Talk:Fusion power/Archive 3

Dubious
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)

Economics
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)

Error in figure?
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)

Balance of article
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 15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Solved it, I think - review? FT2 (Talk 15:53, 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)

Advantages
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)


 * Your edits show a more neutral point of view, which is good. Concerning the advanatages that are not pointed out yet, what role may fusing power bring for space travel? A better and contained energy source? Some current unmanned missions use fission nuclear power for on-board systems. I even wonder if SMART-1 didn't use such a power source for its ion thrusters, more specifically its Hall effect thruster, Snecma's PPS-1350.
 * I have changed the "citation needed" flag to a "fact" flag for the following passage:
 * "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."
 * In fact, the point which is made here is not that some sites may or may not have as much water needed to cool the reactor (and some reactors don't even need water if I'm not mistaken) but more that wind turbines impact the actual wind, rendering the installation of wind turbines near other problematic, and idem for water energy plants which require a minimum of current to operate efficiently. In other words, you can build as many fusion plants as you want, the price of these plants shouldn't increase with regards to its location because the location just doesn't matter.
 * Xionbox₪ 06:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's more to economies of scale than just real estate and resource quality. You'll see a theoretical increase in price(especially early on) due to skilled labor shortages, according to the basic economic theories.  Nuclear engineers and technicians aren't cheap, and there are only so many.  If we're willing to accept original research as a basis for statements in the article, you'll be faced with the real problem that the inverse can be claimed just as easily.  Please keep the fact tag, as there's a reason WP:OR exists.  Truth or falsehood has little to do with it.   I also removed some of your change because of the tone and redundancy against the previous sentence.  i kan reed (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

JT60, Q>1
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.

Current Status updates please
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)


 * Scientists claim that power from nuclear fusion is just 30 years away. That's kind of a running joke. (They claimed this back about in 1960, and were still claiming the same in 1990.  I don't think they're so optimistic these days.)--71.38.171.80 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One of my lecturers said 50 years was the conventional wisdom, and that it had been when he was a student 40 years ago. Wwheaton (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

laser induced fusion energy
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)


 * No. Or rather, the topic is already covered. Look at the section Fusion_power, which links to Aneutronic_fusion. Furthermore, a press release is not generally a reliable source, there is no sign that anyone else is paying attention to this, and the accuracy of the content is questionable. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutron reflection and absorbtion; waste reduction
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?
 * Neutrons are hard to reflect.
 * You don't want lithium in your plasma because it will radiate away the energy.
 * The mean free path of neutrons in a fusion plasma must be millions of kilometers.
 * --Art Carlson (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Recent edits
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 ), but now the article has only 37 references.

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)


 * Have reverted edits by FT2, to restore sourced material and missing citations. Johnfos (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

LENR, etc?
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)


 * Bueller? Anybody?  If you don't have any opposition, I'll work on putting together a short writeup about LENR experiments.  Barwick (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Fusion as economic energy source
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)


 * It's the Big Bang. The universe started with essentially infinite temperature, i.e., zero entropy. For the most part, it remained in thermal equilibrium while it was expanding, including a soup of protons and neutrons. But that soup cooled down a bit too fast for all those particles to glob together into helium. Only 25% of them made it. The rest are left over as protons that would like to form helium, if someone would give them a second chance. Art Carlson (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The energy isn't coming from nowhere, it's coming from the matter being fused; note that there is an actual mass difference between the products pre-fusion and post. The difference in mass is what we get as energy. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's also meaningless to talk about the energy efficiency of the sun. Efficient at what?  Making light?  Making heat?  Emitting  charged particles?  In general energetic terms, it's absolutely 100% efficient, just like everything else in the universe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.14.50 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a serious point to be made: Einstein predicted that matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa. For matter to becomes energy, its atomic structure must be simplified or 'milked' (as in fission). To create a compound from two elements (say hydrogen and oxygen) a violent combustion (bang) occurs. To split water into its components, that same energy is absorbed (certainly in electrolysis maybe even (as up to now) in nuclear fusion reactors - ¿who knows?).


 * In the sun, combining four (elemental) hydrogen atoms into one helium atom may well absorb more power than the reaction produces (but, a there is lots of matter in the sun, ¿is this important?). Almost as big and energetic is the military secrecy issue that surrounds fusion research - may that perhaps indicate that the huge public investment in 'clean fusion' is bit like seeking the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow (an activity hardly unknown in human affairs as in The South Sea Company or, the rather more recent 2007 bust and its subsequent real estate bubbles for similar scams - but then, as a Pensioner, I have seen quite a few public confidence tricks, so ¿maybe I am legally entitled to have become a cynic as to the viability of this process?) Timpo (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first paragraph, I don't know what you are saying. In your second paragraph you claim there is Military secrecy around fusion. I take it then that you don't know about real fusion research nor do you know any fusion researchers. Please remember this isn't a WP:FORUM and posts should be about improving this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Kir Komrik links
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
 * Twenty-One Castle Mike Twenty-One Castle Mike by Kir Komrik under commission of [name withheld] Marine, LLC.
 * Twenty-One Castle Mike Diagrams Twenty-One Castle Mike diagrams by Kir Komrik under commission of [name withheld] Marine, LLC.
 * 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
 * 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

and especially
 * 11: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

The editor adding these links (presumably), left me this message at User talk:75.208.86.211:
 * Art -
 * I've read the policies here and there is no policy violation for these links, nor do I see why you denominated it a "crank" website. You are vandalizing legitimate links, please knock it off.

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)


 * I just removed these links again. I should make it clear that there are a number of reasons they should not be included, but the most straightforward one is point 11 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID: They link to personal web pages of a person who is neither recognized as an authority nor otherwise notable. Art Carlson (talk) 16:30, 5 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)


 * Yes, this is the correct place to respond, and thank you for doing so. Whether or not you think it is reasonable, the policy is that blogs are not considered to be a reliable source. If you think an exception should be made in this case, the burden of proof is on you to convince the other editors of that. The purpose of Wikipedia is to hold a summary of notable information from all branches of knowledge. Its job is not to advance the research of fusion power or to promote any particular ideas, no matter how good they are. If you want to include your ideas here, you must first attract significant attention to them on the outside. Once other people start writing about your ideas, then they can be discussed in this article. (I've tried twice to look at your article, but I got bogged down. It lacks a decent summary.) Art Carlson (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * :: Thank you for the response. Overall, I can only say, "fair enough". I will work on a better summary and wait until it percolates up in google. But I can tell you this, this is a real program funded by real serious money worked on by real physicists who are real convinced a major breakthrough has occurred that rests squarely on the considerable amounts of research previously in magnetohydrodymanics and tokamaks. Unfortunately, it is being researched by a very secretive industry. The sad truth is that gobs of money (literally billions) can be thrown on something like this privately when public projects like ITER get nothing by comparison. I am in a position to discuss some aspects in public and I will do that in hope of garnering the interest you referenced - kk Art Carlson (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.255.194 (talk)

Ecat mention
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. - RoyBoy 02:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * However, recent research into low energy nuclear reactions (cold fusion) has led to the creation of a device called the Ecat developed by Andrea Rossi. The Ecat has been independently tested and the results point to excess heat greater than can be described by chemical means. The mainstream media and scientific community still for the most part refuse to acknowledge that tests have taken place.

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/w/index.php?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


 * Ecat.com is a commercial website (selling a product), it cannot be associated with the Fusion article with notability in question. To clarify, a 3rd-party test isn't the same as 3rd-party coverage. By coverage, I mean a truly independent publication / organization verifies the technology and mechanism; equivalent to this would be peer-review of a 3rd-party test confirming the fusion reaction. After reviewing the 3rd party test, their conclusion clearly states an "unknown reaction" is at work. It does not confirm, or even hypothesize fusion is involved. Let us know the results of future tests, for now everything has to be removed. Sorry. I would love to see Ecat succeed, small sustainable reactors are very exciting. - RoyBoy 04:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This article in Forbes shows there is some coverage, however I just found the main E-Cat article, called Energy Catalyzer and the 3rd party test is extensively discussed Talk:Energy_Catalyzer. - RoyBoy 05:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, cold fusion only gets weight in this article because sources discuss cold fusion and fusion power together in a prominent way (WP:ONEWAY), mentioning the E-cat, a proposed device of undisclosed mechanism, in this article is undue, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Did Eddington really notice a discrepancy in solar mass?
Hi Timpo,
 * I noticed that at 13:42 hours on the 30th of July 2013 you added to the Fusion power page the statement: "However, [Arthur Eddington] detected a small (0.7%) difference in the actual solar mass compared to its theoretical value,..."


 * Could you supply a reference for that statement? - Fartherred (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Fartherred,
 * I heard it on a BBC science radio program which is no longer available. I have not been able to find a 'respectable journal' ref, but generally BBC material is well researched and a Duckduckgo search seems to confirm its validity. Are there any astrophysicists editing who could help? Timpo (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we will reach the facts before long. - Fartherred (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A helium atom is 0.7% less heavy than the four hydrogen atoms out of which it could be made by fusion. I think Timpo heard about this on the radio and thought the statement referred to the mass of the sun.  In any case there is no reference for the statement about a discrepancy in solar mass and Timpo admits a lack of technical knowledge in the area.  I think it is safest to delete the unsupported statement until someone comes up with a reference to support it.  - Fartherred (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization of history section by date
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 Not sure how to do this officially. --150.237.202.215 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. The link is now disambiguated. - Fartherred (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Atom / Nuclei
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)

Colloquial Terminology & Non-expert phrasing
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)


 * I originally wrote that section. It has been modified a little.  I could have used fancy words to say the same thing... but my focus has always been on simple words to explain complex stuff.  There is an equation to predict the fusion energy rate of a fully ionized gas bouncing around.  The text for this is Lyman J. Spitzers book: "The physics of fully ionized gases" but there is also a good explanation in the first chapter of Azenti's (sp?) book on ICF.  The equation is based on:  (1) the angle of impact (2) the fuel being fused (3) the relative velocity of impact (4) the energy released by the reaction.  This is for individual particles - but we tend see the equation written for a large cloud, where everything has to be averaged over the energy/velocity distribution.


 * The "Fusibility" is known as the cross section. It is specific for this nuclei hitting that nuclei.  Measuring cross sections was a major undertaking, and a import early step in fusion research.  I am not totally familiar with all the work that went into that.  I do know it was done with particle beams and I know that george miley did some of this work.


 * Velocity distributions do vary. People have models for different situations.  For example electrons in a beam, tend to have very tight distributions.  Beams come up in allot of places in fusion research, ions or electrons can be injected into some magnetic confinement field... people talk about distributions morphing from "beam" to "bell" or "maxwellian" to "Non-maxwellian".  At the end of the day, all these models blow when compared to real, actual, hard, data.  That is why I get skeptical with highly theoretical papers.


 * Bottom line: What is the problem with clear simple words? I think experts hide their ignorance behind terms. 

WikiHelper2134 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Introduction
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)

Unit Correction
"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)

Lockheed Claims Breakthrough On Fusion Energy Project
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)


 * It is definitely an appropriate addition to the article, as long as we don't hype it, or claim that it will work. I read articles in multiple major reliable sources yesterday, including Aviation Week, Scientific American, and Popular Mechanics -- so it will meet the General Notability Guideline.  N2e (talk) 21:09, 16 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 Harris 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. 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. ''

This definition of binding energy in the opening is messed up
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.

Verification of milestones
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)
 * IIRC the first nuclear bombs were not fusion boosted, but they were boosted before Ivy Mike. I will look for a source later. VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fission/Atomic weapons don't use fusion in their effects. It's all fission.2.101.150.35 (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Lance Tyrell
 * A hydrogen bomb certainly DOES use fusion to boost the fission process. Back to university for you.

Experiments reported in Nature
A IP wants to add the Nature report to the lede. 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Fusion power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141030210437/http://www.nywf64.com/genele08.shtml to http://www.nywf64.com/genele08.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121115112229/http://www-drfc.cea.fr/gb/cea/ts/ts.htm to http://www-drfc.cea.fr/gb/cea/ts/ts.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121004233022/http://www.pescadoo.net:80/malc/art-6.htm to http://www.pescadoo.net/malc/art-6.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100527093428/http://www.pppl.gov/polImage.cfm?doc_Id=603&size_code=Doc to http://www.pppl.gov/polImage.cfm?doc_Id=603&size_code=Doc
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for https://discover.com/issues/jan-06/features/physics/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/Appendix_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity Due to Typo
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).

Overly Detailed
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)


 * I think the article still has too much technical detail, often poorly sourced, and not enough about non-technical issues and general trends. In recent years there have been many quality articles in the journal Nature, covering some of these bigger issues, and it would be good to see them discussed and referred to more often in this article. Johnfos (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP guidelines need to be followed
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140517211657/http://www.hextek.com/applications-projects/los-alamos-national-labs%e2%80%a8aurora-laser-fusion-project/ to http://www.hextek.com/applications-projects/los-alamos-national-labs%E2%80%A8aurora-laser-fusion-project/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-drfc.cea.fr/gb/cea/ts/ts.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pescadoo.net/malc/art-6.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pppl.gov/polImage.cfm?doc_Id=603&size_code=Doc
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051106233627/http://www.sciencemag.org:80/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/index.shtml to http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/index.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130614011541/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/roundup-1123-ke.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/roundup-1123-ke.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140104170529/http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2009/03/dayintech_0323 to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2009/03/dayintech_0323

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111204111/https://uwaterloo.ca/science/magnet-talent-more-stories/dr-donna-strickland to https://uwaterloo.ca/science/magnet-talent-more-stories/dr-donna-strickland

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Critical assessment needed
Jassby (2017), writing on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website, believes the case for fusion is poor. 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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030210524/http://www.clhsonline.net/sciblog/index.php/2012/03/build-a-nuclear-fusion-reactor-no-problem/ to http://www.clhsonline.net/sciblog/index.php/2012/03/build-a-nuclear-fusion-reactor-no-problem/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: Plasma (physics)
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:. Please consider weighing in. Attic Salt (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Only Advantages?
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)

What Came First
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?


 * This may help you. "the world first heard about fusion power — not to be confused with the hydrogen bomb which doesn't really offer much in the way of useful energy — about 20 years ago when the media, including New Scientist, screened the tale of Zeta from the rooftops." This quote is from New Scientist, May 24, 1979, page 626. So, in terms of declassified fusion research, I think you are on track.


 * But as far as a "first event" that was “Proyecto Huemul" in 1951. See here: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2017/10/06/the-iter-power-amplification-myth/


 * StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Early examples of discovery
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 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)

MDY or DMY dates.
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)


 * Thank you for clarifying. What I mean is that MDY is the main format only in the Philippines and the United States (see Calendar_date). Since this article has a global scope and is likely read by a majority of people in countries that use DMY, it seems logical to me to use DMY. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How much tritium will be needed by say a 1GW fusion power plant
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)

Layout Guidelines: Discuss
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)


 * One thing (there may be more issues): dividing the history section by decade seems to me quite arbitrary and unclear. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah that totally makes sense. Will leave this question up for a bit; if that turns out the major issue in layout, I'll go ahead and move it to "History" to make to clearer to future contributors that we want to re-structure that section better. --Jeffxtreme (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't put the template there, but some sections are just bullet points with no introductory para (listing). IMHO, I think chronological is fine provided the article states what kind of tech pathway each company is using (ST, etc.). Johncdraper (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * History by decades seems fine. Its a large and growing section and decades makes it much easier to edit and keep organised, rather than trying to invent non-overlapping sub section themes. - Rod57 (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, I'm suggesting removing the template from Top. We can keep it for contested sections until we sort them out. Johncdraper (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC).


 * Ita140188 I don't agree with history by decades, and many other sections are out of context or unclear. One problem with the history by decade is that some sections are much longer than others, and in many cases the topic spans many decades. A decade-based sectioning is not the clearest way to write this information. Another example of a section that makes little sense to me is "common tools". What does common tools mean? What's the rationale for considering something a tool in the first place? Other sections, such as "material selection" are out of context, and it is unclear what they refer to. In conclusion, this article is a huge mess and needs to be completely rewritten. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this. I totally agree with you that this article is not yet ready for peer review to potential GA and requires further work. I support history by decades. I understand that there is a separate Timeline that does it by year and decade and so the article here could be improved thematically, i.e., Tokamaks over time, as I think you are suggesting. However, other main articles exist which do describe specific technology development over decades, e.g., the Tokamak page. I will try to work on the History. Common tools in sci-tech are literally common tools, though these days it also involves common code and simulations. I have tried to add a summary explanation with a citation for a Langmuir probe. I have also added an expanded intro to the Material selectio with key citations and retitled subheadings. Any other specific criticisms you could make would be welcome. Johncdraper (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * History by any sequence of non-overlapping date ranges seems ok. The ranges can be chosen for convenience, but also to break up periods with lots of events. Any technology development that extends over a long period, could have the detail in a separate section (prior perhaps to it being split out into its own article). - Rod57 (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Split/merge
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)


 * Thank you for all the work. I think that all the less-relevant details in the history section should be moved to Timeline of nuclear fusion. We should keep a summary of the history here. I added a template to check the section sizes of the article, and the History section alone is 66 kb, or a third of the article! On the other hand, the timeline article is only 40 kb in total. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is considerably improved, thank you. I see no problem with hiving off the timeline and merging it with Timeline of nuclear fusion. I do not have the time to do this myself, though. Johncdraper (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

All done. In total, reduced the article from 53 to 23 pages. Over to you!

Records:Domain:Fusion Power
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)

Historic meltdowns
A sentence in Fusion_power 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:
 * The same constraints prevent runaway reactions. Although the plasma is expected to have a volume of 1,000 m3 (35,000 cu ft) or more, the plasma typically contains only a few grams of fuel. By comparison, a fission reactor is typically loaded with enough fuel for months or years, and no additional fuel is necessary to continue the reaction. This large fuel supply is what offers the theoretical possibility of a meltdown (although no power reactor has ever done so). 

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:
 * By comparison, a fission reactor is typically loaded with enough fuel for months or years, and no additional fuel is necessary to continue the reaction. This large fuel supply is what offers the possibility of a meltdown.

LaTeeDa (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Max Fuel
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)

Tritium production
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)

All this information needs to be changed… as of Dec 5th 2022
Fusion has been achieved. Dec 5th 2022. 2in3 out. 2600:1013:B00C:16A7:BE:6E9E:25FA:2AE4 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure what information would need to be changed exactly. Fusion has been achieved a long time ago. This "milestone" from NIF is mostly a symbolic one, not sure why it has gained so much visibility in the media. The approach used by NIF (inertial confinement with lasers) is generally considered to be a dead end in terms of commercial fusion development. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but ICF is not generally considered a dead end. 8 startups are now chasing ICF and they have taken in over 275 million in funding.  So investors don't see this as a dead end. 74.69.121.158 (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Breeding: link to fission-specific page
The section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Deuterium,_tritium contains a link to the article on a fission breeder reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)


 * I added links to the existing page breeding blanket which covers this topic. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry I missed that page. Linac1 (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)