1) 1:48 NASA nails asteroid

2) 3:03 US joins Kigali amendment

3) 4:05 purportedly extinct species make comeback

4) 5:11 malaria vaccine progresses through trials

5) 6:33 lyme disease vaccine nearing market return

6) 8:04 US soccer teams strike monumental deal

7) 8:58 free lunches programs expand

8 ) 10:04 Europe standardizing charging ports

9) 11:02 US ev tipping point hit this year

10) 12:13 plan created for plugging orphan wells

11) 13:28 Canada pilots prescriptions for outdoors time

12) 14:18 military suicides see decline

13) 15:26 HIV vaccines progressing through trials

14) 16:18 art museums solve funding issue

15) 17:08 battery swap technology spreading

16) 18:22 ethereum achieves major efficiency gain

17) 19:42 MLB figures out authentication

18) 20:54 Klamath river set for return

19) 22:03 Intel launches deepfake detector

20) 22:47 solution for removing pfa's found

21) 24:16 US States ban slavery

22) 25:42 nuclear fusion breakthrough

Your video, We Went Inside the Largest Nuclear Fusion Reactor, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 108 Badge!

Your video, What This Superconductor Means For Nuclear Fusion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Much like nuclear fusion. Apparently it works but is it useful yet? Ever?

Fusion power has been 30 years for at least the last 30 years, and probably since the 1960s.

This article has a bit more detail on some of the subjects this video covered, and also the 30 year timeframe:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/#.WCWhnuF97fA

Your video, Nuclear Fusion in a Basement with a Reclusive Gunsmith, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

precisely the point I've been arguing for a while now: the hypocrisy of being giving up our personal and private data at the drop of a hat, yet being outraged when government uses it.

privacy as most people think of it is an outdated concept.

we give out that data freely all the time. we share what we're thinking and doing with Facebook and Twitter all the time.

Even when we're at home and not online, we still share private information freely with our friends and loved ones and that info gets shared with other friends and loved ones.

face it, the human being is not a private creature.

There is always going to be a risk of someone mis-using that collected information, but that doesn't mean the genie is put back in the bottle. All you can do is put safeguards in place and quite frankly, the human race needs to grow up a little so that the temptation to use it maliciously is easier to ignore.

they said the same shit about the nuclear bomb and we're still have yet to blow ourselves to kingdom come. In addition, when we master nuclear fusion it's going to leap us forward tremendously.

someone's eventually going to figure out a tremendously positive use for all of that sociological data that will benefit us greatly. That's typically the nature of all these military and space projects. The tech gets spun off into medical and other positive ventures.

Perhaps my analogy led you astray, you don't get something out of nothing.

In fusion, a small amount of matter is converted directly into energy. It's a scientific theory that matter is energy, and in a small amount of matter there is a very large amount of energy.

For example, the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor. If it was burning chemically rather than fusing, it would have probably burnt out within a few thousand years (i've not bothered to do any maths on that). As it's fusing, it's probably got another 5 billion in it with 5 billion candles already on its birthday cake now.

If you burn a piece of wood, you get a certain amount of energy from it. If you converted a piece of wood directly from matter into energy, you'd get a rediculous amount of energy. Ice cube to a lake kind of proportions.

If you want to learn about fusion (it is interesting) then i suggest starting at the wikipedia page on it. It will explain that when you fuse two atoms together, you end up with something with less mass than its component parts, the mass lost is converted to energy (e=mc^2).

Read the second half of this about burning fuel. You get a feel for the numbers.
http://www.1728.com/einstein.htm

[redacted]

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Personally, I think a better way to go is turning every house into a power station. The bit torrent model if you will. If every house had a freeish energy generating ability, like cheap wind or solar cells, contained via some off the shelf hydrogen conversion storage unit, it would make for a much more self sufficient existence, and one with MUCH MUCH more redundancy than a central grid. My hope for the future is less the monolithic, single high power, power station, but the multitude of many small, low yield power stations. I think, like bit torrent, the sum will end up being more than the whole of its parts. (but fusion is still awesome

Whilst i understand what you're trying to say, nuclear fusion is more energy than you can possibly imagine if you don't understand how it works. It's like melting an ice cube and getting a lake's worth of water out of it. And it can be done using materials like water which we're in abundance of on this planet.

Forget putting up loads of windmills and solar cells, if you crack fusion then you crack every energy need we will ever have, ever. You can then start seriously talking about using electrical cars because the energy is essentially free, electricity would (should, but we know what energy companies are like) become so abundant that it's virtually worthless.

Not to even mention that if we can REALLY solve it - we're talking long term, or elegantly simple and small and easy - then you can use it on a moon base, space stations, space ships, you name it.

There literally is no better payoff than fusion for waste vs. benefit.

Why? Because you have to spend money* to make money*.

* money <-> energy
>> ^raverman:

I know this is cool... but the "Why" escapes me.
What's the point?
"Stars" are enormous balls of ignited fuel. Spending huge amounts of tax payer money to concentrate sufficient energy to reach ignition gains us what? An achievement badge on Xbox live? then what? you have to keep the lasers on to sustain any reaction?
Nuclear Fusion is only useful if it produces more energy than it takes to create it.

>> ^Hybrid:

That's exactly the point. We know that nuclear fusion can give off VAST amounts of energy, but it's harnassing that energy and converting it to electricity that is the key. Every scientist knows that nuclear fusion is a holy grail, and solving it would solve the planet's energy requirements forever.>> ^raverman:
I know this is cool... but the "Why" escapes me.
What's the point?
"Stars" are enormous balls of ignited fuel. Spending huge amounts of tax payer money to concentrate sufficient energy to reach ignition gains us what? An achievement badge on Xbox live? then what? you have to keep the lasers on to sustain any reaction?
Nuclear Fusion is only useful if it produces more energy than it takes to create it.



Personally, I think a better way to go is turning every house into a power station. The bit torrent model if you will. If every house had a freeish energy generating ability, like cheap wind or solar cells, contained via some off the shelf hydrogen conversion storage unit, it would make for a much more self sufficient existence, and one with MUCH MUCH more redundancy than a central grid. My hope for the future is less the monolithic, single high power, power station, but the multitude of many small, low yield power stations. I think, like bit torrent, the sum will end up being more than the whole of its parts. (but fusion is still awesome

That's exactly the point. We know that nuclear fusion can give off VAST amounts of energy, but it's harnassing that energy and converting it to electricity that is the key. Every scientist knows that nuclear fusion is a holy grail, and solving it would solve the planet's energy requirements forever.>> ^raverman:

I know this is cool... but the "Why" escapes me.
What's the point?
"Stars" are enormous balls of ignited fuel. Spending huge amounts of tax payer money to concentrate sufficient energy to reach ignition gains us what? An achievement badge on Xbox live? then what? you have to keep the lasers on to sustain any reaction?
Nuclear Fusion is only useful if it produces more energy than it takes to create it.

I know this is cool... but the "Why" escapes me.

What's the point?

"Stars" are enormous balls of ignited fuel. Spending huge amounts of tax payer money to concentrate sufficient energy to reach ignition gains us what? An achievement badge on Xbox live? then what? you have to keep the lasers on to sustain any reaction?

Nuclear Fusion is only useful if it produces more energy than it takes to create it.

Fun facts for the scientifically casual:

Up until recently I had only heard about fusion occasionally, and always as if it had never been accomplished. It turns out that scientists in laboratories have produced nuclear fusion using a verity of methods for over 50 years, and have made fusion devices as small as a loaf of bread. The real quest is not JUST fusion but the sort of fusion that produces more energy than was put into the system. And producing a net gain of energy is what "Ignition" means in this case. Unlike formerly proven methods, they're trying to fuse hydrogen, which is the same fuel used by stars like our sun.