This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:
Physics This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPhysics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics

The content ofTemplate:Fusion methods wasmerged intoTemplate:Fusion power on September 2018. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page.

The content ofTemplate:Fusion experiments wasmerged intoTemplate:Fusion power on September 2018. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page.

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 ReactorTFTR

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!

Atlant22:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given its controversial nature, with most scientists not believing the alleged phenomenon occurs, should this be included in this template? FromWikipedia: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."--Noren22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it from the template. --Noren23:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here follows a summary table:

Which of these are notable? The top two articles both go toMagnetic fusion energy, but the bottom two apparently merit their own articles. I removedInertial Fusion Energy from the template, as I felt it is already summed up inInertial confinement fusion. I think only the two articles on the left should be included -Jack(talk)17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't agree with you about mergingMagnetic confinement fusion andInertial confinement fusion: these are two very different topics, using very different confinement physics and devices, leading to opposite plasma densities and temperatures; nevertheless,Magnetic confinement fusion should be significantly improved.
2. I don't understand the reason why you removedInertial Fusion Energy from the template, as it's a different topic asInertial confinement fusion.

Croquant18:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think I made myself very clear. I haven't merged anything, I'm just talking about notability. The template is quite full already, and anything new should go under scrutiny. I feel the articles now inbold (above) should get links. Also, the top part of the template was meant only forgeneral fusion topics, nothing confined to a particular method. How are "Inertial Fusion Energy" and "Inertial confinement fusion" different enough to both deserve links? -Jack(talk)19:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Inertial Fusion Energy" to the template because there was already a link toFuture energy development, which is equally related to power production. However, other entries being related to nuclear energy as a general topic, and not specifically to power production, I agree that "Inertial Fusion Energy" has nothing to do here. As this is also true for "Future energy development", which furthermore deals with many other topics than nuclear energy, I'll remove this entry, and as a consequence the template will become lighter.Croquant21:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call -Jack(talk)22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 thatnotable 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)[reply]

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....--Deglr632803:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, U of Wisc and many others use the term "inertial electrostatic confinement" which itself is used to encompass fusors so I guess its fine. --Deglr632803:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SeeTalk:Inertial_confinement_fusion#Requested_Move —Omegatron22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Timothy E. Eastman's (NASA[1] and Plasma International[2]) has summarised a number of alternative fusion concepts, on hisPerspectives Web site,here. Are they worth adding to the template? They include:

--Iantresman18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that it's worth adding the Spherical Torus (Spherical Tokamak) as theNSTX has been running for a while. There's a fair bit of info that could be written.80.7.187.13115:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 thePolywell concept should be in the list too.86.16.135.5310:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polywell and fusor are both types ofinertial electrostatic confinement. Should every type be included? See alsoTalk:Inertial_confinement_fusion#Requested_Move. —Omegatron14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. IEC already links to that page. Its just one of Bussard's latest physics snow jobs anyway.--Deglr632818:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Y made the change --AquaDTRS (talk)04:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should we not include in the templateProject 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)[reply]

• Template-Class physics pages
• NA-importance physics pages

• Wikipedia pages using copied template
• Wikipedia pages using merged-from template without oldid