Fusion in nature is scaled to the portion of stars... It lights up our physical Universe. We know how to ignite H-bombs... warheads are as small as household garbage cans... make them smaller and you get neutron bombs. The Physics and engineering are here, so the 'real' step is funding and project committment? How much to build this as a computation model with an accurate graphic animation sim? Build and design in cyberspace and run it down the gauntlet of peer review?
@JungleJargon: Fusion is what powers the universe. If we could harness it on a commercial level then it would likely render any other form of energy obsolete.
@durgledoggy There could be a better way to harness it because right now it is a series of "controlled" explosions that are supposed to fire a big piston. That doesn't sound very technologically advanced.
Complexity seems this system's major downfall, as well as the initial costs. Its huge potential power capacity and versatility are its boon. I just don't see it being built and trialled within the 50 years that we will need a major new reliable and powerful source of energy. I hope someone has the balls to try this though.
My money is still on LFTR for energy and VHTR for energy, hydrogen generation and desalination.
@durgledoggy I am all for hydrogen fuel cell technology and things like (highly portable) hydrogen turbines.
Hydrogen should be produced and used locally. I still think that large cylinders placed in the ocean current underwater could generate a lot of power.
Very interesing lecture on the future of energy production I heard about the earlier Fusion research, at Rochester, I think it was, but this seems more as a possiblity for energy source in the future. Maybe, it can be stored in energy power rings, maybe some of it can be converted Hydrosol to run i-c cars, and or charge cars, if there is plent of cheap electricity as output. I wouldn't write off solar thermal and the new concentrated solar cells, nor improved hydro, yet.
what a great opportunity for humankind to cooperate on a huge scale, forgetting about war and everything. it's even a little bit sarcastic of nature that the only way to achieve energy revelation is by huge scale and so huge and unifying collaboration.
Yes, there is some tritium produced in the lithium absorbing of the active neutrons and it is radioactive but that is captured and used in the fuel pellet manufacturing process.
Some of you are very skeptical, and rightfully so after thirty years of no progress with fusion. We have been looking in the wrong end of the telescope, wanting a utility industry 1 GW sized generation facility. Well, fusion is BIG and we need a BIG solution for todays energy needs. This process was demonstrated in '52!
What do you do with the fused ions ... the heat (1300) from the vaporized lithium can be used to disassociate water to make H2 for syn gas a known process, then steam (700) for generation of electricity a known process, then boil water (300) and purify water for potable use a known process. Fusion produces HEAT, heat and more heat and that is the energy used.
I wish they would change the name of their efforts to heavy ion-initiated fusion or somesuch. I nearly stopped watching after both the title and introduction sounded as if he was hoping to get energy fusing nuclei well beyond peak binding energy.
@SalsaTiger83 Good point, but what kind of dumb scammer asks for $20b? I'll be honest: I know this guy. He's the real deal, and HIF isn't some slick trick, it's the brute force approach to making those fusion pellets go off with a BANG! while handling the inevitable neutrons in a sustainable way. And you can forget about those too-good-to-be-true, cute and cuddly aneutronic schemes. D + T --> He +n is the one we can do now. p + B11 --> 3He will only happen far in the future, if at all.
He can't pronounce "new-clear" properly, and doesn't seem to have taken on board the NG frac finds, which have a few centuries worth of supply. Even Israel has found enough near-shore supply to be independent.
Plus, the pop. info is likely wrong. The lowest band UN projection, which is the one which has turned out right for many decades, now says a peak of <8bn by 2030. overpopulationisamyth-DOT-com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth#FAQ1
@BrianFH1 Not even the most insane gas pushers with a financial interest in getting people to use more natural gas claim more than 100 years of gas supply at the current rates. If natural gas has to replace coal and oil were not even talking a couple of decades until it's gone.
Gas is the scarcest of fossil fuels, even with hydraulic fracturing technology.
Wrong again. It's till expanding exponentially. E.g.: Algeria has found AT LEAST 25,000 TCF, enough for Europe for 1000 yrs. And the beat goes on ... everywhere.
@BrianFH1 >25,000 TCF appears to be an outright fabrication. Attempts to track down its source with different combinations of search terms gives me only a couple of forum posts and similar.
The most wide-eyed optimistic estimate of unconventional gas reserves I can find for algeria that isn't from some random nobody is "up to 1000 TCF". That's equivalent to up to 40 billion tonnes of coal or 20 billion Metric Tonne Oil Equivalent. World primary energy consumption is 11 billion MTOE per annum.
The other end of the size scale is heavier ion fusion (p-B11). LPP (LPPhysicsDOTcom) is pursuing this, and with luck will have a mass-producible little 5MW generator design to license to the world at large by 2015. No neutrons, no steam turbines, costs for completing development a few million dollars (10?).
Interesting concept, but do we really need to build a dedicated accellerator to try it out? Such a large scale project sounds like the tokamak story starting over again.
I say better we fund a hundred small size fusion reactor designs as a way of improving our chances.
One thing is for certain. Large reactors will not power the Vasimr thrusters or our future spaceships.
@nightcreature3 Think again ... you can get H2 and O2 from water with high quality heat and make syn gas with the CO2 from the air - these can power rockets. Man has but one home currently and needs a solution to make it livable this might just be that solution. Nuclear will not be small size in the near future.
@hhelsley Yes we could do that, but only while we're still tied down to chemical rockets. Until we have enough antimatter to use as fuel, we'll want to try Nerva type fission thrusters and then possibly advance to fusion thrusters of some sort. Anyhow, I must admit to having a bias toward small local power sources that do away with thousands of miles of power transmission lines.
@nightcreature3 - I guess I did not make myself clear ... The synfuel fits the current distribution system and so does the power generation ... it can replacing all the coal and fossil fuel fired plants, that are coming to the useful end of their generation days, with a carbon neutral fuel. It stores energy and transmits energy as we currently do.
It neither spreads more fission facilities in a community nor takes large land surfaces that will be needed for food supplies.
Do not forget that this is a corporation that is funding this research. Also look how the entire first part is spent describing how "fucked" we are unless this becomes a reality.
These are the methods available to us right now that supplies clean/renewable and abundant energy:
Wave
Tidal
River
Solar
Geothermal
Wind
A combination of these achive exactly the same thing as fusion does.. long lasting, clean and abundant energy WITHOUT a single corporation holding a patent to our energy
@DrunkenWhisp The energy from all of the above will not meet the needs (demands) of the world for energy.
They maybe are feel good solutions but do not solve the huge world problem.
By 2050 it is projected by EIA that we need 14 TW of new energy. 14 TW's is about – 10,000 new 1.4 GW Nuclear Fission plants or 18,667 new 750 MW Coal or Gas fired plants EVERY YEAR, for the next forty years, the need is - 250 fission, or 467 coal/gas fired, or 10 HIF facilities or a combination/year!!
WHY does no one think about the consequences of using Heavy Ion Fusion? We use WATER and turn it into fuels.. Great, but what happens when we run out of WATER? Sure, he said we have a 1 million year supply of it. But that means we would use up 1% of the entire earths water supply in 10,000 years. That scares me :S
@HabbaDj there are always new ways of getting water, like the Ice on the moon/ Mars. and if the mankind still exist in 10.000 years I believe we can reach that target ^^
@HabbaDj Only the heavy water gets used, which is less than .02% of natural water. And I'm pretty sure it's more than a 10,000 year supply -- closer to a million years, depending on humanity's projected energy usage.
India, China, Russia......... plus some others that are not competitors.............If they think it is feasible we may not have a choice. If they Have the energy and we do not, we end up in the position of Europe. An aging nation with considearably outmoded method and a structure of coping with change that will eventually place us in the position China was 50 years ago........... The money going into healthcare needs to go towards this stuff.
@warped666 I guess I did, they tend to form a regional power like the USA, China and Russia do, that is all......... Istill think the point is valid despite the semantics.
we need a good mix, large concentrated sources for industrial and City size population situations. We need the Solar and other renewable for Farms and Suburbia. That mix would give us what we need. BIG power levels=what scale of kabooms as we learn? I suspect we would need serious space, but even then what kind of collateral effects would there be? This guy is not a Nuclear scientist, I wonder what a visionary that is a Nuclear Scientist would have to say? ANY and ALL sources are needed!
@bmecher Solar / renewable farms are massive, hugely inefficient (=expensive) blights on the landscape. Every country now building them is discovering what a sham they are.
@BrianFH1 It doesn't matter if it is Inefficient, the current 25-30% claim that I see for solar sterling is much better than internal combustion in its infancy. If I have my own solar generator in my back yard, I will not care about efficiency if it provides what I need. Blights on the landscape was the same issue brought up with TV, Satellite TV, and radio antenna. In suburbia there is no landscape any way- it has been eradicated in the name of subdivision.
@bmecher That's either dishonesty or ignorance. Concentrating solar thermal is not in its infancy, it's over a century old; experimentation got under way on a large scale around the time of the first internal combustion engine. E.g. see Frank Shuman's trough array in Meade Egypt.
It has improved a lot over the last century as positive externality of the refinement of conventional thermal power plants and internal combustion engines, but it is still just as far behind as it was a century ago.
@soylentgreenb I said Sterling Solar, not the trough and tube stuff. There is probably room for improvement there. The trough and tube stuff is old and simple enough to teach in high school shop classes.
@bmecher See also the "Pasadena sun motor", which was a concentrating dish design built in the 1890's. It concentrated sunlight onto a heat-engine, which provided the motive power to pump water. It's not even the first concentrating dish design; just one of the biggest early ones and with the most pretty pictures available online.
@mythos1453 You will get radioactive containment and structural materials, because of high-energy neutrons which are the primary result of fusion. Although this waste will be much more radioactive than fission waste, it will only take about 100 to 200 years until the material is not dangerous any more. Compared with the lifetime of fission waste, which is a few thousand years, this sounds like a solvable problem.
@mythos1453 The problem is that he is using heavy ions like lead and xenon. These are being smashed into each other, deuterium, tritium and showered by high energy neutrons. These types of conditions are the same way they synthesize all sorts of transuranic and other exotic isotopes.
Additionally there is all the neutron bombardment of the reactor itself
I have no idea how significant this waste will be but i have no doubt there will be some. Hopefully a minuscule amount of short lived ones.
10 billion dollar gamble but it might just save the world, that's the price of 2 nuclear aircraft carriers, the US can afford it but does it have the vision?
This has been flagged as spam show
Desovaja reklama, zarobatovaj BEZ ROZVODA!!! INTVIDEO.TV Всегда нужно читать отзывы в интернете . Вот я нашел интересную
программу для зароботка .Программа работает! Всё что нужно , это
зарегистрироваться . Деньги выплачиваются на кошелек
Webmoney., kod priglasenije 4e80ccbab4b6a324ee000096, bez nego nezaregistrirujesja!
na sait intvideo.tv
Dainislapcenoks 1 month ago
Fusion in nature is scaled to the portion of stars... It lights up our physical Universe. We know how to ignite H-bombs... warheads are as small as household garbage cans... make them smaller and you get neutron bombs. The Physics and engineering are here, so the 'real' step is funding and project committment? How much to build this as a computation model with an accurate graphic animation sim? Build and design in cyberspace and run it down the gauntlet of peer review?
granddad2002 7 months ago
At the rate information is going, we may not need fusion as a power source.
It could turn into a dinosaur before it is made.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@JungleJargon: Fusion is what powers the universe. If we could harness it on a commercial level then it would likely render any other form of energy obsolete.
durgledoggy 7 months ago
@durgledoggy There could be a better way to harness it because right now it is a series of "controlled" explosions that are supposed to fire a big piston. That doesn't sound very technologically advanced.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon: That's an unfair oversimplification.
Complexity seems this system's major downfall, as well as the initial costs. Its huge potential power capacity and versatility are its boon. I just don't see it being built and trialled within the 50 years that we will need a major new reliable and powerful source of energy. I hope someone has the balls to try this though.
My money is still on LFTR for energy and VHTR for energy, hydrogen generation and desalination.
durgledoggy 7 months ago
@durgledoggy I am all for hydrogen fuel cell technology and things like (highly portable) hydrogen turbines.
Hydrogen should be produced and used locally. I still think that large cylinders placed in the ocean current underwater could generate a lot of power.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
What is the potential for melt down or an uncontrolled explosion?.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@JungleJargon: Meltdown...! Fusion doesn't work that way.
It could explode, but it would be no worse ... not even close, to the damage caused by a hydro dam failing or a gas explosion.
durgledoggy 7 months ago
@JungleJargon zip! not possible!
hhelsley 5 months ago
That's just like the old German "jet engines" ...sort of.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
You just want to retain control of energy - no?
Solar power alone is able to account for and even exceed individual energy needs.
What we need is hydrogen fuel cell cars.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
The ocean current never stops.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
Very interesing lecture on the future of energy production I heard about the earlier Fusion research, at Rochester, I think it was, but this seems more as a possiblity for energy source in the future. Maybe, it can be stored in energy power rings, maybe some of it can be converted Hydrosol to run i-c cars, and or charge cars, if there is plent of cheap electricity as output. I wouldn't write off solar thermal and the new concentrated solar cells, nor improved hydro, yet.
Tommy7FilmEpidodes 9 months ago
what a great opportunity for humankind to cooperate on a huge scale, forgetting about war and everything. it's even a little bit sarcastic of nature that the only way to achieve energy revelation is by huge scale and so huge and unifying collaboration.
ThaFacka 10 months ago
ПРИГЛАШАЮ ВСЕХ В СВОЮ ЛУЧШУЮ КОМАНДУ В КОМПАНИИ TALK FUSION,
БЛАГОДАРЯ КОТОРОЙ ВЫ НАЙДЁТЕ СЕБЯ В
ИНТЕРНЕТЕ И ВЫЙДЕТЕ НА ТАКОЙ ДОХОД КАК: 50000$ В НЕДЕЛЮ! ЭТО НЕ МИФ,А РЕАЛЬНОСТЬ!
РАБОТАЕМ ТОЛЬКО С МИРОВЫМИ ТОП-ЛИДЕРАМИ!
МОЙ СКАЙП: SNAKE201121
MegaSnake2011 10 months ago
ПРИГЛАШАЮ ВСЕХ В СВОЮ ЛУЧШУЮ КОМАНДУ В КОМПАНИИ TALK FUSION,
БЛАГОДАРЯ КОТОРОЙ ВЫ НАЙДЁТЕ СЕБЯ В
ИНТЕРНЕТЕ И ВЫЙДЕТЕ НА ТАКОЙ ДОХОД КАК: 50000$ В НЕДЕЛЮ! ЭТО НЕ МИФ,А РЕАЛЬНОСТЬ!
РАБОТАЕМ ТОЛЬКО С МИРОВЫМИ ТОП-ЛИДЕРАМИ!
МОЙ СКАЙП: SNAKE201121
MegaSnake2011 10 months ago
hello
NICKSCHNAB3L 10 months ago
hi
NICKSCHNAB3L 10 months ago
send this shit to obama
shadowperson12 11 months ago
Cool ringtone.
nkaramazov 1 year ago
Yes, there is some tritium produced in the lithium absorbing of the active neutrons and it is radioactive but that is captured and used in the fuel pellet manufacturing process.
Some of you are very skeptical, and rightfully so after thirty years of no progress with fusion. We have been looking in the wrong end of the telescope, wanting a utility industry 1 GW sized generation facility. Well, fusion is BIG and we need a BIG solution for todays energy needs. This process was demonstrated in '52!
hhelsley 1 year ago 3
What do you do with the fused ions ... the heat (1300) from the vaporized lithium can be used to disassociate water to make H2 for syn gas a known process, then steam (700) for generation of electricity a known process, then boil water (300) and purify water for potable use a known process. Fusion produces HEAT, heat and more heat and that is the energy used.
hhelsley 1 year ago 2
old guys rule. so many great solutions come from these guys who have mastered the practical issues and don't have hidden agendas
lasertuber 1 year ago 2
haha... Cell phone rings there.
flowewritharoma 1 year ago
great my heavy ions are fused...now what do i do?
slowmopoke 1 year ago
epic beard
twistedbydsign99 1 year ago
I wish they would change the name of their efforts to heavy ion-initiated fusion or somesuch. I nearly stopped watching after both the title and introduction sounded as if he was hoping to get energy fusing nuclei well beyond peak binding energy.
koisoke 1 year ago
It's so sad that good Ideas always sound like scams. And probably nobody can distinguish this Idea from a very clever scam...
SalsaTiger83 1 year ago
@SalsaTiger83 Good point, but what kind of dumb scammer asks for $20b? I'll be honest: I know this guy. He's the real deal, and HIF isn't some slick trick, it's the brute force approach to making those fusion pellets go off with a BANG! while handling the inevitable neutrons in a sustainable way. And you can forget about those too-good-to-be-true, cute and cuddly aneutronic schemes. D + T --> He +n is the one we can do now. p + B11 --> 3He will only happen far in the future, if at all.
alextb68 1 year ago
I don't think they will ever get enough funding. It all sounds too much like the typical fusion scams/unsuccesses
SalsaTiger83 1 year ago
He can't pronounce "new-clear" properly, and doesn't seem to have taken on board the NG frac finds, which have a few centuries worth of supply. Even Israel has found enough near-shore supply to be independent.
Plus, the pop. info is likely wrong. The lowest band UN projection, which is the one which has turned out right for many decades, now says a peak of <8bn by 2030. overpopulationisamyth-DOT-com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth#FAQ1
So he's editing and twisting to make his case.
BrianFH1 1 year ago
@BrianFH1 Not even the most insane gas pushers with a financial interest in getting people to use more natural gas claim more than 100 years of gas supply at the current rates. If natural gas has to replace coal and oil were not even talking a couple of decades until it's gone.
Gas is the scarcest of fossil fuels, even with hydraulic fracturing technology.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb
Wrong again. It's till expanding exponentially. E.g.: Algeria has found AT LEAST 25,000 TCF, enough for Europe for 1000 yrs. And the beat goes on ... everywhere.
BrianFH1 11 months ago
@BrianFH1 >25,000 TCF appears to be an outright fabrication. Attempts to track down its source with different combinations of search terms gives me only a couple of forum posts and similar.
The most wide-eyed optimistic estimate of unconventional gas reserves I can find for algeria that isn't from some random nobody is "up to 1000 TCF". That's equivalent to up to 40 billion tonnes of coal or 20 billion Metric Tonne Oil Equivalent. World primary energy consumption is 11 billion MTOE per annum.
soylentgreenb 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soylentgreenb
Wrong again. It's still expanding exponentially; e.g.: Algeria has just confirmed over 25,000 TCF, enough for Europe for 1,000 yrs.
And the beat goes on ...
BrianFH1 11 months ago
The other end of the size scale is heavier ion fusion (p-B11). LPP (LPPhysicsDOTcom) is pursuing this, and with luck will have a mass-producible little 5MW generator design to license to the world at large by 2015. No neutrons, no steam turbines, costs for completing development a few million dollars (10?).
BrianFH1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting concept, but do we really need to build a dedicated accellerator to try it out? Such a large scale project sounds like the tokamak story starting over again.
I say better we fund a hundred small size fusion reactor designs as a way of improving our chances.
One thing is for certain. Large reactors will not power the Vasimr thrusters or our future spaceships.
nightcreature3 1 year ago
@nightcreature3 Think again ... you can get H2 and O2 from water with high quality heat and make syn gas with the CO2 from the air - these can power rockets. Man has but one home currently and needs a solution to make it livable this might just be that solution. Nuclear will not be small size in the near future.
hhelsley 1 year ago
@hhelsley Yes we could do that, but only while we're still tied down to chemical rockets. Until we have enough antimatter to use as fuel, we'll want to try Nerva type fission thrusters and then possibly advance to fusion thrusters of some sort. Anyhow, I must admit to having a bias toward small local power sources that do away with thousands of miles of power transmission lines.
nightcreature3 1 year ago
@nightcreature3 - I guess I did not make myself clear ... The synfuel fits the current distribution system and so does the power generation ... it can replacing all the coal and fossil fuel fired plants, that are coming to the useful end of their generation days, with a carbon neutral fuel. It stores energy and transmits energy as we currently do.
It neither spreads more fission facilities in a community nor takes large land surfaces that will be needed for food supplies.
hhelsley 1 year ago
Comment removed
nightcreature3 1 year ago
Comment removed
nightcreature3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do not forget that this is a corporation that is funding this research. Also look how the entire first part is spent describing how "fucked" we are unless this becomes a reality.
These are the methods available to us right now that supplies clean/renewable and abundant energy:
Wave
Tidal
River
Solar
Geothermal
Wind
A combination of these achive exactly the same thing as fusion does.. long lasting, clean and abundant energy WITHOUT a single corporation holding a patent to our energy
DrunkenWhisp 1 year ago
@DrunkenWhisp The energy from all of the above will not meet the needs (demands) of the world for energy.
They maybe are feel good solutions but do not solve the huge world problem.
By 2050 it is projected by EIA that we need 14 TW of new energy. 14 TW's is about – 10,000 new 1.4 GW Nuclear Fission plants or 18,667 new 750 MW Coal or Gas fired plants EVERY YEAR, for the next forty years, the need is - 250 fission, or 467 coal/gas fired, or 10 HIF facilities or a combination/year!!
hhelsley 1 year ago
WHY does no one think about the consequences of using Heavy Ion Fusion? We use WATER and turn it into fuels.. Great, but what happens when we run out of WATER? Sure, he said we have a 1 million year supply of it. But that means we would use up 1% of the entire earths water supply in 10,000 years. That scares me :S
HabbaDj 1 year ago
@HabbaDj there are always new ways of getting water, like the Ice on the moon/ Mars. and if the mankind still exist in 10.000 years I believe we can reach that target ^^
Herryx182 1 year ago
@HabbaDj Only the heavy water gets used, which is less than .02% of natural water. And I'm pretty sure it's more than a 10,000 year supply -- closer to a million years, depending on humanity's projected energy usage.
alextb68 1 year ago
Comment removed
HabbaDj 1 year ago
@HabbaDj Dont worry, in 150 years (or less!) we don't need the Earth. We'll probably live on or exploit other planets for energy.
PirateXzibit 1 year ago
@HabbaDj Seawater?
vilem94 1 year ago
0:28:05 thats what she said.
fothark 1 year ago
India, China, Russia......... plus some others that are not competitors.............If they think it is feasible we may not have a choice. If they Have the energy and we do not, we end up in the position of Europe. An aging nation with considearably outmoded method and a structure of coping with change that will eventually place us in the position China was 50 years ago........... The money going into healthcare needs to go towards this stuff.
bmecher 1 year ago
@bmecher Did you just call Europe a nation?
warped666 1 year ago
@warped666 I guess I did, they tend to form a regional power like the USA, China and Russia do, that is all......... Istill think the point is valid despite the semantics.
bmecher 1 year ago
we need a good mix, large concentrated sources for industrial and City size population situations. We need the Solar and other renewable for Farms and Suburbia. That mix would give us what we need. BIG power levels=what scale of kabooms as we learn? I suspect we would need serious space, but even then what kind of collateral effects would there be? This guy is not a Nuclear scientist, I wonder what a visionary that is a Nuclear Scientist would have to say? ANY and ALL sources are needed!
bmecher 1 year ago
@bmecher Solar / renewable farms are massive, hugely inefficient (=expensive) blights on the landscape. Every country now building them is discovering what a sham they are.
BrianFH1 1 year ago
@BrianFH1 It doesn't matter if it is Inefficient, the current 25-30% claim that I see for solar sterling is much better than internal combustion in its infancy. If I have my own solar generator in my back yard, I will not care about efficiency if it provides what I need. Blights on the landscape was the same issue brought up with TV, Satellite TV, and radio antenna. In suburbia there is no landscape any way- it has been eradicated in the name of subdivision.
bmecher 1 year ago
@bmecher That's either dishonesty or ignorance. Concentrating solar thermal is not in its infancy, it's over a century old; experimentation got under way on a large scale around the time of the first internal combustion engine. E.g. see Frank Shuman's trough array in Meade Egypt.
It has improved a lot over the last century as positive externality of the refinement of conventional thermal power plants and internal combustion engines, but it is still just as far behind as it was a century ago.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb I said Sterling Solar, not the trough and tube stuff. There is probably room for improvement there. The trough and tube stuff is old and simple enough to teach in high school shop classes.
bmecher 1 year ago
@bmecher See the pasadena sun motor, which was a concentrating dish built in the 1890's.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@bmecher See also the "Pasadena sun motor", which was a concentrating dish design built in the 1890's. It concentrated sunlight onto a heat-engine, which provided the motive power to pump water. It's not even the first concentrating dish design; just one of the biggest early ones and with the most pretty pictures available online.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@BrianFH1 On a farm a "sunflower" would be no worse than a silo, and a whole lot more efficient than the transmission losses in the long copper wire?
bmecher 1 year ago
Worth watching, but then again I'm interested in nerdy stuff.
Muxen92 1 year ago
the guy who speaks up @ 42:53 sounds like kevin from the office!
SkiZoR91 1 year ago
It would be awesome if Google funded a HIF reactor!
DonAlonzo 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
The worst part was 0:00:00 - 1:02:28.
Taagless 1 year ago
@Taagless gay
Stabiloten 1 year ago
@Stabiloten "ok"
Taagless 1 year ago
The best part was 0:00:24-1:02:22 !
Sp4CC 1 year ago 19
-.- why the fuck would you watch this? ><
BassTwisterOfficial 1 year ago
Comment removed
DonAlonzo 1 year ago
Tack! Jag hade skitsvårt att sova.
nissep0wer 1 year ago
@nissep0wer då var vi 2 :)
Vikzmanizzle 1 year ago
They never addressed the issue of waste. These heavy ion beams have to be creating all sorts of exotic radionucleides.
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik He's talking about nuclear fusion not nuclear fission. The worst you'll get is a stable helium4 atom.
mythos1453 1 year ago
@mythos1453 You will get radioactive containment and structural materials, because of high-energy neutrons which are the primary result of fusion. Although this waste will be much more radioactive than fission waste, it will only take about 100 to 200 years until the material is not dangerous any more. Compared with the lifetime of fission waste, which is a few thousand years, this sounds like a solvable problem.
realseek 1 year ago
@mythos1453 The problem is that he is using heavy ions like lead and xenon. These are being smashed into each other, deuterium, tritium and showered by high energy neutrons. These types of conditions are the same way they synthesize all sorts of transuranic and other exotic isotopes.
Additionally there is all the neutron bombardment of the reactor itself
I have no idea how significant this waste will be but i have no doubt there will be some. Hopefully a minuscule amount of short lived ones.
michalchik 1 year ago
10 billion dollar gamble but it might just save the world, that's the price of 2 nuclear aircraft carriers, the US can afford it but does it have the vision?
ddnguyen278 1 year ago 14
Wow, hopefully 1 hour of interestingness ahead.
ochristi 1 year ago