Talk:Burning plasma

Attribution note

Early revisions of this article were created from text in the public domain source https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsburning-plasma , which is in the public domain as a work of the U.S. federal government. -- The Anome (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbolic implications section

The symbolic implications section doesn't make sense, so I'm looking to delete it unless anyone objects. It strongly implies that fusion cannot be used to be make bombs the same way fission can. The section as a whole doesn't seem to say much that's not built off that premise. The Peace and Conflict Studies journal cited there seems reliable enough, which is why I'm hesitant to just remove it; I'm curious what others here think. Justin Kunimune (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I wrote that section. It may well be not written. However, I don't think it strongly implies what you say it implies. So, it says a controlled fusion reaction is not explosive, it states that the burning plasma is, historically speaking, the equivalent of a fission nuclear explosion, opening the way for fusion power, it states fusion power will be developed as a result, as well as fusion energy for military purposes, and it states fusion power will have a role in peacebuilding (implication is based on an economic transition to fusion away from a petrowars based economy). So, controlled fusion energy cannot be used to make bombs like fission can. Uncontrolled fusion in combination with fission can make bombs, thermonuclear ones -- is that what you are thinking of? Also, thousands of news sources globally celebrated the NIF burning plasma - would you like some of those sources added? Johncdraper (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand the intent here a bit better now. I think the specific point I take issue with is the use of the phrase "burning plasma" to describe a controlled burning plasma. It's accurate to say "controlled burning plasmas do not experience runaway chain reactions", and to talk about "the first controlled burning plasma" as a recent development, but not accurate to say the same about just "burning plasma". Without that clarification, it feels like the existence of thermonuclear bombs is being ignored. Also, more subjectively, I disagree with the statement that a controlled burning plasma is the fusion equivalent of a fission nuclear explosion; it seems to me that a fusion thermonuclear explosion is the fusion equivalent of a fission nuclear explosion (and I didn't see that equivalency explicitly backed up in the sources, though I may have missed it). What would you think of me adding the word "controlled" in a few more places and removing that one statement? Justin Kunimune (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with greater use of the technical term 'controlled'. However, I think the Peace and Conflict Studies article does make the equivalence - or at least it describes the moment as a Trinity Test-level critical juncture, and It does this because of the peacebuilding/weaponization implications. One point is that a fusion reactor is the fusion equivalent to a fission reactor. So, strictly speaking, the first fusion controlled net energy gain's equivalent should be the December 2, 1942 Chicago Pile-1 experiment, led by Fermi. However, that would be our own research. Why don't you go ahead and make the changes in the article, and I'll look at it? Johncdraper (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I've re-read the section three times and I cannot understand what it tries to convey. Some statements there are wrong, the rest is political buzzwords that better be avoided in a physics-related article. I'm sure articles about political implications of the nuclear power are not in a short supply in Wikipedia; move this text there, if desired.

The statements that IMO are wrong or unclear:

1. "a controlled burning plasma is the fusion equivalent of a fission nuclear explosion." No, UNcontrolled burning plasma is the fusion equivalent of a fission nuclear explosion.

2. "the first burning plasma has been characterized as the equivalent of the Trinity Test". What is "the first burning plasma"? An equivalent of the Trinity test should the first thermonuclear explosion - Ivy Mike.

3. The rest of this sentence kinda makes a parallel between the nuclear explosion (the Trinity test), made with the exclusively military purpose, to ITER; how come?!

In addition, the two citations (assuming user:@Johncdraper and John Draper from the articles are not coincidental namesakes) smell like CITESPAM.

So I vote for removing this section altogether. Evgeny (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Quick question: do you believe man-made fusion reactors or a pure (non-fissile hybrid) container of fusion fuel can have runaway reactions and explode? Next, the first comtrolled burning plasma was the NIF experiment. Basically, I think the aricle's main contribution is in the peacebuilding potential of fusion. The two John Drapers are the same. One article happens to be from one of the leading journals in its field, which usually qualifies it for a potential mention in Wikipedia, and both articles are peer reviewed. If you want to flag a COI, I'm not going to oppiose that. However, if you propose to remove the whole subsection, I will simply have to rebuild it using non-peer reviewed news articles. I can do that using perennial reliable sources. BTW, there is no vote for anything at this stage, so you just need to WP:BOLD edit the article as you see fit, then I respond. Johncdraper (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Physics is not about beliefs. When the man-made fusion reactors become reality, we can discuss (based on the measurements, analysis, etc) their potential hazards. Right now, nobody on Earth knows what the successful design of the first commercial fusion reactor will be. About "one of the leading journals in its field": in which field? In plasma physics? As a plasma physicist, I've never saw this journal cited in any paper I've read for ~30 years. It doesn't say this journal or this article is bad - only that this text doesn't belong to this wiki article. Look at the categories: none of them overlaps with the categories of the "Peacebuilding" wiki. And by "vote" I didn't mean voting in any countable manner, just my opinion. The original question was whether this section should be deleted, and I say yes. Re: "the first controlled burning plasma was the NIF experiment" - so I still miss the point of comparing it to Trinity test in any respect. If anything, it's similar to Fermi's Pile. Evgeny (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)