I plan on uploading content about science, technology, history and comedy. Then again, as Dwight D. Eisenhower said: "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything"
So you don't believe in the laws of Thermodynamics. A gas cannot spontaneously condense due to its own gravity. That would be doing work upon itself. KZread/ Stuart Talbott: Wal Thornhill on impossible star/ Thunderbolts project
@thomassassen91744 сағат бұрын
YEAH !! The TOKAMAK is a MOCK-ATTACK !! 🤐🤨
@TheSwiftCreek24 сағат бұрын
If I had an issue with fusion power, it's that the big money seems to go to projects that WE KNOW WON"T WORK. The Tokomak done right, even if it eventually gets appropriate gain and manages to catch enough neutrons, still has the problem that taking the world's current production of Beryllium and using 100% to power 2% of France is not not economical, but a non-starter of an idea. Why have we already spent billions for a single site project that we know will require billions more before gain of 10 and hours of uninterrupted operation before billions more before it works properly giving off energy that we can't possibly pay for and only benefits France and can't be used for other, better fusion ideas? Spend the money appropriately. I'm down with the deuterium/deuterium interactions where they breed 4H & N or for the deuterium + boron lines of thought. They may/may not work, but at least there's hope they eventually will work. I'm convinced that not only is the Tokomak a dead end, but we know it's a dead end, and it gets the majority of the fusion money.
@lepointique97067 сағат бұрын
Thanks for such content. People these days do not appreciate slow paced, detailed informative content.
@sophias42218 сағат бұрын
Opening with a SMAC quote? You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
@Dan-vi5jp16 сағат бұрын
If you think making the engineers happy is the hard part, wait until fusion has to deal with the economists.
@zobanpreetsidhu374622 сағат бұрын
My man is dramatically drowning in sarcasm, im all for lmao
@mobieus7Күн бұрын
Yet, no mention of all the energy required to accumulate these high energy particles before you even start sticking a steam engine on it. Why focus on the high energy particle source for ignition? So you can still control who can use the tech. The world around us shows balance in a universe of varieties of that balance. Yet all we can think up is "make it go faster"?
@sidharthcs2110Күн бұрын
I knew it was Fourier
@dloui5214Күн бұрын
i have one sitting at my garage
@platonzvonkov1063Күн бұрын
That is why you are former...
@user-rw1xr9hi7pКүн бұрын
It’s like the nasa scientists that created the pulse plasma engine knows less than this guy 😂
@user-rw1xr9hi7pКүн бұрын
Personally it doesn’t matter what this video is about they are going to be the first
@marcoelhodev2 күн бұрын
It is interesting to see you mention ITER in a positive light. I was under the impression the ITER project was mostly a "show off" nuclear fusion reactor using a bunch of untested, experimental technology and approaches, but without any intent to achieve real fusion breakthrough, the real purpose would be to test other technologies. Glad to know there are people actually commiting to the original view and what was written on the paper.
@user-xq8mk5qu8n2 күн бұрын
Where is the engineering bottleneck?
@eastcoastsailingcenter77682 күн бұрын
Dang
@mickmccrohon2 күн бұрын
they once said all the world would need is a few computers... maybe in a university or two
@mrhassell2 күн бұрын
Oops! Made an atomic mass of your prediction, sorry.
@padraiggluck29802 күн бұрын
Research will probably halt soon.
@austrogalant2 күн бұрын
Better not launch nukes against the Kirov then 😅
@NineInchTyrone2 күн бұрын
Fission Now
@quimicoz3 күн бұрын
"why we won't have fusion power by 2040?" Too early. Perhaps in 2400, but don't cross your fingers.
@haruruben3 күн бұрын
Im sure Lockheed already has it but the Reptilians are using it to power their deep underground military bases in Nevada. 😂
@molenz19603 күн бұрын
Fusion will always be 30 years away, until it isn't.
@bucketiii75813 күн бұрын
can you remake this with a better accent?
@kubhlaikhan20153 күн бұрын
Must be one of the longest running scams in history. It even predates the global warming hoax.
@Pestreza3 күн бұрын
Fino
@ecleveland13 күн бұрын
What a shame. I was hoping we could create a tiny star in a controlled environment.
@sid35gb3 күн бұрын
Hmm could it be that the massive funding is for weapons research and therefore not as focused on power generation. I was watching a video filmed at the national ignition facility in America and they were using lasers and it was clear to me that this setup was completely impractical for generating electricity.
@IbnBahtuta3 күн бұрын
Fusion is a no-no, but it keeps them all in a job for life, just like Seti. If our British government thinks it is a good idea, then you know it is anything but. The smart money is elsewhere. Here in Britain our mentally diminutive prime minister thinks wind turbines is the next big thing as well, again, after all the smart money left.
@GH-oi2jf3 күн бұрын
Real Engineering has no credibility with me. Real engineers do not describe engineering projects as "insane," which they do on many of their videos.
@nightlightabcd3 күн бұрын
Fusion is the power of the future, and always will be!
@IbnBahtuta3 күн бұрын
You read a lot of sci-fi, right? Star Wars? rofl
@bonerjams2k33 күн бұрын
Just put the damn thing in orbit.
@statinskill3 күн бұрын
The future isn't waiting for you, it's waiting for you to die. Virtually unlimited energy is there to power AI and future enforcement robots, and not for you. This is why you will never see fusion energy.
@IbnBahtuta3 күн бұрын
It isn't going to happen for all the reasons you haven't a clue about.
@statinskill3 күн бұрын
@@IbnBahtuta Because of your moon-god?
@IbnBahtuta3 күн бұрын
@@statinskill rofl, according to the kafirun. You haven't a clue about Islam, Thanks for giving us a good laugh.
@puddintame77943 күн бұрын
I would remind the author that fission was invented in the 1940s and by the end of the 1960s we had grid tied operational nuclear reactors. The problem wouldn't be technical it would be bureaucratic. Safe effective and cheap fusion will never be allowed. Because, environmentalism isn't about saving the planet, it's about maintaining a state of want. Fusion would prove, there are not too many people on the planet... as well as a host of other uncomfortable facts.
@IbnBahtuta3 күн бұрын
The problem isn't bureaucracy, it is physics.
@puddintame77943 күн бұрын
@@IbnBahtuta So... it's physics that's holding up new nuclear power planets... good to know. I thought it was regulation. How did they do it in the 1960's then? Has our knowledge of physics gone down?
@IbnBahtuta3 күн бұрын
@@puddintame7794 Holding it up? Go and read about fusion and find out why it doesn't pass the physics test. smh
@puddintame77943 күн бұрын
@@IbnBahtuta :) We're talking across each other. I'm talking about the bureaucratic issues that will arise if the technology matures. Not the technology itself. The elite don't want us to emerge into a post scarcity paradigm. It undermines their power, the utility of wealth and the reason for government.
@maxthemagition3 күн бұрын
It is just a dream that will never be achieved.
@kenofken94583 күн бұрын
So was space flight.
@maxthemagition3 күн бұрын
@@kenofken9458what’s the point of space flights?
@rykehuss34353 күн бұрын
Real Engineering and its ilk are just free ad channels for tech companies. No real engineering knowledge is behind any of their videos, they just repeat whatever they read on the press release and portray it as fact.
@bencruz5634 күн бұрын
Fusion is for bombs and rockets; fission us for power.
@1080KaTa4 күн бұрын
།མཐའ་མར་དུ་དོན་་མེད་ཡོད། 😅
@LuggageStardate4 күн бұрын
Why fusion will never make "free energy" is because "Free energy" has always been a scam. For fusion to make energy fission would have to not make it because its the same formula, Lighter elements + energy = heavier element Heavier element = lighter element + energy.
@peanuts21054 күн бұрын
The British company Tokamak Energy are really making gains with this technology. Amazing achievements from them
@IbnBahtuta3 күн бұрын
Oh dear, another unscientific numpty.
@RichardLucas4 күн бұрын
There's also the politics of the thing. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and am not offering a conspiracy, but I will offer some baseless speculation. A successful fusion reactor, in particular a small one, would destroy the entire world economy, and worse - it would empower individuals to break away from the collective and collective interest, since unlimited energy allows for chemical synthesis, manufacturing at scale, creation of fertilizers and thus food production - no one would need anyone else, if they knew how to harness the energy. Those people would be free or would see freedom right in front of their noses, while being unable to actualize it for artificial constraints necessarily placed upon them by governments. If you think scarcity is artificial now, hoo-boy! Fusion has to arrive simultaneously with a new organization of society.
@IbnBahtuta3 күн бұрын
Dream on, we will be a post scarcity planet before that happens, so, never.
@Today971295 күн бұрын
Maybe some breakthroughs in computational power will make it happen?
@IbnBahtuta3 күн бұрын
Computers can't change physics.
@TerryBecker-bw1vx5 күн бұрын
I always go with: "Follow the Money" Fossil fuels = Profit
@ToonamiAftermath3 күн бұрын
fossil fuel companies don’t run fusion companies lol. Fusion is just very very expensive to develop
@IbnBahtuta3 күн бұрын
I'm guessing you were off on a jolly the day your school did physics.
@AlejandroGonzalez-sq9rv5 күн бұрын
Es muy claro la explicación y la manera de como uno se integra en el tema 🙏🙏
@jimdigriz34365 күн бұрын
Small modular fission plants can be installed in a couple years… why is nobody buying a known resource.
@townley10176 күн бұрын
Question: If in a telescope I have two eyepieces with different focal lengths. One has 20mm focal length while another is at 10mm, with the 10mm supposedly producing greater magnification but with a narrower field of field. The trouble is I don’t know why it is like that- why does the 10mm focal length produce greater magnification but is limited to a narrower field of view. I would assume it’s to do with the shape of the lens having more curvature and thus refracting power, but I don’t know how this links in with seeing a larger image. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
@ImprobableMatter5 күн бұрын
I would have thought it would be the other way around, like here: www.edmundoptics.co.uk/knowledge-center/application-notes/imaging/understanding-focal-length-and-field-of-view/
@townley10175 күн бұрын
@@ImprobableMatter I don’t know if it’s anything to do with it being a telescope and not a camera ? I have a physics book that says the opposite to my telescope manual but it’s talking about a camera in the book🤷🏼♂️
@ImprobableMatter5 күн бұрын
@@townley1017Might be another aspect of the design. What are the different lenses are like, physically?
@townley10175 күн бұрын
@@ImprobableMatter I’ll have a look. The book I’ve got is very thorough so I should find my answer in there. I’ll report back once I’ve figured it out.
Пікірлер
🤯
Thorium for the win
In 2040 fusion will be about 30yrs. away.
So you don't believe in the laws of Thermodynamics. A gas cannot spontaneously condense due to its own gravity. That would be doing work upon itself. KZread/ Stuart Talbott: Wal Thornhill on impossible star/ Thunderbolts project
YEAH !! The TOKAMAK is a MOCK-ATTACK !! 🤐🤨
If I had an issue with fusion power, it's that the big money seems to go to projects that WE KNOW WON"T WORK. The Tokomak done right, even if it eventually gets appropriate gain and manages to catch enough neutrons, still has the problem that taking the world's current production of Beryllium and using 100% to power 2% of France is not not economical, but a non-starter of an idea. Why have we already spent billions for a single site project that we know will require billions more before gain of 10 and hours of uninterrupted operation before billions more before it works properly giving off energy that we can't possibly pay for and only benefits France and can't be used for other, better fusion ideas? Spend the money appropriately. I'm down with the deuterium/deuterium interactions where they breed 4H & N or for the deuterium + boron lines of thought. They may/may not work, but at least there's hope they eventually will work. I'm convinced that not only is the Tokomak a dead end, but we know it's a dead end, and it gets the majority of the fusion money.
Thanks for such content. People these days do not appreciate slow paced, detailed informative content.
Opening with a SMAC quote? You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
If you think making the engineers happy is the hard part, wait until fusion has to deal with the economists.
My man is dramatically drowning in sarcasm, im all for lmao
Yet, no mention of all the energy required to accumulate these high energy particles before you even start sticking a steam engine on it. Why focus on the high energy particle source for ignition? So you can still control who can use the tech. The world around us shows balance in a universe of varieties of that balance. Yet all we can think up is "make it go faster"?
I knew it was Fourier
i have one sitting at my garage
That is why you are former...
It’s like the nasa scientists that created the pulse plasma engine knows less than this guy 😂
Personally it doesn’t matter what this video is about they are going to be the first
It is interesting to see you mention ITER in a positive light. I was under the impression the ITER project was mostly a "show off" nuclear fusion reactor using a bunch of untested, experimental technology and approaches, but without any intent to achieve real fusion breakthrough, the real purpose would be to test other technologies. Glad to know there are people actually commiting to the original view and what was written on the paper.
Where is the engineering bottleneck?
Dang
they once said all the world would need is a few computers... maybe in a university or two
Oops! Made an atomic mass of your prediction, sorry.
Research will probably halt soon.
Better not launch nukes against the Kirov then 😅
Fission Now
"why we won't have fusion power by 2040?" Too early. Perhaps in 2400, but don't cross your fingers.
Im sure Lockheed already has it but the Reptilians are using it to power their deep underground military bases in Nevada. 😂
Fusion will always be 30 years away, until it isn't.
can you remake this with a better accent?
Must be one of the longest running scams in history. It even predates the global warming hoax.
Fino
What a shame. I was hoping we could create a tiny star in a controlled environment.
Hmm could it be that the massive funding is for weapons research and therefore not as focused on power generation. I was watching a video filmed at the national ignition facility in America and they were using lasers and it was clear to me that this setup was completely impractical for generating electricity.
Fusion is a no-no, but it keeps them all in a job for life, just like Seti. If our British government thinks it is a good idea, then you know it is anything but. The smart money is elsewhere. Here in Britain our mentally diminutive prime minister thinks wind turbines is the next big thing as well, again, after all the smart money left.
Real Engineering has no credibility with me. Real engineers do not describe engineering projects as "insane," which they do on many of their videos.
Fusion is the power of the future, and always will be!
You read a lot of sci-fi, right? Star Wars? rofl
Just put the damn thing in orbit.
The future isn't waiting for you, it's waiting for you to die. Virtually unlimited energy is there to power AI and future enforcement robots, and not for you. This is why you will never see fusion energy.
It isn't going to happen for all the reasons you haven't a clue about.
@@IbnBahtuta Because of your moon-god?
@@statinskill rofl, according to the kafirun. You haven't a clue about Islam, Thanks for giving us a good laugh.
I would remind the author that fission was invented in the 1940s and by the end of the 1960s we had grid tied operational nuclear reactors. The problem wouldn't be technical it would be bureaucratic. Safe effective and cheap fusion will never be allowed. Because, environmentalism isn't about saving the planet, it's about maintaining a state of want. Fusion would prove, there are not too many people on the planet... as well as a host of other uncomfortable facts.
The problem isn't bureaucracy, it is physics.
@@IbnBahtuta So... it's physics that's holding up new nuclear power planets... good to know. I thought it was regulation. How did they do it in the 1960's then? Has our knowledge of physics gone down?
@@puddintame7794 Holding it up? Go and read about fusion and find out why it doesn't pass the physics test. smh
@@IbnBahtuta :) We're talking across each other. I'm talking about the bureaucratic issues that will arise if the technology matures. Not the technology itself. The elite don't want us to emerge into a post scarcity paradigm. It undermines their power, the utility of wealth and the reason for government.
It is just a dream that will never be achieved.
So was space flight.
@@kenofken9458what’s the point of space flights?
Real Engineering and its ilk are just free ad channels for tech companies. No real engineering knowledge is behind any of their videos, they just repeat whatever they read on the press release and portray it as fact.
Fusion is for bombs and rockets; fission us for power.
།མཐའ་མར་དུ་དོན་་མེད་ཡོད། 😅
Why fusion will never make "free energy" is because "Free energy" has always been a scam. For fusion to make energy fission would have to not make it because its the same formula, Lighter elements + energy = heavier element Heavier element = lighter element + energy.
The British company Tokamak Energy are really making gains with this technology. Amazing achievements from them
Oh dear, another unscientific numpty.
There's also the politics of the thing. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and am not offering a conspiracy, but I will offer some baseless speculation. A successful fusion reactor, in particular a small one, would destroy the entire world economy, and worse - it would empower individuals to break away from the collective and collective interest, since unlimited energy allows for chemical synthesis, manufacturing at scale, creation of fertilizers and thus food production - no one would need anyone else, if they knew how to harness the energy. Those people would be free or would see freedom right in front of their noses, while being unable to actualize it for artificial constraints necessarily placed upon them by governments. If you think scarcity is artificial now, hoo-boy! Fusion has to arrive simultaneously with a new organization of society.
Dream on, we will be a post scarcity planet before that happens, so, never.
Maybe some breakthroughs in computational power will make it happen?
Computers can't change physics.
I always go with: "Follow the Money" Fossil fuels = Profit
fossil fuel companies don’t run fusion companies lol. Fusion is just very very expensive to develop
I'm guessing you were off on a jolly the day your school did physics.
Es muy claro la explicación y la manera de como uno se integra en el tema 🙏🙏
Small modular fission plants can be installed in a couple years… why is nobody buying a known resource.
Question: If in a telescope I have two eyepieces with different focal lengths. One has 20mm focal length while another is at 10mm, with the 10mm supposedly producing greater magnification but with a narrower field of field. The trouble is I don’t know why it is like that- why does the 10mm focal length produce greater magnification but is limited to a narrower field of view. I would assume it’s to do with the shape of the lens having more curvature and thus refracting power, but I don’t know how this links in with seeing a larger image. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.
I would have thought it would be the other way around, like here: www.edmundoptics.co.uk/knowledge-center/application-notes/imaging/understanding-focal-length-and-field-of-view/
@@ImprobableMatter I don’t know if it’s anything to do with it being a telescope and not a camera ? I have a physics book that says the opposite to my telescope manual but it’s talking about a camera in the book🤷🏼♂️
@@townley1017Might be another aspect of the design. What are the different lenses are like, physically?
@@ImprobableMatter I’ll have a look. The book I’ve got is very thorough so I should find my answer in there. I’ll report back once I’ve figured it out.