Shouldn't we give up on fusion?

[Ken Fabian]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The problem with putting any particular research “on the back burner” is that knowledge diffusion kills it. The researchers move on to other projects and you won’t be able to reassemble the same researchers. Any institutional knowledge, any tricks of the trade, will be lost and have to be re-learned if you try and restart. If you decide you need fusion, however far away we currently are, you would have added extra years to reaching the end goal, since you’ll have to duplicate previous work.

Believing all will be lost if fusion programs get defunded sounds like spirited defense of the sunk cost fallacy.

More than 70 years so far and still not even close. If any program were closing in on a working reactor then yes, breaking it up will put the overall goal behind, but that is not the case. And I do think fusion can be revisited, that other high energy particle physics and other research programs are closely enough related that developments can be, will be, relevant to prospects of future fusion. A decade retooling for a renewed program based on actual prospects of success - which may very well require a markedly different approach, which might be held back by reluctance to let go of what isn't working  - isn't that unreasonable.

And I suspect ever more such R&D will be virtual, computer modeled and AI assisted.

 

Edited June 30 by Ken Fabian

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Believing all will be lost if fusion programs get defunded sounds like spirited defense of the sunk cost fallacy.

More than 70 years so far and still not even close. If any program were closing in on a working reactor then yes, breaking it up will put the overall goal behind, but that is not the case. And I do think fusion can be revisited, that other high energy particle physics and other research programs are closely enough related that developments can be, will be, relevant to prospects of future fusion. A decade retooling for a renewed program based on actual prospects of success - which may very well require a markedly different approach, which might be held back by reluctance to let go of what isn't working  - isn't that unreasonable.

And I suspect ever more such R&D will be virtual, computer modeled and AI assisted.

 

As I've just mentioned, the Apollo program is an object lesson of what happens when continuity of development and experienced people is lost. It is impossible to record every single little bit of critical knowledge  and techniques that is contained within  experts minds from any given period.

Edited June 30 by StringJunky

[Ken Fabian]

Technological progress has not been greatly diminished - or diminished at all - by the US not extending the Apollo space program.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The problem with putting any particular research “on the back burner” is that knowledge diffusion kills it. The researchers move on to other projects and you won’t be able to reassemble the same researchers. Any institutional knowledge, any tricks of the trade, will be lost and have to be re-learned if you try and restart. If you decide you need fusion, however far away we currently are, you would have added extra years to reaching the end goal, since you’ll have to duplicate previous work.

That is an interesting point and incidentally something that I feel is happening in e.g. the area of microbiology. DNA sequencing has become so cheap and attractive that is has displaced traditional microbiology from many areas of research and very few younger scientist learn the many tricks you have to do to e.g. cultivate tricky organisms.

As a consequence, we have vastly increased our knowledge regarding what is out there (or rather, whose DNA is out there) but our understanding of what they are actually doing is slowing down quite a bit. Somewhat strangely, this also seem to affect the literature. One would assume that once it is out there, knowledge would not be lost, but I do start to see a fair bit of newer publications that apparently ignore or are simply unaware of many older publications, resulting in repeating the same insights, just repeated with more sequencing.

I suppose it is not unusual that the shiny next new thing can affect science and research directions but if putting things on backburner results in generational gaps, the impact seems indeed outsized.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Believing all will be lost if fusion programs get defunded sounds like spirited defense of the sunk cost fallacy.

Not at all. If there was an impasse or outright failure, sure, continuing would be the sunk cost fallacy, but knowledge diffusion is a real thing, even in programs that aren’t being cancelled. Some key person retiring or dying can impact a program. Researchers are not interchangeable parts.

 

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

More than 70 years so far and still not even close. If any program were closing in on a working reactor then yes, breaking it up will put the overall goal behind, but that is not the case.

That’s not the case, though. It’s progressing. There’s no guarantee that a working, net-energy producing reactor will ever be built, but there’s no denying that the state of development is beyond where it was, say, 10 years ago.

EAST, NIF and KSTAR have each set some kind of record of a fusion parameter in the past few years.

 

And let’s not forget that the premise here is that there is some ethical issue because of the “vast” amount of power that fusion programs use

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Technological progress has not been greatly diminished - or diminished at all - by the US not extending the Apollo space program.

Why is there so many failures occurring at launch presently if that was the case? All that elementary launch stuff would be nailed down pat by now if there had been continuity and recorded. SpaceX et al wouldn't be doing the mistakes that they are.

Edited June 30 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, zapatos said:

What kind of media blitz would persuade Australia to do things your way instead of the way they have determined is appropriate? Do you think they simply haven't thought deeply about this subject and you are clearing things up for them? Or perhaps you can convince them to spend money they do not have?

It was always a long shot, bc money now is more persuasive than life tomorrow. Australia has the natural resources to supply its own nuclear program virtually free, but for some reason the top brass didn't like that idea.

They're an example of why I put this question in ethics.

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Why is there so many failures occurring at launch presently if that was the case? All that elementary launch stuff would be nailed down pat by now if there had been continuity and recorded. SpaceX et al wouldn't be doing the mistakes that they are.

But in the case of fusion, there hasn't been any successful launches; so what would be wrong with letting Elon and his cronies take the reins, leave the public fund's free to help in a more productive way 🤞.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It was always a long shot, bc money now is more persuasive than life tomorrow. Australia has the natural resources to supply its own nuclear program virtually free, but for some reason the top brass didn't like that idea.

They're an example of why I put this question in ethics.

If your issue is the ethics of Australia rejecting nuclear power you should have posed it that way. But you didn’t. What is unethical about fusion research?

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

But in the case of fusion, there hasn't been any successful launches; so what would be wrong with letting Elon and his cronies take the reins, leave the public fund's free to help in a more productive way 🤞.

No R&D effort has had a successful launch before completion. If you’re going to criticize it, at least use the same standard. It’s like complaining about not breaking the sound barrier before Yeager did it. 

[ImplicitDemands]

When the only think tanks capable of figuring out how to get enough energy back to perpetuate a fusion cycle aren't paid or respected enough to even bother to write more than hints much less go through the process of getting it patented, then yeah. In this economy? With this "incentive"? Yeah, kiss it goodbye. The group are idiots, yet we run on a census. So the majority just tries to make everything bad for the ones that are talented enough to help because they stew in their own collective failures making sure there are no exceptions. 

Edited July 1 by ImplicitDemands

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

the majority just tries to make everything bad for the ones that are talented enough to help because they stew in their own collective failures making sure there are no exceptions

This is a delusional claim, and reeks of deep bias and disconnection from reality. 

[ImplicitDemands]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is a delusional claim, and reeks of deep bias and disconnection from reality. 

What is the definition of a census? Rule by majority. 

A number value ($) is insufficient for exchange. Without a negotiation on terms, there can be no real trade outside of the bottom line ($). Quality of life is more complicated than an arbitrary number ($) can provide. Discussions on ones terms of living are not made in this or any other country, everyone is subject to the wrath of the census. 

Edited July 1 by ImplicitDemands

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

What is the definition of a census? Rule by majority. 

Actually, the definition of census is an official count or survey, most commonly related to the numbers within a given population. 

But your comment is also disconnected from the actual topic under discussion, so encourage you to allow this tangent to die here. 

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

So the majority just tries to make everything bad for the ones that are talented enough to help because they stew in their own collective failures making sure there are no exceptions. 

Or they aren't thinking about that in the least, and simply do things for themselves that you resent a great deal. 

[ImplicitDemands]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

is also disconnected from the actual topic under discussion

So you're saying that laws passed due to census votes has nothing to do with the disgruntlement of a nuclear physicist who can increase energy throughput from fusion? 

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Or they aren't thinking about that in the least, and simply do things for themselves that you resent a great deal. 

Let's look at the importance of a country, or any type of organization/group for that matter, that has sustained fusion. Every other nation, or group, has less energy available to them. This goes for anything, if I have a faster aircraft, if I have a longer range of communication, and one person was responsible for that why not make exceptions? 

Edited July 1 by ImplicitDemands

[exchemist]

3 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

So you're saying that laws passed due to census votes has nothing to do with the disgruntlement of a nuclear physicist who can increase energy throughput from fusion? 

What laws are you referring to?

[ImplicitDemands]

Just now, exchemist said:

What laws are you referring to?

Rules and regulations, or lack there of or just in general non-specific rules and regulations that go for everyone. When any individual has unique needs/wants. 

[exchemist]

1 minute ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Rules and regulations, or lack there of or just in general non-specific rules and regulations that go for everyone. When any individual has unique needs/wants. 

OK so you are just waffling, as I suspected. So far as I know, no country has passed laws to prevent fusion research. I certainly can’t see why any legislature would do such a thing.

[ImplicitDemands]

Just now, exchemist said:

OK so you are just waffling, as I suspected. So far as I know, no country has passed laws to prevent fusion research. I certainly can’t see why any legislature would do such a thing.

The richest people can be miserable. Bill Gates still has to wait in line. Anyway this can sort of become a tangent, I'm just going to drop this for now. 

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Let's look at the importance of a country, or any type of organization/group for that matter, that has sustained fusion. Every other nation, or group, has less energy available to them. This goes for anything, if I have a faster aircraft, if I have a longer range of communication, and one person was responsible for that why not make exceptions? 

Are you responding to what I posted?! It doesn't seem like it.

I commented on your post because you claimed the majority are focused on making things bad for the talented people. I think they are focused on making things better for themselves. If that makes things bad for you, it's a consequence, not a focus. I don't know how this ties to what you posted above. It's like you're having multiple conversations and randomly switching questions and answers. 

[exchemist]

4 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

The richest people can be miserable. Bill Gates still has to wait in line. Anyway this can sort of become a tangent, I'm just going to drop this for now. 

Whut? You are making no sense whatever.

[dimreepr]

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is unethical about fusion research?

Nothing, ethically, it's all about the cost...

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nothing, ethically, it's all about the cost...

And yet when I asked about this, you said “the numbers don't matter”

If you can’t actually support your argument this is just ignorance-based ranting

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

And yet when I asked about this, you said “the numbers don't matter”

I said the numbers don't matter if you're the wrong side of the solution...

[iNow]

48 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

So you're saying that laws passed due to census votes has nothing to do with the disgruntlement of a nuclear physicist who can increase energy throughput from fusion? 

no

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It was always a long shot

If the media blitz is just a long shot, then you may as well leave the money in fusion R&D. After all, your reason for pulling R&D funding was the low likelihood of success in the near future.