User talk:Guthrette

Welcome!

Hi Guthrette! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification tags in the Q article

Hi, I noticed you had added some "failed verification" tags to the article on fusion energy gain factor. The articles in question appear, to me at least, to verify the statements. For instance, the one link is subtitled "Scientific Breakeven at the National Ignition Facility" is being used to verify the claim that LLNL stated they had reached scientific breakeven. Can you be more specific as to why you believe these citations do not verify the claim?

There is also a "citation needed" tag on the claim that LLNL redefined the meaning of Q. The two references, one of which is from FIRE, point out how Moses redefined the meaning for this release. Again, Can you be more specific what it is you think is not being cited here?

Thanks!

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HI Maury. Sorry, I should have added more context. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and it was one of my first edits.

I think I should mention the different gains that NIF uses( https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.075001):

1) G_fuel = total fusion yield / energy absorbed by DT fuel. (>1 achieved in 2013)

2) G_cap = total fusion yield / energy absorbed by the capsule ( >1 achieved in 2021)

3) G_target = total fusion yield / laser energy put input to target (>1 achieved in 2022)

And the original definition for ICF breakevens from (https://www.nature.com/articles/239139a0):

4) G_L = ratio of fusion energy to laser light energy (i.e. scientific breakeven)

5) G_e = G_L*(laser efficiency)*(heat efficiency) (i.e. engineering breakeven)

The FIRE source mentions that LLNL's definition of scientific breakeven as G_target = 1 which I'd argue is G_L just worded more specifically. They mention that the livescience article is not using the accepted definition of "scientific breakeven."

My issue with the sources is that they claim that LLNL themselves claimed "scientific breakeven" in 2013 when they actually made breakeven of G_fuel. This would be incredibly dishonest. The only mention in the sources of "scientific breakeven" was from Hiper but none from LLNL. BBC and Nature call it a "milestone" but not "scientific breakeven." A few other pop-science articles may have claimed "scientific breakeven" at the time but I believe this is just bad reporting instead of LLNL being dishonest.

Let me know if I missed anything!

Thanks, Guthrette (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the status report mention in the FIRE article. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc899087/m1/3/?q=scientific) It say that "These targets will undergo nuclear fusion, producing more energy than the energy in the laser pulse and achieving scientific breakeven." Seems to be the same definition. Guthrette (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to look at the science article. It mentions:

" Moses also says the energy yield (carried by the neutrons and estimated at 14 kilojoules) was more than the x-ray energy absorbed to implode the capsule, a milestone he refers to as "scientific breakeven." "

This makes no sense because that would be a breakeven of G_cap not what was achieved in 2013 (G_fuel) or is scientific breakeven (G_target). I'm honestly confused about this one. Guthrette (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly skeptical that this is was Moses's meant and may have been miss communicated but I'd consider this a valid source though. Guthrette (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So to sum up, are we in agreement that there is sufficient evidence that Moses referred to the 2013 as "scientific breakeven"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags on the article, but I do believe this is a game of telephone between LLNL and the media due to the how all three energy gains are mixed up in that single statement. I don't have access to that memo that the Science read so I can't confirm my assumption. Guthrette (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Inertial confinement fusion

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Inertial confinement fusion, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]