←back to thread

112 points curl-up | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.806s | source | bottom
1. jasonjmcghee ◴[] No.42742715[source]
I've periodically seen lightcell and danielle fong in various news / reddit /forums over the last few years and it always seems to be steeped in controversy.

I know next to nothing about the field / tech, but a portion of folks seem to be like "incredible visionary etc. etc." and the another portion like "fringe science / complete bullshit / this is as realistic as cold fusion" kind of thing.

Very interested to hear from folks more in the know of like, high level long term viability / what the implications are etc.

replies(4): >>42743341 #>>42744115 #>>42744154 #>>42744960 #
2. thot_experiment ◴[] No.42743341[source]
It's a very good idea that is worth pursuing, they are pursuing it. There are many many many problems that need solving between here and "this is a better way to make energy from heat at scale than turning water into steam and spinning a turbine". The science is fundamentally sound but we're nowhere near economic viability.
3. sesm ◴[] No.42744115[source]
It's not like cold fusion, the lightcell is based on well-understood physics. The author may be too optimistic with efficiency claim, but those are relatively easy to verify independently.
4. brian-armstrong ◴[] No.42744154[source]
It probably doesn't help that the website looks like an American Science & Surplus catalog
replies(1): >>42745089 #
5. EA-3167 ◴[] No.42744960[source]
She seems like someone with an eye for a clever solution to an existing problem, an eye for funding (her compressed air "LightSail" thing raised over $70 million), and maybe a somewhat shaky relationship with practicality.
replies(1): >>42745231 #
6. DaniFong ◴[] No.42745089[source]
oh god
7. DaniFong ◴[] No.42745231[source]
i'll take it
replies(1): >>42745361 #
8. EA-3167 ◴[] No.42745361{3}[source]
For what it's worth, I wish you luck on this.
replies(1): >>42745855 #
9. DaniFong ◴[] No.42745855{4}[source]
thanks!