Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Ziroth" channel.

ENGINEER HERE You and the rest of the Heat pump brigade NEED to STOP saying things like 300% EFFICIENCY. Every engineer learns that you cannot get above 100% efficiency for any thermodynamic process and it's called the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is why Heat Pumps use COEFFICIANT of PERFORMANCE (CoP) which is NOT the same thing as efficiency its a measure of performance. AND THERE IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE HERE with people misusing the word efficiency and confusing the general public. Right now there are all sorts of claims being made by various people over the efficiency of various power generation systems and how we use electricity. How do you think we can explain to the general public the efficiency of a nuclear power station is 36% and that's good or that gas turbines are about 46% and that's good or that combined cycle gas turbines are around 64% and that's good when you are claiming heat pumps are 300% *WHICH IS ADVERTISING JARGON?*. As an engineer I recently WASTED several days recently explaining to a client that ChatGPT was WRONG about an energy issue because ChatGPT can't tell the difference between FACTS and ADVERTISING JARGON. FYI - the issue was over grid stability and that certain dc-ac inverters are labelled as "pure sine wave inverters" and the fact is that NO inverter produces a technically pure clean sine wave output. (Go look at the Wikipedia page for power inverters). Its just ADVERISING JARGON. This particular piece of advertising jargon is about to come slamming into every society that has substantial amounts of renewables feeding into their grids via dc-ac inverters. Its a major issue in Ireland which now has a lot of wind power. The channel Real Engineering did a fantastic video on the subject. I doubt the flywheel solution will work because that fly wheel will still need a power input that wasn't explained. What the Real Engineering video highlights is the substantial difference between energy sources and how they pump energy into the grid. All through the fossil fuel era this was never a problem because all those massive steam turbines with their inertia did the job. Its actually the one thing projects like Hinkley Point C have going for it, but the pro-nuclear lobby are so stupid they don't understand or realise this.
30
@ErikS- I am an engineer with 30+ years. You-re right he lacks a lot of experience but from my past interactions with him on this channel he is UNLIKE SO MANY OTHERS willing to engage people who know more than he does. As a counter point so you know what I consider good and bad science and tech channels. A while back I corrected a fairly basic mistake made by the Common Sense Skeptic who's a real Elon Musk basher and being honest he's well justified in bashing Elon. But on this one video where they were trying to promote a long forgotten and dismissed alternative to getting into space I corrected them on a point regarding air launched systems. FYI - My degree is in aerospace and I knew what they said was 100% WRONG. I got a damn arrogant reply telling me I didn't know what I was talking about and should remove my comment. I then replied back and sited all sorts of examples PROVING their comment was wrong. They then deleted me from EVERWHERE on their pages. So YES Ziroth is young he does lack experience BUT IS WILLING TO LISTEN while so many others are pretty SHlTHOUSE.
27
@Hermetics Before you finish your book try and learn how to spell.
12
No the problem is you shouldn't be comparing it to solar at all. This is the thing I find so frustrating in almost every energy story being presented everywhere. IF someone has a conveniently located stream then this might be the best solution. BUT if they are in Morocco or Outback Australia this thing will be useless and solar with be better. BUT then you might go to one of the islands off Scotland and irrespective of how much sun they might get at times or how much rain they get, you just know a small wind turbine is going to be the best solution. BUT then you go down to dreary old London where the most abundant natural resource is fog and several million people wanting to boil the kettle after Coronation street, then a thumping big nuclear plant is pretty sensible. AND that's the REAL STORY on FUTURE ENERGY. It will depend on where you need that energy, how much energy you need at that location and what's most practical for that environment.
8
I'm an aerospace engineer with an interest in energy systems at the moment. I have been trying to tell people that some of these types of alternative wind technologies like Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWTS) will have applications in future and in particular on the tops of houses, apartment blocks and office towers where Horizontal Turbines (HAWTS) just don't work. Either they are to noisy (propeller noise) or their mountings are structurally incompatible with mounting on a rooftop. Yes without doubt big 3 bladed HAWTS have the efficiency when they are out in the open country side, perched on top of large posts with suitable footings, BUT you can't put them in your backyard or on your roof. I'm in Australia and we have 1000s and 1000s of homes with solar in places with good reliable wind, especially in coastal regions because they get incredibly reliable sea breezes. Plus Australia's sea breezes are driven by the sun but they are operate on the opposite side of the solar cycle. They start to blow in the afternoon and then blow consistently through to the next morning and drop when the sun starts heating things back up. So in certain locations the solar inverters (right now) are only pumping out power when the sun is up. If those systems are fitted with a small COMPATIBLE wind units those systems go from pumping out power during daylight hours to ALMOST being able to generate power 24/7. So I think these guys are being very smart. They aren't trying to solve to overall energy problem but instead they are trying to fill a gap that's there.
6
Go look at the sailing videos, they have always had some form of morphing its just gotten a lot better in recent decades. That's what many of the adjustments to the mast & boom have been for. They are actually changing the shape of the airfoil. I am an aerospace engineer and some of the stuff being done on the America's cup boats is seriously impressive.
5
Engineer here - I wondered about that. Thanks for clearing it up.
5
I saw this and wondered if it was going to be another brain dead clown spouting off about stuff he knows nothing about. FYI - I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. This is a great honest technology video and we need more people doing this sort of thing. Just be careful on your titles. Yes I know you need to get people to click and watch but its also easy for people with technical backgrounds to just go by and right you off. Its also possible people who ask technically qualified people will look at a title and tell others you're an idiot. I watched 3 other of your videos Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Rewrites Laws of Physics Why China is Building an Underground Nuclear Lab How This Hole Generates Infinite Energy They were all really good and each and multiple points I had not heard. I really did get something out of each one. But look at your titles. In the first one was ok, except no laws were re-written just a theory and your explanation of what they now know was superb. The second was fine, but the third was a but like the first one. The video was fine and informative, but you know there's no such thing as "infinite energy." Even our sun will one day run out of fuel as all stars do. I'd really like to see you do a follow up on geothermal systems. The public perception on it is fairly poor. Except for a couple of rare places like New Zealand and Iceland its pretty much been a failure everywhere else its been tried. We've had a couple of spectacular failures here in Australia. They started Ok but once they started removing energy from the hot rock, the hot rock got colder which somehow surprised them. This is that problem you mentioned of not getting the stream hot enough to efficiently power a turbine. That's also the main problem with nuclear fuel pellets. Its not that they stop producing heat they just don't produce enough to power a steam turbine. I actually think people need to start looking into heat recovery systems a lot more. I came across a European company a couple of years ago that had a process that needed as little as 120C to generate power. There's a lot of processes with heat waste around 200C. They were very quiet about what they did but I suspect they used the same basic process as a steam turbine system but with a fluid that had different properties including a supercritical temperature point that's a lot lower than the 600C of water. Keep up the good work, just watch those titles.
5
@TheGalifrey BULLSHlT Sorry but its a violation of the second law of thermodynamics which basically is "Entropy always increases and therefore 100% thermal efficiency is IMPOSSIBLE in any process." And as for MIT they aren't perfect and can be just as wrong as anyone else. Its advertising jargon NOTHING MORE.
4
@ZirothTech Here's something even weirder about a competition aerobatic plane. The propellers have quite fat blades which at first seems unusual for a high performance aircraft. because they are limited in diameter they need more blade to do what's needed. The other thing is that on vertical down lines you also need braking as in like putting your foot on the middle pedal in a car. For instance a competition spin you have to complete the vertical line AFTER the spin. It goes almost against normal human behavior that after recovering a spin you then point the plane vertically at the ground. When you're doing this you aren't looking at the ground either you're looking at the wing tip gauge because for every 5deg you are off the vertical the judged deduct a point. So you push into a perfect vertical dive and at that point you WANT DRAG not thrust. So at low engine power the constant speed prop goes flat and acts like a bag fat air brake. When flying straight at the ground you don't want the prop puling you want it creating as much drag as possible. I once had a pilot tell me "You haven't experienced prop drag until you've flow a Yak." He then described how in his old plane that in a vertical down when he'd pull the engine back he'd fall forward into the harness. Competition aerobatics is this weird set of trade-offs and until you get into it there's just stuff you'll never know. Look under the wings for the small winglets that are attached to the ailerons. Look at the ailerons near the wingtips. Several planes have the last part of the wingtip well ahead of the pivot point, just like many rudders have part of the rudder ahead of the pivot point. Its not that different to other forms of competition inspired engineering. I had a boss who was into the top level of Australian open wheel racing. At the time all the cars were ex-F3000 from Europe with a locally sourced engine. Scott Dixon the Indy Car racer was in a rival team to my bosses team back then. There's stuff about those cars and how they drivers drove them that 20 years later still amazes me.
3
Can you and all the other YouTubers STOP POSTING things like this that imply this is about to change the universe. You aren't dumb but you are acting dumb. Rolls Royce, GE and others had the hydrogen issues in the engine all beaten back in the mid 1990s. So why haven't there been any hydrogen powered airliners? No engine will be any sort of "game changer" so long as there isn't a fuel supply.
3
@lolicantthinkofabettername3437 There's nothing new in the He-3 discussion. I actually met Harrison Schmitt back in 2002 when he was in Australia for the 30th anniversary of Apollo 17 and he was pushing for a $20 Billion mining project for it on the moon. It was one fo the main reasons I went off to the mining industry so I could get some practical experience with building and operating mines. The biggest issue with mining ANYTHING in space (including He-3) is the NONE of the promoters have any idea what it takes to build a mine, operate a mine or transport the mines products to where they are needed. A lot of what's proposed is so ludicrous and idiotic its not even worth calling science fiction.
3
@The1Elcil NO its not about being PROFITABLE. For fark sake can everyone get over this nonsense that everything has to be done for profit. That's that Milton Freidman nonsense that needs to be stomped out of existence.. We need to start thinking in terms of ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. You can't ignore costs. That's just as stupid as insisting on everything being profitable. There used to be this expression "value for money" as in "We bought this for $X and we got good value for the money we spent." If you're a town, city or even just a house then you have to ask: What gets you the most reliable energy for the money you/we can afford to spend on energy? If you start every conversation with: What's going to get the shareholders the most profit?. Then you you are farked before you even start.
2
Sorry buddy but on the aerobatics planes you are totally wrong on several points. Your a pretty smart kid and you do some great videos but occasionally get stuff 100% wrong. You really need to occasionally go and ask people about these things. I am an aerospace engineer with a pilots license and have flown competition aerobatics. Planes like the Extra 300/330, Yaks, Edeg450 and others mostly use a symmetrical wing sections so they have the same characteristics inverted as well as upright. That's needed for things like inverted spins and negative flick rolls. Learning to fly for me was incredibly humbling because I had to start listening a lot more to a lot of people. I've become more used to ordering electricians and junior engineers about, which happens after 30+ years. It became even more so when I took up aerobatics. Suddenly I was the student with a head full of nothing. Power to weight ratio and stability (YES STABILITY) are more important than anything else. The power thing is fairly obvious but ALL of the current aerobatics planes are very stable in flight unlike planes like the Pitts which are super manoeuvrable but also very twitchy. Its maybe the thing I find so technically impressive about those planes. They not only have incredible response to inputs but also high levels of stability. They stay where they are pointed. Scoring in aerobatics is about how clean you fly the manoeuvres NOT how many Gs are pulled or how fast you roll or how clean your aerodynamics are. The scoring system is quite similar to gymnastics and diving. Judges don't score according to how hard a figure is they score out of 10 (with 1/2 marks) for how well its flown subtracting points (& 1/2 points) for mistakes. Its about how round a loop is or how straight a line is flown. The difficulty of a figure is covered by a degree of difficulty that we call the "k-factor" which is based on summing up the various parts of a figure. The area of competition flying where this stuff is most likely to find a home is in gliding. if you want to ever go and see where the future of high efficiency aerodynamics is headed then go watch some of the gliding channels here on YT.
2
@L4JP Agreed it does NOT engender any sympathy whether he's just trying to be a smart ass or if he actually believes that crap.
2
@ccibinel Its hard not to agree. There's something 125,000 tons of spent fuel rods in water tanks under reactors around the world of which around 80,000 tons is in America. if there is one fundamental technical detraction its that like all Fission Reactor types they take a damn long time to build. The world should have had a way more sensible discussion on nuclear energy some 15 - 20 years ago, BUT the emotion of what had happened at Chernobyl and then Fukushima killed any rational discussion. For too many people they just hear the word nuclear and they lose their minds and you can't even get to a discussion on any of the alternative technologies like SMR, CANDU, MSR, Thorium or things like safety systems including fail safe systems.
2
CORRECTION TO THIS - Nuclear like EVERY energy source we use has a carbon output. No matter what anyone says or does it is simply impossible to get the Carbon Output to zero. We can start with the simple reality of extracting Uranium Ore form the ground AND BEFORE ANYONE ASKS I have actually worked on a Uranium Mine (ERA Ranger in Australia). So I know how that part of the process works and YES it has carbon emissions. PLUS every engineered installation on the planet needs maintenance and the replacement of parts. That's an ongoing process and those NEW REPLACEMENT PARTS, irrespective of what material they are made from involve carbon emissions. So lets just be factual and say there is NO such thing as the ZERO Carbon system here on the Earth. What we actually need to be working towards is a SUSTAINABLE CARBON CYCLE. Before the industrial revolution there planet had its own stabilised carbon cycle. Since the Industrial Revolution "WE" (the human race) have thrown that carbon cycle out of whack and we now need to un-whack it. Will nuclear power help us un-whack the carbon cycle? ABSOLUTELY, but its NOT the only thing we need to do. Sorry if this next part is longish but it actually links up with your video on the AC system the ex-NASA engineer has done. The biggest thing by far will be energy efficiency. We have to be more efficient with energy. So you understand there's a direct correlation between GLOABL energy production and GLOBAL GDP. If Global GDP keeps increasing we will get to the point where global energy use literally cooks the planet. Forget greenhouse effects energy use alone will do the damage. The energy issue has been ignored by mainstream economists for decades but has NOT been missed by a few economists, engineers, physicists and other scientists. The core problem is energy efficiency. If you look at the energy efficiency through the entire process then what you use for things like kettles, TVs and the computer your at right now is as little as 5% and for most things across the developed world less than 10% efficient of the actual energy used. This comes from 2 simple realities. One there's the energy consumed for raw materials an infrastructure. Two there's the basic efficiency with which we produce electricity which is only about 35-36%. Go look at the basic data for the EPR 2 reactors at Hinkley point (36%) or the AP1000s used at Vogtle (35%). They're no different to coal fired power stations for the simple reason they boil water and the Carnot efficiency (1 - Tc/Th) for steam turbines is limited to about 36% because of the boiler-turbine-condenser combination. It can be raised to about 42% with high temp high pressure flash boilers but that's NOT as easy as it sounds or it would have been standard practice. The reason why Gas turbines get around 45-46% efficiency is because they operate at a better Tc/Th ratio (eg 1700-800C at 45.6% versus 500-225C at 35.6%) It also why cogeneration works so well because IF your gas turbine exhaust is 800C you can use that to boil water. Yes there's some losses but you can boost the over all efficiency to around 64-65%. The GE 9HA in cogeneration gets about 64.5%. Then there's the losses with the high voltage transmission to your local substation, then the losses of transforming to medium voltages and transmitting that through the local grid and then finally the local transforming down to the low voltage at your house and the power loop through your house back to the grid. So the electricity you use at your computer is lucky if its arriving at the power point at 20%. Then when you look at how much of the energy in a computer is lost as heat in the power supply and chips and you are lucky if your above 10%. This is why technologies like the AC technology from the ex-NASA engineer I just saw in another of your other video are so important. Across the board we have to be more efficient with energy. Another example are buildings as in large office blocks and towers. Prof Mark Blyth (Brown U.) has several times mentioned an engineering study that said if America triple glazed all of those glass clad towers in major cities then America would meet its carbon reduction requirements for the Paris Agreement AND IF THEY DID IT the operational cost reductions would greatly enhance the profits of the owners of those buildings. Plus all the work needed to get that job done would keep 1,000s and 1,000s of people employed for at least a decade maybe 2. But then America just re-elected Captain Greed and his army of Planet F⋃CKING Maggots. So your guess on what's next is as good as mine.
1
@izalman Thanks and its NOT that I think they are bad its the unnecessary advertising hype and it makes the rest of the energy discussion so much harder. How do you discuss nuclear at ~35% or combined cycle gas turbines at ~64% when people are hyping on about heat pumps at 300% or 400% or 800%? And that's before we get to actual discussions of costs and pay-off time and all the other things. What all these other clowns don't get is that people like you and me have been in those meetings where the clowns with economics degrees throw back at us: "What's the business case for that?" or "Who's going to pay for that?" or "What's the benefits of that?" or maybe "I heard that I can get blah blah blah from this technology. So why aren't we doing that?" Even when that technology is utterly irrelevant or its been considered and found unfeasible. We've all been in that and none of us need those discussions to be harder than they already are AND SIMILARLY we don't need any of the public discussions we need to have to be MORE difficult than they already are.
1
Science Revolution If you're so smart then explain how the computer you are using works. IF SCIENCE IS SO BAD AN EVIL THEN STOP USING TECHNOLOGY including COMPUTERS.
1
Aerospace Engineer here: We've chatted a couple of times so I know your engineer and I'll hope you'll take this with the intent it is given. You and others need to stop putting up things like 116% efficiency or the 145% efficiency you had for the Fibonnaci turbine. I have seen a pile of this recently (most notably with heat pumps with insane claims) and we both know that there is simply no way in any engineered system to get mor than 100% efficiency. In fact if you have studied Thermodynamics then you know its fundamentally impossible in a engineered system because there's some loss somewhere that can't be recovered in every cycle. The problem isn't that you and I know what you mean that 116% means 16% above some other standard or reference. The problem is that people who ARE NOT engineers or have forgotten even their high school science class just think its possible. Where this becomes a massive problem is in dealing with the energy crisis. As an engineer I have to deal with it from a very pragmatic perspective. First and foremost we have to do things RIGHT NOW that we know are going to work. No matter what project you ever do you must start with something you know will work or have a very high level of confidence it will because the parts you are using are known to work in similar projects. Being honest I haven't always done that and its caused soe serious heart break at times. Here in Australia we are having this insane argument over nuclear power. No matter if we do or don't decide to go with nuclear it wont fix a damn thing RIGHT NOW because it takes time (a lot of time). We have the butt ugly situation of having power stations that we should have closed 5-10 years ago that are limping along because all of the public discussions are shitfests or stupidity fueled by armies of idiots stoking whatever their narratives are. Just this week I have saw a left wing think tanker claim that coal is NOT a mineral with the smuggest of looks on her face and NOBODY to correct it because it was here on her think tanks YT channel On the flip side we have the pro nuclear crowd telling so many lies its impossible to keep track and even more impossible to correct because they have mixed those lies in among actual facts. Do I think we will need nuclear? YES, the question isn't if we'll have it but when and what type and how much. Real Engineering did a great recent video on grid stability issue when you have a lot of wind feeding into a grid. Australia has an insane amount of wind available, but to make it work we need something to absorb the grid disturbances. Nuclear can do that and do it well but we can't even get a sensible discussion going. Just today I watched one of our Senators who was a test pilot and has a technical background in systems engineering and he mixed a staggering array of lie in among some important truths. I have the background to sort the lies from the facts most people don't. A week ago a neighbor of mine told me I had no idea what I was talking about because the Meisner Effect was the answer to everything. He had no idea that even if the Meisner effect (which is the effect of superconductors pushing away from magnets) has NOTHING to do with energy production and until we can use it practically it will have almost zero effect on energy distribution. BUT HE SAW the crap idiotic video by someone (I suspect 2 Bit Da Vinci) and now thinks he's an expert on energy. I have seen Thunderf00t's debunk of the 2 Bit video and its straight forward on how stupid that video was. I don't always agree with Thunderf00t, but most of the time he is spot on because like me he can see the lies through the crap. I think you have a great channel, but like a lot of younger people you haven't yet worked out just how problematic misunderstandings can become. These days we have so many people telling so many things that are simply wrong that its causing a lot of confusion and with that we can't have some of the very important things that need saying.
1
Simple lack of investment because NOBODY controls the IP. There's a real issue with the free market approach to energy because it simply does NOT work and almost nobody in the economics profession will admit that they got it wrong.
1
@haruhisuzumiya6650 Not quite vapourware just not enough money to get it over the line. MSRs were clearly a better option for commercial reactors and they knew that in the 1970s after the Oakridge experimental units. The problem was there was so much investment in PWRs and they were established and sorted out. Its a lot like many other technology struggles. The best technology does not always win. One of the classics I remember was VHS versus Betamax. By every video quality metric Betamax was a better technology. VHS had 2 advantages. Its was cheaper to make the tapes and they were in the market first.
1
@tvuser9529 Actually there's no vapour in a steam turbine. To work they have to keep the H2O ABOVE the temperature where there's vapour and its 100% steam (as in a gas). Its why it doesn't matter what the heat source is most thermal plants are limited to about 36% Carnot Efficiency. To get higher efficiency you have to operate at higher boiler temperatures or use a different gas which is the theory behind gas cooled Gen IV reactors. Sorry for the geek out
1
@ fair enuf mate it was a fair pun but lost on non-geeks
1
AEROSPACE ENGNEER here: When I first saw the title of the video I was very sceptical considering some of the ridiculous claims made by other solar powered systems. Thunderf00t has debunked at least 1 of those. But this looks damn interesting and a genuine breakthrough. Because I work in industrial control systems and automation AND have worked in mining where they do a lot of water treatment I have worked on both RO and Multi-effect systems although the MES system I encountered was called a Mechanical Vapour Compression system. One thing people misunderstand with RO is that its NOT that cheap and its often compared to more expensive options. Its biggest advantage is that you can turn it off and on quite easily. With MES systems they are tricky to get started and you just can't turn them off and back on. One of the effects they use is to keep the system under vacuum because you can get the water to boil at around 70℃. I think the limit is about 67-68℃. One they are running and stable they use very little power because of the thermal exchanges going on. BUT those systems have 1 major drawback - they only operate over a very narrow range of flow rates. So you turn them on and cross your fingers they will start as expected. The best analogy I have is that MES systems are like a 2 stroke motorcycle. When they are on song in their happy place they are brilliant. When they are not happy and off song they are horrible. And if you're wondering why and aerospace engineer is interested in water treatment. Ask what would be one of the first items of critical infrastructure for a moon base.
1
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: My first thought on seeing the link was "Oh not another one" but on seeing this its actually clever. That doesn't mean its going to change the world, but we have to start using these sorts of different technologies where they work. I don't think the efficiency is anywhere near the issue that so many bring up when it comes to energy. The more important thing is can any particular system deliver what's needed at an acceptable price without negative side effects. People need to realise that geography has a lot to do with what we can access. Not everywhere is great for solar or wind or hydro, but some of these smaller systems make it possible to use geographic resources that are otherwise not feasible.
1
@cb-vi3he Can people like PLEASE not jump in with completely nonsensical statements. FIRST - NOTHING, and I really do mean NOTHING that humans build is 100% efficient. SECOND - Archimedes screws are far from being more efficient than Pelton or bladed turbines. If they were then we'd use them. They aren't which is why we don't.
1
@MrJturner74 Why only flying wings? They are a jet engine they can be used in anything that's suitable AND that can carry the fuel. Liquid Hydrogen is a incredibly hard to use - ask NASA.
1
@Stupidityindex Yeah the dimming thing is real and we know that from 9/11, but I doubt we could rely on it as any sort of mechanism to tackle the subject. We just must stop pumping carbon into the atmosphere at the levels we are and start massively increasing the mechanisms that suck it out of the air and sequester it in the ground. The planet can handle a lot but not this much. We just have to stop burning coal in power stations period and there are alternatives. Just for start the Chinese could flip all their coal fired power plants to gas fired with cheap Russian gas. That alone would be a massive hit to emissions.
1
@odeball22 Who and what are you referring to DK-HED?
1
@william breen Go and watch any of the decent documentaries on ITER.
1
@nobot99997_xxl Th heat isn't the problem you think it is as its confined to the plasma and there's actually very little mass in that plasma. On the transfer problem that's been known ever since people first put forward the idea of having giant solar power stations circling the Earth. How do you send the power down and its not simply just down the distances are massive. Geostationary orbit is 35,786 km (22,236 mi) in altitude above Earth's Equator.
1
La maison Rock du Procrastinateur Go watch Peter Zeihan talk about demographics. The worlds population is about to start shrinking, because all the developed countries have low birth rates. The developing world will soon start following as they develop further. Peter Zeihan believes China's population will drop by 1/2 over coming decades because the "One Child" policy worked too well.
1
@william breen If its the original comment then its real easy to have people distract your material and not even bother if it looks like click bait and there's not only a lot of click bait out there most of it is for garbage information especially on technology. And some of those so called technology informers are incredibly bad and yet they have millions of subscribers. I can't say I agree with everything this guy says, but he's well above average and we do need better content for technology. So I 'd hate to see people skipping past his vids because they see him as just another click bait clown.
1
@nobot99997_xxl Did you do that from your phone or is that how you normally ask questions and make statements. Because nothing you said makes sense or has any logic or facts to base it on.
1
@nobot99997_xxl You make claims than you cannot back up. You said the temperature is too high and it will melt the reactor and that's garbage. None of the Tokamaks or other experiments have melted despite having plasma temperatures in the millions of degrees. The plasma is trapped by the magnetic fields and its only a small stream right in the center. You made the claim the must run for 7 seconds. Where does that come from? Don't pull data out of your ass and expect people not to react. If you actually are German then you should know about the Stellarator which I think has a far better chance of working industrially than the Tokamaks like ITER. But that doesn't mean ITER wont be a valuable facility. I saw a great documentary on fusion a few years ago. It included many variations and projects that people had under development including the ITER and the Stellarator. Michel Laberge the founder of General Fusion in Canada who are developing a process using lasers said that ITER is totally impractical as a commercial power generator, but because of its capability it will answer a lot of questions. All that said I have no hopes that fusion will be working industrially anytime soon. Look at how long ITER is taking to build its impractical to think it will solve the worlds energy problem. BUT its possibly going to be a major step forward.
1
@nobot99997_xxl Those are all valid parts of the ongoing issues of trying to pout the sun in a bottle. In a star its gravity that causes the compression and you only need to watch some of the footage of the surface of our star to see that its incredibly turbulent. That's part of the differences between Stellarator and Tokamak. Tokamaks are supposed to operate in bursts not continuously like Stellarators. The problem with both has been getting enough magnetic power to drive the process. My bigger concern for several years is that the mechanism for getting heat out of the plasma is fast neutrons, not radiation as in photons. Fast neutrons come of and hit atoms in the walls and impart kinetic energy as heat. This is also how they hope to generate more tritium. The problem with fast neutrons is they are the deadliest from of radiation known. They smash up DNA. There's also the problem of using superconducting coils in the magnets. Super conducting materials don't like getting hot so when you're wrapped around a giant heat source you need to keep them cool and cooling requires energy. I don't think their chances of delivering anything soon are good, but then sometimes people make genuine game changing breakthroughs.
1
@nobot99997_xxl The ARC reactor design sounds interesting and they are certainly tyring to do some lateral thinking. I hate to say it but those MIT kids are very smart and when they get things right it can be brilliant, but for every piece of brilliant they also tend to have a bunch of failures. Go look up what happened with the WAMSR (waste annihilating molten salt reactor). They did a TEDx where they announced to the world how they had solved the great problem of nuclear waste. Right at the very start they missed a couple of things and their concept was NEVER going to work. It was a shame because the idea is brilliant. I actually wrote to Leslie Dewan and encouraged her to not give up but to look at the problem from other perspectives because being able to eliminate the waste stockpile would be one of the greatest technical achievements ever.
1
@nobot99997_xxl I'm quite well aware of not taking things from YouTube or TV or the any other media as gospel.
1