The test for nuclear fusion realisation on Tokamak's installations and with LASER cannot bring anything new for the energetics' future. I bind the thermonuclear controlled reactor schedule by the Sun model , by the reactive electromagnetic motor schedule from Palenque stone's tombe. You see the my project for thermonuclear controlled reactor.
My brethren, you have capacity of to construct the thermonuclear controlled reactor, only that, you must needs let construct something functional. The tokamak were invented in 1950 by physicists Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov inspired by idea of Oleg Lavrentyev, when he studyed realization of the hydrogen bomb, which has not need of magnetic trap, and thus,all the experiments were finished with the destruction of the tokamak instalations in the central zone.
My brethren, you have capacity of to construct the thermonuclear controlled reactor, only that, you must needs let construct something functional. The tokamak were invented in 1950s by physicists Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov inspired by idea of Oleg Lavrentyev, when he studyed the realization of the hydrogen bomb, which has not need of magnetic trap, and thus, all the experiments were finished with the destruction of the tokamak instalations in the central zone.
My brethren, you have capacity of to construct the thermonuclear controlled reactor, only that, you must needs let construct something functional. The tokamak were invented in 1950s by physicists Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov inspired by idea of Oleg Lavrentyev, when he studyed the realization of the hydrogen bomb, which has not need of magnetic trap, and thus, all the experiments were finished with the destruction of the tokamak instalations in the central zone.
Ok lets just get a few things straight, as there seems to be a lot of "desk top Physicists" out there that at just talking complete rubbish
I worked at JET in for over 10 years
This clip of the Torus is only short because the plasma experiment being run is only of a short duration. when JET started the plasma life was seconds, a plasma can now last for several minutes.
JET is purely a plasma test bed and is not designed to function as a power station
fusion seems like a really cool process. check out my radiant energy device which was made by tesla 100yrs ago. it captures radiant energy, now called cosmic rays and captures the charged particles and energies. its pretty cool.
there is no radio activ fuel leakage because it doesnt get into the steam that is needed to spin the turbine but even if there is some radioactive leakage it would be washed away back into the system from the flow of CO2
it is perfectly safe but like all things it has techinical problem in this JET torus. the plasma has to go up to 10^14 kelvin which is hotter than the sun..in this system it lasts only for a few seconds
sounds pretty but belive me it wont be cheap for the public, couse the people that controls everything that can be converted into energy will make sure we pay a lot of money to have it.
Actually nuclear fusion is the cleanest cheapest way of energy, it's the steam energy and all that stuff you're paying so much for. In a pefect fusion reaction (Which we can't create outside of anti-matter to matter fusion) we can turn 1 molecule into more energy than a nuclear bomb.
you dont get my point, there is a lot of very efficient technologies that arent allowed to be used couse they want us to burn the last oil drop and make as much money out of us as possible, they hide the good technologies or make em really expensive so the public cant access em
No fusion reactors have been designed to generate electrical power so far - that's the next step after ITER. The JET reactor does generate a self-sustaining fusion reaction however.
You say that the JET reactor does generate a self-sustaining fusion reaction but how come that the reaction stops after about one minute? I know it stopped because the temperature went under the needed temperature(which is about 150 million degrees celsius, right?), but than it isn't a self-sustaining fusion reaction..
lithium is one of the most common chemical elements. regular iron is more rare than lithium, aluminium is more rare than lithium, ... deuterium and tritium will cause more problems.
note that the plasma that has the right temperature for fusion is invisible. no light emission without electrons. the electrons are present in small quantities in the cooler outside regions of the plasma, there the glow comes from.
The Lithium is only used to breed Tritium in a blanket surrounding the reactor. Its the Deuterium and Tritium that are fused. As for sourcing Deuterium - its not a problem.
using any of earths resources, will eventually be a problem. Its all one big chain.... Youve got to have A + B to equal what your using now, but C+D= A and E+F= B.. then youve got what makes up C,D,E, F. Eventually you'll get down to the base of it all and if all the bases of all the elements are renewable, then your fine. Then again, you never know, in 50 yeahs we may discover something smaller then those bases, we could have ended up using almost all of the bases new bases. very complex.
This nuclear fusion can run on water. It needs isotopes of hydrogen to run. A small amount of water will produce a nice amount of gas. The reaction itself will produce enough energy to produce more hydrogen.
yeah, but its much much safer to use hydrogen fuel cells to generate power then hydrogen for nuclear fusion. theres no radiation with the fuel cell, you can make more power, and its renewable. nuclear fusion basically has the same advantiges, but the fact that it could end up killing the planet with radioactive waste isent too good looking. besides, the point of new energys is to make renewable, safe, ways. sorry for the tpos, im in a rush.
theres no radioactive waste from nuclear fusion, stop blabbering your nonsense
nuclear fusion is absolutely safe
also when we are able to do nuclear fusion there is for about 40 billion years of deuterium in the seas, thats four times the remaining lifespan of our sun
only thing is, how much time and money will it cost to develop?
now THATS nonsense. if the place they create this energy at isent built right, rediation will leak out. and honest, i dont want to grow up with 3 legged children with two heads.
plus we dont need to even come near messing with the ocean, you would be taking out something you wouldnt be putting back in. even if theres alot of it, it still effects the ocean, its there for a reason. using hydrogen creates water, which is the product it comes from. so there would NEVER be an energy crisis.
"if the place they create this energy at isent built right, rediation will leak out. "
be more specific please.
the place they create this energy? you cant create energy. you can however convert mass to energy because its equivalent to energy.(E=mc²)
what do you mean by 'isent built right' ?
there will never be more radioactive material in a fusion reactor then needed for the next few minutes(as it is created during the reaction, in the reactor).
to be more clear; if in some mysterious way the whole reactor would suddenly explode sending all the radioactive material flying into the sky, there would be no evacuations needed outside of the facility itself.
your just being a smartass. its the plain truth that nuclear fusion AND fission creates radioactive radiation. and to make that worse, not many materials, if any, can create a blockade to that radiation. Therefor if the chaber is not lined correctly with the right materials then the people in the area would be subjected to radiation. then those people would diverse as all people do, and make mutations all over the planet. Just face it, the human race can not handle that much responsibility.
"its the plain truth that nuclear fusion AND fission creates radioactive radiation."
Fusion only creates radiation while the reaction is taking place. If there were ever a "leak" in the reactor, the plasma would instantly cool and condense causing the reaction to cease, and there would be no more radiation.
Not only is your grammar terrible, but it turns out that you're also a complete dumbass.
My understanding is that the neutrons released by the fusion, will be absorbed by the casings. The casings would then become increasingly radioactive, and need to be disposed of very carefully when they needed to be replaced. Although the waste would be MUCH less than for nuclear fission, there would still be some. I think noxxrun is reight on all counts.
Noxxrun made three completely inane statements. He implied that fusion and fission reactors are somehow comparable in their radiation danger. Fission creates orders of magnitude more radiation and with a much longer half-life. He also doesn't realize how easy neutrons are to contain. A few feet or concrete or water is sufficient to block just about any radiation source. Lastly he thinks such radiation will somehow turn us into X-men style mutants. It's just stupid.
A nuclear fusion reactor works by heating the isotopes of hydroden untill they change into plasma (the 4th state of matter). Plasma is so hot, that the paricles are moving very very fast. When they collide they fuse, releasing a proton(?) as the proton(?) is released it releases a huge amount of energy.
The plasma must be contained in a toroid, or a donut shaped cylinder so the paricles keep moving. Magnetic fields are used to contain the plasma and keep it in place. If the plasma escaped, through a leak or some other way. It would cool down very fast and turn back into hydrogen.
A neutron is released when a Deuterium and a Tritium-atom are fused together. Because these neutrons carry that much energy, they will make the inner wall of the fusion reactor get radioactive. It's not the same as nuclear waste, which has to be stored for thousands of years to get it back to 'normal', the inner wall of the fusion reactor will only have to be stored for about 100 years to get back to 'normal'.(sorry for my bad English;))
Nuclear fusion will not produce radioactive waste like conventional nuclear reactors. Not even close. The half life is 1/1000th of waste from a fission plant..
But remember that one gram of fusion fuel is equal to 11 tons of coal. Hydrogen, if it can be used for power in a tokomak the way they theoretically want to will never run out. Such a small amount for energy would be used in comparison to how it occurs naturally. Nuclear fusion is a win, win, win... etc.. It must be perfected..
"Lithium is one of the most common chemical elements. regular iron is more rare than lithium, aluminium is more rare than lithium"
Patently false. Lithium is the 31st most abundant element in the earth crust, making up an average of 65 parts per million of the crust. Iron is fourth in abundance in Earths crust with 5% and aluminium is the most abundant metal in the Earths crust at nearly 8%.
While there may be plenty of deuterium and tritium wont be overly difficult to manufacture the real resource problem would be Lithium. While there are decent enough reserves to last for a long while the potential cost and of course availability is a serious issue. I think in recent experiments they JET team have managed to create a sustained fusion for a short while and managed to generate more energy than was expended in reaching 'ignition' so it's looking hopeful.
As the price of Lithium justifies it, there will be an increase in exploration, and the known reserves will expand. There's no real shortage of Lithium.
honestly, if the world would shut their fucking mouths and just be one big organization, prices wouldnt really be an issue here, survival would be. Which in my opinion I would much rather know im going to survive then know ive got money.
there are several high-budget experiments. south korea just completed the installation of KStar, an international comitee is building ITER in france (12 billion dollars or 10 billion euros), and wendelstein 7-x in germany (no tokamak, it will be a stellerator).
all of them have super-conducting magnetic coils. results will be published.
Fusion reactors wont be avaliable for a while. It would be great to have it now tho. Since deutrium found in sea water would be the fuel for the reactors which would last over 100 million years.
wouldnt it completely suck if by the time we get reactors that work (producin more energy out the in) that all the sea water salt that we could use would be gone...somehow? Just a exetremly unlikly thought...
SandustanBrasov
The test for nuclear fusion realisation on Tokamak's installations and with LASER cannot bring anything new for the energetics' future. I bind the thermonuclear controlled reactor schedule by the Sun model , by the reactive electromagnetic motor schedule from Palenque stone's tombe. You see the my project for thermonuclear controlled reactor.
sandustanBrasov 1 year ago
SandustanBrasov
My brethren, you have capacity of to construct the thermonuclear controlled reactor, only that, you must needs let construct something functional. The tokamak were invented in 1950 by physicists Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov inspired by idea of Oleg Lavrentyev, when he studyed realization of the hydrogen bomb, which has not need of magnetic trap, and thus,all the experiments were finished with the destruction of the tokamak instalations in the central zone.
sandustanBrasov 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SandustanBrasov
My brethren, you have capacity of to construct the thermonuclear controlled reactor, only that, you must needs let construct something functional. The tokamak were invented in 1950s by physicists Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov inspired by idea of Oleg Lavrentyev, when he studyed the realization of the hydrogen bomb, which has not need of magnetic trap, and thus, all the experiments were finished with the destruction of the tokamak instalations in the central zone.
sandustanBrasov 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SandustanBrasov
My brethren, you have capacity of to construct the thermonuclear controlled reactor, only that, you must needs let construct something functional. The tokamak were invented in 1950s by physicists Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov inspired by idea of Oleg Lavrentyev, when he studyed the realization of the hydrogen bomb, which has not need of magnetic trap, and thus, all the experiments were finished with the destruction of the tokamak instalations in the central zone.
sandustanBrasov 1 year ago
Cool!
kazimann 1 year ago
That was the best and most scientific 1 minute of my life. Nuclear fusion FTW!!!
Zyloflex 2 years ago
i absoloutely love science.
ntk0520 3 years ago
Ok lets just get a few things straight, as there seems to be a lot of "desk top Physicists" out there that at just talking complete rubbish
I worked at JET in for over 10 years
This clip of the Torus is only short because the plasma experiment being run is only of a short duration. when JET started the plasma life was seconds, a plasma can now last for several minutes.
JET is purely a plasma test bed and is not designed to function as a power station
Roguestar182 3 years ago
@Roguestar182 cut the shit, you did not work on JET
TheArmo1 1 year ago
Part 2
JET stands for Joint European Torus. It was designed and built by several key European countries.
ITER is an international collaboration with EU, Japan, USA, South Korea, Russia, China and India and is a more advanced, larger version of JET
The UK, China, Japan, America all have their own smaller fusion experiments
Fusion reactors:
Don't go BOOM
Don't release tones of radioactive waste
Don't pose a problem with their recycling Don't require dangerous fuel sources
Roguestar182 3 years ago
Hydrogen reaction...
TommeyLeeReed 3 years ago
fusion seems like a really cool process. check out my radiant energy device which was made by tesla 100yrs ago. it captures radiant energy, now called cosmic rays and captures the charged particles and energies. its pretty cool.
boxa888 4 years ago
how big is it?
Kovax123 4 years ago
they also use a magnetic field to rotate the plasma in a oval shape
this project cannot be down by one whole country its too expendsive not even china can do this on there own
the end
atown2k3 4 years ago
there is no radio activ fuel leakage because it doesnt get into the steam that is needed to spin the turbine but even if there is some radioactive leakage it would be washed away back into the system from the flow of CO2
it is perfectly safe but like all things it has techinical problem in this JET torus. the plasma has to go up to 10^14 kelvin which is hotter than the sun..in this system it lasts only for a few seconds
atown2k3 4 years ago
Glad people are starting to except that this is the way forward! So many are scared at the thought of this because it contains the word Nuclear!!
fridgehay 4 years ago 3
Plasmas are key to nuclear fusion!
JonThm 4 years ago 2
sounds pretty but belive me it wont be cheap for the public, couse the people that controls everything that can be converted into energy will make sure we pay a lot of money to have it.
SquareElix 4 years ago
Actually nuclear fusion is the cleanest cheapest way of energy, it's the steam energy and all that stuff you're paying so much for. In a pefect fusion reaction (Which we can't create outside of anti-matter to matter fusion) we can turn 1 molecule into more energy than a nuclear bomb.
coyork15 4 years ago
you dont get my point, there is a lot of very efficient technologies that arent allowed to be used couse they want us to burn the last oil drop and make as much money out of us as possible, they hide the good technologies or make em really expensive so the public cant access em
SquareElix 4 years ago
dude , if we cover sahara desert withs solar collectors , i believe that we wont need any more energy , but who's putting money 4 it ?? :(
setpsistariasbaniou 4 years ago
isn't it tru that at the moment the best fusion reactors actually use up more energy than they actually create
danydevil123 4 years ago
No fusion reactors have been designed to generate electrical power so far - that's the next step after ITER. The JET reactor does generate a self-sustaining fusion reaction however.
BrunoTheQuestionable 4 years ago
but they must find sustainable things to create that sustainable energy... Right?
noxxrun 4 years ago
@BrunoTheQuestionable
You say that the JET reactor does generate a self-sustaining fusion reaction but how come that the reaction stops after about one minute? I know it stopped because the temperature went under the needed temperature(which is about 150 million degrees celsius, right?), but than it isn't a self-sustaining fusion reaction..
KillaGoza 1 year ago
is this the stuff they shoot wit the plasma pistols in Halo?
HipHopJun 4 years ago
This would be it.
Its NASTY stuff.
BrunoTheQuestionable 4 years ago
lithium is one of the most common chemical elements. regular iron is more rare than lithium, aluminium is more rare than lithium, ... deuterium and tritium will cause more problems.
note that the plasma that has the right temperature for fusion is invisible. no light emission without electrons. the electrons are present in small quantities in the cooler outside regions of the plasma, there the glow comes from.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
The Lithium is only used to breed Tritium in a blanket surrounding the reactor. Its the Deuterium and Tritium that are fused. As for sourcing Deuterium - its not a problem.
BrunoTheQuestionable 4 years ago
using any of earths resources, will eventually be a problem. Its all one big chain.... Youve got to have A + B to equal what your using now, but C+D= A and E+F= B.. then youve got what makes up C,D,E, F. Eventually you'll get down to the base of it all and if all the bases of all the elements are renewable, then your fine. Then again, you never know, in 50 yeahs we may discover something smaller then those bases, we could have ended up using almost all of the bases new bases. very complex.
noxxrun 4 years ago
This nuclear fusion can run on water. It needs isotopes of hydrogen to run. A small amount of water will produce a nice amount of gas. The reaction itself will produce enough energy to produce more hydrogen.
didaloca 4 years ago 2
yeah, but its much much safer to use hydrogen fuel cells to generate power then hydrogen for nuclear fusion. theres no radiation with the fuel cell, you can make more power, and its renewable. nuclear fusion basically has the same advantiges, but the fact that it could end up killing the planet with radioactive waste isent too good looking. besides, the point of new energys is to make renewable, safe, ways. sorry for the tpos, im in a rush.
noxxrun 4 years ago
theres no radioactive waste from nuclear fusion, stop blabbering your nonsense
nuclear fusion is absolutely safe
also when we are able to do nuclear fusion there is for about 40 billion years of deuterium in the seas, thats four times the remaining lifespan of our sun
only thing is, how much time and money will it cost to develop?
gr0mithtimon 4 years ago
now THATS nonsense. if the place they create this energy at isent built right, rediation will leak out. and honest, i dont want to grow up with 3 legged children with two heads.
plus we dont need to even come near messing with the ocean, you would be taking out something you wouldnt be putting back in. even if theres alot of it, it still effects the ocean, its there for a reason. using hydrogen creates water, which is the product it comes from. so there would NEVER be an energy crisis.
noxxrun 4 years ago
"if the place they create this energy at isent built right, rediation will leak out. "
be more specific please.
the place they create this energy? you cant create energy. you can however convert mass to energy because its equivalent to energy.(E=mc²)
what do you mean by 'isent built right' ?
there will never be more radioactive material in a fusion reactor then needed for the next few minutes(as it is created during the reaction, in the reactor).
gr0mithtimon 4 years ago
to be more clear; if in some mysterious way the whole reactor would suddenly explode sending all the radioactive material flying into the sky, there would be no evacuations needed outside of the facility itself.
gr0mithtimon 4 years ago
your just being a smartass. its the plain truth that nuclear fusion AND fission creates radioactive radiation. and to make that worse, not many materials, if any, can create a blockade to that radiation. Therefor if the chaber is not lined correctly with the right materials then the people in the area would be subjected to radiation. then those people would diverse as all people do, and make mutations all over the planet. Just face it, the human race can not handle that much responsibility.
noxxrun 4 years ago
"its the plain truth that nuclear fusion AND fission creates radioactive radiation."
Fusion only creates radiation while the reaction is taking place. If there were ever a "leak" in the reactor, the plasma would instantly cool and condense causing the reaction to cease, and there would be no more radiation.
Not only is your grammar terrible, but it turns out that you're also a complete dumbass.
thevigiles 4 years ago
My understanding is that the neutrons released by the fusion, will be absorbed by the casings. The casings would then become increasingly radioactive, and need to be disposed of very carefully when they needed to be replaced. Although the waste would be MUCH less than for nuclear fission, there would still be some. I think noxxrun is reight on all counts.
Aradiaphin 3 years ago
Noxxrun made three completely inane statements. He implied that fusion and fission reactors are somehow comparable in their radiation danger. Fission creates orders of magnitude more radiation and with a much longer half-life. He also doesn't realize how easy neutrons are to contain. A few feet or concrete or water is sufficient to block just about any radiation source. Lastly he thinks such radiation will somehow turn us into X-men style mutants. It's just stupid.
thevigiles 3 years ago
@noxxrun please please please. SHUT UP. Your stupidity...IT HURTS!!!
TheArmo1 1 year ago
water is H20; this means one water-molecule is made out of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen-atom. all your taking out of the ocean is water.
this water is then taken apart by means of electrolysis(sending a current trough, simply said).
this leaves you with the seperated oxygen and hydrogen.
deuterium(heavy water) is one of the isotopes in the hydrogen in water.
-about 250 kg of deuterium is needed to keep a 1000 MW nuclear fusion reactor running for a whole year-
gr0mithtimon 4 years ago
A nuclear fusion reactor works by heating the isotopes of hydroden untill they change into plasma (the 4th state of matter). Plasma is so hot, that the paricles are moving very very fast. When they collide they fuse, releasing a proton(?) as the proton(?) is released it releases a huge amount of energy.
didaloca 4 years ago 4
The plasma must be contained in a toroid, or a donut shaped cylinder so the paricles keep moving. Magnetic fields are used to contain the plasma and keep it in place. If the plasma escaped, through a leak or some other way. It would cool down very fast and turn back into hydrogen.
didaloca 4 years ago 3
@didaloca
A neutron is released when a Deuterium and a Tritium-atom are fused together. Because these neutrons carry that much energy, they will make the inner wall of the fusion reactor get radioactive. It's not the same as nuclear waste, which has to be stored for thousands of years to get it back to 'normal', the inner wall of the fusion reactor will only have to be stored for about 100 years to get back to 'normal'.(sorry for my bad English;))
KillaGoza 1 year ago
sorry but it's actually 150 billion years of deuterium.
NFRPG 3 years ago
Nuclear fusion will not produce radioactive waste like conventional nuclear reactors. Not even close. The half life is 1/1000th of waste from a fission plant..
BrianPex 3 years ago
But remember that one gram of fusion fuel is equal to 11 tons of coal. Hydrogen, if it can be used for power in a tokomak the way they theoretically want to will never run out. Such a small amount for energy would be used in comparison to how it occurs naturally. Nuclear fusion is a win, win, win... etc.. It must be perfected..
BrianPex 3 years ago
"Lithium is one of the most common chemical elements. regular iron is more rare than lithium, aluminium is more rare than lithium"
Patently false. Lithium is the 31st most abundant element in the earth crust, making up an average of 65 parts per million of the crust. Iron is fourth in abundance in Earths crust with 5% and aluminium is the most abundant metal in the Earths crust at nearly 8%.
N5BQH 4 years ago
While there may be plenty of deuterium and tritium wont be overly difficult to manufacture the real resource problem would be Lithium. While there are decent enough reserves to last for a long while the potential cost and of course availability is a serious issue. I think in recent experiments they JET team have managed to create a sustained fusion for a short while and managed to generate more energy than was expended in reaching 'ignition' so it's looking hopeful.
enememily 5 years ago
As the price of Lithium justifies it, there will be an increase in exploration, and the known reserves will expand. There's no real shortage of Lithium.
BrunoTheQuestionable 5 years ago
honestly, if the world would shut their fucking mouths and just be one big organization, prices wouldnt really be an issue here, survival would be. Which in my opinion I would much rather know im going to survive then know ive got money.
noxxrun 4 years ago 2
I didn't really understand it.
youcpbrowntube 5 years ago
I've updated the description.
Hope it helps :)
BrunoTheQuestionable 5 years ago
its still a long way to go until they are really ready to use them to get energy, but i think there's no doubt, that it'll work sooner or later.
actually, there's a 12 million (12.000.000.000) euro/dollar (dunno) project planed.
Sorry for my bad english, i'm german.
Superseimon 5 years ago
there are several high-budget experiments. south korea just completed the installation of KStar, an international comitee is building ITER in france (12 billion dollars or 10 billion euros), and wendelstein 7-x in germany (no tokamak, it will be a stellerator).
all of them have super-conducting magnetic coils. results will be published.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Fusion reactors wont be avaliable for a while. It would be great to have it now tho. Since deutrium found in sea water would be the fuel for the reactors which would last over 100 million years.
rustygates 5 years ago
wouldnt it completely suck if by the time we get reactors that work (producin more energy out the in) that all the sea water salt that we could use would be gone...somehow? Just a exetremly unlikly thought...
noxxrun 4 years ago
its not about the salt, its about the water itself. any normal, natural water contains a percentage of usable molecules.
gr0mithtimon 3 years ago
Um OK I am not a physisyst. What is this?
adewolf 5 years ago
I should do a better description.
Its probably the most important video on YouTube !
Its the plasma inside the Joint European Torus reactor, where nuclear fusion is taking place.
Eventually it will mean limitless clean energy fueled by seawater.
BrunoTheQuestionable 5 years ago
Ok thanks.
adewolf 5 years ago