4 ms·
>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.yc
by 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 agoFocus 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 agoThis is not the definition of bikeshedding.
- pfdietz 2y agoBikeshedding 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 agoIt'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.