Template talk:Fusion power

PPPL versus reactor names

Thanks for the template! Unfortunately, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory isn't the name of any particular reactor, it's the name of a bunch of experimenters who have built several reactors including (but probably not limited to):

Princeton Large Torus PLT
Poloidal Diverter Experiment PDX
Tokomac Fusion Test Reactor TFTR

You may want to re-think the template a bit so that, in some hierarchy that you like, it can accommodate both groups and the reactors they've built/are building.

But this is a great start!

Atlant 22:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Low energy nuclear reaction" belong here?

Given its controversial nature, with most scientists not believing the alleged phenomenon occurs, should this be included in this template? From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."--Noren 22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it from the template. --Noren 23:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Here follows a summary table:

Magnetic confinement fusion	Magnetic fusion energy
Inertial confinement fusion	Inertial Fusion Energy

Which of these are notable? The top two articles both go to Magnetic fusion energy, but the bottom two apparantly merrit their own articles. I removed Inertial Fusion Energy from the template, as i felt it is already summed up in Inertial confinement fusion. I think only the two articles on the left should be included - Jak (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you about merging Magnetic confinement fusion and Inertial confinement fusion: these are two very different topics, using very different confinement physics and devices, leading to opposite plasma densities and temperatures; nevertheless, Magnetic confinement fusion should be significantly improved.
I don't understand the reason why you removed Inertial Fusion Energy from the template, as it's a different topic as Inertial confinement fusion.

Croquant 18:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think I made myself very clear. I haven't merged anything, I'm just talking about notability. The template is quite full already, and anything new should go under scrutiny. I feel the articles now in bold (above) should get links. Also, the top part of the template was ment only for general fusion topics, nothing confined to a particular method. How are "Inertial Fusion Energy" and "Inertial confinement fusion" different enough to both deserve links? - Jak (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Inertial Fusion Energy" to the template because there was already a link to Future energy development, which is equally related to power production. However, other entries being related to nuclear energy as a general topic, and not to power production, I agree that "Inertial Fusion Energy" has nothing to do here. As this is also true for "Future energy development", which furthermore deals with many other topics than nuclear energy, I'll remove this entry, and as a consequence the template will become lighter. Croquant 21:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]