Always happy to see Kyle. He's become more and more "himself" over the years since breaking with Because Science, and even though his overall tone is much more serious he still manages to do a great job highlighting just how cool science is, and it really gives him a chance to show his skills as a content producer. I prefer the less put-on, faux-wacky Kyle. He'd be an amazing documentary film maker if nothing else.

love waking up to ur reactions, ur unironically my favorite youtuber night now. I love all your insight on things and ur nerdy/geeky freakouts are so relatable! You've made incredible growth in the past few months, you deserve it!

@tfolsenuclear

9 ай бұрын

Thank you so much! I truly appreciate that!

@42pyroboy

9 ай бұрын

lyk wow u r the bestest

I really love your industry tidbits. Are you planning on further non-reaction videos? I would love to hear all you have to share!

I love your kyle hill videos. Happy to see more half life histories.

That is kind of mind blowing/terrifying that little bit of energy like 10% of what was there turned to energy and makes a big explosion to destroy entire city.

T. Folse, Remember Oppenheimer was trying to figure out how powerful this would be on paper with only an observance from a radio broadcast of a similar yet much smaller event.

btw the temp of the Sun at it's core is 25 million K. Helium fuses into carbon at 180 million K. As a general rule as the mass of the nuclei mass goes up so does the temp required to fuse it. There are a few exceptions at the lower end such as lithium which fuses at lower temps than hydrogen.

I love your content, continue!

Love these reaction videos. Request to do one from QXIR. He’s done a couple about nuclear incidents. His videos are short and sweet with some comedy sprinkled in.

@tfolsenuclear

9 ай бұрын

Thanks you for the suggestion!

I know he did not just say that he used to calculate the energy output of star wars weapons and doesn't expect us to expect a video on that?!?!!

I subscribed, your reactions are great and I can see your channel becoming huge in the future, all the best from another engineer and scientist, William.

Kyle hill takes people reacting to his content poorly, you might want to ask him first. But I am here for it especially to see how accurate you think he gets.

@marcinwitkowski217

9 ай бұрын

Could you elaborate more on this? I watch Kyle sometimes but I never heard or saw any commentaries to his vids, nor his reaction to them

@cameronhumphreys2309

9 ай бұрын

Never seen anything like that from him. The only thing remotely close to that was him reacting to that one video from Riddle straw manning his video on spam science. If he has expressed displeasure about react content I personally haven’t seen it. But I’m far from omnipotent so by all means, would love if you could provide an example.

@holderheck

9 ай бұрын

@@cameronhumphreys2309 I have only seen it a few months back on 2 different channels and i don't know if he still reacts the way he did then. I don't have the time in the day to comb comments from three months ago. at worst you will have to take it on faith i believe what i am saying i have seen.

@codyrhoades2388

9 ай бұрын

I have seen stuff like that. To elaborate, usually he says to please not react to the entire video so that people won't have a reason to go and watch the original.

@JusTryNc

2 ай бұрын

And he is suppose to care why? The man is giving us fact vs fiction! I trust this guy more than 90% of people on you tube

Well, my first thought to this question would be "can we use the inverse square law to disprove the domino effect of fusion, not to disprove itself, just that possibility of it creating exponential growth of energy from these rections.

Awesome videos keep it up!

Hello Tyler, I'd like to recommend you something really cool - a youtube maker by the name of Hyperspace Pirate has just released a video today documenting his project of building a cloud chamber; a device which utilizes supercooled alcohol vapor to visually detect ionizing radiation! The video's titled 'Seeing Radiation with the Naked Eye', and i firmly believe this is something you will love!

jfwiw- Just thought I'd give the stellar viewpoint. In low mass stars like the Sun Nitrogen plays a very minor role. The primary energy production in the core is that diagram shown in Kyle's video -called the PP I chain. There is a secondary cycle involving Nitrogen called the CNO cycle. With this one Nitrogen along with Carbon and Oxygen act as the nuclear equivalent of a catalyst that facilitates fusion of Hydrogen into Helium. For the Sun it's less than 2% contribution . However the CNO cycle is temperature dependent and in stars of 1.5 Solar masses it surpasses the PP I chain as the more efficient mechanism. There are other minor reactions- especially in later stages of evolution called the "s" process where a post iron seed nucleus can capture a neutron and beta decay into the next element. In massive stars that go boom (Supernovae) Nitrogen is also not a major player. The key fusion cycles are Hydrogen-Helium-Carbon-Oxygen-Neon-Magnesium-Silicon-Iron. The formation of the iron core heralds catastrophe. There are no reactions that liberate energy so the star collapses. In a process involving un-imaginable temps in the billions you have photodissociation of nuclei, productions of huge numbers on neutrinos and in a manner not clearly understood that implosion gets turned into an explosion that removes the outer layers leaving behind an ultra dense neutron or black hole core. Getting back to the video- like everything else involving the behavior of nuclei it's all statistical in nature. The probability of the reactions is very low as the paper Kyle cited but as it isn't zero...the rest follows. The description of the stellar reactions I discussed reflect the relative probabilities in stars. Incidentally the lowest probability is actually the first step -fusion of two protons to form Deuterium. That's the reason why current fusion research just simply doesn't even consider 1H1 as a starting point. btw-In the context of the 1940's this wasn't totally new but the details were not that well understood either.

Well on the positive side if you could ignite the atmosphere, they would have probably succeeded in fusion electricity generation by now.

Everytime i hear about atmospheric ignition all i can think of is the little doctor weapon from ender's game

So you’re telling me they were like “oh, by the way, this might end the world” and then “let’s find out!”

@moonlightsonata9396

9 ай бұрын

Basically. They went with the plan even though their calculations said that there might be a chance that the atmosphere would combust

@whyplaypiano2844

9 ай бұрын

The chance was basically zero. It's not like it was a 50/50 or even a 1/10000. Their graphs proved it was impossible with a 15-kiloton bomb. There isn't even enough air in our atmosphere to ignite in the first place...if that makes you feel any better.

He's running out of Sam O'Nella

@StorymasterQ

9 ай бұрын

I'm fine with it if he continues with more Science Thor.

Were there some links to something about strange matter that you were going to post here?

"I'm not going to set the world on fire......." - The Ink Spots

@slycooper1001

8 ай бұрын

🎶I don't want to set the world on fire, I just want to start a flame in your heart. 🎶 - The Ink Spots

If you were actually able to compress and heat some region of the atmosphere in the way they suggest, would that reaction be self-sustaining?

I wonder if that risk would be true, wouldn't biggest meteor strikes do something similar? They release far more energy than nuclear bombs. Although I am not sure if the density of energy would be as high.

bro is pulling out the youtube thumbnail metagame lmao

Dr Edward Teller was only half of the thermonuclear equation. You should not forget Yazislav Ulam.

You should definitely watch his halflife video about 3 mile island.

waiting for the samonella relapse

When we dance on the knifes edge like they where doing with the atomic bomb and LHC we are intentionally chasing the unknown. In statistics you deal with probability often at borders of our knowledge we often deal in possibility. When we don't know what will happen we must always consider what could happen. Its not that anything could happen but just what are the possible outcomes given our current understanding. The deeper our understanding the more fundamental the subject is to the structure of our universe the more poking the bear can result in extreme events. We where not trying to split the atom when we did we where studying radioactivity looking for the isotope that was revealed to be U 235. They where looking at Alpha decay chains and where just trying to make the isotope by shooting slow neutrons at Uranium when they checked they noticed some barium was produced. Its very unlikely for a discovery like that to ever happen again given just how much we understand now. Its still possible that with our experiments with fusion and our experiments with quarks we could stumble upon something that we did not intend to cause. The LHC discovery of the Higgs Boson is us just confirming our existing understanding we expected it. More of a confirmation then a discovery. That's kind of where we are with this kind of thing now. Our limits or our ability to observe now. Until something comes along that allows us to observe things that our beyond the current understanding we are just looking to test our current understanding not expand our understanding.

if it would have ignited the atmosphere, um...don't we all lose?

You should watch a video from John Oliver on nuclear waste

😮thats giga Jule math to tnt!?! In your head. Idk if that was supposed to be easy or something but damn was that impressive to me. Ether you do that type of measurement often, or you did that off the top of your head. Either way 👏

@tfolsenuclear

9 ай бұрын

It has come up a few times!

Wasn't this topic covered already?

this thumbnail lol

Are bomb pumped lasers possible?

@christopherleubner6633

4 ай бұрын

Yes they are. They use spaghetti like strands of selenium inside the radiation case. When the device fissions the gamma rays cause the selenium to be converted to highly excited ionized plasma before it even gets a chance to move by a fraction of a millimeter. The energy is so strong it emits in the x ray range and does not need mirrors to work. The device makes 24 beams of laser pointer like divergence with peak energy in the 200kJ range. Overall conversion of nuke to beam is beyond awful though, similar to argon ion laser efficiency and in a single shot 😂

How am I always so early?

It's not crazy it's just physics. I'd stand under a gini. 18k ft is 3 miles. A 2kT device at 3 miles is not terribly dangerous (even at a low yield/kg ie more fallout). Living 3mi from a highway is probably about as dangerous from an environmental exposure perspective.

One crucial fact that is completely fumbled by Kyle (and missed by you), is that *fusion* is not a chain reaction; Previous fusion reactions do not make triggers (neutrons in the case of fission) that make future fusion reactions more likely. The huge consequence of that is that if a fusion reaction did happen, it would just peter out as the initial explosion expands and cools adiabatically. Just the 1/r^2 law of things diminishing from distance, r, to a source tells you it will be quickly extinguished.

@jonored

Ай бұрын

Previous fusion reactions don't produce a trigger particle, but also don't require one to initiate, and the released energy absolutely does contribute to to the pressure and temperature needed to fuse more material. It's exactly analogous to, but with much higher threshold and energy output than, a chemical explosion like a detonation in that regard. The amount of fuel involved at any given spherical shell _also_ increases with r^2, so provided that an amount of fusion fuel can produce and transfer more energy to the next shell than it takes to initiate fusion in that next shell, it could propagate. It happens that it does lose too much energy to forms that will escape to a distance and as such it won't propagate, but it does take more than observing the one r^2 to conclude it. Basically, 1/r^2 doesn't help you when you're expanding into more fuel that's just as good as the last fuel, solid blocks of TNT are capable of detonation waves so you don't need the blasting cap to bring the whole volume to detonation conditions, and you need a different calculation than that to show that nitrogen at 2.75kg/m^3 can't support a fusion analogue of that process.

Day 17 of asking if Mr Folse likes beans even though he already answered

@mrcroob8563

9 ай бұрын

So quirky ecksdee

@Joan_Day

9 ай бұрын

What kind of beans? Baked, refried, red, black, green? I hope the answer to all is yes.

@Galatic_

9 ай бұрын

Hi

@AzillaKiami

9 ай бұрын

@@Joan_Dayyes

@sanctionh2993

9 ай бұрын

​@@Joan_DayEnglish Beans

Well on the other hand,.. calculations could be wrong, like in case of Castle Bravo,..

hello people

Hi there

.😢😊😊