Fusion NEEDS to be our next "Man on the Moon" project!

@mrbaab5932

2 ай бұрын

Man on the Sun project.

@chadcurtiss5965

Ай бұрын

We don’t even know if it’s possible to make a useful fusion reactor that releases more energy than we put in. What we need to do, is build more fission reactors, whilst also taking steps to harden our infrastructure against the effects of climate change. But instead we’re screeching about pipe dreams like fusion and building useless windmills and electric cars 🤦‍♂️

Could we get a video on the two Helicopter replacement programs next? The armed scout and medium lift choppers (FARA and FLRAA) will be massive programs worth exploring here.

@texasranger24

Жыл бұрын

Sikorsky has the S-97 Raider compete with the Bell+Textron 360 Invictus in the AAS / FARA (armed scout) program. Meanwhile, the Sikorsky+Boeing SB-1 Defiant competes with the Bell+Lockheed V280 Valor for the FVL / FLRAA (long-range lift) program. Given how the US defense industry works, it is likely that both companies get one contract each, to keep every factory running, everybody employed. So if you like both Sikorsky or both Bell designs, get ready for a disappointment. The Raider has troop capacity while the Invictus does not, but that gives the Invictus better stealth properties, just like the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche had. Not sure why they abandoned that design. Just to push a common scout and transport design when they know it's not very likely they'll get both contracts? The V280 seems to be the more mature design, faster and longer range. But the SB-1 might offer better handling and safety, as it is not a tilt rotor. And it's smaller, closer to the Blackhawk size. This might really go both ways.

@generalrendar7290

Жыл бұрын

The RAH-66 was far to expensive for the missions it was asked to complete. The Raider is the Kiowa on steroids, whereas the Invictus is the more economical Comanche. I'd argue that while the Defiant is a better all-round platform, the Valor matches the language of FLRAA almost exactly. Bell and Sikorskey really outdid themselves on these designs.

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

There is nothing about massive about both V-280 is the only real option for the FLRAA as the USMC, USAF and USN has demonstrated the effectiveness of tiltrotors The Army is only one not onboard with tilt rotors The S-97 is unlikely to win unless they improve its payload

@XLA-zg1nn

Жыл бұрын

Get to the Choppa's

@ZackSavage

8 ай бұрын

@@texasranger24 Crazy reading this after the Valor actually won that contract. I can also see the Invictus winning over the Raider as well. It would be wild to see Bell win both Contracts

I'm sure you meant B-29, but we know what you mean, and it was massive by any measure. The B-1 & B-52 are big, the B-36 was enormous. My best understanding of this was seeing people around it. The first iteration had a single wheel for each wing, and were on the order of giant mining trucks tyres. I'm glad a few still exist, for history's sake.

@Axemantitan

Жыл бұрын

Are you talking about the nuclear-powered bomber? It was a B-36.

@Imakethepoopies

Жыл бұрын

@@Axemantitan No. At 3:27, there is a B-29 that is referred to as a B-52.

@kittywampusdrums4963

Жыл бұрын

B52's are the largest I'm sure. Ive been in one they are enourmous. THye had to tie the wings down theyre so big and the wings have wheels at the ends too to keep them off the ground.

@aj-2savage896

10 ай бұрын

@@kittywampusdrums4963 B-36s were bigger. Period.

@jaakkobergman4489

7 ай бұрын

B-36 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker

Even with fusion power and automation, duration aloft might still be limited by oil consumption and wear on seals. But air assets could be launched and just circle around an area of interest until they are needed, like a latter-day Chrome Dome. I do wonder what the throttle response of such a jet engine would be like.

@damitcam

Жыл бұрын

At the pressures that such a reactor would operate at i imagine hypersonic or beyond easy, assuming material sciences keep up

@kerbodynamicx472

Жыл бұрын

@@damitcam Fusion jet engines would still likely work in ways similar to existing jets: compress, heat and exhaust. The heating process just switches from a kerosene fuel to fusion pellets. Early systems will probably have a very low thrust to weight ratio.

@PrezVeto

Жыл бұрын

The most straight-forward way to throttle would be to vary the flow rate through the engine using valves (and bypass circuits, to enable a more steady flow rate through the reactor and each engine to throttle independently). I'd be more concerned about the maximum thrust. With combustible fuel injection the heat is produced where it's desired (in the airflow), so little conduction needs to happen. With a central fusion core, you're reliant on the heat conducting through the walls of the plumbing into the air. There's a physical limit to how quickly that will happen, proportional to the difference in temperature. You can't really vary the air temperature, and you can't just let the fluid get arbitrarily hot or it'll melt the plumbing. You could increase the rate of heat transfer by spreading the fluid through a bunch of little capillaries, but that would increase drag. This tech might be limited to slow aircraft like cargo, tankers, maybe bombers, etc.

@MrNicoJac

Жыл бұрын

@@PrezVeto I wonder what the response speed of the engine itself would be. After all, even with fission, you still need continual fuel injection. (btw, where do the reaction products go? they'll either clog up the engine, or you'll need to extract them and store them on board in a radioactivity-proof container, right??) Anyhow, I think speed would be increased by increasing the temperature of the coolant, combined with temperature-sensitive valves that open up at certain thresholds, bringing additional capillaries/heat exchange areas online. In essence, you'd be cruising with just 10%* of the heat exchange surfaces in active use, and only use all of it to dash into a danger zone or run from intercepting planes or missiles. (notes: 1. for the valves, I'd use passive material properties; for instance a metal coil that expands when heated to lift up a blocking seal, thus automatically shrinking back in place when the temperature drops 2. I just assumed a low percentage of total heat exchangers for cruising speed, because drag rises exponentially instead of linearly, and military jets go rather fast, so you'd presumably need a lot more thrust to go a bit faster. But 33% or even 50% might be equally reasonable; jet propulsion is *not* my specialty😂)

@aurorajones8481

Жыл бұрын

It makes sex seem trite.

Hey Alex, @3:24 that is a B-29, not a B-52. Just saying. Love your channel, which is the best!!!

The funny thing about fusion power, unlike fission power plants we currently have, is that small/medium sized units might become practical before larger ones. I tried to understand why this is, but man it got complicated... If anyone could break that down for me, I'd personally appreciate it.

@erasmus_locke

Жыл бұрын

Basically they don't scale up well. Everyone knows magnets lose their strength dramatically the further you hold them apart. So a bigger reactor needs a ton of power just the run the magnets. On top of that the magnetic fields are also acting on the structure of the reactor itself, so you have to make it INSANELY strong to resist warping of even imploding. A smaller reactor solves all these problems by just being smaller.

@samsonsoturian6013

Жыл бұрын

Right now the devises we have on average consume as much power as the produce.

@classifiedveteran9879

Жыл бұрын

@@erasmus_locke that makes a lot more sense. I was lost in particle physics and the electromagnetic spectrum... 😅

@2bidfilmsguy

Жыл бұрын

@@anthonywright774 Dont forget about the lizard person illuminate using the 5g network to send encrypted data back in time using tachyon crystals, I'm able to intercept these transmissions using the fillings in my teeth, you need to trust me I'm a "doctor"

@Quickshot0

Жыл бұрын

Actually all the previous mentioned issues are resolvable enough still, they're not considered actual show-stoppers. How ever they do all imply one thing together, which is enormous investment costs to build all these expensive devices at very large sizes. If making just one device costs a fortune, you won't be making new ones very quickly, and not only that, it takes a long time to just build one. And so inevitable iteration of design becomes slow, time lines stretching in to the decades. So by basic logic if you could figure out a way so that a medium device can run cost effectively, it's far cheaper and quicker, to iterate through different designs till you get one that will work for you. So as long as it is viable for a smaller device to work, then a smaller device has a good chance to complete first just because its R&D runs so much quicker and cheaper. And this is why recently when they figured out a few new options that might allow devices substantially smaller then ITER to run cost effectively, we suddenly started seeing a proliferation of new medium scale projects. So if one of those ideas work, they very well may complete much earlier.

This might be your best video ever. Incredible. Thank you.

@Sandboxx Could you look into and do a piece on the mysterious US Navy Pais patents, next? Lots of weirdness there -- beyond next-gen power generation and aircraft propulsion technology, mysteriously submitted to the PTO, denied, then USN calls the PTO and requests it go through, and it does. Really interesting stuff. Especially when considering implications of where the technology inspiration may have originated on the inside.

Nuclear diamond batteries, nuclear fusion combined with A.I. and robotics will lead to some absolutely insane future tech. Just imagine a vehicle that can rapidly changing it's form and never needing to be maintained by humans and without needing to be fueled.

@mattmunro09

Жыл бұрын

P

@JDogVids

9 ай бұрын

​@@mattmunro09pushin' P indeed

The patent is only meant to block others from developing the technology and isn't an indication that Lockheed is even close to achieving this.

@colekarrh9114

Жыл бұрын

that makes sense But don't forget about how fast they are moving to next gen aircraft

@zinjanthropus322

Жыл бұрын

@@colekarrh9114 It's fusion. The tech to make that aircraft fly would solve most of the world's problems.

@samsonsoturian6013

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, we've been 15 years from fusion for 70 years.

@juliane__

Жыл бұрын

@@zinjanthropus322 Thanks for fitting this one in perspective. The video was - in sandbox words - a whole lot of nothing. Just tiring words, without any meaning to think about.

@thatonejerry9092

Жыл бұрын

It’s similar to how Boeing took out a patent for forcefields.

I’m curious if Lockheed can or will pull this off. A major government contractor, a revolutionary power plant, the entire global geopolitical landscape, it’d be interesting to see where this could go for sure. But of course there is the matter of working out fusion outside of a lab

@duidave4737

Жыл бұрын

@@paulbarclay4114 I like how you think the government is believable when workers say their 30-50-100 years a head yet when the military say the UAP's are Not black budget projects you write that off. Very convenient and hubris at best. Also, we are no where near cold fusion.

@duidave4737

Жыл бұрын

@@paulbarclay4114 Really? Prove it. I'll be waiting...

I did a paper when I was in college for physics on fusion reactor types and you left several of those types out of the list and video. Some of these reactors could not only produce electrical energy but can be used as a form of propulsion as well.

You labelled a b-29 a b-52 at the start there buddy. Glad I could help 😂👍

I loved your reverse salient twist at the end. I need to hope for humanities sake that this comes to fruition. Thankyou, highly entertaining and thought provoking. UFO's, ask the man who owns one.

Really excellent work as always. I *Always* enjoy your work Alex

Were one step closer to having macross valkyries, now we just need some sort of material that can use energy to strengthen itself

Great video! I did notice that you had compared the B-36 to the B-52 verbally and with the caption. The accompanying pic however shows the B-36 alongside a B-29 Stratofortress. I would love to see a pic showing the 36 and 52 to see just how much larger it was. Cheers and keep up the awesome work sir~!

@Axemantitan

Жыл бұрын

commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B36-b-52-b-58-carswell.jpg

@FunningRast

Жыл бұрын

They’re roughly the same size. B-36 was only 3 feet longer but had a relatively larger wingspan due to the B-52’s wings being swept back.

@JohnBarbourJr

Жыл бұрын

@@FunningRast Thank you for the G-2.

@JohnBarbourJr

Жыл бұрын

@@Axemantitan Just what I asked for. Thanks so much sir~!

Hi, the Slam missile system of the early 60s was stopped by the US military, as I have heard it, due to its inability to be cancelled once launched. A bomber, on the other hand, could be recalled. The Slam, once launched, would guarantee WWIII and the end of our species. A clear sign that the US was not as bellicose as some have suggested.

As always incredibly insightful!!

Loved this video thank you for making this.

Working fusion for more than a few seconds? Like really? I thought we needed at least more than 50 years to see this come to use. It is basically the holy grail and if you can use it you can basically do anything. I am very skeptical that those at skunkworks are already that advanced in this field.

@stevenhoman2253

Жыл бұрын

Nobody is very advanced in the field, our latest current hopes lie in a French reactor, which is still under construction. You are correct, of course, that Fusion is not yet feasible. The nations and companies of the planet, scheme to produce patents which are implausible, yet would cost its developer to gain royalty payments. Yet the greatest of rogue states, China, has no respect for patents anyway. When it comes to warfare, the gentlemen's contract of patents are forgotten.

@Lolatyou332

Жыл бұрын

Yeah this doesn't sound realistic.... Just to start the process of Nuclear Fusion requires filling a ton of capacitors and releasing a huge electric charge to create plasma. It also potentially would required extremely high strength magnetics which I feel like would just destroy any electronics in the vehicle, since the plasma is so hot that it has to be held in a vacuum suspended in space prevented from touching anything in its containment area. We have nuclear fusion but no one has yet to actually create power from it, it currently requires more power than it generates.

@ZackSavage

8 ай бұрын

@@Lolatyou332 The new ambient temp/pressure superconductors (if real) could absolutely be a massive step towards making fusion a reality.

@paulbade3566

7 ай бұрын

Who knows? Those who work with the hypersonic aerodynamics of re-entry vehicles and very fast aircraft have experience with plasma management different from that of the common fusion researcher; perhaps somebody figured out how to put it to use on the fusion problem.

@paulbade3566

7 ай бұрын

@@Lolatyou332 We have airborne EMP weapons. That technology in theory can be adapted to plasma generation. The use of RF power to make a hydrogen plasma has been around for generations. The hard part is powering up the magnetic field, for that large capacitor banks would be necessary. But what if the reactor once started could drive its own magnetic field? Then you would only need the capacitor banks on the ground, like the engine start carts now used for some turbine engines.

Pretty interesting story. I never thought that people would be attempting this at this point honestly. The first time I ever even heard of the concept of fusion reactors powering an aircraft was in the Macross Anime series that first aired in 1984. They are also used in Gundams, in the Gundam series. That aside, this is something I’ll definitely follow. Hopefully you’ll continue to cover this topic, & thanks for this video.👍🏿🇺🇦🇾🇪🇭🇹

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

Fusion power for aircraft dates back to earliest days of nuclear power, its wasn't feasible then or now As for Macross and Gundam Fusion power is the only realistic power source for both if you tried to build it real world Gasaraki TA very much realistic as they had very limited operational time of just 60 minutes and even with upgraded power cells, its still just 36 hours They had no over tech weapon, just basic auto cannons and missiles and even the model equipped with a rail gun still require a lot of time between shots

These guys have this and better.. they need to release it to the public

fusion is the power of the future, and seems like it always will be

Possibly the development of lightweight portable fusion technology may make the idea of building something like the S.H.I.E.L.D. Heli-carrier a future possibility.

@JohnFrumFromAmerica

Жыл бұрын

I don't think that would ever be a good idea. Just a big target that would be impossible to make stealthy.

Salvatore Pias is the inventor of the patents and had to physically meet with patent judges in order to explain his theory because they didn't think it was possible the first time he applied for the patent on behalf of the navy.

Loved the video you covered all the bases I like that you did all the research that you did. Some things you just never can find the answers too because they don't tell us everything lol.

WOW that is an amazing video bro! Very exciting stuff!

That patent looks incredibly close to what Helion Energy is producing.

@MarkBarrack

Жыл бұрын

I had the same thought

Lasers will be on the NGAD fighter jets for sure

@kez850

Жыл бұрын

They’ve been testing lasers on aircraft for a while

Ty for the Post great Channel you not only give information but you explain it in detail

Your shows are top class...Bravo 👌

3:28 B-29, not b-52... "The B-36 made the B29 look tiny" The B-36 is slightly bigger than the B-52, but not by much.

The amount of implications this has on not just aviation and warfare, but life and civilization as we know it, is almost unimaginable to anyone alive today. i think we should share this technology to everyone, and no one company should own the intellectual rights to this.

@paulbade3566

4 ай бұрын

Standard operating principle and practice in a free market with patent laws is that those who develop a technology deserve to get the first profits from it. Typically, with something this significant, the developing company can get the most profits from its patent(s) by licensing the rights to other companies, so don't be concerned; it won't be a closely held monopoly.

The background drop at the end of the video was hard af also sick video :)

You make interesting videos - well documented. Keep it up.

13:22 Modern fighters don't use turbojet engines anymore (they were phased out by the era of 4th gen fighters). They use turbofans, just like with commercial airliners and bombers. The difference is that modern fighters use low-bypass turbofans, while commercial aircraft and bombers (and attack aircraft like the A-10) use high-bypass turbofans.

@TheFish711

Жыл бұрын

So they’re no longer ‘fighter jets’ but instead ‘fighter fans’?

@Cyrribrae

Жыл бұрын

Huh. Why is that? Is there a benefit to having at least some bypass? Just cheaper and more reliable?

@namja01

Жыл бұрын

@@Cyrribrae It provides cooling air for the engine, reducing the amount of liquid cooling needed. For afterburning low-bypass turbofans, the bypass air also provides a cushion between the flame trail and the augmenter section and exhaust nozzle to prevent burn-through. When the afterburner is on, it’s cool enough to actually touch the augmenter section.

@Cyrribrae

Жыл бұрын

@@namja01 That makes a lot of sense, thanks!

@piotrd.4850

10 ай бұрын

@@TheFish711 Damn xD

Fusion is the future, not windmills: developing it for power to the people (toasters) before defense (bombers) is more engineering-friendly by allowing kinks to be worked out on the ground rather than in the air. To speed up the dream of harnessing the energy of the sun, institute a Manhattan Project with a special emphasis on Directed Energy Weapons (Iron Dome).

@granatmof

Жыл бұрын

The future of grid scale energy deployment is diverse, not dependent on a single resource or design or market player. Over deployed diverse energy portfolio is more important. When grid consumption slows down, then artificial chemical fuel production and water desalination plants operate with direct energy transfers from nuclear plants. Artificial fuel can be used for transportations systems that cannot be properly tied to the grid: military and remote resource extractions.

@Lolatyou332

Жыл бұрын

@@granatmof You can say that, but once nuclear fusion is scalable and efficient it will literally take over everything. Power generation can be dynamically managed through nuclear fusion to match or exceed demand. It requires very little material for generating power, and the half life of the materials range from 600 Milliseconds to like 13 years, depending on what materials are used. Fusion will literally make everything obsolete, it generates 4x as much power as nuclear fission and would be much safer with less waste.

@RonJeremy514

Жыл бұрын

@@Lolatyou332 Nuclear fission is already a pretty safe and extremely efficient process, but you still need to get materials from other countries and large investments to keep it running. As of now, it is already million times more efficient than coal and oil but far from everyone is using nuclear reactors in the world. So before the ecological deadline of 2050 (that just got lowered again btw according to the last estimations from climate experts), we'd better stop living in all this comfort and thinking that the solution is to produce more, always MOAR. Because at this rate we already start to see agricultural activities die, we see pandemics, more frequent wars, conventional oil peeked in 2008 and gas in 2019 if I'm not mistaken, with the result that you know in terms of inflation, crisis, Russian-Ukrainian war making it even worse. By all laws of physics, rn fusion is far from being mastered and we have more pressing matters. Economy = transformed energy and right now, the more time passes, the less energy we have, the less investments we are capable to make to develop stuff by order of magnitudes.

@paulbade3566

7 ай бұрын

@@RonJeremy514 The best nuclear fusion reactors today barely break even plus a smidgen on energy out versus energy in, so how can they possibly be more efficient than coal or gas plants?. Nuclear fission reactors used for commercial power indeed use a million times less fuel mass than combustion power plants, but the thermodynamic efficiency advantage is more on the order of 5-10% (including costs for pollution mitigation and waste disposal of each technology). Why do people persist in looking at the carbon dioxide buildup only as something to be feared and avoided? The carbon from coal and probably the carbon from oil and gas was once a part of the earth's ecosystem. Using it for fuel is an effective and economically useful means of putting it back where it belongs. It's been shown that up to 30% of the increase in agricultural production in the last 60 years is likely due to improved plant growth and health as a result of higher carbon dioxide levels in the air. (www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf) What we really should do is to quit paving over arable land with solar and wind turbine farms, parking lots, shopping malls, etc., and work with nature to increase plant growth. Instead of building solar farms, we should be covering existing parking lots and shopping malls with solar panel canopies.

@RonJeremy514

7 ай бұрын

​@@paulbade3566 When Earth's atmosphere was full of CO2, it was because of catastrophic events, and that took millions upon millions of years to settle down and recreate the fauna and flora. And not even the total amount of trees in the world right now (and even from two centuries ago) is enough to catch up with the CO2 emissions, so we accumulate more and more (along with other gases and other types of pollution). And technically the global temperature rises, which creates difficult to predict heat waves and sudden rain episodes, then it evaporates and that destroys arable soils. "It's been shown that up to 30% of the increase in agricultural production in the last 60 years is likely due to improved plant growth and health as a result of higher carbon dioxide levels in the air." "Likely", not even a consensus. We also know that poor atmosphere quality destroys health actually, just like the canadian fires that crossed the american border and NYC was in a thick and dangerous fog for a long time. The particle levels were beyond the safe limits of what we should breathe and that included CO2. You only see that in heavily polluted cities of China and India. It's terrible. I will tell you what is more "likely" to increase said agricultural production since the 60s: the industry, the fact that at this time most countries were starting or finally got mechanized means of growing, sowing and harvesting (tractors for most farmers and various machines or trailers, which vastly improved their incomes and doing an entire crowd of workers' job with only one man). The fact that we started to massively use artificial fertilizers and pesticides after its invention in 1906 and the infamous Monsanto Roundup product in the 70s. We also actively genetically modified various fruits, vegetables and even animals meant to be slaughtered to become cheaper to maintain and yield more profit. We have undeniably made huge breakthrough since the last century in that regard because we did not have the means to do that without modern engineering and science.

another excellent video from sandbox news

Ty for the good info keep up the good work.

I'd be concerned about the maximum thrust achievable via the fusion-powered engine system outlined. (Throttling isn't the issue. You could use valves and per-engine bypass circuits to vary the fluid flow rate through each engine. It's a limitation on the thrust at full-throttle I'm thinking about.) With combustible fuel injection the heat is generated right where it's desired (in the airflow), so no conduction needs to happen. (It'll naturally happen within the airflow, but you're not dependent on that happening.) With a fusion-heated fluid circuit, the heat has to conduct through the walls of the plumbing into the air. There's a physical limit to how quickly that will happen, proportional to the difference in temperature. You'd engineer the plumbing for maximal conduction, but you can't really vary the air temperature, and you can't just let the fluid get arbitrarily hot or it'll melt the plumbing. You could increase the maximum overall rate of heat transfer within an engine by spreading the fluid through a forest of little capillaries, but that would increase drag. Increasing the compression of the airflow would increase heat transfer, but that might cause problems for lower-speed phases of flight, similar to the challenges with ramjets and scramjets. Such tech might be limited to slow aircraft like cargo, tankers, maybe bombers, etc.

@MrNicoJac

Жыл бұрын

Or don't vary the flow rate but vary the length of the combustion chamber, by bringing additional heat exchange surfaces online (or offline, depending on how much thrust you need). I'd worry about the internal plumbing though. Even if magnificently insulated, it will inevitably warm up eventually. So you'll either need massive AC capacity (or you need to fly at 30k ft and open a window, to let that -50°C air blow through, hehehe). If this isn't done, then the plane will be limited in flight time _regardless_ of its fuel type, because now the pilots are slowly getting cooked....

I thought of this ages ago, when I said that the miniature Iter/ tokamak projects that are being made could be used for cars planes etc. And that the Iter project could be used to raise things into space. so yeah so what I'm glad someone has put it into use.

Brilliant Analysis!!!

I literally hate that you have a day job and cant make videos like this every other day. Lol but its cool because when you do drop these videos its like a treat.

@samsonsoturian6013

Жыл бұрын

You need like a quarter million subs to be full time.

@its-butters58

Жыл бұрын

@@samsonsoturian6013 just saying i like his videos

Everything is a weapon for even the most unimaginative. But it's not just weapons and energy fusion will help with. The concept of fusion would allow for the creation of any type of element we need down the line. After all, fusion in stars is where all elements were forged in the first place. Full development of fusion technology would eliminate the scarcity of a specific elemental resource like say lithium. Though, you would still need resources to fuse into the resources that you want. But that is quite a while down the line.

@ianshaver8954

Жыл бұрын

It just wouldn’t be cost effective.

Great video Sanboxx as all of your video's are.

Thank you. Complex made understandable.

The cynic in me who's been hearing about fusion research since the 1980s tells me that this will be operational in about thirty years from now.

@xxmrrickxx

Жыл бұрын

I’m way more cynical. As you said, fusion reactior have benn “just around the corner” simce the 80’s. This is a century away LOL.

@swedhgemoni8092

Жыл бұрын

@@xxmrrickxx This will power UAVs in around a decade or two.

@xxmrrickxx

Жыл бұрын

@@swedhgemoni8092 Unfortunately, No way. This is an idea on paper. I'm guessing 20 years, or possibly never, before a stable laboratory model is developed. Then typically 10 years to go from a new technology in a laboratory to a stable production system that can be integrated.

@swedhgemoni8092

Жыл бұрын

@@xxmrrickxx I meant smaller UAVs. In 15 years, I think the design would be mature enough for something the size of a ScanEagle.

@Quickshot0

Жыл бұрын

@@xxmrrickxx You basically just described why Fusion is always 30 years away. They think of a concept and 'if' it worked, in 30 years or so you might indeed have it being made. But that 'if' has always been the very thorny part with Fusion. No matter how good the concept seemed, in reality controlling things and getting where you need to be turned out to be much harder then expected. So we've been cycling through various concepts over time, and of course they have been getting better over time. So one day that 'if' will become real and a feasible concept will be under way. Now this could be many decades from now, or it's possible that the science is already far enough and the concept has already been invented and is under way. It's just not clear to your average person though till you see a prototype prove it's possible. At which point it would as you described yourself, possibly be 10-20 years away. And we see that a lot I guess, where people lose faith a concept will work out and then suddenly there's a functional prototype and the rush to perfect and industrialize it is on. The airplane is an example of this really even, when the first prototypes proved the concept, things accelerated. So for anyone wanting to guess further out then 20 years... well you'd have to really know the science of the field and know if the funding is there to keep sustaining it that long. But I think with some of the efforts going on in Fusion right now, one of them may be already good enough to have the 30 year clock secretly ticking in the background. For instance the MIT Spark reactor, which is a conservative design which 'should' work according to all the science we have for that kind of reactor design. It's just a much more compact variation and thus faster to develop and already seems to have achieved development of its one most questionable part, which was vastly stronger magnets to confine the plasma much more tightly for its smaller design. Which really does throw up the counter question, of if this time might be different? At the least for some of these ideas there's a lot less guessing going on. But I guess we won't know for sure till the prototypes power up and show if they actually work or not.

It will be ready in 20 years, trust us! This patent would never hold up because they haven’t discovered what is actually needed to create fusion without gravity.

@trumptookthevaccine1679

Жыл бұрын

You don’t k ow how patents work

@dawnfire82

Жыл бұрын

@@trumptookthevaccine1679 Or how fusion works, either. Fusion isn't hard. Literal school children have done it. It's doing it with an efficiency >1.0 that's hard.

Could you do one on the military effects from the loss of strategic oil supplies?

THANKS Alex!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👍👏

Wars are always about scarcity when you get to the roots. Unlimited, basically free, energy gets us pretty quickly to a post-scarcity world. Given our current ability to wipe out the entire planet, combined with our clear inability to get along with each other, we’d better get there quickly.

@bad_covfefe

Жыл бұрын

That is not actually true. The Iranian revolution stands as a strong example of a conflict that was not caused by scarcity. The war in Ukraine is another onr, although scarcity had a *small* part to play (Ukraine shutting off the water to Crimea) it is more a result of politics and ego. To be sure, many and perhaps most wars are due to scarcity, so this development would reduce warfare.

@AndySpicer

Жыл бұрын

@@bad_covfefe The Iranian revolution was 100% about scarcity. It was sparked when the Shah dismissed the parliament and launched the White Revolution. That screwed up the wealth and influence of landowners and clerics and led to urbanization and Westernization. Those changes were economically successful, but the benefits were not distributed evenly. Opposition to the shah got stronger in the 1970s, when world monetary situation went to shit. Western oil consumption seriously threatened the country’s economy. Years of economic growth, government spending, and a huge jump im oil prices led to high rates of inflation and Iranians’ buying power and standard of living fell like a rock. Scarcity.

@AndySpicer

Жыл бұрын

@@bad_covfefe As for Ukraine, that is very clearly about oil and natural gas reserves, the Black Sea, pipelines, Ports and Shipping routes, and trading partners and markets. Again, scarcity.

3:26... Not a B-52.

The new room temp superconducting materials might solve most of the issue with maintaining the magnetic containment if they can get the pressures down to a manageable level.

Good one, bro. The possibilities of this are staggering.

I'm beginning to think a Helicarrier could be a reality 😲

@metaps3922

Жыл бұрын

It will be useless

@trumptookthevaccine1679

Жыл бұрын

Tasty SAM fodder

@hollyh888

Жыл бұрын

@@metaps3922 an Airborne aircraft carrier? Useless?

As cool as this sounds, with fusion I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not an expert but everything I read or watch from experts in the field suggests we have a long long ways to go before we have working reactors producing net-positive energy.

Great video!!!!

3:28 That is the B-29iest looking B-52 I've ever seen

I think that this new fusion technology from Lockeed Martin (Skunk Works) is great. Any country, especially the US, will first develop the newest technology for national defense, then consider said technology for public use.

@RickySpanish12344

10 ай бұрын

If they develop fusion technology, they will release it first to the public. They would make trillions as energy producers vs billions in weapons platforms.

Another outstanding video, my friend. I certainly appreciate your insights and information regarding fusion technology and its game changing impact upon the military industry and its potential impact upon every aspect of mankind’s existence. It seems that the scientific world is on the cusp of making fusion technology a viable and widespread reality. It will be interesting to witness the development and application of this new fusion technology. Thank you again for your videos and the great deal of research devoted to their production. Have a fantastic week, my friend. 🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸

One of...if not your most compelling chapter in military efforts Alex. I would liken the success of Fusion Powered Military Applications to the Star Trek movie in which the tinkering Scientist wanna be Space Ship Captain imitates FTL. It would be a Defining Moment in Human History assuming humanity survives Climate Change. Thank You for all your efforts to keep the curious informed.

Patents like this one demonstrate the necessity of the US Patent Office requiring a working prototype as a demonstration, before a patent is granted.

@dawnfire82

Жыл бұрын

Impractical. That would require the effective reverse engineering of every invention, to prove it worked as claimed.

I'll have to rewatch this video a few times. All the while Alex is narrating, I couldn't stop thinking about what the Skunk Works team was doing or working on. As a general rule, defense contractors don't do hard science. That's pretty much the domain of PhD researchers at universities. Not that specialized shops like Skunk Works don't absolutely love a scientist that has enough common sense that they can actually relate to something in the real world or an engineer that's bright enough that he doesn't need a 3 month sabbatical to understand the latest theoretical breakthrough in physics. They snatch up those folks every time they can find one, if Northrop Grumman or Boeing hasn't grabbed them first. Still, defense contractors don't shell out the money that sort of research takes unless it furthers their goal of a new weapon system. So that captivated me throughout the video; "what is or was the Skunk Works working on that they discovered a new way to contain high energy plasma useful for fusion power?" Because I'm fairly certain that wasn't the goal of their research project. However, there are a couple of projects that do come to mind when I think of them doing research on containing dense bubbles of high energy plasma.

@tsequeira2912

Жыл бұрын

I completely agree with your assessment. Also, IMO the first application of fusion engines would most likely be spaceships (not fighters or bombers)

@colincampbell767

Жыл бұрын

Skunk works does a lot of inventing on their own. Back when I was in aerospace, we worked with some Skunk Works engineers to make a (classified) material that theoretically - can't be made. (The application for that material was something I didn't 'need to know.') If anybody can do this - Skunks Works can.

@trplankowner3323

Жыл бұрын

@@tsequeira2912 Here are some other things to think about when considering fusion. kzread.info/dash/bejne/kX-omZpxY9K6lJM.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/aoShydRvdte_k7w.html and kzread.info/dash/bejne/dZyIrKp-lMmcqbA.html. I think you would probably enjoy those videos more than some others here.

As one who used to be nuclear fission skeptic in regards to safety. After understanding the science better and see how scientist have found new ways of making it a nuclear plant meltdown becomes nearly impossible, I'm now for it.

@samsonsoturian6013

Жыл бұрын

With the devises we're currently working with, that's literally impossible.

@Extremeredfox

Жыл бұрын

@@samsonsoturian6013 I should have been more specific. For power plant capacity not missile.

Excellent episode.

AS A LOCKHEED SKUNKWORKS FAMILY. MENBER... I HAVE ALWAYS. BEEN PROUD OF THEM.....THEY ARE THE BEST..... I HAVE A SAYING....LOCKHEED. IS AN NEVER ENDING SCIENCE EXPERIMENT..........MAY IT NEVER END.

That was a good video. The aircraft mechanic member of my family points out the other consideration for fuel: its weight. The difference in weight for aircraft between a full tank and empty one for an airplane is considerable. Airlines calculate how much fuel they need to fly without necessarily filling up at each stop, because they want to optimize efficiency. A fusion powered plane would have a constant weight which means the fuel burn, distance and even the avionics would stay consistent. Heavy planes are harder to steer, but that would be irrelevant if the plane never changes weight! You could make the same turns and pull the same amount of Gs at the beginning, middle and end of the mission.

Wow seriously spot on info here!

Would love to see you cover Augmented Reality Air Combat Training being pioneered by Red 6.

best sound track ever.

Imagine. If you didn't need to use all the space inside the wings and part of the fuselage for fuel storage. You could fill that space instead with strengthening honeycomb structure that would add to the service life of the aircraft significantly.

@benlewandowski163

9 ай бұрын

Cessna Citation X weighs 22,600lbs, fuel capacity - 13,000lbs. You could reinforce the wings and fuselage tremendously with less than 5,000lbs, the performance gain would be incredible. Drones could perform insane maneuvers pulling g’s never before seen. If this technology became available, and if it could produce that much energy, aircraft would become much much larger and likely use a different power source than our engines currently in use by all private and commercial aircraft. Aircraft engines have literally not changed in over 35 years. How is this possible? Honda accord 1985 to 2023 huge change.

Fusion has been just around the corner for at least 40 years!!!

19:15 very good point-- to get fusion power started, first you need to burn a huge wad of money lol! :D

fusion is (would be) so powerful, I am really surprised any piece of information went public about any related research

@Meteorknite

Жыл бұрын

You think it will stay secret when Russians were partying up with fusion fission fire works prev century

This is intriguing!

ERROR AT 3:24 The photograph conflicts with the text. While a B-52 was mentioned, the photograph does not show the B-52. Was the text supposed to say 'B-29' instead of 'B-52'?

At 3:25 your caption reads: "The B-36 made the B-52 look tiny," while the photograph is of a B-29 next to a B-36. The B-36 would still be larger than the B-52 however with a wingspan of 230 ft, compared to the B-52 wingspan of 185 ft., and both aircraft nearly equal in length at 162 / 160 ft respectively.

another good one thanks

I don't know how seriously they're looking into this, but this week, I've been hearing more about small fusion reactors meant for smaller applications with an eye toward commercialization and deployment within a decade, rather than 4 or 5. Either way, I'm actually glad about there being military applications for fusion technology. It means that some of the best funded engineers, thinkers, and production specialists might have the requisite funding to go after these projects in ways that even multinational science operations just never will. The ITER project is projected to cost $22b over many decades, even extreme high end critical estimates put it at $65b. That's not far off the price of just the US aircraft carriers currently being built today. And it's about the same as the annual total cost of operations for the US Navy today. If Lockheed or others come up with compelling military use cases for fusion and can convince people to fund it, that ultimately may be our best bet to getting to operational civilian fusion sooner.

This explains the Techincal notes in Defense publications the last year or two where the NGAD will have a pivoting head laser energy weapon to destroy incoming air to air, ground to air missles or soft ground targets. The contention was the energy consumption levels were not supported. Well, now.....this is REALLY a game changer.

Well, if there is going to be a sequel to "Top Gun Maverick" they better step up the pace on this fusion research.

Umm...at 3:25, there is a picture of two aircraft - the B-36 and and something else. The caption says "(The B-36 made the B-52 look tiny)", but the other aircraft pictured is NOT a B-52 (maybe a B-29?).

Now I can finally fly my jet while seeing my own hindbrain! Sweet!🥰

That would change fighters for sure. Unlimited power opens a lot of doors.

Most tech advancements people take for granted as common place such as the computer, radio, and GPS to name a few come from the necessity of military ingenuity and advancments.

this is awesome!

Been saying for many years that Fusion NEEDS to be our current "Man on the moon" program.

I was in the US Navy for 8 years, I had a security clearance. I am very sure fusion cold tech is already in our fleet.

@rogerfrost3793

10 ай бұрын

Yes. There are planes power by it.

Jet Propulsion Laboratories achieved a Beta Limit +1 fusion earlier this week. That means more energy than it took to get it. That’s a big effing deal.

3:28 I think you mean the B-36 made the B-29 look tiny, there is no B-52 in that photo

Thanks

"On a long enough timeline the DOD might spend itself out of a job" that's a surprisingly positive take on military news cus we always see militaries as killing machines to use on each other but solving the core problem that is conflict, makes militaries useless wow, that's a really great massage from a Military News channel very, unexpected to say the least I'm more used to "OUR MILITAY WILL BE THE BEST IN THE WORLD WITH THIS" not damn that's yeah, that ending line on Solving the world's energy problem making a lot of militaries obselete is, amazing that's a really different perspective to have a very hopeful one You just seriously have earned my respect that's a really cool way of putting it What good is defense if there aren't any enemies to defend from a great fuckin take

The question is, how far along are Lockhead is getting this device to work.

I think the B-52 much closer to the size of the B-36 than that B-29 in the photograph 3:26

From an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer, look up Salvatore Pais and his interview on theories of everything! He needs many more eyes seeing his work. It will be the future of transportation and energy

6:01 There are several theoretical passively cooled 5th generation designs including designs capable of reenergizing spent fuel to allow recycling.

Cool looking machines

Fusion is extremely potent and efficient, and also much more stable than fission, IMO.

nuclear power followed first a military application, then civilian, and it held most of the ideals that fusion supposed to bring but didn't. also the US navy has a similar patent.