Talk:ITER

message: sorry for asking, i just wonder iter and tesla almost the same, just like old time energy using sun and heat. sorry afaik QuaMbear (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  new particle or a big bang theory 

message: Earlier today, I made nineteen modest edits to the "See also" section, where I added brief descriptions and links to a few major research efforts in the United States that were otherwise not referenced (e.g., MIT’s Alcator C-Mod reactor, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s National Spherical Torus Experiment, and the Helically Symmetric Experiment at the University of Wisconsin–Madison). I also expanded brief descriptions of the advanced tokamak of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, the stellarator of the Max Planck IPP in Germany, the UK’s concept for an affordable Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production, as well as the extraordinary statistics characterizing Nuclear power in France. I hope these expansions (and several others) meet with the approval of senior editors; I welcome any improvements.
However, a major impetus behind my edits today was empathy for Wikipedia users with slow internet connections — which I myself suffer sometimes, even as a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Merely having internal links without an informative description of what the reader will get if they hit on a link can be frustrating for those with poor interconnectivity, as this ties-up one’s computer unnecessarily to access an inadequately described Wikipedia page that’s ultimately not useful. Thus I added links with brief but informative descriptions, as well as expanded existing links, to better describe what they offer a reader. Theophilus Reed (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The informative descriptions are GREAT and useful, Thanks!  It is quicker to read an inline description than to click to read the article, no matter how fast your internet. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empathy for readers with poor internet connections 

message: The claim ITER is "...aimed at creating energy by replicating, on Earth, the fusion processes of the Sun" should be removed from the first paragraph because it is false. The Sun relies on fusion of "standard" hydrogen (sometimes called protium in context) - a fuel that really is cheap and limitless. No contemplated fusion facility on Earth, and certainly not ITER, relies on this physical process. All tokamak-type reactors rely on deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion, a significantly different physical process. This change is important because the "fusion processes of the Sun" falsehood helps propagate the more significant "cheap and limitless fuel" myth. I say "myth" because tritium is expensive and severely constrained, not cheap and limitless. As the concerned community confronts the reality of the worldwide tritium shortfall later in the 2020s and 2030s, it will become increasingly important to correctly describe the physical processes involved in order to reset understanding of the issue after decades of such falsehoods. This proposed change is a first step in that direction. For a less technical discussion of the issue, see https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started; for a more technical discussion, see https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/abbf35/pdf.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.194.99 (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not creating an account until now - I am "73.240.194.99", the creator of this paragraph. Pdxjjb (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, (and that Science.org source could be used for a statement in the article) but as in any summary or teaching of a subject, we start with generalities which may not be exactly accurate and then progress to the exceptions.  I've changed that to a hopefully more accurate statement.  Thanks for pointing this out. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove false claim from the first paragraph 

message: Article seemed to ignore the 2022 construction problems and effect on timescales - eg . - Rod57 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a brief mention in Manufacturing (using an older ref) - now also noted in Introduction and Timelines and status. - Rod57 (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seemed to ignore the 2022 construction problems and effect on timescales 

message: I wrote the whole comment in the title InterGraphenic (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs updating, many sections have "as of 2023", and claims about "by the end of the year"; a time that has already passed. 

message: Lerner is a well-known crackpot with a personal financial interest in dismissing ITER. I don't see a reason to give him a platform as primary source (!) in this article. Any objections to removing it? --mfb (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I support removing it, and also the following sentence, ("Other critics, such as Daniel Jassby, ...")sourced to an advocacy organization. ---Avatar317(talk) 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Lerner in criticism section