Ahh, the good old days! Back in 2002 what is said at 9:00 was true. After 19 years later, that pragmatic urgency may be gone. Private funding can be double edged. On one hand, private investors were key enablers of the initial earnest investigations of this MTF concept. On the other hand, private investment demands growth at a rate determined by investor's expectations. These expectations can place undue pressure on the way the science is approached and communicated. Dr. Laberge has a gift for identifying the key issues to address when solving a problem and driving hard to solve those problems. We still need that kind of drive today Michel. Even more than in 2002.
If true, that is disappointing. I have been reviewing fusion concepts recently and was impressed with this one. Should I be? In your talk (13:35) you seemed to implied they were ready to make a power plant.
@@graysonkelly2065 The key word there was 'engineering'. This company continues to have excellent engineering. They have a chance of meeting the enormous engineering challenges involved in building a prototype. But the plasma physics challenges dwarf all of that. Unfortunately, there has never been a demonstration that they have the plasma physics in order. The results of the tests are published, and not a single test has demonstrated sufficient plasma stability and confinement. How realistic or responsible is it to hope to suddenly get all the plasma physics issues sorted out at prototype? It has taken tokamak research 60+ years to get their steady state plasmas to the point where they are ready for prototypes. Plasma stability during the dynamic compression of MTF is clearly much harder than that. Dennis Whyte from MIT has a nice presentation online. In the Q&A he makes a valuable distinction between a fusion prototype putting risk in technology and putting risk in the plasma science.
If it did work, I don't think it would be able to produce more energy than used. I also feel that pressure waves and heat will kill the components faster than we hoped for. However, the idea of the short pulses/confinement versus the Tokamak seems the way to go.
Yes, same slides same speech almost. I was thinking the same thing, "how weird he even stole the slides!" but then at 9:14 he mentions that he works for Michel Laberge the gentleman who gave the other talk. They are from the same company.
Ahh, the good old days! Back in 2002 what is said at 9:00 was true. After 19 years later, that pragmatic urgency may be gone. Private funding can be double edged. On one hand, private investors were key enablers of the initial earnest investigations of this MTF concept. On the other hand, private investment demands growth at a rate determined by investor's expectations. These expectations can place undue pressure on the way the science is approached and communicated. Dr. Laberge has a gift for identifying the key issues to address when solving a problem and driving hard to solve those problems. We still need that kind of drive today Michel. Even more than in 2002.
If true, that is disappointing. I have been reviewing fusion concepts recently and was impressed with this one. Should I be? In your talk (13:35) you seemed to implied they were ready to make a power plant.
@@graysonkelly2065 The key word there was 'engineering'. This company continues to have excellent engineering. They have a chance of meeting the enormous engineering challenges involved in building a prototype. But the plasma physics challenges dwarf all of that. Unfortunately, there has never been a demonstration that they have the plasma physics in order. The results of the tests are published, and not a single test has demonstrated sufficient plasma stability and confinement. How realistic or responsible is it to hope to suddenly get all the plasma physics issues sorted out at prototype? It has taken tokamak research 60+ years to get their steady state plasmas to the point where they are ready for prototypes. Plasma stability during the dynamic compression of MTF is clearly much harder than that. Dennis Whyte from MIT has a nice presentation online. In the Q&A he makes a valuable distinction between a fusion prototype putting risk in technology and putting risk in the plasma science.
@Peter, proud of you! I was your classmate at U of Saskatchewan Physics back in 1986. We also play soccer together if you remember.
a thermonuclear Diesel Engine!
If it did work, I don't think it would be able to produce more energy than used. I also feel that pressure waves and heat will kill the components faster than we hoped for. However, the idea of the short pulses/confinement versus the Tokamak seems the way to go.
I thought General Fusion went out of business in 2018? I could be wrong. But their website is careful to give no yyyy/mm/dd dates, just mm/dd.
No, still in business 2020
interesting
We all be helium Smurfs.
I don't think it scalable , with out prohibitive cost .
Same presentation as seen in another talk. Makes me suspicious.
Yes, same slides same speech almost. I was thinking the same thing, "how weird he even stole the slides!" but then at 9:14 he mentions that he works for Michel Laberge the gentleman who gave the other talk. They are from the same company.
Everytime I see someone mention moore's law I want to puke...
lmao
but she is correct for decades ..
NOT WITHOUT FREQUENCY RESONANCE ASSIST
HY ABSORPTION LINE ARE THE CLUE
All right, Mr Shouty
IF THE GRAVITY THEORY OF THE SUN IS WRONG YOU ARE SPITTING IN THE WIND!!