I know this is a joke, but the sun is not a nuclear reactor. There is no uranium, thorium, or plutonium. The sun uses fusion to generate energy. If I remember correctly, nuclear reactors use fission. Fusion is atoms combining, fission is atoms splitting apart.
@@syncshard Fission is the splitting of atoms, either by radioactive decay or by collisional impact. Certainly radioactive decay occurs because the sun contains many radioactive isotopes including thorium, uranium etc. Basically fission happens irrespective of any environmental constraints because it is an intrinsic property of radioactive nuclides. - image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11197.html
You could make a 7/10 tv show about the humanoids in the sun creating elements in a factory and then iron shows up as the villain and destroys the sun to show the process
N7Mith That’s why I like this channel. Layman’s terms. Anyone can get a basic understanding from these video. Maybe not flat earthers lol. But most with a working brain can follow.
That is just sad .. there is either something very wrong with your education system - or you have missed some years in middel school. Are you by any chance M'erican?
No, Dutch. They basically taught the same thing but the visualization in this clip just suddenly clicked. I remembered most of the facts, 'that this and that happens', but now I understand how and why these things happen.
he simplify it so the ordinary person can understand it. if you take a college Physics and Chemistry class it goes into depth and watching Neil Tyson won't help you pass the class....
Exactly. Nuclear power is safe. As long as you use your brain and learn from past mistakes, then you can build a safe nuclear power plant. If you look at the accidents that have happened in the past, there's always a HUMAN explanation for why the accident happened. The technology is sound, the humans using the technology are the ones who cause the accidents. That's something that can be fixed/prevented.
The waste is much smaller than all other current sources in use, it is also highly recyclable, however there are laws preventing or road blocking recycling of waste. And when we get Fusion sustainable, the waste is even smaller which is also 90 some odd % recyclable, and that non recyclable portion that is left over (somewhere in the range of 1 cubic foot/year) is not highly active and 100% recyclable or reusable within 100 years. Also the "smoke" people always love to show pouring from the towers as if to say "see look at all this pollution.... blah blah blah" is 100% steam. In other words its safer, cleaner, produces waaayy more energy and makes f'n clouds!! =)
Look up Bill Gates' new generation of nuclear power he's investing in. It's literally 100x more efficient with very little waste and no threat of meltdowns.
yeah but his sidekick is annoying. I realized he's meant to play the role of a chuckle head. But, it gets in the way sometimes and seems a little affected.
... or, you can have actual science lessons in school, and learn the theory behind it (without the super dumbing down), learn about the operation of nuclear power plants, and then visit one on a school trip. Like I did in high school. It was awesome.
Please, do not hate the players. Hate the system. Its our educational system that fails us. Teachers is just a person who got told to teach, through set of curriculum. While what we needs is an educators, who intrigues our interest in things. And only then we can get teached
I wish I knew about physics when I was younger...I am in so much love with physics!! Everything we have made is because of physics. Without it we wouldn't understand anything!
It is even more amazing that you may think: That last bit with the iron "pumping" the core was done in realtime [a supernova requires a few seconds to happen].
You're right, that is even more interesting! As we explain in our update video (which you can check out if you haven't :P ) we've got a background in biology, so physics is something we actively learn about on a daily basis, and supernovae are up there with one of the most intriguing topics right now, so thanks for the extra info!!! :)
The SAFIRE project is studying how a star works. We will soon create power the way the Sun does and leave nuclear power behind us. We already have fusion-powered aircraft and have proven the proton- proton chain doesn't work. Plasma power like the SAFIRE project is the way it works.
Sir Deldo anyone who ever went to any public school in the United states knows from personal experience. The kids didn't want to be their slacked off made fun of teachers. It was normally cooler to not learn to skip school do all the things to go against the establishment. So when the school does all ot legally can to teach a person and that person does all they can to nor learn then it's that persons own stupidity that they are dumb. When those paying for the school see that students don't want to learn grades going down and nothing is changing it those schools become just daycare and hangouts as Noone wants to put money where there is no turn around. so they stop plugging in money. And I could drag this out for parents society entertainment and personal responsibility. But I might as well just write a book at that point. So people being stupid is their own fault in the end cause of their own choices. Any argument against that neglects to take into account when from these low income and poverty stricken areas and schools some people still succeed. and now with all knowledge at our finger tips. If you are a stupid person it's your own fault.
ok you have a good point there but I'm in the UK.I do listen and do the work (our school has little rebellious students )And our teachers are pretty cool.Doesn't mean I'm stupid for not knowing things I haven't been taught
It really is isn't it? It's like those language-learning apps that have you learning with one of the hosts - kind of calms your nerves about not understanding things straight away by knowing other people go through the same learning curves!
I had a conversation with my brother in law over nuclear weapons, where he was under the impression that they are horribly complex and couldn’t be built by anything be other than super geniuses like those at los alomos labs. So I told him that the first weapons were built back in the 40’s with no computers, and no way to know if their designs would work. They also managed to pull off nuclear fission with nuclear fuel that they had to make. The bomb that blew up Hiroshima is about as simple as you can get, take two pieces of uranium 235 and combine them them violently and boom. He was still skeptical until I went on Wikipedia and showed him the design.
Fukushima wasn't really uncontrolled fission, you'd have to bring "decay heat management" into discussion to fully explain that accident. Fission had halted long before the meltdown. I'd hope Neil would discuss alternate coolant options on his show some time, including the notion that the fuel itself need not be in solid form: That would be a "Molten Salt Reactor".
Don't be an idiot. Fission is why Fukushima happened. Because of the tsunami, it became uncontrolled fission because they lost the ability to cool the reaction, but it was still fission. You should take some physics courses.
All of the Fukushima reactors were offline (that is, not fissioning) by the time the tsunami hit, but they still had a lot of decay products (the things left after fission happens) left. Decay products are highly radioactive, and usually after the control rods are inserted (stopping fission), it takes up to 72 hours for the decay heat to fall to levels where the heat can be passively removed. The flood shut down the active decay heat removal systems. Without decay heat removal, the temperature within the core of reactor 1 rose, until it was hot enough that the fuel cladding started to react with the coolant water, releasing hydrogen. Meanwhile, pressure was high enough, due to the high temperatures, that hydrogen could diffuse through the metal walls. Eventually, when the hydrogen was sufficiently mixed in with the outer air, it exploded, blowing off the skin of the building going out, and damaging secondary containment going in. Similar situations occurred in reactors 2 and 3, on slightly longer timelines, since they were newer and had slightly better passive heat removal. Reactor 4 had been defueled for maintenance, and didn't go up. Reactors 5 and 6 had sufficient passive heat removal that they just about avoided explosions (though, they did suffer internal pressure damage). In short, gordon is correct. They did not blow because of fission; theirs were not "nuclear" explosions.
Bryan, well stated. That's is exactly right. Some anti-nuclear people purvey the lie of fission occurring, which it didn't. The meltdown happened because the fuel to the emergency diesel generators was wiped out (stupidly the put the fuel tanks for the diesel fuel at the intake structure because it was...*cheaper*). At any rate the tsunami is what really caused the meltdowns to occur. Also, it is worth pointing out that no one has died because of this happening. World wide the nuclear operators went through a paradigm shift in safety, establishing auxiliary pumps, station-black out scenarios, hardening intake structures and so on. Nuclear energy has killed few people than any other source of energy EVER. Something to think about when people start screaming at the moon. I feel sorry for the farmanimalfriend who purveyed this nonsense and actually doesn't know what occurred at Fukushima's reactors.
Agreed. If you're going to oppose nuclear energy - at least do with reasons based on facts regarding nuclear power plants. Newer reactor designs are far safer and resistant to meltdowns caused by natural disasters such as the one at Fukushima. The only unavoidable problem with fission reactors is the highly dangerous waste product that is expensive to store safely. It's still safer than fossil fuels right now, and it's cheaper than going full renewable. The only scenario where it's not a win-win to utilize fission energy is if commercial fusion energy were actually a viable option in the forseeable future.
What I love about the host is that he's entertaining enough to keep you hooked, knows enough about the subject to not look stupid but still asks the relevant questions that the most novice viewers can learn from! Brilliant work! It's easy to let the guest (Niel Degrasse) do all the work by having the host be unknowledgeable but thankfully you guys don't fall into that trap!
Surprisingly, nuclear power could be one of our safest non-renewable sources of energy, given we are cautious about it. As with all non-renewable sources of energy, we must learn to use them correctly and safely in order to minimize destruction, but those energy sources will always cause harm to the environment, one way or another.
Nuclear actually (despite a couple colossal fuckups) has a safer track record than Solar and Hydroelectric (which has had even more colossal fuckups, and a lot of minor ones, but you've never heard of them). Beating wind for human safety would be really hard though, and it's not clear whether Wind or Nuclear is safer.
To add: while non-renewable, nuclear has a lot of options for enhanced sustainability. Reprocessing (fuel recycling, at about 80-90% efficiency) is one. Another is seawater extraction, which, once economic to do, increases the total fuel available to us by a factor of millions.
Not to mention the abundance of fertile (as opposed to fissile) nuclear fuels. We've been using uranium because it's the best fuel to use when starting a nuclear energy program from scratch, but most of the technology required to burn thorium is nearly ready for commercialization.
Trivial Gravitas, Wind might not be dangerous to humans but it's almost as dangerous as fossil fuel based energy when it comes to wildlife. Lots of birds are killed by wind turbines and unfortunately there's no way to stop it from happening.
Eric, that's utterly false. Wind-energy-related bird deaths are a miniscule amount compared to the impacts pollution and human development (not to mention cats) have on bird populations. We're talking millions of bird deaths just from cats alone compared to wind energy which takes some thousands. Then considering the widespread and undeniable impacts fossil fuel has on the Earth's greater ecology and you're comparison is laughable.
It's great! It's nice to see him talking about things he's passionate about in a really simple and relaxed environment instead of in front of a massive crew for a scripted tv show (not that we're complaining about those though!)!
This is what I liked about this channel, they focus on really good concepts without messing it too much. Good work sir, keep growing and reach 1million subscribers👍👍🙏
There are actually newer designs of fission plants that are far more efficient than the ones currently in use, and produce MUCH less waste. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Fusion is fission and fission is fusion. U235 FUSES with a neutron and FISSIONS. Deuterium and Tritium FUSE to make He5 which FISSIONS to He4 and neutron. Li6 FUSES with neutron giving Li7 which FISSIONS due to (4.7MeV) excess energy into Tritium and He4.
I hope this question reaches you. Where does the warm go when the space station receives sunlight if there is no atmosphere to exchange thermal energy?
Willian Fernando The ISS is very well isolated to maintain a normal temperature. Excess heat is radiated by the EATCS (External Active Thermal Control System) using ammonia flowing through pipes, with radiators around them.
Energy can be released and recieved in multiple ways, light is one of them. That is what's happening. If that was not the case the sun would not be able to transfer heat to the earth.
Adding to that, space stations are ussually extremely isolated from the surrounding enviroment, meaning that most of the light hitting the station is bouncing off of it (excluding that recieved by the solar panels). Otherwise it would be extremely difficult to control the temperature inside the station.
Iron can and is fused in the largest stars, however it doesn't occur for very long because fusing iron does require more energy than is released during fusion (net energy loss), causing the star to lose its battle with gravity. When gravity wins, the stellar material free-falls toward the denser core, rebounding off it in a tremendous explosion called a supernova.
Correct. Fusing iron takes more energy than it releases. Of course even more iron and other heavy elements, including gold and uranium, get formed during a supernova.
I was expecting to hear your opinion about Nuclear Energy. Like if it is or not the more capable way of reaching a zero emission in a near future. Also talking about the 4th generation of reactors with Thorium. I guess you can make another video on that.
Nuclear plants do not get talked about much because they cost so much to build compared to any other way of making electricity. They also cannot ramp up or down quickly so you still need something like a battery to balance the grid so why not use renewables instead?
I like how NDT explains science by providing the _historical background_ on how they were discovered. A lot of other scientists just babble on about theories with (incomplete) analogies but never explain what made them even come up with the idea in the first place.
A boyfriend of mine described nuclear fission and fusion to me 40 years ago, but hearing this now has given me great insight into my own life.Thank you.
If fussion past iron consumes so much energy it collapses the star, how do heavier elements get created in decent abundance Edit: Bad english correction
That's a GREAT question, you're clearly a thinker. All elements heavier than iron are ONLY formed during a supernova. That is the TITANIC explosion that occurs at the end of a massive star's life. We know that the sun and the solar system formed out of the gas cloud created by an ancient supernova because of the presence of heavy elements here on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system.
ProgHead777 I imagined that'd be cause, but I wasn't sure, I also imagine elements heavier than Iron, but with atomic mass close to it, also get made and contribute to the collapse of the star
pegasBaO23 PBS space time has great material on this process. Also another way heavier elements are formed is through neutron star mergers. LIGO detected the first of this kind of merger several months ago via gravitational waves.
If you know anything about them then you know that we do not have materials that can handle the corrosion of the molten salt. What else is there to say until that materials problem has been solved?
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 untrue, these reactors are being used today just not as widespread. Most likely corporate interests peddling the corrosion fear and other embellished misinformation in the name of profiteering... Or maybe in the last year new advances made it to market.
Don't think they were consciously being ironic. I think the point was supposed to be that we should use solar power instead of nuclear power. The irony (for those who don't get it) is that the sun IS a nuclear (fusion) reactor that is 333,000 times the mass of Earth. Granted, it's 150,000,000 km (93,000,000 miles) away, but it's a nuclear reactor nonetheless.
Chuck, I wanted to ask you a question. How did you go from stand up to Astrophysics and other sciences? Were you a closet nerd/geek when growing up, I can relate if so. I played football and ran track, while being in the Science Club and the Astronomy Club. Today I spend 90% of my time doing research just for the fun of it. Thank you and Neil deGrasse Tyson for sharing here on UA-cam.
Normally the fluid that absorbs the energy from the nuclear reaction is water (Under pressure) which converts to superheated steam. This is called the working fluid. Well, molten salt, gas, or even sulfur can be a working fluid.
Would love to see his opinion on it. Because for now, all I read about it seems too good to be true, but if a popular scientist would commend it, that would make it amazing.
They are a bad design. You need to first understand Neutron Thermalization requirements. We, US designed reactors use water to both remove the heat and to thermalize neutrons, this way, if we lost water, there is no way possible to sustain a reaction.
James Godfrey I want to preface that I believe nuclear is the solution to our power needs and support nuclear power in general. The MSR, however is a better design then LWRs for some essential reasons. First the MSR is walk away safe. This is possible for several reasons. The MSR is designed to operate at high temperatures and is already in a liquid homogeneous form. As the temperature increases in an uncontrollable situation a salt plug will intentionally melt where the reaction fluid will drain into a kill tank. This tank has neutron absorbing materials killing the fission process. The LWR relies on water and due to the temperature requirements for the power generation cycle, it must operate at high pressures. The high pressures require pressure vessels and a massive containment dome that dramatically increase cost and the severity of a meltdown is higher due to the potential pressure vessel rupture. The water itself is an issue due to the fact that free neutrons cause water to break into its components and must be recombine to recycled. Additionally the MSR being a homogeneous fluid is far more fuel efficient than solid fuel reactors. Within the MSR we can use thorium, used fuel rods and decommissioned nuclear weapons as fuel. The waste streams half-life is considerably shorter in the range of 300 years rather than 100,000+. There are technical challenges with reprocessing and others but these can be solved.
Please do an episode about liquid fluoride thorium reactors! Not all nuclear reactors can melt down, some are far more passively-stable. There are tons of advantages to LFTR vs. the traditional pressurized water reactor. LFTR operates at atmospheric pressure instead of 2300 PSI, doesn't use water as coolant, and can't melt down because the fuel is already dissolved in a liquid!
I had to go look it up. It seems the number of neutrons varies depending in the speed of the incoming neutron. The equation I found for u235 shows the numbers as 2.4
They'd also tell all parents that if their children were playing RP games instead of football that would lead to them being possessed by demons. Sooooooo yeah this is far from any scientific method, in fact they do the exact opposite and try to make it look like a fact when it's just biaised info with no evidence and no method, just to prove a point they otherwise wouldn't be able to, using emotions and feelings as proofs where they are in fact the very reason of why their method is wrong and far from any science. Sad days. Loads of church people have been huge pioneers in sciences over the centuries, it's so sad to see obscurantism go back up IMO.
I have known all of this for years yet still I watch, such is the power of Neil and Chuck. It gives hope to see people who are passionate about science.
And it's a beautiful thing to accept it and have a little chuckle! Always good to come across a fellow nerd on this platform! How's life Vaibhav, you nerd!?
Aspect Science since he hasn't replied, I'd like to step in. But life is great. You know, living on that pineal gland potential which gives me nuclear energy for instinctive survivability. I'm sure we all relate. How's your life ?lol
2 questions I learnt that particle accelerators are used to speed up particles like electrons using EM fields. How do you accelerate a neutron before firing if it has no charge.? Second, If after hitting an atom, it splits into two smaller atoms, does it always release two neutrons ? If yes, why only two. I am assuming it is trying to balance total mass, My question why not split into two even smaller atoms and release 20 instead of 2 neutrons to form a smaller element's atom? Or in the same line of argument why not split up into such elements so that there is no need to release an extra neutron.
You cannot accelerate a neutron by EM fields. What you can do is produce high velocity neutrons by neutron generators, usually by fusing isotopes of hydrogen together in a linear accelerator. Fission is usually induced by the introduction of a neutron, but it occurs naturally without it. It is not true that two neutron are always produced, but obviously you need more than one to have a chain reaction. Large nuclei are easier to split than small ones because the strong nuclear force has a short range and protons repel each other. So the larger the nucleus, the easier it is for a proton to escape. That is radioactive alpha decay, when a helium nucleus escapes from the parent nucleus.
I love to see you guys picked up on Brilliant! I have been using the free version for some time now (great content!), but the promo swaid me into going premium. Thanks for facilitating the learning! Cheerio, Pieter
Neil knows his physics, he understands public relations. But he has zero public service experience. No school board. No city government. No state or federal government experience. Not sure he'd want to anyway, as an elected official he'd have to talk about stuff other than space and physics.
As someone who works in nuclear power, this a pretty decent bare bones explanation of what is happening in the reactor. The core is more or less a giant heat exchanger that connects to another big heat exchanger and just cycles. That depends though on the reactor design if you have a primary side and secondary side or just one coolant loop. Granted, there is a lot of design that goes into the core design in terms of fuel layout, orientation, internals, etc. Really it's more fascinating than it is frightening.
Very expensive to build compared to any other way of generating electricity and you cannot ramp them up or down quickly so you still need energy balancing like with renewables... There is good reason nuclear is not talked about very much anymore, even solar photoelectric generation has been cheaper to build out than nuclear for at least 30 years...
He forgot to mention: The runaway nuclear fission chain-reaction that powers an atomic bomb can only happen with a VERY high purity of Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239. We call this "weapons grade" uranium or plutonium. The stuff we fuel nuclear reactors with ("reactor grade" U or Pu) contains too much Uranium-238 or Plutonium-240 to go off like an atomic bomb. If you deliberately tried to build a bomb out of it, it would only fizzle. (The explosions at Chernobyl and Fukushima were simple explosions fuelled by all the excess heat -- steam at Chernnobyl, hydrogen burning with air at Fukushima. They weren't nuclear explosions.)
Why? All other forms of electrical power generation are cheaper to build out. Nuclear plants cannot ramp up or down fast enough to balance the grid so they face the same situation as renewables except you have far greater cost to build and cost of fuel and no nuclear power plant has yet included the cost of storing nuclear waste safely for over 10,000 years.
Hey Dr. Tyson, I think an important topic to discuss on StarTalk is the volcano erupting in Hawaii. I would love to hear about the effects this volcano could have on our climate and the overall effects that volcanoes have on our planet. Thank you!
It's shorter, more compact and has great graphics. As much as I love long laid-back relaxed and in depth convos between experts/stars, I'm also aware that this style of content is much more efficient in terms of channel growth, as well as grabbing a wider audience. Keep it up ;)
Neutron: *goes up to bar and orders drink* How much?
Bartender Proton: For you? No charge.
Neutron: You sure?
Bartender Proton: I'm positive.
Bartender : we don't serve people who violate causality.
A quantum physicist walks into a bar.
😂😂😂
Clap...
Clap...
Clap...
This joke is in fallout
Respect.
people: NO NUKES!
the sun: *laughs in nuclear reactor*
I know this is a joke, but the sun is not a nuclear reactor. There is no uranium, thorium, or plutonium. The sun uses fusion to generate energy. If I remember correctly, nuclear reactors use fission. Fusion is atoms combining, fission is atoms splitting apart.
@@syncshard ikr he was so inaccurate he just simplified it to make it more palatable to the general masses
It's a gravity and hydrogen fueled fusion reactor that never takes a break
@@syncshard Fission is the splitting of atoms, either by radioactive decay or by collisional impact. Certainly radioactive decay occurs because the sun contains many radioactive isotopes including thorium, uranium etc. Basically fission happens irrespective of any environmental constraints because it is an intrinsic property of radioactive nuclides. - image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11197.html
@jocaguz18 commercialy viable fusion reactors aren't available yet tho
*DAMN YOU IRON!! YOU BLEW IT UP!!*
YOU DAMN DIRTY METAL!!!
Lmaooo dude bad pun
😂😂😂
proof that copper is the best metal
DAMN YOU IRON ... YOU BLEW IT! Lol
You could make a 7/10 tv show about the humanoids in the sun creating elements in a factory and then iron shows up as the villain and destroys the sun to show the process
This is the first time nuclear fission has been made clear to me.
N7Mith That’s why I like this channel. Layman’s terms. Anyone can get a basic understanding from these video. Maybe not flat earthers lol. But most with a working brain can follow.
That is just sad .. there is either something very wrong with your education system - or you have missed some years in middel school. Are you by any chance M'erican?
No, Dutch. They basically taught the same thing but the visualization in this clip just suddenly clicked. I remembered most of the facts, 'that this and that happens', but now I understand how and why these things happen.
he simplify it so the ordinary person can understand it. if you take a college Physics and Chemistry class it goes into depth and watching Neil Tyson won't help you pass the class....
N7Mith im sorry
There needs to be more info like this. Too many people fear nuclear power without knowing why.
Exactly. Nuclear power is safe. As long as you use your brain and learn from past mistakes, then you can build a safe nuclear power plant. If you look at the accidents that have happened in the past, there's always a HUMAN explanation for why the accident happened. The technology is sound, the humans using the technology are the ones who cause the accidents. That's something that can be fixed/prevented.
Theres still the problem of waste though.
The waste is much smaller than all other current sources in use, it is also highly recyclable, however there are laws preventing or road blocking recycling of waste. And when we get Fusion sustainable, the waste is even smaller which is also 90 some odd % recyclable, and that non recyclable portion that is left over (somewhere in the range of 1 cubic foot/year) is not highly active and 100% recyclable or reusable within 100 years. Also the "smoke" people always love to show pouring from the towers as if to say "see look at all this pollution.... blah blah blah" is 100% steam. In other words its safer, cleaner, produces waaayy more energy and makes f'n clouds!! =)
EDK ReefMeister Nuclear power is nothing to fear. Watch Thunderfoot.
Look up Bill Gates' new generation of nuclear power he's investing in. It's literally 100x more efficient with very little waste and no threat of meltdowns.
I love Neil
Don't we all?
Are you gay?
Boris Erjavec I am and I want that sweet ass. Got a problem with that?
yeah but his sidekick is annoying. I realized he's meant to play the role of a chuckle head. But, it gets in the way sometimes and seems a little affected.
i agree! he interupts way too much
I love how pleased Neil is with himself when he tells one of his science dad jokes. The guy is a treasure.
I would make all StarTalk videos compulsory for science classes in schools.
For flatearthers?
wheresa11y natural selection will take the flat earthers eventually😂
And religious classes aswell :)
... or, you can have actual science lessons in school, and learn the theory behind it (without the super dumbing down), learn about the operation of nuclear power plants, and then visit one on a school trip. Like I did in high school. It was awesome.
IamKnucks Nail on the head there!
As I keep watching Neil, I slowly tend to hate teachers who don’t teach like him.
IYKYK!
To be fair, they barely get paid.
Please, do not hate the players. Hate the system. Its our educational system that fails us. Teachers is just a person who got told to teach, through set of curriculum. While what we needs is an educators, who intrigues our interest in things. And only then we can get teached
I fell the same way and cudnt agree more with you!
Don't hate...become a teacher...and learn from teachers/mentors..like Neil
I wish I knew about physics when I was younger...I am in so much love with physics!! Everything we have made is because of physics. Without it we wouldn't understand anything!
You sir have discovered a hole new world of truth and illumination 🦾😁👌🏻👌🏻
That was a great graphic used to explain the processes in stars! Beautifully done!
It is even more amazing that you may think: That last bit with the iron "pumping" the core was done in realtime [a supernova requires a few seconds to happen].
You're right, that is even more interesting! As we explain in our update video (which you can check out if you haven't :P ) we've got a background in biology, so physics is something we actively learn about on a daily basis, and supernovae are up there with one of the most intriguing topics right now, so thanks for the extra info!!! :)
The SAFIRE project is studying how a star works. We will soon create power the way the Sun does and leave nuclear power behind us. We already have fusion-powered aircraft and have proven the proton- proton chain doesn't work. Plasma power like the SAFIRE project is the way it works.
We learned this at school but Neil always manages to teach me something new *Cough School system Cough*
school makes civilians. Universities make scientists :)
Although schools are also bad at that. lol
Madara Uchiha well idk what school you went to but you can't assume anything like that without context
Sir Deldo anyone who ever went to any public school in the United states knows from personal experience. The kids didn't want to be their slacked off made fun of teachers. It was normally cooler to not learn to skip school do all the things to go against the establishment. So when the school does all ot legally can to teach a person and that person does all they can to nor learn then it's that persons own stupidity that they are dumb. When those paying for the school see that students don't want to learn grades going down and nothing is changing it those schools become just daycare and hangouts as Noone wants to put money where there is no turn around. so they stop plugging in money. And I could drag this out for parents society entertainment and personal responsibility. But I might as well just write a book at that point. So people being stupid is their own fault in the end cause of their own choices. Any argument against that neglects to take into account when from these low income and poverty stricken areas and schools some people still succeed. and now with all knowledge at our finger tips. If you are a stupid person it's your own fault.
ok you have a good point there but I'm in the UK.I do listen and do the work (our school has little rebellious students )And our teachers are pretty cool.Doesn't mean I'm stupid for not knowing things I haven't been taught
Being force to learn and wanting to learn can yield different outcomes
So... A neutron has a Multi-pas...?
Captain_Crash_DK Nice reference.
Leeloo Dallas Multi-pass. Mull. Tee. Passsss....
Kor-bin Dal-las multi-pass
Noo-tron!
Multi-pass 🙏😘💥
I love their chemistry . Great way to share knowledge
It really is isn't it? It's like those language-learning apps that have you learning with one of the hosts - kind of calms your nerves about not understanding things straight away by knowing other people go through the same learning curves!
Chuck nice has an awkwardness about him that i love
I had a conversation with my brother in law over nuclear weapons, where he was under the impression that they are horribly complex and couldn’t be built by anything be other than super geniuses like those at los alomos labs. So I told him that the first weapons were built back in the 40’s with no computers, and no way to know if their designs would work. They also managed to pull off nuclear fission with nuclear fuel that they had to make. The bomb that blew up Hiroshima is about as simple as you can get, take two pieces of uranium 235 and combine them them violently and boom. He was still skeptical until I went on Wikipedia and showed him the design.
Fukushima wasn't really uncontrolled fission, you'd have to bring "decay heat management" into discussion to fully explain that accident. Fission had halted long before the meltdown. I'd hope Neil would discuss alternate coolant options on his show some time, including the notion that the fuel itself need not be in solid form: That would be a "Molten Salt Reactor".
Don't be an idiot. Fission is why Fukushima happened. Because of the tsunami, it became uncontrolled fission because they lost the ability to cool the reaction, but it was still fission. You should take some physics courses.
TheFarmanimalfriend “Decay Heat” is NOT a synonym for “Fission”. Fission had stopped long before the coolant flow stopped.
All of the Fukushima reactors were offline (that is, not fissioning) by the time the tsunami hit, but they still had a lot of decay products (the things left after fission happens) left. Decay products are highly radioactive, and usually after the control rods are inserted (stopping fission), it takes up to 72 hours for the decay heat to fall to levels where the heat can be passively removed.
The flood shut down the active decay heat removal systems. Without decay heat removal, the temperature within the core of reactor 1 rose, until it was hot enough that the fuel cladding started to react with the coolant water, releasing hydrogen. Meanwhile, pressure was high enough, due to the high temperatures, that hydrogen could diffuse through the metal walls. Eventually, when the hydrogen was sufficiently mixed in with the outer air, it exploded, blowing off the skin of the building going out, and damaging secondary containment going in.
Similar situations occurred in reactors 2 and 3, on slightly longer timelines, since they were newer and had slightly better passive heat removal. Reactor 4 had been defueled for maintenance, and didn't go up. Reactors 5 and 6 had sufficient passive heat removal that they just about avoided explosions (though, they did suffer internal pressure damage).
In short, gordon is correct. They did not blow because of fission; theirs were not "nuclear" explosions.
Bryan, well stated. That's is exactly right. Some anti-nuclear people purvey the lie of fission occurring, which it didn't. The meltdown happened because the fuel to the emergency diesel generators was wiped out (stupidly the put the fuel tanks for the diesel fuel at the intake structure because it was...*cheaper*). At any rate the tsunami is what really caused the meltdowns to occur. Also, it is worth pointing out that no one has died because of this happening.
World wide the nuclear operators went through a paradigm shift in safety, establishing auxiliary pumps, station-black out scenarios, hardening intake structures and so on.
Nuclear energy has killed few people than any other source of energy EVER. Something to think about when people start screaming at the moon.
I feel sorry for the farmanimalfriend who purveyed this nonsense and actually doesn't know what occurred at Fukushima's reactors.
Agreed. If you're going to oppose nuclear energy - at least do with reasons based on facts regarding nuclear power plants. Newer reactor designs are far safer and resistant to meltdowns caused by natural disasters such as the one at Fukushima.
The only unavoidable problem with fission reactors is the highly dangerous waste product that is expensive to store safely. It's still safer than fossil fuels right now, and it's cheaper than going full renewable. The only scenario where it's not a win-win to utilize fission energy is if commercial fusion energy were actually a viable option in the forseeable future.
What I love about the host is that he's entertaining enough to keep you hooked, knows enough about the subject to not look stupid but still asks the relevant questions that the most novice viewers can learn from! Brilliant work!
It's easy to let the guest (Niel Degrasse) do all the work by having the host be unknowledgeable but thankfully you guys don't fall into that trap!
You two make learning funny and enjoyable!
Keep up the wonderful work!
Surprisingly, nuclear power could be one of our safest non-renewable sources of energy, given we are cautious about it. As with all non-renewable sources of energy, we must learn to use them correctly and safely in order to minimize destruction, but those energy sources will always cause harm to the environment, one way or another.
Nuclear actually (despite a couple colossal fuckups) has a safer track record than Solar and Hydroelectric (which has had even more colossal fuckups, and a lot of minor ones, but you've never heard of them). Beating wind for human safety would be really hard though, and it's not clear whether Wind or Nuclear is safer.
To add: while non-renewable, nuclear has a lot of options for enhanced sustainability. Reprocessing (fuel recycling, at about 80-90% efficiency) is one. Another is seawater extraction, which, once economic to do, increases the total fuel available to us by a factor of millions.
Not to mention the abundance of fertile (as opposed to fissile) nuclear fuels. We've been using uranium because it's the best fuel to use when starting a nuclear energy program from scratch, but most of the technology required to burn thorium is nearly ready for commercialization.
Trivial Gravitas, Wind might not be dangerous to humans but it's almost as dangerous as fossil fuel based energy when it comes to wildlife. Lots of birds are killed by wind turbines and unfortunately there's no way to stop it from happening.
Eric, that's utterly false. Wind-energy-related bird deaths are a miniscule amount compared to the impacts pollution and human development (not to mention cats) have on bird populations. We're talking millions of bird deaths just from cats alone compared to wind energy which takes some thousands. Then considering the widespread and undeniable impacts fossil fuel has on the Earth's greater ecology and you're comparison is laughable.
This is my new favourite UA-cam channel.
It's great! It's nice to see him talking about things he's passionate about in a really simple and relaxed environment instead of in front of a massive crew for a scripted tv show (not that we're complaining about those though!)!
I love hearing neal talk science. It's honestly so calm and relaxing.
Beautiful “mind”...beautiful “voice”....LOVE Neil
Locked in from Africa. I appreciate the magnificent physics
I learn something new every time I watch these two...freaking love it!
Refreshed my memory and thought me new things about nuclear fission, fusion and iron. I'm so grateful 💞
Wow that was genuinely an amazing lesson! Love it! Thank you StarTalk
This is what I liked about this channel, they focus on really good concepts without messing it too much.
Good work sir, keep growing and reach 1million subscribers👍👍🙏
There are actually newer designs of fission plants that are far more efficient than the ones currently in use, and produce MUCH less waste. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Still far more expensive than any other forms of electrical generation.
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 see that shouldn't matter.. We're choosing money over our planet..
Fusion is fission and fission is fusion. U235 FUSES with a neutron and FISSIONS. Deuterium and Tritium FUSE to make He5 which FISSIONS to He4 and neutron.
Li6 FUSES with neutron giving Li7 which FISSIONS due to (4.7MeV) excess energy into Tritium and He4.
I hope this question reaches you. Where does the warm go when the space station receives sunlight if there is no atmosphere to exchange thermal energy?
I like this question
Willian Fernando The ISS is very well isolated to maintain a normal temperature. Excess heat is radiated by the EATCS (External Active Thermal Control System) using ammonia flowing through pipes, with radiators around them.
Energy can be released and recieved in multiple ways, light is one of them. That is what's happening. If that was not the case the sun would not be able to transfer heat to the earth.
Adding to that, space stations are ussually extremely isolated from the surrounding enviroment, meaning that most of the light hitting the station is bouncing off of it (excluding that recieved by the solar panels). Otherwise it would be extremely difficult to control the temperature inside the station.
duomis123 Exactly. Any object with a temperature releases infrared radiation.
I love the dynamic between these two. I want to just sit and watch them at a bar... With a friendly neutron...
*DAMN YOU IRON!*
That made me laugh more than it should :D
Re, Nova, forgot to mention elements higher than Iron&Nickel are made by neutron cascade from supernova.
Great video guys, good work as always. What about episode about molten salt reactor?
I love startalk so much, also I'm really liking that you have an animator to explain things more clearly now!
Iron can and is fused in the largest stars, however it doesn't occur for very long because fusing iron does require more energy than is released during fusion (net energy loss), causing the star to lose its battle with gravity. When gravity wins, the stellar material free-falls toward the denser core, rebounding off it in a tremendous explosion called a supernova.
Correct. Fusing iron takes more energy than it releases. Of course even more iron and other heavy elements, including gold and uranium, get formed during a supernova.
Many high mass stars can create heavier elements than iron before they go supernova by beta -capture- decay, its pretty interesting.
Beta capture? Beta particle is an electron. Can make an neutron but that only makes an isotope. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
You mean beta decay?
Or how about the high energy of the supernova fusing heavier elements than iron, but losing energy in the process.
@Bad Beard Bill
You're right, I meant beta decay.
And yes, supernova are responsible for the existence of most radioactive elements.
I can listen to Neil talk all day..
Thank you A levels for teaching me this so I can understand what they are saying. This is really interesting to me.
Aaryan Ali Oh yes yes As Physics you're right! Radioactive delay haha
I'm in year 10 and understand it??
Adam what I meant to imply is that I'm grateful school is teaching me this subject as I have a passion for it.
Aaryan Ali I get you.
The physics we learned at the end of year 11 (fission, stars) was the only interesting part of the entire course
Niel is the man I can listen to this guy talk about paint drying. Just so interesting coming from him.
love these two, funny and very interesting
How have I never watched StarTalk in school before? I learn more from StarTalk than I do in school
I was expecting to hear your opinion about Nuclear Energy. Like if it is or not the more capable way of reaching a zero emission in a near future. Also talking about the 4th generation of reactors with Thorium. I guess you can make another video on that.
I was hoping for this, too. Though, for a rehash of how nuclear power works, it was a good vid.
"Thorium reactors" are a myth, they would never work.
Nuclear plants do not get talked about much because they cost so much to build compared to any other way of making electricity. They also cannot ramp up or down quickly so you still need something like a battery to balance the grid so why not use renewables instead?
I like how NDT explains science by providing the _historical background_ on how they were discovered. A lot of other scientists just babble on about theories with (incomplete) analogies but never explain what made them even come up with the idea in the first place.
I feel smarter thanks to Neil. I know I'm not but he makes me feel it. Love Neil.
A boyfriend of mine described nuclear fission and fusion to me 40 years ago, but hearing this now has given me great insight into my own life.Thank you.
If fussion past iron consumes so much energy it collapses the star, how do heavier elements get created in decent abundance
Edit: Bad english correction
That's a GREAT question, you're clearly a thinker. All elements heavier than iron are ONLY formed during a supernova. That is the TITANIC explosion that occurs at the end of a massive star's life. We know that the sun and the solar system formed out of the gas cloud created by an ancient supernova because of the presence of heavy elements here on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system.
ProgHead777 I imagined that'd be cause, but I wasn't sure, I also imagine elements heavier than Iron, but with atomic mass close to it, also get made and contribute to the collapse of the star
pegasBaO23 PBS space time has great material on this process. Also another way heavier elements are formed is through neutron star mergers. LIGO detected the first of this kind of merger several months ago via gravitational waves.
I fkn love science. I teach my patients something scientific every day. Plus the love when they see me because of it. ❤️
Would love to know what Neil's opinion is on Thorium reactors.
these are so much better than the stale podcasts. Keep doing them and add a bit of casualness to it too :)
Mr. Tyson, I'd love to hear your take on the molten salt thorium reactor design.
If you know anything about them then you know that we do not have materials that can handle the corrosion of the molten salt. What else is there to say until that materials problem has been solved?
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 untrue, these reactors are being used today just not as widespread. Most likely corporate interests peddling the corrosion fear and other embellished misinformation in the name of profiteering... Or maybe in the last year new advances made it to market.
Yo, Neil,
we need more of these videos pls
Regards,
N🌞 Nukes....to funny..
Too*
Haha, you can imagine Neil making sure to stop that person just to explain this to them aha!
hopefully they were being ironic. ;)
Don't think they were consciously being ironic. I think the point was supposed to be that we should use solar power instead of nuclear power. The irony (for those who don't get it) is that the sun IS a nuclear (fusion) reactor that is 333,000 times the mass of Earth. Granted, it's 150,000,000 km (93,000,000 miles) away, but it's a nuclear reactor nonetheless.
Still ..it's punny though..:P
I can't imagine Startalk without Chuck!
Damn i really love these videos. So fun to watch and informative aswell. Keep up the good work
Neil deGrasse Tyson 2020
John Smith absolutely
No, Ben Shapiro is running 2020, Neil can have the next one after that. Ben Shapiro called dibs first.
You don't want someone smart to run the country, you want someone that scares the shit out of all other countries.
Chuck, I wanted to ask you a question. How did you go from stand up to Astrophysics and other sciences? Were you a closet nerd/geek when growing up, I can relate if so. I played football and ran track, while being in the Science Club and the Astronomy Club. Today I spend 90% of my time doing research just for the fun of it. Thank you and Neil deGrasse Tyson for sharing here on UA-cam.
What about molten salt reactors?
or Gas Reactors
Or breeding reactors.
+Jed Miller aka my bedroom
It is the same process in molten salt reactors.
Normally the fluid that absorbs the energy from the nuclear reaction is water (Under pressure) which converts to superheated steam. This is called the working fluid. Well, molten salt, gas, or even sulfur can be a working fluid.
"No charge"
Chuck's face LMAO!!!!!
I wonder what Neil's thoughts would be on Thorium Molten Salt Reactors?
I'd think he'd think they'd be cool, cuz like molten salt reactors are cool af
(not temperature wise though)
Would love to see his opinion on it. Because for now, all I read about it seems too good to be true, but if a popular scientist would commend it, that would make it amazing.
Would love to see one of the big science names support the MSRs. Gen 4 reactors have huge potential.
They are a bad design. You need to first understand Neutron Thermalization requirements. We, US designed reactors use water to both remove the heat and to thermalize neutrons, this way, if we lost water, there is no way possible to sustain a reaction.
James Godfrey I want to preface that I believe nuclear is the solution to our power needs and support nuclear power in general.
The MSR, however is a better design then LWRs for some essential reasons. First the MSR is walk away safe. This is possible for several reasons. The MSR is designed to operate at high temperatures and is already in a liquid homogeneous form. As the temperature increases in an uncontrollable situation a salt plug will intentionally melt where the reaction fluid will drain into a kill tank. This tank has neutron absorbing materials killing the fission process. The LWR relies on water and due to the temperature requirements for the power generation cycle, it must operate at high pressures. The high pressures require pressure vessels and a massive containment dome that dramatically increase cost and the severity of a meltdown is higher due to the potential pressure vessel rupture. The water itself is an issue due to the fact that free neutrons cause water to break into its components and must be recombine to recycled.
Additionally the MSR being a homogeneous fluid is far more fuel efficient than solid fuel reactors. Within the MSR we can use thorium, used fuel rods and decommissioned nuclear weapons as fuel. The waste streams half-life is considerably shorter in the range of 300 years rather than 100,000+.
There are technical challenges with reprocessing and others but these can be solved.
Hey guys thanks for all the shows.
Please do an episode about liquid fluoride thorium reactors! Not all nuclear reactors can melt down, some are far more passively-stable. There are tons of advantages to LFTR vs. the traditional pressurized water reactor. LFTR operates at atmospheric pressure instead of 2300 PSI, doesn't use water as coolant, and can't melt down because the fuel is already dissolved in a liquid!
They do not work yet is why they do not get talked about much.
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 except that they did.
Neil’s personality is just amazing
Don’t you usually use uranium 235 atoms, which create 3 and not 2 new neutrons?
Steven Lormuß well, not me, personally, no
I had to go look it up. It seems the number of neutrons varies depending in the speed of the incoming neutron. The equation I found for u235 shows the numbers as 2.4
no, uranimum 235 creates 2.03 neutrons per fission.
Sorry, I thought that meant like an average for calculating the yield or something.
Curious, where do they get the neutron from to start the reaction?🤔
These have been great videos. Love the animations and art style.
0:20 Back then, the church people were calling it proof that hell exist. The god of the gap folks.
They'd also tell all parents that if their children were playing RP games instead of football that would lead to them being possessed by demons. Sooooooo yeah this is far from any scientific method, in fact they do the exact opposite and try to make it look like a fact when it's just biaised info with no evidence and no method, just to prove a point they otherwise wouldn't be able to, using emotions and feelings as proofs where they are in fact the very reason of why their method is wrong and far from any science. Sad days.
Loads of church people have been huge pioneers in sciences over the centuries, it's so sad to see obscurantism go back up IMO.
I have known all of this for years yet still I watch, such is the power of Neil and Chuck. It gives hope to see people who are passionate about science.
Only nerds like me laugh on the bar joke 😂
And it's a beautiful thing to accept it and have a little chuckle! Always good to come across a fellow nerd on this platform! How's life Vaibhav, you nerd!?
Aspect Science since he hasn't replied, I'd like to step in. But life is great. You know, living on that pineal gland potential which gives me nuclear energy for instinctive survivability. I'm sure we all relate. How's your life ?lol
Peter Parker lol you're absolutely right
Aspect Science life is pretty good btw
Peter Parker, thanks for the reply :) ....was that a remarkably science-orientated explanation of your namesake's spidey sense...?!?!?!?!?
2 questions
I learnt that particle accelerators are used to speed up particles like electrons using EM fields. How do you accelerate a neutron before firing if it has no charge.?
Second, If after hitting an atom, it splits into two smaller atoms, does it always release two neutrons ? If yes, why only two. I am assuming it is trying to balance total mass, My question why not split into two even smaller atoms and release 20 instead of 2 neutrons to form a smaller element's atom? Or in the same line of argument why not split up into such elements so that there is no need to release an extra neutron.
You cannot accelerate a neutron by EM fields. What you can do is produce high velocity neutrons by neutron generators, usually by fusing isotopes of hydrogen together in a linear accelerator. Fission is usually induced by the introduction of a neutron, but it occurs naturally without it. It is not true that two neutron are always produced, but obviously you need more than one to have a chain reaction. Large nuclei are easier to split than small ones because the strong nuclear force has a short range and protons repel each other. So the larger the nucleus, the easier it is for a proton to escape. That is radioactive alpha decay, when a helium nucleus escapes from the parent nucleus.
"Damn you, iron!"
This was such a better explanation than Veritasium.
NdGT: I am a child trapped in a man's body. 2:13. His words not mine.
Please discuss the re-cycling of spent fuel rods or fuel bundles.
if they are fully spent- they are no longer radioactive.
Geek analysis. Gotta love it. I'm glad they hand fun with this hehee
I love to see you guys picked up on Brilliant! I have been using the free version for some time now (great content!), but the promo swaid me into going premium. Thanks for facilitating the learning! Cheerio, Pieter
whoa i just learned so much from this, just a lot of "ohhhhhhh that's how it happened"
Loving this new format! Looking great with the animations.
solar power is nuclear power
Just at a safe distance
It's to bad it's not hot enough to boil water to spin a turbine.
Maybe with a large enough lense.....
Wow! That is the best explanation I've ever heard on fusion!
Always considered it a testimony to the genius of man to be able to develop such an incredibly complicated, expensive and dangerous way to boil water.
I love the intro soundtrack too.. very uplifting!!!
Neil ... run for president! Don't argue, just do it.
Paul Ryder ... well someone intelligent needs to take the helm, to make legislation decisions! He is the most down to earth.
Neil knows his physics, he understands public relations. But he has zero public service experience. No school board. No city government. No state or federal government experience. Not sure he'd want to anyway, as an elected official he'd have to talk about stuff other than space and physics.
Opportunity cost. He is effective doing what he does too. Might be less so (but perhaps more so) as a candidate.
This was by far the best presentation that I have ever seen on the subject. Thanks Dr. Tyson, I met you at Wright Sate University in Dayton Ohio.
God bless Neil Degrasse Tyson ❤
As someone who works in nuclear power, this a pretty decent bare bones explanation of what is happening in the reactor. The core is more or less a giant heat exchanger that connects to another big heat exchanger and just cycles. That depends though on the reactor design if you have a primary side and secondary side or just one coolant loop. Granted, there is a lot of design that goes into the core design in terms of fuel layout, orientation, internals, etc. Really it's more fascinating than it is frightening.
We need nuclear power. And alot more of it.
Very expensive to build compared to any other way of generating electricity and you cannot ramp them up or down quickly so you still need energy balancing like with renewables... There is good reason nuclear is not talked about very much anymore, even solar photoelectric generation has been cheaper to build out than nuclear for at least 30 years...
Neil has a gift of teaching. Thank you professor.
The universe is just a tool music video and it's all good.
He forgot to mention: The runaway nuclear fission chain-reaction that powers an atomic bomb can only happen with a VERY high purity of Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239. We call this "weapons grade" uranium or plutonium. The stuff we fuel nuclear reactors with ("reactor grade" U or Pu) contains too much Uranium-238 or Plutonium-240 to go off like an atomic bomb. If you deliberately tried to build a bomb out of it, it would only fizzle.
(The explosions at Chernobyl and Fukushima were simple explosions fuelled by all the excess heat -- steam at Chernnobyl, hydrogen burning with air at Fukushima. They weren't nuclear explosions.)
If we want climate action fast, nuclear is the way.
Why? All other forms of electrical power generation are cheaper to build out. Nuclear plants cannot ramp up or down fast enough to balance the grid so they face the same situation as renewables except you have far greater cost to build and cost of fuel and no nuclear power plant has yet included the cost of storing nuclear waste safely for over 10,000 years.
Please upload new episodes frequently 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 this was amazing
Who cares about being first??
EVERYONE. THIS. IS. UA-cam (read: SPARTA)
Jakiso The Artist : Kids, trolls and people who cling to the smallest things.
These two are so much fun! 🤗🥰😁👍🏻
Roses are red, violets are blue,
I’m not first,
AND NIETHER WERE YOU
violets are violet unless you are colorblind/poet.
Wait, aren't violet purple 😃?
there are blue violets just like there are white roses
Why is violet made with blue and red if it's a spectral color?
what you learned about colors in art is different than how light actually works
Hey Dr. Tyson, I think an important topic to discuss on StarTalk is the volcano erupting in Hawaii. I would love to hear about the effects this volcano could have on our climate and the overall effects that volcanoes have on our planet.
Thank you!
First
Good for you
Star talk is evolving. I'm happy.
It's shorter, more compact and has great graphics. As much as I love long laid-back relaxed and in depth convos between experts/stars, I'm also aware that this style of content is much more efficient in terms of channel growth, as well as grabbing a wider audience.
Keep it up ;)
I like this format. Please do more like this
These are super fun to watch
Always a delight to hear Neil
Love the super nova excitement at 7:20