Comment by jasonjmcghee

Comment by jasonjmcghee 6 months ago

11 replies

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.

thot_experiment 6 months ago

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.

sesm 6 months ago

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.

  • Aachen 6 months ago

    How do patents work with science actually? I saw upthread that they've patented it, so is independent verification allowed so long as you don't commercially sell it, or give units away at all or so?

    • antonvs 6 months ago

      Patents don't prevent non-commercial use.

brian-armstrong 6 months ago

It probably doesn't help that the website looks like an American Science & Surplus catalog

  • olejorgenb 6 months ago

    I think it looks more than good enough. It loads fast, not bloated and mostly to the point. What's lacking in content is some links to more details. (patents etc.)

EA-3167 6 months ago

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.