ITER: The world's largest fusion experiment | The Edge
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- The acronym ITER stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. It’s also the Latin for ‘the way’, and the way forward here is for near pollution free energy for all.
-----
Subscribe to CNBC International: cnb.cx/2gft82z
Like our Facebook page
/ cnbcinternational
Follow us on Instagram
/ cnbcinternational
Follow us on Twitter
/ cnbci
Subscribe to our WeChat broadcast
CNBC_international
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
amazing
The real heroes of our civilization not Ronaldo and Messi but all this amazing scientists..
@Peace Prevails tbh football is a dumb business
Theyre not heros. easily corrupt trash like the rest
This gives me hope.
Yeah, just 20 more years ；）
lets hope it doesnt explode and destroy the earth though...mmmkay...
GB3770 the Large Hadron Collider didn't.
Fusion reactors simply don't work this way. If you stop injecting fuel the reaction stops, if you stop introducing external heating the reaction stops, if the plasma hits the wall the reaction stops. That's why they're important bits of technology, they're inherently safe.
Also re LHC there's no real way to know what effects it may have caused - it could have completely distorted space-time or created effects in other universes and we don't really have a way to to detect that. The proposed upgrade could be interesting in this area.
china mass produsing solar cells should give you hope)
So funny to read that people on RUclips think they know it better than all the researchers of all those countries involved in this project. A comedy on it's own.
People never define what exactly is the thing which is "decades away", are they meaning a fusion test reactor which produces more than consumes, or are they talking about commercial production that covers 10-20% of total grid production. 10-20% commercial grid production is at least 50-100 years away, even if we had one or two commercial reactors 40 years from now. How have the people "failed" before? Those reactors were much smaller research reactors, and they have achieved ignition and sustained burn, they have probably even exceeded the tasks that they had been set.
Ok, the previous smaller test reactors had a task to ignite and sustain, they did that, it is very likely that ITER will produce more than it consumes, because it is easier to do it in a bigger vessel, plus the newer technology.
The best result was 70%, I don't think that net production has ever been the main problem of ITER, i think it is very likely they will get to breakeven quite quickly, the problem is, how quickly they can get it to produce enough so that the design could be feasible for commercial use. Anyway, the development of fusion has never been sudden breakthroughs, the earlier tests went better step by step, by ignition, sustaining and slowly increasing the output, same will be for ITER, they will slowly increase the amount of production, at some point they will achieve breakeven and from there slowly go for higher net production. I think their goal was 500Mw of output, it might take 5 or 10 years from breakeven to go there. Now, they could for example go to 250Mw of net production in 5 years, but then it gets more difficult to get to the amounts that are needed for commercial, that is the biggest task they have to solve.
What do you think experimental means?
The physical theory is very sound, the previous build test reactors were all huge successes proving the theory to be very accurate.
If beforehand the idea is to proof the concept by generating 1 MW, after using 10 MW to start the reactor up, then when you generate that 1 MW it is a profound succes and reason to assume the much bigger expence for a bigger generator like ITER is worth it.
If they had started building ITER 20-30 years earlier we would have had a net producing fusion reactor already, but political arguements delayed it (Possibly also because there are market forces that didn't want it to replace oil/gass)
ITER is set to produce 500MW with a 50 MW original imput. It is very very likely that it will do this. The experimental part is more to see how long they can maintain this rate of production.
Fusion power is solid physics and can for sure be produced, the real question will be how much does it all cost to build and maintain. Right now even if it could constantly produce 500 MW it would still be way to expencive.
developing fusion before thorium is like trying to develop a flying saucer before making a propellor plane. what idiots the researchers were for spending 100 billion since 1970 on fusion and 0 billion on thorium.
Recommend reading "sun in a bottle". Excellent coverage of the history of fusion power
Fission reactors are still fantastic, and we should be building gen4 plants to reduce our fossil fuel reliance.
Except the said fission reactors are actually consuming fossil fuel : Uranium 235 and Uranium 238.
Not only do they release a whole lot of long-lasting radioactive waste, like Xenon, Plutonium or Neptunium, but they also are a pain in the butt to dismantle. Now I know it is our best energetic option in terms of production at the moment, but things like dams or underwater-turbines would be ecologically preferable before the coming of fusion.
Alexandre Arrivé Yes decommissioning the plants its an expensive task and is not often considered, the waste is pretty minimal in volume however and can be managed or re-used with a bit of care. (If there is no money to be made no one wants the job and shortcuts are taken) I also fail to see how Uranium is a fossil fuel, coal and gas are from fossilized organic material. Building the reactors are very expensive as well making them a long term investment not a quick fix. I hope that if Fusion is realised its actually used, I feel it has never got the attention and funding it deserves compared to fission.
Careful, fossil fuel isn't necessarily fossilized fuel. The term "fossil" is used to qualify any kind of substance used to produce power that is non-renewable or renewable in very-long term. In that case, Uranium applies. And altough, compared to coal, petrol or gaz, the waste volume per watt is rather low, we're talking about nuclear waste. Some of it can be easily repurposed, like Xenon for some lights or Plutonium for adapted fission reactors, but things like Neptunium or Baryum have little to no use, and they usually get dug down, waiting for a better solution or their necessary de-radiation time (10M years for Plutonium, 20M for Neptunium).
About the attention it deserves, well, the scientific community has always been very interested in nuclear fusion reactors, and most of the research in the energy's production research domains are oriented towards the said reactors. However, it's very clear that the media attention over ITER and the fusion is very low, probably because the companies' directors think it is still too SF for the average spectator, and thus it doesn't generate a lot of audimat. But yes, it deserves more attention than some orange shithead daily bullshit, because this reactor could ensure clean, long lasting energy, space exploration of our solar system, great economical shifts and, maybe, peace in our time.
About the Tsunami that killed thousands of people? How many were killed by the plant itself? How many people have been killed in total by fission power? I would love safe/clean electricity as much as the next person but it reality coal and fission are the best solutions we have right now.
I think we should be subsidizing solar and reducing our dependence on the grid but unfortunately the infrastructure we have in place is not suitable and someone has to be paid to maintain it.
Apart from the rare disasters caused by fission plants malfunctions, like Fukushima (Tsunami + Inattention) or Tchernobyl (Inadapted technology + Security ignorance), fission is, overhaul, safer than other methods of power production. For example, pipeline explosions, coal mines accidents and dangerous releases of carbonized particles around petrol plants are things that happen on a weekly basis, whereas the security in fission plants, because of their possible nuclear threat, is much higher and extremely exigent.
That being said, there are still the problems of cost, waste and decommission, and switching to a greener form of energy should be our priority, not reverting back to the damn coal, which has been poluting our world for centuries, especially since the industrial revolution happened. Actually, coal has the highest waste/watt ratio in terms of CO2 emanations and dangerous carbonous particles emissions. Btw, something makes me think that President Orange is oppenly climatosceptic, you know, just a little apprehension, nothing too serious...
Solar energy is good, alright, but producing a single solar panel is actually very costly, both in terms of money and in terms of environmental damage.
Currently, two options that are truly clean appear before us : hydraulic power, with the exploitation of dams, underwater currents and, soon, wave formations, and wind power, with wind turbines and their declinations, like those high-altitude, high-efficiency turbine clusters prototypes.
ITER
It's The Environmental Reactor
SO DRY
Love you ❤😇
Good on CNBC. I wish more news companies would focus on the improvements that societies are investing in.
After study iq video..?
yaa I am here after Prashant's sir video. :D Happy learning
Fusion Reactor, awesome!
I love seeing science news by the bigger media that doesn't gloss over it too much and doesn't sensationalise... This seemed a little tame for an American media company but I appreciate it.
Just little stories about how the world is getting better seems so needed right now.
We are almost there. It took us 70 years to go from having the first remote controlled airplane to quad copters everywhere following us to make action videos. Computer integration is key, but software development takes time.
When I was a kid .. _"fusion is right around the corner"_ .. I'm old now. Thorium reactors .. they work!
Awesome nuclear reactor ... big achievement by France ...love from India
Whenever I see this video , Dr octopus from Spiderman movie come into my mind .
We'll have it in just 10 years time!
kick off and play... yes buy now... appreciate and look forward...
Oh I only wish I was part of constructing such a plant!
We are. It's just that the project won't be completed in our lifetime
It's not going to work.
I am!
@@homelesssheltervidlogg74 what are you 90 y.o.? This reactor starts to produce electricity in 2025
If ITER doesn't work, can we do #thorium please?? Advanced fission is the way to go. See Kirk Sorensen's thorium talks
Why not both?
the big problem with fusion is right now it's only around 33% efficient where fusion would be over 100% efficient
Do you know how thorium works ? Do you believe the talk of a single guy ? Smells fishy to me.
@@jeremiahnoar7504 Did you mean to say fission is 33% efficient?
@@Akira282 whopos. Yes I guess I did mean fission. the numbers were still very off though. fission runs at about 91% efficiency. I don't know why the hell I said 33% . I probably meant efficiency only in terms of electrical cost, compared to electrical gain.
Bruddas! We have found De Wae!
Nooooo!
I KNOW HOW FUSION WORKS! WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS IF IT WORKS DAMNIT!
we've made fusion work! but we can't get it to keep going
Many reactors create fusion since the 50's. But it takes way more energy to keep it going than we can ever hope to get out of it. That has been getting better and better. ITER should push us over the top. Also hydrogen bombs and boosted atom bombs. Those have harnessed deuterium-tritium fusion for a long time. Ivy Mike used cryogenic liquid fuel. Later designs use solid fuels, having the deuterium in a chemical bond and usually the tritium in gas form. The amount of tritium injected varies the yield, that's how we have dial-a-yield weapons. Also many neutron generators for instance in medical equipment create fusion on a small scale to generate neutrons.
all who watched DBZ knows how Fusion works.
WOW 5 years ago the cost of ITER was at 14 billion USD. Five years from now they expect first plasma, and even if they achieve the net energy gain we all hope will happen, it will still only be 1/3 of what is needed for a full scale fusion power plant! This has been and will be a long and expensive road.
Still 3+ years away form any kind of TESTING to see if Fusion is even achievable. Right now it's the heat and pressures required that we can't control with current metal and superconductor tech. Even ITER has only hit roughly 5% of the required temps and again, only for short times. They hope to get to 15 million degrees next year, which is roughly 15% of the needed temps let alone the pressures they will need to contain to reach 100 million Celcius.
Fusion is achievable. a) fusing nuclei was demonstrated in the first half of the 20th century - thereby it was acheived, b) net energy productive fusion was demonstrated in the mid 1990s with a tokamak reactor at the JET project's lab in Culham, Oxfordshire. What tokamak research is now trying to show achievability of is some step to a sustainable energy-net-productive reactor - although that story seems to be changing over the decades, they were talking before about trying to show at ITER alone full achievability of a sustainable energy-net-productive reactor but not an economically-net-productive reactor. It's interesting to see them say they're aiming for only Q=10 of a required Q=30. ITER is looking less and less valuable by the year but maybe they mean Q=30 is required for economically-net-productive - if so then that number should have come down with the invention of REBCO tapes with the smaller reactors and more stable plasmas that they reportedly enable.
In middle - ages one has only fire, animal, water and wind, which is suprising that the fear of energy lack does not appeared.
The best intermediate technology is that of Molten Salt reactor using Thorium. Fusion has always been "30 years" into the future, and it is very possible it will never be achieved with the tokamak technology, as the plasma needs to be contained in a small volume. There are two schools of thought on fusion: the tokamak approach and others.
If Thorium could have produced Plutonium in the 1950's we would have had Thorium LFTR reactors in the Sixties! No boom potential so military dropped the funding. But Thorium could still have its day. India and China have hovered up all the Oakridge docs so expect them to be selling them to us in the not too distant future. It can also be used to process all the crap from existing Fission reactors. So there are at least 2 benefits. Along with the great feature that you have to keep it stable to avoid it's reaction shutting down as apposed to fission where you have to keep it stable to stop it going boom.
do you even realize how big iter is ??? and that its a prototype ... a real fusion plant will be as big as a current reactor complex if not bigger
Anyone got a working thorium reactor up and running?
what Thunderfoot debunked was a solid pelet thorium breeder reactor, that would need to be periodicaly disasembeled to extract partially reacted thorium that was converted to uranium. What oak ridge/the chineese were doing is a molten salt reactor that would keep all the fissionable materials in a single liquid phase.
Mini reactors is the key.
i still think thorium is a much better option for the here and now instead of fusion in 50+ years. finish the work that was started in the 60s with thorium and continue the work with fusion after. it would be a win win for the planet.
Search PRBR its poised to go critical pretty soon.
I wonder with some of the disciplines used in Hydro engineering be useful in controlling the plasma in a TokaMac reactor. Such as controlling the vertices of energetic plasma.
So if this works...does that mean we’re going back to centralised power production?
very good
Finding new fuel sources is a nice dream that can be accomplished, but whats more important is finding a better energy conversion system.
We are still left with boiling water.
No-one seems to asking if the British contribution to ITER will continue now that we have left the EU
While containing of hot particles can be simulated, Has anyone tried successful collision to increase in energy to successful containment again several times long enough? People have simulated all particles in CERN with 5 sigma but it's easier than sustainable fusion. To put together such a simulation needs Feyncalc at close approach to find new particles and then do relativistic electrodynamic movement at far distance. One feyncalc simulation takes a minute and an electrodynamic simulation a second which means on a PC it's easy to try atleast one successful reaction to simulate many. Even at such a high temperature there would be at a density of 10^15 per cc and one femto meter and velocity of 100 km PS about 100 collisions a second which means we may need to simulate 100 mins per real second or to simulate 10 second would need 1000 minutes or 16 hours or about a day. Coal to steam engine took 4 decades, Electrons discovery by millikan to solar panels took 100 years and similarly higgs particle to tokamak might take 100 more years till 3018. While we have solar for 300 year, We might first need to secure for 10000 years by making solar panels first to even get power to build it, let's do it slowly and perfectly. Best wishes Doc1dotHR. As a suggestion we thought of can we use electrostatics with shoe brush array to give charges on the walls to contain it by flexible repulsion from all sides? The process of learning from CERN and Tokamaks led us to make better solar panels should we stop intelligently?
I haven't seen a paper or video on the crux. I might update any results. But to write it takes 500 hrs max. 15 million Kelvin has been achieved and atleast it's man's 'stellar' achievement atleast like a school science fair.
Big Bang!
I keep thinking that we'll suddenly realize it's impossible to use fusion because all the super-materials we expected someone to invent are physically impossible to make, and then everyone's gonna have a ton of egg on their face.
Emil Sørensen false.
1:50 correction.. Energy cannot be created nor destroy.. it should be released not created..
All you need is a lot of Tritium, it's so safe! Seawater...and lots and lots of Tritium...
This is why there is a sudden renewed interest in the Moon. Specifically automated mining of Munar surface material. Which is rich in Deuterium and Tritium, due to the Sun's constant and unshielded bombardment of the srface "soil".
Keys879 your comment is retarded. We don’t need to go to the fucking moon for fusion materials. We have more than we need here on earth.
its Helium 3, not Deuterium or Tritium, Helium 3 is EXTREAMLY rare on earth. just trace amounts. the moon has abundance becuase as he said the suns unshielded bombardment on its surface.
"Munar" ? I really hope that was a funny typing booboo XD , because if it wasn't then you a) need to see a hearing specialist to resolve the problem that made you hear Lunar as Munar all these years, and b) need to learn from the written word more where you would have seen Lunar lots and almost never seen Munar.
What would it ultimately do? Boil water to produce steam?
yes, it's funny how so many "new" forms of energy eventually go back to...boiling water to produce steam. But the idea is that we can use way way way way less fuel to boil that water and save money!
Jeremiah Noar there's not much better ways, apart from critical CO2 and Helium brayton cycle, you can use the waste heat to desalinate seawater.
Focus fusion wants to use direct charged particles to coil energy conversion, which is more efficient, but will they get the charge density to rival steam?
Brochacho III As every power plant that's not renewable does.
ITER will not produce electricity at all, it's purely experimental. The goal is just to prove that it can produce 500 megawatts of thermal power for only 50 megawatts of electrical power, and that it can do so for several minutes. Theoretically it could make a net gain of about 200 megawatts of electricity if hooked up to a turbine.
DEMO is the reactor that will be built after ITER, and is intended to produce 2000 megawatts of thermal power for about 100 megawatts of electrical power. As a general rule, a steam turbine can convert about half it's thermal power into electrical power, so DEMO would give about a ten-fold return on electrical power.
However, certain types of fusion fuel produce virtually all of their energy as charged particles(typically electrons and positrons), which can be directly harvested as electricity with efficiencies upwards of 90%. This also means that reactors using such fuel produce very little waste heat, and require far less shielding.
The problem is that those fuel types are much harder to fuse than regular D/T fusion and we can't even get that working yet.
just 18 years to go, don't hold your breath thought.
My father works in iter
What does he do?
What's the worst that could happen.
Minute 1:11 Vatican 🇻🇦 flag
Yea but now the chalange is to avoid radioactive contamination . and use artificial sun for space traveling. And etc.
Chilli bean.
Coal, oil, and wood are natural and they work the best.
Great video ! The Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison has a small He3 Fusion Test Reactor ! Thank you for the video ! Back to the Moon to Stay and onto Mars and Beyond-Ad Astra... tjl P.S. I can use Latin also...
This is just a fancy water boiler...
Yes, but if you can boil water for free you can create free electricity.
Not entirely, but if the technology ever advances to the point where it produces more energy than it consumes then the cost of producing energy will be a fraction of what it is now.
Yes
Most power plants rely on boiling water because with the exception of photovoltaic solar we haven't found a way to generate electricity without induction caused by forcing a fluid through a turbine. Even concentrated solar relies on boiling water.
10x more than you put in
I'd hate to see the electromagnetics fail at around 100 million degrees.
In the meanwhile we SHOULD build AS MANY solar & wind farms as possible!
Nope. Nuclear plants. Both wind and solar are net negatives and just don't get the job done.
how about both
@@eruno_ did you see the part about how both wind and solar have a net negative effect on the environment?
Can the reactor run continuously, or is it batch-mode at this point? I would think adding reactants (tritium and deturium) and extracting waste products (helium) during the reaction would make it extremely difficult to maintain plasma temperature and confinement.
ITER will not be able to run continuously as far as I know (doing a PhD on plasma physics and fusion energy in Copenhagen atm). However, there is a fusion reactor called DEMO currently being designed that will be able to sustain a plasma and produce energy continuously. It is scheduled to be fully constructed and operational at the middle of this century :)
The reactor can't generate net power and can't generate any electricity AT ALL.
Solar takes a gas backup generator, and thorium burns all the old rods laying around. .....Which you gonna go with carbon based or carbon free?
I came to this video from my physics home work nuclear power lesson is insanly diffulcr
T
In the years I've been watching this project being built I can't say they have got very far... Is it just too bloody big... There's probably too many cooks in the kitchen.
Basically you need a really big tokamak if you want to stand a chance of getting more power out than you put in.
With the previous superconductors, you have to make it this big to get more power out than you put in. The ARC reactor being designed at MIT uses the newest superconductors which enables it to be 1/10th the volume of ITER. The future of energy is fusion, and the ARC design is what we will be using.
@@ophello Problem is that cannot be used to research the proper configuration to build such a reactor so ITER is still necessary for the research.
Once people work fusion out we will finally have the energy source to make the stars our destination, probably wont see that happen in my life.
high temp super conductors just threw a wrench into design. Tokamak can now be much much smaller. No liquid helium refrigeration required now. Ooooppps.
The 100M Deg plasma is well suited/ necessary for fusion, but low-energy high-resonance strategies could lead to ELECTRICALLY controllable BETA-DECAY. With that, a team could turn [anything] into an energy releasing transmutation-series of chain reactions.
I have no idea what this "controllable beta-decay" thing is, but I assume it's something similar to
sjbyrnes.com/cf/controlled-electron-capture-reaction/
Then it's just another type of "cold fusion", which is a known pseudoscience.
Beta decay based chain reaction would defeat the point of having a reactor that has no radioactive waste.
There isnt such a thing as a chain reaction on nuclear fussion
Imagine a scheme where, a quantity of thermalized neutrons influenced by a lazer [Wakefield,] become confined, and a destabilizing event occurs where 2 neutrons spontaneously Beta-decay into protons and these bind with 2 other neutrons through gluon force carriers. Ha! You just produced helium nuclei. Where did the difference in rest-mass go?
I think you'd produce deuterium, not helium, if such process was possible. Why would exactly two neutrons decay at the same time.
The energy would be released with beta particles and gamma rays when the decay happens and again as gamma when the neutron capture occurs, but it's probably way way less than what you are using for your laser (which you have to run all the time, not just to ignite the plasma as in tokamak or stellarator) since a free neutron's half-life is like 10 minutes (so you won't see many reactions going at any given moment).
You could instead use the laser for inertial confinement fusion of deuterium and tritium, that has actually been proven to work.
Were there any experiments to demonstrate that your method is feasible at all? Post links to the articles.
i didn't get the part about plasma density, 10 to the 20 pascals per cubic meter sounds like a lot but what was his point, that it's lower than atmospheric pressure?
*Ten to the twenty particles (i.e. atoms and ions) per cubic metre. That roughly equates to 0.4 milligrams of matter per cubic metre (using Avogadro's number and assuming an average of 2.5 nuclei per particle). Air at sea level is 1.2 kilos per cubic metre, which is roughly 3 million times denser.
so the plasma is under very low pressure then? i thought the whole point of fusion was very high temp and pressure, like inside the cores of stars? at such low pressures how to get nuclei to fuse?
Low pressure has little to do with how the nuclei will fuse. Nuclei will fuse if they overcome their natural repulsion by massive amounts of energy. This energy is given to the nuclei in the fusion reactor by heating it up to blazing temperatures. The nuclei are contained by magnets.
is there some kind of global negative impact of changing atoms from one element to another element?
No. It happens in nature all the time.
Columb scattering issue
1:28 - "All atoms consist of electrons surrounding a nucleus that contains protons and neutrons"
That is patently false. The vast majority of hydrogen items (99.98% or so) do not contain any neutrons. Given that the vast majority of atoms in the universe are hydrogen, that means that the vast majority of atoms in the universe do not contain any neutrons at all. Similarly, the vast majority of atoms have a single electron, not "electrons".
FUTURE....?
WHAT....?
SuomiMies ya but why the fuck did he say FUTURE....?
How do you know that it's the future? What if it turns out that sustaining fusion with a higher power output than input is impossible?
corgidog - It is possible. It's called a star.
Or it's the dinosaurs but us
What is keeping its construction so long?
fitofight Show a tiny bit of interest in the scale of all the hardware and you know the answer. It's a small town being build. Components of 800 tonnes coming from across the globe, 7 huge power transformers on the 400kV grid, many large buildings have to be made, earthquake proof, etc.
fair is fair
Technically fusion is already obsolete, as we already have vacuum energy technology.
Sadly that will never be publicly available.
Although I wonder if it would be possible to combine fusion and desalination plants. Cheaper power and unlimited fresh water is at least a possibility.
We dont have the technology and its useless since it doesnt produce enough energy
I finally found the way.
Do u know da wey brotha
how much power is expected to come from this experiment? how many solar panels is one tokomak?
As stated in the video, no power is expected to come from this reactor: it's an experimental reactor. Questions concerning this project will probably be answered by just visiting their webpage: www.iter.org
@Bruce Ladon Of course power will be generated, but it won't be put on the grid. In fact huge basins are built to evaporate the hot water.
Still a long way to go....even if it did, solar pv would have been dirt cheap. Fusion could still have its uses where sunlight and/or space is limited.
1drop h20=17mw energy???🤔🤔🤔
Cool
So maybe in 17 more years rom 2018 if they can keep to the schedule someone might see some power for this device.
Just have to wait and see.
Hopefully we can produce even 1% more energy than it takes to run a fusion reactor by 2050
After it doesn’t work, will they call it fizzle?
They will and truth will be known in next 10 years
Hope they don't become threat like nuclear fission reaction.
Just one mistake and all of gone.😂
Unskippable ad
Pray for me
We are already using fusion-produced energy, in fact all our ancestors have used fusion-produced energy before electricity was even discovered!
The Sun?
@@robinhyperlord9053 Yes.
Smash atoms together, sounds like LHC, I hope they don't open a portal in the fusion reactor.
Thermo-Nuclear Fusion is not a sustained reaction like solar fusion or nuclear fission. You take away applied heat and the reaction stops.
Do fast !
👍
I still don’t understand how you get energy out if creating bigger atoms
You dont make bigger atoms. You take two atoms and combine them together. The total mass of the element is less then the two atoms that created it. The missing mass is the energy that is released.
It's due to the interplay of entropy, Einstein's equivalence of energy and mass (often approximated to E=mc²) and the principle of the conservation of Energy. Among the small atoms (smaller than Iron) larger ones have less mass than you'd find by summing the masses of the smaller ones that you fuse to make them even though the parts that make the smaller pair are the same in number as the parts that make the larger one. This is due to the change in entropy of joining nuclei, if I understand correctly, and having less mass they have less energy in potential then. Having less energy in potential it and often also some ejected spare part have the missing energy in the form of momentum at least in part. We can let some of that momentum pass out of the place where the reaction occurs into a place where we can use that momentum to drive machines through various means and that's what we already do with coal power-plants, campfires, etc. This is too simplified a description to explain all the means of using fusion to do work but it is usefully close to the most detailed description I've received for some types of device such as the oft-reported tokamaks.
Fallen angel technology
Fusion needs a grid, Natural Gas needs a grid, Coal needs a grid, Hydro needs a grid, SOLAR TECHNOLOGY with BATTERY STORAGE does not need a grid.
ofcourse it needs a grid. the grid is what connects the power to everywhere else, what is your point?
Dont hold you breath for fusion to make electricy any time soon
Still 30 years away... Hahaha...
splitting an atom releases energy, energy isn't created.
Joseph Allan Oliveri but it can change states....whats your point ? In no way is this a violation of thermodynamics.
isn't water more important than energy
A fusion reactor like that might consume a couple tons a year of hydrogen. It would take a billion years to use a small fraction of the water. Energy will make it possible to make fresh water in vast quantities which will help everyone.
What your seeing here is centralisation of power (and power) , where we continue to pay for energy. This is a step backward for freedom of energy and a step forward in technology. So easy to sell.
Oil companies are still too strong to let this happen anywhere soon...
How would they stop it?
Where this project take place ?
On Earth
France
It's too slow. Maybe I can't see it when I die.
As per the reports, their research will complete till 2020.
ITER est en france
en france pas au USA !!!
It is a cooperative venture among multiple nations. It has to be built somewhere, in some country. France is a good place for it because it is located near enough to the other members, plus, it is an insignificant enough country that it is not a threat to anyone.
@@deezynar Explain "insignificant"
@@hades8147 Insignificant means, unimportant. It makes little difference in the world. Now that it is a member of the E.U., it has even less ability to make a difference because Brussels has so much control over them. I replied to fabrice balique's gloating that ITER is located in France not the U.S. and wrote in the same spirit of national chauvinism that fabrice used. I think you can take my remarks about France with the same seriousness that you took his remarks about the U.S.
@@deezynar Touche, i find that fits the banter here, ha -Cheers
@@deezynar Come on, now. They're hosting an energy experiment for the world. No need to be so disparaging. France is a developed country and is trusted to be more benign than say something like North Korea or Pakistan.
I can build a fusion reactor for under $5000 and it will sustainabuild yes it will be small and it will use less than a 500W .
@Fred Cink Are you 5?
I heard some teenager did this, are you talking about a wireframe farnsworth fusor? 500W is pretty cool for the eerie purple glow, better than a microwave oven. Will you have to add the cost of shielding from radiation or is that included in the $5000? Are you talking USD?
hello
How to get fusion energy:
1. Construct a huge underground chamber
2. Fill it with water
3. Detonate thermonuclear bombs inside it
4. Use the resulted steam to generate energy.
5. Profit
Plasma can also be used as a deadly weapon. It is like a Laser but much more hotter and powerful. It is like blasters in star wars.
La Filipina except it's so hot it can pass through other matter doing no damage and evapoates is it's not containd in a magnetic field
If this is successful then the next problem to solve is to distribute the energy and I know that power lines can do it but it takes up a lot of space. So can we build a giant Tesla Coil to distribute power wirelessly?
Marlo Mamocod do you enjoy putting your hand in a microwave?
Wireless electricity is impractical today because wireless information and wireless electricity are mutually exclusive, back in Tesla's day when the only form of remote communication relied on telegraph lines there was nothing in the ether surrounding us so using a power coil to induce an electrical current in something half a mile away was magical and brilliant.
But then wireless communication came along and soon we were surrounded by invisible information that a powerful magnetic field would interfere with. If we adopted wireless electricity today we could do away with power cords but we would have to replace them with a million other cables carrying everything from radio, TV, walkie talkies, CB radios, radar, alarm systems, baby monitors, basically everything that relies on the transmission of EM waves.
If you put a Tesla coil in the center of a city you would jam the airwaves for miles around like setting off an EMP.
No we cant, because wireless energy losses a lot of efficiency. By the time it reached a mile away you would loss most the energy. Nice to see people trying to come up with ideas though.
and when it not work at least we have a new big fun park
The Tokacoaster.
XD
"the dream to design a machine that produces more energy than it consumes". That's called a power plant
no completely. a power plant is something that converts an energy source into electric energy. All power plants consume more energy than they produce electrical energy. (that's why we say most plants have an efficiency of say 40% or 30%) but the idea behind fusion is to be more than 100% efficiency. To get out more than you manually put in. that's "producing" more energy than it consumes
Wrong. There is no such thing as free energy. A fusion tractor simply uses fusion to convert a small part of the reactants mass into energy. Rewatch the video. He specifically says that about 4/1000 of the original mass turns I to energy.
Len Farag, I guess I should have been more spacific, the point of fusion is to get out more electrical Energy than you put in.
" idea behind fusion is to be more than 100% efficiency"... :) You are too funny, Jeremiah.
TTuoTT He ment a fusion reactor that produces more energy than we put in.
energy was around before Einstein
Or we could use Ponds and Fleischmann's cold fussion, then we wont need a grid so big companys can ripp us off!
Hes talking way too fast and mumbling too much for me to learn what hes talking about, i got this shit for school and im in the 9th grade
Plasmar.
Is ronald regan dead?
I hope so. They buried him.
Make it possible in under 15 years , cause is say so . Limit 2032 .
India is playing major role