I think you can use this plasma chamber to create carbon nanostructures, just at a microwave source inside, an organic vapour source, and you get them...
naive.. the gas atom is too loose to be able to fuse. what you saw was just kind of plasma. the energy you got was far from the level to "ignite" the nuclear reaction. I think you at first should calculate the energy to fuse a pair of deuterium, then you will know how much energy at least needed to conduct the experiment.
@applrichardbyl I think *you* at first should calculate the energy to fuse a pair of deuterium. Accounting for coulombic repulsion of nuceli, adjusting for a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution and quantum tunneling at distances close enough for the strong-nuclear force to act you need ~4x10^8 Kelvin. This might seem like a lot until you realize that 1eV=1.2x10^4 Kelvin according to kinetic theory. So ~35keV is enough to fuse. We really only need half that voltage since both ions are accelerated,
@cowsrock94 We use a variac to from mains voltage input into a small step-up transformer (~150x if I remember correctly) that brings us up to ~20 kV AC. Next is a full-wave bridge rectifier using some HV diodes to get HV DC, keeping only the negative portion of the AC sine wave. In many applications you'd add a capacitor to filter out noise and smooth distortions from the rectification; The fusor is a large enough capacitive load that we can avoid one along with the danger of the stored energy.
@cowsrock94 Most chemical supply houses sell "lecture bottles" of deuterium. These are small pressurized cylinders of deuterium typically for use in small demonstrations, labs, etc.
@rayreckless Near Boston, Massachusetts in the US. I didn't specify my exact geographical location because it isn't relevant to the video, a quick google search would let you know if you really cared. People don't typically specify a particular country when they mention where they go to school. Thanks for the presumed passive-aggressive condescension though.
Also, you need extreme pressures to cause the deuterium to fuse to helium, right? isnt that why it can't yet be done, other than a thermonuclear bomb?
@jednoucelovy Roentgens? Man get down with the times, it's all about the Sieverts nowadays! (the current proper SI unit for biological dose equivalent radiation). At low acceleration potentials the x-rays are negligible. At higher voltages we use a combination of distance, limited exposure time, and shielding to mitigate the dosage to nil.
@JustineBieberxoxo It was meant to be a joke and played no part in my actual answer afterward. Also, please don't hold me accountable for the actions of an entire country. I (along with the vast majority of scientists in the US) use SI units quite happily.
@arky3000 Actually the Futurama character was named for Philo T. Farnsworth, the inventor of most of what is now the television. Being a not-lazy sort of chap, he also invented a fusion reactor on the side. Check out his Wikipedia article, pretty cool stuff.
@FILE48BOR Sub atomic mass doesn't matter, because it's fusing the nuclei of deuterium and tritium. Sub atomic matter is so small that it is equal to 1/1836 of a hydrogen atom. You know what? You have know idea what you are talking about, or you are foreign and it's hard as hell to explain it in English. It's probably that you're foreign, and that's fine.
When running with fuel... The vacuum system shouldn't be on right? First let the vacuum system do its thing, then fill the chamber with fuel making sure everything is at the appropriate pressure.. And THEN turn the power on.... Or am I saying it completely wrong? Because I'm reading different things all over the web..
@dcggames Close, usually the chamber is pumped down to high-vacuum to remove the atmosphere/contaminants. Next, back-fill with deuterium. Finally, commence fusion. In reality out-gassing/micro-leaks etc will bleed air back in so you need to keep a dynamic equilibrium of slow deuterium dispensing and slow vacuum pumping.
@javorromo dumb ass read the description for once.
-"No fusion is actually ocurring in this video as the chamber is filled with air at medium vacuum pressure. To actually produce fusion reactions we will fill the chamber with it's fuel, deuterium gas."
@hadouken968 yeah, i did it. But not fusion here. Fusion is atoms "fusioning" in another new atoms producing energy, not atoms brighting spending a lot of energy in brighting
@javorromo READ THE DESCRIPTION!!!! you dont have to say its not fusion they say that it isnt fusion fgs dont worry about this video if u wanna see fusion go to another 1-cant u see ur like the ONLY hater here ur ANNOYING! so STFU
@GunnyZoSo Take a class in physics if your high school offers it! It won't be quite as exciting, but you'll get a basic understanding of how this works.
@Peopleareblind It's not glass, it's PMMA (plexiglass) which makes you probably even more skeptical. However your argument is invalid. It's akin to saying: "Yes, I'm sure you're containing the power of a forest fire in that tiny plastic lighter." We're only providing about 400 watts input power. My desk fan consumes more power than that.
I didn't quite get it. in 10^-2 or 0.01 torr you need minimum of 300 volts to create spark, as pressure decreases you must increase the voltage say up to 800 volts. In lower pressures say 10^-3 even 10KV will not create any spark. (coz there is not enough plasma to conduct electricity). So the optimum pressure is in the range of 10^-2 torr and inside chamber you have some air and probably some Hydrogen which are in the form of ions. anybody can perform it but what is the point? what did you get?
@vartatoosh You actually don't want a "spark". The plasma is largely neutral and not conductive. We create a large electrostatic potential that ionizes the gas and accelerates the nuclei towards the center of the chamber. Under proper operation you should be drawing at most 10-15 milliamps, this current is largely from nuclei striking the inner grid and is undesirable.
Question... How can you take this device and make the power output run a house, or small building? I have never used any type of fusion or plasma reactor to power anything... I have however used hydrogen... Hydrogen use is controversial but I for one can say that as a small scale scientist, hydrogen has worked fine. Seems fusion is a bit more dangerous too. Take care and be careful.
@Dewayneyork1 No fusion reactor can power anything right now, not even itself! They are inefficient machines and the chief focus of much research is improving on their efficiency.
If we could solve fusion we'd have almost limitless energy and we could take over the universe lmao... no but it would solve all of our problems, more money needs to be spent on R&D.
@JDAVIDLITTLE I recommend starting out with calculus and a fundamental understanding of physics in general, with an eye towards electromagnetism, plasma physics, kinetic theory, nuclear physics, and maybe a little quantum theory thrown in for good measure. Of course you can put the thing together without knowing all that, but you will have no idea how to operate/improve/fix it.
Next become familiar with the practical side of things: vacuum systems, high voltage, radiation safety/metrology.
are you getting electric from the fusion? Isn't that the point of creating fusion rather than Fission of that we use today with nasty uranium filled rods? Last I read that fusion is to unstable? Did you calculate or pull any kind of wattage off this?
@Dusty696969 Fusion will be used for the same kind of reactor as normal fission, it releases greater energy than fission, and heats water to turn turbines - at least thats the theory. It's not radioactive like fission because you just use normal non-radioactive atoms to fuse, such as hydrogen like the stars do.
No. Considering mankind's nature, the second we find a way to create a source of indefinite energy, it will be instantly turned around and weaponized. I'd rather not venture into the realm of fusion, because I KNOW it will start world war 3.
@chaosbringer127 Not really mate, since the only fusion product is helium, which can't be used in weapons, and in order to make a hydrogen bomb in this way would require a fusor bigger than manhattan. Now, i know there are fusion bombs, but those first set off fission bombs in order to fuse hydrogen. that is not what's happening here.
@chaosbringer127 yeah but we will need teh cold fusion tech to fight the aliens when we get to alpha centauri D: Dont throw our children under the mothership.
@chaosbringer127 mate, we've had fusion bombs since before hiroshima. we already have them. and it's not starting world war 3. whats more, the weaponisation potential of fission reactors comes from their waste products, which are used in nuclear bombs. the only waste from fusion is helium, which can be used at your kids birthday parties. don't be making these comments unless you know what's really going on in that reaction chamber.
@chaosbringer127 that crap is the same sort of ignorance that kept mankind stuck in the dark ages. why don't you actually educate yourself on how nuclear weapons are developed, and then consider how these fusion reactors work. these reactors require a very fine balance, and are specifically designed only for energy production. and by energy, i mean electricity. electricity can't - CANNOT - be used for wmd's. please, enough with the closedmindedness.
@chaosbringer127 you mean infinite in time? or in magnitude? if its magnitude, then its not infinite. its about twice as efficient as fossil fuels - thats it. in terms of time, its not infinite either. you have to keep putting fuel into the reaction chamber for it to work. now if we could generate energy of infinite magnitude, we'd be capable of recreating the big bang. and for the record, the LHC is more about 100x more powerful than a fusion reactor. and even that isn't infinite energy.
@chaosbringer127 that's exactly the point i made before. its not indefinite, and its not infinite. you still need to add fuel to the reaction to keep it going. the point that proponents of fusion are trying to make is that its cleaner than fossil fuels, and the fusion fuel is abundant, and its more efficient than any other power generation method we have. read my blog (find the link on my youtube channel), i have a post that explains all this really well.
@chaosbringer127 I would argue that having electricity cheap enough to not even bother selling would do more for world peace than virtually anything else. There are all sorts of things that aren't done today because they aren't realistic/competitive due to energy costs.
One example is desalinization (turning sea water into drinkable water). Some people think that in the future wars will actually be fought over drinkable water because of the unsustainable growth of the human population.
@t3hPoundcake my understanding of the polywell (which is based on this fusor device) is that it doesn't need to heat water to generate electricity. rather, it converts the heat directly to electrical energy by blasting out charged helium atoms which excite an electrical grid surrounding the reaction chamber. so its just that bit more efficient :)
not completely correct: u fuse two hydrogen isotopes, ne of which - trithium - is highly radioactive. But the waste produced is just the normal non-radioactive helium, which is harmless.
@JackSparrowO at the current state, a lot. but google matter-energy-conversion corporation and donate. they need US$200million to complete r&d. I know that looks like a lot, but thats how much it will take to have a commercial fusion reactor up and running. after they show that it can be done, BOY is that price going to drop. i bet you this tech will end up paying for itself in terms of energy savings. :)
You know, I just realized something. We can make Fusion, and plasma reactions in our own back yard, but we can gather no power from them. When I pondered this I came to a amusing conclusion, we have very few means of gathering or generating power that does not involve a turbine of some kind. Wind power involves a turbine, hydro electricity involves a turbine, nuclear plants involves a turbine. The reason we cannot use fusion is we have yet to find a way to make it spin a turbine.
@coffeecrisp1000 Pros-Fuel is 75% of matter in universe, gives off no lasting radiation(no fallout or radioactive waste), produces tremendous energy, It will be cheap once we work the bugs out.
Cons-High temperature, extraterrestrial mining(for hydrogen), vast amounts of heat and pressure needed to start reaction, gives off deadly radiation during fusion process.
@N33DL3R if we have fusion reactors we will simply split the water to get hydrogen, no need to mine it somewhere else.
And the vast among of pressure and heat is not so much a problem since we can already achieve it (record of 3 to 6 billions degrees with the z-machine). High enough for aneutronic fusion (planned with the Z-Neutron machine).
@N33DL3R we can get the fuel out of the earth mate. its just hydrogen, which comes from water. and its alpha radiation that comes out. that is ionising and dangerous yes, but it can be blocked by a sheet of paper, as compared to fission reactors that generate a whole mass of nasty stuff that requires heavy lead suits.
@TheMaster734 You also typically have high-energy neutrons that tend to activate the surrounding reactor and produce low-level radioactive waste, but it is much more manageable than most nuclear fission.
Fusors really can produce fusion. ...now, whether they can produce enough energy to even begin to approach the power input... that's another question. Also any fusion device with electrodes in the plasma seems to me likely to kill itself before it generates net power. Even so, it's a very cool benchtop plasma/nuclear project! Nice!
@RollerMew2 Riiiight ... if that thing had the slightest chance to make a black-hole, than that means the Sun should have turned into a black-hole a long time ago.
@newmac probably not mate. in order to generate energy to be used in the home, it needs to be a lot bigger than this. google matter-energy-conversion corporation. they have scale images of what a fusion reactor might look like.
@newmac Economy of scale probably dictates that no matter how you're producing power (nuclear/petroleum/steam/whatever) , it's probably cheapest/most-efficient to have a centralized large scale power plant.
@JordanMaster22 Funny you say that. This video was filmed at the campus particle accelerator building which is a good 20-30 ft underground inside several foot thick concrete walls. We were probably getting less radiation than you right now thanks to the bulk of the cosmic radiation getting shielded.
The way the glow moves infront of the lense ( its probably just camera tearing though ) actually gives me the feeling that this is digital effects.. But still, i see no reason other than that why it should be fake :) Great stuff!
@infernoacid Keep in mind that the camera is trying to focus on a diffuse, luminous spherical cloud of plasma, so the camera tends to not pick it up in the way you'd expect. If you've ever seen video/pictures of aerogel you'll recognize kind of a similar effect.
@aatmuri ill tel you how he made it, he put a super hdron collider and 20 volts input with a lab check chamber pressure of 25 militor or 32 microns, then you plug the outlet straight into your ass hole and then if everything went right, you die and we loose an ass hole like you.
@aatmuri I recommend fusor(dot)net if you are serious about construction of a fusor. You'll need 2-10,000 US dollars worth of equipment/material and a good understanding of vacuum systems, high voltage, radiation safety/metrology, and welding/general fabrication.
As for specifically the grids: a high-temp (refractory) conducting metal with low vapor pressure would be ideal. Something like tantalum (what we use), tungsten, etc.
@cartouchator The plasma is confined using inertial electrostatic confinement (google it). Even if it weren't, we're only putting a couple hundred watts of energy into the plasma, not enough to melt let alone evaporate 1.5 inch thick stainless steel.
As far as I know the termonuclear fusion is producing so much energy (heat), that it melts down any material. So my question is how do you produce the vacuum around the plasma and if there is a vacuum how do you keep the plasma in one place? It is not an accident, that usually these reactions are produced in a super conducting tokamak. And not in a "stainless steel" cotainer. :-)
@jvizkeleti the wire around it is creating an electromagnetic field keeping the center plasma from escaping. It doesnt melt the wire cause something to do with the vacuum. but this is a very LOW TECH experiment since they probably cant spend millions on a GOOD prototype
@jvizkeleti You have to distinguish between temperature and power. Imagine trying to melt an iceberg with a lighter. The lighter is hot enough to melt ice, but simply doesn't have the power required to put a noticeable dent in the iceberg
The plasma is confined because it sits at the bottom of an electromagnetic "well" in the same way coffee stays in a mug (by gravity not electromagnetism)
Also, even the multi-billion dollar tokamak chamber is made of stainless steel, most vacuum chambers are.
I guess nobody else read the description and read that there was no fusion because this was a "Test" and that there wasn't even any fuel in the reactor, only air at medium vacuum. this was really just to show that on the first test fire they could acheive plasma which they did which is actually a big step in acheiveing fusion without a large facility such as ITER.
why call it a fusion reactor, or fusion "what ever" when there is no fusion taking place, i understand trying to achieve cold fusion (which if you did fuse anything it would be), but hell the few things that really do fuse elements have names like stars, sun, H-bomb, tokamak, but calling it a fusion reactor would be like calling bedini motor "perpetual motion motor", yes you are trying to fuse H, but unless you have proven data that you did, then its not a fusion reactor is it?
@1crazyfocker First, this isn't cold fusion (which by and large is snake oil). Second, the Farnsworth fusor is an actual fusion reactor that produces measurable (but uselessly inefficient) fusion and has been studied in peer-reviewed scientific journals for ~60 years. Old news.
@userjjb 1, i know the complete history of this device, 2nd when i said cold fusion, and not talking about those bs thing, i am talking about the fact that the temp inside these devices, is far to low to create fusion, unless it was under pressures in the millions of PSI, thus cold fusion 3rd the scientific community is split over this. i so happen to be on the side that states the facts. its a source of neutrons and thats it, no proof of fusion just a neutrons source which they claim is proof
ok, after a crash course in physics I have learned that all this does is glow.....
its just a lot of happy horse shit, fusion can only take place under very specific conditions, i.e. very hot places or very high pressures... like the sun
@SirDude456 I recommend something more comprehensive than a crash course. The plasma inside the fusor is indeed "very hot". Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of a collection of particles. Even a modest acceleration potential of 15 keV equates to a temperature of 150 megakelvin.
I think you can use this plasma chamber to create carbon nanostructures, just at a microwave source inside, an organic vapour source, and you get them...
nanotektor 1 week ago
When the hell is this shit going to finally be useful? I need a super star destoyer NOW not 100 years from now.
StinkyPheet 1 week ago
What the hell does it do???????????
magicks934 4 weeks ago
@magicks934
It's a big nightlight.
Zvesda 3 weeks ago
naive.. the gas atom is too loose to be able to fuse. what you saw was just kind of plasma. the energy you got was far from the level to "ignite" the nuclear reaction. I think you at first should calculate the energy to fuse a pair of deuterium, then you will know how much energy at least needed to conduct the experiment.
applrichardbyl 1 month ago
@applrichardbyl I think *you* at first should calculate the energy to fuse a pair of deuterium. Accounting for coulombic repulsion of nuceli, adjusting for a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution and quantum tunneling at distances close enough for the strong-nuclear force to act you need ~4x10^8 Kelvin. This might seem like a lot until you realize that 1eV=1.2x10^4 Kelvin according to kinetic theory. So ~35keV is enough to fuse. We really only need half that voltage since both ions are accelerated,
userjjb 1 month ago
so how long till you can send me back in time
TheRottenburger 2 months ago
How do you create negative voltage?
cowsrock94 2 months ago
@cowsrock94 We use a variac to from mains voltage input into a small step-up transformer (~150x if I remember correctly) that brings us up to ~20 kV AC. Next is a full-wave bridge rectifier using some HV diodes to get HV DC, keeping only the negative portion of the AC sine wave. In many applications you'd add a capacitor to filter out noise and smooth distortions from the rectification; The fusor is a large enough capacitive load that we can avoid one along with the danger of the stored energy.
userjjb 2 months ago
@userjjb Well that clears things up :P
I'm happy i can understand all that, maybe I'll make my own fusion reactor.
Where can I get deuterium?
cowsrock94 2 months ago
@cowsrock94 Most chemical supply houses sell "lecture bottles" of deuterium. These are small pressurized cylinders of deuterium typically for use in small demonstrations, labs, etc.
userjjb 2 months ago
They made a stargate!
CertifiedBad4ss 2 months ago
deuterium, blach! Dilithium is way better!
TheAsatot 3 months ago
Farnsworth Fusor... Good news everyone!
TheAsatot 3 months ago 2
Anybody else think he sounds like Sheldon?
jessica5655 3 months ago 3
Did you name it a farnsworth fusor after professor farnsworth?
mcm1322 4 months ago
I AM IRON MAN
CoolKillerClan 4 months ago
I thought that using fusion to generate electricity was impossible.
youngdones 4 months ago
Newbie here,what is negative 10,000 volts?
davetileguy 4 months ago
Dude... the image overlay is slightly de-synced from the original video...
TheReasonWhyGuy 4 months ago
so...does it work? i hope so. be nice to see fusion in my life time
sithalo 4 months ago
Good news everyone... i've built a Farnsworth fusor
BornAgainEngineer 4 months ago 16
@BornAgainEngineer
The first thing that when through my mind ! :D
numeristacom 2 months ago
I've know idea where UMass Lowell is in the world so I must assume USA as everyone else in the world is all to aware of their place in it.
rayreckless 4 months ago
@rayreckless Near Boston, Massachusetts in the US. I didn't specify my exact geographical location because it isn't relevant to the video, a quick google search would let you know if you really cared. People don't typically specify a particular country when they mention where they go to school. Thanks for the presumed passive-aggressive condescension though.
userjjb 4 months ago 16
@userjjb LOLZ!
shaokem 4 months ago
Damn it Jim... I'm just a doctor!
6547bilberry 5 months ago
i'd stick my finger in therr
robybirdy 5 months ago
all you need now is a orange HEV suit and a crowbar and you'll be gordon freeman :D
extondude 5 months ago
Also, you need extreme pressures to cause the deuterium to fuse to helium, right? isnt that why it can't yet be done, other than a thermonuclear bomb?
KTMONEY100 5 months ago
1.21 GIGAWATTS!!! GREAT SCOTT!!!
jadedmastermind 5 months ago 3
any neutron came out ?
stmbaah 5 months ago
Great. You managed to create a plasma in a lab. I can do this at home....
Please change the title dumbass.
hardstyle905 5 months ago
Try revolving the wire inside
matchbook69 5 months ago
@aekleber Grade F troll comment. Grats on good spelling.
userjjb 5 months ago
How many roentgens do you get from X-rays due to bremsstrahlung?
jednoucelovy 6 months ago
@jednoucelovy Roentgens? Man get down with the times, it's all about the Sieverts nowadays! (the current proper SI unit for biological dose equivalent radiation). At low acceleration potentials the x-rays are negligible. At higher voltages we use a combination of distance, limited exposure time, and shielding to mitigate the dosage to nil.
userjjb 5 months ago 4
@userjjb Telling someone to get with the times when the country he lives in refuses the metric system?
You must be joking, surely.
JustineBieberxoxo 2 months ago
@JustineBieberxoxo It was meant to be a joke and played no part in my actual answer afterward. Also, please don't hold me accountable for the actions of an entire country. I (along with the vast majority of scientists in the US) use SI units quite happily.
userjjb 2 months ago
@JustineBieberxoxo if there is any practical reason for the country to adopt metric, beside that it will make you happy, please share it with us.
DaniOcean 2 months ago
@DaniOcean Logic.
JustineBieberxoxo 2 months ago
@JustineBieberxoxo :) and what's practical about logic?
DaniOcean 2 months ago
named from a character in futurama? my apologies, im dumb :D
arky3000 6 months ago
@arky3000 Actually the Futurama character was named for Philo T. Farnsworth, the inventor of most of what is now the television. Being a not-lazy sort of chap, he also invented a fusion reactor on the side. Check out his Wikipedia article, pretty cool stuff.
userjjb 5 months ago
I have a high voltage test stand..Power supplies diffusion pump.. roughing pump... 2 analyzing magnets
All for sale....
no bf3 used in system... It was just used for developing and patenting a microwave source.
Have a nice power supply... Filtered to 100k
matchbook69 6 months ago
i lol'd at all the people in comments trying to be scientists. Read a few books on atomic theory before you go spouting non-sense.
LouSaydus 7 months ago 3
I could do this shit in my sleep.
infamus15 7 months ago
@FILE48BOR The smaller the particles the easier fusion is. Also learn english and dont talk out of your ass, it doesn't look good.
TheChemlife 7 months ago
Chamberless fusor ala Farnsworth?
doceigen 7 months ago
now make it 3 inches diameter and make it power a robotic suit haha jk
mastachief2 8 months ago
@FILE48BOR Sub atomic mass doesn't matter, because it's fusing the nuclei of deuterium and tritium. Sub atomic matter is so small that it is equal to 1/1836 of a hydrogen atom. You know what? You have know idea what you are talking about, or you are foreign and it's hard as hell to explain it in English. It's probably that you're foreign, and that's fine.
SoSandvich 8 months ago
Why pray to Helios, when your prayers have been answered by Thor?
ebutemetube 8 months ago 4
@javorromo you're not reading the video description.
BreakWatcher 8 months ago
When running with fuel... The vacuum system shouldn't be on right? First let the vacuum system do its thing, then fill the chamber with fuel making sure everything is at the appropriate pressure.. And THEN turn the power on.... Or am I saying it completely wrong? Because I'm reading different things all over the web..
dcggames 8 months ago
@dcggames Close, usually the chamber is pumped down to high-vacuum to remove the atmosphere/contaminants. Next, back-fill with deuterium. Finally, commence fusion. In reality out-gassing/micro-leaks etc will bleed air back in so you need to keep a dynamic equilibrium of slow deuterium dispensing and slow vacuum pumping.
userjjb 5 months ago
@userjjb OK thanks for the reply... Are you looking for a specific pressure for the deuterium filling or not?
dcggames 5 months ago
@javorromo dumb ass read the description for once.
-"No fusion is actually ocurring in this video as the chamber is filled with air at medium vacuum pressure. To actually produce fusion reactions we will fill the chamber with it's fuel, deuterium gas."
genius
juumdd 8 months ago 22
@juumdd wheres the fusion videos then?
meronmotors 8 months ago
@javorromo read the description!
dumle29 8 months ago
@javorromo maybe u should read the description
hadouken968 8 months ago
@hadouken968 yeah, i did it. But not fusion here. Fusion is atoms "fusioning" in another new atoms producing energy, not atoms brighting spending a lot of energy in brighting
javorromo 8 months ago
@javorromo READ THE DESCRIPTION!!!! you dont have to say its not fusion they say that it isnt fusion fgs dont worry about this video if u wanna see fusion go to another 1-cant u see ur like the ONLY hater here ur ANNOYING! so STFU
jenniferhall07 7 months ago
thanx for clarifying my doubt
6055vishal 9 months ago
Im in high school, junoir, snd i find this to be very interesting.
GunnyZoSo 9 months ago
@GunnyZoSo Take a class in physics if your high school offers it! It won't be quite as exciting, but you'll get a basic understanding of how this works.
userjjb 5 months ago
Noobs these days!
ilusjon 9 months ago
Yes im sure your containing the power of the sun in that steel box with a glass window pane
Peopleareblind 9 months ago
@Peopleareblind It's not glass, it's PMMA (plexiglass) which makes you probably even more skeptical. However your argument is invalid. It's akin to saying: "Yes, I'm sure you're containing the power of a forest fire in that tiny plastic lighter." We're only providing about 400 watts input power. My desk fan consumes more power than that.
userjjb 5 months ago
@javorromo Internet expert for the lose.
magicstix0r 9 months ago 2
I didn't quite get it. in 10^-2 or 0.01 torr you need minimum of 300 volts to create spark, as pressure decreases you must increase the voltage say up to 800 volts. In lower pressures say 10^-3 even 10KV will not create any spark. (coz there is not enough plasma to conduct electricity). So the optimum pressure is in the range of 10^-2 torr and inside chamber you have some air and probably some Hydrogen which are in the form of ions. anybody can perform it but what is the point? what did you get?
vartatoosh 9 months ago
@vartatoosh You actually don't want a "spark". The plasma is largely neutral and not conductive. We create a large electrostatic potential that ionizes the gas and accelerates the nuclei towards the center of the chamber. Under proper operation you should be drawing at most 10-15 milliamps, this current is largely from nuclei striking the inner grid and is undesirable.
userjjb 5 months ago
Question... How can you take this device and make the power output run a house, or small building? I have never used any type of fusion or plasma reactor to power anything... I have however used hydrogen... Hydrogen use is controversial but I for one can say that as a small scale scientist, hydrogen has worked fine. Seems fusion is a bit more dangerous too. Take care and be careful.
Dewayneyork1 9 months ago
@Dewayneyork1 No fusion reactor can power anything right now, not even itself! They are inefficient machines and the chief focus of much research is improving on their efficiency.
userjjb 5 months ago
that's no fusion , it's just PLASMA !
over2seeyer 9 months ago
@over2seeyer That's no square, it's just a RHOMBUS !
userjjb 5 months ago
you built a fusion reactor in your garage?! awwesomes
terminator0405 9 months ago
@terminator0405 Garage sounds cooler, but it's actually in a university campus accelerator lab.
userjjb 5 months ago
If we could solve fusion we'd have almost limitless energy and we could take over the universe lmao... no but it would solve all of our problems, more money needs to be spent on R&D.
Miles12345671 9 months ago
how does someone even start to make this???
JDAVIDLITTLE 9 months ago
@JDAVIDLITTLE I recommend starting out with calculus and a fundamental understanding of physics in general, with an eye towards electromagnetism, plasma physics, kinetic theory, nuclear physics, and maybe a little quantum theory thrown in for good measure. Of course you can put the thing together without knowing all that, but you will have no idea how to operate/improve/fix it.
Next become familiar with the practical side of things: vacuum systems, high voltage, radiation safety/metrology.
userjjb 5 months ago
Whatever dude.
rickitickidicki 9 months ago
are you getting electric from the fusion? Isn't that the point of creating fusion rather than Fission of that we use today with nasty uranium filled rods? Last I read that fusion is to unstable? Did you calculate or pull any kind of wattage off this?
Dusty696969 9 months ago
@Dusty696969 Fusion will be used for the same kind of reactor as normal fission, it releases greater energy than fission, and heats water to turn turbines - at least thats the theory. It's not radioactive like fission because you just use normal non-radioactive atoms to fuse, such as hydrogen like the stars do.
t3hPoundcake 9 months ago 5
@t3hPoundcake
No. Considering mankind's nature, the second we find a way to create a source of indefinite energy, it will be instantly turned around and weaponized. I'd rather not venture into the realm of fusion, because I KNOW it will start world war 3.
chaosbringer127 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 I never said anything about using it for a weapon, why don't people on youtube read comments?
t3hPoundcake 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 We haven't made it with nuclear weaponry, why would we do it with even more dangerous one ?
Acrimonator 9 months ago
@Acrimonator
Fission is finite. Fusion is not. The potential to weaponize it is much higher.
chaosbringer127 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 Not really mate, since the only fusion product is helium, which can't be used in weapons, and in order to make a hydrogen bomb in this way would require a fusor bigger than manhattan. Now, i know there are fusion bombs, but those first set off fission bombs in order to fuse hydrogen. that is not what's happening here.
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 yeah but we will need teh cold fusion tech to fight the aliens when we get to alpha centauri D: Dont throw our children under the mothership.
7255202 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 mate, we've had fusion bombs since before hiroshima. we already have them. and it's not starting world war 3. whats more, the weaponisation potential of fission reactors comes from their waste products, which are used in nuclear bombs. the only waste from fusion is helium, which can be used at your kids birthday parties. don't be making these comments unless you know what's really going on in that reaction chamber.
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@TheMaster734
What happens is irrelevant. Having access to infinite energy is bound to create potential for wars beyond the likes we have seen.
Not that I believe humanity will ever achieve fusion to a degree that will generate more energy that was put in, but just in case.
chaosbringer127 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 that crap is the same sort of ignorance that kept mankind stuck in the dark ages. why don't you actually educate yourself on how nuclear weapons are developed, and then consider how these fusion reactors work. these reactors require a very fine balance, and are specifically designed only for energy production. and by energy, i mean electricity. electricity can't - CANNOT - be used for wmd's. please, enough with the closedmindedness.
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@TheMaster734
So you're saying that you can't use free energy to fuel weapons? You're the ignorant one here.
chaosbringer127 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 by your responses, i see you acknowledge that the reactor itself isn't a weapon but the energy produced is?
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@TheMaster734
That was my original point. Of course the reactor isn't a weapon. It's the energy that can be made that is frightening.
chaosbringer127 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 well you're a little late to be frightened by what energy production can do. seriously, seriously late
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@TheMaster734
Infinite energy...
chaosbringer127 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 you mean infinite in time? or in magnitude? if its magnitude, then its not infinite. its about twice as efficient as fossil fuels - thats it. in terms of time, its not infinite either. you have to keep putting fuel into the reaction chamber for it to work. now if we could generate energy of infinite magnitude, we'd be capable of recreating the big bang. and for the record, the LHC is more about 100x more powerful than a fusion reactor. and even that isn't infinite energy.
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@TheMaster734
Regardless, I doubt humans will ever be able to make sustainable fusion that generates energy indefinitely.
chaosbringer127 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 that's exactly the point i made before. its not indefinite, and its not infinite. you still need to add fuel to the reaction to keep it going. the point that proponents of fusion are trying to make is that its cleaner than fossil fuels, and the fusion fuel is abundant, and its more efficient than any other power generation method we have. read my blog (find the link on my youtube channel), i have a post that explains all this really well.
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@chaosbringer127 I would argue that having electricity cheap enough to not even bother selling would do more for world peace than virtually anything else. There are all sorts of things that aren't done today because they aren't realistic/competitive due to energy costs.
One example is desalinization (turning sea water into drinkable water). Some people think that in the future wars will actually be fought over drinkable water because of the unsustainable growth of the human population.
userjjb 5 months ago
@userjjb
Too optimistic.
chaosbringer127 5 months ago
@t3hPoundcake my understanding of the polywell (which is based on this fusor device) is that it doesn't need to heat water to generate electricity. rather, it converts the heat directly to electrical energy by blasting out charged helium atoms which excite an electrical grid surrounding the reaction chamber. so its just that bit more efficient :)
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@t3hPoundcake
not completely correct: u fuse two hydrogen isotopes, ne of which - trithium - is highly radioactive. But the waste produced is just the normal non-radioactive helium, which is harmless.
Maverickx89 7 months ago
@t3hPoundcake
It is still radioactive. -.-
EUBG 5 months ago
@t3hPoundcake Fusion produces harmful radiation depending on the types of fuel you use.
TheInternetizen 5 months ago
How Much Electricity Bill does it cost to run such a minature Fusion Reactor
JackSparrowO 9 months ago
@JackSparrowO at the current state, a lot. but google matter-energy-conversion corporation and donate. they need US$200million to complete r&d. I know that looks like a lot, but thats how much it will take to have a commercial fusion reactor up and running. after they show that it can be done, BOY is that price going to drop. i bet you this tech will end up paying for itself in terms of energy savings. :)
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@JackSparrowO Pretty cheap electricity wise. It uses about as much power as a moderately sized air conditioner.
userjjb 5 months ago
remeber... these things are dangerous... remember black mesa?
apard7 10 months ago
@apard7 We always keep a crowbar handy in the lab just in case there are... Unintended Consequences.
userjjb 5 months ago
@userjjb its... Unseen Consequences XD
apard7 5 months ago
@apard7 Actually, just looked it up; it's Unforeseen Consequences so we both were wrong, heh.
userjjb 4 months ago
@userjjb thats what i said! XD
apard7 4 months ago
You know, I just realized something. We can make Fusion, and plasma reactions in our own back yard, but we can gather no power from them. When I pondered this I came to a amusing conclusion, we have very few means of gathering or generating power that does not involve a turbine of some kind. Wind power involves a turbine, hydro electricity involves a turbine, nuclear plants involves a turbine. The reason we cannot use fusion is we have yet to find a way to make it spin a turbine.
RabeeSinger 10 months ago
@RabeeSinger you're absolutely right. All you need to do is generate steam....tadaa! kinetyic energy.
apacheramsey 10 months ago
@RabeeSinger It is not the spinning of a turbine, it is moving a conducting coil in a magnetic field that makes power.
ISamuelII 10 months ago
Solar panels excepted of course. Would this be bright enough to make a positive output down the road if it wwere surrounded by PV panels.
ISamuelII 10 months ago
@RabeeSinger
Fusion creates heat which turns water to steam which drives the turbine, just as in any regular / nuclear power plant. Doh
DjJDtech 9 months ago
What are some pros and cons to fusion reactors ??
coffeecrisp1000 10 months ago
@coffeecrisp1000 Pros-Fuel is 75% of matter in universe, gives off no lasting radiation(no fallout or radioactive waste), produces tremendous energy, It will be cheap once we work the bugs out.
Cons-High temperature, extraterrestrial mining(for hydrogen), vast amounts of heat and pressure needed to start reaction, gives off deadly radiation during fusion process.
N33DL3R 10 months ago
@N33DL3R if we have fusion reactors we will simply split the water to get hydrogen, no need to mine it somewhere else.
And the vast among of pressure and heat is not so much a problem since we can already achieve it (record of 3 to 6 billions degrees with the z-machine). High enough for aneutronic fusion (planned with the Z-Neutron machine).
rotgertesla 10 months ago
@N33DL3R we can get the fuel out of the earth mate. its just hydrogen, which comes from water. and its alpha radiation that comes out. that is ionising and dangerous yes, but it can be blocked by a sheet of paper, as compared to fission reactors that generate a whole mass of nasty stuff that requires heavy lead suits.
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@TheMaster734 You also typically have high-energy neutrons that tend to activate the surrounding reactor and produce low-level radioactive waste, but it is much more manageable than most nuclear fission.
userjjb 5 months ago
Fusors really can produce fusion. ...now, whether they can produce enough energy to even begin to approach the power input... that's another question. Also any fusion device with electrodes in the plasma seems to me likely to kill itself before it generates net power. Even so, it's a very cool benchtop plasma/nuclear project! Nice!
pardusardens 10 months ago
I watch these videos only because I want to see an explosion... and a black hole lol...
RollerMew2 10 months ago
@RollerMew2 Riiiight ... if that thing had the slightest chance to make a black-hole, than that means the Sun should have turned into a black-hole a long time ago.
BuGBurnout 10 months ago
@PurpleSausage You obviously haven't done your homework on liquid fluoride thorium reactors.
Widetotem 10 months ago
Does this presage a future of every home with a small fusion furnace in the basement?
newmac 10 months ago
@newmac probably not mate. in order to generate energy to be used in the home, it needs to be a lot bigger than this. google matter-energy-conversion corporation. they have scale images of what a fusion reactor might look like.
TheMaster734 9 months ago
@newmac Economy of scale probably dictates that no matter how you're producing power (nuclear/petroleum/steam/whatever) , it's probably cheapest/most-efficient to have a centralized large scale power plant.
userjjb 5 months ago
i hope this is meant to be a joke. If yes...hahahaha. If not, you farking morons
danc222 10 months ago
@danc222 No, the moron is the person criticizing something they know nothing about.
/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8
Widetotem 10 months ago
Do a little research on LFTR's you might well uncover some surprising facts.
awakeamericanow 10 months ago
holy shit i'm getting cancer just watching this
JordanMaster22 10 months ago
@JordanMaster22 Funny you say that. This video was filmed at the campus particle accelerator building which is a good 20-30 ft underground inside several foot thick concrete walls. We were probably getting less radiation than you right now thanks to the bulk of the cosmic radiation getting shielded.
userjjb 5 months ago
Does it produce any net energy?
johan404 10 months ago
@johan404 No, and likely never will. The Farnsworth fusor is too inefficient.
userjjb 5 months ago
sorry im little noob bout this but.... this fuison reactor it's actually generating energy or its only something near fusion...???
Josetopepe 10 months ago
hmmm so this is how the gravity gun was made?
lucasmontec 10 months ago
u need to modulate the flux capacitor captan! she canna take much more!
MeSoHorrrny 10 months ago
Adobe After Effects ftw ♥
xMrSunshin3x 10 months ago
@xMrSunshin3x Amazing, who knew they had After Effects in the 1950's when this type of fusor was first developed, must have been version 0.0000001
userjjb 5 months ago
I could use one of those to ignite thorium if nothing else...
vossua 10 months ago
Fucking Nerds!
danbhat 10 months ago
@danbhat Fucking magnets, how do they work?
userjjb 5 months ago
That really looks like it is at 10 million centigrade, the minimum temperature for Nuclear Fusion.
colonellemon 10 months ago
@colonellemon Closer to 60 million centigrade, looks like your eye thermometers are off.
userjjb 5 months ago
The way the glow moves infront of the lense ( its probably just camera tearing though ) actually gives me the feeling that this is digital effects.. But still, i see no reason other than that why it should be fake :) Great stuff!
infernoacid 10 months ago
@infernoacid Keep in mind that the camera is trying to focus on a diffuse, luminous spherical cloud of plasma, so the camera tends to not pick it up in the way you'd expect. If you've ever seen video/pictures of aerogel you'll recognize kind of a similar effect.
userjjb 5 months ago
Hey this could have promise,,keep up the research.
nicksynnz 11 months ago
how did you make your inner and outer grid, me and my friend want to make one and we need some help, thanks!!
aatmuri 11 months ago
@aatmuri ill tel you how he made it, he put a super hdron collider and 20 volts input with a lab check chamber pressure of 25 militor or 32 microns, then you plug the outlet straight into your ass hole and then if everything went right, you die and we loose an ass hole like you.
Adrian7785 11 months ago
@aatmuri I recommend fusor(dot)net if you are serious about construction of a fusor. You'll need 2-10,000 US dollars worth of equipment/material and a good understanding of vacuum systems, high voltage, radiation safety/metrology, and welding/general fabrication.
As for specifically the grids: a high-temp (refractory) conducting metal with low vapor pressure would be ideal. Something like tantalum (what we use), tungsten, etc.
userjjb 5 months ago
How's your neutron flux?
Fordi 11 months ago
nice homemade neon light ^^" your "container" would evaporate during a fusion reaction. nice light tho , has a nice colour
cartouchator 11 months ago
@cartouchator The plasma is confined using inertial electrostatic confinement (google it). Even if it weren't, we're only putting a couple hundred watts of energy into the plasma, not enough to melt let alone evaporate 1.5 inch thick stainless steel.
userjjb 5 months ago
So fill it with deuterium! It's been three years!
Supermassively 11 months ago
@Supermassively Students with zero budget and almost zero free time equates to slow progress.
userjjb 5 months ago
that is just sexy
Xxfadedshadows1xX 11 months ago
legenda em português por favor!
charlesmgpereira 11 months ago
As far as I know the termonuclear fusion is producing so much energy (heat), that it melts down any material. So my question is how do you produce the vacuum around the plasma and if there is a vacuum how do you keep the plasma in one place? It is not an accident, that usually these reactions are produced in a super conducting tokamak. And not in a "stainless steel" cotainer. :-)
jvizkeleti 11 months ago
@jvizkeleti the wire around it is creating an electromagnetic field keeping the center plasma from escaping. It doesnt melt the wire cause something to do with the vacuum. but this is a very LOW TECH experiment since they probably cant spend millions on a GOOD prototype
greatestsongsofLIFE 11 months ago
@jvizkeleti You have to distinguish between temperature and power. Imagine trying to melt an iceberg with a lighter. The lighter is hot enough to melt ice, but simply doesn't have the power required to put a noticeable dent in the iceberg
The plasma is confined because it sits at the bottom of an electromagnetic "well" in the same way coffee stays in a mug (by gravity not electromagnetism)
Also, even the multi-billion dollar tokamak chamber is made of stainless steel, most vacuum chambers are.
userjjb 5 months ago
when this thing hits 88 miles per hour your going to see some serious shit!
Jakekinfe1 11 months ago
Ok so the Neutrons were used and measured?
seanoturbo 11 months ago
I guess nobody else read the description and read that there was no fusion because this was a "Test" and that there wasn't even any fuel in the reactor, only air at medium vacuum. this was really just to show that on the first test fire they could acheive plasma which they did which is actually a big step in acheiveing fusion without a large facility such as ITER.
karl9495 11 months ago
why call it a fusion reactor, or fusion "what ever" when there is no fusion taking place, i understand trying to achieve cold fusion (which if you did fuse anything it would be), but hell the few things that really do fuse elements have names like stars, sun, H-bomb, tokamak, but calling it a fusion reactor would be like calling bedini motor "perpetual motion motor", yes you are trying to fuse H, but unless you have proven data that you did, then its not a fusion reactor is it?
1crazyfocker 11 months ago
@1crazyfocker First, this isn't cold fusion (which by and large is snake oil). Second, the Farnsworth fusor is an actual fusion reactor that produces measurable (but uselessly inefficient) fusion and has been studied in peer-reviewed scientific journals for ~60 years. Old news.
userjjb 5 months ago
@userjjb 1, i know the complete history of this device, 2nd when i said cold fusion, and not talking about those bs thing, i am talking about the fact that the temp inside these devices, is far to low to create fusion, unless it was under pressures in the millions of PSI, thus cold fusion 3rd the scientific community is split over this. i so happen to be on the side that states the facts. its a source of neutrons and thats it, no proof of fusion just a neutrons source which they claim is proof
1crazyfocker 5 months ago
Looks the same as when i'm TIG welding!
Damag381 1 year ago
@Damag381 TIG/MIG welding both produce plasma, so not surprising!
userjjb 5 months ago
if it was real plasma fusion, by now, you and your entire laboratory would be evaporated.
vartatoosh 1 year ago
@vartatoosh What's the difference between a campfire and a forest fire? One is a controlled reaction inside a containment vessel.
userjjb 5 months ago
So the goal would be to do what Dr. Octopus did in Spiderman 2? Cool.
PodzniakovisElite 1 year ago
ok, after a crash course in physics I have learned that all this does is glow.....
its just a lot of happy horse shit, fusion can only take place under very specific conditions, i.e. very hot places or very high pressures... like the sun
SirDude456 1 year ago
@SirDude456 I recommend something more comprehensive than a crash course. The plasma inside the fusor is indeed "very hot". Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of a collection of particles. Even a modest acceleration potential of 15 keV equates to a temperature of 150 megakelvin.
userjjb 5 months ago