Talk:List of fusion power technologies

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comments

This list was one that I put together, and this is an unauthorised copy as I hoped to keep the list free of 'crazy' and self-promoting methods. However, it is a good place for it, so let's keep it in good order.

The intention of the list is ONLY for fusion methods ACTUALLY AND PRACTICALLY attempted. Two line items have been added to this copy of my original list: I do not believe the 'crossfire fusor' has yet been turned into hardware, so is not a legitimate entrant. I will check on this. For now I have not yet deleted it. The non-neutral torus at Columbia is an actual experiment, and appears to manifest a key feature not previously attempted in stellarators, as far as I know, so it gets a new line.

The format of the list is to state the method in terms recognisable to those in the field, and then to put a singular experimental example of the method, either the first or a superlative example, in brackets after it.

There are many fusion 'ideas', but only a fraction have been attempted. Whether fusion reactions actually occurred or not is immaterial to my list, only that someone took the effort to turn words into hardware to see what happens.

If it were to include all 'ideas' then the real wood would get very much confused with the thick forest of tin-pot ideas on fusion. So let's keep the list for real experiments, actually performed with real hardware.

I was thinking of doing an additional list for 'fusion ideas' but it would be very long and probably rather boring to look through all the balmy ideas. But if someone is crazy enough to try their crazy idea, they deserve to get a mention! If everyone got a mention then the list may turn into a farce quite rapidly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.138.212 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Crossfire fusor' has been deleted. It has not been turned into a practical experiment. If the list were to accommodate all ideas for fusion then we'd have ideas including elephants standing on bottles of deuterium -- or worse. So I have deleted it. Once it is manifest in hardware, it can go back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.81.202 (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

This article would be a lot more useful if it contained references. Ulflund (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to ITER

Where does ITER's approach appear on this list? Suggest that reference to ITER be added, as it is presently the most important fusion projects underway.

Tony (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added ITER to the examples of tokamaks. Hopefully this doesn't violate the rule of "real experiments", since it's still under construction. During my edit, I wondered what qualifies these examples as "pioneers"? Surely Tokamaks would be better categorised under magnetic fusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.183.100.98 (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]