4 ms·

> By combining our years of experience in fusion, newly available electronics technologies, and a revolutionary design using cutting-edge physics, Helion is mak

by kolbe 11y ago

> By combining our years of experience in fusion, newly available electronics technologies, and a revolutionary design using cutting-edge physics, Helion is making a fusion engine 1,000 times smaller, over 500 times cheaper, and realizable 10 time faster than other projects. What?!? I certainly appreciate the ambition, but humanity has spent seven decades and at least hundreds of billions of dollars on this very same project. What in the world is this tiny startup doing with a $5mm grant that is so easy and cheap that could possibly lead to that kind of breakthrough in fusion energy?

if_by_whisky 11y ago
Probably nothing? But since they're funded anyway, it's pretty cheap to cross our fingers.
ekianjo 11y ago
> at least hundreds of billions of dollars on this very same project. How is that a measure of doing something meaningful ? Take EADS making the Ariane rocket launchers, they have been spending billions and billions of Euros making rockets for years, yet they have no project like SpaceX and yet they will be rapidly obsolete once SpaceX works as expected. It's not about the amount you spend, it's about experimenting in new areas not explored yet. Now, about fusion, I have no idea what they plan to do, but in principle there's always new things worth trying (even if they end up failing).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It's a measure that there's been a lot of effort going on in the past decades, so it's unlikely that a random startup with minuscule budget will suddenly crack it. SpaceX vs. Airbus Group is a bad example because Elon is only dropping costs of what is a proven technology (rockets). We don't have a break-even fusion reactor yet. But to be honest, I think we need to encourage more effort, so I applaud the project anyway, and keep my fingers crossed.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > SpaceX vs. Airbus Group is a bad example because Elon is only dropping costs of what is a proven technology (rockets). I disagree on that point. SpaceX is not just making rockets cheaper, it's changing the paradigm by making rockets re-usable, which is very far from what EADS is planning to do currently. It's a game-changer and will divide the costs of launching something to space by 10 or more. I cant comment on the Fusion startup, but we should not assume that companies operating with billions of cash are more effective at innovation than smaller ones with smaller budgets. They aren't, and that has been proven in many cases, SpaceX is just one good example coming to mind. In the pharma world, very small biotechs with minimal funding are responsible for the discovery of many new drug targets, and not the large pharma groups themselves.
rtfeldman 11y ago
For what it's worth, this is the kind of comment that looks hilarious in retrospect after every major breakthrough. YC has demonstrated they aren't just throwing darts here, so vague pessimism is not the best default.
- kolbe 11y ago
  I am literally asking "what?" Because I don't know of any common idea that is even in the realm of this. I'm hoping someone knew something about the process they're pursuing that is not commonly known among cargo cult physicists like myself.
  - titanomachy 11y ago
    > The Helion reactor will fire a steady stream of plasmoids from each side into a chamber, where the fuel is crushed by magnetic fields until fusion begins. Within one second, the fusion products are channelled away just as the next pair of plasmoids hurtles in. “The analogy we like to make is to a diesel engine,” says the company's chief executive, David Kirtley. “On each stroke you inject the fuel, compress it with the piston it until it ignites without needing a spark, and the explosion pushes back on the piston.” http://www.nature.com/news/plasma-physics-the-fusion-upstarts-1.15592 http://www.nature.com/news/plasma-physics-the-fusion-upstart... EDIT: This admittedly isn't very much information, but it's more than I could find on their official site.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Cargo Cult physicists, Nobel winning physicists...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- jeffreyrogers 11y ago
  The reason those kinds of comments look ridiculous is because no one bothered to look up the thousands of other comments that people posted about similarly ridiculous sounding things that never panned out.
nl 11y ago
Helion is investigating a different shaped magnetic containment field[0], and $5m is enough to get to them to the next prototype. They have had previous success[1], and the torus-shaped magnetic containment fields used in most fusion research is known to be a problem. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversed_field_pinch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversed_field_pinch [1] http://www.alternative-energy-action-now.com/helion-energy.html http://www.alternative-energy-action-now.com/helion-energy.h... (yes, that domain sounds terrible, but the info seems ok)
DennisP 11y ago
Helion isn't the only small fusion startup. Others include General Fusion, which has investment from Jeff Bezos, and Tri-Alpha, which has over $150 million, including from Paul Allen and Goldman Sachs. Fusion advanced exponentially from 1970 to 2000, at about the pace of Moore's Law. Then governments decided to put most of their fusion money into a giant, poorly-managed construction project in France. But we're not that far off, and in those seven decades we've learned a lot about plasma physics, gotten much better computers for plasma simulations, and developed all sorts of other enabling technologies.
erikpukinskis 11y ago
You're describing it like its the Yankees vs the Cleveland Indians, but it's not pure competition like that. The $5m startup is building on top of the $100b effort. Lots of science has been published, materials have been developed, dead ends have been discovered. The field of engineers gained much experience in those precious efforts. That doesn't decrease the probability of success, it increases it. Sometimes it's not the size of the investment that dictates success. Often you need a good reset, with a smaller, better aligned team. Everything that ever happened spent a long time not happening first. One must be super careful extrapolating inactivity.

by kolbe 11y ago

if_by_whisky 11y ago

Probably nothing? But since they're funded anyway, it's pretty cheap to cross our fingers.

ekianjo 11y ago

> at least hundreds of billions of dollars on this very same project. How is that a measure of doing something meaningful ? Take EADS making the Ariane rocket launchers, they have been spending billions and billions of Euros making rockets for years, yet they have no project like SpaceX and yet they will be rapidly obsolete once SpaceX works as expected. It's not about the amount you spend, it's about experimenting in new areas not explored yet. Now, about fusion, I have no idea what they plan to do, but in principle there's always new things worth trying (even if they end up failing).

TeMPOraL 11y ago
It's a measure that there's been a lot of effort going on in the past decades, so it's unlikely that a random startup with minuscule budget will suddenly crack it. SpaceX vs. Airbus Group is a bad example because Elon is only dropping costs of what is a proven technology (rockets). We don't have a break-even fusion reactor yet. But to be honest, I think we need to encourage more effort, so I applaud the project anyway, and keep my fingers crossed.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > SpaceX vs. Airbus Group is a bad example because Elon is only dropping costs of what is a proven technology (rockets). I disagree on that point. SpaceX is not just making rockets cheaper, it's changing the paradigm by making rockets re-usable, which is very far from what EADS is planning to do currently. It's a game-changer and will divide the costs of launching something to space by 10 or more. I cant comment on the Fusion startup, but we should not assume that companies operating with billions of cash are more effective at innovation than smaller ones with smaller budgets. They aren't, and that has been proven in many cases, SpaceX is just one good example coming to mind. In the pharma world, very small biotechs with minimal funding are responsible for the discovery of many new drug targets, and not the large pharma groups themselves.

rtfeldman 11y ago

For what it's worth, this is the kind of comment that looks hilarious in retrospect after every major breakthrough. YC has demonstrated they aren't just throwing darts here, so vague pessimism is not the best default.

kolbe 11y ago
I am literally asking "what?" Because I don't know of any common idea that is even in the realm of this. I'm hoping someone knew something about the process they're pursuing that is not commonly known among cargo cult physicists like myself.
- titanomachy 11y ago
  > The Helion reactor will fire a steady stream of plasmoids from each side into a chamber, where the fuel is crushed by magnetic fields until fusion begins. Within one second, the fusion products are channelled away just as the next pair of plasmoids hurtles in. “The analogy we like to make is to a diesel engine,” says the company's chief executive, David Kirtley. “On each stroke you inject the fuel, compress it with the piston it until it ignites without needing a spark, and the explosion pushes back on the piston.” http://www.nature.com/news/plasma-physics-the-fusion-upstarts-1.15592 http://www.nature.com/news/plasma-physics-the-fusion-upstart... EDIT: This admittedly isn't very much information, but it's more than I could find on their official site.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Cargo Cult physicists, Nobel winning physicists...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jeffreyrogers 11y ago
The reason those kinds of comments look ridiculous is because no one bothered to look up the thousands of other comments that people posted about similarly ridiculous sounding things that never panned out.

nl 11y ago

Helion is investigating a different shaped magnetic containment field[0], and $5m is enough to get to them to the next prototype. They have had previous success[1], and the torus-shaped magnetic containment fields used in most fusion research is known to be a problem. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversed_field_pinch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversed_field_pinch [1] http://www.alternative-energy-action-now.com/helion-energy.html http://www.alternative-energy-action-now.com/helion-energy.h... (yes, that domain sounds terrible, but the info seems ok)

DennisP 11y ago

Helion isn't the only small fusion startup. Others include General Fusion, which has investment from Jeff Bezos, and Tri-Alpha, which has over $150 million, including from Paul Allen and Goldman Sachs. Fusion advanced exponentially from 1970 to 2000, at about the pace of Moore's Law. Then governments decided to put most of their fusion money into a giant, poorly-managed construction project in France. But we're not that far off, and in those seven decades we've learned a lot about plasma physics, gotten much better computers for plasma simulations, and developed all sorts of other enabling technologies.

erikpukinskis 11y ago

You're describing it like its the Yankees vs the Cleveland Indians, but it's not pure competition like that. The $5m startup is building on top of the $100b effort. Lots of science has been published, materials have been developed, dead ends have been discovered. The field of engineers gained much experience in those precious efforts. That doesn't decrease the probability of success, it increases it. Sometimes it's not the size of the investment that dictates success. Often you need a good reset, with a smaller, better aligned team. Everything that ever happened spent a long time not happening first. One must be super careful extrapolating inactivity.