Reply To: Toshiba's "Micro Nuclear Reactor" – it's not fusion, but it's here now

[Rezwan]

Is DPF aneutronic fusion the main thing here, or just any aneutronic fusion? I do not mean what do we think is most likely to be successful, or what we personally support, but I mean what do we think FFS is about?

“I do not mean what we think is most likely to be successful.” This shows an “pro-specific technology” approach. – like you like to focus deeply on a technology, for its own sake.

I am definitely going to resurrect the DPF site we started, and you can take it over. We need something like that, very technology specific. It looks like you have the focus for it.

Like you say, if this does not work out, the name can be changed to “Focus on Fusion Society” at that time and we can all carry on.

Name Change: Actually, we’ve discussed it, and wouldn’t change the name even if it doesn’t work out. Because science is about trying things. So if we’d keep the name if it’s successful, why would be not keep it if it wasn’t? The pursuit of knowledge is its own reward. Other stuff is gravy.

“at that time and we can all carry on” – time is running out for a lot of fusion programs. They could all benefit from synergy. There’s too much at stake for taking a linear approach, one thing at a time.

However, let’s think positive, and put our energy into making it work out.

Alas, I was just reflecting on this today. I’m a bit of a negative person. I suppose you might call it a pessimist. (pessimists for fusion!) I prefer realist. But in any case, positive thinking seems unnecessary. You do the work. You don’t have to fake emotion around it. Just do it. So, yes, put your energy into making it work out. I agree with that wholeheartedly. But why mask things with unproven positivity? It’s healthier to acknowledge the risks, and diversify the portfolio. That seems sensible to me. General fusion managed to raise $35 million for a fusion project with just such an approach. No need to fake anything. And their scientists want other approaches tried as well. There’s no either/or here.

Back to positivity – I’m still working out the balance. I find that a lot of people require the positivity thing, and this attitude of mine is perceived as a downer. Then again, Fusion has been called the “science of wishful thinking”, with enthusiasm met by the “wait and see” stonewall, (i.e., you talk to folks and they say, “Whatever. Let me know how it turns out”). But we want to engage people now, without “over-selling”.

I can’t change that, so that would be another thing to outsource. A chipper communications person 🙂

I suppose one could lean towards positivity, followed by being absorbed by the specific technology in question. The fusion is a possible outcome that would be nice, but you (one) would focus on the thing right in front of you at the moment.

I lean towards negativity/realism/diversification, followed by – expansion? holism? Where I am trying to get a sense of all the chess pieces and the optimal collective action outcome.

At the end of the day, the problem we’re here to solve is the fusion puzzle, the specific technology is a means to an end. We’re being practical by investigating the coolest, most cost-effective route first (DPF + pB11!) And we’re being responsible by looking at the broader picture and ways to develop synergy in case things stretch out.

“just any aneutronic fusion” – you say it like it’s so easy. Where is the awe for what is being attempted? Aneutronic fusion!

Can team DPF do it? (And cut to you: Team DPF rep – sell it!)