Talk:TAE Technologies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlexKjhu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the merging of compact toroids as a FRC and the competition with Helion Energy[edit]

I reverted a possible vandalism (or lack of understanding or reading through provided references?) by anonymous IP 156.39.127.195 that deleted information though this information was provided with peer-reviewed material as references. Just read the documents in the links, especially this one, explaining TAE is indeed pursuing the merging at high speed of two compact toroids in an FRC, as an improvement over their previous work consisting of just creating and heating a FRC:

A Well-Confined Field-Reversed Configuration Plasma Formed by Dynamic Merging of Two Colliding Compact Toroids in C-2, Tri Alpha Energy team (ICC 2011):
http://www.iccworkshops.org/icc2011/uploads/241/icc2011_gota_talk_8_16_11.pdf

I consequently improved the explanation in the CBFR section that maybe disturbed anonymous IP before.

BTW in this regard the work done at Helion Energy is exactly the same, and is explained in layman terms supported by copious scientific references. You can't delete the whole section as if competition didn't exist.

If you disagree with the information: 1/ maybe log in wikipedia with a user name we can talk with, and 2/ express your view on this Talk page. Then we could improve the article. Thanks. Tokamac (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"maybe log in wikipedia with a user name we can talk with" Now, now... Let's remember WP:HUMAN
Vontheri (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the claim of good stability of FRC[edit]

I have tagged the claim of good stability of the FRC configuration as dubious. It is written in the article that "The FRC is less prone to magnetohydrodynamic and plasma instabilities than other magnetic confinement fusion methods.". This claim is, to say the least, very dubious. The provided references do not seem to provide evidence for this either.

I am not a specialist of FRC configuration, but if, so far, Tri-Alpha Energy plasmas have been limited in time to less than 1 ms (until a recent improvement in 2015), it is because the FRC is prone to a violent and robust ideal instability. "Other magnetic confinement fusion methods" surely refers to tokamaks and stellarators. Among other instabilities, the tokamak displays a strong instability called disruption. The plasma can often be operated in a regime where it is more or less stable, so that it is usually not a problem to perform pulses lasting several dozens or hundreds of seconds without major magnetohydrodynamic instability ripping the configuration. Stellarators are intrisically more stable than tokamaks and discharges of almost one hour have been reported in the Large Helical Device for instance.

This said, I recognize that recently the magnetohydrodynamic stability of the FRC has been significantly improved thanks to the careful set up of beams, arguably to the point where other sources of transport such as classical transport and turbulence become dominant.

Criticism section[edit]

In looking at the Criticism section as it exists today, it seems completely unconnected in the original sources to the company that is the topic of this particular article, Tri-Alpha Energy. Am I missing something?

As it is, it appears to be quite valid cirticism, especially in an historical context, of particular nuclear fusion technology(ies?), but it is unclear why it warrants such extensive explication in this article. Perhaps rewrite and summarize for this article? Or remove altogether to some other place on Wikipedia where the pros and cons of various proposed and theoretical approaches are discussed? Or something else. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tri Alpha Energy, Inc.. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the redirect from MSNW[edit]

I reached this page via a redirect from MSNW, which (as far as I can see) isn't mentioned on this page and may not be related to it. I've gone into more detail on talk:MSNW - if you have an opinion about that redirect, or can shed light on the company, please consider replying on that page. Thanks. Pastychomper (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 November 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I see agreement below not to move this page just yet. This decision is made without prejudice toward a near-future requested move when the new company name becomes better sourced. Happy Holidays to all! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tri Alpha Energy → TAE Technologies – the company has renamed itself https://tae.com/ 110.93.236.75 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 02:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisted.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- AlexTW 02:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist comment. Following is another quoted rule from WP:MOSTM: "Using all-caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't (or no longer) stand for anything."  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the WP:MOSTM it should be Tae not TAE.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. The company styles it's name as "TAE" not "Tae" so shouldn't it be named as such? What does the Wikipedia Manual of Style say? --110.93.236.75 (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find anything in the Manual of Style that would require "Tae" instead of "TAE." --110.93.236.75 (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here is the relevant section Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: (But see exception below under § Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.)--67.68.21.146 (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I assume that TAE is the initials of Tri Alpha Energy, ie the company is abbreviating its old name within the new name, rather than inventing a new name from scratch. In that case the standard English practice would be to capitalise the whole thing. Pastychomper (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • The website shows "tae". So maybe they mean to get away from initials? Anyway, it's too soon to change. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending evidence of use in external sources. James (talk/contribs) 15:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – we wait for secondary sources to pick it up first. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The website shows "tae".": people and firms choose many ways of stylizing their company names and tradenames. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Update 2018[edit]

They are reporting progress with their 'Norman' device. Feb 2018 "Just as the C-2U machine met the “Long Enough” standard, the Norman machine is making progress on the “Hot Enough” standard. After 4,000 experiments, TAE said the temperature of Norman’s plasma has reached a high of nearly 20 million degrees Celsius (35.5 million degrees Fahrenheit). That’s almost twice as hot as C-2U’s top temperature,..." - Rod57 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logo revert?[edit]

File:TAE Tech logo.png

Irrationally reverted. Past Bedtime [no sleep] 16:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Past Bedtime. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 17:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heat issues[edit]

Quote: "TAE Technologies plans to use the p-11B reaction in their commercial FRC for safety reasons and because the energy conversion systems are simpler and smaller: since no neutron is released, thermal conversion is unnecessary, hence no heat exchanger or steam turbine."

I initially misread this to TAE's advantage. Even though energy is harvested without thermal conversion, that doesn't mean cooling is unnecessary, nor that thermal conversion is useless.

With the temperatures and power TAE are aiming for, it is remarkable that this article omits mentioning potential heat issues. Neither of the words "material", "cold" and "cool" appear in the text, and apart from the quote above, "heat" is mentioned only as a necessity. Elias (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finch (film)[edit]

Should we mention that TAE Technologies features in the 2021 film Finch? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TAE_Technologies&oldid=1210611297"