Reply To: Global Warming

[asymmetric_implosion]

Is it worth including a history of the PF in general to explain the differences between then and now? The PF was originally viewed as a path to fusion. That is the basis for most dismissal of the technology as a fusion reactor. People have “too much” experience with it and “know” the outcome. It would be helpful for the techies to see the differences between FF and conventional PF technology.

The about doc is really thorough. I like the comments on the revisions to shorten and clean it up for the average person. I know I said something above about techies but the history might help the average person understand the basic technology exists but it hasn’t been applied in the correct way.

A comment on other applications…x-ray lithography might be less likely than Q>1. Soft x-ray lithography even with a PF (NIE/NTU, SRL, Cymer, AASC) was developed and tested over 20 years ago. Cost models were favorable in many cases and the technology generally worked. It needed more development but the goal was in sight. The problem was a barrier that the lithographers were not giving up on optical/UV techniques. IBM spent a lot of money supporting the develop along with DARPA and it fell on its sword because the folks doing the work would not adopt it. Maybe times have changed but last I looked groups like Intel are pursuing EUV lithography while avoiding soft x-ray techniques like a plague. I guess my concern is you might have a loser out of the gate.