It's not a funding issue, it's a brain issue. I've cracked how to fix the spikes in the plasma field. Trouble is, no one will listen to me. When he started making the polyhedrons he was on the right track. He just needed a 2nd layer(positions) of magnets over the junctions where the spikes were occuring to press them down. If you've ever tuned an old fashioned shortwave radio and have had to use the large and small tuning knobs, then you'll knowwhat I mean.
i squeeled like a fangirl when i heard there was a google tech talk with robert bussard (which was embarrassing because im a guy.) and a talk about fusion reactors what's not to love. somebody fund this, do it for the late great robert bussard! do it for humanity! this is one of the few times i have thought i would like to win the lottery (i dont normally concern myself with one time surges of capital but with steady revenue streams) but if i did, it would go to this.
This guy makes a lot of sense. But they need 200 million dollars and who knows if after that they can make it work ? Star Scientic Limited with their Muon Catalysed Fusion are not asking for money they seem to be VERY advanced in their reaserch. See their Youtube video "In the Footsteps of Fusion" also their website Star Scientic Limited and their chairman's blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" both of which you can find through google.
What freakin' good is all this electricity (from coal or nuclear) ANYWAY when we don't have affordable electric cars, boats, and airplanes yet to be powered by it?
you can divert then coal to create liquid fuels using Fischer-trops reactors. You can also use electricity to turn any carbon containing compounds (including wood waste, food waste and agricultural watse). You can also use electricity to create hydrogen for industrial uses, reducing by a large amount the needed amount of natural gas needed for industrial production of hydrogen.
The DOE are trying to suppress this research, screw em- they can't spare a measly 50 million on a polywell, but will happily blow a billion dollars on tokamaks that don't work. I say fire everyone at DOE and give the money to private industry
The simple answer to WILL this work?! " It Looks like, It sounds like It IS how the SUN works!.. MUST WORK!. GOD Say's! or should I say GOOGLE SAYS?!. Google should at least have the brains to simulate it with their "QUANTUM COMPUTER" , Ha Ha ?.
Dr. Robert W. Bussard † 6. Oktober 2007 not even one year after this video, the uploade date of this video is 8. Oktober 2007 two days after his death.
Yeah, that guy is old-school; he quotes pressures in Torrs and speeds in centimetres per second :-D I've heard some good stuff about Polywell in recent years, I sincerely hope it pans out.
@Assi2004 Quoth Wikipedia on the CGS system: "From the international adoption of the MKS standard in the 1940s and the SI standard in the 1960s, the technical use of CGS units has gradually declined worldwide, in the United States more slowly than elsewhere. CGS units are today no longer accepted by the house styles of most scientific journals, textbook publishers, or standards bodies, although they are commonly used in astronomical journals such as the Astrophysical Journal."
There are possible problems with this idea like thermalisation and other things but 200 million is such a small amount to research something that could potentially save the world. Even if the idea leads no where 200 million is a tiny price to pay. I really do hope the idea works
This was 4 years ago! How come this has still not been done? The problem is you hear about all this stuff all the time but you never see any of them reach fruition.
guys if you all do some research, you'll find out that this guy dr bussard is truly a genius. but unfortunatly he's dead now and the US navy has taken control over the research again for smaller reactors for naval vessels and its under a no disclosure or publication contract. so even if this becomes viable, it won't be available to us, the general public. what a shame!
@walter0bz or use it to put the 1st kid through college...or God forbid pay off the credit card bills or mortgage...LoL. But you have given me an idea, sadly it will offend alot of people...We should put the money that goes into researching AIDS, Cancer, and the worthless F'ing flu-shot...and put all that wasted money into Fusion Research...we'd have it up and running in no time.
How refreshing to see a presentation in which the presenter doesn't spend at least 10% of the talk fussing with a Power Point malfunction, or some other random problem with his laptop machine.
It's a shame that pie-in-the-sky fusion has gotten the press and the funding for the last 50 years, while much more realistic and attainable LFTR reactors have been, and continue to be, almost totally ignored. (Just a little less totally ignored, in recent years, than they used to be.) Go, India!
@sbergman27 To be honest... fusion in general hasn't gotten as much funding as it should have anyway, which is why people stick to "mainstream" techniques like the tokamak.
I agree Google should adopt this technology and combined with the DC smart power revolution linking with true broadband they could own the next century
It alo fits right in with the " Do no evil " bit ---come one Sergi , Larry dig deep
While you can produce free Neutrons in a IEC fusor, one would be facing a very difficult challenge in extracting useful 'heat' from the location of the fusion event. It would be possible, perhaps, to obtain a better than positive energy return but ultimately this technology would make very little sense to use on a scale enough to be worthwhile with our population growth. There would be far more cost effective methods.
There are better energy production methods that we should invest in.
Stars are toroidal when you view them in a different frequency range. If you think magnetically, all stars are toroidal. Black holes would be toroidal too.
Our scientists are woefully inadequate to resolve our energy difficulties because the existing energy sources lobbying power creates programmed scientists who are incapable of seeing outside of their programming enough to visualize new techniques for energy manipulation.
I've chosen to treat the Thorium issue as a "Tipping Point" in history on my new Blog (click my Username above), and would appreciate Comments from you if you're fascinated by the Science and Politics of Thorium, or any of the other factors that went into it's early demise...and possible re-emergence!
If you know of any other interesting, controversial, or speculative Tipping Points, feel free to submit them to Reddit: r/TippingPoints/
Energy Matter Conversion Corp. is being awarded a $7,855,504 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research, analysis, development, and testing in support of the Plan Plasma Fusion Polywell Project. Efforts under this Recovery Act award will validate the basic physics of the polywell plasma fusion concept, as well as provide the Navy with data for potential applications of polywell fusion. Work is expected to be completed in April 2011. That was reported Sept 11, 2009.
I am a nuclear engineer viewing this for the first time, I also work for the federal government and am well versed in the beauracracy associated with fiscal funding. This seems to me at a high level worth pursuing based on Dr. Bussard's credentials. I have long felt that the problem with fusion power is not a technology issue but a funding issue. If we as a nation, that is the USA want to have fusion power we will have it just as we put a man on the moon forty years ago.
The reason to go to the moon may be HE3, if humans were not so misled and untrusted we would all including Iran etc. Then the world could enjoy practical electricity for schools so kids can make positive not negative changes and learn.
For now the main focus should be fission since it works and any future incarnations of it do not have such huge technological barriers that fusion does.
Perhaps more should be done to promote smaller fission reactors which could provide power for factories or provide heat for industrial processes.
Fusion itself is now accomplished but is a commercially viable fusion reactor possible, that is the question.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
One of the best ways to save the environment is to elect Officials that will focus on reducing immigration.
In America, nearly all the population growth in the last 40 years has been via immigration, over 100 million more and we are on track to go to 500 million in a few decades. The world does not need 300 million more American consumers and America does not need 300 million more immigrants. Go to Numbersusa for more info on immigration and to fax your senators for free.
We know it's cheap. But the nuclear waste is also an issue in the other hand. Not to mention that if an accident happens, millions can be killed with a blink of an eye.
I think that the only green and safe solution will be wind power. It's dear to build but lasts for a long time and has no big impacts... And the worse that can happen is having a huge fan falling on your head...
How would millions of ppl die with a second? Oh wait, it doesn't, it can't, never has and never will.
Even the biggest (and only) nuclear disaster in history (Chernobyl) didn't kill millions in a second. Even the Chernobyl power plant is a wooden shack compared to modern reactor designs.
There will always be place for wind and solar, especially for solar as efficiency increases and costs go down. But right now, society requires to much energy to be supplied by these sources alone.
Yes, you are right... They don't die in a second. They agonize with cancer for months and only then, they die.
I understand that Chernobyl was an insecure plant but accidents do happen. It doesn't necessarily need to be an overload. A leak is an accident and also contaminates, in a smaller scale, obviously.
Plus, you need to get rid of that uranium after you use it. Where do you put it? In you garden?
I know that the wind and solar power we've got at present is not even close to enough.
We are not goint to use Uranium for energy, but Thorium. Thorium is clean, safe and plentiful. The only reason we are using Uranium today is because of the need for Plutonium back in the 50s.
India is initiating a Thorium program as we speak.
Check out "Energy from Thorium" right here on GoogleTechTalk. Take care!
@longbeachboy57 Unfortunately India has only been developing a thorium breeder to make Uranium for the bomb. They lack natural deposits of Uranium and after illegally exploding a bomb made from a Canadian CANDU reactor, no one would sell any.
@longbeachboy57 that was misleading, I should say that it was to make Uranium for substitution in their civilian reactors, freeing their limited Uranium production for bomb making.
@longbeachboy57 Though this probably not an issue anymore since the US gave them a waiver from the NSG, but it was a factor in why they decided to develop Thorium in the first place (ie not for the good of mankind)
@longbeachboy57 You can, but U232 is a byproduct that's also present in U233 produced from the thorium cycle. U232 is a humongous pain in the ass when it comes to building bombs, being extremely radioactive by itself and its products being gamma emitters. You need very special equipment and shielding to handle it, and it can compromise the circuitry in bombs.
@vitormangraviti You don't need to get rid of much of the Uranium if there were more Thorium Reactors, as they can burn through that waste and produce even more power, not to mention that they are immensely safer as LFTR's can't meltdown.
Nuclear has one huge advantage. You can centralise it so that the suits and cigars can sell it and make money. Our energy problems would be solved execpt that many of the smart energy ideas revolve around decentralised energy and creating comunities using free or cheap energy. No money to be made. Energy is crux of our oligarchy, deliver cheap clean energy and the power brokers are stuffed and they know it.
Energy indepency for homeowners comes in the form of solar, but it often times is simply not enough, especially in northern europe. It's also subsidized in some countries making it appear cheaper or more efficient while it is not.
But solar is getting more efficient, and appliances are getting more efficient as well. So there's hope still.
Nikola Teslas career was destroyed by Morgan, who also destroyed the US's banking system, because he claimed free energy. Tesla was discredited just after he had just given the world AC power.
I once worked in the Middle East and I asked an Englishman who was head geologist whether he thought oil companies cover up energy discoveries and he said he didn't think they did he knew they did.
In the 80s cold fusion was ridiculed.
Only centralised energy wil be allowed by the 1% who own 99%.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Let`s get the facts straight. Nuclear is the most expensive energy when you do the math. It is dangerous. There has benn almost no developement since the 70ties. It is complicated and outdated.
All energy needs can be provided multiple times over with regernerative energy. But it would not be centralized and cheaper to the consumer and even create workplaces...omg.
Nuclear FISSION is expensive and dangerous, granted. However, this has nothing to do with what Bussard was proposing. In fact, if you've seen his comments about the preferred Boron-11 reaction, he's talking about "nuclear" energy with essentially no radiation. Moreover, his reactor can actually be tuned to "burn" waste from fission reactors, too. Perhaps you should *watch* a video before you comment on it..
You might calculate, that conventional coal power plants are actually MORE RADIOACTIVE than even failing nuclear power plants (I'm talking about exhaust fumes from powerplants chimneys, which are radioactive and not taken care of). Sorry for any misspellings.
there relatively good concepts but the technology to stabilize the reaction and to be able to capture the vast amounts of energy produced du not exist. Particularly when dealing with incredibly small particles that are reacting and producing random elements and particles.
look up "nuclear breed reactor" on YT or the net. these nuclear reactors produce more energy than matter than they are using so they dont need to be fueled because it makes enough fuel to keep the reaction going! idaho made it about 60 yrs ago! free energy forever till the end of time!
You insulted me first. If you would like to have a grown up debate on the matter I would be more than happy to enlighten you or you me. If not, you win.
If your mind is so small that you can only fit everyone in one of two catagories, you should shoot yourself and make room for all the babies on welfare. And I run my car off of water, dumb fuck.
more like you run your car off of hydrogen fuel cells and your car produces water....... I think that's what you mean, because I'm pretty darn sure it doesn't "run off water" unless you have some watermill or tide generator or hydro electric dam
"And I run my car off of water, dumb fuck. " Aww! How cute! Some one thinks they can violate the laws of thermodynamics! I'm sorry, water is not a fuel. It's fundamentally impossible to "run your car off water." Get over it.
Seeing that the energy necessary to separate the atoms is more than a single hydrogen atom could ever produce, kinda puts a road block in the whole "running your car off water" thing. Now, don't get me wrong. I think hydrogen is a GREAT fuel source for cars. With the recent developments in lithium hydride storage, we could begin using hydrogen to power our cars within the next 5 years. Hydrogen is a great fuel, however the water that we generate it from, is NOT.
Combustion engines will not be appropriate for our future. Much greater efficiency would be found in an all electric system after the initial generation. Hydroelectricity when combined with solar and nuclear fission , if managed more effectively than currently, would provide us with more than enough energy for all of humanity for a population even greater than now.
The 'need' to meter it to us is what gives us the perception that there is a crisis.
@crazy8sdrums : "The naysayers ALWAYS get proven wrong eventually."
No. Occasionally naysayers are shown to have been incorrect... fueling decades, and even centuries, of over-generalization by Pollyannas arguing that naysayer are always wrong.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Anyone who would consider nuclear energy clean, safe or the energy of the future is either stupid or corporate. The way we get rid of it's toxic waste is to put it in the ground. This is beyond retarded. And anyone who could agree with it is.......well.
do yourself and the earth a favor, save up your pot money and start producing your own electricity.
Check out "Energy from Thorium" on YT. Clean, safe and abundant. No long term waste, but some fission fragments that quickly decay into stable, sometimes VERY valuable metals :)
I wouldn't call man made nuclear energy 'clean', but it isn't as bad as treehuggers think it is because the waste is stored miles underground in a desolate area with warning signs.
> JordanMaster22...Not true. Look into Dounreay, Scotland. Waste from all over Europe was put into a group of 35ft to 180ft deep concrete silo's and has leaked into the environment already. Radioactive particles have been found on the surrounding beach. It isn't properly capped and it is a time bomb waiting to go off. It exploded once already in 1977 which contaminated the sea water and fishing was banned in the area.Until we know what to do with the waste it is neither clean nor safe.
Fission is cleaner than fusion. Advanced fast reactors are 100 to 300 times as fuel efficient, and could use our nuclear waste from thermal reactors as fuel. The Integral Fast Reactor, or IFR, is discussed in the new book "Prescription for the Planet," by Tom Blees.
If the United States Government made a Nuclear Powered, highly delicate, RAM-JET Engine that operated at high altitudes at multi-supersonic speeds and ran at full power within 200 degree's F of Melting Point - I dont see how technologies like this are out of reach. We know that 99.9% of consumer technology is extremely obsolete once it reaches the market. There is a lot of amazing technology sitting on the shelf because it was displace so much current technology - and its all about making a buck
Check out Nano-Solar panels, these puppies don't need sunlight to create energy. at the moment they produce around 30% efficiency at night from 90% at day. If a home were more energy efficient then the total consumption could be handled by such systems. These panels can be adjusted for different frequencies not just visible light. So nearly any form of energy can be converted to power. Why think big power plants when energy is all around us 24/7.
Fusion is our future, period. If we don't achieve it, humanity will never sustain its self. The question is not whether or not we can achieve it. We HAVE to achieve it and should stop procrastinating by tinkering around with all of these other alternatives. Our entire energy budget should be focused on fusion. That's the only reason nuclear fission came as fast as it did.
There is an alternative people forget when it comes to making more energy. Products made just 15 years ago would consume nearly twice as much energy & do half the work then today's products. If we make products that use less energy then there's no need for more power.
Increasing our efficiency is wonderful. That's not the whole picture though. The earth will not be habitable forever, one disaster could put us out of existence. True energy independence is being independent of the sun its self. We can't stay at home and live off our mother(nature) forever :)
wrong fusion is not the future teh future is anti-matter which is safe energy without where a bottle of 2 liters of anti-matter can power the whole world for 100 years of unlimited energy.
Of course antimatter would be the ultimate future. For the time being though, the technology doesn't exist. If they make some large advancements on that particular front, I would be all for it. One step at a time. Maybe CERN LHC will give us that stepping stone.
animosity.. people already created animater in nanometer amounts like 1000 antimatter atoms. or some thing but its very expensive money wise.. now if money wasn't a obstacle.. which is after all a man-made currency if people worked for free or just to achieve a goal or process of automation in anti-matter development they could get that doesn't exist technology in less then 5 years.
anti-matter is a term used by those scifi freaks but its pretty basic.. its matter but flipped so its anti-matter
your right because you are modifying atoms.. but people do this on a daily basis with electrolysis so it doesnt require too much energy with just a car battery but it depends on the way you create anti-matter if you get a filter that stamps it like.. it should be done.. and have materials in different places then stamp it into anti-mater
Anti-matter will never be the future in my opinion, heres why:
1. Currently, only things like the LHC produce any antimatter which in itself requires a huge amount of energy to operate so you'll end up using more energy than you would get out of it
2. Antimatter can not be stored in a matter environment because it would instantly annihilate
3. There is no system that can gather enough antimatter to make it practical anyway
OH....hi.i'm new here and I have an idea to store antimatter.
I think we might use energy to store it or some sort of magnetic fields.
And the way to produce antimatter, In my imagination we might use a nuclear fusion reactor to move matter at a very high speed.....and move it into a negative electron charge energy within another chamber them transform it into a antimatter
Antimatter may consume more energy to create it than it releases when annihilating with matter. Thats true.
BUT... you must think of creating anti-matter on Earth (using fusion reactors), or collecting it from gas giants (they are created in upper atmosphere particle collisions), and STORE IT FOR USE as fuel for spaceships.
After all, for a spaceship you dont need to create more energy than used. You need to have a powerful compact fuel source.
Sorry buddy, but assuming those 2 liters weigh 2 kg (like water), you only have 180 000 TJ. It will last a few weeks at current energy consumtion rate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The reason why fusion is not widely used is because it is by no means cheap or safe... It is in theory a extremely... well, borderline perfect form of energy. But the force involved in even the smallest fusion is an unharnessable amount of power. There may be no Chernobyl, but just one hell of a fireball. If something should go wrong it's slow death versus certain death.
The sea and deep water do nuclear fusion from water. So do we, in the steam cycle. We just hadn't realised! Safe, clean and cheap = nuclear fission is dear, fatal and dangerous. Choose.
Fusion is not "widely used", it isn't used at all, because nobody managed to keep the reaction going from more then a few microseconds. Otherwise it's much safer than fission and it would be no fireball should anything go wrong. For the long term it's the only credible energy source that could replace oil.
Fusion is not a chain reaction but is a self sustaining reaction once certain conditions are met, including extremely high temperatures. If something were to go wrong, like if the magnets failed, then the plasma would very rapidly loose energy and melt the interior walls, rather than explode. It is extremely safe, even in its current experimental stage. It is expensive because its experimental and not one design or component is mass produced.
look up nikola teslas wireless power system, it would have allowed energy and internet to be given to the whole world and even put energy to other planets through special energy transportation through space. i have already proven his one wire transmission which is a start to how his world system worked please look it up, wardenclyffe, colorado springs reseach, nikola tesla. his wardenclyffe tower was going to be the first internet and 1 hp energy transmission to all points, thanks
Laser charged Atomic device:Needs electric wires to be discarded.(Radiation problem)To solve this USA and USSR made fiber-optics technology to solve this.Now instead of using these wires for energy:now laser fiber optic glass wires are used to send light energy to atomic devices like atomic clock and timer which can receive the light energy and change it to watts of energy for the Reactor with only using solar panel technology:A plus is fiber-optics are more flexible and it can bend twist(Safer)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This technology will probably increase global warming exponentially. Why?
Because free energy will cause an explosion in population and farming. Farming increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere e.g. 4000 gallons /acre/day per corn field.
Overall it will be a good thing, but we need to face the facts on jumping to this type of technology.
One of the best solutions to the islamic fundamentalist problem is ufo disclosure.
it should be deployed strategically to destroy islam.
Kids are always getting smarter due to the information age. By the way this is real and will revolutionize society. A test reactor is being built in the UK.
entertaining video! my names Hannah, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ FriendlyFlirts(.COM) __ my user ID there is Hannah_uciuhwzd chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
If Nuclear Fusion became the maine power supply there would be severly drastic changes. We could finally rid ourselves of the addiction that is oil and pave the way for the Electric Car. The Electric car would reverse everything about Global Warming if Fusion were around now.
The big energy companies and governments that control us on their behalf will NEVER let us have Polywell. Why?
1)Prof Bussard was working for the Navy and developed a relatively compact scale device (to fit in destroyers and subs )This would allow a more decentralised and fragmented power generation system erroding the current monopolies.
2)Once developed the system is relatively simple and cheap.Smaller profits.
3)Towns and citys could free themselves from the grid erroding central control.
I am a vehicle engineer and i want to second this opinion. It also looks like the Polywell is scalable to some degree, meaning clean practical spaceflight.
Its more than obvious. they lacked of substantial support. Keeping programs black too excessively lead to failure. or too late. P59 first jetfighter. thats this program in the ninteties. a p59. what a shame. what a shame. how fast can he make it pulse anyway?
Ever heard of a hydrogen bomb? thats the FUSION of titrium and duterium (isotopes of hydrogen) harnessed in a weapon. and it too produces waste and death (if used improperly), and currently requires more energy to run than it can produce (though we may one day master it). And don't fool yourself, the RMS speed of water molecules in a water fall is not nearly great enough to overcome the electro-magnetic repulsive forces of protons in the two nuclei, its just not possible.
A H bomb uses nuclear fission to sewt off molecular nuclear fusion in an uncontrolled way. We can use other ways to do MF, in a cointrolled way, to supply heat and power!
We can also harness nuclear fission to supply power, and we can do it RIGHT NOW, with very little waste and extremely efficiently. We simply cant wait another 40 years for nuclear fusion, we need a solution today that will last us until fusion becomes a reality, and nuclear fission can do it.
The dee psea does molecular nuclear fusion, as does steam and IC engines - nuclear fusion from water, today! THe dee psea has done it for 200 million years. Now. When ever you boil water, you do it now!
thats impossible, there isn't enough energy to overcome the electro magnetic repulsion of the hydrogen isotopes. these are tiny (nearly massless) objects that have to be accelerated to a high enough velocity to give them enough kinetic energy to overcome the force of two positive charges repelling each other. It just doesn't happen without the pressures and temperatures of the sun (can be replicated, but not seen in every day life)
Actually, check on some real fugures about electron guns. They produce (when focused) over twenty times the heat potental of the temperature of the sun, making fusion a walk in the park.
and Fission can be used in a controlled way to, i really dont understand your argument (its almost like saying lets use natural gas instead of coal because unlike coal, natural gas can be burned :) lol)
It's not a funding issue, it's a brain issue. I've cracked how to fix the spikes in the plasma field. Trouble is, no one will listen to me. When he started making the polyhedrons he was on the right track. He just needed a 2nd layer(positions) of magnets over the junctions where the spikes were occuring to press them down. If you've ever tuned an old fashioned shortwave radio and have had to use the large and small tuning knobs, then you'll knowwhat I mean.
oldwolf1 2 months ago
i squeeled like a fangirl when i heard there was a google tech talk with robert bussard (which was embarrassing because im a guy.) and a talk about fusion reactors what's not to love. somebody fund this, do it for the late great robert bussard! do it for humanity! this is one of the few times i have thought i would like to win the lottery (i dont normally concern myself with one time surges of capital but with steady revenue streams) but if i did, it would go to this.
tuseroni 4 months ago
I think Google should work on nuclear fusion - it is possible.
dukelanovic 5 months ago
This guy makes a lot of sense. But they need 200 million dollars and who knows if after that they can make it work ? Star Scientic Limited with their Muon Catalysed Fusion are not asking for money they seem to be VERY advanced in their reaserch. See their Youtube video "In the Footsteps of Fusion" also their website Star Scientic Limited and their chairman's blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" both of which you can find through google.
2110kop 6 months ago
What freakin' good is all this electricity (from coal or nuclear) ANYWAY when we don't have affordable electric cars, boats, and airplanes yet to be powered by it?
mphello 7 months ago
@mphello Are you retarded?
mageboi97 7 months ago
@mageboi97 You're pretty fucking stupid for making an ad hominem attack without even attempting to respond to my argument.
mphello 7 months ago
@mphello
you can divert then coal to create liquid fuels using Fischer-trops reactors. You can also use electricity to turn any carbon containing compounds (including wood waste, food waste and agricultural watse). You can also use electricity to create hydrogen for industrial uses, reducing by a large amount the needed amount of natural gas needed for industrial production of hydrogen.
52111centrumcz 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
i watched 7 minutes of this its great its awesome but im no scientist !@ anythings got to be better than the current power sources !
smiles1969able 7 months ago
where to get this 'paper' he is talking about?
gmankl 8 months ago
Thorium reactors are what fusion reactors should be and the tech is much more attainable. If I were a gambling man I'd put my money on Thorium.
PrometheanRunGood 8 months ago
lol at the hippie at 1:13
sebastiansz 10 months ago
The DOE are trying to suppress this research, screw em- they can't spare a measly 50 million on a polywell, but will happily blow a billion dollars on tokamaks that don't work. I say fire everyone at DOE and give the money to private industry
johnnyr55556 10 months ago
@johnnyr55556 Or even better. Give it to me and I'll have the US energy independent in 10 years and off foreign oil in 5. ^_^
CalicoVall 10 months ago
This guy seems like humanity's best hope to invent a faster than light drive for a space ship. :)
andrewsheldonreeves 10 months ago
The simple answer to WILL this work?! " It Looks like, It sounds like It IS how the SUN works!.. MUST WORK!. GOD Say's! or should I say GOOGLE SAYS?!. Google should at least have the brains to simulate it with their "QUANTUM COMPUTER" , Ha Ha ?.
TheShockmister 1 year ago
somebody fund this already.
spammatube 1 year ago
Dr. Robert W. Bussard † 6. Oktober 2007 not even one year after this video, the uploade date of this video is 8. Oktober 2007 two days after his death.
It is sad when a true sientist like him dies.
glamenz 1 year ago
Yeah, that guy is old-school; he quotes pressures in Torrs and speeds in centimetres per second :-D I've heard some good stuff about Polywell in recent years, I sincerely hope it pans out.
wtrmute 1 year ago
@wtrmute
whats old about cm/s?
and torr is a common pressure value in the USA, much more than bar
(why the fuck dont just everyone uses the metric system?!)
Assi2004 1 year ago
@Assi2004 Quoth Wikipedia on the CGS system: "From the international adoption of the MKS standard in the 1940s and the SI standard in the 1960s, the technical use of CGS units has gradually declined worldwide, in the United States more slowly than elsewhere. CGS units are today no longer accepted by the house styles of most scientific journals, textbook publishers, or standards bodies, although they are commonly used in astronomical journals such as the Astrophysical Journal."
wtrmute 1 year ago
I wonder about a 4d halbach array?
kokopelli314 1 year ago
Hope this works so badly...
blarginatorisback 1 year ago
what about breeder reactors?
captinseperoth 1 year ago
There are possible problems with this idea like thermalisation and other things but 200 million is such a small amount to research something that could potentially save the world. Even if the idea leads no where 200 million is a tiny price to pay. I really do hope the idea works
Mesterchief117 1 year ago
MY God i nearly fell asleep in 30 mins
vickram2386 1 year ago
This was 4 years ago! How come this has still not been done? The problem is you hear about all this stuff all the time but you never see any of them reach fruition.
pacus123 1 year ago
worked at area 51 this man did
dodgedart74 1 year ago
guys if you all do some research, you'll find out that this guy dr bussard is truly a genius. but unfortunatly he's dead now and the US navy has taken control over the research again for smaller reactors for naval vessels and its under a no disclosure or publication contract. so even if this becomes viable, it won't be available to us, the general public. what a shame!
SuperMrkhan123 1 year ago 2
everyone that wants 2 kids should have 1kid, and invest the money that would have gone on the Second kid into Fusion research
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz or use it to put the 1st kid through college...or God forbid pay off the credit card bills or mortgage...LoL. But you have given me an idea, sadly it will offend alot of people...We should put the money that goes into researching AIDS, Cancer, and the worthless F'ing flu-shot...and put all that wasted money into Fusion Research...we'd have it up and running in no time.
devrobbiz 1 year ago
@devrobbiz
Physics > biology
LoL j/ks
blarginatorisback 1 year ago
How refreshing to see a presentation in which the presenter doesn't spend at least 10% of the talk fussing with a Power Point malfunction, or some other random problem with his laptop machine.
sbergman27 1 year ago
It's a shame that pie-in-the-sky fusion has gotten the press and the funding for the last 50 years, while much more realistic and attainable LFTR reactors have been, and continue to be, almost totally ignored. (Just a little less totally ignored, in recent years, than they used to be.) Go, India!
sbergman27 1 year ago
@sbergman27 To be honest... fusion in general hasn't gotten as much funding as it should have anyway, which is why people stick to "mainstream" techniques like the tokamak.
asdfuogh 1 year ago
@sbergman27
I don't think India is doing LFTR but they are trying to use a Thorium fuel cycle.
pacus123 1 year ago
I agree Google should adopt this technology and combined with the DC smart power revolution linking with true broadband they could own the next century
It alo fits right in with the " Do no evil " bit ---come one Sergi , Larry dig deep
ideapete 1 year ago
While you can produce free Neutrons in a IEC fusor, one would be facing a very difficult challenge in extracting useful 'heat' from the location of the fusion event. It would be possible, perhaps, to obtain a better than positive energy return but ultimately this technology would make very little sense to use on a scale enough to be worthwhile with our population growth. There would be far more cost effective methods.
There are better energy production methods that we should invest in.
crazy8sdrums 1 year ago
Stars are toroidal when you view them in a different frequency range. If you think magnetically, all stars are toroidal. Black holes would be toroidal too.
Our scientists are woefully inadequate to resolve our energy difficulties because the existing energy sources lobbying power creates programmed scientists who are incapable of seeing outside of their programming enough to visualize new techniques for energy manipulation.
crazy8sdrums 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've chosen to treat the Thorium issue as a "Tipping Point" in history on my new Blog (click my Username above), and would appreciate Comments from you if you're fascinated by the Science and Politics of Thorium, or any of the other factors that went into it's early demise...and possible re-emergence!
If you know of any other interesting, controversial, or speculative Tipping Points, feel free to submit them to Reddit: r/TippingPoints/
JoFergusons 1 year ago
Energy Matter Conversion Corp. is being awarded a $7,855,504 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research, analysis, development, and testing in support of the Plan Plasma Fusion Polywell Project. Efforts under this Recovery Act award will validate the basic physics of the polywell plasma fusion concept, as well as provide the Navy with data for potential applications of polywell fusion. Work is expected to be completed in April 2011. That was reported Sept 11, 2009.
zardinuk 1 year ago 5
Hell yes!!!
DrFunnelCakes 1 year ago
I am a nuclear engineer viewing this for the first time, I also work for the federal government and am well versed in the beauracracy associated with fiscal funding. This seems to me at a high level worth pursuing based on Dr. Bussard's credentials. I have long felt that the problem with fusion power is not a technology issue but a funding issue. If we as a nation, that is the USA want to have fusion power we will have it just as we put a man on the moon forty years ago.
Wilsonca66 1 year ago 4
@Wilsonca66 when you say "we" you mean the few people that run the enterprise that is the U.S of A i asume.
Ponnybit 2 months ago
The reason to go to the moon may be HE3, if humans were not so misled and untrusted we would all including Iran etc. Then the world could enjoy practical electricity for schools so kids can make positive not negative changes and learn.
TheTeslaJet 2 years ago 2
Nuclear energy and renewables are the future.
For now the main focus should be fission since it works and any future incarnations of it do not have such huge technological barriers that fusion does.
Perhaps more should be done to promote smaller fission reactors which could provide power for factories or provide heat for industrial processes.
Fusion itself is now accomplished but is a commercially viable fusion reactor possible, that is the question.
Wardenski86 2 years ago 2
HELL FIRE keeps nuclear power plants and the Earth's core running hot through nuclear fission.
rbolo29 2 years ago
Fission has too many problems but it does work everyday.
Fusion He3 looks great and can be accomplished.
Solar and wind are not without heavy metal pollution and environmental disturbance problems at the installations.
Electric vehicles take too long to charge and don't go far enough between charges.
Carbon fuel is needed by the airline industry.
I believe in a mixed set of solutions.
That's what we have now.
Things will evolve - just not sure if it's happening fast enough.
ryoohki23 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
One of the best ways to save the environment is to elect Officials that will focus on reducing immigration.
In America, nearly all the population growth in the last 40 years has been via immigration, over 100 million more and we are on track to go to 500 million in a few decades. The world does not need 300 million more American consumers and America does not need 300 million more immigrants. Go to Numbersusa for more info on immigration and to fax your senators for free.
mrhulot101 2 years ago
We know it's cheap. But the nuclear waste is also an issue in the other hand. Not to mention that if an accident happens, millions can be killed with a blink of an eye.
I think that the only green and safe solution will be wind power. It's dear to build but lasts for a long time and has no big impacts... And the worse that can happen is having a huge fan falling on your head...
vitormangraviti 2 years ago
How would millions of ppl die with a second? Oh wait, it doesn't, it can't, never has and never will.
Even the biggest (and only) nuclear disaster in history (Chernobyl) didn't kill millions in a second. Even the Chernobyl power plant is a wooden shack compared to modern reactor designs.
There will always be place for wind and solar, especially for solar as efficiency increases and costs go down. But right now, society requires to much energy to be supplied by these sources alone.
jimius 2 years ago
Yes, you are right... They don't die in a second. They agonize with cancer for months and only then, they die.
I understand that Chernobyl was an insecure plant but accidents do happen. It doesn't necessarily need to be an overload. A leak is an accident and also contaminates, in a smaller scale, obviously.
Plus, you need to get rid of that uranium after you use it. Where do you put it? In you garden?
I know that the wind and solar power we've got at present is not even close to enough.
vitormangraviti 2 years ago
All we have to do is build more of these. In the US, for example, you could use the deserts of Nevada and Texas for instance...
The goverment needs to cut taxes and encourage investors, offering them benefits, in order to make it work.
It won't happen tomorrow. It won't happen within the next 10 years. But it can happen if everyone does their part...
vitormangraviti 2 years ago
We are not goint to use Uranium for energy, but Thorium. Thorium is clean, safe and plentiful. The only reason we are using Uranium today is because of the need for Plutonium back in the 50s.
India is initiating a Thorium program as we speak.
Check out "Energy from Thorium" right here on GoogleTechTalk. Take care!
longbeachboy57 2 years ago
@longbeachboy57 Unfortunately India has only been developing a thorium breeder to make Uranium for the bomb. They lack natural deposits of Uranium and after illegally exploding a bomb made from a Canadian CANDU reactor, no one would sell any.
PrometheanRunGood 8 months ago
@PrometheanRunGood Can you make a bomb from U233?
longbeachboy57 8 months ago
@longbeachboy57 that was misleading, I should say that it was to make Uranium for substitution in their civilian reactors, freeing their limited Uranium production for bomb making.
Basically the principle of substitution.
PrometheanRunGood 8 months ago
@longbeachboy57 Though this probably not an issue anymore since the US gave them a waiver from the NSG, but it was a factor in why they decided to develop Thorium in the first place (ie not for the good of mankind)
PrometheanRunGood 8 months ago
@longbeachboy57 If you want info on U233 bombs, I believe the US did some tests in the 50's
Google "Operation Teapot"
PrometheanRunGood 8 months ago
@longbeachboy57 You can, but U232 is a byproduct that's also present in U233 produced from the thorium cycle. U232 is a humongous pain in the ass when it comes to building bombs, being extremely radioactive by itself and its products being gamma emitters. You need very special equipment and shielding to handle it, and it can compromise the circuitry in bombs.
OfficeThug 7 months ago
@vitormangraviti You don't need to get rid of much of the Uranium if there were more Thorium Reactors, as they can burn through that waste and produce even more power, not to mention that they are immensely safer as LFTR's can't meltdown.
HowAboutGaming 8 months ago
How the heck did this video go beyond than 10 minute? IN fact how did it expand up to 1 hour?
L3G3nD0001 2 years ago
If you own Youtube it's not that hard to stretch the limits of what's allowed.
Thedutchjelle 2 years ago
Simply because this is a Google video and Google owns Youtube. Therefore, they do whatever they want with it...
vitormangraviti 2 years ago
@L3G3nD0001 Become a Youtube Partner, then you can upload over and hour and you can get pain by Youtube. :3
HowAboutGaming 8 months ago
Nuclear has one huge advantage. You can centralise it so that the suits and cigars can sell it and make money. Our energy problems would be solved execpt that many of the smart energy ideas revolve around decentralised energy and creating comunities using free or cheap energy. No money to be made. Energy is crux of our oligarchy, deliver cheap clean energy and the power brokers are stuffed and they know it.
movieklump 2 years ago
Energy indepency for homeowners comes in the form of solar, but it often times is simply not enough, especially in northern europe. It's also subsidized in some countries making it appear cheaper or more efficient while it is not.
But solar is getting more efficient, and appliances are getting more efficient as well. So there's hope still.
jimius 2 years ago
Nikola Teslas career was destroyed by Morgan, who also destroyed the US's banking system, because he claimed free energy. Tesla was discredited just after he had just given the world AC power.
I once worked in the Middle East and I asked an Englishman who was head geologist whether he thought oil companies cover up energy discoveries and he said he didn't think they did he knew they did.
In the 80s cold fusion was ridiculed.
Only centralised energy wil be allowed by the 1% who own 99%.
movieklump 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Let`s get the facts straight. Nuclear is the most expensive energy when you do the math. It is dangerous. There has benn almost no developement since the 70ties. It is complicated and outdated.
All energy needs can be provided multiple times over with regernerative energy. But it would not be centralized and cheaper to the consumer and even create workplaces...omg.
heavyweather 2 years ago
Nuclear FISSION is expensive and dangerous, granted. However, this has nothing to do with what Bussard was proposing. In fact, if you've seen his comments about the preferred Boron-11 reaction, he's talking about "nuclear" energy with essentially no radiation. Moreover, his reactor can actually be tuned to "burn" waste from fission reactors, too. Perhaps you should *watch* a video before you comment on it..
ac7zl 2 years ago
Dangerious and unstable, yet most of the experiment near or close to nuclear power would have devistating effect.
However, since coal have more radation than nuclear, it's likely to be dangerious to burn coal.
L3G3nD0001 2 years ago
Did any of you graduate from anywhere? Ever?
Astrogoth13 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
watch out 4 the police knocking on your door checking this video out don't trust no 1 why would a normal people want to no about nuclear
bucketrobbert 2 years ago
You might calculate, that conventional coal power plants are actually MORE RADIOACTIVE than even failing nuclear power plants (I'm talking about exhaust fumes from powerplants chimneys, which are radioactive and not taken care of). Sorry for any misspellings.
adaseth 2 years ago
there relatively good concepts but the technology to stabilize the reaction and to be able to capture the vast amounts of energy produced du not exist. Particularly when dealing with incredibly small particles that are reacting and producing random elements and particles.
Schochr05 2 years ago
look up "nuclear breed reactor" on YT or the net. these nuclear reactors produce more energy than matter than they are using so they dont need to be fueled because it makes enough fuel to keep the reaction going! idaho made it about 60 yrs ago! free energy forever till the end of time!
boxa888 2 years ago
So - Google what is the proplem
stuff the mans bank with 200 million
small cost to solve your energy costs
while getting a giant step on staying
ahead of the competition.
while saving the planet.
mstaff657 2 years ago 36
You insulted me first. If you would like to have a grown up debate on the matter I would be more than happy to enlighten you or you me. If not, you win.
luci332 2 years ago
If your mind is so small that you can only fit everyone in one of two catagories, you should shoot yourself and make room for all the babies on welfare. And I run my car off of water, dumb fuck.
luci332 2 years ago
more like you run your car off of hydrogen fuel cells and your car produces water....... I think that's what you mean, because I'm pretty darn sure it doesn't "run off water" unless you have some watermill or tide generator or hydro electric dam
Bellumdues 2 years ago
"And I run my car off of water, dumb fuck. " Aww! How cute! Some one thinks they can violate the laws of thermodynamics! I'm sorry, water is not a fuel. It's fundamentally impossible to "run your car off water." Get over it.
DrFunnelCakes 2 years ago
Oh yeah? Our whole world runs off of water. It was once fundamentally impossible to go around the world...because it was flat.
The naysayers ALWAYS get proven wrong eventually. Our ideas become real. It is only probability until your conscious makes it happen.
crazy8sdrums 1 year ago
@crazy8sdrums
Seeing that the energy necessary to separate the atoms is more than a single hydrogen atom could ever produce, kinda puts a road block in the whole "running your car off water" thing. Now, don't get me wrong. I think hydrogen is a GREAT fuel source for cars. With the recent developments in lithium hydride storage, we could begin using hydrogen to power our cars within the next 5 years. Hydrogen is a great fuel, however the water that we generate it from, is NOT.
DrFunnelCakes 1 year ago
Combustion engines will not be appropriate for our future. Much greater efficiency would be found in an all electric system after the initial generation. Hydroelectricity when combined with solar and nuclear fission , if managed more effectively than currently, would provide us with more than enough energy for all of humanity for a population even greater than now.
The 'need' to meter it to us is what gives us the perception that there is a crisis.
crazy8sdrums 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crazy8sdrums : "The naysayers ALWAYS get proven wrong eventually."
No. Occasionally naysayers are shown to have been incorrect... fueling decades, and even centuries, of over-generalization by Pollyannas arguing that naysayer are always wrong.
sbergman27 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so, no, google should not go nuclear! there are better means..
luci332 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anyone who would consider nuclear energy clean, safe or the energy of the future is either stupid or corporate. The way we get rid of it's toxic waste is to put it in the ground. This is beyond retarded. And anyone who could agree with it is.......well.
do yourself and the earth a favor, save up your pot money and start producing your own electricity.
luci332 2 years ago
Check out "Energy from Thorium" on YT. Clean, safe and abundant. No long term waste, but some fission fragments that quickly decay into stable, sometimes VERY valuable metals :)
longbeachboy57 2 years ago 2
I wouldn't call man made nuclear energy 'clean', but it isn't as bad as treehuggers think it is because the waste is stored miles underground in a desolate area with warning signs.
JordanMaster22 2 years ago
> JordanMaster22...Not true. Look into Dounreay, Scotland. Waste from all over Europe was put into a group of 35ft to 180ft deep concrete silo's and has leaked into the environment already. Radioactive particles have been found on the surrounding beach. It isn't properly capped and it is a time bomb waiting to go off. It exploded once already in 1977 which contaminated the sea water and fishing was banned in the area.Until we know what to do with the waste it is neither clean nor safe.
neroangelo8 2 years ago 2
I live south of Dunreay and I am against nuclear energy
lilmissglentoran 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Google should promote nuclear FUSION from water. Not death.
JonThm 2 years ago
This man is a true scientist; his kind are a rare breed these days. :(
gREENbUILT21 2 years ago 23
damn this dude is annoying when he talks... too bad because he knows his shit
stprimeflyer 2 years ago 2
should go solar no mess no less only the best
daviechico 2 years ago
Fission is cleaner than fusion. Advanced fast reactors are 100 to 300 times as fuel efficient, and could use our nuclear waste from thermal reactors as fuel. The Integral Fast Reactor, or IFR, is discussed in the new book "Prescription for the Planet," by Tom Blees.
dmoitoza 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nuclear fission is fatal! Nature does nuclear fusion from water - so safe.
JonThm 2 years ago
holy-terrorist:>good job *=* you are nessecary
Agentoxedo07 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nuclear fission is dirty, dangerous and fatal. Molecular nuyclear fusion as done by the deep, is safe, clean and free!
JonThm 2 years ago
If the United States Government made a Nuclear Powered, highly delicate, RAM-JET Engine that operated at high altitudes at multi-supersonic speeds and ran at full power within 200 degree's F of Melting Point - I dont see how technologies like this are out of reach. We know that 99.9% of consumer technology is extremely obsolete once it reaches the market. There is a lot of amazing technology sitting on the shelf because it was displace so much current technology - and its all about making a buck
mrjustin5 3 years ago
Check out Nano-Solar panels, these puppies don't need sunlight to create energy. at the moment they produce around 30% efficiency at night from 90% at day. If a home were more energy efficient then the total consumption could be handled by such systems. These panels can be adjusted for different frequencies not just visible light. So nearly any form of energy can be converted to power. Why think big power plants when energy is all around us 24/7.
LinkBlink 3 years ago
Fusion is our future, period. If we don't achieve it, humanity will never sustain its self. The question is not whether or not we can achieve it. We HAVE to achieve it and should stop procrastinating by tinkering around with all of these other alternatives. Our entire energy budget should be focused on fusion. That's the only reason nuclear fission came as fast as it did.
animosity1120 3 years ago 4
There is an alternative people forget when it comes to making more energy. Products made just 15 years ago would consume nearly twice as much energy & do half the work then today's products. If we make products that use less energy then there's no need for more power.
LinkBlink 3 years ago
Increasing our efficiency is wonderful. That's not the whole picture though. The earth will not be habitable forever, one disaster could put us out of existence. True energy independence is being independent of the sun its self. We can't stay at home and live off our mother(nature) forever :)
animosity1120 3 years ago 2
wrong fusion is not the future teh future is anti-matter which is safe energy without where a bottle of 2 liters of anti-matter can power the whole world for 100 years of unlimited energy.
sspoke 3 years ago
Of course antimatter would be the ultimate future. For the time being though, the technology doesn't exist. If they make some large advancements on that particular front, I would be all for it. One step at a time. Maybe CERN LHC will give us that stepping stone.
animosity1120 3 years ago
animosity.. people already created animater in nanometer amounts like 1000 antimatter atoms. or some thing but its very expensive money wise.. now if money wasn't a obstacle.. which is after all a man-made currency if people worked for free or just to achieve a goal or process of automation in anti-matter development they could get that doesn't exist technology in less then 5 years.
anti-matter is a term used by those scifi freaks but its pretty basic.. its matter but flipped so its anti-matter
sspoke 3 years ago
I may be wrong,but doesn't it take the same amount of energy to make antimatter as is the amount of energy you get out of it???
melganis06 3 years ago
your right because you are modifying atoms.. but people do this on a daily basis with electrolysis so it doesnt require too much energy with just a car battery but it depends on the way you create anti-matter if you get a filter that stamps it like.. it should be done.. and have materials in different places then stamp it into anti-mater
sspoke 3 years ago
Anti-matter will never be the future in my opinion, heres why:
1. Currently, only things like the LHC produce any antimatter which in itself requires a huge amount of energy to operate so you'll end up using more energy than you would get out of it
2. Antimatter can not be stored in a matter environment because it would instantly annihilate
3. There is no system that can gather enough antimatter to make it practical anyway
Wardenski86 3 years ago
oh.. i didn't think that much about not storing it in matter.. well yah you could store it in vaccum or something naw yah u might be right..
sspoke 3 years ago
OH....hi.i'm new here and I have an idea to store antimatter.
I think we might use energy to store it or some sort of magnetic fields.
And the way to produce antimatter, In my imagination we might use a nuclear fusion reactor to move matter at a very high speed.....and move it into a negative electron charge energy within another chamber them transform it into a antimatter
LOL my foolish imaginations.
sorry for my bad english
EVEMOWALLE 2 years ago
isn't magnetism matter too.. after all magnetism = electrons right..
sspoke 2 years ago
I agree.
Xobunoli 3 years ago
Antimatter may consume more energy to create it than it releases when annihilating with matter. Thats true.
BUT... you must think of creating anti-matter on Earth (using fusion reactors), or collecting it from gas giants (they are created in upper atmosphere particle collisions), and STORE IT FOR USE as fuel for spaceships.
After all, for a spaceship you dont need to create more energy than used. You need to have a powerful compact fuel source.
rogerpenna 2 years ago
Sorry buddy, but assuming those 2 liters weigh 2 kg (like water), you only have 180 000 TJ. It will last a few weeks at current energy consumtion rate.
longbeachboy57 2 years ago
Nuclear fission is toxic death: Molecular nuclear fusion is safe, cheap and clean.
JonThm 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The reason why fusion is not widely used is because it is by no means cheap or safe... It is in theory a extremely... well, borderline perfect form of energy. But the force involved in even the smallest fusion is an unharnessable amount of power. There may be no Chernobyl, but just one hell of a fireball. If something should go wrong it's slow death versus certain death.
BlackandChrome2 3 years ago
The sea and deep water do nuclear fusion from water. So do we, in the steam cycle. We just hadn't realised! Safe, clean and cheap = nuclear fission is dear, fatal and dangerous. Choose.
JonThm 3 years ago
Fusion is not "widely used", it isn't used at all, because nobody managed to keep the reaction going from more then a few microseconds. Otherwise it's much safer than fission and it would be no fireball should anything go wrong. For the long term it's the only credible energy source that could replace oil.
r8wing 3 years ago 3
Fusion is not a chain reaction but is a self sustaining reaction once certain conditions are met, including extremely high temperatures. If something were to go wrong, like if the magnets failed, then the plasma would very rapidly loose energy and melt the interior walls, rather than explode. It is extremely safe, even in its current experimental stage. It is expensive because its experimental and not one design or component is mass produced.
Wardenski86 3 years ago 3
cheese and rice shut the fuck up you moron!
ohiovr 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have an M.Eng., and this is my PhD area. The world has been cooling since 2005: But still nuclear power, your boss, wants new plants!
JonThm 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lets just do it.
jburt56 3 years ago 3
fusion power = humanity future
consta17 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fission is fatal, toxic and dangerous. Plus very dear!
JonThm 3 years ago
Say that again, my pencil broke.
RegularFool 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
grow hemp for f**k sake
for fuel and plastics and fibre
f**king americans
helium 3
no
grow hemp
rainstormaeroponics 3 years ago
I hope the Navy utilizes this technology before my 20yrs are up.
jakelalonde85 3 years ago
"Should Google Go Nuclear?"
Do it (obviously).
Message for idiots:
This is CLEAN nuclear power, not normal nuclear power!
J2897 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nuclear fission pollutes and kills. THe deep sea does nuclear FUSION from water, which is safe, clean and cheap - no toxic death!
JonThm 3 years ago
look up nikola teslas wireless power system, it would have allowed energy and internet to be given to the whole world and even put energy to other planets through special energy transportation through space. i have already proven his one wire transmission which is a start to how his world system worked please look it up, wardenclyffe, colorado springs reseach, nikola tesla. his wardenclyffe tower was going to be the first internet and 1 hp energy transmission to all points, thanks
boxa888 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nuclear fission is toxic death! So the worst idea ever!
JonThm 3 years ago
its nuclear fusion being used by the inertial electrostatic confinement fusion device. not "fission". fusion is much safer, and much less waste.
tiger355 3 years ago
you have to watch the whole video lol, the scientist is using a new method and material to make a clean safe powerful energy source
boxa888 3 years ago 2
Laser charged Atomic device:Needs electric wires to be discarded.(Radiation problem)To solve this USA and USSR made fiber-optics technology to solve this.Now instead of using these wires for energy:now laser fiber optic glass wires are used to send light energy to atomic devices like atomic clock and timer which can receive the light energy and change it to watts of energy for the Reactor with only using solar panel technology:A plus is fiber-optics are more flexible and it can bend twist(Safer)
humexavier 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nuclear fission is toxic death! Google is worth more than to be their stooge!
JonThm 3 years ago
Iraq is approaching $600B. Why can't we fund a $200M project to see if IEC pans out? If not, move on. Meanwhile, we have programs with no end...
danno321s 3 years ago 3
Nuclear fission is fatal and toxic. Nuclear fusion from water is safe, cheap and clean. Adn the deep seas do it.
JonThm 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This technology will probably increase global warming exponentially. Why?
Because free energy will cause an explosion in population and farming. Farming increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere e.g. 4000 gallons /acre/day per corn field.
Overall it will be a good thing, but we need to face the facts on jumping to this type of technology.
One of the best solutions to the islamic fundamentalist problem is ufo disclosure.
it should be deployed strategically to destroy islam.
alienmoonbase 3 years ago
Google's solar-thermal project is much lower tech. It's probably a better solution.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Is it normal that I'm only 16 and I understood most of what he was saying??
Andyman3k 3 years ago
Kids are always getting smarter due to the information age. By the way this is real and will revolutionize society. A test reactor is being built in the UK.
UFOMAN618 3 years ago
hi ufo man, do you have a link to information about the uk reactor?
ohiovr 2 years ago
good on ya for your thirsty mind
CreamPie9uy 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
entertaining video! my names Hannah, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ FriendlyFlirts(.COM) __ my user ID there is Hannah_uciuhwzd chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
manualex69 3 years ago
If Nuclear Fusion became the maine power supply there would be severly drastic changes. We could finally rid ourselves of the addiction that is oil and pave the way for the Electric Car. The Electric car would reverse everything about Global Warming if Fusion were around now.
sodoffusillygit 3 years ago
The big energy companies and governments that control us on their behalf will NEVER let us have Polywell. Why?
1)Prof Bussard was working for the Navy and developed a relatively compact scale device (to fit in destroyers and subs )This would allow a more decentralised and fragmented power generation system erroding the current monopolies.
2)Once developed the system is relatively simple and cheap.Smaller profits.
3)Towns and citys could free themselves from the grid erroding central control.
CopiersOfficeEquip 3 years ago 3
I am a vehicle engineer and i want to second this opinion. It also looks like the Polywell is scalable to some degree, meaning clean practical spaceflight.
UFOMAN618 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cheap energy will destroy us. We will turn into robots.
sfudman 3 years ago
good. evolution, baby.
seangibat 3 years ago
oil is destroy us.gas is surpessing us.
fusion is saves the world.
gun844 3 years ago 6
I like robots, personally. For example they dont fart.
UFOMAN618 3 years ago
Its more than obvious. they lacked of substantial support. Keeping programs black too excessively lead to failure. or too late. P59 first jetfighter. thats this program in the ninteties. a p59. what a shame. what a shame. how fast can he make it pulse anyway?
Santoslhelpa 3 years ago
No. Stick to IT, you know what the hell you are about there!
JonThm 3 years ago
this movies longgggggg
robertpoop 3 years ago
Do Google like death - as that is what nuclear power is today! Do nuclear fusion.
JonThm 3 years ago
how did they get to be 92mins?
Mastado 3 years ago
probably paid for a better account ..not sure though
hekma 3 years ago
somehow you can upgrade to a better account... not sure how
flaze3 3 years ago
try, "Google owns YouTube"
synthead 3 years ago 3
A steam plasma does molecular nuclear fusion in a controlled way! Flourescent lgihts show the way! And do nuclear fusion from Na gas.
JonThm 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nuclear fission is bomb technology! It produces waste adn death - and is dear. A water fall does molecular nuclear fusion! GO FUSION!
JonThm 4 years ago
Ever heard of a hydrogen bomb? thats the FUSION of titrium and duterium (isotopes of hydrogen) harnessed in a weapon. and it too produces waste and death (if used improperly), and currently requires more energy to run than it can produce (though we may one day master it). And don't fool yourself, the RMS speed of water molecules in a water fall is not nearly great enough to overcome the electro-magnetic repulsive forces of protons in the two nuclei, its just not possible.
Bleezz 3 years ago
A H bomb uses nuclear fission to sewt off molecular nuclear fusion in an uncontrolled way. We can use other ways to do MF, in a cointrolled way, to supply heat and power!
JonThm 3 years ago
We can also harness nuclear fission to supply power, and we can do it RIGHT NOW, with very little waste and extremely efficiently. We simply cant wait another 40 years for nuclear fusion, we need a solution today that will last us until fusion becomes a reality, and nuclear fission can do it.
Bleezz 3 years ago
The dee psea does molecular nuclear fusion, as does steam and IC engines - nuclear fusion from water, today! THe dee psea has done it for 200 million years. Now. When ever you boil water, you do it now!
JonThm 3 years ago
thats impossible, there isn't enough energy to overcome the electro magnetic repulsion of the hydrogen isotopes. these are tiny (nearly massless) objects that have to be accelerated to a high enough velocity to give them enough kinetic energy to overcome the force of two positive charges repelling each other. It just doesn't happen without the pressures and temperatures of the sun (can be replicated, but not seen in every day life)
Bleezz 3 years ago
If it is impossible how was he able to detect fusion neutrons?
This is not a new design, the only new part is using magnetic fields instead of a charged grid.
CaptExpendable 3 years ago
Actually, check on some real fugures about electron guns. They produce (when focused) over twenty times the heat potental of the temperature of the sun, making fusion a walk in the park.
Venturestarx 3 years ago
and Fission can be used in a controlled way to, i really dont understand your argument (its almost like saying lets use natural gas instead of coal because unlike coal, natural gas can be burned :) lol)
Bleezz 3 years ago
I haven't heard about any hydrogen bomb that doesn't have a fission bomb inside it to start the reaction/fusion.
theinsekt 3 years ago