Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Fusion Podcasts : Professor Brian Cox (Part 1 of 2)

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
7,354
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Nov 8, 2009

Science TV presenter and particle physicist Brian Cox visited JET while filming a BBC Horizon programme on fusion. He shares his thoughts on fusion and why science research budgets should be increased.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • All politicians think only of their own reelection, especially here in USA...Brian to me is the Carl Sagan of this century...:)

  • Fusion is the energy of the future ! It is far saver than nuclear power now.. Yes give fusion developement lots more money !!!!

see all

All Comments (20)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @davis3001 what about a nuclear fusion bomb? That's like a nuclear bomb without the environmental effects. At present one country couldn't obliterate another country with nuclear weapons, as the environmental effects would destroy its own climate and economy. With nuclear fusion weapons no such restrictions would apply.

  • Using Sun work stations. Haven't seen one of those in a while...

  • @AClarke2007

    Science is not about your own critea.

    Fine, I define particles as elephants who drink wine

  • @AClarke2007

    So your definition is that perpetual motion does not have to last in perpetuum and can lose and have input energy. Well why don't you just call that MOTION?

  • @muffin8or Looks like I am going to have to remind you... we will all have our own criteria for it.

  • @AClarke2007

    Fucking hell. Get this into your head. Perpetual motion = device that does not lose energy throughout time. Thus if maintaining motion depends on a factor like a human pushing it, it has input energy and loses energy. Thus it is not perpetual; it is simply motion. For instance 'Object A' needs 500j/s of energy to function. It loses 300j/s in friction. Bob inputs 300j/s by moving it himself. This is not perpetual motion as it will not last for ever (HINT: definition of PERPETUAL)

  • @muffin8or At last... you get the gist of what I am saying!

  • @AClarke2007

    Science is not opinion. Humans will die and become extinct and thus any motion supported by humans will not exist in perpetuum (it will not exist for ever)

  • @muffin8or We will all have our own criteria for it!

  • @AClarke2007 perpetual motion is motion that is self sustaining, doesnt lose energy or creates energy. If there is human involvement it isnt perpetual motion

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