Template talk:Fusion power

Physics Template‑class

	Physics portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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 apparently merit 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 - Jack (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 meant 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? - Jack (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 specifically 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]

Good call - Jack (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template simplification

Hi, anyone else think the list of fusion experiments is getting a little excessive? When I set about creating it, I only ever really intended that notable and/or current reactors were included. Some listed as of now seem to have only existed for a few years in the 70s, and didn't provide any significant results. - Jack (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fusor is ICF?

Is it right to say that fusors are part of the ICF scheme? I mean really, its only inertial at the individual particle collision level, there's no overall bulk fuel inertia as in the laser-pellet scheme....--Deglr6328 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, U of Wisc and many others use the term "inertial electrostatic confinement" which itself is used to encompass fusors so I guess its fine. --Deglr6328 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Inertial_confinement_fusion#Requested_Move — Omegatron 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative fusion concepts

Dr. Timothy E. Eastman's (NASA [1] and Plasma International [2]) has summarised a number of alternative fusion concepts, on his Perspectives Web site, here. Are they worth adding to the template? They include:

--Iantresman 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that it's worth adding the Spherical Torus (Spherical Tokamak) as the NSTX has been running for a while. There's a fair bit of info that could be written. 80.7.187.131 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should 'Polywell page be added?

The cold fusion stuff is here though heavily disputed and the Fusor is here though AFAIK nobody expects that exact design to generate power. So I think the Polywell concept should be in the list too. 86.16.135.53 10:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polywell and fusor are both types of inertial electrostatic confinement. Should every type be included? See also Talk:Inertial_confinement_fusion#Requested_Move. — Omegatron 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. IEC already links to that page. Its just one of Bussard's latest physics snow jobs anyway.--Deglr6328 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]