Why don't you make one that works on land first? Would be an achievement in and of itself.
Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships
111–120 of 267 posts
Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships
#112Re Q>1, isn't that just the reaction making more power as heat than you put in and you need something like Q>5 to use the heat to make steam to make electricity to run the thing? (as in wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor )
Correct. Energy generation >1 is targeted for 2030. So it fits "fusion is 5 years away" trope.
Fusion used to always be 30 years away, more recently 15 years.
Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships
#113The NS Savannah (fission powered) was unable to enter some ports because the local governments did not allow nuclear powered vessels in their waters.
Do you think that a fusion powered vessel will be allowed in?
Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships
#114Sorry for being so naive but I need to ask: What is the difference between a startup dedicated to making "Fusion Reactors for Maritime Ships" and a startup dedicated to making "Anti-Gravity devices for Airplanes"? Since you're talking about applying a non existing technology to a specific market, swing for the fences and go all in.
So far only one of these two ideas sounded not entirely deranged to the good people of YC.
So there is at least (and, perhaps, also at most) a sociological difference.
Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships
#115I hope this doesn't sound aggressive, but I'm a little confused. What specifically are you launching today?
Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships
#116Sorry for being so naive but I need to ask: What is the difference between a startup dedicated to making "Fusion Reactors for Maritime Ships" and a startup dedicated to making "Anti-Gravity devices for Airplanes"? Since you're talking about applying a non existing technology to a specific market, swing for the fences and go all in.
One is theoretically achievable using known materials. The other is theoretically achievable using unknown materials. That distinction might make a difference.
Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships
#117Sorry for being so naive but I need to ask: What is the difference between a startup dedicated to making "Fusion Reactors for Maritime Ships" and a startup dedicated to making "Anti-Gravity devices for Airplanes"? Since you're talking about applying a non existing technology to a specific market, swing for the fences and go all in.
So far only one of these two ideas sounded not entirely deranged to the good people of YC. So there is at least (and, perhaps, also at most) a sociological difference.
I had to recheck to make sure it wasn't a Softbank investment. YC must be rolling in the dough to fund companies like this one.
Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships
#118The mere fact that you're proposing doing this on a moving vessel already tells me you're completely incompetent. No one has made fusion net positive, somehow building a net positive fusion reactor on a boat would be fine I guess but to suggest its better than enriched uranium is dishonest. You'll have more luck building a regular fission reactor on a commercial freighter than verify a fusion reactor for any ocean ca…
You'll have more luck building a regular fission reactor on a commercial freighter than verify a fusion reactor for any ocean capable ship. That part, I'm not so sure about. Enriched uranium is potentially dangerous stuff, and has to be guarded closely. In a world with literal pirates, getting one on a commercial ship sounds very, very unlikely. As you say, fusion seems equally unlikely, albeit from a physics standpo…
> Enriched uranium is potentially dangerous stuff
Doesn't have to be very enriched to be used as fuel. Fuel rods are really tame and can be handled pretty easily.
Once they get put into a reactor and it is turned on, it's a completely different matter.
There are alternative fuel sources as well.
Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships
#119> One common question is, why not fission? Fission works technically, but not practically. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) could power ships, but licensing fission reactors on land is already brutally hard and expensive—doing it for vessels moving between international ports with enriched uranium is nearly impossible What makes you think that licensing a fusion reactor will be easier? Safely handling tritium is fantast…
[flagged]
Re: Launch HN: Maritime Fusion (YC W25) – Fusion Reactors for Ships
#120Very cool. If you could also make a smaller one with ~3kw output that fits on a locomotive frame you'd literally have the entire freight rail industry the world over as customers.
Why is that sounding like hydrogen trains all over again.
Radiation shielding scales poorly in the downwards direction.