Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion? - Prof. Dennis Whyte

[@joshsimpson10]

How did I not see this 4 years ago. This guy deserves all the money he could ever want... genius 👊

[@theCodyReeder]

Been listening to lectures all night while I work. So far this one was the most exciting. I will defiantly be following this in the future.

[@stephenborntrager6542]

Good to know I'm not the only one who binges on lectures over night... (Big fan of your channel, btw!)

[@jesscast5122]

defiantly???? Definitely you mean........ dumb ass....

[@pjn7066]

Jess Cast - who knows? Maybe his boss at work told him to stop listening???

[@jesscast5122]

Patrick Novak No. the context points to "definitely"

[@MrBrew4321]

Does it definitively point to definitely, or are you just being defiant? ;)

[@maccam94]

Video Timeline: 00:01:00 - introducing Dennis Whyte, MIT department head for nuclear science 00:04:24 - presentation starts 00:06:00 - identifies breakthrough with REBCO magnets 00:07:25 - explains deuterium-tritium fusion 00:12:30 - basic metrics for reactor performance 00:17:15 - energy output of other previous fusion experiments 00:19:00 - examines ITER and the problems of its approach 00:22:00 - problems solved by high energy magnetic fields 00:28:15 - full scale reactor concept, teardown of REBCO magnets 00:37:00 - design limits and margins 00:39:00 - fixes plasma instabilities found in weaker magnetic chambers 00:40:00 - maintainability, lifespan, component replacement 00:45:00 - solution to neutron damage and energy capture 00:50:30 - cost and profitability 00:54:00 - full graph of field strength vs reactor scale (and thus funding requirements) 01:01:50 - Q&A 01:30:00 - question about the biggest risks

[@bobbowie5334]

After listening to this wonderful presentation I'm convinced that we are a scant twenty years away from nuclear fusion.

[@sejembalm]

4:24 introduction ends (finally).

[@Tim_Tomorrow]

Doin God's work, son.

[@Johnny-sj9sj]

Sigh of relief! Ta! 🇬🇧

[@kevingooley6189]

I don't think the introduction has ended at 12:21. I am out of here or out of hear.

[@BartJBols]

the start of the video always seems 10 years away

[@CRSolarice]

....another inferiority complex driven mumbler.

[@africanexplorermagazine]

I respect human beings that are actually working towards betterment of the Planet and the human species.

[@Dina_tankar_mina_ord]

you sound like you werent a actual human yourself. :) but yes i agree.

[@ChuckyLad]

No he does not and yes I also agree

[@siramike2654]

irrespective of what humans do, we are here to stay on earth till who knows be wipe off like dinos. the universe is quite harsh. why wouldn't it allow the existent of energies that faster than speed of light?. the reason we are not seeing Aliens is because of speed limit imposed on the universe.

[@keithhoward4069]

I am what many would call a climate warming denier. But who cares, we need fusion to make the world a better place. Cheap energy will turn salt water into fresh and deserts into gardens. It could save many millions of people. No more limits to resources. What we can't get on earth, with unlimited power we could bring it here from about anywhere in the solar system.

[@FixItStupid]

YouR A Fool Slave Of Greed Lies Of Nuclear KILLING THE EARTH ARE YOU A FOOL ? OR JUST GREEDY ?

[@DCFusor]

As a fusion researcher myself, though on a very different path - if anyone is going to make thermalized magnetic confinement fusion work, I'd bet it's this guy and his team. I'm rarely impressed. But this impresses me. If there are flaws, they're not mentioned - perhaps Bremsstrahlung radiation loss is higher at higher B? It's always the things you leave out that turn out to be the problem.... Otherwise, excellent job picking up on the fact that new superconductors change the game a lot.

[@naimulhaq9626]

Sounded incredible to me, although I am not an authority, and did not work in the field.

[@naimulhaq9626]

Sounded incredible to me, although I am not an authority, and did not work in the field.

[@chancebob5147]

Hey Doug Coulter I would really love to hear your thoughts on Sonoluminescence and its possibility in nuclear fusion? I personally think it could be the way for nuclear fusion.

[@DCFusor]

While collapsing bubbles are interesting indeed (and General Fusion is sort of trying to do that with one in lead) - I think we might have an issue of physics "numeracy" if I can coin a term. Sure, you can get to "insane" levels of energy, but in terms of per-particle energy, not so great. In other words, huge compared to chemical bonds, but tiny compared to coulomb repulsion between nuclei. Kind of like thinking all big things are yes, big, but ignoring the difference in size between a lineman in football (big!) and the solar system (a heck of a lot bigger). In my bunched beam collision work, my "bunches" may only be in proximity for the order of magnitude of a nanosecond (10^-9) . That's a real short time. But wavefunctions in the vicinity of the "square well" of strong force leakage for a nucleus are in the range of 10^-20 or -22. So there's fast, and there's a heck of a lot faster. From the point of view of a nucleus a nanosecond is "forever". Most people think "well fast==fast or high energy==high energy". It pays to attend to the details. Chemical bonds are quite weak compared to nuclear ones (which, looking back, is the entire point of nuclear energy). 10's of eV vs millions.... The flaw I see (well, one of them) in this kind of bottled hot plasma described here is division of input energy into all the degrees of freedom, and dependence on random velocity vectors (which is why they use temperature instead of eV, loosely speaking) to get some nuclei close enough for long enough in an otherwise long mean free path to get some fusion. I do wish them (and everyone else) luck. Seems like the hard way to me.

[@chancebob5147]

Doug Coulter Thank you so much for a proper informed answer, I am a 21 yr old exploring future types of energy and I understand that it could be the hard way with the current tech, but the fact that you can produce so much heat with such little energy (just sound vibration and frequency) amazes me. If you have the time i would love to hear your thoughts on community solar, sorry for bombarding you for questions but you are one of the only people i have met on youtube that can give me a good answer to these questions. And do you think Rusi Taleyarkhan's experiment is seeing nutrition's or do you think there background nutrition's?

[@billdale1]

This fella does not talk like a book--- speaks fluidly, and with a style that the common man can understand. Thank you, sir! And thank you and your colleagues sincerely for advancing the sciences and technologies necessary to make fusion generators a Thing, and banish our coal plants!

[@jerryhenning9810]

Fusion is 50 years away and always will be. After an hour and a half of listening to this sales job just reaffirmed that. He said we have better magnets. If you have the magnets then put them into the machines already flipping built.

[@USSSkipjack]

Great presentation! This might make tokamaks economically feasible after all. Wished there were more presentations and lectures by Prof Whyte available as videos. I really enjoyed listening to him. His enthusiasm is very captivating. Hope to see more!

[@goneutt]

Finally! A design that answers my question of how they get energy out!

[@theheilious]

I want to congratulate Professor Whyte on an excellent summation of the current state of magnetic constriction fusion! Even I, as a lay person merely interested in the subject, understood a great deal of what he discussed and feel more confident that a working and economically useful over unity hot fusion system is achievable in my remaining lifetime. (10-20yrs) The implications of having a limitless, non-polluting energy supply for the stability and sustainability of our species on this particular pebble in space are beyond huge...

[@AlphaKingofGlory]

Thank you gentlemen and ladies for all your hard work and dedication

[@graysonkelly2065]

An impressive talk. A very key point is at 1:03:34. The speaker addresses the key issue of where a fusion venture has the bulk of its risk. His answer: 1:04:15. What he doesn't say directly is that needing an innovation in technology represents far less risk than needing an innovation in plasma science. As sophisticated as the new magnet technology is, it pales in comparison to the complexity and uncertainty of innovating with plasma. Dr. Whyte and company (he now has a company, CFS) have 60+ years of plasma research on tokamaks to apply directly. The MIT group has a long history of research on tokamaks of the highest magnetic fields. Good luck to them on their new venture.

[@The1Helleri]

I think the blanket can still work. You should just make the blanket half the thickness and and do two rings of them (one inside the other) instead of one. That way you can stagger the alignment of one ring so that the joining seams have solid blanket behind them (like a brick wall). So even if there is an imperfect join through which there could be escape. There is solid blanket right behind the separation. If there is a gap in the first ring you will see a drop in efficiency from expectations (probably about half). Same thing if there is a gap in the second ring. In the case of the first ring you should see no damage done (just the efficiency drop). In the case of the second ring having a gap you see the efficiency drop plus damage. But only half the damage. Either way it's better than a full leak. The drop in efficiency can also be a red flag. How much it would drop by if there is a partial leak in the blanket should be quantifiable. And any drop within a predicted range will tell you instantly that there is a partial leak and possible damage and that the part needs to be replaced.

[@j________k]

Congratulations on getting SPARC funded!! I tip my hat to you guys :D BRING ON THE FUTURE!

[@johnorosz7477]

But then there's this: Jul. 3, 2018 , 2:00 PM Plans for a controversial multibillion-dollar U.S. nuclear research reactor are coming together at lightning speed-much too fast, say some nuclear policy experts. With a push from Congress, the Department of Energy (DOE) has begun designing the Versatile Fast Neutron Source, which would be the first DOE-built reactor since the 1970s. It would generate high-energy neutrons for testing materials and fuels for so-called fast reactors. But U.S. utilities have no plans to deploy such reactors, which some nuclear proliferation analysts say pose a risk because they use plutonium, the stuff of atomic bombs. Researchers are divided on whether the reactor, which would likely be built at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) near Idaho Falls, is badly needed or a boondoggle. "Definitely, there is a lack of capability in the U.S. and a shortage of such facilities worldwide," says Massimiliano Fratoni, a nuclear engineer at the University of California, Berkeley. But Frank von Hippel, a nuclear physicist at Princeton University, says, "It's a pork-barrel project." The reactor does enjoy extraordinary congressional support. In March, Congress gave the project $35 million for this year, although DOE only requested $10 million. The House of Representatives and the Senate have passed separate bills that call for completing the facility by 2025, with the House bill authorizing DOE to spend $2 billion. Von Hippel speculates that the cost could end up reaching $10 billion.

[@FixItStupid]

Yep You Kill Of The Rest The Earth Hope The Cancer Get YOU ALL GREED Lies ALL

[@Shrouded_reaper]

@@FixItStupid ok schizo

[@trupyrodice4462]

@@FixItStupid bro, how is it that you think its killing the rest of the world? You do know that this is completely 100% natural process that has occurred ostensibly since the beginning of all time? You know, when your big cloud guy said "let there be light"

[@pirojfmifhghek566]

30:23 - "Stark" contrast REBCO in the ARC reactor. I see what you did there.

[@antonnym214]

This is great stuff. Can we get an update for 2020?

[@Withnail1969]

Guess what, it went nowhere like all the other 'breakthroughs'.

[@ameliacavallaro8067]

A company was spun out, a test reactor is in its 3rd year of design, construction has started at a large site, and in a couple of months they will be demoing a large tokamak-relevant magnet using this new HTS technology :) The reactor, SPARC, should come online in a couple of years (2025 or thereabouts).

[@Withnail1969]

@@ameliacavallaro8067 So no results then. Construction has not started by the way, and 2025 is more than a couple of years from 2021.

[@ameliacavallaro8067]

@@Withnail1969 This article (cfs.energy/news-and-media/commonwealth-fusion-systems-selects-47-acre-site-in) says construction starts Spring 2021. I work on these projects so I can't say any more than that. The results so far are the SPARC physics basis papers (www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-plasma-physics/collections/status-of-the-sparc-physics-basis) as well as the magnet design (the TFMC this summer, the VIPER cable design already published). All this lecture says is "if we have these magnets, fusion looks possible." The physics basis papers back that up to the greatest degree possible w/o running the device, and the magnet designs show that we can build the magnets. In 2025 we'll know if the whole design achieves the results we expect, but there is a scientific consensus that they will. Until then it's just a conversation + some engineering.

[@AdaDenali]

Their high temperature superconducting magnets work! Next step building SPARC, should be ready in 2025

[@portuguesepossum3165]

As a Layman Fusion Enthusiast (LFE) I must say this is one of the best lectures I have heard on the matter. Great job 👏🏼

[@scottifly]

Magnetic confinement and the focus of Livermore since 1968 on laser heating, has been a colossal waste and they've known it since then. Why don't you skip magnets (Tokamak) and instead both confine and heat a plasma using high power microwaves? U.S. patent 4,000,036.

[@chris432t6]

Clear, well spoken and explained with great slides. Makes everything more enjoyable. Thank you.🌞

[@billmee4628]

OK, it has been 8 years, so where are we now?

[@GregoryJWalters]

Thank you Prof. Whyte! You have a special gift to make complex science comprehensible to the Humanist. Fascinating science and engineering! May you and colleagues find new breakthroughs that may benefit our human species and the planet. Peace

[@mariehunter3412]

This is exciting if it really goes anywhere. My husband was a nuclear engineer 50 years ago. We saw news of people trying fusion. Others laughing at the idea as not doable. 50 years is a long for a lot of experimenting and may it's going to come into its own. It will be fun to watch.

[@hardware199]

People like Dennis Whyte are the real heroes of our time. They are working hard for a better future of manking. They should be our shining examples and not investmentbanker or something.

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

hahahahahahha

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

it doesnt work..it operates at a LOSS.. it LOSES power by a factor of about a million to 1 now

[@pcmountaindog]

I'll take the investment bankers. At least they creat money people can use to build home schools etc. These nerds have been spending on this stuff for 60 year and have not created 1 watt of delivered commercial power. One more thing, the funding comes from the bankers at the Fed who create the money. No bankers, no fusion.

[@LaurenceHuntKenora_Ontario]

Fusion power technology is advancing at a more rapid rate than Moore's law. Anyone who hasn't noticed doesn't understand where this research is going... at an exponential rate.

[@pcmountaindog]

Yes and 50 years ago it was 50 year away, last week it was 50 years away, today it's 50 years away, in 50 years it will still be 50 years away. I guess all that is needed is about 50 billion dollars and then it will only be 49 years away. As a research project there may be something to gain but in 500 years commercial power will still be 50 years away. Stick with fusion and make it better and safer. It which worked 50 years ago and will continue to work 50, 100, 200 years from now. That is if our monetary system doesn't go under first killing everyone and everything.

[@charleslong5373]

You still have the problem of neutron escape. They are not charged, so magnetism can’t confine them, and they go and activate just about any containment material. Also the black body radiation coming off the hot plasma would have components in the gamma ray region, and that would activate any containment material.

[@Wafflepudding]

TONY STARK WAS ABLE TO BUILD THIS IN A CAVE! WITH A BUNCH OF SCRAPS! (JK, I'm very impressed and gratefull)

[@jojolafrite90]

Plus it's a miniature version, which is literally not possible. OH, and it actually outputs a LOT of energy. None of the tokamaks we build will ever output more than it costs in energy... Not even ITER.

[@woodywoodlstein9519]

@@jojolafrite90 it’s been 5 years. Any idea how they’re doing with this now ? He said $300 m and ten years. It’s been 5. I wonder how much they’ve spent ?

[@pjmoran42]

And he could wear it in his chest!!! Cmon you slakards!

[@carlosarturofalconi7618]

Thanks Prof. Dennis Whyte. This presentation is really great in all the topics covered.

[@stargot1]

this lightweight Magnetic field generator would be really useful in spaceship to protect astronaut against cosmic radiations

[@Etheoma]

Well thing is after we went with a Uranium burner reactor we never really moved on for like 50 years, so I think it is semi important to do the right one first. Obviously getting there in the first place is more important, but some thought should be put into the right option from the get go. And one of my interests in fusion is as a neutron source, that is so you can breed fissile materiel in space so that you don't have to launch fissile materiel and you can pick stuff with like billion year halve lives which are bearly radioactive at all so then you can use fission reactors in space, because you can build fission reactors a lot lighter than you can build fusion reactors at least currently.

[@Valdismith]

I guess KZbin got to this video while I was asleep, but heard the part about all his certifications, what he does, what he knows They should protect this guy from being kidnapped.

[@joshuateachey1630]

Lol

[@allensandven0]

This is such a uplifting lecture and I will say it “ Cliché” so energetic ! If I wasn’t so old I’d get my slide rule dusted of and apply to MIT fusion program or maybe pass it on to my grandson that’s interested in science and lives near DOE Hanford , I try to get the most exposure and educational opportunities that we have here and he’s excelled in math being on-track to earn Associate credits by high school graduation Great job

[@restonthewind]

Screw all of the practical engineering issues, like designing a replaceable core. Build anything that yields net energy, and investment to solve the engineering problems will appear.

[@ns4235]

Do you think the engineering required to make it economical is obviously doable?

[@marvinmontgomery1291]

We are only 30 years away where have I heard that before?. Let's do the Thorium LiFTeR reactors it is doable

[@SkypowerwithKarl]

Marvin Montgomery Bingo!

[@Bryan-Hensley]

You ought to heard all the crap we were supposed to have by now from when I was in school in the 70s. They haven't even made any real progress on cure for cancer. No progress on the antibiotic resistance pathogens. We are still using a electric motor invented in the 1800s. We are still using piston power devices invented in the 1600s. People are actually getting dumber

[@mphozulu4822]

Yip.. Thorium could be used now.. India started already

[@SkypowerwithKarl]

Mpho Zulu I don’t think India’s program is LFTR.....like we did in the 70’s !!!!!!!!

[@mphozulu4822]

@@SkypowerwithKarl hi.. The kalpakkam reactor supposed to be ready.. Only minor things to sort out.. But should be ready by now.. Will check later.. First a good breakfast :)

[@kd1s]

I'm familiar with the size of the Alcator reactor. Actually got to see it opened up a few years back.

[@timmo971]

I continually hear about the containment fields required and the massive temperatures etc but no lecture has announced how they plan to convert this heat into usable generators through these containment fields

[@robertriker8360]

That is a very impressive list of credentials, perfect for the tasks ahead for humanity. Good luck to you all. No pressure, but the future depends on all actions of today being "forward".

[@Barskor1]

Low cost energy production in a closed loop vacuum system: You have a water tank filled with degassed deionized water, the water then goes through black pipes held in glassed-in insulated boxes so sunlight is captured to heat the water "it can get hot enough to boil at sea level" the piping then goes to a spray nozzle where the hot water instantly vaporizes the steam then goes to a turbine that drives an electrical generator, after the turbine the steam and any water that condensed in it travel at a downward angle through a pipe with a condensation coil around it to a large vacuum chamber that has heat transfer fins inside this preheats water from a large reservoir tank that then feeds to the starting tank. The constant rapid condensation of the steam combined with a volume of the vacuum chamber being 3x or larger than the volume of steam produce at any given time maintains the vacuum level so the process continues.

[@midnightwatchman1]

I am in the future and still no progress

[@Ghryst]

i am in the futures' future, and they finally got some better cgi for the new video

[@bobdimarzio3972]

@@unitedspacepirates9075 moronic blithering

[@Brain.Washington]

YO IM FROM THE FUTURE, LIKE ACTUALLY FROM THE FUTURE, 03/JAN/2021, YOU NEED TO TURN ON THE NEWS.

[@mogoreanu]

We're probably in some parallel future where things went wrong.

[@midnightwatchman1]

@@mogoreanu great meeting you fellow traveler

[@MichaelSkinner-e9j]

I know it sounds crazy, but the key to sustainable fusion is in space inside O Neil Cylinders. The main preface for that is you can use HUGE Flywheels as large as the Cylinder itself that are as as efficient as any solid state Capacitor, and you can use their size and speed to provide the necessary energy to keep that much energy coming into the system to sustain it. To have fusion go for that long and be sustainable, it’s almost like your fusion plant has to be the size of a coffee cup, and you have to have Niagara Falls behind it (your Solar Cells and multiple flywheels that are as big as a torus station themselves) Once you have that much energy behind it , you can have laser (and and use other oscillating waves) for fusion, with either a sphere or cylinder itself that rotates to have about 30 or 50,000 feet of water to get heated. - that will essentially act as a Dyson sphere, but Significantly Smaller with Solar cells and hot water at the surface (either in pipes or geysers- one or the other) With that Dyson sphere or cylinder rotating, you can have the water and air stick to the walls and convection can work as normal. - with laser fusion in that way, you can have plasma, then you can have superheated air, then superheated water, and then you can go outward because you have that much space. It’s all about scale, and you need a cylinder That big in order to do it. My Name is Michael Skinner, and it’s the only way you can have sustainable fusion that’s efficient enough - Do what you want to do on the big scale, just smaller scale. On the interior of that smaller scale cylinder wheel, you can have a planetary gear set up to help provide the waves that you need, besides being their own gearbox (efficiency through size and scale) Only issue is, that would be one heck of a big whirlpool

[@mattbland2380]

Great presentation. Very grateful to find out what progress is being made wrt fusion power generation. Every time Dennis stays ‘actually’ I drink a shot... I’m dead now 😂🥃

[@dorinvaden6946]

Vids like these, and professionals and students like this are the what gives me hope for humanity

[@russhamilton3800]

A guy lying about how close we are to nuclear fusion gives you hope?

[@bryandepaepe5984]

Moore's law is more of guideline than a law, the laws of physics have hindered the expected improvements recently.

[@david203]

I understand that stronger magnetic fields imply much smaller and more achievable fusion reactors. But I thought that toroidal magnetic confinement was unstable at any level. Has it been made stable somehow? Stability implies to me a negative feedback loop between the current sent into the confinement coil and the size of the reaction volume. But if their is a fundamental instability, how do you get a reliable feedback loop to keep the reaction under size control?

[@Hyperentropist]

Great speech! Deserve way more views, since public awareness is the key to make fusion happen. The more vocal the public is about desiring fusion power plants, the more investors and governments may take action. Relying solely on the academic and government research sectors would be too sluggish. We humans should grasp the timely opportunity to at least resolve the crisis of climate change.

[@gunnarkaestle9405]

"Government policy remains that the private sector takes full exposure to the three main risks; Construction, Power Price and Operational. Nowhere in the world have nuclear power stations been built on this basis." (p. 1, npolicy.org/article_file/New_Nuclear-The_Economics_Say_No.pdf ) I am not very confident that the private sector without governmental backing will dive into the development of long-term basic research projects with unclear economic benefit according to competing technologies for power generation.

[@mbican]

Now it is 2022. Any progress? 🧐

[@Castle3179]

Wooo! Yeah! Physics and engineering!

[@DrAtomics]

Wooo!!! Physics Physics Physics!!!

[@mikeharrington5593]

We may be getting closer to meeting our power needs with renewable energy although consistent supply is not guaranteed and battery storage is inadequate for industrial needs. Fusion power generation is necessary not just to guarantee regular power supplies but importantly to additionally power CO2 drawdown systems which are currently inadequate in terms of scale and power ratio efficiency.

[@danielstewart6818]

Hey my fusion reactor worked just fine in my lab what’s taking you guys so long

[@pilot3016]

Now that's funny! 👍

[@flyiny_sqiurrel]

They used a looong time on creating there PowerPoint

[@HellavaLot]

What happened to Thorium fission? Are we leapfrogging Thorium MSR power generation? It seems an order of magnitude simpler to accomplish.

[@KRT054]

Build 2 tokamaks side by side separated by a collision chamber connecting the two. The high temperature deuterium / tritium streams would be accelerated in the same direction in both tokamaks and the streams would then be directed into the collision chamber. Is there anything worthy of consideration in what I've written here?

[@EveeHarting]

Thats generally the idea with most of what's being tried right now. Main issue is how to access and contain the energy created. But the availability of hydrogen makes it tangible so at some point it will get figured out.

[@MsSomeonenew]

The shape of that magnetic field wouldn't stay stable enough for the pressure required to make fusion happen. The two known solutions for tokamak right now are going bigger or the new stellarator design which will increase magnetic confinement and make it easier to get fusion with less power input.

[@KrustyKlown]

colliding accelerated streams of deuterium, would only produce a very low yield from the very few random collisions .. and that collision event would only last a very short momentum as the magnetic fields of the 2 tokamaks became unstable. The idea of the Tokamak is to compress a heavy water plasma into a very small space, so it yields a significant number of fusion reactions between heavy water nuclei. IMO, this is most easily & safely achieved using gravity, take a large amount of heavy water stick it in space, let gravity compress it until a fusion reaction starts ... position it away from the Earth for safety, then collect the radiated energy with known technologies ... oh, wait !!! we already have one of these reactors running now!!!!

[@SheWhoRemembers]

Yeah. What do you think blew up Atlantis?

[@gunnarkaestle9405]

@@KrustyKlown Indeed, and the blanket technology that collects the emitted p-particles is well understood, and has a learning rate of ca 20%.

[@woodywoodlstein9519]

Dennis really is a great pitch man Must be an amazing teacher aswell. I’d like to know how they’re making out with this 5 years later. I actually thought this came through on my feed brand new.

[@martingainty9623]

I am anxious to hear when US govt declares Fusion Energy as "Renewable" Many Thanks for the thoughtful and comprehensive presentation

[@tjampman]

I think I am missing your point... But first of all we don't have fusion energy yet, only fusion energy drain, secondly it is not renewable just very abundant.

[@utah133]

Fusion power had an entry in the encyclopedia my parents bought. It was said to be just a few years away. That was 1957....

[@toppradd]

Lol...exactly...it was theory then - it’s 2020, still only theory...they are trying to “force” what is most difficult if not impossible... this design Will Never be used for commercial production of electricity...mark this thought...never

[@utah133]

@@toppradd Never say never! Apparently it's harder than they thought, but they are making progress. It's just slow AF.

[@tardvandecluntproductions1278]

Ah the 50's. When anything nuclear got billions of funding for the nuclear arms race. Fusion reactors cant be used for weapons in any way so funding dried up very fast.

[@soylentgreenb]

The concern (or concern-trolling) about long-lived waste always bothered me. The activity is inversely proportional to half-life. If it's long-lived, it's just not particularly radioactive. The stuff that's extremely short lived, is also extremely radioactive but it decays away before you even get it out of the reactor. It's the medium-lived stuff (weeks, years) that can be kind of nasty. That's how you get things like the goiana incident.

[@Mikestanley510]

soylentgreenb ii

[@CTimmerman]

"transmutated reactor walls that are turned from tungsten into other matter." - Such as? All i found was that it forms nanotendril dust.

[@zefallafez]

It is only a problem when you concentrate it, which is what the anti-science, global do-gooder idiots require us to do, instead of dispersing it.

[@CTimmerman]

They're not sending us their best undocumented chemicals.

[@gunnarkaestle9405]

@@zefallafez I don't think it is a good idea to dissipate nuclear waste, not even in seawater. You can see the effects of the reprocessing plants in Sellafield and La Hague here: www.researchgate.net/profile/Pascal_Bailly_du_Bois/publication/222009013/figure/fig4/AS:701194645274629@1544189239778/Gedymac-campaign-28-08-13-09-1994-radioactivity-in-seawater-a-Cs-b-H-c-Cs_W640.jpg Nuclear power plants (in regular operation without accidents) are really clean compared to those two radioactive belchers.

[@joshuateachey1630]

Wow we are really pushing the limits, an improving in every aspect of Science and Technology. & immediately my eyes water, just in the sense of realizing how incredible and unbelievable!, are Science and Technology is doing right now. And this is 4 Years ago!, incredible...

[@huskymusher1223]

One day we will look back and say "Remember when we used to put gas in cars to make them go?

[@zeroibis]

When you look at the energy density of gas and compare to other options you will quickly realize why.

[@Bryan-Hensley]

I doubt that. I heard crap like this my whole life. I'm 54. EV are all but dead right now because they are disposable. Replacement batteries are extremely high or non existent. I was about to buy a used Nissan leaf or a Tesla. Nissan battery is $11,000 installed with taxes. It will last about 80,000 miles but I travel 65,000 per year. In a year and a half I'd need a new battery. Tesla battery is $24,000. I've never ever paid over $5,000 for a used Chevy in which I'd get 400,000 more miles without issues. Right now EV are a rich person's toy. As far as this technology shown on the video, we don't have enough fuel to last a year if it was our primary energy source.

[@nixl3518]

@@Bryan-Hensley Not sure what planet you’re living on, but there are thousands and thousands of electric cars out there! Depending on your age, you might see the day when there are no more gasoline powered cars. But the comment you made is not that of someone young enough, so I guess you won’t!

[@pauljs75]

This is neat. But has anyone considered having two opposed solenoid spikes with a completely open gap in the center rather than a central core solenoid? In theory wouldn't that allow a waist radius approaching zero? And wouldn't that be even closer to the optimum for heating and energetic reactions? This would require using the central column of plasma as part of the current carrier from top to bottom, so there's some loss. But the plasma would carry most of that heat, so wouldn't it be useful there? Still the top and bottom of a "coreless" or perhaps "split-core" solenoid configuration would be pulling at each other, so there'd be some challenges in keeping them from pulling together mechanically when powered up. Of course one approach may be to go even smaller still with such a unit to deal with the potential structural problems. Yeah, I'll admit that in the most simple sense it's a glorified and oversized "sparkplug". But if you look at how some people approach the topic of "ball lightning" or "plasmids", the same plasma and magnetic field structures seem to be applicable to producing ideal conditions for the fusion process.

[@YodaWhat]

+pauljs75 -- "opposed solenoid spikes" needs clarification. Maybe you have a drawing?

[@paco4716]

So at th end of all we have good old heat exchanger.

[@seantheman5834]

Check out the Patent for Edwin Gray, 4, 595, 975 "Efficient Power Supply Suitable for Inductive Loads" from 17 June, 1986. Plasma acts as a "Door" if you have a way to "bias" electrons to come through that Plasma Door. . . from their abundant 4th Dimensional Stable Existence State (Resting State/Precursor Space) to our favorite 3 Dimensional Active Existence State where we live, breathe and "do our thing". . . and make electrons "work" for us. That "biased flow" can function in an AC manner or a DC manner but DC is usually a bit more efficient. In your MIT machine your "Plasma Door" is a large Toroid Reactor. . . kind of expensive. In Ed Gray's "Power Supply" he does the same thing with a Plasma Door working inside a vacuum tube. In your design you get about a 4 to 1 Over Unity Energy Production. If I remember correctly, Ed Gray was almost 40 to 1 Over Unity Energy Production. BOTH designs are using charge biased "Plasma" to invite energy to come into our human 3 Dimensional "Play Space". Whatever they are or are not, Plasma Energy is indeed VERY HOT. . . both yours and Edwin Gray's. They work but they DO produce a lot of excess heat which is required to maintain the Plasma Excitation State. . . "The Plasma Door" if you will. Your design is a closed loop ring. Ed Gray's design was linear tube with an Excitation Zone in the middle. . . Excitation Energy inbound on one end and Plasma Boosted Energy out the other end. The linear design makes for an easy Directional Bias (Flow of Electrons). On a pure cost basis I would guess that Ed Gray's "Tube" can be scaled up in size and amperage somewhat easier/cheaper than your Giant Reactor can be scaled down. If you shrink your system down far enough, the MIT Toroid Plasma Ring System and the Edwin Gray Linear System could meet somewhere in the middle. . . theoretically. . . although Gray's 40 to 1 Input/Output Ratio offers an easier Design Handle. But BOTH designs use "The Plasma Door" as the Entry Point to bring in the Electrons and put them to work. Interesting World, no?

[@maxis6616]

This is fantastic. I've read about the B^4 scaling law over twenty years ago and wondered what the prospects were for new superconductor technology coming along and giving magnetic confinement fusion a shot in the arm but I was disappointed in the lack of easy-to-find information online. I was also disappointed that the Cadarache Titanak was going to be built with niobium-tin chilled to around 4K. Now I'm hearing all about fast developments in REBCO tapes. It gives me hope that commercial fusion plants really are 30 years away. Here is Sorbom's Talk: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nHy1dnVuftt2mNU

[@DCFusor]

Agreed.

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

it doesnt work..it operates at a LOSS.. it LOSES power by a factor of about a million to 1 now

[@myrobotfish]

​@@johnnyllooddte3415 Sorry to dig up old replies but that's just not true. The power required for the superconductors is only a small fraction of the total power required to run the reactor (negligible resistance leads to almost no power loss). The vast majority of power goes in to keeping the superconductors cooled. Since these are HTS coils we would actually expect LESS power input required for cooling. Holding the power input the same but multiplying current reactor fusion rate by 2^4 =16 leads to about a P_out/P_in = 1.6 - so for a 300 MW input we get 480 MW out or 180 MW net power produced - which is about the spec for the ARC design. The only other variable power input that might be significant is the power required for pumping molten salt through the cooling jacket due to higher heat flux. However, looks like they already have done some cooling jacket analysis shown at the 49:49 mark. I've done a fair bit of cooling jacket analysis for rocket engines, and they gave us enough info on that slide to get a pretty accurate estimate. Approximating the jacket shape as a perfect toroid with equal surface area (500 MW/(10 MW/m^2) = ), I calculated the power loss to be ~2.5 MW. So not much.

[@nicosmind3]

Sounds like this man has some excellent students as he mentions multiple problems which were all solved by his students. Sounds like this next generation of doctors and professors will be kicking ass and taking names! Got to also add that most people don't realise how important private research and funding is to research (70-80% of research is private depending on the country), over estimate government contribution, and under estimate by magnitudes the openness of private research, even of the corporate sector. They survive off collective research and many scientists won't work under any other conditions. They assume they don't want to spend the money for first mover research (there's advantages and disadvantages to going first), but if your scientists aren't good at first mover then the chances of them understanding others is diminished. And so many discoveries come from "basic" research. So research for the hell of it is worth while too.(businesses can deduct research in taxes, and if they want to keep ahead they need dedicated research labs). I guess it's not until you get into the research world it's hard to understand (I'm involved with spinal research)

[@DeepRafterGaming]

This was a truly magnificent talk. Great talker and great content, aswell as the coherent structure of the talk...

[@shakdidagalimal]

Energy in (to contain and control) vs energy out (heat propagation under control across and through containment boundaries) is a very large and probably insurmountable problem. Some ideas are just not workable in the physical lab.

[@richardbennett4365]

"The lightbulb went off?" Doesn't he mean, "The lightbulb went on?"

[@rdelrosso2001]

"OFF" , "ON" "YING/ YANG" "FISSION/ FUSION" It's all relative!

[@dnovom]

Excellent dissertation. Does no dumb down the facts like some others of this type. Kudos to MIT from a Ramblin' wrecker.....

[@benistingray6097]

Take a shot everytime he says "in fact". And great talk ;)

[@CRSolarice]

..."its actually."

[@bigguy8586]

@@CRSolarice oh my god, right after reading this. He said both, twice. Now three, four, holy shit. Actually, in fact....that will annoy me now.

[@treefrogjoness]

They've been working on this for a long time, with no success. I have no way of predicting if this will work or not, but what if this is like trying to achieve perpetual motion. In case somebody doesn't know about the idea of perpetual motion, they attempt to build a machine that produces motion with no energy or fuel input, but that idea is impossible.

[@Bjowolf2]

So what has happened since 2016? Any more promissing progress?

[@jojolafrite90]

No, not really. Are you that surprised? IF any real progress was made that made it good for anything, it wouldn't be before at least like 1000 years, probably even a lot more.

[@Bjowolf2]

@@jojolafrite90 😬

[@shdwbnndbyyt]

So this basically combines D-T fusion with Lithium fisson (aneutronic Lithium fission has been propsed for decades). As for sea level rise, we are near the end of a 12,000 year sea level rise of several hundred meters, our current rate is about one hundred times SMALLER than most of the past 12,000 years.

[@gunnarkaestle9405]

Actually, since the end of the last glacial period the sea level rise was ca. 120 m, not several hundred meters. wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/post-glacial_sea_level.png?w=526&h=359 Earth will survive another rise in sea level, but humanity has decided to settle preferably in the fertile floodplains and river deltas. Thus, we will loose quite a substantial part of our agricultural areas. But we may also gain new farming land in the north (e.g. Siberia, Canada): obviously, that includes a major migration from the south to the north. Besides agriculture, due to easier transportation options at the oceanfront a lot of our harbour cities have been very attractive settlements. They need to be relocated a few km inland or put a few meters on stilts. This is a big business opportunity for the construction business.

[@michaelmcphillips4079]

But can the investment be justified when for the same money many molten salt reactors that can use the waste from existing fission reactors can be up and running? When you look at the savings that can be made with reduced decommissioning costs by reusing that waste can there be any doubt that that has to be done? I'm not sure where the waste is stored now. I know that there's a dump in France and another in America I think but It begs the question also as to why all existing nuclear reactors don't have molten salt ones alongside just for that purpose and as they're all on coasts or rivers that can be at risk from rising seas such a precaution seems essential. A thorium reactor was running in the sixties for 4 or 5 years in Oak Ridge National Laboratory while research and development of thorium-based nuclear reactors, primarily the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), a molten salt reactor (MSR) design, has been or is now being done in India, China, Norway, the United States, Israel and Russia* so the science is obviously proven and economic whereas with fusion it's relatively still on the drawing board without a history of production while we're still left with an expensive dangerous toxic hundreds of thousands of tons of nuclear waste. * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

[@mrspeigle1]

The expenses Justified because even if all the hype is true about Thorium it is at best an upgrade. Fusion on the other hand is a paradigm shift. A game changer on pare with the agricultural revolution. For example imagine if your personal electric bill was 10 cents on the dollar, now extended that to every household on the face of the planet. But that's just the beginning every industrial process that uses electricity 10 cents on the dollar, transportation, construction, agriculture all would be hit with a massive knockon effect of both increased demand and cheaper production. Those Nifty hydrogen fuel cell cars that are just too darn expensive to be practical become a darn good alternative to battery powered cars if you can electrolocise hydrogen at 10percent of the cost we do it today. And all of that is just low-hanging fruit, there's a lot of crazy PopscI stuff that is not economically practical because of the energy bottleneck which fusion would make easy.

[@Raydensheraj]

Thorium has been more hype then reality. All existing Fission Reactors would need heavy and ridiculous expensive upgrades. Fusion would change everything in terms of Energy... Especially Space exploration... On top of all it is by far the highest output of energy by still being the best natural source not hard on the natural environment. But just getting Fusion to run is of importance - making it compact is also important. I also think it's sad that Plasma Physics isn't more funded and thought... I study Astrophysics at IU and Plasma Physics is a rather underdeveloped field of study.

[@mrspeigle1]

@@Raydensheraj wich IU are you referring to?

[@dp0813]

Let me guess....it's 20 years away.

[@VoltageLP]

Aclually a Breakthrough in infact a Nuclear Fusion

[@88Superphysics88]

I am the author of the third method of achieving nuclear fusion, this is the repetition of physical conditions as in the solar corona. In 6 months there will be a small prototype of a commercial fusion reactor. A commercial fusion reactor in 1-2 years! Power 100 kW. For many years (almost 25 years) I have been convincing scientists that thermonuclear fusion in the Sun occurs not in the core of the Sun, but in the solar corona !!! But scientists are very stubborn, and do not want to believe the obvious. Why are scientists not accepting new breakthrough scientific ideas? There is an assumption, accepted by most scientists, that thermonuclear fusion in the Sun occurs in the Sun's core. But no one has ever actually confirmed this. This is just a guess, the fantasy of an authoritative physicist. Scientists are currently using two methods to achieve nuclear fusion: inertial confinement and magnetic confinement. But there is also a third method of achieving nuclear fusion, this is the repetition of physical conditions as in the solar corona. Nobody is using this third method to achieve nuclear fusion? In 6 months there will be a small prototype of a commercial fusion reactor. A commercial fusion reactor in 1-2 years! I propose a technology transfer for a commercial fusion reactor under a contract. Thermonuclear fusion in the Sun - a new version. n-t.ru/tp/ie/ts.htm kzbin.info/www/bejne/n6umcn-gbZlrrrc

[@sarathdealwis5186]

Arthur C clerke some time back stated Nuclear fusion at room temperature as a future achievable

[@rdelrosso2001]

In Isaac Asimov's original "Foundation Trilogy" (1941), he imagined people walking around with "Personal Nuclear Reactors", hanging on their necks! One year later, in 1942, Enrico Fermi created the first Nuclear Reactor in Chicago, as part of the Manhattan Project! That's when Fermi sent the following coded message to Manhattan Project Director, Leslie Groves: "The Italian Navigator has landed in the New World, and the Natives are friendly".

[@JohnDoe-fz5cz]

"ACTUALLY" I thought it was "IN FACT", an interesting presentation.

[@eprofessio]

Modern refrigerants will replace water/steam in conventional electric turbine generators where the ambient heat will be adequate to turn it to a gas to spin the turbine and conventional water bath condenser units with convert it back to liquid to keep the process going indefinitely.

[@kevinbyrne4538]

If REBCO superconductors are the solution to nuclear fusion, why isn't ITER also using them ? Why build a huge machine at huge expense if doing that isn't necessary ?

[@excitedbox5705]

Politics. The reason CERN cost so much is because a bunch of countries fund it so each country wants part of the manufacturing done in their country. This adds tons of costs in shipping building, manufacturing plants, destroys economy of scale, bureaucracy costs. CERN would have cost 1/3 as much if it was all done in 1 country instead of almost 20. They even built it across a border between 2 countries.

[@jimmimak]

I agree, it's a no-brainer, more energy at less cost

[@Kalumbatsch]

@@excitedbox5705 Bullshit. The point is that every country that participates gets the capability to build their own fusion reactor afterwards.

[@excitedbox5705]

@@Kalumbatsch No there is actually a very good talk outlining exactly that. The huge rings for ITER are made in 3 or 4 countries if I remember correctly which requires multiple times the manufacturing. To add to the question above the ITER design has been in the works for a long time and the REBCO superconductors are new so they would have to go back and change the design. Instead they will incorporate them into the next bigger version.

[@Kalumbatsch]

@@excitedbox5705 "No there is actually a very good talk outlining exactly that. The huge rings for ITER are made in 3 or 4 countries if I remember correctly which requires multiple times the manufacturing." And guess what, after that industry in those 3 or 4 countries can make those huge rings without having to get them from the others. That is an explicit goal. There is actually a very good talk outlining exactly that.

[@shinjokagama7521]

Great breakthrough. Now fusion will become reality in about 30 yrs, only a few more 30 years.

[@nixl3518]

Yes that’s obviously true because we have heard nothing since this lecture took place!

[@jaykay5369]

Time travelling commenter here. In my time, 2048, Fusion is only 30 years away

[@jemdeweare6432]

This make future fusion , its a big step , looks like a inductionburner on magnetic energy to hold the chicken to cook in the middel , great video

[@rock3tcatU233]

Oh how much I love MIT.

[@thesofakillers]

What's the 2023 update to this?

[@whirledpeas3477]

All that's needed is to change the date stamp and $billions spent.

[@widescreen8964]

The future of the human race pinned on two part time engineers in a basement. Jesus wept.

[@4Nanook]

The statement is made that doubling the magnetic field allows a reduction in size of 10x, actually confinement scales with the cube of the magnetic field strength, so it allows a reduction of 8x not 10x in size.

[@7munkee]

You can call it a breakthough when I can go uptown and buy one.

[@nixl3518]

I’m still looking too and not just uptown but downtown around town Japantown Koreatown Chinatown! Still nothing!

[@danielroth8738]

So did it work???

[@disgny]

Very impressive and valuable work... But , considering the initial desirable characteristics of Fusion Power, I notice that they are pretty much the same as with the Thorium Liquid Fueled Reactor (LFTR) , which appears to be cheaper, with less intimidating remaining problems (and even produces useful radioactive "Waste", which Fusion is not likely to do). Not a bad idea to "do everything at once" (the Chinese approach), but if there is a choice to be made, wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on LFTRs first?!

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

it doesnt work

It does work. Did you even watch the video? Fusion has been achieved, although not continuously, and not with a net energy gain. There is too much to gain if we can make it economically viable to not try. Emission free power in virtually unlimited amounts would have an impact that is too big to pass up.

[@disgny]

You are missing the point. Hydrogen bombs proves that fusion is possible, but to make a power plant out of it is going to be expensive, difficult, and at the end, it may well provide so much power that we could not handle it, economically. Remember, it would need to be stored , and transmitted, both pricey undertakings. Why bother with all that, when we could make Thorium power very soon, and in more useful quantities, and in more economic quantities. The bottom line is, is your source cheaper than coal? Thorium probably would be.

[@disgny]

I was responding to Mikkel's comments.

disgny Sorry, I was replying to some other guy who was spamming everyone with replies like "fusion doesn't work". I reported a bunch of his messages, and apparently they were removed. Thorium power definitely has some interesting prospects as well, and the development is much easier. That doesn't mean that fusion shouldn't be pursued as well. Thorium has the same benefits over conventional fission rectors as fusion power has over thorium pretty much. The fuel is more readily available (in fusions case much more so), and it produces waste that is much easier to handle. "it may well provide so much power that we could not handle it" I am sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement. We should be able to design the power plants to have exactly the output we desire, although I suspect that bigger plants will be more efficient - especially with construction costs included in the calculation. Even if the power output is absolutely ridiculous, as long as it is cost effective, the power companies wouldn't mind having to build some cables with low enough resistance to take the strain until it is converted to a proper voltage and distributed. If we get really good at controlling the neutron radiation fusion, has the potential to be several times cheaper than something that requires rare earth metals to function. We have to give it a try.

[@carriesuegeorge403]

It's because you put the fan in the wrong place and it has to be at the base of the bridge magnetic Fan blades coupled by copper and magnetic push balls in casings.

[@skroot7975]

4:25

[@AlphaKingofGlory]

Good morning sir using the knowledge we are gaining from our experience with these magnetic circumference reactors, can we apply this knowledge to the first phase of the creation of a dyson sphere? namly the use of a "Halo" ring around jupiter as emits sun like radiation without the temperature problems we face when working around our star.

[@erbenton07]

and yet.... we're still decades or centuries away from commercial fusion electrical generating plants. Talk about job security eh?

[@kevinbyrne4538]

I wonder whether the superconducting coils could be used to store energy -- say, excess power from wind turbines or solar cell arrays? That would provide another incentive for developing and making such coils.

[@jacobhn2]

Very interesting but yes you can save energy in superconducting it is actually what you do you pump a lot of current which is kept as magnetic energy energy which can not leave as it is kept cold.

[@arnoldkekesi9022]

The smartest monkey clones trying to find new way to boil water hahahahaha

[@jlo13800]

I’m Looking forward to that fusion powered 850 2 stroke Polaris khaos snowmobile. The hydrogen in the amsoil 2 stroke oil stops the neutrons too!

[@christthelogos505]

I've always heard the heat excursion problem has always been the major problem with hot fusion that nobody has come up with an effective means of working out... but its 2020, so anything can happen...

[@Ryukachoo]

48:08 ooh I know that salt formula anywhere. taking a leaf from LFTRs book are we?

[@backyard4465]

Can PB11 fuel be used in this design to avoid the neutron flux issue? It would make even this small reactor an effective power generation platform. What do you think of Erik Learner's efforts with LPPP fusion's Deep Plasma Focus efforts?

[@willis936]

Not for a steady state machine. Photon radiation increases with temperature. At pB11 temperatures there is more power radiated as photons than made in fusion, so it would never break even. It's an ideal fuel for pulsed devices targeting direct conversion. Pulsed devices aren't bad to research, but engineering a reactor based on them faces many more engineering hurdles than a MCF reactor.

[@Aurumk1]

Your reactors are out of date and you know it. I have done the research for you. Fusion will be real shortly.

[@jojolafrite90]

HA HA HA. Yeah, sure. Now, try and find real information, not fake news on youtube or something.

[@bubblebobble9654]

I wonder how robust are the superconducting properties/critical temperature of barium cuprates to radiation damage? If not so much then how effectively can these be shielded?

[@GroovyVideo2]

actually got ALL of my electricity today using fusion - solar panels - just sayin

[@alaskanbullworm1632]

If the title has a question mark then it’s probably not true