Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
digitaljournal.com
Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#2Url changed from https://futurism.com/a-startup-claims-to-have-found-a-soluti..., which points to this.
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#3Lerner has been beating this drum for years, and presented at many conferences. And yet no one has invested. I'd love to know why. Either there's a catch to the technology that he's not disclosing (and the smart money doesn't have a motivation to disclose), or he's asking for unreasonable business terms.
The only thing I know for sure is there's no lack of capital available for good fusion research. Not if the money raised by Tri-Alpha, General Fusion, and others is an indicator.
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#4Lerner has been beating this drum for years, and presented at many conferences. And yet no one has invested. I'd love to know why. Either there's a catch to the technology that he's not disclosing (and the smart money doesn't have a motivation to disclose), or he's asking for unreasonable business terms. The only thing I know for sure is there's no lack of capital available for good fusion research. Not if the money…
My dad was a navy nuke and said that the cost v safety v portability of fission was far superior to that of fusion. That was back in the 90s, so I wonder if it's still relevant, but a quick search [1] seemed to confirm the general idea.
[1] diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#5So now we're 49 years away instead of the proverbial 50 years we've always been at?
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#6So now we're 49 years away instead of the proverbial 50 years we've always been at?
[deleted]
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#7Lerner has been beating this drum for years, and presented at many conferences. And yet no one has invested. I'd love to know why. Either there's a catch to the technology that he's not disclosing (and the smart money doesn't have a motivation to disclose), or he's asking for unreasonable business terms. The only thing I know for sure is there's no lack of capital available for good fusion research. Not if the money…
My dad was a navy nuke and said that the cost v safety v portability of fission was far superior to that of fusion. That was back in the 90s, so I wonder if it's still relevant, but a quick search [1] seemed to confirm the general idea. [1] diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion
[deleted]
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#8Lerner has been beating this drum for years, and presented at many conferences. And yet no one has invested. I'd love to know why. Either there's a catch to the technology that he's not disclosing (and the smart money doesn't have a motivation to disclose), or he's asking for unreasonable business terms. The only thing I know for sure is there's no lack of capital available for good fusion research. Not if the money…
My dad was a navy nuke and said that the cost v safety v portability of fission was far superior to that of fusion. That was back in the 90s, so I wonder if it's still relevant, but a quick search [1] seemed to confirm the general idea. [1] diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion
Considering we don't have any way of currently producing an energy positive fusion reactor that can sustain a reaction, he's not wrong... but it is comparing a proven technology to one that, despite the hype, is still in its infancy. Fusion has a lot of benefits should we ever engineer a reactor successfully.
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
My dad was a navy nuke and said that the cost v safety v portability of fission was far superior to that of fusion. That was back in the 90s, so I wonder if it's still relevant, but a quick search [1] seemed to confirm the general idea. [1] diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion
Considering we don't have any way of currently producing an energy positive fusion reactor that can sustain a reaction, he's not wrong... but it is comparing a proven technology to one that, despite the hype, is still in its infancy. Fusion has a lot of benefits should we ever engineer a reactor successfully.
Yeah I'd be baffled if someone compared the cost and portability of classical vs quantum computers.
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#10So now we're 49 years away instead of the proverbial 50 years we've always been at?
Nah, it's one step closer, not a full year closer yet.