Talk:Fusion Industry Association

Citation for issues facing FIA
I feel duty bound to state that Dr. Jassby's letter to the APS-P that is cited in this article promotes misinformation. Here is a quote from the letter, which was written in April of 2019-"Numerous fusion “startups” promise a practical fusion reactor delivering net electric power in 5 to 10 years, but almost all have apparently never produced a single D-D fusion reaction. The currently most notorious (in alphabetical order) are General Fu-sion [3], Helion Energy"-

This is a PDF that was used by Helion Energy while giving an official presentation to ARPA-E as part of the 2018 ALPHA Annual Meeting on October 23 2018. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=site-page/2018-alpha-annual-meeting This clearly reports the production of D-D fusion neutrons in the course of their experiments. Using this letter as a source to impugn the credibility of FIA members when it itself contains factual inaccuracies that could have been resolved with a minimum of careful research seems completely counter to the stated goals of wikipedia. An alternate, hopefully peer-reviewed critique of some of its members would be perfectly acceptable to me-but this letter should be removed as a citation in light of its clear factual failings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8480:4F20:BD64:C069:5D67:F0B7 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you on the science. However, Jassby's letter, which you and I both understand employs a shotgun approach to criticism of fusion energy, is in an edited publication, and, in an attempted edit to this page (if you are the same person), you admit that you agree with some of Jassby's other points. The fusion power page already makes it clear that fusion produces neutrons, and lots of them. I suggest you A) make the point on the Helion Energy page, B) point out Jassby's error on this point in any edited or peer-reviewed publication, even at the level of a letter, brief comment, rebuttal, etc., as that would give me a secondary source to work with on this issue, or C) find me another secondary source that makes the same other points. There is one other alternative. You WP:Do it yourself, with my help. This is how. You write a short sweet sentence spelling it out. You post it here, with the link to a peer-reviewed source. I then create a 'Scientific footnote' to the Jassby citation. That could work. However, for the general public, the issue of neutron production by a commercial company is obscure. Jassby's other problems re credibility remain. To begin to address that, I would like to see a paragraph on this page about the relationship between the FIA and the ARPA-e Alpha, Bethe, and Gamow FIA recipients, and the DoE INFUSE, cost-sharing white paper, FESAC CPP LRP, the National Academies burning plasma report, etc. This would be fact-based, could include the ARPA-e criteria for recipients, etc., but must primarily rely on secondary sources. This might not address the specific point you raise, but it would make it clear the DoE is now getting serious re commercial fusion. The basic problem as I see it from the WP POV is structural - no clear explanation of how fusion science is evolving into fusion power via 'commercial fusion'. The fusion power page needs restructuring. That's why I wrote the FIA page in part. In fact, I know of a solid secondary source under review which lays all this out. But, maybe we could work on that together after you draft the scientific footnote. Johncdraper (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I will reach out to Helion energy itself for comment on this. Thank you for your time-I think we are on the same side on this issue.  And of course Dr. Jassby has a point-hypemongering in the fusion community is a real problem.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8480:4F20:BD64:C069:5D67:F0B7 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, hypermomgering is a real problem. Some of us in the fusion community are just trying to sift fact from fiction - the DoE ARPA-e program, National Academies Report, and now the FESAC CPP LRP are all working to do that - the Fusion Energy Base is also trying hard. The problem for me is twofold. One problem is this.

"This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations./wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability."
 * The specific phrase that the FIA article is stating is this: "and the credibility of some of its members." That there are challenges to some of the FIA's members credibility is incontrovertible. The citation is reliable on that general point in a credible edited publication, by a 50,000-strong Physics professional body, the American Physical Society. The second problem is that the FIA page must present a a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, i.e., one that includes criticism. I am grateful that you realize that I have really tried to help (WP:Civility). I have offered you multiple ways to address this within the WP protocols. Please note that we are on the same side - Truth. But, I can't rebut that one specific point in the Jassby APS Newsletter myself. TBH, the fusion power community does not need another Wikipedia editor to 'enter into the conversation' on hard, technical points. There are already editors who can do that on the Fusion power page. In that we both understand where fusion power may be going, what the fusion power community needs is an editor who understands the WP protocols, applies them, and explains how to move the conversation forwards in a structural manner on the 'soft' side. As you can see from my IEEE TEM article, that is basically what I am trying to do, on a rather larger scale than just Wikipedia. Frankly, I fear considerably on the 'soft side', especially as, as it now appears likely, coordinated DEMO-phase planning will collapse and/or split into multiple, potentially adversarial, national efforts, and I have edited the DEMO page to begin to record and reflect that fact. If the FIA can figure out a way to channel billions into its members' efforts, some real serious progress can indeed be made towards verifying fusion energy, leapfrogging ITER, and moving towards Fusion Pilot Plant prototypes, as the DoE FESAC LRP is beginning to envisage. The FIA approach will then come under increasing scrutiny, especially with regard to IPR, and the importance of the FIA page will increase. Jassby's communication will then lapse, as much greater IP-focused issues will come into play. Until then, I have outlined what I believe can be done on both your specific 'hard, technical point' on this page and, from the soft side (encyclopedias are, after all, a social science area), to better structure 'commercial fusion' on both this, and hopefully soon, on the fusion power page, in my first reply above. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I contacted Helion by email, and this is what they responded with "First D-D fusion neutron results were published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Nuclear Fusion in 2011.


 * "Slough, John, George Votroubek, and Chris Pihl. 'Creation of a high-temperature plasma through merging and compression of supersonic field reversed configuration plasmoids.' Nuclear Fusion 51.5 (2011): 053008' The abstract is accessible here-https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0029-5515/51/5/053008"


 * I will try to integrate this into Helion's article for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8480:4F20:BD64:C069:5D67:F0B7 (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now added a citation that refers to the credibility problem more generally as well as to the other issues facing the FIA and have removed the Jassby citation. Johncdraper (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)