Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040 

You might get "charged" for that one.

@@davidastle9472 Are you positive about that?

Superb.

Yeah, I see what you did there, bruh.

Nerd.

@Bri Ba Actually building something is a problem of money constrained by greed. AKA how much of the money will be pocked away with nothing to show for it.

Fusion tech is perfectly at home among vaporware projects. Profitable Fusion energy that will solve all of our problems is always two decades away. It was that way when my dad was born. It was that way when I was born. It will probably be that way when I die.

Love it!

@@hypothalapotamus5293 and that's ok :)

I don't think anyone in this comment string understands what money is. Money does not buy technological advancements, nor research results, nor human capital (knowledge). It does not matter If you "have" 5 trillion dollars to invest in fusion energy, the fact is, there are several issues that need to be solved, and this are extremely difficult problems which require time (from extremely intelligent humans). There is also a chance that the person that could solve these issues has not yet been born. Now, while it is true a large inyection of money translates to more brilliant minds working on the problem, in reality that translates to a slightly higher probability of solving said issues. However, considering many many intelligent humans have been trying to work these problems out for almost 80 years and have not achieved any significant advancement, I'm guessing the probability of creating a profitable fusion reactor is extremely low, no matter how much money you throw at it.

But this fortune teller has been proven wrong already.

I disagree. This is the dumbest video I've seen on this topic in quite a long time. * Spends most of the video talking about the absolute basics of fusion power rather than his hypothesis (no fusion power by 2040) * Literally the only support for his timeline is "airports take a decade to build". Hey, have I news for you, Tesla builds entire car factories (some of the world's largest) in 1-2 years from announcement to first customer-vehicle production. Now, there's usually at least a year of non-public negotiations and planning behind the scenes, but your notion of "airports take a decade means fusion power plants will take much more" is beyond ridiculous. * Fission power plants can take a decade, but unlike fusion they face the risk of runaway reaction (whereas with fusion the challenge is keeping it going at all) and massive production of *extremely* toxic materials. Whereas with fusion you not only produce far less, far slower, but you have control over what gets produced via what the reactor is made out of (rather than "essentially everything" as per fission and its decay chains), and thus can ensure that nothing remains "hot" for long periods. Fission *should* take far longer than fusion to permit and certify! * He spends his entire video attacking straw men rather than mentioning *actual, specific fusion projects* and criticizing said actual projects. * He then goes on to praise ITER at the end as a great example of success. When even ITER scientists I've spoken with see it as an over-budget behind-schedule dead end that produced useful science but is pursuing a technologically obsolete dead-end rather than making use of lessons learned and advancements elsewhere. * His one commercial project he praises is Commonwealth Fusion, and how he thinks they're legit and a solid approach (but says he couldn't find a timeline from them). Hey, guess what? Their CEO *has* talked timelines, and he said that if everything goes well, they could have a commercial reactor by 2030. Now, expect delays, but still: the ONE time in his "refuting of very optimistic claims" that there will be fusion power before 2040, in which he actually mentions a commercial company, he says that they're legit, and it turns out, said company is targeting as early as *2030* . This video is terrible. He doesn't even address the reasons *why* there's suddenly a boom in interest in fusion power. Perhaps the biggest one being the commercial availability of REBCO tapes, which simply wasn't the case when ITER was in the design stage. Decreases the size of a tokamak or other forms of magnetic confinement by literally an order of magnitude for a given gain factor, as well as providing a number of other benefits, such as in usable magnet coolants and liner replacement processes. The thing about tokamaks is, the gain factor is readily computed. There's no magic to it; the challenge is that to get a good gain factor requires massive scale. But reducing the scale by an order of magnitude reduces costs likewise by an order of magnitude, and dramatically simplifies peripheral aspects as well.

They have enslaved and fooled you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖

@@VeganSemihCyprus33 I'm rolling on the floor laughing at you.

@@VeganSemihCyprus33 How do you know if someone is a vegan? - Don't worry they'll tell you.

Guns do have a lot of power

Commeees tries that 😂

So... Soviets were originals fans of My little pony?

Not enough true altruism for that to be viable

Seems like the real fusion was the friends we made along the way

lmao

He’s too powerful to be left alive

The Antifusion, we must stop him.

The video implies otherwise, you should watch it.

@@HangTimeDeluxe Couple things. 1. You're adorable. 2. Video is clearly propaganda.

I hate to break it too you but fusion reactors that produce enough power to make them worth it are over 100 years away.

The machine was called "Zeta", if you want more information.

@@Veritas-invenitur never , we haven't got 100 years !

@@MyKharli You know, if humans really wanted fusion to work then they could accomplish it in 5 years. They just do not want to accomplish it in such a dirty and contradicting manner. The real problem with fusion is not getting it to produce more power than you put in. The real problem is getting it to produce more power than you put in without utilizing dirty technologies. You see. You can build a fusion reactor that nets a gain if it also utilizes additional fission reactions to maintain the containment field. But no one wants to use such dirty and dangerous methods.

@@MyKharli not with Biden in charge

Agreed. A beautiful and very telling change of pace.

Nah, it's more like: Me: "Hey, this video that just popped into my feed looks interesting, I wonder what it's ab...uh oh." RU-vid and Google: "Lol, interested in fusion, eh? Good to know, good to know..."

@@Myndale I like the first iteration a little more.

The topic must be EVIL if RU-vid likes it.

@@truthsRsung is this really the way you think?

@@napoleonbonerfarte6739 ....Use examples to persuade me otherwise. I like numbers. Tell me, after Einstein demystified the power of the sun, how many nuclear reactors we built as opposed to how many nuclear weapons? Now go look at the most popular uTube videos and rate them on their potential of EVIL on a fifty shades of grey scale.

AHAH true! Also look at London Heathrow extension (new runway) will probably take 10 years!

And BER is a terrible airport ! So many problems. And special shout-out to the confusing signs

Or how long it takes to get a subway built in Toronto

HAHA!!- Damn right you are! Greetings from Germany.

not in China

You assume that the funding won't be wasted.

@@JonFrumTheFirst You should put foot in a real experimental lab before talking about wasting funding. It's extremely insulting, and shows you know nothing, nothing about research, which is generally nothing but dramatically underfunded.

It’s a fools errand..put effort on Fission

@@raffaeledivora9517 Don't cry, baby - you'll get over it. You think it should be funded? YOU pay for it.

@@JonFrumTheFirst bruh, return your Papa's phone to him and go do your algebra homework .

I made a fission reactor in my garage but if anyone finds out they’ll come for me

@@monkmoto1887 this comment was sponsored by Nord VPN

@@monkmoto1887 Is your real name Sheldon Cooper?

In other words, nothing that benefited society.

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Exactly . Its all 'Pie in the Sky '

its a bunch of misinformation

You're the first person to comment on that little joke, I was hoping more people got the reference.

@@ImprobableMatter paging Tennessee Ernie Ford…

@@ImprobableMatter I noticed it too, but LordZontar commented first. Congrats!

Ya load 16 tons and whaddya get, another day older and deeper in debt...

Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo do doo dooooooooooo...

That there is some real maths

Need 0. Before that 70%

100% is not possible according to simple physics. The best thermal to electrical conversion efficiency is ~ 60%.

@@tuttt99 lol, it is not about thermal to elecricity, but energy in/out reactor.

Very Confusion 🤔

isn't a fuel cell that combines oxygen and hydrogen to make water and power technically fusion in and of itself?

@@raven4k998You are the type of person that would say the covid shots were "technically a vaccine" or that "real communism hasn't technically been tried". It's 2023 and you don't remember the news about fusion "technically" happening?

​@@raven4k998No it isn't.

@@tehhappehhaps then what is it magic?🤣 cause it's not burning it🤣 it's not using power to make water with it so I would assume it's fusion since your combining lighter elements to make a heavier element and getting power out of it as well simple🤣

@@raven4k998 Water isn't an element, it's a molecule! The atoms of hydrogen and oxygen still exist once they are locked into water. Fusion is where two atoms combine to create a new element. A fuel cell works with a chemical reaction, fusion is a nuclear reaction - the difference is the behaviour of the subatomic particles which make up the atoms involved :)

I hear you. I’ve had a life of extremely poor health requiring many many surgical procedure, I’m just flabbergasted that I’ve made it past 60 and what’s more I’ve fathered many children. See all things are possible, even nuclear fusion.

@@no3ironman11100 Where did you get that stereotype from?

@@no3ironman11100 This comment was so unnecessary

@@no3ironman11100 Imagine when you will be old... how will you feel when people who don't even know you will spew shit on you just based on prejudices. Absolutely disgusting

@@no3ironman11100 you have done your very best to contribute here. You can do no better. Congratulations

I understood that reference!

It didn't work well in spider-man

@@gabrielesteves7498 Loweth was a classic.

Thermonuclear bombs are basically inertial confinement fusion systems.

@@ThePocketMedic minus the "confinement" ...

It's a large site, takes a while to move the parts into position and assemble them.

I blame the construction permits.

would be foolish to buy into that far back. Fusion isnt fission lol. If fission is taking a sledgehammer to smash something, fusion is a doctor using a robotic scalpel to operate on an ants brain. like 1 to 100 difficulty change.

@@Andytlp the main issue is field strength... and ITER has relatively weak magnets to what is currently available which is why projects starting to be built today at smaller scale with more powerful magnets are probably going to reach fusion before ITER does...

@@Wingnut353 I thought they used electromagnets

It's actually gigawatts no idea why they said jigawatts because that ain't a thing.

@@gwh0 But I saw it on T.V. so it must be true.

@@champ8605 Gigawatts is correctly pronounced with a soft ‘g’, similar to the word ‘gigantic’. It may also be pronounced with a hard ‘g’ since there is no soft form in Greek. The English word is not old enough to have a preferred pronunciation.

Jigga what?

@@elefanny1106 Jigga who?

i used to be against fission nuclear power until the quote that I heard was"we cannot control co2 emissions but we can control waste" it's the lesser of 2 evils. fusion generating grid power will never happen, it simply exists to suck up funds for research that pays mortgages.

If anything, the current perception of nuclear fission power (i.e. Simpsons nuclear power where every nuke plant is nothing more than a bomb that didn't go off today) is evidence that _disinformation_ is more powerful than even the best efforts at informing the public about nuclear. Before _Radio Bikini_ and TMI, the main concern environmentalists had vs. nuclear was the loss of wilderness. But because people like David Brower convinced moms that nuclear plants would mutate their babies, we now have a fleet of aging reactors with no concrete plan to build better plants or reprocess spent fuel-- our plan is to kick the can down the road so our grandchildren can deal with the problem with the climate burning down around them and no resources to even get started solving the problem.

@@mightyfinejonboy That might be more accurately put as we _could_ control waste, but we won't.

We refuse to employ safer reactors as originally developed by the Air Force in 50s. Molten Salt Reactors offer more hope than Fusion and they already have a proof of concept. The famous Thorium Reactors hype of last twenty years could work as a fuel. Silence from media but offers greater benefit to cost.

@@dilbertjunkmail You blame media, but the truth is, if the power companies wanted Thorium reactors, they would build them.

While generally I do agree with your statement pointing out the responses of commenters. At the same time, perseverance, hope, creativity and many failures is how new technological advancements throughout history have been born. As a scientist, if you ever want to be successful you need to not be pessimistic or even realistic, you need that optimism in order to make the impossible possible. So it actually makes me sad seeing videos like this. Great things are never easy and always seem impossible.

You're not thinking hard enough! For shame.

@@TherandusGaming Yeah, no. "Just ignore reality." That's not how science works.

At the end he pointed out that the technology being developed at the moment is making steady progress. He didn't say the technology might never be developed. In my view, fusion technology is showing steady progress and will start to be available around 2050. ITER has a great contribution in this, although I hope that Wendelstein 7-X will provide scientists and engineers sufficient knowledge to create a new generation stellerator which supplies more energy than the whole system uses.

meanwhile in India: fusion power? what do you mean problems? ours works just fine!

So walter white is a god? Hehe

There’s a company that got 120 millions Celsius for 101 second. Any progress here?

@@jendlti Pretty much yes. Just the chemical workup (getting the products out from rxn mixture) and purification have significant losses. One would have to go for some fancy enzymatic process to get 97+% efficiency of an organic reaction and then some very tedious and energy-intensive workup the get all the product out of the reaction medium. It's never like baking a pie, where you just shove it in the oven, bake it (and shake it :D) and you're done. Even if the reaction efficiency is very high, the yield will be lower due to workup.

What do we want? Time travel. When do we want it? It's irrelevant.

Logical, get the time machine, go back with info, evolve tech faster… love the concept, but like politics, it’s just saying stuff to get a positive response.

Ah good old nerd humor.

Step 1: Invent time machine Step 2: Go to the far-off future of 2015 Step 3: Buy a Mr. Fusion brand home fusion reactor Step 4: Return to the present year 2019 to show your new compact fusion reactor to the world

I'm on it. All I need is 12 billion dollars for 8 goats, and my project will show 8-times the output efficiency of all the best fusion reactors yet created. Number go up!

That's not the takeaway. Fusion *IS* a very, *very* good energy source. It's just *very* difficult to make it work. Goats on treadmills would be easy, except that it *can't* work.

@@TheReaverOfDarkness bet you're fun at parties.

@@mikedrop4421 Oh I'm definitely not. Not usually anyway.

@@TheReaverOfDarkness Sounds like your parties need more goats! ;)

Chaim Goldbaum I keep trying to leave this site and the author keeps bring up valuable points. I guess I will stick around. Yes he is making a lot of incredible points. Here is a link on another topic, a topic of mine on a topic of importance. Worth a look thanks. these videos are not on topic but they are important they are worth a quick look studio.ru-vid.com0i1fekgBW6Q/edit ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DkOReIytOP4.html

its insane how muc hfalse information is in the system...

Bums me out.

Something being invented is also not at all that it will be instantly brought into use on a large scale. We finally achieved energy neutral fusion recently. I genuinky think energy positive fusion by 2040 is a gimme, very uncomonly in laboratory like test settings. Still gonne be a lonnnnnnng time for it to be usefuly integrated into any national grid as anything other than a vanity or similar project.

@@sc149 We didn't achieve what you think we did. Look for Sabine Hossenfelder nuclear con fusion video to understand what they really did.

* if only you'd give us all the money

yeah anything 10 years away is just vaporware

@@sc149 yeah no shit. you kinda missed the point there

Yes, but we need to switch to entirely Thorium-based fission. I think it’s the only way to obtain public support and also try and reduce the radioactive shit we’re making until we get fusion. Also renewables need to be used more on small scale grids (I.e. neighborhoods and stuff)

@@ptrkmr hell yeah, put the "breed" in "reactor"

@@ptrkmr Thorium certainly has promise, but we could have/should have been using breeder reactors and re-burning waste for decades. Thorium remains largely unproven on industrial scale. I would argue we need a combination of technologies and not put all the eggs in one basket.

@@ptrkmr does public prefer to have no electricity?

Never thought I’d read someone using football plays to describe nuclear fusion, but I’m definitely here for it.

And it's still more than enough to build 30+ nuclear power plants every year that will be producing power constantly, cheap and safe.

@@alexii911 yes and no, it would be cheap and safe if they used thorium, but thorium was never really used because it wasnt as good for nuclear weapons. i guess its way better for power plants and less radioactive if there was a meltdown. we could have endless power already from thorium

@@alexii911 just make sure to advocate thorium if you talk about nuclear power. using uranium is bad and creates loads of waste(although im sure they could find use for the waste) but keep thinking THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM lol

@@matthewfors114 could you please elaborate on loads of waste? Because as far as I know byproducts of nuclear fission mostly get recycled. If you don't know, please end this argument, because you are very likely to make a fool of yourself.

@Alex Hell Yeah. If people actually wanted clean and safe energy, they would have already replaced most power plants with nuclear. Radioactive waste has nothing to do with this, it's safe when it's surrounded by meters and meters of concrete, which is how they contain it as far as I know.

Poor duck

Get well soon.

Then look at the facts....

I think its a mental trick we play to make us do the hard early work we will never live to see the results of. We tell ourselves that fusion will be here in 20 years so that people dont get discouraged and stop work on it as i suspect many would if they realised it would take 400 years to finish and not even their grandchildren might live to see it.

@@nia.d3356 There is a clear timeline now. It's not science anymore, it's engineering.

@@holretz1 No, it's not just engineering. The tech to make workable fusion still doesn't exist. The timelines that exist are for the most part complete BS someone pulled out their ass, except for some of the timelines that don't yet have an end date.

@@DBZHGWgamer I think you should keep your paranoid conspiracy theories for yourself....

Scientists are talking about this stuff all the time, just through peer reviewed journals and not youtube.

@@sgtjonmcc Why not both?

@@ImprobableMatter yeah with the succes of two minutes paper. There is really a need (and market ;-) for peer viewed video for us RU-vid scholar

Thanks. I'm running out of ideas for dry humor for the upcoming video, but I will try.

@@ImprobableMatter Don't worry. It's more important to be interesting than humorous. Besides, I think the humor may sometimes happen unbeknownst to even you. Just don't stop educating, no matter what. You, and others like you, are all we've got left.

@@ImprobableMatter Why do we need to bother with cold fusion and all this stuff ? Because of people's ignorant sentiments about conventional nuclear waste ?

Corruption that is, Merkel, Putin, Communist skum, Allah! Shell Exxon BP, we love dirty people in power!

You should watch this video to understand why there was nonetheless a net loss of energy and why we are still over 17 years away from practical energy generation.

If it's a dead end or not so possible tech, then we are not climbing the scale... We would be going the wrong way.

@@ToxicityAssured worst case scenario: we get really good at building superconducting magnets

@@ToxicityAssured Even in that case, that's how science works. The wonderful people that work in these projects will examine experimentally why it is a dead end or not possible, so that the next tech will flourish. The only true wrong way in science is to stop asking questions. Hopefully, it is the right way. But time will tell.

@@ToxicityAssured You never know what we may discover while in the process of trying to harness fusion reactions. NASA made major contributions to the creation of MRI's even thought they had no real interest or directive to research medical technologies.

Ah yes the kardeshev scale very cool comment I never thought of it like that have my like.

This is what I like about Helion's approach. No ignition needed, He3 instead of tritium for fuel, and direct electricity generation without the thermal/steam intermediate steps.

That's what I was thinking. At least I'm not the only one who thinks so.

That sounds like how we have nuclear waste superfund sites all over the country or at fukushima where the money providers declare bankrutpcy and leave the cleanup to the government and working taxpayers or the one at Hanford Wa. Of coarse that was for defense research so its defendable. I wonder how soon Homers 3 eyed salmon will take

@@surfernorm6360 3 eyed fish? Um, forever? Don't get your facts from anti-nuke cartoons.

That my friend, is called an exit scam. Hyping a project to get investment then running away with the money

you DID understand, that he's doing exactly that? this is not a scientific video, this is a manipulatory, untrue and badly biased opinion video. the presented figures are partly wrong or outdated and show only limited aspects of the whole. I guess the author is profiting from traditional energy sources or even trying to manipulate the stock price of some fraudulent bogus "venture capital" funded "fusion energy is here" stock exchange construct share... as you said, but it works the other way around, too, like "buy low calls, realize it was an error, hype down the shares, sell the calls" - while the shares never get that low again. btw, what exactly is a "FORMER fusion scientist"?! what is he now?!

Lmao, fusion has already happened

Because this IS exactly the type of information missing on fusion in youtube and the Internet overall

Don't tell people what to do.

The ITER website has a good rundown. The coils in their reactor contain something like 100,000km of wire.

That pesky cell wall material and tritium breeding is gonna bite our behinds. Plasma control too has got to be super tight.

@@marka1000 As far as I'm aware, ITER (being built in southern France) uses a hybrid design that's not tokamak, but called stellerator or something like that. But i think it's supposed to be more efficient at confining the plasma. Also, tritium will be easy money on the moon, it's everywhere up there. In fact, I think achieving effective fusion power would trigger a new gold rush to the moon, and kickstart the actual colonizing of the moon. Just food for thought!

MIT were only a "couple" of years from cracking cold-fusion and that was back when Val-Kilmer was a teen.

@@esahg5421 Cold fusion, uri geller bending spoons with his mind... the 80s were a strange time of silliness :D

@@wibblewobbler9104 can you believe it i was a fan of both lol, but been in every avenue i can imagine since. cold fusion sure cost alot of money just like zero-point energy and pyramid power yeah investigate everything but uri now uri was special. what he taught me was "no one trusts a magician" lol 🤣

I have three videos in a series up already starting with this one: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2DzKXN1pcwY.html

They've yet to demonstrate anything like the timing precision they will need from their impactors. Once they have precision, they'd need to demonstrate reliability. I'm also highly sceptical how those impactors will survive the cyclic loading.

@@craq47 thanks for the reply. what kind of timing precision do they need? Seems similar to collapsing a ball of plutonium with explosives.

@@perfectlycontent64 from the General Fusion website, "Our margin for error between pistons is only ten microseconds." It could be that I'm out of date, because last time I looked, their precision was on the order of milliseconds. Now they're claiming "General Fusion has achieved piston timing of plus/minus 5 microseconds" but I wasn't able to find the data to back it up in any of their research publications.

One related to quantum computing is coming up, hopefully out next month.

@@ImprobableMatter I love you

Just seeing the word green used as a pronoun for energy makes me cringe. It's such a bastardized topic, contaminated by clueless and hostile imbeciles.

"I get so sick of the RU-vid channels just blindly reading press releases with 0 thought." um, YT is a great magnet for the largely ignorant yet still slightly curious. Do you expect more of YT?

It's certainly much harder (maybe theoretically impossible) to achieve a large enough gain; I cover it in my follow-up video linked at the end.

Oh fusion is amazing. How easily and cheaply it can be done is overhyped.

@Peter Cohen Yup, I think I read some of the same article(s?) back in the 60s as a kid. Now, as a 62-year-old, I just think of the real date as: "Not in my lifetime".

For 70 years, scientists have been unable to make a thermonuclear reactor. why? The answer is simple - wrong theory! The reactor is therefore not done correctly. Scientists do not yet know how to make a thermonuclear reactor that gives out commercial heat. When do scientists promise to make a commercial thermonuclear reactor? Promise in 40 years! And they don't guarantee that. But, there is a technology that will help make a commercial thermonuclear reactor in two years. The theory is correct, the reactor design is correct.. I offer the transfer of technology for free, under the contract. 70 лет учёные не могут сделать термоядерный реактор. Почему? Ответ простой - неправильная теория! Реактор поэтому сделан неправильно. Учёные пока не знают, как сделать термоядерный реактор, который выдаёт коммерческое тепло. Когда учёные обещают сделать коммерческий термоядерный реактор? Обещают через 40 лет! И это они не гарантируют. Но, есть технология, которая поможет сделать коммерческий термоядерный реактор за два года. Теория правильная, конструкция реактора правильная. Предлагаю передачу технологии бесплатно, по договору. n-t.ru/tp/ie/ts.htm Thermonuclear fusion in the Sun - a new version. Термоядерный синтез на Солнце - новая версия.

@@88Superphysics88 Scientists definitely have the right theory, otherwise they couldn't create fusion bombs.

@@wowalamoiz9489 Сами подумайте. Бомбы сделали, а коммерческий термоядерный реактор не могут сделать 70 лет. Почему? Технология реактора намного проще чем технология бомбы. Think for yourself. The bombs were made, but a commercial thermonuclear reactor cannot be made for 70 years. Why? Reactor technology is much simpler than bomb technology.

@@88Superphysics88 Because thermonuclear weapons use fission explosions to provide the necessary temperatures and pressure needed for surplus fusion. The reactors so far have not. *BUT* All the fusion reators have done fusion. Doing fusion is not hard, even a high schooler could do it. The only difficulty is to get SURPLUS energy from fusion. To have more output energy than input energy. If the theory was wrong, as you say, these reactors would not achieve fusion reactions. The fact is that they DO. The goal is not to achieve fusion, but to gain energy from fusion.

It is a waste of time. We already have nuclear power that works fine. The limits on it are political and sentimental

They have enslaved and fooled you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖

I think we all know the answer to that one.

There are a few problems, not least that it is very expensive to launch a reactor into space. Some of the fuel recombines into a gas at the edge of the reactor. You would still need to have some sort of wall to keep this fuel (it's not confined by magnetic fields because it's not a plasma) from escaping. You also would need to pump out the Helium-4 produced. So not much of a benefit for a huge cost.

It would be even harder to cool it in space what are you on about?

Short statement at least: ru-vid.comUgkxWX37g3RoYMgZ4L6oI8RDRU8ghPEtIFjL

👍

It is! One of the issues I couldn't find a reasonable answer to is, why can't fusors use electrical arcs/plasma as electrodes. They would be resistant to (almost) any amount of heat and radiation.

It is always nice to hear someone admit problems in physics. Creating fusion that will produce a net gain is only the tip of the iceberg. How is a containment system going to be created that will create and maintain the reaction while we harvest the heat from it? We are looking for quark plasma. That is why the heat requirements get higher and higher. The Big Bang was our universe turning itself into a gargantuan particle collider. The galaxies are quark plasma shrapnel from this event. Each galaxy began its life as a single black hole. Every celestial object created in our galaxy began its life in the quark plasma state including our own planet. Our moon is the end of the entropy of quark plasma. That is how the conservation of energy and mass is carried out as elements are formed from the outside of the mass inward. Supernovae simply do not exist. Everything was already here when the big bang happened.

Instead of a hot plasma, have scientists tried cold fusion by cooling hydrogen to nearly 0 Kelvin and applying electric current and megatons of pressure to it?

Thanks for this information. I was almost there, ad that's why I prefer a short term future with fission as an energy source, possibly switching to Thorium molten salt low pressure with freeze valve gravity stop system. (removing pressure water and other risks) And using nuclear as a temporarily measure until we can make solar systems in orbit from molten asteroids to feed energy via mircowaves or lasers to Earth to gain area for forests and agriculture and stop to rely on Earth rare ressources.

Thanks for the good video!

Corruption that is, Merkel, Putin, Communist skum, Allah! Shell Exxon BP, we love dirty people in power!