13 years sounds right, but it's really hard to predict with such a new technology. I hope it's soon!

I think we will have WW3 before that and in consequence of this get catapulted back into stone age. So I say: no way.

Itll take however long it needs to take, as long as it happens

How about ranking potentially upcoming world-changing technologies in order of expected appearance? 1. AI that passes a Turing Test 2. Quantum Computer that solves discrete logarithms considered secure against classical computers 3. Commercially viable fusion power generation 4. Space elevator or other means of placing material into orbit significantly cheaper than chemical rockets Events listed according to my personally anticipated order. Judging by history, however, it's possible mankind's greatest achievement in the upcoming decades isn't on my list.

My vote is we will not use fusion at all. At the moment no-one knows why fusion produce net energy. They only tested that it does. I belive that while attempts will be done to comercialise this net energy, the research will heaveilly shift to find the source of the energy and an alternate way of accessing it. Make no mistake, fusion is still fossil energy. We use solid material in a violent explosion to generate electricity. Coal burning have bad side materials, BUT those are actually capturable, manipulatable, however the side material from fusion (neutrinos?) are actually not capturable and the technology that might do it could be more furthure away then anything needed for the managing of side materials from coal burning. A bit of offtopic now that I really want to share since its not pointed out anywhere: The electromagnetic field we use to contain magnetically charged material and push them togather, or shoot them at each other, or other ways entice them to get close enough to overcome their repeling force is nothing but the recreation of the same force that gravity exerts on the material inside the sun, due to being a load of material in the sun that creates that very high amount of gravitational force. So technically we use materials ON the space-time field to push against each other, to mimic a bent/warped space-time's effect occouring inside HUGE celestial objects such as the sun. I hope this puts a good comparison on the magnitude of forces we try to replicate here. Also another daily comparison is that the earth's huge magnetic field forces compasses pointy arrow into a direction, however we can easilly create forces that can override such a huge object as Earth's HUGE magnetic field's effect with a simply fridge magnet that locally on that area CAN override this field we all live in. It is kinda backwards too. The strong force that keeps atoms away from each other is the compass arrow moving magnet, and by size comparison its like we try to amp up the planets electromagnetic "weak" field to such a huge strenght that it can overcome the small fridge magnet and move back the compass arrow to north. This also a good example of the ridicilious waste of energy we do just to earn a bit back what we want. Ofcourse we mitigate that by having a lot of compasses moved at once and hopefully many times per hour. Okay back to topic, just wanna close on that one. My prediction that the research will be shifting to find where this extra energy comes from. Yeah yeah its the less then 2 part... no. We looking at a system where the energy released that was in the system aparently IS greater then the energy we need to introduce to break that containment. Containing 2 of the same material in a bigger material takes less energy and the surplus is released as net gain. OKay, but why is it takes less energy to break the containment then maintaing it? What is the concept that allows that to appear? Why atoms uses less energy to stay stable if they bigger? Is there some form of geometry topology going on that energy paths on? Are there exotic materials that may have way weaker containing forces and give up and fuse into something that takes even way way less energy to stay stable so they release way way more trough fusion? A similar concept that we talk about super conductors where exotic materials may provide the same condition to electricity to traverse then supercooled material. My belifs is that they going to research that aspect, and then starts to look for other approaches to make atoms release excess energy since they do not need as much energy as before since we enticed them to use less energy to stay stable. Thats what they all want, stay stable and they do work until they achive it.

Exactly! It turns the impossible into the late.

they had to put in exactly 100 times more energy then there came out. Research it... they did not talk about the energy needed to let the lasers fire. Science is shooting itself in the foot by not saying everything about that experiment. If this is the way to get funded it is not the right way

@@runePV my statement remains

Process used 100x the energy. This is BS.

@@Mister_Durden what if we reduced that with "engineering"

Exactly

This is where private finance comes in, once fusion energy is proven, private investments will follow and dwarf those of government expenditures, we will need an Elon Musk of nuclear fusion.

@@thomaskalbfus2005 I'm sure that's already established. These big corporations partner all the time on these sorts of endeavors. The company I worked for was a major food and agriculture business, but on the project I was in on was a partnership with a global fossil fuel company. The goal was to see on developing a new source for biofuel. If we were successful then the fuel company would take over production scale and the ag company got the contract for supplying the bio matter and ownership of the patents.

T. Bostick's boss speaking. So this is what you have been doing at break?? Divulging our company processes is a breach of contract. I will have H.R reprimand you once you come back from your holiday break immediately! Good luck sir.

@@blackwater7183 only if you can catch me

Step 1 has taken 70 years.

It returned 50% more energy than it used so I'd say the commercial use is closer than you think.

China is already building a commercial reactor based off of their artificial sun reactor that hit a peak temperature of 160 million degrees Celsius though it can only be sustained at 69.9 million Celsius it still generates more energy than it takes to start the reaction. They do have to make redundant systems that can handle the power surges that happens as it has downtime for cooling purposes and stability.

@@HellHoundsInc No it didn't, situation misrepresented in most media. 500 MJ of electrical energy went into the lasers, which made 1.8 MJ of optical energy, and 2.5 MJ of fusion energy release. That's half a percent of input energy returned by fusion. Hooplah about comparing light energy to fusion energy is misleading, you can't make a power plant this way.

So are they still working on proof of concept when it comes to powering a turbine and producing electricity through the fusion process? I think they need more steps to prove it's not just a money pit. I love the R&D and hope it's commercially viable.

Sagacity isn't a necessary word and it wasn't used right in the context of your sentence, nerd

@@notisaiah440 What? Sagacity means showing good judgment in a specific situation, does it not?

@@whyplaypiano2844 he just means it wasn’t a needed word and makes you sound like you’re trying to be smart just ignore him say what you want

@@nicaridennie411 I understood that much, I was more confused by the "wasn't used right in the context of your sentence, nerd" part. Because, although it wasn't a necessary word, as far as I'm aware it WAS used correctly.

@@notisaiah440Like getting dressed up for a nice event, some of us like to dust off the fun words to show our appreciation for someone or something. Let the OP enjoy.

My pleasure!

Thanks 👍 🔥

@@DrBenMiles It'd be really cool to see a video on the state of superconductors and when we might see them in consumer devices. I wonder if any device under $5000 contains a super conductor? It'd specifically be interesting to see a graph, that contains data on the specs of superconductors over the years including the cost of manufacturing/purchasing. So like, year 2000, $1000 super conductor has a length of x and a lifespan of y and a temp req of z, 5 years later what are the specs of a similarly priced component component? I'd love to see well visualized data on the progress of super conductors and a prediction based off that data as to when we might see them in a general consumer device, and what the first/simplest general consumer device to practically benefit from a superconductor will be? There must be some random gadget that benefits more from basic superconductors than something like a phone, maybe some cheaper low energy device like a wireless earbud or smart watch? A little airtag tracker? A lightbulb? If you had a state of the art superconductor factory and had to come up with a general consumer device to mass manufacture with them, what would it be? Also artificial muscles would be a neat topic! I've always wanted to clickbait an IPMC video with a thumbnail of a plane flapping it's wings like a bird, which (i hope) is a plausible future if motors become usurped by artificial muscles.

We have them right now!!!!!

@@CORNDODGER Really? Where can I find more information about them? It'd be neat to buy a few just to play with, if I could afford it.

@@OwenWithAHammer You got a few MILLION to throw around look up HORNE TECHNOLOGIES

I love country Europe I live in the listenburg state

@@The_MRC. Europe is not a country, which means you are not in a country.

We trying lmaoooo

This is amazing for the world. We just have to stop the "1%" from playing gatekeepers to the technology.

@@The_MRC. bro thinks eu is a country 💀

The NIF reminds me of the Death Star, its designed to produce one pulse of energy a day to detonate a fusion pellet. The image of a team of technicians to set up their laser system to produce a massive pulse of laser energy, basically to simulate a nuclear bomb explosion, which is not designed to deliver electricity to our homes but to destroy things and people, pretty much what the fictional Death Star in Star Wars was also designed to do. The explosion was what was important, not the energy produced, so long as it destroyed things and produced dead bodies and greasy shadows on the walls, that was enough.

Even when you achieve a positive Qtotal, you're not even close.

That would be nice.

@@onetortle9114 The IQ of the average climate change disciple is below 0.

@sirpumpingtonofdumpenshire1639 love all the fear mongering like we are going to destroy this self-sustaining space rock we live on in x amount of years (where x keeps shrinking every few months) when it has sustained itself for so many years before us. Saw a video the other day explaining why we only have like 3 years before we destroy the earth with our carbon emissions. Honestly, it's kind of funny .

@@onetortle9114 Fuck the plants. Eat steak.

@@onetortle9114dunning-kruger at its finest

@@timvankuilenburg2152 That's just ad hom. Why don't you explain how he's wrong if you're going to bother replying? Personally, I'm not convinced that extending and bolstering our current interglacial period is the worse option.

This is a way of finding out if someone is who you need as a friend. If they know and are amazed by this keep talking to them.

@@genebohannon8820 i dont follow

@@genebohannon8820 yea it sucks none of my friends are interested and amazed. Most people do not care its kinda sad.

We already know that. That’s not the problem at all lmao

@@Gomlmon99 Oh? Well then, by all means, please explain to an astrophysicist who’s been following fusion technology his entire adult life what the problem

Thanks 👍 I'll check it out

They’re on a big PR drive at the moment but they’re many decades behind tokamak approaches. No one in the industry realllly is that positive about them.

HELION's technology is not new. Cambridge was using this back in the early 90s but it proved unworkable. Tokamaks are lined inside with a beryllium surface that becomes highly radioactive over time and you end up with the same problem you have with spent carbon fuel rods in nuclear reactors. Feasible, practicable and affordable thermonuclear power is still decades off. Oh yes, trillium, a primary reactive ingredient is very rare and expensive to produce (only a few thousand grams are produced every year!). That, alone, makes the current tokamaks impractical.

@@eNigma011 don’t think the beryllium is anything like spent fuel rods whatsoever

Even much worse - a useful reactor needs to fire a shot about once per second, not once per day.

Lies Of Nuclear Come DUE In The Cancer Lotto

Thanks! 🙏 glad you liked it

Thank you

Nuclear engineer here: it’s all perspective. In that article, they were specifically referencing the x-ray energy which was used to compress the fuel whereas the break through that just occurred included the laser energy on the capsule that was used to create the x-rays. In truth, it’s still not an overall net gain, as much much more energy was needed to create the lasers in the first place (in the hundreds of Mega Joules compared to the 3ish created by fusion). While this is certainly a good milestone, it’s no where near actual gain and the author’s line of commercial fusion by 2035 is frankly not realistic as there needs to be substantial improvements. In laser efficiency, energy conversion, facility design, and continuous output.

@@PieMan061 So still no total net gain, that's what I thought. Damn tabloids and for-profit channels on youtube overblowing and glancing over details as per usual.

@@PieMan061 This is a good explanation, because it explicitly shows the games they're playing in order to create undeserved buzz around their project. It's nothing but an ongoing exercise in redefining what is included in the system, in order to artificially turn a minor efficiency improvement into some kind of scientific "breakthrough". It sure looks like they just decided to include another

Citations?!

@@morbidmanmusic try watching the first 2 mins of the panel discussion or read the paper. 300MJ was drawn from the grid to produce 2MJ of laser energy that was fired at the capsule.

Capacitors aren't as lossy.

was thinking the same thing. It is hard to speculate with fusion but it almost seems like they (along with general fusion's liquid metal piston system) seems to simplify the process to a point that we may see it sooner then something like, these other huge projects. Keep in mine i use the term simplify very loosely as those systems are not simple at all but have already "solved" the issue of capturing the energy in a usable way. The issue with projects like the tokomak reactor. is even if they get net gains they still have to figure out how to capture that energy.

@@nicholasjaeger3132 Agreed, capturing the released energy always seemed to me like another big obstacle that needs to be addressed with these other projects like the Tokamak reactor. Thats why when I understood how Trenta reactor works and how the magnetic field is going to directly generate electricity made a lot more sense to me. I really hope the next iteration of this reactor makes it economically viable and we might see nuclear fusion powering cities sooner than expected.

@@Amr-El-Baramawy If you have not looked at general fusions system of using liquid metal and pistons to compress the fuel and then capture the energy Take a look at that one. It is pretty cool and is on track to maybe start producing a net gain here soon as well! Though I like this idea better.

@@nicholasjaeger3132 I haven't ... I will take a look at it right now, Thanks

With NIF who made the “breakthrough”, there is no plan for continuous energy production. Is a facility for studying nuclear weapons, it’s not ever meant for power generation. And the fusion is done in such a way that it never could be.

Unfortunately there is no current design/experiment to make this a continuous operation. It takes a significant amount of prep time to even ignite one pellet and it’s actually not an overall net gain of energy. The breakthrough does not include the energy needed to make the lasers in the first place. Still an accomplishment but far far from sustainable fusion energy

Yea I think hydrogen combustion comes in at around 0.00001% mass to energy so yea 1% is OP

Its taken 20 years to go from 0.7% to 1%. Not going to get much better, ever.

@@fivish Oh, you've done the math to know this? Want to share with the class?

Once it is used to power a turbine, it won't be 1% anymore.

Your KZfaq certainty is hilarious.

@@morbidmanmusic Anyone's youtube certainty on this topic is hilarious. I hope Fusion reactors are successful, in the future. At this point they are still fail to power turbines to produce electricity at a higher rate than the energy going in. They still are unproven. I support this R&D, but it's still a hope and no proof of concept.

The NIF managers are masters at obscuring the real purpose of NIF since it is primarily a nuclear weapons research tool, not a fusion energy research tool. Anyone who bothers can look into the primary funding source which has always been the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)s nuclear weapons budget. The primary aim is to generate a small thermonuclear explosion (H-bomb) to test the fuel compression dynamics in such weapons and to generate an intense abrupt flux of 14 mev fusion neutrons to test weapons related materials. They failed to mention that there were material samples adjacent to the fuel capsule to test the later effects. NIF lies within the Lawerence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) who's primary function has always been nuclear weapons related. When they pitch the facility to the public they have always obscured it's primary function in order to create more support for the continued funding of their weapons related projects.

When Nasa needed more funding they made up a story about a piece of Mars getting launched into space and landing on earth. They claimed without any evidence a meteorite they found on earth may be from mars and may have evidence of life on it. The media ran with it and the funding grew. I'm not implying all the people involved in this, or the video poster guy are being dishonest. In my lifetime I have seen an exponential growth of "magical thinking," in the sciences where the theoretical keeps being taught as proven. The whole point of the scientific method is to help keep our biases and magical thinking from warping the results. I still support R&D in fusion reactor technology. But too much hype and people will overleverage our money and resources in a possible pipe dream.

The NIF management failed to mention the input energy to the laser system in previous public announcements that they made regarding so-called 'breakthroughs. Outside critics have now forced them to provide more transparency in this nuclear weapons research laboratory. Still, other factors regarding the input energy remain unmentioned. The experiment took over a week to prepare. As a result the lab should have provided the facility input energy over a period of a week. It is estimated that the target assembly cost at least $100,000. Once the 3 nanosecond laser pulse hits it it is converted into a plasma and end the end that ends up as radioactive waste splattered around the interior of the target vacuum chamber that then requires cleaning out. The fusion reaction lasted approximately 0.08 nanoseconds, consuming only about 4% of the solidified fuel originally lining the interiors of the fuel capsule. The other 96% was blown away from the reaction center before it could react. If one assumes that they could repeat this experiment each week then the fusion energy duty cycle would be 0.0000000000000002 over that span of time. The lab is now suggesting that the inefficiency of their lasers can be overcome with newer laser technologies, such as laser diode pumped lasers. They fail to mention that even the most powerful of those doesn't come close to their current laser power. When the multi-billion dollar NIF became fully operational it was expected to achieve its namesake 'ignition' by 2012. That was based upon ironing out 'all' the kinks with the two previous large lasers ICF machines. NIF failed its goal by a wide margin. Despite that funding continued until the current achievement, a decade later. The NIF managers have employed increasing extreme measures to try to achieve their original goal. As they have done so they have moved further and further away from the design of a practical fusion energy reactor concept. This so-called major 'breakthrough' experiment likely cost over a million dollars, and a week's prep. time, to generate enough fusion energy to boil a couple of liters of water. All that energy was blasted away without any meaningful way to capture it. The most significant thing that needs to be looked into is why so few reporting journalists bothered to include any significant critical analysis of the announcement.

You can gain energy by fusion using any elements up to Iron, however they are much harder to fuse (larger and needs more energy to overcome the repulsion caused by more protons) and don’t produce as much energy when fused. Hydrogen is the most efficient and gravity does not really affect the process.

I still get free energy from the cold fusion technology they developed a few years back. Once we develop warp technology the Vulcans will meet with and mentor us and then our technological boom will be unimaginable.

Solar freakin' roadways!

Thank you!!

Even better than solar freaking roadways? Even better.