Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Liquid Lithium to Contain Fusion Reactors

Posted by michael on from the hot-enough-for-you dept.

nigelc writes: "ABCNews.com reports on Liquid Metal walls for a fusion reactor, and how it may solve some of the temperature problems. Probably only of scientific interest to most of us, unless you're into some serious overclocking.""

2 of 42 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This is science journalism? by cybrpnk · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Amen, brother, preach on. Last night a fellow slashdotter was wondering when a supernova in a distant galaxy went off and actually stated "...so it stands to reason it actually took place days, weeks, or even months ago". I am VERY concerned that the average slashdotter is an absolute computer whiz that has no feeling at all about basic scientific reality. Maybe this is why we have guys writing code that crashes orbiters on Mars because there's no inherent gut-feeling perception of difference between meters and miles? Or that write code that cut off the Mars lander engines when a switch is closed, and never considers that the switch accidentally gets closed by the jolt of the lander legs opening instead of contact with the Martian surface? Both of these actually happened, of course...

    I dunno, it just makes me nervous to go in a bookstore and see miles of shelves on computer topics and one little corner of science books that never get looked at. Or to see a slashdot posting on Tivo get 200+ comments and one on fusion reactors get less than 10 comments less than an hour later....

  2. Re:This is science journalism? by jamie · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    "What is horrifying is that the comment was modded up to +3 interesting... this points to the real problem, that the general population isn't qualified to modify comments for relevance, but they do it anyway."

    One comment and one moderator. From that you're drawing conclusions about "the general population" of Slashdot? Awfully anecdotal evidence to draw conclusions from... what were you saying about science?

    How about looking at the whole thread, in which several readers (who have been moderated higher) point out the error, correct it, and provide three links to interesting websites about interstellar objects and distances. Or do you prefer to focus only on negative anecdotes?