Talk:Inertial confinement fusion

message: "If this is to be typical of the development of such systems, it is unlikely they will ever be a practical power source." - this comment sticks out in an otherwise excellent article as a piece of irrelevant opinion and should be deleted - Discuss! -Rich 00:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, it smacks of unnecessary editorializing but I do completely agree with the statement itself. It's reasonable. Anyway, I would not revert if you removed it. --Deglr6328 02:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The style is editorializing and I would like to see a source for the numbers. We have to know the original budget to know if it is now massively over budget., and it is important to know if the comparison is with an early estimate or the official budget at groundbreaking. Details belong in the article on the National Ignition Facility, which currently barely mentions the budget. I've sanitized it. --Art Carlson 09:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And on that note, I have re-written the NIF article. It contains complete details. BTW Art, I personally consider "one order of magnitude" to be a very reasonable definition of "massively"! Maury 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I thought flibe was LiF and BeF2 rather than just generic salts.  Does anyone know precisely?  Should it be a new article, FLiBe?
:flibe is just Li2BeF4    --Deglr6328 09:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Molten_salt_reactor#The_molten_salt_reactor_experiment says that it is 2LiF-BeF2.  Is this different or merely a notational change?  (I'm guessing that in a mixture of molten salts all the atoms are free anyway, so the two are identical, but when it solidifies perhaps they are different?)njh 23:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mr flibe 

message: Why is there no reference to the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics? It jas the OMEGA laser system there, where they carry out tests now, not years from now when the NIF of ITER will be finished/started.
:Perhaps because you haven't added it yet ;-)? Feel free to be bold and edit your information into the article!
:Atlant 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U of R

message: The article seems a bit inconsistent as to what constitutes ICF. The introduction defines ICF as involving lasers or heavy ion beams. Some of the article is written as though lasers are the only possible drivers, but there is a mention of Z-pinch and heavy ions as well. In the template an the bottom, 'Inertial confinement' has laser driven, z-pinch, and bubble fusion next to it. Does it only count as ICF if lasers or heavy ions are involved? Seems like Z-pinch driven hohlraums are very similar to laser driven hohlraums. And what about laser fast ignition of a fuel compressed by a Z-pinch? (Also, I second the idea that there should be an article on magnetised target fusion.) --Dashpool 12:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to clean this up a bit. Maury 12:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think a heavy ion irradiation facility has ever even been built. all the papers I've ever seen are theoretical or are plans for facilities that were never pursued..... --Deglr6328 05:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of ICF 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
# Support — Omegatron 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support — Omegatron 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: *Oppose From what I understand reviewing the articles and the discussion above, the current situation is sensible. If the article isn't clear that ICF is not necessarily laser-driven, that's something that can be solved without moving the article. The other articles have names that do not conflict so there's no need for disambiguation. –  Anþony  talk  01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: Although I'm hardly a fan of ratings, it seems a lot of people think they are important. So can anyone suggest a reason this isn't A or FA? It certainly meets every one of the criterion for the A rating, it's clear, well written and organized, has a great intro, is reasonable length given the topic, and well supported by "hard" sources. So how do we move this process along?  Maury 14:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA Nazis would argue that there need to be more sources. They believe that practically every sentence, and certainly every paragraph, should have a direct reference to a source, even if it is pretty obvious to someone who understands the topic. My only objection is that the history is alternatively inspecific and overspecific; i.e. there is no mention of Nuckolls, Wood, et al. and the 1972 Nature article, while at the same time we get a lot of technical details thrown at us which are not given much importance or context. --24.147.86.187 13:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: Can anyone qualified please add a section on the use of hybrid Fusion-Fission fuel pellets which rely on the excess of neutrons produced by the fusion process in the instantaneous conversion and fission of a depleted Uranium shell?  I have been hearing about this process, but I can't find any mention of it in this article or other articles which I have cross-referenced.  This should be the most appropriate article, since inertial confinement and fusion is key to the process.  The use of Uranium is a short cut to getting a net positive power output.  I realize that there may be some negative feelings, since the Holy Grail of fusion is the clean (radioactive by-product-free) generation of power.  On the bright side, at least the tiny size (and non-sustaining chain reaction) means that it has limited accident potential.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 00:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Fusion-Fission method. I went ahead and added a link to the site for the LIFE project at LLNL. That's  Laser Inertial-Confinement Fusion-Fission Energy. It's not pure ICF, but I thought it was interesting and I agree that it is sufficiently related to have some mention. Although it's not strictly fusion energy, it seems to me that it is an application for ICF. On that basis, I think it might deserve its own discussion section on this page. In any case, at this point I just put the link. --Pballen (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add section for Fusion-Fission method (fuel pellet using depleted Uranium shell)? 

message: IMHO, it is biased to refer to the NIF page and not to the LMJ one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMJ
I'll try to amend the article in that sense as soon as I find some time, unless somebody does it first :D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarmotteNZ (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to LMJ as well as NIF 

message: The description states 'sometimes called a microballon'. I believe this should read 'microballoon'. I would have just corrected it if i was certain, so can anyone confirm? Cameron McCormack (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description Under Fuel Microcapsule Picture 

message: The article's name is still too large for its subject. ICF should be a summary that points to more specific articles. Laser is a subset of beam which is a subset of inertial. Why is this hard to understand? Lfstevens (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above of Requested Move from January 2007.  The conclusion was that the name was fine as is.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly broad name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Inertial confinement fusion. 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/20090511175948/http://www.lle.rochester.edu/pub/progress/doe_apr02.pdf to http://www.lle.rochester.edu/pub/progress/doe_apr02.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090511180008/http://www.lle.rochester.edu/pub/progress/MarDOE06.pdf to http://www.lle.rochester.edu/pub/progress/MarDOE06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090117115440/http://www.sandia.gov/pulsedpower/prog_cap/pub_papers/010607a.pdf to http://www.sandia.gov/pulsedpower/prog_cap/pub_papers/010607a.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080309102658/http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/7_2Jones.pdf to http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/7_2Jones.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Inertial confinement fusion. 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/20130510084815/http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/cpep/chart_pages/3.HowFusionWorks.html to http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/cpep/chart_pages/3.HowFusionWorks.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040329191800/http://zpinch.sandia.gov/ to http://zpinch.sandia.gov/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109102133/http://other.nrl.navy.mil/LaserFusionEnergy/ to http://other.nrl.navy.mil/LaserFusionEnergy/
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) 17:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Inertial confinement fusion. 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/20100527171341/https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2010/NR-10-01-06.html to https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2010/NR-10-01-06.html
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) 05:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The article says "The implosion process must be extremely uniform ... For a beam energy of 1 mJ, the fuel capsule cannot be larger than about 2 mm ..."
Is this correct? Beam energy of 1 mJ? Did the author mean 1 MJ? Discostu5 (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max fuel capsule size to avoid RT instability? 

message: The section says, "These X-rays are absorbed by a special material surrounding the secondary stage, which consists mostly of the fusion fuel. The X-rays heat this material and cause it to explode."  I read the "special material" to be the polystyrene that's typically used in the radiation channel.  If this is a correct interpretation; this becomes a plasma and is transparent to X-rays meaning that the secondary is directly compressed by X-ray pressure not by explosion of the "special material".   Certainly the cited source seems to indicate this: "As the radiation channel approaches this temperature the foam will become completely ionized and nearly transparent to thermal radiation"   Am I incorrect?
NBeddoe (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of X-ray compression under the Thermonuclear Devices Section is incorrect I think. 

message: Why are there two sections on fast ignition? They both seem to be poorly sourced as well.   Guthrette (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Fast ignition Sections?