I like it when people make simple and short explanations. Thanks

Here after watching Oppenheimer

@olussirisendels9614

8 ай бұрын

Cringe

@kaunghlamyat

8 ай бұрын

​@@olussirisendels9614bro's both right and wrong

@EyeHeru

7 ай бұрын

No bullshit 😂😂😂

@kaunghlamyat

7 ай бұрын

@@EyeHeru what da verified bro doing here

@aurangzeb1873

7 ай бұрын

Same

i fr need this bc i got a test on monday of this, thank you.

Quite a good Animation for learners. Thanks

Wow, a very simple and fast way that made me understand much more, thank you :) Keep it up :) Dont mind me if i steal ur way of building up the video in a fast and simeple way :)

thank you for information

Music slaps way harder than a government video has the right to. What a banger!

This was good. Thank you.

I am not the brightest crayon in the box. So here goes. As I understand it, fusioning causes a tremendous release of energy. Fission also causes a tremendous release of energy bus less than fusion. It sounds to me like if we could develop the proper technology, you could fuse two atoms of hydrogen into helium with an energy release, and then fission a helium atom back into two hydrogen atoms with an energy release. You could do this in preprual with an energy release each time. Where would the energy come from like that? I realize that this can't possibly be true, but with all the explanations I have seen doesn't mention the cost in mass. Please explain.

@zatnikutel635

4 жыл бұрын

a f'ing good question.

@Jeducation22

4 жыл бұрын

You wont get energy from going the other way is the simple answer. You can fuse elements lighter than Iron (e.g. Hydrogen, Helium)and will get a net release of energy however trying to fiss them will result in using more energy in doing so than you would get out. For elements heavier than Iron (e.g. Uranium, Plutonium) the opposite is true; you get more energy out by fissing them than you put in to fiss them in the first place but trying to fuse them would require more energy than you would get out. Look up Binding energy.

@jeffjohnston3746

4 жыл бұрын

@@Jeducation22 I hate to say it, but that answers a fisser... lol

@darinb.3273

4 жыл бұрын

The sun has and does fission energy ... however man didn't make that happen

@darinb.3273

3 жыл бұрын

@@ignaciosairelcarranzagarce8661 I don't claim to know EXACTLY all about it to be honest no one can get close enough to know exactly how it works I don't even know how the scientists determined fusion is happening in the first place. It works and has been every sense man has been on earth so that's all that's important. 😁😃

Really helpful

This is he best video ever regarding nuclear reactor. Simple and very easy to understand.

Vegeta's new technique: Spirit Fission!

@learnwithtom5608

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/c4iIo6qcm6mXn6w.html

How we haven't completely transitioned to nuclear energy is ridiculous.

@lilxtasy4936

2 жыл бұрын

right, nuke a country and they’d have renewable energy coursing in the air for decades

@edac1407

Жыл бұрын

The media has given anything named nuclear a bad name and won't correct outdated information. Nuclear waste today is a solid mass yet graphics and pictures shown in almost all news stories show a 55 gallon drum with a nuclear warning symbol. Nuclear waste today is combined with materials to for a solid or glass mixture. Then encapsulated in metal and concrete. There is no way for this to leak. Gabon Africa is the site of 17 natural occurring nuclear reactions. The formations underground still house the nuclear material even after the reactions ended 2 billion years ago. This means there is a stable and safe way to store nuclear wast if we copy nature.

@peacewaterlily4075

Жыл бұрын

Because it's dangerous to handle and difficult to dispose off ,not to mention expensive. 😕

@gagebeveridge5880

Жыл бұрын

@Peace & Waterlily It's not dangerous if it's done even remotely safely. If you compare the death toll of various methods of energy production, Nuclear is the second safest, only beaten out by Solar. It just seems dangerous because of how unbelievably badly Chernobyl was handled. Think about it, what other Nuclear disasters do you know about? The Fukushima disaster came as the result of a tsunami caused by a massive earthquake, and even that massive stroke of bad luck could have been avoided by keeping the backup generators somewhere the water couldn't reach. Three mile island is the only other "big" disaster to my knowledge, and the effects of that were minimal. Compare all this to something like coal. You have the countless workers who have died in mining accidents, the workers who have died of sicknesses related to mining (e.g. black lung), and of course the devastating ecological impact.

@ritwiklal1733

Жыл бұрын

​@@peacewaterlily4075no that's not the reason. It's because there are no nuclear engineers and more mechanical engineers and petroleum engineers.

Thanks😩❤

Interesting

Example of fusion is sun there 2 or more hydrogen molecules combine . Fission - In an atomic bomb when neutron is thrown on uranium-235 it gets divided into 2 or more atoms .

(Chipmunk Voice) No radiation! Then why do I sound this way?

Thank you so much sir 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

شكراً يا مستر لمجهود حضرتك

watching it for oppenheimer

fission is going smaller is down size under one direction pattern control

🚧 ⚛️Under Construction⚛️ 🚧 Gastric Fusion Power "Make it? We know how to use it!"

we know the difference, we watch dragon ball when were kids. fission is cell and cell jr. fusion is gotenks.

This should have narration

BEST EXPLANATION EVER ❤️🔴🥰

the hydrogen bomb is nuclear fusion. why dont you use micro hydrogen bombs to get rid of nuclear waste and generate power that way

@ErikUden

4 жыл бұрын

Hydrogen bombs are uncontrolled nuclear fusion. The energy in form of heat produced does not need to be converted into electrical energy, due to the deconstruction power only being needed. Fusion reactors would need to heat up water in order for turbines to generate electricity, whhich right now is still very inefficient and does only bring back 60% of the energy put in! Also for sustainable energy, you'd need a constant flow of heavy hydrogen atoms like Tritium and Deuterium (or replacements due to them being rare like Lithium or Helium-3 which are almost equally rare) which we do not have nor are able to sustain as a species! But the moon has lots and lots of helium 3 which is why a moon base might be very important for that case.

@tunesfortoons6507

4 жыл бұрын

Also, any fusion bomb needs a fission reaction first to reach temperatures high enough to engage in fusion. Fission is what produces the nuclear waste. A fusion bomb would produce nuclear waste as it also has a fission reaction.

@moderator8247

3 жыл бұрын

They’re actually both. The fission initiates the fusion reaction. A Fusion reaction has no radiation fallout, but the fission has. That’s why we could use fusion as a power source if we could make the reaction withouta fission reaction to start it

Watching from Bangladesh 🇧🇩

What if we used fusion to attract atoms and create laser beams

Fission versus Fusion has been argued since the late 60s early 70s. Once again nothing new here. When the powers that B can make money off of fission, only then will you see Fusion powering the grid. And they've been working on it for decades. Like I said nothing new here.

How i find this song???

@Blackgriffonphoenixg

5 ай бұрын

Alibi Music - Illuminated Stars

@juju-onthatbeat126

5 ай бұрын

@@Blackgriffonphoenixg thnx

Any one after watching Oppenheimer !!!

Y should we not use hydrogen for fission

@brandonvillatuya9539

4 жыл бұрын

We don't have the kind of technology to divide a hydrogen nucleus(a single proton) into anything smaller like quarks and gluons

@slate1496

3 жыл бұрын

@David Lawlor One day we could, but its impractical as fuck

@priyanshagnihotri4648

Жыл бұрын

@@brandonvillatuya9539 smart af

@peacewaterlily4075

Жыл бұрын

Not only expensive but dangerous and difficult to handle and dispose

@peacewaterlily4075

Жыл бұрын

@@soulsphere9242 I guess. We'll leave it a mystery then🙂

why fusion produces more energy compared to nuclear fission?

So which one has more energy fission or fusion??

@shamimasultana7891

4 ай бұрын

Fusion ...I think 🤔 Btw I am from Bangladesh 🇧🇩

Let’s pick it up…

it not why we dont go nuclear but no one even get close to touching it

I'm sure they are already able to do nuclear fusion, but they don't want to give up their rich sources of gas, oil, petroleum etc. They want to make more money

0:57 wrong use of pictograms; it does not illustrate the point that the captions try to make. The single left side arm should be the same size as one of the individual arms on the right

is this creative common? :((

Came just because of a homework assignment 😐

Why does the U.S. Department of Energy intervene in this Google search

Fission clearly is not safe.

We should spend more research on building nuclear fusion reactors. No more nuclear waste! Enough of that!

Anybody here cause of chemistry class?

@thespooderhomie4481

Жыл бұрын

I'm here for chem class to thankfully I finish the class next month

So there is no significant difference?

@barnacles1352

3 жыл бұрын

there are just opposites

@moderator8247

3 жыл бұрын

@@barnacles1352 here is a tip Try to remember: fusing: no nuclear fallout Fissing: fallout shelter

fission byproduct: *NUCLEAR WASTE* 💣🤯 fusion byproduct: helium 😄

Oversimplified to the point of being useless. I came here to learn about the fusion waste created by netron irradiation. Nothing on that, just the claim that only He4 is produced. Dishonest.

Nice explanation 👍

Chernobyl . . . Three Mile Island . . . Fukushima

@supra107

Жыл бұрын

1. Soviet incompetence and a reactor design that's not seen anywhere outside of the former Soviet Union 2. Incompetence of the people running the reactor and the people building it, only led to the contamination of the power plant itself, nothing more 3. Reactor placed on an island that suffers from constant tsunamis, the one that caused it was not taken into account But sure, keep throwing these names around as an "argument" against nuclear power because the media scare you with them.

@g3o5d

Жыл бұрын

@@supra107 . . . I am not against nuclear or clean energy. I think the coal and gas industry should be shut down completely. Then again . . . I wouldn't get my feelings hurt if trump were to be "ASSASSINATED" 😏

@FemboyOwO_

Жыл бұрын

A thing of the past now, check the news, something special was achieved on the 11th.

@julia._hmns

Жыл бұрын

The first two events each happened around 4 decades ago... There have been many exploits and discoveries since. Man is much more advanced in science and has reliable tools and skills that he can use to make nuclear energy safely and responsibly. As for Fukushima, nobody died as a direct result of the nuclear disaster. I can assure you that on the long term, fossil energy causes a lot more deaths and environmental complications than nuclear does or ever will. Of course nuclear energy will always be risky but it's the safest and most reliable of all options. If we don't make a change, there's a good chance that our environment will resemble the kind of dystopias you see in movies like Interstellar lol.

@ensiyeitu1012

Жыл бұрын

What are you doing here?

team fission

@nathand583

4 жыл бұрын

Team morgz mum

@Scudmaster11

4 жыл бұрын

team IDE

@dominicesposito4394

4 жыл бұрын

Fusion sounds way better sorry

@Scudmaster11

4 жыл бұрын

you cant have fusion without fission

I prepared a chart paper depicting the process of nuclear fission in my high school exams in physics subject.....surabhi saxena.

@spaghettisheepdog

2 жыл бұрын

how did it go?

if u even think of goin that way without asking em..but u still cant..look at what happened to iran..

ok

bro sounds like eminem

Here after fallout

i came here because i was playing Minecraft mod mekanism v10

Thanks. 👍👨‍🔬⚗️🧪☢️

This department is the worst facility ever and the government is a joke!!! My family and me are being tortured with voices in my head dark matter is being bottled up and controlled

please get a new graphic designer bro

That was horrible just like kmla talking to anyone

Who’s here from Physics?

@k1k1almarr17

3 жыл бұрын

I’m here from chemistry

@tylerwillis8044

2 жыл бұрын

I'm here for physical science🙄

No wonder Hydrogen is getting so popular. Did we find the feasibility of fusion?

Fusion is better

just use an upside down rocket engine to boil water 🤔🚀💦🙇‍♂️

6 e

Waste. ... LFTR technology can also be used to consume the remaining fissile material available in spent nuclear fuel stockpiles around the world and to extract and resell many of the other valuable fission byproducts that are currently deemed hazardous waste in their current spent fuel rod form. So are we still talking about U-235 technology? For crying out loud - sure let's use a technology that has .7% efficiency, and create large amounts of ☢ radioactive waste and uses a fuel that is as rare as Pt. Your cute little video, with the point that fusion creates waste-- large amount?? Compared to uranium reactors, thorium reactors produce far less waste and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived. It is based on a U-233 decay chain. So ... Which fusion technology are we talking about in your viedo? Please if you are going to try to educate the public try a litte harder. I certainly hope you are not partnering with the old nuclear industry. Try looking into the future... neo-nuclear technologies. As far as fusion, aside from "cold fusion" which does not exist, you are seriously considering a technology has some large problems, you talk about slaming a neutron into a large nucleus to get it to fission? Huh? What does that compare to having to truly slam to positively charged nuclei together to achieve fission? By the way you don't use fast neutrons in fission, thats why you use a moderator. To summarize: a good strategy for putting a "power plant" at an outpost is KISS, and not something that has many more points of failure than fission. (KISS: Keep it simple stupid!)

@philippfeiffer1452

3 жыл бұрын

Oh boy here is that wordy pedantic moron again: Sorry, in my fervent reply I didn't edit my reply; there are many misspellings and... Also I meant to ask: which fission technology and not fusion technology? Sorry for any con-fusion. :) and also more importantly please excuse my derogatory tone. I want to correct two statements you made and some misstatements from me: +You make a statement about highly radioactive waste that fission produces; which fission technology? ... Note that depending on the technology you have various levels of "highly" radioactive from low to dangerously high. +You talk about "slaming" a neutron into the nucleus, The nucleus splits because of the instability that the extra neutron causes in the nucleus and not because of the Kinetic "slaming" of a neutron into it and this actually requires a slow neutron to "join" with the nucleus. + slaming two H+ nuclei together really is slaming, and requires high energy physics to get them together. + correcting my statement, old nuclear uses U-235/U-238 mix of fuel (lower enrichment) and not U235. The WW2 bomb used U-235. + also I got here from the NASA "Fission Surface Power System" page. So my point on KISS is based on a remote power system. However, KISS is still is a good strategy for Earth based systems, note such as in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011. Clear cases of failure of complex systems having a number of points of failure. I really an a fan/student of all sorts of nuclear technology and Chemistry.

@hagdref6578

Жыл бұрын

Mucho texto

how many war has israel fought? what right what legit reason they even exist anymore