Nah, I get my science information from things that are usually behind a pay wall, and never from a video. Want a good way to be wrong in actual science? Watch pop science videos like what you posted.

So if you pay for your opinion, id ask for a refund then.

There are also still issues with neutrons in the reaction which have sufficient mass and energy to damage the reactor as well..

I agree, materials research is a very promising field.

let me say that it is very positive that you started this thread on fusion reactors
having said that, i have to disappoint you



sorry to have to support "Thor123422" on this one, it is a pretty new field
while some ideas of harnessing the power of the sun have been thrown around some time
only since around the 1970s was fusion power considered to be a technically viable option
there are some proposals from that time which considered commercial fusion power by 2015 (funny isn't it) but the necessary funding did not eventuate mainly due to the coal, oil and fission lobby promising cheap energy for all times
there is no single working fusion reactor, iter is a proof of concept activity (it will provide valuable information)
building a fusion reactor should have happened decades ago in my opinion but funding for technology research is sometimes difficult to get

the question of "Neptunus" is probably not justified in the form posted, but:
are you just following a trendy idea or do you understand the physics behind it (including all the problems associated with it)?

This post was edited by brmv on Sep 13 2015 12:25am

I respectfully disagree with your use of "new", by your own statement it's been a viable option since 1970, So that's 45 years old, in 5 years it'll be a 1/2 a century. I guess 50 is the new 5.

As for providing "limitless energy" - well i think they money on research, development and building would make for a better Earth a 100 years from now and ultimately would be better investment in here than say - building a colony on Mars.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Sep 13 2015 12:58am

since there had not been a proof of the technical viability until a short time ago, it still has to be considered a new field

Yes, because of this:



If you aren't even in the science/technical field, i'm afraid you need to be more humble about what you think you know. I realized that when i started doing what i do.

Just learn the rules of the interweb today - only Doctorate's our allowed to talk, - therefore by your own logic you need to be more humble in what you think.



So your negative view on information has yet to be published or talked about and you can't provide a shred of evidence to back up your view?
Just your opinion? Ok thanks for that.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Sep 13 2015 04:41am

When it comes to science, i do agree. Now that information is available to everyone, we have all kinds of people showing off as experts. Take a look at the nutrition/health field, people using few studies they found online to debunk decades of research and acting like visionaries. Doesn't work like that, but in popsci it does.