One kid performing a single fusion reaction isn't going to cause a huge fusion boom.

No but a university will snap him up and he will increase the teck slightly cost to build which means using it as a power source becomes more economical which will encourage others to reexamine it

What the -blam!- did you just write? [quote]No but a university will snap him up[/quote]That doesn't mean anything for fusion. Congrats to the kid because it's a hell of a thing to put on your CV. [quote]and he will increase the teck slightly cost to build which means using it as a power source becomes more economical which will encourage others to reexamine it[/quote]Not even close. He performed a single fusion reaction. It wasn't controlled, it wasn't sustainable, and it didn't really do much at all. Using fusion for energy production like current fission reactors is not possible at the moment, there are several projects working towards this goal, the most promising being ITER and NIF. This kid has done literally nothing to further our knowledge of fusion, he simply performed it on a atomic scale.

Yes with out the resources that are normally required for it. Look at it this way.(example ignore if you already understand) The world builds solar panels for $1000 then a kid a thirteen builds one at the same quality for $100 it is exactly the same. So has he changed the technology?

You don't seem to be understanding. In order for fusion reactors to be economical and cheap, the fusion reaction powering it needs to be sustainable. Creating a stable fusion reaction is incredibly hard, that's why it costs millions. Fusion reactions occur at millions to billions of degree at extremely high temperatures that means controlling a billion degree ball of plasma. The melting point of Iron is 1538 degrees. A fusion reaction is over 10,000 degrees hotter, that's why is hard to sustain. You can't just put it into a box, it would vaporizer the box, hopefully you see why it's so hard, and why millions are pumped into it. Now that kid performed a single reaction. He had no control over the reaction, he just enabled it to happen. It was not sustainable, it was not controllable, it simply happened. We've been enable to perform fusion reactions since 1951, they were atomic bombs. They were not controlled, they were not sustainable, they were ignited, and then dropped, and then the fusion reaction happened, which is what made the giant explosions. They had no control of the reaction, they just allowed it to happen. The kid didn't do anything new, he just allowed a fusion reaction to happen, exactly like the bombs. It has zero implications for fusion technology. Creating a fusion reaction is nowhere near as complicated or expensive as sustaining a fusion reaction.

Yes I know that do you know how much the atomic bombs would cost to build try 5 billion yes with a B so this kid did it for less then that. So do you not see what save 5 billion dollars would do there are a lot of uses for atomic bomb that can no be produced cheaply

The kid performed a single fusion reaction. That's 2 hydrogen [b]atoms[/b] fused inton a single helium atom. That's atoms. That's pretty easy to do. The first atmoic bombs cost millions due to research and development, fusion was new in 1951, not now. Also, most costs incurred from bombs are storage and paying staff to take care of them. Nothing was achieved from what the kid did.