Added: 4 years ago
From: 10mintwo
Views: 7,885
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (25)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • lol i own a star the size of a basket ball it was given life in 2007 these guys have not done anything new in my standards.

  • I'm loved in this project .... It was one of my dreams ....and still....

  • Oh no, how will we contain the waste? The deadly helium will kill us all. Wait, isn't Helium used in Baloons?

  • btw dude.. lol i re-watched the video and realized that u kinda tricked me into thinking that i was wrong. lol good job x)

    at 1:48 she says

    "it will also maintain the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of our nation's nuclear weapon stock pile WITHOUT THE NEED FOR UNDERGROUND TESTING "

    it was a logical fallacy after all ;)

    now i know what professional physicists can do to ordinary folks like me

    cheers

  • I don't understand. That's what it does. When she says "underground testing" she's referring to actual bomb detonation type testing, which is under moratorium right now.

  • "It will also maintain the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile" Sweet, need to make sure bombs still kill :/

  • "Sweet, need to make sure bombs still kill :/"

    ICBMs have been the greatest force for peace in the 20th century and eliminated wars between nuclear capable countries. Without them the cold war would have been hot.

    ICBMs make annihilation, not war, and there is no defence, only retaliation. For the first time in human history nobody has anything to gain by war and the old men who decide to go to war are probably going to die, just like the young men who fight it.

    It's a beautiful thing.

  • "it will also maintain the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of our nation's nuclear weapon stock pile"

    in other words "it will allow us to run tests of nuclear weapons without use of actual bombs"

    haha. logical fallacy at it's best lol

  • how

  • running weapon tests has nothing to do with safety or reliability or effectiveness of the stock pile. All it does is allowing us to build more advanced weapon systems so we can kill each other off in a most efficient way possible

  • the statement is false. plutonium is one of the most complicated substances known. it has SIX allotropes and undergoes phenomenally complex physical changes over time due to self-irradiation (wigner energy accumulation, helium voids, annealing of lattice deformation. all of these changes have a huge impact on the saftey and reliability of a nuclear weapon. agree or disagree with the existence of nuclear weapon stockpiles as you wish, but NIF will allow the direct examination of plutonium's

  • properties over an enormous range of its equation of state like no other experimental device can do. its relevance in answering questions about the safety of aging weapons is indisputable.

  • and how the discoveries about plutonium or any other element used in nuclear weapons will make those nuclear weapons safer or more reliable? are they going to rebuild every warhead they already have in stock or something?

    please dont mix up "answering questions about the safety of aging weapons" and "making aging weapons safer"

  • I understand that rebuilding the stockpile may be an option, depending on what ongoing experiments demonstrate about materials aging, yes.

  • crap.. u cant rebuild an atomic structure of radioactive material or change it's nature and make it less radioactive or less hazardous. We are not gods or something. All we can do is build some new better radioactive waste vaults and take it easy. U cant make todays nuclear weapons less hazardous. common man.

  • well you're obviously quite clueless then. because we can do every single one of those things you mention. why don't you look up actinide burning fusion power plants for a start.

  • fusion is not about rebuilding a chemical element. Fusion, fission or even combustion are about a chemical reaction involving all sorts of interaction between elemental particles. There is a big difference between REBUILDING and REACTING

    I said we can not rebuild an atomic structure of plutonium to produce a non-radioactive, aka save and harmless isotope. Nature itself prohibits such things. Look it up lol

  • and my last post

    we have half-life periods for a reason.

    peace out

  • ok look. I know YOU think you know what you're talking about here, but trust me, I'm a physicist, you don't know what you're talking about. you clearly did not look into actinide burner fusion reactors like I had suggested. You CAN "burn" (in the nuclear sense) plutonium and any other long lived radioisotope that you want using very high flux neutron sources. Before saying that converting Pu into safe, harmless isotopes is "prohibited" by nature, research nuclear transmutation. IT IS POSSIBLE

  • yes it is possible. i was wrong. u was right. u should've mentioned artificial nuclear transmutation at the very beginning.

    thanks

  • "u cant rebuild an atomic structure of radioactive material or change it's nature and make it less radioactive or less hazardous."

    And yet, that's exactly fission does. It takes U-235, with a half-life of 700 million years and turns it into stuff with much shorter half-lives.

    That long lived waste you're so worried about is actinides. Another name for actinides is nuclear fuel!

  • right. all we need now is to make the fusion self sustainable. otherwise find some good load of free energy to run the process. Wanna bet? how many more years humanity will need to develop a self sustainable fusion reaction? My bet is something around 700 million. lol

  • I'll take that bet, since, strictly speaking, the event you are referring to already occurred in 1952 during shot Ivy Mike.

  • lol. self sustainable? I thought fusion reaction needs energy input

  • and yeah. u know we were talking about controlled fusion reaction, so please

  • you didn't say anything about control in your bet. you need to be very careful when discussing these issues to ensure your language is precise.

  • wow. lol

  • to fuse anything heavyer than iron, fusion becomes endothermic.

  • Wow, I wonder who makes the precision optics for it.

  • schott, zygo, corning, lle, kodak, hoya, tinsley, heraeus, cleveland crystals, etc.

  • Laser fusion, unlike magnetically confined fusion reactors like tokamaks, is inherently pulsed in nature. NIF (or any other fusion reactor for that matter) has no means of collecting the energy emitted from its microexplosions. They're just proof of principle machines. Once fusion ignition is proven, we will be able to increase the firing rate of the laser and design reactors that will act as actual power plants.

  • Does it work?

  • yes it WILL work, but doesn't fully work yet. Only ~100 of NIF's 192 beams is currently complete. When NIF is done next year it will deliver 2 megajoules of UV light to its target and if all of the experiments we've been doing over the previous 30 years on other megalasers are correct, we will ignite the fusion fuel and get more energy out than was put in for the first time ever in a laboratory. ignition will occur in 2010 or thereabouts.

  • I can't wait until this and the Large Hadron Collider are activated

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more