So my birthday is on the anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown? Yay?

@@desireevelez530 Mine is when the Hindenburg crashed, well I was born a few decades later, but still

I was so confused bc I was sure Chernobyl was in my birth year but over half a year before I was born, causing my mom to worry like crazy about me. (She lived in Germany, close enough to be possibly affected.)

@@naomilovenpeace Mine too. Here's a tip. Turn off the news.

*Unnecessarily Pedantic Alert* The verb form of fission is also fission. So, U-235 fissions in a chain reaction.

He's delusional. Send him to the infrimary.

lol...myself also!

I didn't know so many people watched this show "Chernobyl" from HBO...its not Game of thrones!!

You didn’t see graphite.

After watching this video, you mean!

Lol

I have seen worse You didn't see graphite you didn't !! You Didn't !!!!

@@rishavagarwal5352 "BECAUSE ITS NOT THERE!!!!!!!"

Must be from the feedwater

There is no core

yeah, didn't you know pencils are the most widely used type of control rod? only problem is that the erasers get a little hot.

Bruh

Jake Hildebrand Really?

@@theorange1729 yeah, but it could be because they use those cheap pencils that are made with fake wood

Chernobyl was a graphite moderated water cooled reactor meaning that graphite tips balanced and controlled temperature. Water also acts as a neutron absorber (just like a control rod) but i think it evaporated + rods were pulled up. They were supposed to be lowered. when engineers lowered it there was 15 second delay, graphite tips reacted by insane temperature increase and that is when explosion happened. Someone who understand this better can explain.

🙄

He's delusional...🙊

HAHAHHAHAHA

You didn't see graphite, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!!

this is an elite comment, love it, 10/10

@Rob C you didn't see graphite, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!!

@Rob C Nah, there are only 3.6 Chernobyl quotes. Not great, not terrible.

@@Werrf1 i’ve told that equals to a chest x ray..

@@EthanMeatan And, by the way, it’s not one chest X-ray, more like… 400 chest X-rays.

@@bradentribble6374 oh I was making a reference to the HBO show Chernobyl! Thanks for the not so fun fact tho lol

😂🤣😂🤣

LOL!

TBH in the next shot where they show the Helicopter flying for Chernobyl, I was waiting for a body to be thrown out of the chopper.

@@SunilZishan me too

@@SunilZishan me too...

Shivam Kulkarni actually, the price of energy in nuclear is only 1.82 dollars a KWH house. It’s because the fuel is incredibly cheap. The reactor is expensive but that easily runs for 50-60 years. So the write off is minima. Governments always squirm when the hear the average of 12 billion for large nuclear power plant. But they forget that it can run for 50 years without costly maintenance. So it’s actually relatively cheap in the long run.

@@rdoetjes Thank you. I really didn't know about these numbers. And $1.82 sounds like an awesome deal anyday! But since the reason we're talking about it is one of the greatest nuclear tragedies yet, it seemed like a good joke. That's all. I'm an engineer myself and I know the importance of "cheap" very well.

And the word "fast" shouldn't be mixed in there either.

@@tudorjason that is usually referring to neutron speed, if im not mistaken. It's not the speed of the reaction, which I agree, could sound reckless

Exactly why Soviet Russia no longer exists

I also watched Apollo 13. So I'm fully qualified to handle any kind of technical emergency

Senior Reactor Nuclear Engineer.

Chernobyl tv series is total garbage when it comes to accuracy though. Almost everything regarding radiation and nuclear is just plain wrong.

I'm a metrologist, I know what I'm doing. Means I can measure the SHIT out of it.

@@fullfildreamz Historically pretty accurate. Scientifically... Not as much.

*Dyatlov

"Well, at least we did the test. Conclusion: The test failed."

The other guy: “not great, not horrifying”

Get this man to the infirmary!

Thank you for this comment lol

So how is it working for the organized stalking system? How many people do you harass a day?

@@johng.3740 what the hell are you actually talking about?

@@selloutsanders5774 It is far, far, far beyond you and those who are in the know, know what I'm talking about.

Liked so you’d get to 999

@@bigpeenerpeen Rotate it 180 and you'll understand it better, it has to do with thisssss: fightgangstalking.com/

and excuse me while i puke my guts up on the floor due to radiation.............. sorry i mean due to the shit cooking my missus does..................................

Donald Duck Trump he puked because he was sick of the lies about graphite being outside the reactor

Only 3.6 Roentgens

@@Anxmaly666 not great, not terrible

@@panitialucky6689 im told its equivalent of 1 chest xray so if youre overdue for a check up...

Slight correction, it shouldn't be 1.01 neutrons per fission, in fact there's usually a bit more than that per fission. It's the *multiplication factor* slightly above 1 which causes the insane doubling time. The reason that the number of neutrons emitted per fission isn't the number we need to look at is because some neutrons emitted by fission will be lost, either by leaking out of the reactor or by being absorbed by other materials in the reactor. The multiplication factor, on the other hand, takes this into account and tells us how we can expect each generation of neutrons to grow

Are you a teacher or something? This made so much sensseee.

Thanks for this!

That helped a lot, thanks

I teach the transport of radio-active loads and I love your analogy. If this subject is your thing it is easy to grasp, if it isn't then the way you have just explained it is superb and I will use it in future lessons. Thank you.

Good explanation! What's also helpful to add is that in the case of U-238, the more stable isotope, it also captures slow neutrons well, but the energy added by a slow neutron isn't enough to excite it so that the electric forces are able to split the nucleus. However, the additional energy from fast neutrons is able to split U-238, albeit with low probabilities since, as you explained, it's harder to even capture a fast moving neutron. What's cool is that when U-238 absorbs a slow neutron, it decays into Pu-239, which is just as fissile as U-235.

I think it's more like when you're learning to drive a stick shift and you feel it stalling, so you panic and just fucking floor the gas pedal while letting totally off the clutch at the same time and you peel out and wrap the car around a utility pole :D

@@RoboBoddicker This is funny because I'm learning stick shift & I done this in my lesson today LMAOOO

@Edwin Davies Would a metaphor for this be like trying to compare how you feel after a glass or orange juice and how you feel after a glass of apple juice? Hmm, you know, when I'm hungry I always think of food based metaphors, and right now, I'm dehydrated! I better get me a drink!

It's more like when you're commenting on a You Tube video and then you don't see your post, so you smash the submit button again, but then you double post. But completely different.

Or pulling a nail with all your strength and it detaches in a single instant making you fly against a wall

Well judging from your comment it paid off and you understood it well

Yeah, i can watch this at 2x speed and that makes my mind go haywire with knowledge. Which i like.

.75 speed. not great, not terrible.

Omg. .75. Yes.

Thanks for the tip!

I am reminded of a comment that was made by the late Major Peter Olver HM Railway Inspectorate in the UK " Nick remember that you can make something fool proof until a bigger fool comes along! No amount of legislation will not prevent someone from being stupid" Unfortunately Peter's comment is painfully accurate. To be fair to Dylatov he didn't really know what he was doing. The real problem was the very lax safety culture present in the USSR coupled with a strong "Can Do" attitude at all levels.

@@nicholaskelly6375 Dyatlov was the deputy Chief Engineer of the plant, and had 14 years of reactor experience prior to working at Chernobyl. He was one of THE most knowledgeable people there on reactor operation, he abso-fuckin-lutely knew what he was doing, and regardless had multiple times he could have prevented the accident. It's not solely his fault of course, far far from it, but he played a critical role in the accident and although the scram should have you know, *not* exploded the reactor, he shouldn't have pushed it to the point that it needed to be used. I do agree with everything else tho lol

@@jacob4012 The real problem was that he didn't properly understand what he has doing. I once met someone who had worked at Ingalina and it was clear that disaster there (and indeed at Leningrad) was avoided by the skin on its proverbial teeth! Had the facts of what happened been made more widely available at the other RMBK plants then it is very unlikely that anything would have happened. Also like any major catastrophe involving technology (RMS TITANIC is a very good example of this) there were several contributing factors which in themselves would have been irrelevant. But because they occurred in a certain sequence disaster became inevitable.

Thing is unless you tell ppl what will happen if you break the rules most won't take them seriously till something goes wrong or till they're told Since nobody knew its no shock rules were broken Well, ppl knew, but said knowledge was covered up to save face aaaaaaand boom (literally) here we are Nobody operating reactors knew so for all intents & purposes the rules were worth as much as the paper they were written on to the humans in the room on that fateful night

Many of the changes made to RBMKs after the disaster were to lock operators out from overriding key automatic safeguards like they did that night at Chernobyl.

FOUND HIM.

-Play Elite Dangerous with me :(-

thanks for all the amazing content on your channel :D

you didn't see scott manley because he is not there!

How are you not verified?

they won't stop firing for millions of years

So u watched Chernobyl on popcorn time or smth

Get him to the infirmary

Hundred of millions of billions of BULLETS

This made me cackle

How would you know, you studied physics a university? hashtag woah

@@alex0589 I did a module on atoms, photons, and fundamental particles, which included nuclear fission and nuclear reactors. I don't claim to be a professor nor do I have a PhD. I just wanted to thank Hank for his time and effort into this video because it was good science communication, from someone who has gone through a standard undergraduate university course.

@@yozul1 He's probably right in that respect! Regardless though, I just wanted to highlight it was more the fact I liked Hank's delivery :)

Well I'll settle this...I'm getting my PhD in nuclear engineering....and I think he did a great job simplifying this. There are a few things I'd add to his theory/first portion of the video like for example how we could have other types of fuel (U-235 isn't like the only "holy-grail" we could use...we could use natural uranium for example...ask Canada about that). However...his explanation was excellent (in terms of simplifying things at least), and good in terms of technical fidelity....he left out the part in Chernobyl about the design flaws of the RBMK (the reactor), which also had a hand in the disaster. Soviet designs favored performance over safety....that's a big NoNo for nuclear work where we prioritize safety. They more specifically, favored Plutonium production over anything (for political reasons obviously). For example, he mentioned how the top blew off in the reactor....yeaaah this was a design flaw in their containment that they saw as a means to save $...which obviously was a bad decision. You can Google most of this stuff...it's not a cover-up (not anymore at least), so you can learn about all this stuff. But the thing to take out of this is that the nuclear industry is constantly reminded and learns from its mistakes...and while nothing is 100% safe (not even renewable energy), the industry and nuclear technology in general...with newer reactor designs being built everywhere in the world is much...much safer than Chernobyl, and any other energy industry you can think of nowadays (yes, more people die yearly from working on wind turbines than they do working in a nuclear power plant).

Hey, thanks!

TheBanjoShow whole life lol

Im dead :D :D :D

@@peterkolesar4020well the man who press it is dead lmao

AZ-5 : imma bout to end this town's whole career

Because cirilic A3-5

Nobody wanted to be responsible for failing the safety test again, AND causing the reactor to be out of operation for 2 days. Nobody wanted to lose their job or be sentenced to labor camps :P

Well the Soviet Union was changing radically when Gorbachev was in power

Crossed out instructions? There was no such thing. That's part of the problem.

@@KarlKarpfen It was portrayed like that in the HBO show. It might not have happened like that historically. TV shows love to embellish things to make them more dramatic, I suppose.

@@Fantastic_Timez Yes, but history tends to be remembered like it was portrayed in films and TV shows.

For sure! I wish there was a whole channel for this! I know, there's SciShow(s), Crash Course, and I love them, but honestly nothing beats Hank or John just talking to me from their rooms. Nice graphics, too! Fancy, fancy.

It's Limetime

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/iZ17gmODhIafuWQ.html scared of nuclear? Galen Winsor wasn't... he eats radiation for breakfast!!

Good morning John.

So disappointed in the Oceanics this year

TIL that John does his casual UKposts browsing on the Vlogbrothers account. Imagine being a tiny channel and uploading a cake baking manual and suddenly Vlogbrothers likes it

Imagine how many more people would/could be living there today.

@@evalynn1863 Since many areas of Russia have a birthrate less than 2.1, and a declining population, probably there would be less people there than were living there in 1986.

@@xWHITExEAGLEx you know that Pripyat and Chernobyl are not in Russia right?

@@hrvojenakic-alfirevic8924 I do, shit, don't know why I wrote that, must have been sleepy.

@@hrvojenakic-alfirevic8924 That's what I get for being a smart-alleck.

no it doesn't, you're in shock. Take him to the infirmary.

Too bad they’re some 30 years apart.

Commrade Kenneth, are you stupid? The Vlogbrothers are delusional.☢️

@@jamesricker3997 Actually, so is anybody who says "vlog", meh.

“YOU CAN’T EXPLAIN IT BECAUSE IT’S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.”

@@endurovro Oh yeah that's what you think

Wow!!! Your dad is a hero and so is everyone who sacrificed themselves in this incident. God bless him!

Thank your dad for me for helping to save countless lives.

I was 5 when Chernobyl exploded. So many unsung heroes.

Does your dad feel that Soviet authorities were trying to cover up the incident?

@@Lionfish5656 Nah, he was not long after the compulsory service, so extremely loyal at the time.

Agreed. “Soviets stupid, evil and CHEAP” makes for better television, though.

@PLOMBIR I like your too, Laughingman Clan..😅😅

Use the good one, out of the safe.

Three thousand _Chernobyl_ memes, not great not terrible

They bring us Faulty equipment and expect us to curb our memes?

EW! I didn't order a salad covered in radioactive vomit. I want a refund.

Blogbrothers: I apologize *Collapses*

That's not granite

There is such thing as static flux density distribution. Just write down the equations and set time derivatives to zero, and every solution of what remains in the equations will give a static distribution.

@@u.v.s.5583 so, ignore that time exists?

@@SteveisTall Not at all. It is a dynamic equilibrium. Energy flows from region to region, but the fluxes cancel each other out so that the distribution of the flowing physical quantity (neutron number density or whatever) remains stationary.

Its OK to neglect the density word for explaining to physics noobs.. But I agree it is useful for completeness... E.g. you could say there are a lot of people passing through a gate, causing congestion... But scientifically speaking it's that the density of people moving through the area of the gate is too high, and too many per unit of time (too frequently), a higher density and regularity/frequency of people movement than it was designed for, and the number of people passing through a gate per second doesn't determine congestion, only the density of people per second getting high enough causes congestion in any gate, no matter which gate or what its size is.. You can still say there's too many people trying to pass through the gate, rather than saying the density of people trying to travel through the gate is too high, and too frequently too many per second.. So yer, he got the flux bit which indicates "per second" and the density bit would have meant "per unit of surface enclosing it's volume", which matters for calculation, but not so much general communication. If people talked about electron flux when discussing e.g. a copper wire overheating due to the resistance of the wire to electrons passing through it, people would understand what you mean by saying too much electron flux rather than saying electron flux density.. We know which part the electron are flowing through, the volume being discussed I.e. the wire.. In case the word "current" didn't exist. Its also OK because he said the "neutron flux was too high in this part (the bottom) of the reactor", which is in fact understandably correct, as that part is a known volume, and so the high neutron flux density will have a defined total neutron flux, which will also be "too high" for this part of the reactor.

What's the other B

TMI wasn't even that bad, outside the reactor itself atleast. Yes, it had a partial meltdown, but the containment structure did it's job like it was designed to in the first place. They got very close to a full meltdown, and also a hydrogen explosion, but thanks to the reactor design they were able to mitigate those issues.

@@DrakeKillah ye but at that point (not counting Kyshtym disaster which wasn't revealed until after USSR fell) it was the worst nuclear energy related accident. Granted the damage was limited to plant itself BUT it obviously made it impossible to use that reactor ever again

@@DrakeKillah just one partial meltdown? RBMK: Hold my beer! ... partial meltdown in Leningrad-1, partial meltdown in Chernobyl-1, catastrophic failure of Chernobyl-4

Disgraceful really, spreading disinformation at a time like this.

If you watched the Chernobyl series you would get the joke, It’s a quote from the movie😂

@@rishabram4389 so is the disinformation line. Viktor Bryukhanov to Valery Legasov. When he says "explain how an rbmk reactor explodes".

Adam Hussey Yes and Valery’s response at that was that he didn’t know because nobody knew exactly how it can explode at that time. My quote was to show the irony that Bryukhanov and other Russian Nationalist at that time could not believe that the core could explode in an RBMK reactor. Calm down boomer😂

@@rishabram4389 first of all I'm not a boomer. Secondly even if I was you'd still be using that term incorrectly. And thirdly I simply pointing out that it is a line from Chernobyl and that you're wrong, something I'm sure you hear a lot.

@Adarsh kumar 3 questions: How many people have died due to nuclear waste not being handled properly? How much nuclear waste is stored around the world? Where is it stored? I think those 3 pieces of information ought to demonstrate the accuracy of your claim. Spoiler: it isn't accurate.

@Adarsh kumar You still haven't answered my 3 questions I see.

Abby Baum, hey man, how about paying attention to the reactor and when your shift is over then watch yt😅😓

Your sitting in taco bell

@Adarsh kumar "all you had to do was search, are you here to test my competence or to get educated?" You made the claim, you are the one who needs to prove it. I notice your entire comment was assertions, no links to anything that proves what you said.

Caleb Shonk that's pretty good

Ah! Thank you. I'm a gearhead, not a physics buff so THAT I understood.

Great comment. All I will add is that the reactor has only one cylinder, the piston weighs 100 tons and the cylinder head (the upper biological shield or as the Russians say " the pyotachok " or 5 kopeck (nickel) piece weighs 50 tons.

Absolutely fits as a simplified explanation. It's not perfect, but it gets the point across with an analogy to something people are more likely to understand 👍 It doesn't explain the xenon poisoning, meltdown and following steam explosion, but it doesn't have to.

Actually this can happen in Diesel engines. It’s called a “runaway” diesel and since Diesel engines are controlled by regulating the amount of fuel that goes in rather than air like a gas engine they will keep going a diesel in runaway sometimes getting so hot they will start combusting elements in the air itself and engine oil and the only way to stop it is to choke off the air intake and hope the engine is sealed enough that air won’t be sucked in elsewhere as the faster an engine is running the more air it can draw in (why Diesel engines don’t have a safety valve that can close the intake I don’t know but runaways are rare and usually only happen with poor condition engines anyway. Shitty explaination probably but to understand it requires understanding how a Diesel engine works but they rely on heat and compression to ignite the fuel Gas engines can’t runaway because they need fuel within a certain tolerance air and importantly a spark. I think it’s near impossible to detonate fuel in a gas engine on compression alone

Well, it did, due to steam pressure. Had there been no second (much stronger) explosion, the damage might have been much less.

@@maksphoto78 it did not pop. It literally got obliterated into another dimension

@@ju.h_man No, it popped up due to steam pressure. It was just enough to damage the reloading machine, and let oxygen into the reactor, which cause a much, much more powerful hydrogen explosion. That explosion was what obliterated the central hall, making the 1.2 meter thick walls literally disappear.

Yes, the several thousand tonne top

No the lis was thrown up into the air and then landed back down on its side back into the reactor it was blown through the roof then the massive explosion occurred

Yes, you're probably right. But it did blow, caused an unbelievable mess, killed people. Bottom line, if fission power were safer, people would be more inclined to use it.

@@baruchben-david4196 it IS safer.

I believe Three Mile Island and the "China Syndrome" movie had already started the scare, at least in America.

While probably lot less deaths than other energy sources, mining uranium probably kills a bunch of people.

I do agree that Nuclear Power is pretty safe now, situations like Chernobyl are almost impossible once all outdated reactors are finally decomissioned. Modern reactors are passively safe. Coal and oil is just stupid... The number of direct deaths from the Chernobyl disaster was low, but the number of people affected by the aftermath was much higher: "According to Vyacheslav Grishin of the Chernobyl Union, the main organization of liquidators, "25,000 of the Russian liquidators are dead and 70,000 disabled, about the same in Ukraine, and 10,000 dead in Belarus and 25,000 disabled", which makes a total of 60,000 dead (10% of the 600,000 liquidators) and 165,000 disabled"

​@@mephistophelesfussli819Probably no more than mining coal does, tbf

@@no-one-in-particular mmmm yes, saying the president cant say "infinitesimal," what a sick burn, how dare he insult the president like that

​@@no-one-in-particular What's so bad about it?. The freedom to do just that is what makes free countries special. If you're implying in some ways that he shouldn't/couldn't then that means he very well could've staid put in the USSR...or that the US isn't that different from it to begin with. Which isn't the case. Freedom to be able to think whatever you want and say as much is one of the reasons the US was born to begin with. Question that freedom (be it in US-born people, or by assimilated immigrants), you'll stop being what you are supposed to be. Your call. Oh and now we're at it I highly doubt the current president of the US was president when that guy moved into the country.

@@ramjb "Freedom to be able to think whatever you want and say as much is one of the reasons the US was born to begin with" Why did they kill MLK again?

I'll let you pick the next category, Alex.

@@ShortArmOfGod thank you.

Right, this guy is delusional! Take him to the infirmary.

seconding this! there's a lot of misinformation being spread by the chinese gov't, and western media has not been fully covering the underlying issues. but also, 2047 (the year the 2-system, 1 country agreement expires) is coming up, and I wonder how inevitable china's actions are.

+

+

+

+

You need to learn the boring basic stuff to understand the more interesting, advanced stuff

Not all physics deal with exciting stuff like nuclear reactors though :P

The longer explanation is that it is cheaper to have the moderator and absorber on the same rail system. More expensive and more complex to have them on separate systems. However, when on separate systems, you cannot have the type of disaster occur like that which occurred at Chernobyl.

++

it didn't you are delusional!

It didn't .....it didnt happpopppenen (shouting)

TheIdiotNextDoor RBMK reactors dont explode. Youre delusional go to the infirmary

Lies...

And yet we continue to think this or that isn't possible.

You're delusional. Take them to the infirmary m

Oh shit

Unsinkable. Unbreakable. Impossible. We should stop using those words. It's just asking for trouble...

One of the detailed applications of Murphy's Law. If something bad can't possibly happen, it will, at the worst possible time. Fun Fact: The original Murphy's Law was only "If a part *can* be installed wrongly, it *will* be installed wrongly, sometime, by someone." The statement came from aircraft repair mechanics during WW2, which also gave rise to the word "Sprog" meaning an apprentice aircraft mechanic who had yet to learn the difference between a sprocket and a cog. Later, it referred to anyone young and inexperienced before lapsing into disuse in recent times.

+

Fun fact part 2: the related adjective is “fissile”!

How it a verb

Katelynn Murphy Because the English language is stupid.

@@1992ilikepie The same way words like partition or requisition are both verbs and nouns.

I was hoping he'd reinforce the goodness of Mr. Manley's video.

Thanos’ favourite reactor

You are a maron, RBMK has the huge defects

HEy its a me MARIO!

Yeah they knew, and no-one wanted to be the guy to stand up and say: "Yo, we need to redesign this, even though it's expensive" Back in The Soviet Union 😂

Agreed it was extremely dangerous the information was kept from them. But it doesn’t excuse the hours of blatant misuse of a nuclear reactor leading up to the very situation that information would be relevant.

The biggest issue was the positive temperature coefficient of reactivity.

They did have a situation before in a different reactor where the AZ-5 (SCRAM) button was pressed, and a momentary power spike was recorded as the water was displaced, but it wasn't enough to cause it to go prompt critical before the boron took over.

punkinholler me tooo !!! During the court session , I was like “ who in the world would tip it with graphite “, even though he explains it is cheap and so they preferred it!! I was not satisfied

No one says that the graphite tip thing was the whole story. No idea where you're getting that from.

@@somolsunny337 Think of the graphite tips like spark plugs in a car's engine; the petrol might be hot enough, but still needs a spark to get the tiny explosion for running the engine.

You are correct

He's delusional, take him to the infirmary.

Made me lol.

Rbmk: Russian badly made krap 😁

123rd like 😂

players who end up in your team: Aight, I'mma head out 😳

Who is thanos?

@@jaellanthehat3693 Ever heard of any movies with the title "Avengers" in it.

@@Josh-hr5mc One

@@jaellanthehat3693 I'll do you one better.. Why is Thanos!

@@RRSmurf what?

Technically its a "second world design" because the soviet union was a second world country. (Google the definition of the word)

It wasn't even a very flawed design. The overrode multiple safety measures to conduct the test. The problem was the people in charge. Had they succeeded they'd be called brilliant, if they shut down the test and reacted in a safe manner, they would have been reprimanded. It was a failing of the society system.

Collectivists justify everything in the name of "order" and "sacrifice."

@@37butterflyprincess Hate the state!

@@jonbonbru He means. 3rd world as in poor.. he does not realise that usa is the only country where you can go bankrupt if you break a leg and cant pay medical bills. plus sovjet union also had other reactors and most of them are still active right now.

You are mistaken. RBMK reactor cores don’t explode.

UKposts has been effing up with the notifications lately

@@rozempire2843 By lately you mean for the last 10 years right? :D

Chandler Ferry Haha, yeah, that’s exactly what I meant

This is in fact the guy

You could've just watched the whole show though, it gave a simple explanation atleast :P

Scott manley does a better more concise explanation