4 ms·

Tbh, I'm okay with this. Linked in the article it says Marathon Fusion's total investments are just under $7M. That's really nothing for government projects. We

Tbh, I'm okay with this. Linked in the article it says Marathon Fusion's total investments are just under $7M. That's really nothing for government projects. We have to remember that what is a lot of money for us as people is very different than what is a lot of money for a government. Author seems to be concerned with how risky of an investment it is, but honestly, I'd be happy for the gov to make more of these types of investments. I mean it really is a very small percentage of the US national budget. Frankly, a big benefit from these types of government funded projects is that the knowledge tends to become public. Meaning that even failures lead to benefits as the next person can learn from previous work. Just like with any project. So idk, I'm happy to 10x that budget and see them fail if we learn something useful out of it. That's still a win in my book. $70M for a good step towards fusion? Deal! What I'm not okay with is the hype machines that form around these things. It is a self-inflicted wound explicitly created by our risk aversion. We try really hard to pick the best projects based on how well fleshed out their ideas are and supporting proof. But as you can easily guess from that condition, it usually means we end up moving in very small steps. Which then has the problem of being less motivating for spending money on as what, we're going to spend money for someone to research things we already know the answers to? So what happens? Either people make claims with confidence that is unfounded or they exaggerate the importance of their work. There's certainly a bias as people don't want to work on already known stuff and grant readers are willing to let some exaggerations slide as "it's just the way things are." But this compounds and gets out of hand...

tw04 1y ago
You’re glossing over the part where we’ve got an administration that’s anti science dumping money into what is literally snake oil. We are so strapped for cash we need to cut off people’s healthcare, slash NASA’s budget, make massive cuts to university research and terminate vaccine programs. But we’ve somehow got $7m to piss away on pretending you can turn lead into gold like it’s 600bc.
- godelski 1y ago
  > what is literally snake oil. Well it is this part that I'm unconvinced. You can probably gather from my comment that I fully believe they are overselling, but that's different. As for the administration part, that's an orthogonal conversation. It is preying on the effects that I discussed, so they are related, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. We can talk about the x-axis without the y-axis, even if we want to figure out where a point lies in a plane. > We are so strapped for cash I'll refer you to the first part of my comment. Personally, when you're strapped for cash I think it is best to go after the big ticket items that are costing you money rather than freaking out about losing a few pennies. You're not wrong that allocation is a problem, but allocation is a difference between lack of budget.
- lesuorac 1y ago
  > It has been trivial since the 1980’s to produce gold alchemically, when Nobel laureate Glenn Seaborg (also of Seaborgium fame) used a particle accelerator to transmute bismuth into gold. Not sure it's literally snake oil. But also investing ~7M into a bunch of credentialed individuals to continue experiments with fusion energy seems to be a fine decision. In the past you'd need to explain how fusion energy will help diverse communities power their homes. Now you just have to explain how fusion energy will create the presidents favorite substance.
  - tw04 1y ago
    When it costs several hundred million dollars to produce gold that is measured in protons and neutrons it is functionally snake oil. The fact you can technically create gold from smashing particles together is completely irrelevant to the money being spent here. > the collision-induced reactions had removed anywhere from six to 15 neutrons, producing a range of gold isotopes from gold 190 (79 protons and 111 neutrons) to gold 199 (79 protons, 120 neutrons)
    - godelski 1y ago
      > When it costs several hundred million dollars We're talking about $7M, not $700M
wakawaka28 1y ago
>Author seems to be concerned with how risky of an investment it is, but honestly, I'd be happy for the gov to make more of these types of investments. I mean it really is a very small percentage of the US national budget. It is all too common for total bullshit ideas to get funding. Even though our budget is huge, the national debt is much larger. Research needs to be managed and funded appropriately according to the most likely risk/reward of doing it. Is it productive to have people researching applications of fusion power when fusion is itself is this holy grail level unsolved problem?

tw04 1y ago

You’re glossing over the part where we’ve got an administration that’s anti science dumping money into what is literally snake oil. We are so strapped for cash we need to cut off people’s healthcare, slash NASA’s budget, make massive cuts to university research and terminate vaccine programs. But we’ve somehow got $7m to piss away on pretending you can turn lead into gold like it’s 600bc.

godelski 1y ago
> what is literally snake oil. Well it is this part that I'm unconvinced. You can probably gather from my comment that I fully believe they are overselling, but that's different. As for the administration part, that's an orthogonal conversation. It is preying on the effects that I discussed, so they are related, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. We can talk about the x-axis without the y-axis, even if we want to figure out where a point lies in a plane. > We are so strapped for cash I'll refer you to the first part of my comment. Personally, when you're strapped for cash I think it is best to go after the big ticket items that are costing you money rather than freaking out about losing a few pennies. You're not wrong that allocation is a problem, but allocation is a difference between lack of budget.
lesuorac 1y ago
> It has been trivial since the 1980’s to produce gold alchemically, when Nobel laureate Glenn Seaborg (also of Seaborgium fame) used a particle accelerator to transmute bismuth into gold. Not sure it's literally snake oil. But also investing ~7M into a bunch of credentialed individuals to continue experiments with fusion energy seems to be a fine decision. In the past you'd need to explain how fusion energy will help diverse communities power their homes. Now you just have to explain how fusion energy will create the presidents favorite substance.
- tw04 1y ago
  When it costs several hundred million dollars to produce gold that is measured in protons and neutrons it is functionally snake oil. The fact you can technically create gold from smashing particles together is completely irrelevant to the money being spent here. > the collision-induced reactions had removed anywhere from six to 15 neutrons, producing a range of gold isotopes from gold 190 (79 protons and 111 neutrons) to gold 199 (79 protons, 120 neutrons)
  - godelski 1y ago
    > When it costs several hundred million dollars We're talking about $7M, not $700M

wakawaka28 1y ago

>Author seems to be concerned with how risky of an investment it is, but honestly, I'd be happy for the gov to make more of these types of investments. I mean it really is a very small percentage of the US national budget. It is all too common for total bullshit ideas to get funding. Even though our budget is huge, the national debt is much larger. Research needs to be managed and funded appropriately according to the most likely risk/reward of doing it. Is it productive to have people researching applications of fusion power when fusion is itself is this holy grail level unsolved problem?