![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The article claims that D-D is appealing because it allows one to save on "scarce" lithium reserves. But lithium is 17ppm in the crust, compared to deuterium's 468ppb (1500ppm hydrogen and deuterium is 0.0312% of hydrogen by mass). How is lithium the one that is scarce?
First, I'd like to please ask that you try to remember to add your signature at the end of any talk page post. Otherwise, one cannot know who wrote it and when.
As for your post here, correct me if I'm wrong, but "ppm" and "ppb" here means "parts per million" andn "parts per billion", right? – SarahTehCat ( talk) 18:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hydrogen is not concentrated in the crust. It's concentrated in the ocean. Water is around 11% hydrogen by mass. A ton of water, then, would contain over 30 grams of deuterium, and there's certainly no shortage of water (the ocean has 1.4×1018 tons of water). Since deuterium is twice as heavy as protium, separating the two through chemical and mechanical means is not particularly difficult, either. – JohannSnow ( talk) 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Simple calculations show that a 1,000 MWe (2,500 MWth) plant, fueled exclusively on natural lithium in a breeder cycle (contrived to be sure, but useful for calculations) would consume about 0.94 kg of Li per day at full output. 343 kg a year, for a 1 gigawatt power plant. This is almost-nothing compared to the current and growing lithium consumption by the electric-vehicle industry. Each kg of Li ultimately produces 25,000,000 kWh (at 40% thermal to electrical efficiency) of energy. --GoatGuy 14:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGuy ( talk • contribs)
The economics section is misleading in that it compares budget fusion research vs other research for one EU agency. The overall effect is that it seems like fusion is getting disproportionate funding when research for other fuel sources are funded through other agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.141.204 ( talk) 08:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me as if there is probably an error in the "IFE and MFE parameter space.svg" figure here, as the DT gain contours look wrong. There are five contours (labeled 1e-5 to 0.1) with a claimed spacing of 10× to the lower left, and then three (labeled 10 to 1000) at the upper right, also spaced 10×, but the "DT gain"=1 contour is missing. If it were present between 0.1 and 10, the spacing for just that one contour would be about half all the others before and after, so I think the labeling must be incorrect. Can one of our experts check this? Thanks. Wwheaton ( talk) 15:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned the article doesn't fully balance tokamak and laser designs with due weight. Can someone take a look? FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
How about matter in the state of plasma ? This article explains nuclear fusion in the state of energy when the energy is plasma a different form of matter ...? True pete ( talk) 18:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I have editted this section as follows:
- Used more precise in discussion of renewables and sustainables. Fusion is not renewable, but is effectively indefinite energy source. I also fixed the link to the paper documenting this long life.
- I moved up the discussion about no greenhouse gases and dependable power, as I think these are stronger than the next couple of arguments.
- I simplified the discussion on fusion and economies of scale. Fusion power stations would be large and require sites with cooling water, at least with current technologies. This will also limit the number of optimal fusion power sites. I can see arguments both for and against fusion economies of scale relative to other options. I have left the point, but reduced the claim as I am not entirely convinced and it is not presently defended by references.
- The discussion on desalination is also challengable. It is hard to see that the probable lack of fresh water this century in much of the world could be solved by a very expensive energy source. And if indeed desalination was feasible with expensive energy, it is not obvious why that would be an advantage for fusion, and not for a variety of other energy sources. Also, the concept that the process used to extract the fusion fuel would itself provide useful amounts of water seems to me to be irrelevant. The energy released from the fusion fuel would provide much more desalination power than the small amount of water possibly associated with fuel extraction. Again I have left the main point for now, but reduced the amount of discussion.
- I think there are some other advantages that might be raised here, but I have not yet done so. E.g. large (industrial) amounts of power, possible high conversion efficiencies in advanced fusion concepts, and ultimately possible role is space travel.
Gierszep ( talk) 03:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Another aspect of fusion energy is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. The cost of water and wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy, the production cost will not increase much, even if large numbers of plants are built.
The article lacks mention of the japanese JT60 tokamak, which operation lead to some outstanding achievements. As given on the JT60 project homepage http://www-jt60.naka.jaea.go.jp/english/jt60/project/html/history.html this reactor has already achieved *more* fusion output power than consumed power (Q>1) since 1996. In the paragraph "Current Status" the article just states "Several fusion D-T burning tokamak test devices have been built (TFTR, JET), but these were not built to produce more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed." It should be corrected, since this phrase sort of suggests, that Q>1 was never reached. In fact Q>1 *was* reached, but due to the fact that the machines were not built for such high power removal from their structures (as the quoted sentence from the article nearly correctly states), it was only sustained for short periods of time in order not to damage the machines.
Could use updates including Focus Fusion and Polywell with respective sources (Focus Fusion webpage and recovery.gov - the latter is just a step away from a peer reviewed journal, as the funding would dry up if the project goals are not demonstrated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.3.28 ( talk) 17:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Wires array.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
This press release from Sept 2009, starts with: "Attention is given to a rather shocking new discovery: NUCLEAR ENERGY WITHOUT RADIOACTIVITY".
Is this a topic that should be added to this article ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 08:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Neutrons reflected into the plasma can be used up breeding Tritium from Lithium instead of activating the PFCs, the coolant or other materials behind. Does anyone know sources for materials and designs which achieve that kind of reflection, and about their efficiency?
Also, can radioactive isotopes be efficiently separated from non-radioactive isotopes in the aforementioned materials, limiting the amount of waste produced? Can these radioactive materials be in any way reused in the same facility, so that the don't need to leave the grounds and be deposited as waste.
Doomguy ( talk) 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
A lot of sourced material and associated citations seem to have been dropped from the article recently. On 24 December 2011 the article had 45 references (see [1]), but now the article has only 37 references ( [2]).
A particular concern is that several important references, which helped to bring some balance to the article, are now missing (See Scientific American and New Scientist).
What is going on? Johnfos ( talk) 20:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted the same question in the list of fusion experiments page, but...
Is there any particular reason why the multitude of LENR experiments (MIT, NASA, Osaka University, DARPA, Navy SPAWAR, (Navy) NRL, Andrea Rossi, etc) aren't even given mention here as an experiment?
Barwick ( talk) 13:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading recently about entropy and remembered reading once about how inefficient energy wise the fusion process is in the sun. Maybe I'm been a complete porridge head here as I'm not a scientist, but how is fusion as an net energy source not a violation of the second law thermodynamics. I understand with fission fuel the work was put in during the supernova implosion but I'm confused with regards to fusion fuel.
W66w66 ( talk) 19:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
These links have been added under "External links" four times now, once by Special:Contributions/75.61.203.110, twice by Special:Contributions/75.247.196.89, and once by Special:Contributions/75.208.86.211:
These links are a violation of a number of the content guidelines specified under WP:LINKSTOAVOID, in particular
and especially
The editor adding these links (presumably), left me this message at User talk:75.208.86.211:
I have reverted this edit twice, and will do so again, but it would be better if other editors were also involved. Art Carlson ( talk) 22:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm responding in the correct place and space, but in any case, I will grant you that the policy application is necessarily subjective. However, there are references within the article to peer reviewed, mainstream research regarding traditional tokamak fusion. So, that policy is not violated. As for factual inaccuracy, if you could point out some mistatement of facts it might advance the conversation since I can't find any, nor can hundreds of other readers. The part about blogs is surprising because I see links from wikipedia "all the time" to blogs. So, it isn't clear to me how that is being applied. But let me say this, if an article happens to be served up in the domain space of a blog, should that really disqualify it by itself? Finally, anyone who deletes links to this article without realizing what they are deleting is harming the advancement of research in fusion power. Not all research is published in traditional peer-reviewed material when corporate America is obssessed with trade secrets (and there is a reason why this was published in this manner). Furthermore, I cannot provide all of the information I would like to for the reader because I am under obligation of a non-disclosure agreement. I really think someone competent in the field of magnetic tokamak fusion should read the article and vet it as a peer review might do, because I believe you are making a mistake by deleting these links. I understand that you have a valid interest in maintaining site credibility but if you take this too far you are truncating knowledge in an unnatural and myopic manner. Thank you, Kir Komrik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.255.194 ( talk) 19:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I've shortened the paragraph below to one sentence. Suffers from recentism, no independent source and conjecture. I left one sentence sourced with the study... unsure of its validity and moreover its notability. - Roy Boy 02:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The first link was to the Ecat website where the claim is made. The second was to where it was third party tested. Here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:98.159.74.193&redirect=no) you wrote that "Wikipedia avoids giving coverage to new science / technology unless it is published in peer-reviewed journals and/or receives 3rd-party coverage." The third party test would go under the or. I would reccomend leaving the mention as you have changed it (not removing it completely) except with the addition of a cite to the Ecat website where readers can see where the claim is initially made and a mention within the one sentence to differentiate between the initial claim and the third party test. - User: 98.159.74.193
Hi Timpo,
People, this history section is a mess. I purpose we restructure it by date. If I am ambitious enough, I might even do it in 5 year increments. If something happened in 1966, then put it in the 1960 to 1950 decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper2134 ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok. It is a little better, but still a mess. Stuff can be consolidated. Also, doing it by date, moves this section into a "history" section and not a "this-is-how-it-works" section. I saw lots of physical mechanisms described. However, if it is in the history section, it ought to be a who, what and when, with a reference. This still needs more cleaning up, more references and more details. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
WikiHelper2134 (
talk •
contribs)
19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
In the 1990s section 4th line "systems, new laser designs (notably the NIKE laser at NRL)" the link on NRL is incorrect it should lead to this page
[3] Not sure how to do this officially. --
150.237.202.215 (
talk)
20:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a general mix between nuclei and atom in this article, the 'Mechanism' section is especially prone to this with phrases such as "To fuse atoms you must overcome the repulsive Coulomb force. This is an electrostatic force caused by two positive nuclei (containing protons) coming together". This is using the word atom in the 1950s popular science sense combined with the more appropriate word nuclei.
I think that most of the mentions of atoms in this article should be nuclei. It needs a initial clarification saying what the relation between the nucleus and a atom is maybe with a quick mention of ionisation states but it is a important distinction and should not be allowed to get messy. Mtpaley ( talk) 00:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of colloquial terminology on this page, but I don't know enough about the topic to be confident in my edits. I made some edits yesterday, but sections like the one quoted below strike me as though they were written by someone who either is not an expert in the field or by someone whose English is not particularly good.
"If the atoms hit head on, fusion is more likely. Cross sections for many different fusion
reactions were measured mainly in the 1970s using particle beams.[4] A beam of species A
was fired at species B at different speeds, and the amount of neutrons coming off was measured.
Neutrons are a key product of fusion reactions. These nuclei are flying around in a hot cloud,
with some distribution of velocities."
-- 68.15.61.2 ( talk) 01:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
WikiHelper2134 ( talk) 15:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
In the introduction, it is stated that the term "fusion power" is similar to the term "steam power", but then goes on to say that useful energy would likely be extracted by heating water to produce steam. Wouldn't a better analogue be a current source of heat for steam-turbine power generation, e.g. coal/oil/natural gas? The sentence is still useful, to draw a contrast with wind or hydroelectric power generation, which do not rely on heating their working fluid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.1.171 ( talk) 22:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
"This burst has many petawatt of energy." From the inertial confinement section.
Petawatts are a unit of power, not energy. It should be changed to petajoules of energy or something along the lines of the burst having a petawatt level of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.184.150 ( talk) 16:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw this article today and thought it might have something to include in the article: Lockheed Claims Breakthrough On Fusion Energy Project Morphh (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I had to remove the following from the lede of the nuclear fusion article (the one on theory), where it had been placed by an enthusiast who mistook that article for one on the history of controlled fusion, which is (instead) here. I'll park the material here, and perhaps somebody can figure out where it goes. It's related to Lockheed machine, in part. S B H arris 03:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
While ICF and Tokamak designs became popular in recent times, experiments with Stellarators are gaining international scientific attention again, like Wendelstein 7-X in Greifswald, Germany. Lockheed Martin is currently investigating a 100 MW reactor concept that should be sensibly smaller in size compared to a Tokamak. [4] The same manufacturer admits that the design of this smaller reactor is still at a very early stage, and to date no prototype has been built, although, according to the researchers behind this project, all the physics involved has already been proved. No technical detail of the new design has been published or revealed, bringing some skepticism about the real feasibility of such a reactor. [5]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
This definition on binding energy is really poorly worded. I went and got Azenti's text on fusion: According to Einstein’s mass–energy relationship, a nuclear reaction in which the total mass of the final products is smaller than that of the reacting nuclei is exothermic, that is, releases an energy proportional to such a mass difference. Here the symbol m denotes mass, the subscripts i and f indicate, respectively, the initial and the final products, and c is the speed of light.We can identify exothermic reactions by considering the masses and the binding energies of each of the involved nuclei. The mass m of a nucleus with atomic number Z and mass number Adiffers from the sum of the masses of the Z protons andA−Z neutrons, which build up the nucleus by a quantity
Here, M and n are the mass of the proton and of the neutron, respectively. For stable nuclei m is positive, and one has to provide an amount of energy equal to the binding energy in order to dissociate the nucleus into its component neutrons and protons. I am going to fix the wording.
Hello - Are we sure the worlds first fusion reaction was Ivy Mike? Did the Hiroshima bomb imitate fusion reactions? Also, I feel fairly confident on the first controlled fusion test being SCALYA I at LANL, however, there is a long history of pinch research, did any of these previous tests produce neutrons from fusion? WikiHelper2134 ( talk) 16:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
A IP wants to add the Nature report to the lede ( [3]). This is a tentative early finding and certainly does not belong there but the IP may be able to craft an edit that will stand elsewhere in the article. Guy ( Help!) 10:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Fusion power. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Under "History of Research" > "2010s", in the 4th paragraph, it says, "In August 2014, Phoenix Nuclear Labs announced the sale of a high-yield neutron generator. Costing on the order of a millions, this device could sustain 5×1011 deuterium fusion reactions per second over a 24-hour period."
Is this meaning to say that it's on the order of a million or on the order of millions?
There is a distinct difference, of course. – SarahTehCat ( talk) 18:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The units' cost is roughly 1 million... but it is unclear at the moment as the sales were kept private (as far as I know).
This article is overly detailed and requires too much specialized scientific knowledge to be useful to or easily understood by a layperson. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for scientific subjects under "What Wikipedia Is Not." The "Possible approaches," "Fuels," and "Magnetic confinement" sections are good examples of the problem. Please consider breaking off large sections of this article's specialized content into other articles to make it more accessible to everyday users. – Sadievico ( talk) 12:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
>>I disagree, I would point to the article for Frozen (2013 film). The article has TONS of details; and it about a Disney film. The Fusion Power article covers a diverse set of topics, is probably a more important topic and does not nearly have as many details. 2602:30A:C7C0:B940:21BB:F162:D6CB:E7D6 ( talk) 01:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, many aspects of this article do not follow WP guidelines. Too many speculative claims (often about things that have not happened yet) are supported by too few references. Mainstream views about current problems with the project are played down. Tags have been added which hopefully provide more guidance; please don't take them personally. Thanks, Johnfos ( talk) 02:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Which project? ITER? NIF? DIII? HIT-SI tokamak? Hyper? If a person wants to read about fusion power - they are already reading about a technology that does not exist yet. Hence - everything in this article is: work towards or current understanding of this idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.207.25.162 ( talk) 17:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Fusion power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fusion power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Jassby (2017), writing on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website, believes the case for fusion is poor. [1] Indeed, I think this article could do with a better treatment of the pros and cons, fors and againsts, for fusion. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 19:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fusion power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the lede of Rfc Plasma (physics) that might interest fusion power editors. Attic Salt ( talk) 13:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The article is also being considered for demotion from "good article" status: [4]. Please consider weighing in. Attic Salt ( talk) 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems a bit biased to only have an "Advantages" section and no "Disadvantages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:678:5D8:1000:D2E:BA00:E159:C244 ( talk) 08:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am having some trouble identifying the first fusion event. Near as I can figure this was the timeline:
1. August 1957 – ZETA (UK) records neutrons, initially thought to be fusion evidence, this proves incorrect. 2. Early 1958 – Scyalla I records first fusion event at Los Alamos. This was the first machine to get bulk fusion, other than a bomb. 3. End of 1958 – T1 starts operating at the Kurchatov Institute. Though Tokamak program had started earlier, no thermonuclear fusion nuetrons had been recorded.
Anyone dispute this? US was the first into bulk fusion?
Why are examples of discovering fusion in here? The 20's and 30's articles have nothing to do with fusion power, which is what this page is supposed to be about. Did some British guy put that in there to make him feel special?
D-T reaction redirects here, and I have just created D+T reaction based on it. However the section heading to which they redirect does not exist, presumably it has been changed or removed. It would be good to define an anchor where it used to be, assuming the content has not also been removed. Andrewa ( talk) 00:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@
Ita140188: I have no "intent to deceive". Before I added the {{
use mdy dates}}
template I checked the date formats used within the body of the article (not the source citations) There are seven dates the use MDY and zero that use DMY. A cursory scan of the refs showed no clear majority. I certainly was not going to search for the first person to insert a date. I would have gladly used {{
use dmy dates}}
but significant contributions have used MDY. I am happy you have access to a script that can reformat data and I have no problem it being used IF a decision had been made to change the date format.
I have found no guideline for "dmy dates for article of international scope (most widely used in the world)". -- User-duck ( talk) 10:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
How much tritium will be fused (and maybe bred) by say a 1GW fusion power plant - per annum ? Is it 1 kg, 1,000 kg, or more ? Article seems to give no hints. - Rod57 ( talk) 13:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain why this article has a "layout guidelines" issue? Layout for this article looks great to me.
-- Jeffxtreme ( talk) 21:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I just finished a copyedit of this piece, which after considerable trimming still runs 47 pages. Thinking it would make sense to split the history section off and merge it with [[Timeline of nuclear fusion]]. That would shorten this one, and properly source Timeline. A much shortened version of History would replace the split material. Lfstevens ( talk) 20:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
All done. In total, reduced the article from 53 to 23 pages. Over to you!
Entry for NIF 8/21 Fusion Power is given as 1.3 megajoules. Maybe I'm a little out of date, but last I knew power was dimensioned in watts, not joules ??? Admittedly it was a long time ago, but when I was in school I was taught that joules per second is not the same as joules ??? Somebody please let me know if I need to acquire new reference materials. Thanks much! Wikkileaker ( talk) 02:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
A sentence in Fusion_power#Accident_potential regarding meltdowns for fission reactors doesn't appear to reflect how several nuclear disasters are described in reputable sources. Here's the article text, with my emphasis in the last sentence:
A quick search for the term 'meltdown' in the Nuclear meltdown, Chernobyl disaster, and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster articles shows referenced article titles describing historical nuclear disasters as nuclear meltdowns. I don't think there is any question by mainstream scientists that these disasters involved core meltdowns, and there is nothing theoretical about the potential for a meltdown. Therefore, I'm changing the last sentence in the quoted text to:
LaTeeDa ( talk) 21:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This article speaks to the maximum fuel equation now thought to be improved: https://phys.org/news/2022-05-law-unchains-fusion-energy.html Billymac00 ( talk) 23:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This article mentions that the "fuel cycle requires the breeding of tritium from lithium using one of the following reactions:
(1/0)n + (6/3)Li → (3/1T) + (4/2)He
(1/0)n + (7/3)Li → (3/1)T + (4/2)He + (1/0)n"
What is missing is the explanation that every neutron produced is accompanied by the consumption of one tritium atom. Breeding more than one tritium atom per neutron on average is required for a fusion power production system to make up for neutrons that miss the target for breeding tritium and decay. The article needs an authoritative source that claims that the problem of breeding sufficient tritium to carry on electric power production is likely solvable and suggests how it is solved or an authoritative source claiming that a critical process for deuterium/tritium fusion is waiting for a definite solution. One or the other must be correct and leading people to believe that the development process is on the road to producing fusion electric power without addressing the question is irresponsible. Fartherred ( talk) 22:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Fusion has been achieved. Dec 5th 2022. 2in3 out. 2600:1013:B00C:16A7:BE:6E9E:25FA:2AE4 ( talk) 04:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The section /info/en/?search=Fusion_power#Deuterium,_tritium contains a link to the article on a fission breeder reactor ( /info/en/?search=Breeder_reactor). Since there does not seem to be a standalone article on breeder blankets for fusion, and the fission breeder reactor page doesn't discuss fusion, I suggest removing the link.
In addition, it would seem advisable to either add a dedicated section on breeder blankets, or to start a new article on the topic. At present, the word "breed" is mentioned just 13 times, and there is no discussion of, for example, molten fluoride salts being studied for breeder blankets. Linac1 ( talk) 16:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The article claims that D-D is appealing because it allows one to save on "scarce" lithium reserves. But lithium is 17ppm in the crust, compared to deuterium's 468ppb (1500ppm hydrogen and deuterium is 0.0312% of hydrogen by mass). How is lithium the one that is scarce?
First, I'd like to please ask that you try to remember to add your signature at the end of any talk page post. Otherwise, one cannot know who wrote it and when.
As for your post here, correct me if I'm wrong, but "ppm" and "ppb" here means "parts per million" andn "parts per billion", right? – SarahTehCat ( talk) 18:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hydrogen is not concentrated in the crust. It's concentrated in the ocean. Water is around 11% hydrogen by mass. A ton of water, then, would contain over 30 grams of deuterium, and there's certainly no shortage of water (the ocean has 1.4×1018 tons of water). Since deuterium is twice as heavy as protium, separating the two through chemical and mechanical means is not particularly difficult, either. – JohannSnow ( talk) 14:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Simple calculations show that a 1,000 MWe (2,500 MWth) plant, fueled exclusively on natural lithium in a breeder cycle (contrived to be sure, but useful for calculations) would consume about 0.94 kg of Li per day at full output. 343 kg a year, for a 1 gigawatt power plant. This is almost-nothing compared to the current and growing lithium consumption by the electric-vehicle industry. Each kg of Li ultimately produces 25,000,000 kWh (at 40% thermal to electrical efficiency) of energy. --GoatGuy 14:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGuy ( talk • contribs)
The economics section is misleading in that it compares budget fusion research vs other research for one EU agency. The overall effect is that it seems like fusion is getting disproportionate funding when research for other fuel sources are funded through other agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.141.204 ( talk) 08:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me as if there is probably an error in the "IFE and MFE parameter space.svg" figure here, as the DT gain contours look wrong. There are five contours (labeled 1e-5 to 0.1) with a claimed spacing of 10× to the lower left, and then three (labeled 10 to 1000) at the upper right, also spaced 10×, but the "DT gain"=1 contour is missing. If it were present between 0.1 and 10, the spacing for just that one contour would be about half all the others before and after, so I think the labeling must be incorrect. Can one of our experts check this? Thanks. Wwheaton ( talk) 15:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned the article doesn't fully balance tokamak and laser designs with due weight. Can someone take a look? FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
How about matter in the state of plasma ? This article explains nuclear fusion in the state of energy when the energy is plasma a different form of matter ...? True pete ( talk) 18:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I have editted this section as follows:
- Used more precise in discussion of renewables and sustainables. Fusion is not renewable, but is effectively indefinite energy source. I also fixed the link to the paper documenting this long life.
- I moved up the discussion about no greenhouse gases and dependable power, as I think these are stronger than the next couple of arguments.
- I simplified the discussion on fusion and economies of scale. Fusion power stations would be large and require sites with cooling water, at least with current technologies. This will also limit the number of optimal fusion power sites. I can see arguments both for and against fusion economies of scale relative to other options. I have left the point, but reduced the claim as I am not entirely convinced and it is not presently defended by references.
- The discussion on desalination is also challengable. It is hard to see that the probable lack of fresh water this century in much of the world could be solved by a very expensive energy source. And if indeed desalination was feasible with expensive energy, it is not obvious why that would be an advantage for fusion, and not for a variety of other energy sources. Also, the concept that the process used to extract the fusion fuel would itself provide useful amounts of water seems to me to be irrelevant. The energy released from the fusion fuel would provide much more desalination power than the small amount of water possibly associated with fuel extraction. Again I have left the main point for now, but reduced the amount of discussion.
- I think there are some other advantages that might be raised here, but I have not yet done so. E.g. large (industrial) amounts of power, possible high conversion efficiencies in advanced fusion concepts, and ultimately possible role is space travel.
Gierszep ( talk) 03:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Another aspect of fusion energy is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. The cost of water and wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy, the production cost will not increase much, even if large numbers of plants are built.
The article lacks mention of the japanese JT60 tokamak, which operation lead to some outstanding achievements. As given on the JT60 project homepage http://www-jt60.naka.jaea.go.jp/english/jt60/project/html/history.html this reactor has already achieved *more* fusion output power than consumed power (Q>1) since 1996. In the paragraph "Current Status" the article just states "Several fusion D-T burning tokamak test devices have been built (TFTR, JET), but these were not built to produce more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed." It should be corrected, since this phrase sort of suggests, that Q>1 was never reached. In fact Q>1 *was* reached, but due to the fact that the machines were not built for such high power removal from their structures (as the quoted sentence from the article nearly correctly states), it was only sustained for short periods of time in order not to damage the machines.
Could use updates including Focus Fusion and Polywell with respective sources (Focus Fusion webpage and recovery.gov - the latter is just a step away from a peer reviewed journal, as the funding would dry up if the project goals are not demonstrated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.3.28 ( talk) 17:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Wires array.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
This press release from Sept 2009, starts with: "Attention is given to a rather shocking new discovery: NUCLEAR ENERGY WITHOUT RADIOACTIVITY".
Is this a topic that should be added to this article ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 08:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Neutrons reflected into the plasma can be used up breeding Tritium from Lithium instead of activating the PFCs, the coolant or other materials behind. Does anyone know sources for materials and designs which achieve that kind of reflection, and about their efficiency?
Also, can radioactive isotopes be efficiently separated from non-radioactive isotopes in the aforementioned materials, limiting the amount of waste produced? Can these radioactive materials be in any way reused in the same facility, so that the don't need to leave the grounds and be deposited as waste.
Doomguy ( talk) 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
A lot of sourced material and associated citations seem to have been dropped from the article recently. On 24 December 2011 the article had 45 references (see [1]), but now the article has only 37 references ( [2]).
A particular concern is that several important references, which helped to bring some balance to the article, are now missing (See Scientific American and New Scientist).
What is going on? Johnfos ( talk) 20:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted the same question in the list of fusion experiments page, but...
Is there any particular reason why the multitude of LENR experiments (MIT, NASA, Osaka University, DARPA, Navy SPAWAR, (Navy) NRL, Andrea Rossi, etc) aren't even given mention here as an experiment?
Barwick ( talk) 13:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading recently about entropy and remembered reading once about how inefficient energy wise the fusion process is in the sun. Maybe I'm been a complete porridge head here as I'm not a scientist, but how is fusion as an net energy source not a violation of the second law thermodynamics. I understand with fission fuel the work was put in during the supernova implosion but I'm confused with regards to fusion fuel.
W66w66 ( talk) 19:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
These links have been added under "External links" four times now, once by Special:Contributions/75.61.203.110, twice by Special:Contributions/75.247.196.89, and once by Special:Contributions/75.208.86.211:
These links are a violation of a number of the content guidelines specified under WP:LINKSTOAVOID, in particular
and especially
The editor adding these links (presumably), left me this message at User talk:75.208.86.211:
I have reverted this edit twice, and will do so again, but it would be better if other editors were also involved. Art Carlson ( talk) 22:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm responding in the correct place and space, but in any case, I will grant you that the policy application is necessarily subjective. However, there are references within the article to peer reviewed, mainstream research regarding traditional tokamak fusion. So, that policy is not violated. As for factual inaccuracy, if you could point out some mistatement of facts it might advance the conversation since I can't find any, nor can hundreds of other readers. The part about blogs is surprising because I see links from wikipedia "all the time" to blogs. So, it isn't clear to me how that is being applied. But let me say this, if an article happens to be served up in the domain space of a blog, should that really disqualify it by itself? Finally, anyone who deletes links to this article without realizing what they are deleting is harming the advancement of research in fusion power. Not all research is published in traditional peer-reviewed material when corporate America is obssessed with trade secrets (and there is a reason why this was published in this manner). Furthermore, I cannot provide all of the information I would like to for the reader because I am under obligation of a non-disclosure agreement. I really think someone competent in the field of magnetic tokamak fusion should read the article and vet it as a peer review might do, because I believe you are making a mistake by deleting these links. I understand that you have a valid interest in maintaining site credibility but if you take this too far you are truncating knowledge in an unnatural and myopic manner. Thank you, Kir Komrik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.255.194 ( talk) 19:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I've shortened the paragraph below to one sentence. Suffers from recentism, no independent source and conjecture. I left one sentence sourced with the study... unsure of its validity and moreover its notability. - Roy Boy 02:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The first link was to the Ecat website where the claim is made. The second was to where it was third party tested. Here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:98.159.74.193&redirect=no) you wrote that "Wikipedia avoids giving coverage to new science / technology unless it is published in peer-reviewed journals and/or receives 3rd-party coverage." The third party test would go under the or. I would reccomend leaving the mention as you have changed it (not removing it completely) except with the addition of a cite to the Ecat website where readers can see where the claim is initially made and a mention within the one sentence to differentiate between the initial claim and the third party test. - User: 98.159.74.193
Hi Timpo,
People, this history section is a mess. I purpose we restructure it by date. If I am ambitious enough, I might even do it in 5 year increments. If something happened in 1966, then put it in the 1960 to 1950 decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper2134 ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok. It is a little better, but still a mess. Stuff can be consolidated. Also, doing it by date, moves this section into a "history" section and not a "this-is-how-it-works" section. I saw lots of physical mechanisms described. However, if it is in the history section, it ought to be a who, what and when, with a reference. This still needs more cleaning up, more references and more details. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
WikiHelper2134 (
talk •
contribs)
19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
In the 1990s section 4th line "systems, new laser designs (notably the NIKE laser at NRL)" the link on NRL is incorrect it should lead to this page
[3] Not sure how to do this officially. --
150.237.202.215 (
talk)
20:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a general mix between nuclei and atom in this article, the 'Mechanism' section is especially prone to this with phrases such as "To fuse atoms you must overcome the repulsive Coulomb force. This is an electrostatic force caused by two positive nuclei (containing protons) coming together". This is using the word atom in the 1950s popular science sense combined with the more appropriate word nuclei.
I think that most of the mentions of atoms in this article should be nuclei. It needs a initial clarification saying what the relation between the nucleus and a atom is maybe with a quick mention of ionisation states but it is a important distinction and should not be allowed to get messy. Mtpaley ( talk) 00:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of colloquial terminology on this page, but I don't know enough about the topic to be confident in my edits. I made some edits yesterday, but sections like the one quoted below strike me as though they were written by someone who either is not an expert in the field or by someone whose English is not particularly good.
"If the atoms hit head on, fusion is more likely. Cross sections for many different fusion
reactions were measured mainly in the 1970s using particle beams.[4] A beam of species A
was fired at species B at different speeds, and the amount of neutrons coming off was measured.
Neutrons are a key product of fusion reactions. These nuclei are flying around in a hot cloud,
with some distribution of velocities."
-- 68.15.61.2 ( talk) 01:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
WikiHelper2134 ( talk) 15:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
In the introduction, it is stated that the term "fusion power" is similar to the term "steam power", but then goes on to say that useful energy would likely be extracted by heating water to produce steam. Wouldn't a better analogue be a current source of heat for steam-turbine power generation, e.g. coal/oil/natural gas? The sentence is still useful, to draw a contrast with wind or hydroelectric power generation, which do not rely on heating their working fluid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.1.171 ( talk) 22:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
"This burst has many petawatt of energy." From the inertial confinement section.
Petawatts are a unit of power, not energy. It should be changed to petajoules of energy or something along the lines of the burst having a petawatt level of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.184.150 ( talk) 16:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw this article today and thought it might have something to include in the article: Lockheed Claims Breakthrough On Fusion Energy Project Morphh (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I had to remove the following from the lede of the nuclear fusion article (the one on theory), where it had been placed by an enthusiast who mistook that article for one on the history of controlled fusion, which is (instead) here. I'll park the material here, and perhaps somebody can figure out where it goes. It's related to Lockheed machine, in part. S B H arris 03:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
While ICF and Tokamak designs became popular in recent times, experiments with Stellarators are gaining international scientific attention again, like Wendelstein 7-X in Greifswald, Germany. Lockheed Martin is currently investigating a 100 MW reactor concept that should be sensibly smaller in size compared to a Tokamak. [4] The same manufacturer admits that the design of this smaller reactor is still at a very early stage, and to date no prototype has been built, although, according to the researchers behind this project, all the physics involved has already been proved. No technical detail of the new design has been published or revealed, bringing some skepticism about the real feasibility of such a reactor. [5]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
This definition on binding energy is really poorly worded. I went and got Azenti's text on fusion: According to Einstein’s mass–energy relationship, a nuclear reaction in which the total mass of the final products is smaller than that of the reacting nuclei is exothermic, that is, releases an energy proportional to such a mass difference. Here the symbol m denotes mass, the subscripts i and f indicate, respectively, the initial and the final products, and c is the speed of light.We can identify exothermic reactions by considering the masses and the binding energies of each of the involved nuclei. The mass m of a nucleus with atomic number Z and mass number Adiffers from the sum of the masses of the Z protons andA−Z neutrons, which build up the nucleus by a quantity
Here, M and n are the mass of the proton and of the neutron, respectively. For stable nuclei m is positive, and one has to provide an amount of energy equal to the binding energy in order to dissociate the nucleus into its component neutrons and protons. I am going to fix the wording.
Hello - Are we sure the worlds first fusion reaction was Ivy Mike? Did the Hiroshima bomb imitate fusion reactions? Also, I feel fairly confident on the first controlled fusion test being SCALYA I at LANL, however, there is a long history of pinch research, did any of these previous tests produce neutrons from fusion? WikiHelper2134 ( talk) 16:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
A IP wants to add the Nature report to the lede ( [3]). This is a tentative early finding and certainly does not belong there but the IP may be able to craft an edit that will stand elsewhere in the article. Guy ( Help!) 10:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Fusion power. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Under "History of Research" > "2010s", in the 4th paragraph, it says, "In August 2014, Phoenix Nuclear Labs announced the sale of a high-yield neutron generator. Costing on the order of a millions, this device could sustain 5×1011 deuterium fusion reactions per second over a 24-hour period."
Is this meaning to say that it's on the order of a million or on the order of millions?
There is a distinct difference, of course. – SarahTehCat ( talk) 18:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The units' cost is roughly 1 million... but it is unclear at the moment as the sales were kept private (as far as I know).
This article is overly detailed and requires too much specialized scientific knowledge to be useful to or easily understood by a layperson. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for scientific subjects under "What Wikipedia Is Not." The "Possible approaches," "Fuels," and "Magnetic confinement" sections are good examples of the problem. Please consider breaking off large sections of this article's specialized content into other articles to make it more accessible to everyday users. – Sadievico ( talk) 12:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
>>I disagree, I would point to the article for Frozen (2013 film). The article has TONS of details; and it about a Disney film. The Fusion Power article covers a diverse set of topics, is probably a more important topic and does not nearly have as many details. 2602:30A:C7C0:B940:21BB:F162:D6CB:E7D6 ( talk) 01:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, many aspects of this article do not follow WP guidelines. Too many speculative claims (often about things that have not happened yet) are supported by too few references. Mainstream views about current problems with the project are played down. Tags have been added which hopefully provide more guidance; please don't take them personally. Thanks, Johnfos ( talk) 02:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Which project? ITER? NIF? DIII? HIT-SI tokamak? Hyper? If a person wants to read about fusion power - they are already reading about a technology that does not exist yet. Hence - everything in this article is: work towards or current understanding of this idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.207.25.162 ( talk) 17:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Fusion power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fusion power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Jassby (2017), writing on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website, believes the case for fusion is poor. [1] Indeed, I think this article could do with a better treatment of the pros and cons, fors and againsts, for fusion. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 19:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fusion power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the lede of Rfc Plasma (physics) that might interest fusion power editors. Attic Salt ( talk) 13:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The article is also being considered for demotion from "good article" status: [4]. Please consider weighing in. Attic Salt ( talk) 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems a bit biased to only have an "Advantages" section and no "Disadvantages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:678:5D8:1000:D2E:BA00:E159:C244 ( talk) 08:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am having some trouble identifying the first fusion event. Near as I can figure this was the timeline:
1. August 1957 – ZETA (UK) records neutrons, initially thought to be fusion evidence, this proves incorrect. 2. Early 1958 – Scyalla I records first fusion event at Los Alamos. This was the first machine to get bulk fusion, other than a bomb. 3. End of 1958 – T1 starts operating at the Kurchatov Institute. Though Tokamak program had started earlier, no thermonuclear fusion nuetrons had been recorded.
Anyone dispute this? US was the first into bulk fusion?
Why are examples of discovering fusion in here? The 20's and 30's articles have nothing to do with fusion power, which is what this page is supposed to be about. Did some British guy put that in there to make him feel special?
D-T reaction redirects here, and I have just created D+T reaction based on it. However the section heading to which they redirect does not exist, presumably it has been changed or removed. It would be good to define an anchor where it used to be, assuming the content has not also been removed. Andrewa ( talk) 00:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@
Ita140188: I have no "intent to deceive". Before I added the {{
use mdy dates}}
template I checked the date formats used within the body of the article (not the source citations) There are seven dates the use MDY and zero that use DMY. A cursory scan of the refs showed no clear majority. I certainly was not going to search for the first person to insert a date. I would have gladly used {{
use dmy dates}}
but significant contributions have used MDY. I am happy you have access to a script that can reformat data and I have no problem it being used IF a decision had been made to change the date format.
I have found no guideline for "dmy dates for article of international scope (most widely used in the world)". -- User-duck ( talk) 10:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
How much tritium will be fused (and maybe bred) by say a 1GW fusion power plant - per annum ? Is it 1 kg, 1,000 kg, or more ? Article seems to give no hints. - Rod57 ( talk) 13:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain why this article has a "layout guidelines" issue? Layout for this article looks great to me.
-- Jeffxtreme ( talk) 21:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I just finished a copyedit of this piece, which after considerable trimming still runs 47 pages. Thinking it would make sense to split the history section off and merge it with [[Timeline of nuclear fusion]]. That would shorten this one, and properly source Timeline. A much shortened version of History would replace the split material. Lfstevens ( talk) 20:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
All done. In total, reduced the article from 53 to 23 pages. Over to you!
Entry for NIF 8/21 Fusion Power is given as 1.3 megajoules. Maybe I'm a little out of date, but last I knew power was dimensioned in watts, not joules ??? Admittedly it was a long time ago, but when I was in school I was taught that joules per second is not the same as joules ??? Somebody please let me know if I need to acquire new reference materials. Thanks much! Wikkileaker ( talk) 02:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
A sentence in Fusion_power#Accident_potential regarding meltdowns for fission reactors doesn't appear to reflect how several nuclear disasters are described in reputable sources. Here's the article text, with my emphasis in the last sentence:
A quick search for the term 'meltdown' in the Nuclear meltdown, Chernobyl disaster, and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster articles shows referenced article titles describing historical nuclear disasters as nuclear meltdowns. I don't think there is any question by mainstream scientists that these disasters involved core meltdowns, and there is nothing theoretical about the potential for a meltdown. Therefore, I'm changing the last sentence in the quoted text to:
LaTeeDa ( talk) 21:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This article speaks to the maximum fuel equation now thought to be improved: https://phys.org/news/2022-05-law-unchains-fusion-energy.html Billymac00 ( talk) 23:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This article mentions that the "fuel cycle requires the breeding of tritium from lithium using one of the following reactions:
(1/0)n + (6/3)Li → (3/1T) + (4/2)He
(1/0)n + (7/3)Li → (3/1)T + (4/2)He + (1/0)n"
What is missing is the explanation that every neutron produced is accompanied by the consumption of one tritium atom. Breeding more than one tritium atom per neutron on average is required for a fusion power production system to make up for neutrons that miss the target for breeding tritium and decay. The article needs an authoritative source that claims that the problem of breeding sufficient tritium to carry on electric power production is likely solvable and suggests how it is solved or an authoritative source claiming that a critical process for deuterium/tritium fusion is waiting for a definite solution. One or the other must be correct and leading people to believe that the development process is on the road to producing fusion electric power without addressing the question is irresponsible. Fartherred ( talk) 22:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Fusion has been achieved. Dec 5th 2022. 2in3 out. 2600:1013:B00C:16A7:BE:6E9E:25FA:2AE4 ( talk) 04:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The section /info/en/?search=Fusion_power#Deuterium,_tritium contains a link to the article on a fission breeder reactor ( /info/en/?search=Breeder_reactor). Since there does not seem to be a standalone article on breeder blankets for fusion, and the fission breeder reactor page doesn't discuss fusion, I suggest removing the link.
In addition, it would seem advisable to either add a dedicated section on breeder blankets, or to start a new article on the topic. At present, the word "breed" is mentioned just 13 times, and there is no discussion of, for example, molten fluoride salts being studied for breeder blankets. Linac1 ( talk) 16:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)