydrogen embrittlement.

1970-01-01 2y ago

>Why do you think a result like this would make anyone less skeptical of fusion? Just 9 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43000301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43000301 >>Ability to run a device for this long is not the obstacle to success for nuclear fusion. What an odd take. Do you also consider the list of flight endurance records to be immaterial to aircraft evolution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_endurance_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_endurance_record

pfdietz 2y ago
Focus on relatively unimportant subtasks has a name. It's called "bikeshedding". This achievement is relatively unimportant. It's not the major issue that would block a DT fusion reactor. As such, achieving it doesn't move the needle much on the plausibility of DT fusion in tokamaks.
- 1970-01-01 2y ago
  This is not the definition of bikeshedding.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Bikeshedding is focusing on triviality at the expense of important issues. That is just what is happening here. The showstopper issues with tokamaks are size, cost, reliability, materials. This has nothing to do with any of those.
    - 1970-01-01 2y ago
      >The showstopper issues with tokamaks are size, cost, reliability, materials. Plasma runtime in not a showstopper then?
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        It's an issue that wasn't high risk. I mean, sure, check off the box, but don't pretend this moves the needle much. This was minor compared to those issues that have no clear solutions, or reasons to think there won't be solutions.