Nuclear physicists here, 10 years for first one, 50 years for commercial

>>7655842
>10 years for first one
less than that m8. FRC plasmas ftw

By the way, when is the Max Planck institute turning on the stellerator?

>>7655854
Sorry I meant the first one to be used to produce power in a commercial sense

>>7655842
40 years between functionality and commercialization
thats a lot more than other economically applicable technologies generally take, but then again there are some unique factors that affect fusion power. Oil companies for one - how much control they have over government budgets and regulations. Also, energy is comparatively expensive in other nations, so there may be an even greater incentive for govs to subsidize plant construction. I would guess 25 years between first net power generation and it becoming mainstream in most of the world.

>>7655842
>50 years for fusion.

Its going to take 100 years until we get fusion.

>>7655941
well thankfully immortality will be acheived in 50.

>>7655950
Nope that will 10,000 years from now. Anon, you were born in the wrong time.

>>7655965
It doesn't matter if its 10,000 years from now because I will be immortal anyway.

>>7655968
You will be dead by 80. You won't make it anon. You will be a pile of bones and dust. You will go into an eternal sleep with no dreaming. Its just a pitch black "afterlife".

>>7655970
what part of immortality do you not understand?

Does anyone have the links to the actual papers they published?

>>7655407
Best picture choice, OP. Lmao.

>>7655979
You cant become immortal if you die before inventing immortality.

threadly reminder that fusion probably won't be figured out till a general solution to navier stokes can be found.

>>7656490

no him but ill do cryogenics, that or transplant my brain into a toddler.

>>7656503
>i have no idea what im talking about

Here's another one OP

not directly fusion, but with large fusion applications

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151113/ncomms9905/pdf/ncomms9905.pdf

>>7655950
>>7655965
It really depends on how far medical advancements can reach over a period of time (your life).

Let's say you're in your twenties right now. So by 2050 you're reaching around mid 50s roughly and by then even Conservative estimates put average life expectancy in the late eighties early nineties. If you commit yourself to a healthy lifestyle you could most likely beat that average.If you're going for the most liberal estimates out there the first person to reach 150 is already alive.

The main issue with these increase lifespans is that it's taken into account shit like people living a lot better with less infant deaths and dying of dumb shit like smoking so starting at the seventies and getting into your eighties we're still seeing unavoidable issues with dementia and cancer and heart failure.

The big questions is that can you end up living to a point where you see a massive decrease in those above issues because if you can it opens up literal decades of your life in order to see if they can ever "beat" aging.

We're certainly not close to "immortality" (and even with all the above you can still just get shot by a nignog or something) but the fact we can live longer means there's a bigger timeframe to see if we can continue to live longer and longer.

>>7656513
Modern cryo is a scam and you're a frozen corpse.

"Fusion power is only 20 years away."

... said every fusion researcher ever, since the 1950s.

ITER is yet another boondoggle. It can't even claim to be a fusion power producer despite the billions spent to build it. ITER's design goal is to get up to a lousy 700 seconds of continuous fusion reaction. How many power plants run only 11.7 minutes at a time?

You basement-dwelling virgin-nerd Cheetos-eaters will buy any lie these fusion crooks push out of their PR departments. There must be something about a *neckbeard* that suppresses IQ.

>>7657569

And people like you need to ask yourself, why are the billionaires dying? If you had billions of dollars of wealth at your command, why haven't those billions of dollars of wealth been poured into research for practical solutions for incremental lifespan extension? Nothing of the sort has happened; billionaires die at the exact same lifespan as a healthy middle-class person does. So there's something in that socio-economic equation which you need to start questioning.

>>7657580
>Violent Simians Guy
have you ever been right about anything?
tokamaks are inherently non-steady state devices, they cant run continuously by nature of their design you retard. best we can hope from tokamaks is quasi-steady-state operation

besides, there are so many other better device designs and methods of achieving fusion. do some research on FRC plasmas, stellarators, spheromaks, inertial confinement with KrFl lasers, direct driven with heavy ion beam drivers, etc. you've got your head stuck in the ground. but ironically you probably believe cold fusion or "LENR" is actually valid science

>>7657587
>Why are kings dying? Surely if there was any method to easily live past the ripe old age of your mid 40s they would have funneled all their gold into achieving such an increase in lifespan

Are you trying to imply that there's some X amount of money that would have been thrown out already and achieved the desired result if the possibility for a significantly longer life was feasible?

You can't just throw money at shit. There's no billionaire out there who is willing to waste their own funds to combat aging over decades of time and we see that the best a wealthy person usually aims for is crackpot cryo on their deathbed.

The scientific and medical communities are consonantly trying to combat disease and hurdles that plague people. Someone born right now is going to benefit from literal decades of research much more than a wealthy person on their deathbed ever could.

>>7657593

And yet, after 60 years of fusion research aimed at producing a reactor that produces commercial power, the grand total of functional reactors is ZERO. And the grand total of reactors under design which will produce commercial power, is also ZERO.

You neckbeards can't TALK a fusion power reactor into existence. If only we could harness your HOT AIR we'd have less of an energy crisis.

>>7657602
>You can't just throw money at shit

Ah, yes you can, it's called RESEARCH, and from research you get PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

Economics 101: It happens all the fucking time.

So you need to stop being a jawboning simian retard and you need to start asking WHY the billionaires aren't producing life extension.

I already know the answer; I need people like YOU to start preparing yourselves for the answer... since you're not going to like it.

>>7657619
>Literally every major issue that directly effects a person is unsolvable because the collective billionaire society has deemed it not worth funneling money into

>>7657615
>the grand total of functional reactors is ZERO
absolutely false. there have been so many fusion reactors and devices that have produced fusion power, just not net power suitable for commercial production

>60 years
not a very long time to harness one of the most powerful and energy-dense forms of energy there is, which is only possible in stars do to their massive gravitational attraction, a luxury cant afford on earth. it's not some basic calc problem or doing your taxes. maybe you're just bashing it because you cant have an actual discussion about it in any real depth, so you have to put up your defences

they ditched pinch programs when they showed little future for fusion power, but they discovered methods of supressing several instabilities in the FRC plasmas they formed, and now FRC devices are one of the most promising methods of fusion, with significantly lower instabilities compared to tokamaks, as well as force-free equilibrium, high beta values, and the translatability allowing for propulsion applications.

ignorance isnt bliss you dense idiot

>>7656503
Some people at Skunkworks found the general solution for NS a few years ago. Don't ask further.

>>7657619
You're retarded you know that right? You can't throw money at everything. Even seasoned investors know this. You failed econ 101. Which is not surprising because this website is filled with people who failed the most basic of classes.

>>7657640
>there have been so many fusion reactors and devices that have produced fusion power, just not net power suitable for commercial production

I find it detestable in the extreme that you have no idea what "functional" reactor means. A functional fusion power reactor produces commercial power. Period. Any other reactor that doesn't produce commercial power, isn't functional.

Geez.

>>7657764
>A functional fusion power reactor produces commercial power
>I don't know what functional means so i come up with my own arbitrary definitions
are you retarded or just intentionally obtuse?

>>7657680
>You can't throw money at everything.

If you're only going to die, then you WILL throw money at it. That's the basis of all end-of-life healthcare in the industrialized world, particularly the United States of America.

And yet... the billionaires aren't throwing their billions at attempts to even extend their lives. They're not even striking outward for immortality.

I said I already had the answer. I already know why the ultra-rich aren't doing what the neckbeards believe is something basic to survival. And that answer revolves around what rich people are really like; they are the worst of what violent simians have to offer. They care about money more than anything, even their own survival. And it shows well what the future of our species will be... decay and ruin. If massive capital investments won't be made anymore to improve the Human condition, then the Human condition will simply go back to a pastoral existence, and people like Kurzweil are so wrong about Human nature that it hurts to read anything they write on the topic.

>>7657784

1. We develop fusion for the purposes of commercial power.

2. There's no other reason for developing such reactors.

3. Therefore a functional reactor is one that produces commercial power.

Your head is denser than neutronium. But that's fairly standard for your sort of neckbeard. Technology is your religion, and like all religions, the basis of belief is irrational.

>>7657789
>2. There's no other reason for developing such reactors.
ayy lmao found the popsci faggot