1. you are a cunt >yfw you realize you will see nuclear fusion

Why the fuck is Google pursuing nuclear fusion?

>>77589347
they are also in
>Fusion reactor
>Curing cancer
>Fountain of youth
>Driverless cars
>Flying cars
>Sentient AI

others they haven't made public yet. they have so much money they don't know what to do with

sry but it needs a real theoretical breakthrough rather than brute force old methods

so what happens is that before it can sustain fusion elementary particles begin to escape the containment causing it to lose a lot of energy, this is the same principle in why silicons will be outdated

in the same line as quantum computing, without understanding quantum mechanics of fusion reactions it will never achieve break even no matter how much energy you throw at it, laws of physics does not bend to billions of dollars

>>77589347
also, faster algorithms is their bread and butter, so this fits right in to their plans

>has raised over X in investment!

This is how you know to discard an article.

>>77589385
nothing can replace fundamental breakthroughs. they are only announcing a incremental breakthrough in simulation which will lead to better understanding of sustaining higher temperatures for maintaining plasma temperatures

>>77589385
This guy is more reasonable. Futurists are really stupid people. We're not getting any of the bullshit pop-sci wants you to believe we'll get - AI, quantum computing, nuclear fusion, faster than light travel, immortality, asteroid mining, space colonies, among many others - at least in the next ~150 years. When you think about it, there is more difference between the 1900 and 1800 than there is between 2000 and 1900. Try learning actual science instead of repeating every thing you read on bullshit tabloids. How many of you know know at the very least the chemical formula to a fusion reaction?

>>77589415
you need to work on your comprehension or better yet, move to a different general or board. >>>/mlp/

>>77589432
are you going to also discard the last twenty years of advancement? tell me how many people believed in the 70s we would be where we are today? the point is, advancement can and will take place, and when they do they will be paradigm shifts for our civilization.

>>77589421
maybe that's not the problem

there have been many iterations of different containment since the 60s and there is enough pressure and temperature to reach it theoretically

so imagine you have bunch of electrons floating along as you get more and more tightly packed due to pressure and temperature suddenly these electrons ends up on the outside of the shielding, sure there might be a "sweet spot" for temperature and pressure but unlikely, stars vary in temperature and density too

>>77589454
I like how you completely missed my point and continues to sprout out futuristic pseudo-science.

google will turn evil.

a fusion power plant must produce more energy than what is put in, and fusion reactions produce 100000x more energy than chemical reactions on a mole-to-mole basis
if ever the technology will break even, it could run on a car battery and not require billions in superconducters and precision engineered components

>>77589432
>there is more difference between the 1900 and 1800 than there is between 2000 and 1900

socially yes, technologically nah