On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:52:31 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> handed over to help run the place about 150 million pounds a year isn’t
>> from the the UK .Or is just a lucrative career for boffins just working
>> with other boffins, bit like someone who gets a degree in say ancient South
>> American languages can only really use it to become a lecturer to a future
>> intake who want to study ancient South American languages.
>>
>> GH
>>
>
>Understanding the fundamentals of matter, which is still poorly understood,
>has profound implications for future technology. The basic research done in
>the late 19th and early 20th centuries laid the groundwork for things such
>as semiconductors and nuclear power/weapons.

Indeed. Even physicists will admit that the Standard Model is a long way from
being complete and there's dark matter and energy so there appears to be a whole
section of reality we still simply don't understand. However I'm not convinced
spending ever more money on particle colliders will necessarily solve it.
Its a bit like spending ever more money on a faster car to reach an island
when what you actually need is a boat

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:52:31 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> handed over to help run the place about 150 million pounds a year isn’t
>>> from the the UK .Or is just a lucrative career for boffins just working
>>> with other boffins, bit like someone who gets a degree in say ancient South
>>> American languages can only really use it to become a lecturer to a future
>>> intake who want to study ancient South American languages.
>>>
>>> GH
>>>
>>
>> Understanding the fundamentals of matter, which is still poorly understood,
>> has profound implications for future technology. The basic research done in
>> the late 19th and early 20th centuries laid the groundwork for things such
>> as semiconductors and nuclear power/weapons.
>
> Indeed. Even physicists will admit that the Standard Model is a long way from
> being complete and there's dark matter and energy so there appears to be a whole
> section of reality we still simply don't understand. However I'm not convinced
> spending ever more money on particle colliders will necessarily solve it.
> Its a bit like spending ever more money on a faster car to reach an island
> when what you actually need is a boat
>
>

CERN was instrumental (in both senses of the word) in the discovery of the
Higgs Boson not that long ago. That confirmed that the original theory was
correct. It’s also worth remembering that there are many mis-steps along
the way. Some theories are disproved (which is an advance in itself) and
some alleys of investigation are found to be blind.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2024 16:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>>>>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>>>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>>>>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>>>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>>>>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
>>>>> then
>>>>
>>>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>>>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>>>
>>> It is not as simple as just getting a sustained fusion reaction. You
>>> also have to consider the containment vessel and heat transfer to
>>> "outside". In particular how containment materials react to stresses and
>>> strains over a wide range of temperatures.
>>>
>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>> learning curve.
>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>
>>
>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>> viable power stations.
>>
>>
>
>Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
>at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
>business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
>fingers burnt.

Yes, that was strange. While it's long been expected that self-driving level 3 was achievable, and perhaps level 4 in a
small area, full level 5 has always seemed unachievable in an investable timescale. But that's the least that you need
in a driverless taxi. Human drivers can also assist passengers with luggage, or help those with mobility problems.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:42:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:52:31 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> handed over to help run the place about 150 million pounds a year isn’t
>>>> from the the UK .Or is just a lucrative career for boffins just working
>>>> with other boffins, bit like someone who gets a degree in say ancient South
>>>> American languages can only really use it to become a lecturer to a future
>>>> intake who want to study ancient South American languages.
>>>>
>>>> GH
>>>>
>>>
>>> Understanding the fundamentals of matter, which is still poorly understood,
>>> has profound implications for future technology. The basic research done in
>>> the late 19th and early 20th centuries laid the groundwork for things such
>>> as semiconductors and nuclear power/weapons.
>>
>> Indeed. Even physicists will admit that the Standard Model is a long way from
>> being complete and there's dark matter and energy so there appears to be a whole
>> section of reality we still simply don't understand. However I'm not convinced
>> spending ever more money on particle colliders will necessarily solve it.
>> Its a bit like spending ever more money on a faster car to reach an island
>> when what you actually need is a boat
>>
>>
>
>CERN was instrumental (in both senses of the word) in the discovery of the
>Higgs Boson not that long ago. That confirmed that the original theory was
>correct. It’s also worth remembering that there are many mis-steps along
>the way. Some theories are disproved (which is an advance in itself) and
>some alleys of investigation are found to be blind.

I wonder if there were industrial spin-offs of the CERN machinery? And has it been used for any paid-for industrial
research?

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2024 16:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>>>>>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>>>>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>>>>>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>>>>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>>>>>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
>>>>>> then
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>>>>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>>>>
>>>> It is not as simple as just getting a sustained fusion reaction. You
>>>> also have to consider the containment vessel and heat transfer to
>>>> "outside". In particular how containment materials react to stresses and
>>>> strains over a wide range of temperatures.
>>>>
>>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>>> learning curve.
>>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>>> viable power stations.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
>> at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
>> business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
>> fingers burnt.
>
> Yes, that was strange. While it's long been expected that self-driving
> level 3 was achievable, and perhaps level 4 in a
> small area, full level 5 has always seemed unachievable in an investable
> timescale. But that's the least that you need
> in a driverless taxi. Human drivers can also assist passengers with
> luggage, or help those with mobility problems.
>

The driverless car concept created a sort of group think amongst the
business community. Perhaps it was a fear of missing out on the next big
thing. Quite a wide number of business folk were completely convinced that
if they threw a bit (lot!) more money at it things would come to pass. So
I’d caution about excessive enthusiasm about nuclear fusion coming real
soon now just because investors are getting excited about it.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:42:44 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:52:31 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> handed over to help run the place about 150 million pounds a year isn’t
>
>>>> from the the UK .Or is just a lucrative career for boffins just working
>>>> with other boffins, bit like someone who gets a degree in say ancient South
>
>>>> American languages can only really use it to become a lecturer to a future
>>>> intake who want to study ancient South American languages.
>>>>
>>>> GH
>>>>
>>>
>>> Understanding the fundamentals of matter, which is still poorly understood,
>>> has profound implications for future technology. The basic research done in
>>> the late 19th and early 20th centuries laid the groundwork for things such
>>> as semiconductors and nuclear power/weapons.
>>
>> Indeed. Even physicists will admit that the Standard Model is a long way
>from
>> being complete and there's dark matter and energy so there appears to be a
>whole
>> section of reality we still simply don't understand. However I'm not
>convinced
>> spending ever more money on particle colliders will necessarily solve it.
>> Its a bit like spending ever more money on a faster car to reach an island
>> when what you actually need is a boat
>>
>>
>
>CERN was instrumental (in both senses of the word) in the discovery of the
>Higgs Boson not that long ago. That confirmed that the original theory was
>correct. It’s also worth remembering that there are many mis-steps along
>the way. Some theories are disproved (which is an advance in itself) and
>some alleys of investigation are found to be blind.

Except the higgs boson had been theorised for a long time and the only thing
they weren't sure about was what energy level was required to create it. The
problem is they don't know whats missing from the standard model, just that
something is and they don't have a clue what dark energy or matter is or even
if they are just an error bar due to our current theories of gravity being
incorrect at the galatic scale and above. Cern won't solve these problems.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:50:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2024 16:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>>>>>>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>>>>>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>>>>>>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>>>>>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>>>>>>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>>>>>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not as simple as just getting a sustained fusion reaction. You
>>>>> also have to consider the containment vessel and heat transfer to
>>>>> "outside". In particular how containment materials react to stresses and
>>>>> strains over a wide range of temperatures.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>>>> learning curve.
>>>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>>>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>>>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>>>> viable power stations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
>>> at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
>>> business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
>>> fingers burnt.
>>
>> Yes, that was strange. While it's long been expected that self-driving
>> level 3 was achievable, and perhaps level 4 in a
>> small area, full level 5 has always seemed unachievable in an investable
>> timescale. But that's the least that you need
>> in a driverless taxi. Human drivers can also assist passengers with
>> luggage, or help those with mobility problems.
>>
>
>The driverless car concept created a sort of group think amongst the
>business community. Perhaps it was a fear of missing out on the next big
>thing. Quite a wide number of business folk were completely convinced that
>if they threw a bit (lot!) more money at it things would come to pass. So
>I’d caution about excessive enthusiasm about nuclear fusion coming real
>soon now just because investors are getting excited about it.

Fair enough, but it's not like this is a new idea. It's one that's been around for many decades, and most people became
very cynical. It was pretty much only governments that were willing to invest in it, with the private sector just
looking for lucrative contracts to supply the kit and build the giant government experimental reactors, that never came
close to delivering any commercial power. But, in the last few years, that's changed because of a number of technical
breakthroughs (no, not the less-than-thrilling announcements Neil cited).

Within quite a short time, we should know if commercial fusion is viable, even if it'll take much longer to deploy it at
scale. But that knowledge may make it harder to invest in other high capital cost power generation that only pays back
over decades.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:44:29 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
>>at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
>>business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
>>fingers burnt.
>
>Yes, that was strange. While it's long been expected that self-driving level 3
>was achievable, and perhaps level 4 in a
>small area, full level 5 has always seemed unachievable in an investable
>timescale. But that's the least that you need
>in a driverless taxi. Human drivers can also assist passengers with luggage,
>or help those with mobility problems.

They can also do simple little things like turn the car around to face the other
direction or park on the kerb for access. Something that even level 5 can't
do since it would need some kind of intelligent speech interface in order for
the owner to get it to do it.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:42:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:52:31 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> handed over to help run the place about 150 million pounds a year isn’t
>>>>> from the the UK .Or is just a lucrative career for boffins just working
>>>>> with other boffins, bit like someone who gets a degree in say ancient South
>>>>> American languages can only really use it to become a lecturer to a future
>>>>> intake who want to study ancient South American languages.
>>>>>
>>>>> GH
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Understanding the fundamentals of matter, which is still poorly understood,
>>>> has profound implications for future technology. The basic research done in
>>>> the late 19th and early 20th centuries laid the groundwork for things such
>>>> as semiconductors and nuclear power/weapons.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Even physicists will admit that the Standard Model is a long way from
>>> being complete and there's dark matter and energy so there appears to be a whole
>>> section of reality we still simply don't understand. However I'm not convinced
>>> spending ever more money on particle colliders will necessarily solve it.
>>> Its a bit like spending ever more money on a faster car to reach an island
>>> when what you actually need is a boat
>>>
>>>
>>
>> CERN was instrumental (in both senses of the word) in the discovery of the
>> Higgs Boson not that long ago. That confirmed that the original theory was
>> correct. It’s also worth remembering that there are many mis-steps along
>> the way. Some theories are disproved (which is an advance in itself) and
>> some alleys of investigation are found to be blind.
>
> I wonder if there were industrial spin-offs of the CERN machinery? And
> has it been used for any paid-for industrial
> research?
>

It certainly helps keep high tech industries going as suppliers of
equipment.

CERN also helps promote and financially support various open source
projects, eg kicad, which is a schematic capture and pcb design suite. Such
software has traditionally been extremely expensive.

There are new instrumentation technologies that come out of CERN, eg White
Rabbit

https://white-rabbit.web.cern.ch/

The White Rabbit Project is a multilaboratory, multicompany and
multinational collaboration to develop new technology that provides a
versatile solution for control and data acquisition systems. The project
was started within an effort to renovate the current CERN control and
timing system. Since then, it has expanded beyond this initial application.
One of the reasons for such expansion is the open source paradigm used in
the project for the development of hardware, gateware and software. Another
reason is the compatibility with standards.

The White Rabbit Network is based on existing IEEE standards while
extending these standards in a backward-compatible way if needed to meet
CERN's requirement. Technically, the White Rabbit Network is a Bridged
Local Area Network with VLANs (IEEE 802.1Q) that uses Ethernet (IEEE 802.3)
to interconnect switches and nodes, and the Precision Time Protocol (PTP,
IEEE 1588-2008) to synchronise them.

The main features of the White Rabbit Network are:

sub-nanosecond accuracy and picoseconds precision of synchronization
connecting thousands of nodes
typical distances of 10 km between network elements
Gigabit rate of data transfer
fully open hardware, firmware and software
commercial availability from many vendors

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:50:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/2024 16:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>>>>>>>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>>>>>>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>>>>>>>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>>>>>>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>>>>>>>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>>>>>>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not as simple as just getting a sustained fusion reaction. You
>>>>>> also have to consider the containment vessel and heat transfer to
>>>>>> "outside". In particular how containment materials react to stresses and
>>>>>> strains over a wide range of temperatures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>>>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>>>>> learning curve.
>>>>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>>>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>>>>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>>>>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>>>>> viable power stations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
>>>> at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
>>>> business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
>>>> fingers burnt.
>>>
>>> Yes, that was strange. While it's long been expected that self-driving
>>> level 3 was achievable, and perhaps level 4 in a
>>> small area, full level 5 has always seemed unachievable in an investable
>>> timescale. But that's the least that you need
>>> in a driverless taxi. Human drivers can also assist passengers with
>>> luggage, or help those with mobility problems.
>>>
>>
>> The driverless car concept created a sort of group think amongst the
>> business community. Perhaps it was a fear of missing out on the next big
>> thing. Quite a wide number of business folk were completely convinced that
>> if they threw a bit (lot!) more money at it things would come to pass. So
>> I’d caution about excessive enthusiasm about nuclear fusion coming real
>> soon now just because investors are getting excited about it.
>
> Fair enough, but it's not like this is a new idea. It's one that's been
> around for many decades, and most people became
> very cynical. It was pretty much only governments that were willing to
> invest in it, with the private sector just
> looking for lucrative contracts to supply the kit and build the giant
> government experimental reactors, that never came
> close to delivering any commercial power. But, in the last few years,
> that's changed because of a number of technical
> breakthroughs (no, not the less-than-thrilling announcements Neil cited).
>
> Within quite a short time, we should know if commercial fusion is viable,
> even if it'll take much longer to deploy it at
> scale. But that knowledge may make it harder to invest in other high
> capital cost power generation that only pays back
> over decades.
>

I think at some point a threshold will be crossed where a key bit of
enabling technology is invented. Then all of a sudden commercial fusion
will be everywhere. Fusion will be the technology that enables us to
wriggle out of the global warming problem. Most problems can be solved with
cheap energy.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:01:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:44:29 +0000
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
>>>at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
>>>business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
>>>fingers burnt.
>>
>>Yes, that was strange. While it's long been expected that self-driving level 3
>>was achievable, and perhaps level 4 in a
>>small area, full level 5 has always seemed unachievable in an investable
>>timescale. But that's the least that you need
>>in a driverless taxi. Human drivers can also assist passengers with luggage,
>>or help those with mobility problems.
>
>They can also do simple little things like turn the car around to face the other
>direction or park on the kerb for access. Something that even level 5 can't
>do since it would need some kind of intelligent speech interface in order for
>the owner to get it to do it.

That may be possible.

On 13.03.2024 17:44, Recliner wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2024 16:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>>>>>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>>>>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>>>>>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>>>>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>>>>>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
>>>>>> then
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>>>>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>>>>
>>>> It is not as simple as just getting a sustained fusion reaction. You
>>>> also have to consider the containment vessel and heat transfer to
>>>> "outside". In particular how containment materials react to stresses and
>>>> strains over a wide range of temperatures.
>>>>
>>>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>>>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>>>> learning curve.
>>>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>>>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
>>> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
>>> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
>>> viable power stations.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
>> at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
>> business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
>> fingers burnt.
>
> Yes, that was strange. While it's long been expected that self-driving level 3 was achievable, and perhaps level 4 in a
> small area, full level 5 has always seemed unachievable in an investable timescale. But that's the least that you need
> in a driverless taxi. Human drivers can also assist passengers with luggage, or help those with mobility problems.

A major issue holding back official roll out of level 4 autonomy is
that, because that standard requires that the vehcile can safely operate
without supervision, any liability for traffic violations or accidents
rests with the manufacturer, while at level 3 and below, as that
requires a human driver to supervise, legal liability rests with the
supervising driver. Naturally companies are keen on not assuming the
legal liability, hence even if their vehicles are technically capable of
level 4 or higher operation, they are incentivised not to gain
regulatory approval as such.

Robin

On 13/03/2024 17:11, Tweed wrote:

>
> I think at some point a threshold will be crossed where a key bit of
> enabling technology is invented.

I do think that has happened now, at least for the magnetic confinement
approach, with the introduction of the so-called 'high temperature'
superconductor materials (like the ReBCo tapes). Still need cooling to
at least -200C (and maybe colder still eg 20°K for optimal performance)
for superconductivity at high magnetic field strengths. But apparently
the crucial difference is that the all extreme hassles of cooling to
liquid Helium temperatures can be relaxed substantially with the use of
other liquid gases as coolants.

What seems to be happening now is that fusion has addressed most of the
outstanding physics questions and the field can now move towards solving
the engineering challenges, which should be more tractable.

Not to underestimate these engineering challenges, but there seem to be
good ideas for how to overcome most if not all of key concerns, hence
the expectation that the STEP project will be able to progress into the
detailed engineering design within the next few months. Watch out for
the announcement.

On 13/03/2024 11:29, Recliner wrote:
> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/03/2024 16:30, Recliner wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:33:31 +0000
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> We discuss fusion here from time to time, in the context of electrifying the
>>>>> railway and other forms of transport. Most
>>>>> of us have developed a healthy scepticism that viable, affordable, deployable
>>>>> fusion feeding power into the Grid was
>>>>> ever less than 30 years away. But things might be changing:
>>>>
>>>> I'll believe it when I see it. We were dragged around JET by teacher back in
>>>> the mid 80s and they were promising it was only a few years down the road back
>>>> then
>>>
>>> Read the article. These are serious, private sector companies backed by
>>> smart businessmen, and making startling progress.
>>
>> It is not as simple as just getting a sustained fusion reaction. You
>> also have to consider the containment vessel and heat transfer to
>> "outside". In particular how containment materials react to stresses and
>> strains over a wide range of temperatures.
>>
>> There is a big difference between small-scale demonstration reactors and
>> full-size "practical" processes, that can involve a long, slow/expensive
>> learning curve.
>> (Which was one reason why some fusion reactor designs had to be rejected
>> as impracticable & expensive.)
>>
>
> These are commercial companies, not public sector research projects. Their
> aim is to produce profits, not academic publications and PhDs. So, yes,
> they will be well aware of what they need to do to produce commercially
> viable power stations.
>

What T described was not academic projects; it was practical experience
of my former employer. I am not allowed to reveal further details.

Commercial companies cannot always predict the mechanical behaviour of
materials when used in new processes / products. (Just like some train
manufacturers probably did not expect metal fatigue / failures in their
trains.)

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:14:59 +0000
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:01:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:44:29 +0000
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>>Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
>>>>at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
>>>>business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
>
>>>>fingers burnt.
>>>
>>>Yes, that was strange. While it's long been expected that self-driving level
>3
>>>was achievable, and perhaps level 4 in a
>>>small area, full level 5 has always seemed unachievable in an investable
>>>timescale. But that's the least that you need
>>>in a driverless taxi. Human drivers can also assist passengers with luggage,
>>>or help those with mobility problems.
>>
>>They can also do simple little things like turn the car around to face the
>other
>>direction or park on the kerb for access. Something that even level 5 can't
>>do since it would need some kind of intelligent speech interface in order for
>>the owner to get it to do it.
>
>That may be possible.

Possible but unlikely to be as convenient as doing it yourself.

"Park there, no, back a bit, no forward a bit, a bit to the left, oh FFS
engage steering wheel!"

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:14:59 +0000
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:01:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:44:29 +0000
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
>>>>> at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
>>>>> business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
>>
>>>>> fingers burnt.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that was strange. While it's long been expected that self-driving level
>> 3
>>>> was achievable, and perhaps level 4 in a
>>>> small area, full level 5 has always seemed unachievable in an investable
>>>> timescale. But that's the least that you need
>>>> in a driverless taxi. Human drivers can also assist passengers with luggage,
>>>> or help those with mobility problems.
>>>
>>> They can also do simple little things like turn the car around to face the
>> other
>>> direction or park on the kerb for access. Something that even level 5 can't
>>> do since it would need some kind of intelligent speech interface in order for
>>> the owner to get it to do it.
>>
>> That may be possible.
>
> Possible but unlikely to be as convenient as doing it yourself.
>
> "Park there, no, back a bit, no forward a bit, a bit to the left, oh FFS
> engage steering wheel!"

Remember, we're discussing the viability (or otherwise) of robotaxis fully
replacing Ubers. I don't think you'd be giving that sort of directions to
your Uber driver, who probably speaks little English.

One of the crazy reasons for Tesla's ludicrously high stock price is the
belief by many investors that one day real soon, every Tesla will be able
to moonlight as a robotaxi whenever the owner didn't need it. This would
allow Tesla to charge higher prices and sell millions more cars. The fact
that Tesla has failed to meet any of its FSD targets, and still hasn't got
beyond level 2, doesn't deter them.

On 14/03/2024 11:25, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:14:59 +0000
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:01:17 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:44:29 +0000
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Lots of allegedly smart business folk put money into driverless cars, both
>>>>>> at the car production level and the application level (eg Uber’s original
>>>>>> business plan was to have lots of driverless taxis). They’ve all had their
>>>
>>>>>> fingers burnt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that was strange. While it's long been expected that self-driving level
>>> 3
>>>>> was achievable, and perhaps level 4 in a
>>>>> small area, full level 5 has always seemed unachievable in an investable
>>>>> timescale. But that's the least that you need
>>>>> in a driverless taxi. Human drivers can also assist passengers with luggage,
>>>>> or help those with mobility problems.
>>>>
>>>> They can also do simple little things like turn the car around to face the
>>> other
>>>> direction or park on the kerb for access. Something that even level 5 can't
>>>> do since it would need some kind of intelligent speech interface in order for
>>>> the owner to get it to do it.
>>>
>>> That may be possible.
>>
>> Possible but unlikely to be as convenient as doing it yourself.
>>
>> "Park there, no, back a bit, no forward a bit, a bit to the left, oh FFS
>> engage steering wheel!"
>
> Remember, we're discussing the viability (or otherwise) of robotaxis fully
> replacing Ubers. I don't think you'd be giving that sort of directions to
> your Uber driver, who probably speaks little English.
>
> One of the crazy reasons for Tesla's ludicrously high stock price is the
> belief by many investors that one day real soon, every Tesla will be able
> to moonlight as a robotaxi whenever the owner didn't need it. This would
> allow Tesla to charge higher prices and sell millions more cars. The fact
> that Tesla has failed to meet any of its FSD targets, and still hasn't got
> beyond level 2, doesn't deter them.

Personal cars moonlighting as taxis has so many obstacles that I hardly
know where to start. There is a laundry list of reasons why my car is
sitting on my drive rather than being hired out to an unemployed taxi
driver, and removing the driver's wages wouldn't make it much shorter.

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:25:09 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> "Park there, no, back a bit, no forward a bit, a bit to the left, oh FFS
>> engage steering wheel!"
>
>Remember, we're discussing the viability (or otherwise) of robotaxis fully
>replacing Ubers. I don't think you'd be giving that sort of directions to
>your Uber driver, who probably speaks little English.

No, but its exactly the sort of thing the Uber driver will want to be saying
to the car.

>One of the crazy reasons for Tesla's ludicrously high stock price is the
>belief by many investors that one day real soon, every Tesla will be able
>to moonlight as a robotaxi whenever the owner didn't need it. This would

As has been demonstrated in the US, most people don't even want to ride share
with strangers never mind let them drive their car for profit. No sane person
would allow that unless its a car rental business, and thats before you get on
to the ludicrous premiums insurance companies would charge if they covered it
at all.

>allow Tesla to charge higher prices and sell millions more cars. The fact
>that Tesla has failed to meet any of its FSD targets, and still hasn't got
>beyond level 2, doesn't deter them.

Most business types like politicians are fairly tech ignorant and believe
whatever shiny powerpoint presentation some shiny suited con artist is
showing them.

According to Certes <Certes@example.org>:
>Personal cars moonlighting as taxis has so many obstacles that I hardly
>know where to start. There is a laundry list of reasons why my car is
>sitting on my drive rather than being hired out to an unemployed taxi
>driver, and removing the driver's wages wouldn't make it much shorter.

Personal cars moonlighting as taxis is literally Lyft's business
model. Uber then copied it. Governments in different places have
pushed back more or less firmly.

You don't have to tell me all the reasons it is a bad idea and most
likely insurance fraud.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:25:09 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> "Park there, no, back a bit, no forward a bit, a bit to the left, oh FFS
>>> engage steering wheel!"
>>
>> Remember, we're discussing the viability (or otherwise) of robotaxis fully
>> replacing Ubers. I don't think you'd be giving that sort of directions to
>> your Uber driver, who probably speaks little English.
>
> No, but its exactly the sort of thing the Uber driver will want to be saying
> to the car.
>
>> One of the crazy reasons for Tesla's ludicrously high stock price is the
>> belief by many investors that one day real soon, every Tesla will be able
>> to moonlight as a robotaxi whenever the owner didn't need it. This would
>
> As has been demonstrated in the US, most people don't even want to ride share
> with strangers never mind let them drive their car for profit. No sane person
> would allow that unless its a car rental business, and thats before you get on
> to the ludicrous premiums insurance companies would charge if they covered it
> at all.

Recent news:
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/17/just-when-we-need-them-most-britains-car-share-clubs-face-closure-as-last-insurer-pulls-out>

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:57:53 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> with strangers never mind let them drive their car for profit. No sane person
>
>> would allow that unless its a car rental business, and thats before you get
>on
>> to the ludicrous premiums insurance companies would charge if they covered it
>
>> at all.
>
>Recent news:
><https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/17/just-when-we-need-them-most-brit
>ains-car-share-clubs-face-closure-as-last-insurer-pulls-out>

Can't say I'm surprised. Just wait if self driving is properly sorted and then
watch as insurance companies put a rocket under insurance prices for people
who still want to drive the vehicle themselves.