(4) Comments
Deception! Scandal! Fiasco!
Failure?
Your involvement makes a big difference!
Join online, or send checks payable to
Focus Fusion Society, PO Box 232, South Bound Brook, NJ 08880.
The world needs fusion.
Fusion needs you!
Fusion needs you!
or send checks payable to:
Focus Fusion Society
PO Box 232
South Bound Brook, NJ 08880
Comments
For a more in depth discussion, start a thread in the forums.Yep, science must be calm, clue, and corrected.
Except when things work out!
Here’s an inspiring report, that I think supports the case for increased *public* support for fusion research—innovation has often proceeded with government support!
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Case Studies in American Innovation report.pdf
Also, here’s a cool proposal for clean energy research that is actually in Congress right now
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/04/jumpstarting_a_clean_energy_re_1.shtml
Alas, here is a better version of the link above:
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/12/american_innovation.shtml
Reading Seife’s book, I was mildly astonished to find that his argument was based largely on history. Yes, plasmas are tricky, but his scientific argument doesn’t extend much beyond that fact. The problem with the historical argument is that it cuts both ways, since we can’t really know the future.
One reason I like to use the airplane as an analogy is that it’s a historical counter-argument. A lot of intelligent people spent time, effort, and money trying to fly, especially in the century before the Wright brothers’ flight at Kitty Hawk. A lot of them failed. As notable a person as Lord Kelvin declared heavier-than-air flying machines impossible. Then, in the first decade of the 20th century, controlled, powered, heavier-than-air craft flew on several continents. There are still arguments about who flew first, but there’s no doubt that it happened.
A similar example is the “sound barrier”. Once the aerodynamics were understood well enough, it was no barrier at all.
Another historical counter-argument is based on the achievements of fusion research. Sure, it’s been slow: a lot slower than most of us would like. However, we’ve come a long way since ~1950. Fusion yields have continued to increase and, if history is any guide, someone somewhere will reach breakeven within the next twenty years, if not the next five years. Money spent on fusion research could probably be distributed more wisely than it is currently, but reducing or removing it will only ensure that the research advances more slowly, if at all. (For the purposes of this argument, I am not considering public and private money separately. From the researcher’s perspective, either will do the job.)
Post a Comment