Focus Fusion: The Fastest Route to Cheap, Clean Energy

[@pianoj69]

I am 39 years old, never had the chance to study physics and mathematics as deep as it should. I fell sad not to be able to contribute to this beautiful event. But so happy to know it is possible and happened.

[@45coopaloop]

I watched this whole thing from start to finish and understood about 50% of what he was saying, I think that deserves some kind of a reward :)

[@richo61]

The thing about this approach that appeals to me is that they use the plasma's natural behavior rather than fighting to control and direct it. (Which is the bugbear of tokomaks) There is something very pleasing and elegant about that. I still think thorium salt reactors are a more immediate practical energy source - but I would like to see this developed further too.

[@numatechprototypes222]

this is the first half of my prototype VFR reactor test run I am looking for funding to build a better prototype with the correct safety measures and analyzing equipment to further my research kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYWsgoiffMZ2b8U

[@numatechprototypes222]

I have currently to videos up one a star mode tests and one that did not achieve Starr mode due to low power on the battery should a check that huh please read the descriptions if you want more information

[@AdrieKooijman]

The most appealing is that he promises the world (almost) free energy. He even calculates the cost before having a proof of principle. But Please give him your money first. If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is. "We used copper instead of berillium to (not!) demonstrate the working principle." Yeah, sure.

[@WallyMahar]

@@AdrieKooijman 0: 2:40 2:41 2:42 2:51 2:52 2:53 2:53 2:54 2:57 3:02 3:12 3:12 3:30 3:30 3:31

[@WallyMahar]

@@AdrieKooijman 3: 3:50 3:50 4:01 4:01 4:01 4:16

[@jimmytrow2502]

One of my favorite things about Eric's approach is that this machine generates power, yet contains no moving parts. To be sure the cooling pumps will, as will other support equipment will, but the generator itself does not

[@jamesdyhouse2490]

7

[@AdrieKooijman]

In my dreams many things are possible. Reality isn't always willing to adapt to my dreams.

[@CenturionSC2]

If they open up a kickstarter I will donate! I know it's not much, but a few hundred dollars here and there can add up.

[@spankN4U2]

The tragedy of an ignorant Grant system is so depressing it breaks my heart.God bless these eggheads for working their hearts out for us all.I pray for your success.Best of luck.

[@AussieGriffin]

While I think Thorium is easier and a better stop-gap measure, this is a promising solution. A.G.

[@AdrieKooijman]

Like Elon Musk promising autopilot to be 'ready next year' for about a decade now? A scam is a scam, either if presented by a billionaire or a scientist.

[@atanacioluna292]

This is the best explanation for practical fusion I have ever seen! Not sure how much I understand, or can understand, but the question that comes to mind is: why would this research not be advanced by other governments or groups? It seems S. Korea, or Japan, China, India, or even small Oil states could easily develop this. Pluvinergy also solves our energy and water problems, but it has the opposite problem, it requires a big investment but the science is so simple it is not considered a serious solution. I hope they can make this work soon. Excellent video.

[@paulfleary3625]

Fusion is the only way Bros! BTW he does sound a bit like Cleveland Brown from Family Guy

[@robertbrindley8948]

molten salt reactors are much more difficult to use because of the corrosive effects. It's main benefit is cheap fuel but limited to materials for plant construction

[@robertbrindley8948]

to bad salt reactors don't make a viable source for plutonium otherwise... well who cares now we live in a militarized capitalist society

[@jimmytrow2502]

I can answer that: 1. New switches. 2. Salaries and benefits for the experimental team 3. Building rent and other expenses I have heard Eric say that their "burn rate", excluding major expenses like new switches, is around 50K per month. Which is a bargain for the science we're getting.

[@RTillero70]

Please add subtitles or closed captioning for the deaf and hearing impaired audiences.

[@markm0000]

The auto generated subtitles seem to be good enough.

[@MichaelWilliamsWMA]

Checked CC today, a year after above request, boy are the CC good! To think a couple in the Deaf community sued MIT, UC Berkeley(20k+ videos) and Berkeley took down all the video's over whether the Google Translate was sufficient, so now Millions of learners are denied Free education from Berkeley. Shame on the eletist in the Deaf community!

[@robertbrindley8948]

That was very unthoughtful not to include the blind! So explain the images in detail or I will dislike

[@syntaxed2]

I believe Helion Energy built a machine with this approach design, and its working beautifully. General Fusion is another company with a working machine that does not rely on magnetic confinement - They are about to build a demonstration powerplant in the UK.

[@Bultish]

45:00 2 million dollars is all they need? thats nothing, idiotic solar freakin roadways have scrambled 2million + with a catchy youtube clip. The world is not fair..

[@Equoris]

My thoughts exactly...a damned hoax raised over 2 mil, and the DPF folks couln't even get to 200k USD (their indie go go goal)...what's wrong with this world??

[@Bultish]

Thats whats wrong i guess =/

[@theclintwestman]

If it sounds too good to be true... I mean, think about it. If they only needed 2 million to demonstrate convincing results, they would have done it by now.

[@iamtheiconoclast3]

@@theclintwestman Yes I see your point: they need only $2 million to demonstrate convincing results, have not received $2 million, and have not demonstrated convincing res... er... nevermind, actually I don't see your point.

[@theclintwestman]

@@iamtheiconoclast3 It's not difficult to understand. In the world of science, anything that has a solid basis in theory can get funding. 2 million is not a large amount of money especially if it could translate into a huge lucrative industry that private business or the country could benefit from.

[@zio205iq2]

I Gotta love this video.... so revealing.

[@LudicFallacies]

I always see that older gent with the long, somewhat grey hair, in a pony-tale at these types of Google Talks sitting right up front. I wonder who he is...

[@justinhayes9971]

Thats Mr. Google legond has it he wrote the sorce code for search on tie die shirts while on acid,

[@barlart]

I've never heard of this approach explained before. I am very skeptical of the ITER type tokomak approach which is also unstable and has been for over 50 years despite struggling with vast superconducting magnets to confine and stabilise the plasma. The Focus approach which actually uses the instabilities seems a very good idea. I'd be interested to see this approach investigated. I hope it will be.

[@88Superphysics88]

China will not have a commercial fusion reactor. And the EU and the U.S. and England will never make a commercial fusion reactor. Scientists who develop commercial fusion reactors believe that the conditions for nuclear fusion in the reactor chamber must be like in a fusion bomb. But there are other ways of nuclear fusion that are not of the explosive type. All scientists have nuclear fusion in the solar corona in front of their eyes, but all scientists are subject to scientific dogma, the wrong scientific theory, and don't want to see the obvious. Nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun is just an assumption. This assumption is not actually proven by anything. Nuclear fusion in the solar corona has already been proven by facts, which I have outlined in the video clip. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2KxgJ15mrWtmqs 70 years no result - no commercial fusion reactor. Isn't this already pseudoscience? There won't be a commercial fusion reactor for another 70 years or more. Investors and governments need to understand that they keep investing in failed projects with a 70-year history of developing a commercial fusion reactor. They will never get a commercial fusion reactor. Because the developers have a wrong understanding of the necessary physical conditions for nuclear fusion in the reactor, to produce commercial heat. I will transfer the technology for a new way of nuclear fusion (new fusion project) for free, under contract. Remuneration according to the results. There will be an appendix to the contract, which will describe the physical phenomenon and technology. And until a small prototype commercial fusion reactor shows commercial heat, no one pays me. There is no cheating here. The result is a prototype, a small commercial fusion reactor can be made in 1-2 years, depends on funding and speed of fabrication. I can make such a commercial fusion reactor myself.

[@kaiusernameisbetter2522]

Finally a plan that doesnt involve using heat to make steam which turns a turbine....

[@ravener96]

why, most enegy sources create heat, and gas turbines are basically the only feasible way to exploit that energy

[@Denverek123]

This is a beneficial investment. $2 million is a modest supply comparing with other reactors apropos the experimental results.

[@christurnblom4825]

I still say thorium, molten salt reactors are the way to go. Besides being far less expensive and far less dangerous to the environment and having no possibility of a runaway reaction, here in the U.S. and Canada, it will solve all of our rare earth cross contamination problems as well so we would not need to rely on other countries like China for things like neodymium magnets or Congolese coltan ore.

[@221b-l3t]

Chris Turnblom Fusion would still be far superior to molten salt reactors. But also light water reactors are actualy very safe, so why develop a whole new fission technology if we can just have a few more light water reactors until fusion is ready.

[@christurnblom4825]

221 b Please excuse my ignorance in this area but I am not familiar with how close we are to having fusion ready. Are you refering to the devolpment of the Tokamak type reactors maybe? Or cold fusion? Also, on the subject of development of thorium reactors, from what I understand there has been at least one thorium reactor in the U.S. that was fully operational and producing surplus power. Other countries like China for example are developing their own as well so the R&D isn't a huge problem. And considering that the infrastructure implementation would break China's near monopoly on rare earth metals because it gives north American mines a financial incentive to separate the thorium from the other rare earth metals, it makes an even stronger case for thorium reactors. Still, as I said above, I am ignorant to how close we are to fusion reactors so I welcome any education you can give me.

[@christurnblom4825]

Chris Turnblom LOL I totally forgot what this video was about. I better watch it again.

[@christurnblom4825]

Chris Turnblom OK. Now that My memory is refreshed...It appears that thorium reactors ore much better understood and further along in development than this technology. I see no reason to discontinue research on this because the payout could be awesome but as it stands, the thorium reactors stand to solve a lot of current problems sooner. At least, to my understanding.

[@ingebrecht]

Chris Turnblom you got it a bridge to a bridge. Or the government realizing that this is the way to go and get busy with it right now. Not likely. Government usually takes the stupid expensive alternative.

[@ICEGTN]

That's a very good idea which should solve all world energy problems, it's just a shame that no one gives you 2 million dollars.

[@Mike2894]

Lets kick start this project. I need a power source for my free electron death laser cannon!!!

[@iamtheiconoclast3]

Is that a cannon that fires death lasers made of free electrons? If so, count me in. I've never seen a death laser fired from a cannon before!

[@robertweekes5783]

Liquid Thorium reactors would be better than the solid uranium reactors used today, but this is a fission reaction - this video is about fusion - both look promising!!

[@mrjaffar]

If Kickstarter can muster $40 million for a computer game, I'm pretty sure he can get $2 million for something like this!

[@jmitterii2]

I hope so. And agree. If some of these web companies can attract billions I don't see why something like this can't get a few million dollars.

[@DeliciousDeBlair]

Video game has a higher chance of pay-out, as well as those who invest in video games just want to have fun, not save anything.

[@TauCu]

Then, Just say they will use this reactor to power the backend servers for the game and they'll get a 30% discount. Boom, instant money.

[@DeliciousDeBlair]

Good point! At the same time, feature the weaponized version in the game as well as units on space ships and individually powered mecha suits so people dream about it and share it with others. That way people will see it as something really cool and OP and want to see it become real. Giving real, factual, dry data sells a lot less than hyping up the 'bang-pow-zap cool factor' after all.

[@bdoepner]

I really hope we can achieve fusion power relatively soon. What a discovery it will be

[@roblikes8435]

Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are the way forward.

[@TikkiTakkiRikki]

+RobLikes * The problem with the Thorium and salt reactors are: We can not use them to boost the faster processing speed and potency of weapons grade fuel from lower grade fuel rods.. It takes a hotter reactor.

[@ostlandr]

+Charles Clodfelter Actually, you can fuel a Molten Salt Reactor with U-235, Pu-239, U-233 (from Thorium-232) or any mix thereof. And a MSR can be built with a "breeding blanket" to create whatever fuel you want. U-233 can theoretically be used to build a weapon, but it has a lot of negatives- dangerous to work with, and unstable (during detonation of a bomb, not in general.) If you want weapons, fuel the MSR with U-235 and breed Pu-239 and more U-235 from U-238. The Shippingport Power Station was built in '58, was a conventional Pressurized Water Reactor, and ran for 30 years or so with a positive breeding ratio. The third core was U-233 & Th-232, and it bred successfully.

[@johnabuick]

+Charles Clodfelter And why do we need more weapons grade fuel? There is plenty more than we'll even need already available unless you plan on starting a 20000 bomb atomic war.

[@ostlandr]

rylan .bledsoe What, precisely, do you have against a zero-particulate emission, zero-CO2 emission energy source that kills fewer humans per unit of electricity generated than any other source of power? Comments like yours just come across like "Four legs gooood, two legs baaaad!"

[@Jkirk3279]

Mark Stockman All fission produces waste products and contaminates the reactor until the surrounding concrete is radioactive, and then nobody wants to pay for cleanup. We have fission plants that should have been retired years ago but that would cut into profits. Fusion uses tiny amounts of fuel and the reaction can be shut down immediately. Most Fission reactors use massive amounts of fuel and, well...have you heard of Fukashima? I get that Thorium boosters like their idea, but the problems are still there.

[@modakkagitplugga]

Huge misunderstanding of basic economics, but the technology fascinated when this was first posted, and continues too do so now, though for different purposes

[@unclemeat4617]

Lemme guess, it's ONLY twenty years away. it's been only twenty years away for all of my sixty years.

[@ingebrecht]

Bill Sell At one time the Haber-Bosh process was 50 years away and they had no Idea how or even if it was possible until the very end of the journey. Right after they achieved what at that time was a miracle and were producing fertilizer that promised to start the green revolution in 1912 instead of waiting 50 years it was used to drive the German first world war effort. With out it, Germany's war effort would have collapsed in a year. Also without it the Germans may never have even bothered with the war because it was easy to see the ultimate outcome. Which would have eliminated the need for ww2. Still the world would have needed fertilizer which required the Haber-Bosh process. We really just have to quit concentrating on self destruction. That would be the real revolution. That's why the thorium reactor was never implemented. You can't make bombs from the by products of it's decay chain. Self destruction is still the overriding priority apparently.

[@DeliciousDeBlair]

I think it would make a good weapon or space propulsion device, just depending on how you treat the output.

[@DANTHETUBEMAN]

Military just got intrested

[@robertroberto4749]

Ha, ha, ha. Good one.

[@adrienperie6119]

The title is not accurate at all, unless you replace fusion by Liquid fluoride thorium reactors.

[@purelyscience1]

Amen

[@grndzro777]

purelyscience1 Amen #2

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

clearly, putting all effort into one type of reactor has proven beneficial in the past. oh wait!..

[@adrienperie6119]

sofias. orange Your statement is quite ironic since no "effort" whatsoever is being put into LFTR's in the west at all, while billions are being sunk in big fusion projects like ITER that are riddled with basic problems that aren't even close to being solved.

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

Adrien Perié congrats, you spotted the irony.do you have any good reason to disregard focus fusion?

[@NarendraHegde5]

Why we aren't take this as serious?It is really one of the Awesome source of Energy.

[@eatenbytheweasel8366]

Yeah right. And every time ya ask them "when?" they always say "twenty years".They been a mere twenty years from success for about the last fifty years.

[@equsnarnd]

eatenbytheweasel Solar and wind are a total joke...they are a move backwards. But LENR is preferable (assuming that it's real) to any kind of HOT fusion.

[@Bunnysinger]

I don't know where you get the '20 years' number. ITER has a schedule that extends past 2050 (which is >35 years). That said, in all 'new' technologies there is a massive delay before practical use. Also in 'green' technologies (for example 3rd gen biofuel: estimated around 15 years)

[@AmericanFire33]

He's came a long way since he gave this.

[@512TheWolf512]

stop talking, start doing!

[@cezarcatalin1406]

Eugene InLaw No funding, you paying?

[@TheArtyBartfast]

Is it just me, or does he sound just like Roger from American Dad? Once you hear it you cannot unhear it!

[@dennisfink2619]

We need more funding for focus fusion!

[@CmdrGendoIkari]

I agree that LFTR and fusion devices like this DPF should be the main focus of R&D. I'm intrigued by the possibility of a hybrid fusion-fission reactor, where a tokamak reactor provides the neutrons to start and sustain criticality in the fission reactor. Being able to shut off the tokamak at the flip of a switch would make it impossible for the fission reactor to melt down. I think this type of reactor would be ideal for reburning all the spent fuel from Gen III reactors lying around the world.

[@dnerio4idea]

I agree with your Tesla idea. Fusion factory(s) was achived by Tesla in the early year's of the 1900's. Only if history allowed Tesla to say: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, this sucker's electrical, but I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity I need. -Dr. Emmett Brown: Back To The Future

[@88Superphysics88]

China will not have a commercial fusion reactor. And the EU and the U.S. and England will never make a commercial fusion reactor. Scientists who develop commercial fusion reactors believe that the conditions for nuclear fusion in the reactor chamber must be like in a fusion bomb. But there are other ways of nuclear fusion that are not of the explosive type. All scientists have nuclear fusion in the solar corona in front of their eyes, but all scientists are subject to scientific dogma, the wrong scientific theory, and don't want to see the obvious. Nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun is just an assumption. This assumption is not actually proven by anything. Nuclear fusion in the solar corona has already been proven by facts, which I have outlined in the video clip. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2KxgJ15mrWtmqs 70 years no result - no commercial fusion reactor. Isn't this already pseudoscience? There won't be a commercial fusion reactor for another 70 years or more. Investors and governments need to understand that they keep investing in failed projects with a 70-year history of developing a commercial fusion reactor. They will never get a commercial fusion reactor. Because the developers have a wrong understanding of the necessary physical conditions for nuclear fusion in the reactor, to produce commercial heat. I will transfer the technology for a new way of nuclear fusion (new fusion project) for free, under contract. Remuneration according to the results. There will be an appendix to the contract, which will describe the physical phenomenon and technology. And until a small prototype commercial fusion reactor shows commercial heat, no one pays me. There is no cheating here. The result is a prototype, a small commercial fusion reactor can be made in 1-2 years, depends on funding and speed of fabrication. I can make such a commercial fusion reactor myself.

[@gabenator123]

I remember mis-remembering it as a tokemon. My dad never let me live it down.

[@beachcomber2008]

I think this idea is correct - and wonderful.

[@DabCityyy]

Try superconductors instead of the copper fillaments.. Will considerably reduce the dense pinch effect and help allevviate due to the effect of the superconductor. issue is keeping the material at superconductive temperatures

[@winnersedgeinternational3642]

The year after the publicity oof Pons and Fleishman one of my physics students set up a Pons cell and did not get electric generation but we got twice background gamma radiation...my student got fusion ...bright student ...I helped him and counted background with the primitive palladium lithium deuteride cell. No juice generated but gamma rays! FYI

[@0730Ender]

Excellent talk!! However the devil is in the details. I'd be glad to see a real breakthrough in the plasma focus community. Although there are lots of people working on the subject around the world (mostly in developing countries), they just dwell around the same old problems, and their research has become irrelevant to fusion. If this speaker is right, he may really stimulate the field, but he'll have to prove many things, specially if his energy conversion system really works. I'd also need a lot of convincing regarding the existence of his plasmoids and the ion beam mechanism. His theory is nice, but just speculative.

[@88Superphysics88]

China will not have a commercial fusion reactor. And the EU and the U.S. and England will never make a commercial fusion reactor. Scientists who develop commercial fusion reactors believe that the conditions for nuclear fusion in the reactor chamber must be like in a fusion bomb. But there are other ways of nuclear fusion that are not of the explosive type. All scientists have nuclear fusion in the solar corona in front of their eyes, but all scientists are subject to scientific dogma, the wrong scientific theory, and don't want to see the obvious. Nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun is just an assumption. This assumption is not actually proven by anything. Nuclear fusion in the solar corona has already been proven by facts, which I have outlined in the video clip. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2KxgJ15mrWtmqs 70 years no result - no commercial fusion reactor. Isn't this already pseudoscience? There won't be a commercial fusion reactor for another 70 years or more. Investors and governments need to understand that they keep investing in failed projects with a 70-year history of developing a commercial fusion reactor. They will never get a commercial fusion reactor. Because the developers have a wrong understanding of the necessary physical conditions for nuclear fusion in the reactor, to produce commercial heat. I will transfer the technology for a new way of nuclear fusion (new fusion project) for free, under contract. Remuneration according to the results. There will be an appendix to the contract, which will describe the physical phenomenon and technology. And until a small prototype commercial fusion reactor shows commercial heat, no one pays me. There is no cheating here. The result is a prototype, a small commercial fusion reactor can be made in 1-2 years, depends on funding and speed of fabrication. I can make such a commercial fusion reactor myself.

[@flamingspew]

What do you mean? Japan, US, Russia, EU just spent tons of money to make the ITER fusion laboratory (deuterium injected plasma) to study the behavior of particles undergoing the fusion process.

[@adamstepic]

Thank you. I didn't know that.

[@MoneyTreeCare]

Liked! Thanks for posting it... I started to do videos too, but never know if I can measure up to the better stuff out there lol!

[@philopolymath]

Walter Russell knew the secret to transmutation of any element

[@GreningerProductions]

Hey it's simple you give them a subscription to an e-magazine and 6 years worth of t shirts and marketing materials and make it a social media event every few months. You create yearly milestones, and produce video content for the whole thing, if you can make it a reality tv show even better. So 20 episodes per season two seasons each year.

[@speedraser2605]

I like the idea of scaled down power plants. No nuclear waste is a great idea. Big reactors need helium three.

[@ExplicitnessLabChannel]

There are many plasmoid anomalies that may be combined with effects described if this research was given a green light. There are attempts to replicate ball lightening that were undertaken that relied upon a similar principle.

[@steve25782]

Why don't the small fusion explosions produced by the focus instabilities melt the machines?

[@quantum7401]

Just gotta pulse that big boy. When the parts are milled to a great significance, and the lasers focused within the Goldie-locks array: maybe quantum technology can bring us 30 years into the future, where we belong.

[@ExplicitnessLabChannel]

So why do electric discharges form two counter-rotating spiral formations? Does this effect have a law of physics that easily describes it? What is the name of this effect?

[@frazmandemo]

fusion was achieved ....the n.i.l. was the first...then,the navy...we are on the verge of a incredible age.

[@dekapwt5618]

Next Gen...(Menyimak)...🙏🙏🙏

[@frankligas2249]

Thanks for the video.

[@rgaleny]

The system uses ONE output cathode. Would 3 or 5 in an overlap work? A triangle or a pentagon of them creating constructive interference is the idea. What would absorb the X-rays or redirect them to be useful?

[@Ahldor]

Yes, Ive heard about it before. But the tower was just supposed to be a way of transferring electricity wireless, not for creating electricity. I cant find anywhere that Tesla made a claim that this tower could produce electricity from nothing.

[@Ayvengo21]

I'm watching video called "The Fastest Route" 12 years after it was published and we still not there and maybe won't be there during my life. Sounds a bit depressing.

[@TCBYEAHCUZ]

not only would this revoulutionise a clean energy world, it would mean the holy grail of transportation, we would be able to have fusion reactors in out cars that could supply a clean and extremely efficient electricity for electric motors!

[@88Superphysics88]

China will not have a commercial fusion reactor. And the EU and the U.S. and England will never make a commercial fusion reactor. Scientists who develop commercial fusion reactors believe that the conditions for nuclear fusion in the reactor chamber must be like in a fusion bomb. But there are other ways of nuclear fusion that are not of the explosive type. All scientists have nuclear fusion in the solar corona in front of their eyes, but all scientists are subject to scientific dogma, the wrong scientific theory, and don't want to see the obvious. Nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun is just an assumption. This assumption is not actually proven by anything. Nuclear fusion in the solar corona has already been proven by facts, which I have outlined in the video clip. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2KxgJ15mrWtmqs 70 years no result - no commercial fusion reactor. Isn't this already pseudoscience? There won't be a commercial fusion reactor for another 70 years or more. Investors and governments need to understand that they keep investing in failed projects with a 70-year history of developing a commercial fusion reactor. They will never get a commercial fusion reactor. Because the developers have a wrong understanding of the necessary physical conditions for nuclear fusion in the reactor, to produce commercial heat. I will transfer the technology for a new way of nuclear fusion (new fusion project) for free, under contract. Remuneration according to the results. There will be an appendix to the contract, which will describe the physical phenomenon and technology. And until a small prototype commercial fusion reactor shows commercial heat, no one pays me. There is no cheating here. The result is a prototype, a small commercial fusion reactor can be made in 1-2 years, depends on funding and speed of fabrication. I can make such a commercial fusion reactor myself.

[@billrussell7672]

this was fantastic, he failed to give credit to philo farnsworth for the mark 5 inertial containment which grew to the focus fusion concept sorry to be a huge downer i'm just trying to link this discovery with its inventor the speech and work scientifically is huge and the best reasonable progress I think this is the natural extension of the best fusion work well done very well done

[@88Superphysics88]

China will not have a commercial fusion reactor. And the EU and the U.S. and England will never make a commercial fusion reactor. Scientists who develop commercial fusion reactors believe that the conditions for nuclear fusion in the reactor chamber must be like in a fusion bomb. But there are other ways of nuclear fusion that are not of the explosive type. All scientists have nuclear fusion in the solar corona in front of their eyes, but all scientists are subject to scientific dogma, the wrong scientific theory, and don't want to see the obvious. Nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun is just an assumption. This assumption is not actually proven by anything. Nuclear fusion in the solar corona has already been proven by facts, which I have outlined in the video clip. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2KxgJ15mrWtmqs 70 years no result - no commercial fusion reactor. Isn't this already pseudoscience? There won't be a commercial fusion reactor for another 70 years or more. Investors and governments need to understand that they keep investing in failed projects with a 70-year history of developing a commercial fusion reactor. They will never get a commercial fusion reactor. Because the developers have a wrong understanding of the necessary physical conditions for nuclear fusion in the reactor, to produce commercial heat. I will transfer the technology for a new way of nuclear fusion (new fusion project) for free, under contract. Remuneration according to the results. There will be an appendix to the contract, which will describe the physical phenomenon and technology. And until a small prototype commercial fusion reactor shows commercial heat, no one pays me. There is no cheating here. The result is a prototype, a small commercial fusion reactor can be made in 1-2 years, depends on funding and speed of fabrication. I can make such a commercial fusion reactor myself.

[@leoncellier4719]

It has given me an idea on how to travel faster than light, we shall see.

[@speedraser2605]

energy gained by slowing down the very small. It makes perfect sense to me.

[@iTube22100]

He spoke more than 6 years ago. Where are we now ?

[@PianoArrangements]

Why hasn't anyone used spherical magnetic confinement instead (to mimic a star's topology due to gravity)? E.g. injecting plasma into a magnetically confined spherical space and letting out the fused energy once a critical stage has been reached? In nuclear fusion, the goal is to create a high-temperature and high-pressure environment enough to output more energy than put in. Tokamaks (donut shape) have been the topology of choice for many years. However, it is very difficult to keep the plasma confined within the walls because of its high surface area (especially in the inner rings).

[@electrodacus]

Energy is measured in kWh. Not sure what country are you talking about but is probably 0.15$/kWh and not 0.015$/kWh. The 1000$/kW at minute 3:00 was about the installed power cost. You can imagine a 1kW installed power hydro generator that costs 1000$ to build and then will generate 1kWh in one hour running at full capacity or 24kWh in a full day and about 720kWh/month.

[@fullnelsontv721]

We need to quit ignoring Thorium Reactors ...... They're safe, cheap to make, and could be a great way to reduce pollution.

[@mauricemckinley]

beryllium can be cleaned from the cathode and reused.beryllium has been used safely in in cooling systems for electronic equipment for decades.it is much less dangerous than the radioactive waste produced by current reactors or tritium fusion reactors.

[@kyuteh]

The hydrogen bomb is a fusion-powered bomb. Fusion bombs are typically more energetic, and they release less fallout. I think most of our nukes now are H-bombs.

[@benjaminprevette8674]

could boron fusion lead to light speed travel if it can be controlled by other explosion out put controls?

[@taravanova]

Thorium molten salt reactor, look it up. Cheap, high yield, safe fission reactor that we already know how to make but don't because it wasn't as practical for nuclear submarines as uranium in WW2.

[@booma_]

very interesting i hope they got the funding

[@x20mega]

well we will probably only need to build like 1 tokamak to fuel a entire state. considering that a ideal design should produce at least about several megawatts per seconds. And considering that it does not leak radiation, is more than enough to say that we can find a few acres for this thing.

[@techpriest4787]

I like the idea of leaving that "steam punk" behind.

[@johnlynch6695]

Looks like a champion spark plug:-)

[@hvfox]

***** But we will call them personal space ships. Seriously though, flying cars; this could power them.

[@The52brandon]

What about thorium? My far from professional understanding is that thorium can basically provide all of the energy benefits of uranium without the negatives (No meltdown, which means it can be accomplished in densely populated areas with small facilities. Bo weaponization, which means dangerous countries can still have nuclear power plants without becoming an atomic warhead threat. No radioactive waste, benefits are self explanatory). And it's supposed to be the key to accomplishing the mythical cold fusion reactor. I believe France and India are currently constructing these plants.

[@NOVAgamingtheater]

this is what the government needs to put their money into, not studies on primates throwing poop at people

[@peterlang777]

or cold fusion which is congirmed by NAVSEA and NASA both of which have patents

[@AnoNymous-js7qy]

Even if I still prefer cold fusion, this is the first sensefull hot fusion reactor I ever heared of. Cold fusion has the lage benefit you can it scale down better to run it at home. Especially for poor countries excellent and you don't need an electrical grid then.

[@jimmytrow2502]

I think it is trivial given the potential benefits. If it worked I don't think the costs of the experimental program for fusion in Europe is excessive either (ITER). It is expected to cost 20 billion and the experiment is expected to take 30 years.

[@Dunkelseele]

Well he means basically "It's better to rely on something you completely (or at least as good as possible) understand instead of something you don't.". We humans always named everything we don't understand "magic". ; )

[@qedqubit]

John Nordberg (see his youtube channel) patented a fusion generator that uses a sperical domain to focus the plasma. all he needs is 'goodwill' (scientists able to refrain from feeling offended, and ridicule/boycot him), and of course MONEY ! The guy unites E-field crossproduct B-field with G-field !--that is unification of EM with gravity !

[@WallaWaller]

He's saying a large scale reactor would only cost ~$500,000 at most, but he never says how much power a large scale reactor is capable of putting out.

[@TCBYEAHCUZ]

If scientists could pull this off.......hats off...and a big ...AHW!...this is big focus fusion seems like a far more advanced alternative to using steam and turbines i suppose, its pretty much dirrect drive!

[@davidjones8973]

Perhaps someone could clear something up for me. In the video at 37:19 he shows a table titled, "Typical operating Parameters" .. this shows that 43 KJ of energy would be supplied to the device per pulse to operate the machine. The next row says that the total amount of energy produced from nuclear fusion of the boron per pulse, and before loses are taken into account is 36 KJ. This means it uses 7 KJ per pulse more than it generates. How is it producing any energy? Or is this a mistake?

[@iclarke11]

Did they ever manage to get their funding?

[@Scrogan]

The fact that it’s more than 6 years later and we don’t have fusion reactors is unfortunate.

[@x20mega]

dude u mean the hydrogen bomb, the common nuclear bombs does not induce fusion but fission, the hydrogen bomb was only able to do it by causing fission reactions and using that pressure/energy to create fusion. If fusion bombs is created, it will do incredibly LESS damage compared to the fission bombs as it will have nearly no radiation as that is the main damaging factor of nuclear weapons.

[@BernardoSOUSAstudent]

Capturing the quasar in a bottle. Nice! You convinced me. How much do you need?

[@JumpyLion]

The one government which build the fusion reactor will lead the investigation and clean energy on the whole world, so I think it could be interesting to invest some money for that.

[@stanmitchell3375]

The more energy youuse,the more appliances you need

[@jimmytrow2502]

If this technology works and is adopted worldwide, then that 2 million dollars probably would be saved in just a couple of minutes. I think it's a trivial expense. It is about 1/10,000th what some other fusion research programs are spending.

[@MichaelClark-uw7ex]

This isn't really fusion, is it? Seems more like a type of fission, bombarding a nucleus with a baryon/hadron at a high temperature and causing it to split 4 ways. However, I have always thought that everything with an atomic weight below that of Iron takes more energy to split than what is liberated from the split.

[@anthonyruiz7925]

Nope. Fusion ks combining two nuclei. Fission is using a nuclei to break down everything else and harnessing heat from it.

[@frankcloskey7789]

The new energy from every day life to space travel

[@JasonDeveau]

There are 2 prototype fusion generators in operation. The issue is funding.

[@le-manu298]

Are we 1/2 way there?

[@Mic_Glow]

"Radioactive content of 40 children". I'll measure radioactivity in children units from now on ~giggles~

[@HardlineAthiest]

Because the original inventor of Focus Fusion is deceased, accidental death around mysterious circumstances. Sadly, it's a similar fate shared by most scientists with breakthrough inventions in the energy sector.

[@pilotry281]

Seriously, why not do a kickstarter for something like this? Something that matters.

[@jonaoconnor8065]

*'The Grid' =the induccced light (as in magnetic waves etc!!!)

[@ThePolywellGuy]

Check out: Homage to the Fusioneer (1952-2012), 60 years of Fusion History in 5 minutes