This gives me hope we can bring more energy to more people and avoid brown outs. You are so clear and understandable for me. Thank you.

@ngcastronerd4791

2 жыл бұрын

If a fusion reactor becomes viable, it will replace "all" forms of power generation. It's the holy grail of electricity generation. For example, fusion energy would make desalinization plants viable, meaning no more water issues for many people on the globe. Cross your fingers

@Mernom

2 жыл бұрын

Brown outs are less a problem of generation, and more a problem of delviery.

@ngcastronerd4791

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mernom Rolling brown outs are a means to limit impacts of lack of generation. so it depends.

@stevenartuso3181

2 жыл бұрын

Power outages.

@joeboxter3635

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, I'm sure it will happen in 20 years.

First time I've seen your channel. Thank you so much for not being a TTS spam account. Liked. Subscribed. Commented. You deserve more attention than they do

Thank you for your video, not leading or sensational. I absolutely love the citations, and your ability to be topical upon the subject matter. You definitely have the abilities of a scientist "science-guy" if you will. Just saw you, and you deserve more attention and support from the community! Cheers.

I like the presentation style and from someone so young. It’s good to see fusion becoming feasible.

When raising the density, you lose the High confinement regime (H-mode) before the mentioned density limit (which happens ultimately in L-mode). If you lose the H-mode, fusion performance degrades considerably (the confinement time drops), so reactors like ITER do not gain anything with this "new discovery". Actually the power dependence on the L-mode density limit was previously known as the paper indicates, but again what is important is the H-L transition density threshold. One of the big problems in fusion is that we keep re-descovering things that were known.... Thanks for the work and enthusiasm though! Next time try to email some experts in the field ;)

@bazoo513

2 жыл бұрын

"One of the big problems in fusion is that we keep re-descovering things that were known...." in plasma physics, too? that's certainly the case in computer science... :o( And I agree about contacting experts - you can't make a good popular science article/video from other popular science items - one needs to dive deeper, with a guide...

@oshavlfarms7239

2 жыл бұрын

He's simplifying it but the transition limit (the important part) is what was raised. I think he explained it pretty well and didn't really deserve the condescension.

@GRANSETA

2 жыл бұрын

@@oshavlfarms7239 he didn't mentioned at all the H to L transition. He mentioned the disruptive limit in L mode only. In practice if you raise the density, the confinement and the triple product drops a lot before disrupting, so you cannot just double the triple product since the confinement time goes down. Thus it does not matter too much where the disruptive limit is, but where the transition to low confinement is with density

@oshavlfarms7239

2 жыл бұрын

@@GRANSETA that's what you're talking about, and the transition is not what he's talking about.... And from the abstract the paper isn't talking about the transition either. Is there a knock-on effect with the transition? Maybe, but that's secondary in this discussion.

@GRANSETA

2 жыл бұрын

@@oshavlfarms7239 Indeed he is not talking about it, and that is exactly my problem with the video. Imagine you want to increase the density, then two distinct limits appear 1) The plasma losses the H-mode (transition to L-mode). And then the triple product decreases considerably (but there is no disruption). 2) You reach the Greenwald density limit and the plasma disrupts (all plama energy and control is lost). The paper and video focus in 2 and do not discuss 1. But the point is that if limit-1 is crossed before limit-2, it does not matter where limit 2 is. So the "new" discovery (which in my opinion is formalizing a bit better what is known), does not improve future reactors unless you move limit 1 also further, which is the claim of the video. Note that in the paper they are very careful not saying that "fusion will be easier to access". The benefit of the power dependence, is that if you accidentaly fall into L-mode, you have more safety margin to the disruptive limit :) By the way, I think also that he went to far with the title to obtain more views...

The laws of physics do not need to be rewritten. Our capabilities of building a better plasma confinement field have improved slightly. As far a fusion reactors are concerned, bigger is always better from an efficiency standpoint. The Sun is spectacularly inefficient at generating fusion energy but it is overwhelmingly huge in size and that is what counts. What we are trying to build on Earth is a machine that will duplicate conditions at the core of the Sun but with even greater heat and pressure to compensate for inefficiency losses due to the relatively small scale. Since heat to boil water to run generating turbines is the ultimate goal, efficiency losses due to heat leakage can be counted on the positive side of the power output equation. The trick is confining enough energy to allow a continuous fusion process to be maintained. Finally, fusion reactors are best suited to maintaining base load levels of power, running at a constant output. Nuclear fission reactors will still be needed to provide the power to start up and maintain fusion reactors and the fluctuating demands will need to be dealt with by hydroelectric, solar, wind, and coal fired power plants.

@comet.x4359

Жыл бұрын

renewables also can't really deal with fluctuating demand without batteries. So we're going to need some pretty extreme high power storage near the reactor , my bet being mechanical power storage either through weights or flywheel (probably weights with pullys) because as nice as chemical storage is, lithium ion batteries aren't great for clean energy. Also lithium itself is limited, whilst mechanical storage with weights can be made mostly of concrete and steel, and maybe lead weights

I've always wondered..If the reaction has the potential to get 5X hotter than the core of the sun, wouldn't the entire reactor simply melt?

@macgyver5108

Жыл бұрын

You asked... 0:43 the key component is stated, "electromagnetic force" is what governs the entire _universe_ down to sub-atomic particles. Massive superconductive electromagnets that are controlled by predictive AI to shape the containment fields can confine that tremendous heat because _heat_ is just another form of radiation, same as light or even radio waves. Radiation can be controlled all kinds of crazy ways, including as Einstein predicted with large enough gravity wells around stars like our Sun, by 'bending light' coming from stars on the far side of our Sun as it passes through the gravity well close to the Sun and before reaching Earth. Use a solar telescope setup to "chart" both the shapes and positions of star constellations right next to the Sun and the stars aren't where they _"should"_ be! Where their lights shine 11 months out of the year! Light _IS_ heat, just find a magnifying glass and some ants on a sunny day, same with radio waves which can be used to either transmit music or voice comms at lower frequency wavelengths or at really short wavelengths can be used to boil the water in food using a Microwave oven. Magnetism can confine or block that kind of energy just like the Earth's magnetosphere does in our upper atmosphere combining with different gasses up there blocking most Solar plasma charges that hit us, from CME's Coronal Mass Ejections and EMP's Electromagnetic Pulses, turning that plasma literally into the giant "Polar Neon lights" we call the Northern Lights. Check out this short clip on a magnetic principle called Lenz's Law that'll _REALLY_ blow your freakin mind! 🤯 kzread.info/dash/bejne/gGuoq8twYZCnmqQ.html

I can't wait till we hear that we got 10% extra power from what we put in a fusion engine! Obviously that's not much but it's a huge step regardless, but when it happens it'll be big.

@joebloggs4369

2 жыл бұрын

More power out than in, is at least 100 years away. The sensationalist headlines excludes the huge amount of power needed to get the actual tokamak running.

@hungrylion8703

2 жыл бұрын

@@joebloggs4369 kzread.infovideos

@russhamilton3800

2 жыл бұрын

You can't even count on them to tell you what breakeven actually is but it ain't 10 percent by a long shot. At the projection for ITER of 50 in and 500 out, it will fall short of net export of power by about 100MW. If it could produce power that is, but it can't.

@russhamilton3800

2 жыл бұрын

@@joebloggs4369 yep, they only count the power added to the fuel...smdh

@SpencerHHO

Жыл бұрын

The fact that you can produce more energy from fusion in the plasma than the energy required to produce plasma fusion is in itself a breakthrough that was thought may be impossible not that many years ago. We need to remember we aren't trying to replicate the sun, we're trying for something much harder, working fusion power at much lower pressures and density of matter. It took 100 years for solar power to become economically useful from the very first solar cell we're still short of that in terms of timelines even if it's still decades away. Unfortunately overhyping each minor breakthrough and step sets people up for disappointment but it doesn't mean we should stop or give up hope. The potential from fusion is so huge that it's worth the risk of failure and decades of time and money.

thanks for not dumbing down the science too much. too many videos on fusion seem to be more concerned with selling the idea of fusion rather than get into the gritty details of how fusion reactors actually work.

@alihenderson5910

Жыл бұрын

They don't!

@LordOfNihil

Жыл бұрын

@@alihenderson5910 well they do fusion reactions. but i mean there is a reason its not called a super free energy device.

Thanks for being normal, informative, concise and non-clickbait. Unlike 90% on this topic. Subbed.

@ZirothTech

2 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed the video! Thanks for the kind comment :D

There are several reasons why a DT fusion reactor will never be built. The tritium dilemma highlighted in one comment is one, and here one should realise that the lithium needs to be isotopically enriched to raise the Li-6 percentage appreciably up from its natural level of 7.5%, while in any case the tritium in a hot environment cannot be prevented from diffusing into the structure and being lost. My main comment is that there is no way a reactor can be built without testing components in a 14Mev neutron environment, and this cannot be done without access to a fusion reactor - a lovely example of Catch-22.

@russhamilton3800

2 жыл бұрын

Can assumptions about that be derived from what JET did? Another barrier and show stopper is the limit of what can be produced. Though fusion proponents are fond of saying things about unlimited power, it's just not true. Any fusion reactor will have a price tag and a finite amount of power it can put into the grid. I see nothing that could be described as either cheap or plentiful.

@wowalamoiz9489

Жыл бұрын

@@russhamilton3800 I think it would be better to dig three kilometres bores everywhere using hydroevacuative drills, and produce energy from the heat of the Eartg converting groundwater flowing into the bores to steam.

@helgefan8994

Жыл бұрын

@@russhamilton3800 The argument you heard regarding "unlimited power" does not refer to unlimited power from one or more fusion power plants. Instead it means that the _fuel resources_ on earth are _practically unlimited_ unlike fossil fuel resources. If economical fusion power plants can actually be built in the future, the reactor components will get radio-active over time and need to be decommissioned after running for several decades. Fortunately that radioactivity would be relatively short-lived, so the components could be repurposed after another 50 years or so. I do still see a future for commercial power from fusion reactors (mainly tokamaks or stellarators), if our civilization keeps supporting the research and doesn't decline too quickly in the coming decades.

@xenuno

Жыл бұрын

@@helgefan8994 The materials not only get radioactive, but also suffer loss of desirable properties, such as strength. Neutrons disrupt crystalline metal lattices in the same way radiation disrupts DNA. Expect commercials reactors, if controlled fusion can ever get that far, to have frequent and possibly lengthy shutdowns for just this reason.

Very well explained !

Nice vid dude. Looks like that first class degree at Exeter really set you up for success!

Amazing video!! Excited to see where Demo goes..

The greenwall limit was broken nearly a decade ago with HTS... Well sort of. The Green wall limit is also based on the maximum magnetic flux, and it was believed until 2011 to be fixed, but then a new type of HTS was developed that increased it quite a bit.

I see you’ve mastered the art of fusion CGI.

Thanks for the update! I really like that you keep the level of sensation in your titles at a reasonable and defensible level, and how you explain the scientific background. Keep it like that please! However, one question: 3:49 isn't it rather that, with a temperature gradient, the density is higher on the cooler (low-pressure) side? I'm thinking about the ideal gas law. Or are there other relations for plasma?

@Canucklug

2 жыл бұрын

From what I've heard the proposed dynamic is that adding density to the fuel cools the edge, which mixes into the plasma interior. Because plasma conductivity reduces with lower temperature this disrupts the current flowing which causes the plasma to lose stability. With higher power in the plasma outer layer the cooling disruption is resisted. I think the power may primarily initiate from the plasma center itself as with ITER aiming at a plasma Q > 10 it passes the point where the majority of the heating of the plasma comes from the fusion reaction itself

@human_isomer

2 жыл бұрын

@@Canucklug ok, but that's actually supporting my assumption that density is higher in the cold region.

@gastonpossel

Жыл бұрын

I don't think ideal gas law applies to plasma, as it neither apply in other border regions of matter

@human_isomer

Жыл бұрын

@@gastonpossel Absolutely possible the IGL doesn't apply here, or just in a strongly modified version. However, density should still be higher on the cooler side, otherwise the fusion reactors wouldn't need compressing magnetic fields for the sun-hot plasma. Agree?

@gastonpossel

Жыл бұрын

@@human_isomer I think you are a bit confused. The very point of the confinement fields is to make the gas hotter and denser, so to maximize chances of fusion. Just like in a turbine, compressing a given amount of gas will increase its kinetic energy density, thus increasing its temperature. If you stop the compression method, the gas will cool, expand, and equalize to the temperature and pressure of its surroundings.

this guy knows his stuff.

Yeah what physics law was rewritten? I'd be interested to know.

great news! makes it hopefully also more viable to get Net output, only think i am wondering the extra heating needed to keep the plasma warm will the imput needed lower then the efficiency we get out during the energy extraction phase. I am sure that building this extra heating will require more energy.

A video about SPARC would be good. 💪💪

People have been wasting research money for many years while promising that fusion was just 10 years away.

Much better than the reactors we have today

Practical commercial fusion power production has always seemed to be 30 years away. LFTRs and walk away safe 4th gen fission reactors could be here in short order.

@kalliste23

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. Fusion is a boondoggle convenient for looting the taxpayer. I'm in my 60s and it's been 30 years away my entire life. Actually when I was younger it was supposedly less than that but it became less convincing with every passing failure so they need to push it further out or people might start to notice the piles of burning money.

@AltumNovo

2 жыл бұрын

they''ll be here within 5 years

@kalliste23

2 жыл бұрын

@@AltumNovo you made me laugh out loud. What's even more hilarious is you're probably serious.

@AltumNovo

2 жыл бұрын

@@kalliste23 educate yourself

4:00 Why is the plasma chamber profile shaped like that in the first place? It seems like if you decrease the area to perimeter ratio, that energy gradient wouldn’t be as drastic.

thank you :)

What about the problem of cyclicity? What do you do when all the Deuterium and tritium is "burned"

thought this was clickbait, but it wasn't so good job

I love your explanation thanks dear. But how do to know these things.

Just in time for more funding! Yay fusion(research) is saved! Pensions are still a go, no power though...

Qtotal > Qplasma Qtotal is what matters, we are not even close.

also they cant explode like a fission reactor. the plasma inside cools instantly the moment the reactor's hull is punctured.

@comet.x4359

Жыл бұрын

the reaction doesn't make explosions it's the steam. remember, nuclear reactors are just very complicated steam boilers. The steam is the part that goes bang in a nuclear reactor, which then carries out all the nasty stuff made in a meltdown and throws radioactive stuff everywhere. This will still probably use steam, so yes it will still be able to explode. We won't get nasty things like fallout and corium though!

@thomasa5722

Жыл бұрын

@@comet.x4359 no the danger for fission nuclear reactions is a meltdown or explosion due to run away reactions and it’s nuclear by products. Fusion does not have this problem, when fusion fails it simply damages the reactor. No massive contamination of surrounding area if there’s a failure.

What i dont really get is why they dont make a section of the ring get smaller perpetually which would allow the plasma to compress under the extreme force of the electromagnets and creating a more confined area of fusion that can more easily get its energy harvested ( basically like the doughnut shape but smaller at one half than the other)

@Gomlmon99

Жыл бұрын

Smaller reactor means greater energy diffusion from the plasma, so less efficient

@erlinuraj2694

Жыл бұрын

@@Gomlmon99 oh i didnt know that thank you

@gigipickaknee1943

Жыл бұрын

Yeah for sure!

I have seen several videos on nuclear fusion, but I haven't seen any that talk about how to extract the energy created.

What about the tritium dilemma? How will nuclear fusion ever be economically feasible if the fuel necessary for the reaction is so rare and expensive? 😟

@ZirothTech

2 жыл бұрын

This is a great point, definitely something I want to make a video about!

@hungrylion8703

2 жыл бұрын

@@ZirothTech kzread.infovideos

@weirddudes5543

2 жыл бұрын

IIRC the main idea is to use lithium to breed more tritium for use in the reactor -which when hit by neutrons splits into helium and tritium. And since neutrons are a byproduct of H2-H3 fusion that normally require heavy shielding. It makes sense to use it to at the very least lower the amount of tritium needed to sustain the reaction. Edit: not entirely sure about whether it's li-6 or li-7

@royslapped4463

2 жыл бұрын

@@weirddudes5543 That won't produce enough. you need beryllium too apparently

@zblus

2 жыл бұрын

@@weirddudes5543 I'm just getting these numbers from the internet, but... even if all necessary tritium is supplied through lithium breeding, it seems, that only works while the reaction is running. So externally supplied tritium will still be required for the startup process. "The Chinese Fusion Experimental Test Reactor (CFETR) is expected to demonstrate full breeding capability but will still require a start-up inventory of 2-3 kg when it begins operation in 2035" Also, the International Nuclear Fusion Research's DEMO powerplant is expected to require ~20kg. Which would cost $600million at $30,000/g of tritium. So even just the startup process, of this nuclear fusion power plant, will cost more than all the electricity that an average nuclear (fission) power plant makes in an entire year, at ~$500 million worth.

We have plenty of nuclear reactors working for decades. You need to use the term FUSION reactor, which has NOT been working anywhere yet at positive efficiencies.

Area in the ring? As in Cross sectional area?

nice

Super interesting, can't wait till fusion becomes commercially viable

This is the nearest we are to actual futuristic stuff

Hang on. Is Helium-3 not a viable replacement for Tritium?

I did some looking and I found this. I think this means the ITER is not obsolete. Source from the SCIENCE TIMES. I love science but I am just a layman with heavy emphasis on the "lame" part of that word. Here is the quote: "The latest research shows that the ITER tokamak can operate with hydrogen volume twice the original capacity, generating more fusion energy than previous calculations."

Are you telling me the big breakthrough is that scientists finally considered the idea of heating the walls of the plasma confinement chamber? Seems embarrassingly obvious that the plasma would be cooler at the edges, the further out you go from the super-critical center (or w/e). Doesnt this require even more energy?

@anandsuralkar2947

Жыл бұрын

yeah this is grossly oversimplified and theres no breakthrough Javier explained above

Well when I see it working the I will believe

At 3:53ish you state that cold plasma is less dense than hot plasma. Gas wants to expand when heated. The same amount of matter wants to decrease its density by occupying more area. If it can't, there's a build up in pressure and potential energy. There is more movement, friction, and heat being generated as the pressure increases leading up to a catastrophic runaway event. Anyways...

Why isnt the Reaktor just smelting away if its this hot inside ?

Several Problems, First the Net Q energy release was only compared to the energy needed for the massive laser or Q Plasma, it did not include the energy (Q Total) required to run the actual reactor which has massive electromagnets and all kind of conduction systems. Also all that was produced was heat, not actual energy, they are extrapolating the heat produced into the electricity it could produce, which is another entire energy requiring process. And also the Tritium is really rare and we do not have quantities at Scale and Scope and to manufacture Tritium requires enriched Lithium-6, not a fun substance to have around. There is only 25Kg of Tritium on Earth for reactor start up, just the ITER start up alone will use 20 Kg. The Lithium blankets theory is just that, it has not been proven experimentally yet. This is all Hopium Squared

“Breakthroughs” in nuclear fusion have been occurring since 1956, when the Zeta reactor made the front-page headlines.

The number one problem to overcome gravity, the new fab hydrogen can be made by using nuclear reactors the byproducts are oxygen and heavy water which can be stored until fusion energy is possible. What is the safety factor for a fusion reactor and does it emit radiation when it fails so if it explodes what is the danger to people and environment.

@zeitgeistzebra

2 жыл бұрын

I don't understand your first sentence; I don't think gravity is much of a consideration in fusion plasmas. The safety factor (called q) ranges from 0 to infinity at the separatrix of a diverter fusion plasma, but it doesn't mean what you would think. It's the ratio of number of poloidal and toroidal passes for a magnetic surface, which indicates something about 'stability'. Tokamaks emit neutron radiation when active, but are neutron radiation shielded. If a disruption event occurs, the fusion and neutron radiation immediately cease, so danger to public is very minimal.

@assarstromblad3280

Жыл бұрын

As far as I know, a fusion reactor can not explode. If something goes wrong, the plasma cools and reactions stop, and then radiation also stops.

@zeitgeistzebra

Жыл бұрын

@@assarstromblad3280 it's called a disruption event, and there are a few types of them. They're not exactly explosions, but are still chaotic and violent depositions of energy. Major disruptions are serious and can break vessel walls, leaking neutron radiation until the plasma cools down. Granted it cools down fast, but a fat burst of neutron radiation can come out anyway and kill scientists or diagnosticians or whoever nearby. Major disruptions are more serious the larger your tokamak is, so ITER has to try to eliminate them entirely. Still FAR safer than a major disruption at a fission plant.

@assarstromblad3280

Жыл бұрын

@@zeitgeistzebra True, but I guess any responsible facility would have thick walls to shield fron that radiation as much as possible, and have none super close to the reactor while it is running. At least it is less of a problem than a fission plant going bad

@zeitgeistzebra

Жыл бұрын

@@assarstromblad3280 There is a lot of consideration for the neutron radiation shielding, but one of the larger issues is that the neutrons are how we intend to extract energy (the alpha particles to be used to continuously heat the plasma). Thus the neutron shielding has to be in several layers, and disruptions can break a smaller layer more easily and leak to other plant components. If vacuum is broken and the plasma equalizes with air, there will be airborne neutron radiation to deal with.

Now only 29 years away!

Even doubling the energy output will not allow fusion to come close to engineering breakthrough. All the talk is about the contrived "scientific breakthrough" which LLNL claims to have accomplished with NIF a few times (out of who knows how many tries in between), but still remains unverified by an independent source. NIF results do not seem to be reproducible on demand and remain a factor of a 1000 away from engineering breakeven - what we all used to call breakeven and is the breakeven that counts for generating net energy. I think 40 years is still generous.

I'm hoping the safire project makes progress, that and focus fusion

You didn't say when the Demo? Varient would be completed and hence how far away possible Thermo nuclear power might be if successful. You indicated you'd do that?

Why is it that 2 months after you published this the news has not been made widely available to the public. Might it be because it is not true?

Good explanation, thanks. It's hard to know how many years off viable commercial fusion is, however the question is can net energy fusion be realized, be built out in power plants & competitively priced vs. fossil fuels in time to avert a hot house Earth? It seems clear we're short on time, requiring geo-engineering to cool the Earth until the transition is complete & carbon levels drop to safe levels.

@markburton5292

Жыл бұрын

or we could us fission reactors now, new reactors are really a lot safer then old ones. People are just unreasonably scared of them.

@worldcomicsreview354

Жыл бұрын

@@markburton5292 AND they already work.

@alihenderson5910

Жыл бұрын

Greta is lying to you. So are these modern day alchemists. It's all about the funding.$$$$$$$$

@Nine-Signs

Жыл бұрын

To all in this thread, we have a collapsing ecology due to massive overconsumption of raw resources now running at 30 billion tons of materials a year beyond the planet's 50 billion max that ever had a hope to be sustained, due to capitalisms demand for perpetual growth on a finite world that results in a doubling of energy and materials over 33yr periods as it has done since the birth of the industrial revolution to this day, in order for return on investment to be satisfied. How does a fusion reactor solve that... Rapid climate change is not the primary driver of the collapse of this world's ability to support complex organized life at scale, the massive consumption of raw resources demanded by capitalism is what is decimating the ecology and the perpetual growth of goods and services from those raw resources, again as demanded by capitalism, is what is also driving rapid climate change. The earth is a closed system with a finite resource base. The laws of thermodynamics are very clear on why it is generally a biblically stupid idea to use the process within that closed system that makes the mess (capitalism) to produce processes to clean up the mess you are making (renewables, fusions, EV). Trying to use technology to make perpetual growth capitalism compatible with the immutable physics of a finite world is akin to putting on our best running shoes in effort to run up an ever-increasing landslide. Sure we will make it a little further than without the technofix shoes but make no mistake, nature will bury us via physics in play eventually. Until the peoples of this world have a radically different, smaller, more localised way of life beyond capitalism, nothing we do will matter.

@alihenderson5910

Жыл бұрын

@@Nine-Signs Bono's on it, don't worry.

Jeremy Clarkson's rule at its best: it only needs more power!

@ZirothTech

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly 😂

for triple effiency. why not have two extra plasma generators build. and connect them paralel synchronized.

When will we have fusion power we can use? In about twenty years. That was nearly sixty years ago.

First - thank you to this channel and to KZread for not handing me more clickbait redigested content recommendations for a change. Second, I love the science, and it's important science. But... in the real world, well I guess if you love your monopolistic coal and fission powered utility with big expensive centralized generation facilities... I guess you're just going to be absolutely smitten by your monopolistic utility with big expensive centralized fusion generation facilities.

@ZirothTech

2 жыл бұрын

Glad you liked the content! I agree there are many issues with monopoly type energy generation and supply networks - however due to economies of scale it can lead to cheaper energy overall! I think we need a blend of local renewable generation and large clean energy sources - but that is not an easy job!

@47f0

2 жыл бұрын

@@ZirothTech - Sigh. We all want a silver bullet - one magic pill to cure everything. As you suggest, this is a piece of the puzzle. An important piece, but a piece nonetheless. Another important piece is social. KZread is partly to blame. A viewer has to suffer through a lot of bad channels - old science, bad science, non science - to find one good channel. The signal to noise ratio is not favorable, and KZread does not care about accuracy or quality as long as they get clicks and avoid copyright issues. And because wishful thinking is easier than actual thinking, a "Nikolai Tesla Free Energy!!!" channel can get half a million subs, while an actual science channel may get 50k subs... ... and those "Free Energy" people vote. And they tend to vote for politician who are "relatable", I.E. as dumb as they are are. Politicians who end up making choices about science budgets, energy policy, public transportation, healthcare... And that's another piece of the puzzle. Because public policy may be a more intractable problem to solve then bottling a piece of the Sun.

@hungrylion8703

2 жыл бұрын

@@ZirothTech kzread.infovideos

to dlaczego nie są stosowane?

I'm totally ok with the collateral technology and science developed in the adventure of a fusion reactor but we need to accept that gravity is free considering the fusion process in the sun. However the developments of fusion reactor requires more and more energy to sustain the the plasma for fusion. Another thing not considered is even if the energy balance in the reaction could be solved, it needs to be high enough to compensate all the energy used by the utilities and than we can start talk about it as a source of energy

So? How will u withdraw electrons from it because obviously you can't use the high temperatures subatomic particles from to generate mechanical energy. Unless u can generate a much higher magnetic field from de fusion reaction. Otherwise it's a really big waste of resources.

I was havin a beer or 2 last night and i think i had solved the density and cooling issue,however when i woke up the next morning none of my equations i wrote down make any sense . If i stay drunk i got this

The well-known and reputable developers of a commercial fusion reactor do not know or understand how to make a commercial fusion reactor. The proof? 70 years of no result! If they knew, they would have done it in three years.

Does Jupiter have tritium?

As long as all of the many issues surrounding the development and production of this different way of producing nuclear energy is addressed and solved before it is industrially used as an acceptable power source, we should be ok. Definitely want a proven safe working model in preference to anything experimental, especially when going down this road.

It was strictly speaking not a law but a mathematical model. We now have new data, so it's re-write of the model not the laws of physics.

@ZirothTech

2 жыл бұрын

This is exactly right, but didn't sound as good for the title 😅

Now I actually starts to belive its 50 years away, but basicly it will not happen untill they become small, soo every university can build them and experiment on them.

Is the energy produced heat or electric energy?

@ZirothTech

Жыл бұрын

Heat! Some reactors should be using the heat to generate electricity soon (hopefully!)

Explain how Demo with convert this heat to electricity, even if the amount of energy to contain the plasma is less than the amount produced, the heat generated by the reaction is mostly radiant? So how much of it is not contained by the bottle? How much of the millions of degrees are waisted? Boiling water to turn turbines is a very old technology. Something more efficient?

@JrCo96

Жыл бұрын

The energy produced is carried as kinetic energy of the Helium and neutron. Both give it as heat through collisions with the wall and the breeding blanket. The efficiency of electricity production is 30-40%. The hear could be also used in cogeneration (heating, H2 production, industry applications etc.)

💯👍👍👍

👍

Why couldn't ITER be upgraded with new superconducting magnets and better plasma heaters

DEMO won't see the light of day IMO. Technology has rapidly increased since the conception of ITER and DEMO, HTS magnets, AI, supercomputers with the power to do much more detailed plasma simulation all didn't exist when this was designed. It's akin to wanting to build a huge TV screen and chosing to make a gigantic CRT that takes 4 decades to build, in the meantime LEDs (including eventually blue LEDs) and flat panel technology made that decision redundant. I feel one of those 40 plus companies is going to crack the aneutronic direct conversion pulsed fusion reactor before ITER even demonstrates break even. ITER will end up being a very large physics lab, and sure we're going to learn a lot about magnetically confined plasmas but ultimately the problems associated with high energy neutrons will scupper the whole idea anyway.

So we can safely say it will be commercially available in about 20 to 30 years? Thought so.

So we can make stars now? Cool.

wtf are the captions at the beginning?

Mi mochila reator del futuro que volaba por nueva york

And when will DEMO be realised? Will that be 30 years away in 3022?

Damn... dude is a hottie!!! Gotta love brains and beauty....

@alihenderson5910

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps we could some of that heat into er, no forget it.

iron mans reactor in the first film. doc ocks tritium for his perpetual sun. who woulda thought lol

Theory guides but experiment decides. I'll take an empirically derived formula over mathematical modelling any day.

@ZirothTech

2 жыл бұрын

That is a great expression, I will be using that in future! I definitely agree, however this new theory will help plan ahead for very high powered reactors we can't experiment on before they are built - I am sure the reactor won't be able to reach the exact theoretical limit, but I imagine it will be between it and the Greenwald experimental limit! Thanks for the comment

@hungrylion8703

2 жыл бұрын

@@ZirothTech kzread.infovideos

That is why the UFO spaceship is a donut.

just use ammonia. separate the hydrogen and the nitrogen, and inject the hydrogen with electrons and the liquid nitrogen with protons. then fuse them together again at a temp of 3000 kelvin.the fusion will be stable

A consider deception to boil water for to transform energy If we consider clever must get the energy we need directly

one advice maybe. not upgrade. just maybe as in philosphy. seeing a plasma generator as 1 AAA battery. then another generator can be seen as a second AAA battery and the output can be connected as such.

Microwaves make dense plasma for tokamaks.

@alihenderson5910

Жыл бұрын

And baked potatoes.

the sun gets a whole lot of many things from many different sources to keep it going. how do we then try to duplicate the sun

Just like every other damned one if these I have ever read. I should have known better. It's the, we discovered this important thing--but it has no impact now for whatever reason.

why do they make the reactors so big? for experimentation wouldn't it make more sense and save money to make them small?

@nommy8599

2 жыл бұрын

I don't know exactly but probably the same reason the most efficient combustion engines are the largest ones. I've heard id described as economy of scale, but basically larger things can be made more efficient. Say you need 10 signal wires, they use significant space on a model car but negligible on a massive ship engine. The bigger it is the better you can use the space. Fusion reactors are hugely compex and seeming benefit similarly and in the end efficiency is what determines if you get out more than you put in.

@emanate0

2 жыл бұрын

@@nommy8599 yeah i guess that makes sense, thanks

@JrCo96

Жыл бұрын

Essentially bigger plasma volume means better confinement i.e the ions must travel a longer way before escaping.

@emanate0

Жыл бұрын

@@JrCo96 hey thanks for that explanation i think i understand a little more now

@JrCo96

Жыл бұрын

@@emanate0 No prob. If you got any other question about fusion feel free to hit me up :)

I always hear these compared to the sun's fusion, but to me it's more like a plants chloroplast in design. If it was under pure distilled water, and was fed c02 also, you may be able to Fuze glucose with magnetic induction to prove this. Hydrogen fuzes into helium by the way Naturally, but other things Fuze also, it just depends on magnetics, with all these subatomic and supercharged atomic particles and molecules flying around, they attach to each other where it makes sense. I think carbon for instance is such a stable molecular structure that instead of fuzing into a different element, it creates crystal patterns under heat and pressure fuzing into diamond. Some of the things they consider "fuel" are really by-products of fusion and more like exhaust, like plasma, helium, tritium, magnetic Flux, all are exhaust... Inside its just magnetic induction pushing a mercury ball which starts to Fuze through magnetic induction with hydrogen that's present atmospherically in the reactor, or introduced on purpose from a compressed tank, not sure which. It's not like a car engine where it's carbon in carbon out, instead it is hydrogen in, helium out, using mercury as a fuel/catalyst.

@kylegresham2144

2 жыл бұрын

Tritium and deuterium (both isotopes of hydrogen) are the fuels.

Lemme guess.... 20 years away?

nuke a f-bomb, if you think about breath throughs, but electrostatic 5MeV linear particle accelerators (colliders), ie, D-D fusion, along the pinch path, and at the collision fuel (D-gas) plate, like copper tube or plate chamber, is really simple

@Jkauppa

Жыл бұрын

all is possible, how much water is needed to fully absorb all the energy from a small payload h-nuke, each water kg will absort x amount of MJ, heat of boiling

@Jkauppa

Жыл бұрын

think a h-bomb as a instant hot-water pill, like if you would be pouring CaO into water, reacting with it to make hot water

@Jkauppa

Жыл бұрын

93000 cubic meters of water, or 93*10^6 kg, or 45x45x45m volume of water, to absorb 210TJ of h-nuke energy, from a 50 kilotons thermonuclear weapon

Hmmm current Fusion reactors are 1% efficient in terms of absolute energy production. So while positive, this step forward doesn’t really progress matters very far. The current 70% claim is highly misleading, only used by those seeking more funding for fusion reactors.

@Canucklug

2 жыл бұрын

This may change much faster than seems possible for a few reasons. To start with current tech, the JET reactor uses copper magnets that burn energy, something like an additional 2/3rds over what a superconducting magnet tokamak would use, so the energy use is about 3x less for future reactors. Then high temperature superconductors allow the magnetic field to increase by 70% over ITER's magnets, increasing power by 10x for a given size. This leads to a peer reviewed prediction that the ARC reactor design could produce net electricity with the smaller SPARC tokamak aiming for about total energy breakeven before 2030. Then there's a new simulation prediction that high powered tokamaks will be able to double density as this video reports. Notably I believe this would double pressure and quadruple power which goes by pressure squared - enabling commercial scale tokamaks to look like they can produce at a competitive price if all goes well. This we find out in about 10-15 years... luckily there are many other fusion projects going on to keep the fans entertained

@marcusoutdoors4999

2 жыл бұрын

@@Canucklug One of my team is a non exec for a UK fusion project. You’re definitely right that containment improvements are happening and will make a difference. However I’m depressed by the ITER project and frankly the whole approach of Western academia which to me is anti-innovation as funding goes to mature safe bet researchers. New thinkers in their 20s simply aren’t being backed. Worse still we’re measuring the wrong things, I.e. not telling it like it is and showing both the total energy in/out, but also the time and cost of build. My view is big physics has become comfortable fur lined rut for the unambitious who can enjoy a well paid life long career achieving little. This compares starkly with the rapid progress being made by Elon Musk’s team at SpaceX and the efforts of the Chinese. I think you may be right on the 10-15 years but it won’t be from the West, it will be achieved in the East as the recent era of low interest rates resulting in governments and investors raining money on fools with go commercial drive will end. A bleak assessment I know, but I’m in me early 50s and I’m appalled by the lack of progress on Fusion and New Nuclear, Europe, the UK and the US seem to be a strategy free zone when it comes to energy security, the current Fusion projects are token efforts, while China and even the Middle East are quickly bringing reactors on line.

@NihilistAlien

Жыл бұрын

@@marcusoutdoors4999 yeah china. You know, the country who rely on coal and stealing other countries ip and making poor version of it

@alihenderson5910

Жыл бұрын

@@marcusoutdoors4999 The west has an energy strategy and you're not going to like it.

@marcusoutdoors4999

Жыл бұрын

@@alihenderson5910 Well right now we’re involved with both fusion and fission projects, hydrogen and also hydro projects and as far as I can see the UK and the rest of the West is living in a strategy free, sound bite zone.

You never gave an opinion on if it's closer than 30 year away

@russhamilton3800

2 жыл бұрын

It is closer than 30 years away, and always will be.

we still are 30 years away... don't know if we have so much time with so many incompetent and corrupt in positions of power...

@NihilistAlien

Жыл бұрын

We should have started that in the 1970

@gwills9337

Жыл бұрын

When I was in highschool we were still on the "FUSION NEVER" funding timeline. Nothing's changed it seems

SAFIRE/AUREON reactor(s).

@NihilistAlien

Жыл бұрын

Sauron?

So the solution was ... MO POWA BABY ? #Donutmedia

@alihenderson5910

Жыл бұрын

Dam, I was gonna do that.lol.

Can't We just run Newclear Reactor on Big Rubberbands? They work good on My Balsa Wood Planes.