Template talk:Fusion power

message: Thanks for the template! Unfortunately, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory isn't the name of any particular reactor, it's the name of a bunch of experimenters who have built several reactors including (but probably not limited to):
* Princeton Large Torus PLT
* Poloidal Diverter Experiment PDX
* Tokomac Fusion Test Reactor TFTR
You may want to re-think the template a bit so that, in some hierarchy that you like, it can accommodate both groups and the reactors they've built/are building.
But this is a great start!
Atlant 22:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPPL versus reactor names 

message: Given its controversial nature, with most scientists not believing the alleged phenomenon occurs, should this be included in this template?  From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."--Noren 22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing it from the template. --Noren 23:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does "Low energy nuclear reaction" belong here? 

message: Hi, anyone else think the list of fusion experiments is getting a little excessive? When I set about creating it, I only ever really intended that notable and/or current reactors were included. Some listed as of now seem to have only existed for a few years in the 70s, and didn't provide any significant results. - Jack (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template simplification

message: Is it right to say that fusors are part of the ICF scheme? I mean really, its only inertial at the individual particle collision level, there's no overall bulk fuel inertia as in the laser-pellet scheme....--Deglr6328 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Inertial_confinement_fusion#Requested_Move — Omegatron 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fusor is ICF?

message: Dr. Timothy E. Eastman's (NASA  and Plasma International ) has summarised a number of alternative fusion concepts, on his Perspectives Web site, here. Are they worth adding to the template? They include:
*Colliding beam fusion
*Electric tokamak
*Floating multipole
*Focus Fusion (Dense plasma focus)
*Heavy ion fusion HIF
*Inertial electrostatic confinement
*Inertial Fusion Energy IFE
*Matter-antimatter systems
*Reversed field pinch RFP
*Reversed field configuration FRC
*Spheromak
*Stellarator
*Spherical torus ST
*Magnetized target fusion MTF
*Tandem mirror
*Z-pinch--Iantresman 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that it's worth adding the Spherical Torus (Spherical Tokamak) as the NSTX has been running for a while. There's a fair bit of info that could be written. 80.7.187.131 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative fusion concepts

message: The cold fusion stuff is here though heavily disputed and the Fusor is here though AFAIK nobody expects  that exact design to generate power. So I think the Polywell concept should be in the list too. 86.16.135.53 10:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Polywell and fusor are both types of inertial electrostatic confinement.  Should every type be included?  See also Talk:Inertial_confinement_fusion#Requested_Move. — Omegatron 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No. IEC already links to that page. Its just one of Bussard's latest physics snow jobs anyway.--Deglr6328 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should 'Polywell page be added? 

message: The CNT facility is located at Columbia University in the USA. It is incorrectly labelled with the flag of the Republic of Colombia. 
– 181.66.165.246 (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNT - wrong flag 

message: DT fusion is the principal fusion reaction for most fusion reactors. Should it be in this template? Sungodtemple (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deuterium-Tritium fusion 

message: Should we not include in the template Project Sherwood. It was the seminal effort in the 1950s by the U.S. Recall at that time there was no DOE, just the Atomic Energy Commission. Since the termination of Sherwood, fusion power projects seem to have been separate efforts at the various laboratories and universities. Sherwood was where the stellarator was conceived/invented, and that researchers first learned about plasma instabilities that proved that controlled fusion would not be so easy to attain as first thought. Wikkileaker (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Sherwood