Talk:Fusion ignition

Low importance?

Oh, really? On the contrary, it seems to me that fusion ignition is the most important topic in physics today. It's a pity there's such a dearth of information on this. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Facebook says already achieved by 2016

I think Fusion Ignition has already been acheived as there was a news i read in 2016 on facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.216.168 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ypna (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignition - not really necessary or wrongly defined

It's simply untrue that ignition is a prerequisite for a fusion power plant - at least when we use the definition that ignition is a state when fusion provides all the heating necessary to sustain fusion reactions. It's entirely possible that plasma will require constant heating by external means (microwave, neutral beam injection, etc) while still producing more energy than is expended. It's just that fusion products may leave the reactor too quickly for any significant heating of the core to take place. Such a reactor may be quite inefficient (the fusion energy will have to go through thermal conversion to electricity to be used for plasma heating) but otherwise workable. Additionally, when working with low-neutronic fuels, the efficiency of the cycle described above may rise dramatically when direct conversion becomes available - although it's highly questionable that any low-neutronicity reaction becomes practical for a fusion power plant.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.201.162 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

ITER and other tokamaks

Worth noting that ITER is the first tokamak designed to reach ignition. I will look for a suitable source. - Rod57 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not correct. Its designed for 50 MW auxilliary heating AND "In addition, the possibility of controlled ignition should not be precluded." Source: IAEA 2002 ITER Technical Basis

StevenBKrivit (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

LEAD

The lead says "Fusion ignition is the point at which a nuclear fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining. This occurs when...."

Aside from the H-bomb, has this ever occurred?
StevenBKrivit (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitorial Issues

Apparently, there are more and less conservative definitions of what exactly constitutes "ignition". It appears that the current claims of achieving ignition are based on an comparatively wide definition. I will attempt to write a summary soon but somebody with expertise in the field should ideally chip in.

I think this is an important issue: Metaculus predicts ignition for the early 2030s. Hence one could argue the present ignition claim represents a 10-year technological jump. However, it all hinges on what exactly is meant by ignition. --Rappatoni (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ignition

IGNITION ACHIEVED!!! HOLY SHIT!!!!!!

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-major-nuclear-fusion-milestone-ignition.html https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-ignition-facility-experiment-puts-researchers-threshold-fusion-ignition https://phys.org/news/2021-08-major-nuclear-fusion-milestone-ignition.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.183.117.41 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed in peer review: https://www.llnl.gov/news/three-peer-reviewed-papers-highlight-scientific-results-national-ignition-facility-record — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acciavatti (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

First step?

I don't like the phrase "first step" in the sentence "Experts believe that achieving fusion ignition is the first step towards electricity generation using fusion power.". I cannot check the reference for the context, but surely the usage was vague, because what exactly defines a "step"? Surely "an important step" is better, because there would have been many steps before fusion ignition was achieved. Adpete (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

2021 or 2022

So, was ignition first archived in NIF in 2021 or 2022? Smeagol 17 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the difference ...

... between " technique of inertial confinement fusion, which involves using high-energy lasers to homogeneously compress the outside of a nuclear fuel-containing pellet, taking advantage of the momentarily increased density inside of the pellet now forced to collapse inward, to ignite the fuel" and a standard military thermonuclear bomb (besides size) ? Probably the biggest achievement is to dig more money (of course bilions) from the taxpayers for a hopeless useless project (?) How can I dare - against the Nobel prize nobility ? Simply because even the giant Sun is not able to handle its instabilities (flares) which our science is not able to explain nor to predict ... 188.167.251.57 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The difference is size. The smaller size changes the technical considerations and possible applications. Justin Kunimune (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)