That US "breaktrough" compared laser energy in with energy (heat) out, but ignored the dreadfully low efficiency of lasers so actually the overall efficiency was about 1%.
@@jancizuletek670 yes but you wouldn’t even need the actual paper, it was breaking news around the world because it was the first to get more energy out than it put in just like 6 months ago
yes and no, people get really confused about this as scientists are in fact not infinite money wells and the lasers are not top of the line. They had to be smart and crafty with what they could get and they did a hell of a job. It is also of note that tech has and seems it will continue to become better, whether that be in efficiency or power, ANY advancement in fusion is massive and this breakthrough is simply something that has never happened. Side thought, if your really coming from the 'US is trying to lie' perspective then I don't think I can convince you but no they are not lying by smudge the numbers, pretty much every fusion facility use the same standards for if it's producing energy so everyone is talking about the same thing.
From what understand, the energy output exceeding the the input only calculates the energy used to run the generator, not all the other systems running the generator. So it is still a a significant net loss, energy wise.
This video has lots of misinformation. AI was NOT involved in it's design, which was back in the 1990s. It was human coded simulations. Not AI as we think of it today. Now the control system could involve AI but that is different. Also W7X is a plasma control experiment. It does not use DT fuel, but only deuterium. Tritium is hazardous and the experiment is not built to handle it. Thus it's not producing energy. It's just testing plasma control. Each of the different reactor designs have tradeoffs. So it's worthwhile exploring multiple designs. W7X is the largest and most optimized of it's type. It has gone through some upgrades and will likely go through more. A better report on the results of it's progress should be coming in the next couple months. So again, this video is not very good.
To everyone waiting for fusion energy: The LiFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) have all of the upsides that fusion has. Plenty of available fuel. Only produce short lived isotopes. Stort safe. And it is very close to market, several companies expect mass production before 2030 (not prototypes, commercial units!) A MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) running on uranium or recycled nuclear waste have many of the same advantages, and are even closer to market. Get hyped!
@@b3owu1f Scenario : Quantum Super Intelligence obsoletes yesterday's vested monetary encryption system accesses all data for rehabilitation analysis to grounded public prosocial Real Economy * ....non toxic energy unit accounting engineering sense . Egoless logical objective " artifical " pure principle Intelligence supplying direction to rehabilitation of yesterday's vested " special " small " i " intelligence becomes a thing within global citizen stockholders commonwealth . eg. * " Critical Path " ( just the introduction eg. ) ....by Richard Buckminster Fuller ( Institute ) .
made me laugh bud just fyi if you were curious enough like i did a while back 1.3 gigajoules as stated in the video is 0.36 MWh a nice feat onto itself for experimental :)
Dang, exciting stuff! I believe 13% will be the next milestone and it will happen within 10-15 years. Technology today is growing at an advanced rate and with the aid of contained AI it can grow further. It is but one step closer to stopping pollution and the destruction of our environment, but it is a very big step.
Scientists working on ITER themselves say that we wouldn't achieve fusion before 2040. Also fusion wouldn't destroy oil and gas, as they have many more uses other than for energy production
1:35 I hate to be 'that guy' but it does produce nuclear waste as the reactor casing becomes radioactive during use. Granted this is not a direct waste product but it should be made clear, there is nuclear contaminated waste.
The facts are about results of all the probabilities, and management. AI should be used as a mid level manager as critical fast acting components. It is more likely to be the keys help, maintain a constant field of operation.
I am still surprised that the EXTREME lack of fuel for fusion (Tritium) is not higher up on the agenda, we have 12 kg of Tritium IN THE WHOLE WORLD, and it has a half-life of only 12 years. Yes, some Tritium can be produced in the 'blankets' around a fusion reactor, but what about waste and inefficiencies in collecting it...???
Why do you think we are suddenly going back to the moon helium 3. We already use nuclear reactors to make tritium for nuclear weapons inefficiently which is why the department of energy is in love with the fusion reaction recently hoping to gain better understanding to find alternatives and or conceivably make it using fusion
@@patrickday4206 He-3 will cost some $30 million per kg to mine on the Moon, but the worst part is that any fusion using He-3 will require temperatures of 1,000 million degrees Kelvin (compared to ‘only’ 100 million with Deuterium-Tritium). It is POSSIBLE to make Tritium in parallel in a fusion reactor, but unless you have EXTREMELY high efficiency, you will not make enough to be self-sustaining. Today, in the old fission reactors, the Tritium produced (a few kg per year world-wide) costs $30,000 per GRAM. In conclusion, I think we will ditch fusion and go back to fission in the net 50 years. That is MY prediction.
@@CarlosOddone-z6k Don't know what you are referring to, or what it means. Any country can have nuclear power, some insist on spending 'too much' on fusion, without any significant benefits in the end. Nobody can be SURE we will be able to make fusion work, whereas fission has worked for 70 years and is still doing fine. New small reactors are 'cheap' and affordable. And to be clear, fusion only generates 4 times more energy per kg of fuel, so it is not some 'miracle energy form'.
Where did we obtain the fusion fuel helium-3? It's exceedingly rare on Earth, yet abundant on the lunar surface. All that's required is a fusion reactor. By sending a cargo spacecraft to the Moon and gathering 2 tons of helium-3, the cost would amount to 300 million US dollars per trip for India. With these 2 tons of helium-3, India could generate electricity for the entire country for one year. Interestingly, India's annual electricity earnings amount to $810 billion, so adopting nuclear fusion with helium-3 would lead to savings of $800 billion. This prompts the start of another space race.... India can settle the world bank debt 600 billon dollars in 3 years.
First, how much energy did that moon excursion use. You have to include all the planning, all energy consumed in human actions including costs to get to work and back. If the sum gets close to zero remember that some energy costs have been forgotten.
YES IT IS CALLED A STELLARATOR , I PROBABLY SPELLED IT WRONG. WE WOULD HAVE HAD WORKING FUDION BY NOW IF THIS DESIGN HAD BEEN ADOPTED 50 YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS INVENTED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi. Videos about the coming of nuclear fusion remind me of the musical "Little orphan Annie", where she sings, "tomorrow, tomorrow, I can't wait until tomorrow, it's only a day away". Cheers, P.R.
Creating A Neutron Star You get a box with solid hydrogen and add a large amount of solid oxygen. You fill this with gas oxygen. And explode it with fire. You can only contain this star in a vacuum. You feed it with hydrogen to make it grow. It produces nitrogen. You feed it nitrogen or salt to make it shrink. This will vacuum what it's in and able to stand opening awhile. This is a good non-artificial light source.
How to turn it off when gets self-sustainable? I dosent have a controll rods or being submerged in water or any cooling liquid- then how to turn off a mini- sun? Blasting it with liquid nitrogen?
If you had a giant version that you didn't just want to drop the containment field there are many things that could be put in just like rods in nuclear reactors
Fusion energy production is at least 60 to 100 years away at the earliest. They say it’s 30 to 50 years away to produce stabilised fusion plasma energy streams but as we can see as soon as you put something in the plasma it cools down and fusion stops. If they manage to get stable fusion plasma and get 1.5 to 2 units more energy than they put in then it’s going to be another 30 to 50 years to design a power plant to produce electricity so we won’t see the world running on fusion technology in our lifetime and that’s sad. It’s probably another 2 or 3 generations away and that’s a BIG IF. My great niece has just been born and she won’t get to see fusion and that breaks my heart but her kids might toward the end of their life span.
Right, but we got advanced fission reactors instead. Many of the same advantages and MUCH closer to market than fusion. Expect functioning commercial plants before 2030. Molten Salt Reactors and High Temperature gas cooled reactors and Liquid Metal Reactors
@@migBdk yeah we are having SMN (small modular) nuclear reactors that are by far safer then big PW (pressurised water) nuclear reactors. The good thing about them is when they run out of fuel you just plug in a new reactor and dispose of the old one in a repository. You can add as many as you need to and the good thing about them is you can keep them close to cities like 20 plus miles away and this eliminates a lot of electrical seepage and way less resistance due to less cable for the electricity to go through and this means it’s more efficient and cheaper and less energy is needed. The safety is way more safer than huge pressurised water reactors because there’s no coolant to worry about and if there a power cut or an accident man made or natural the control rods are kept open by electromagnets as soon as they loose power the rods drop and stop the reaction, no risk of a melt down, no coolant pumps which are always the cause of a melt down to worry about. There will be a heat exchange with water to convert it into steam for the steam turbine though but not to cool the reactors because they rely only on heat shielding not pumps that can fail and cause a melt down. This is what the U.K. is doing and Rolls Royce has already started building them for testing. I’m not sure if it’s a molten salt or a conventional uranium oxide reactor though.
@@Biketunerfy the Rolls Royce new reactor is a traditional light water cooled uranium reactor, just scaled down. The SMR (Small Modular Reactor) is already a step in the right direction and will bring prices and build times down. Molten Salt Reactors will bring prices way down.
@@migBdk SMRs will be much better technology way safer and cheaper easier to construct and maintain to bring down energy prices. I’m just sad we will never see fusion plants up and running in our lifetime or even crack stabile fusion energy for that matter and my children probably won’t either but their children might but we have to do this, we need clean reliable energy that’s powerful, fusion is that energy to secure our future for our children.
With AI we might see fusion sooner than you think if proven commercially viable it could be driven fast especially if AI helps us with room temperature superconductors
Crazy to think about but realistically AI is still hampered by human's. We can only ask it to do things we think of. There's probably so many questions that we don't even know to ask to begin with.
For AI to not be hampered by humans, you would have to create an AGI that can essentially act as an independent lifeform. That includes it having the ability to derive subjective meaning from it's own experiences.
This is already happening. Generative AI is the current phase leading to the next phases that will eventually become AGI. OpenAI is alleged to have already achieved AGI in secret but they will not openly admit this right now since it's quite a serious deal that could change everything so fast our heads would actually spin.@@billtalent1
🛡️I Do Knowledge Understanding of blueprint of how it looks I vision it .🤓 That More particles from the nuclear fusion . Chain in a DNA 🧬 Highly recommended 🙏🛡️
See what you didn't say was how much energy was put into that system to get The 1.3 giga jewels out for 8 MINUTES. If you have to put 100 GIGA JEWELS in just to get 1.3 giga jewels out It's really not worth it. So you're really still 60 years away.
That would be nice, if it were true, but we still need oil and gas for at least thirty years after a REAL breakthrough until the commercial plants are viable.
Energy today, regardless of the type is today as it was during all of the yesterday's; FREE! It's the total intrastructor's which allow's one to utilize it that we pay for, not the energy itself. A gazillion dollar designed, built, etc. etc. etc. Has to be repaid, and those who invested the gazillion's demand a high return on their investment's. One can discover and utilize an engergy type totally free. But then they have to pay various fee's to various government agencies, and or mandated to stop, when the local, city, state, federal code's are not being complied with.
BS detector is working overtime here. Even if the plasma can be contained it has to be kept away from the sides of the twisted torus enough to avoid cooking it .... yet at the same time the heat it produces has to be efficiently harvested. It's not like you can line the inner walls of the twisted torus with pipes to both control and harvest the heat because you need the heat to sustain the fusion but you need to extract the excess heat produced when fusion is attained. Either there is a conflict of interest or a fine line between sustained operation and thermal run-a-way. Good luck with this money pit. Many are sufficiently impressed by the science-drama. There are better intermediate fission technologies to sink your money into people. Wake up.
Don't spread the propaganda that fusion reactors don't create radioactive waste. D-T fusion produces neutrons, just like "dirty old fission" does. Worse, the T in D-T fusion stands for Tritium, which is an extremely expensive, artificially made, highly radioactive substance. Tritium is worse than the spent fuel from fission reactors because Tritium is a gas. Besides being an inhalation hazard, it reacts with oxygen to make radioactive water, which will efficiently contaminate EVERYTHING in the local environment. Fusion does not equal non-radioactive.
Everything you have said is garbage. Obviously you have never looked at the atomic chemistry or have the slightest idea about the science. Tritium is heavy hydrogen but still a very light gas. It dissipates quickly. And neutron radiation is very manageable though engineered safety measures. Neutron radiation doesn’t leave radiation behind from its interactions with normal matter. Neutron radiation or any radiation doesn’t stick around if the source doesn’t stick around. In a fusion reactor it’s 100% used with the only waste as normal helium.
You know you can take a 1F capacitor and 1H coil and pulse it at 1V 6.3S and it will give you 20 volts at 20 amps you just have to know where to put the GROUND hit it is not on the NEGATIVE side.
China had a picture of their Fusion Energy machine, a bit smaller than other, it looks as a huge size pressure cooker, with a man holding in hand a thick cable with a plug. Message, not very 'subliminal', was the Chinese Fusion Reactor is ready to supply power to the grid. So, What? Blessings +
Can it be used for airlines. Military aircraft, space explorations? The aircraft gas is truly the safest propellant that is safe to use tight now. They have to prove it ASAP.
Why not just build a massive barge with large metal arms on land. Waves that come in cause the barge to rise and fall pushing and pulling on the arms which turn the generator.
losses from friction due to weight of the components, sometimes the weight being too much for materials we can cheaply produce, durability of the system when exposed tom the sea (salt spray alone is a bitch). basically the usual suspects plus sea-specific challenges
It sounds like someone’s funding budget is getting very low. Anyone with a basic idea of Physics will see this could never be over unity when you take in all the system inputs and not just the reaction energy 🤫😶
i feel stupider listening to this first iter is pronoced e ter second the reactor is at 10,000,00 degrees and the plasma con not ever touch the wall because it will burn the unit the wall do become radio active buit it takes alot of time and iter if work will become self suffient
Do you have any idea how many breakthroughs there have been that could ruin oil and gas? A LOT. Until the mid 90s (when the project was found out about) there was a branch of the US government which suppressed energy production patents by denying them outright on shady grounds or if they can't buying the patent to lock it up and throw away the key. When the branch was found out about they shut it down... then they made a new branch with a different name and kept on doing the same shady crap- it still happens. It's also creating a fake energy shortage Worldwide. Even if this is real you won't see it being applied in anyone's lifetime who is alive right now. There's too many vested interests in Oil- the only way we change from Oil to something else is by a force of nature which we have no control over, or Oil becomes too expensive to go after. Another reason Oil/Gas isn't going anywhere: anyone can make it in their backyard with anything which burns, you can't do that with fusion. Not counting for what I already mentioned. The amount of great technology that is suppressed is staggering. We could be living in a Sci-Fi World with Tech that is so advanced that we can't even imagine it as a possibility yet- greed/Money/short-sightedness keep us a Barbarian People though. It's still really neat, I hope it's real. I hope it works.
To simulate something virtually we first need real world data. To collect this data we first need to build real reactors and observe how the plasma reacts with the magnets. This collected data will be worthwhile for future reactor designs which could be simulated by tapping in different parameters. Best regards.
@The.Futurist but shouldn't the math take care of that? I thought that is what supercomputers were for, real world simulations, because they can do all that math quickly.
@@tmk6751Computer Models work by reducing complexity otherwise we would quickly run into gigantic computational run times. And you lose fidelity by reducing complexity. The Art lies in reducing complexity enough so the calculations do not become excessively costly or time consuming while still giving enough fidelity so the results are actually usefull. And since we do not have experience with actually usefull Fusion reactors.....it's hard to reduce complexity while still having a usefull model.
How do you even miniaturize something that big and powerful? The magnets alone would be problematic. How much energy is being put into or the magnets or create the magnetic field? How strong does the magnetic field have to be to contain the plasma? If they are getting a net gain of energy wouldn't that imply a self sustaining system? How did they create and activate the plasma?
Guys haven't really figure out the concept of free energy at all by powering this shit that isn't able to provide enough electricity to power it self...
