Talk:Tokamak

message: What is the plan for extracting the energy generated from fusion in these devices? Will it be used to heat water, or what? A5 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the basic idea is to heat water. See Fusion_power#Subsystems for a bit more detail. - mako 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is the strong possibility of using magnetohydrodynamics to generate electricity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.36.177 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power generation 

message: Should there be a reference to the Hairy ball theorem? --Bkkbrad 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. There was a paragraph on it up till this edit last December. Nobody objected to removing it at the time, probably because the theorem and its significance were poorly and maybe incorrectly explained. If you want to return it, be my guest, but please make an effort to make it understandable to the lay reader. --Art Carlson 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shape 

message: Photos of the Toruses being used in fusion research bring to mind the path of the center of a star orbited by a planet.  The sun moves around the barycenter of the solar system, which is the actual center of mass of the solar system, and often this is outside
the Sun's surface.  Even Earth, orbiting the Sun, moves the sun just as do all other planets, with Jupiter being the main cause of
the shift of the barycenter.  Motion like this is used in the discovery of extrasolar planets found with Doppler shift in the spectra of many other stars.  The center of gravity of the Sun alone moves in a torus around the barycenter.  
Is that motion of the sun caused the planets taken into formal account in present day fusion theory and chamber design?
The Earth is the specific object, because it is and contains ourselves and our research and thinking, influencing us subjectively.  Earth is the place from which we view the Sun year after year.  Other planets and moons go out of phase quickly.  But the Sun's
motion in a torus is also to be scrutinized.
From the subjective view Earth, which moves --  The center of the Universe, or the center of the Sun?
The 'center of the universe' is equated since antiquity with what was always thought to be a firmament, the unmovable.  
Whether or not this has any secular equivalent is debatable but since antiquity, ideas of the unmoving immovable something exist in Hindu mythology (Brahman) and other mythologies which use images like Trees, for instance, to represent the unmovable.  It was called by some the Eternally Moving Unmoved Mover, and other grand, inflated phrases.
Of course, relative velocities of the Earth, Moon, and Sun are already well known with high accuracy and the motion of the Milky Way is estimated fairly closely.  In other words, are established ancient concepts confusing modern thought?
By trying to create the universe, is any confusion caused by not accounting the motion of the Sun?
A hot fiery gaseous center moving in a circle makes a good constructionist goal image...
It would be good to have competent discussion carefully determine any possible remaining confusion, or a merciful professional describe the solution that was used.  Fusion success might be more quickly attained, though it is certainly already very substantial.
SyntheticET 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accounting motion of the Sun caused by Earth 

message: But in 'Ohmic Heating' should the 20-30 million degrees Celsius but changed to Kelvin or converted to eV? Celsius is a bit obsolete in the scientific community right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.138.110 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about a difference of 273 degrees on a scale where the temperature is 25 million plus or minus 5.0 million degrees. The 273 degrees fades into vanishingly-small insignificance and can be ignored. Engineers, chemists, and biologists use Celsius temperatures all the time - but we know when to make the conversion between Celsius and Kelvin whenever it is important - smart! In so many applications, what is important is the difference between two temperatures, and not what the absolute temperature is. For example, in calculating the energy that is released by a certain chemical reaction. 74.163.36.177 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unimportant 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I had to watch the Science channel to learn that the Tokamak only operates for 30 seconds because the magnets field is not strong enough.  They explained the european version will have supermagnets which will keep the plasma away from the walls of the tokamak  longer.
Where is this mentioned in this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Tokamak news section needed 

message: Has anyone considered intermittent Laser Ignition of Deuterium-Tritium witin the Torus in order to maintain continuous operation of the plasma field? The DT and the lasers can be ignited as needed to maintain a continuous and stable plasma field. I have this concept as a combination of the US inertial laser system and the Torus approach. Calculations need to be done, but it seems the strong magnetic field of the Torus could also be used for focusing the Laser beams on the DT when needed...ie, when the plasma begins to show signs of fading towards extinguishment. Obviously this must be done with adjusting mirrors and Laser amplification when needed. The magnetic field already required to maintain the Torus seems capable of matching the energy input used at Lawrence-Livermore for DT ignition, superficially at least, but surely someone can run the numbers.  Shaping the Laser charge and the US use of reflective Holraums for inertial ignition are issues that must be addressed and modified to suit the Torus.But I see no reason these problems cannot be overcome as the energy output at Lawrence Livermore now exceeds the energy input, thus there should be sufficient energy to mirror-focus and shape the Laser shots "on the run" directly onto the cryogenic DT capsules as they are dropped into the Torus as needed. Essentially what I am asking is.....Can both the Laser Photons and the DT caps be aligned for instant ignition within the Torus as needed to "maintain the flame". Can the energy being used to maintain the Torus be partially redirected to the Laser system as the plasma field fades, then be used to get off a DT shot, and then be redirected back to the Torus maintenance system within nanoseconds?
Am I crazy for suggesting this?
Feedback from qualified PhD's are appreciated.
PS: ITER is using a Berylium compound as its inner surface wall, not ceramics.LaserPhoton (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See no 22 below for PDF info. - keoka 00:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia Talk pages are not the place to suggest new physics experiments. Try some Physics forums ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: An idea:intermittent Laser Ignition of Deuterium-Tritium within the Torus

message: Tokamak  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.155.8 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tokamak  

message: If no objections - I'll try to do it one day. - Rod57 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we archive everything above here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

message: The article says that 1987 saw the first demonstration of alternating current in a tokamak. Is it correct that the tokamaks since then all use an AC plasma current? I assume that this AC plasma current is induced by an alternating magnetic field, using the principle of a transformer. How did the tokamaks prior to 1987 generate a DC plasma current? AxelBoldt (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "no 22" ? If you mean a section below it would be easier to find if you give the section title. I'm guessing it's More info on Tokamak. - Rod57 (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternating current? 

message: Under "Tokomak Cooling" I cite:
"A cryogenic system is used to prevent heat loss from the superconducting magnets."
Should this have read instead: "A cryogenic system is used to prevent heat absorption by the superconducting magnets."  Or more simply to cool the etc.
More knowledgable please answer. Idealist707 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nit picking? 

message: The phenomenon of major disruptions in Tokamaks is definitely real, but the paragraph discussing not only feels out of place, but is distinctly not NPV. Hpa (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - needs work. Not clear if it is talking about Edge-localized modes or something else. - Rod57 (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major disruption 

message: Improper wording leads to ambiguity which leads to misunderstanding of the text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangirke (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing 

message: From the paper listed as note 7, it states on the first page "The consequences of a disruption in ITER include a divertor power load of between 10 and 100 GWm-2, which limits the lifetime of the plasma facing components (PFCs)." This comes from another paper which states "The surface-damage potential of interaction of a multi-MA runaway current with localized portions of the at-risk PFC surfaces leads to serious concerns about the high levels of runaway conversion following naturally occurring disruption and intentional ‘fast-shutdown’ actions, intended to ameliorate disruptions." This seems to indicate that the claims are well-founded.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.59.10 (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We now have Edge-localized mode which describes the instabilities, and how they are being controlled/mitigated. - Rod57 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major disruptions would definitely damage the ITER chamber 

message: How Fritz Wagner "discovered" the H-Mode makes it sound important. "H-mode is what "makes the goals of fusion possible." All tokamaks today are designed to operate in H-Mode and without it, ITER would have needed to be twice as large and, consequently, twice as expensive." Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article ? - Rod57 (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's also possible in stellarators I've started a stub for high-confinement mode (H-mode) - and linked to it. - Rod57 (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of H-mode 

message: I've added an external link to the Observer/Guardian newspaper which has an informative and illustrated article on a Tokamak being built in France.
keoka 21:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added External link to Observer newspaper 

message: In response to  "Questions for the article:"  and  "Current Tokamak news section needed"  sections above, I think we need a header in the main article for updates rather than rewrite the article which hasn't happened in years and I'm not going to take that on. I'll go through the following PDF's I've found which answer quite a few questions like pulsed or continuous, but for a start, here are two PDF links:
  http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/csp_008c/pdf/pdp_7.pdf
  http://iopscience.iop.org/0029-5515/43/9/303/pdf/0029-5515_43_9_303.pdf
so if anyone else wants to answer the various queries - have a go.
Here are some more links and info repeated from above:
 
The most powerful Tokomak so far produces a very short pulse which is triggered from the very high current in the windings around the toroid.  
These pulses produce plasma which in turn induces a high current around the toroid, but not strong enough to initiate fusion so far. 
  http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/t/tokamak.htm
  http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/i/iter.htm
  
The aim in the next 10 years is to make the plasma pulse strong enough that it will maintain itself and produce huge quantities of energy continuously from a very small feed of hydrogen and tritium. 
keoka 00:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info on Tokamak 

message: This article does not include the "oscillating Tokamak" model and it's statistics. In that version, the magnets are generating a vibrating field at very high frequencies, but always controlled - inside the nominal levels. The huge magnets never oscillate, only the field they create. It has no effect if the oscillation is at low frequencies. It causes no heat loss if well designed - it might even increace the temperature. It works better on huge Tokamaks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.216.225 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We need some sources. - Rod57 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscillating Tokamak 

message: Article isn't clear what a tokamak is and how it differs from a stellarator, and its essential characteristics - eg pulsed operation ? Needs something on how it operates - are the toroidal and poloidal coil currents increased together at a constant rate - then maintained at max level until plasma disperses ? Graphic suggests toroidal coil currents are constant and the poloidal coil currents are pulsed which induces a plasma current which increases the poloidal field ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is different about tokamak 

message: Maybe based on plasma shape, extending plasma duration with non-inductive current drive ... ? Could start with a section here - later maybe split out ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it imply using bootstrap currents 2013 for non-inductive (and longer) pulses ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define advanced tokamak 

message: I assume the magnetic fields push nuclei into a ring around the center of the ring, forming an inner ring where the fusion actually occurs?  The article doesn't mention and a casual web search didn't help. -- Beland (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does fusion actually take place? 

message: I have no views on whether Bob Guccione should be included (although if so, more tentative wording might be better). If you guys can't sort it out, how about an RfC? Protection is only for a week. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection for one week 

message: 2015 makes the Greenwald density limit sound significant. What is the density limit ? - Connected with 'island growth' 2015 - Rod57 (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could mention the Greenwald density limit and islands 

message: I saw somewhere that there is a hope to make this article FA in the near future.  After a quick scan, I was unable to find the answer to what I think is a pretty basic question, and if this article is going for FA, I think that should be addressed.
The question is, at what point in the development of the tokamak were they good enough that it was clear that any fusion was actually taking place?  Or, for that matter, has that even happened yet?
To put it another way, at what point did the confidence interval for the Q factor exclude zero?
This is not rhetorical or argumentative.  I just wasn't able to determine the answer by reading the article (and I also don't know the answer).  It seems to me that the answer must either be known or be the subject of controversy, and in either case there ought to be reliable sources that would allow covering the question in the article. --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry just saw this now. There has been direct evidence for fusion reactions since the US's Theta Pinch machine in 1958. Fusion output has grown steadily since then, and the record is currently held by JET at about 16 MW of output. That it is actual fusion can be demonstrated many ways, including randomly directed neutrons, alphas, x-rays and fusion "ash" in the resulting plasma. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool!  Thanks for adding a sentence about that to the lead. --Trovatore (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Occurs to me that a great addition would be a graph of the fusion power record by year, if anyone were willing to put in the effort. --Trovatore (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether fusion actually takes place 

message: Is this the article to list the progress towards break-even and ignition? eg. to add record pressures, temperatures, Lawson criterion, or fusion triple product, eg  (achieved 2 atm pressure in 2016). - Rod57 (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I found Fusion_power#Records, so added it there, and linked in see-also - Rod57 (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress towards break-even and ignition 

message: How long before being diagnosed with Dementia was this Reagan pontification? Yeah, the 1973 Oil Crisis rampant prices triggered search for new oil deposits, Middle East still being today the easier and cheaper to extract of it all, but prices made profitable searching and drilling in formerly too expensive sites. Did the crisis reduce overall oil consumption? What were forecasts, actual current figures?
In such an scenario, at least for USA, it can be said 'they live on an ocean of oil', supply is no longer an immediate difficulty, even with lines of huge oil transport ships waiting in Sea to have customers, Donald Trump regretted, oil prices are quite stable around $50 a barrel. But the global warming knocks on door, anything reducing oil as source of energy would send oil prices down, increasing oil consumption, thus greenhouse effect gases release. So what? Anyone able to present figures of forecasts in different energy use, energy sources situations? Blessings +
:What you say may be correct, but in the context of this article isn't the given statement just sufficient? No matter what the actual situation is, the declaration lead to a historic cut in funding of fusion technologies. --Geek3 (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ronald Reagan sentenced 'Oil crisis is over' 

message: "In August 2023, at the Technoprom forum, Alexander Blagov, Vice-President of the National Research Center Kurchatov Institute, announced the first tests for the power start-up of the tokamak" ... "According to Blagov, the first stable thermonuclear plasma was obtained at the T-15MD tokamak, which reached a temperature of more than 100 million degrees Celsius" Is it true ?
https://vsluh.net/2530-kurchatovcy-dobilis-proryva-v-termojadernom-sinteze.html?__cf_chl_tk=GRmbrwM9D58WySDZr0DhshCT11OnMwk54CnSzcRHeh8-1692904811-0-gaNycGzNDbs 2A02:AB04:13A:1A00:90:C673:D443:F792 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is here: T-15_(reactor)#Upgrade_to_T-15MD. --Geek3 (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about T-15MD ?