Talk:High beta fusion reactor

is the T4 an IEC device ?

Hello All,

I have long speculated that the T4 used an electric field to heat the ions. Their description from solve for X, involves using radio waves to heat the plasma and using high magnetic fields to hold it in. This is sensible - but this alone - will not suffice for fusion energy. The inventor: Dr. Tom McGuire, did his PhD thesis at MIT on multi-cage fusors, so there seems to be a good chance they followed along this line of research. If so, the T4 would be added to the list of IEC machines and this research would fall under that branch of fusion research. Does anyone have a source of information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper2134 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid no one knows. Lockheed Martin are likely to hold this one close to their chests, so we'll just have to wait and see.192.87.183.43 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, a Slashdot story today says Bussard's Polywell is "likely the precursor to the Skunkworks approach." 199.46.199.232 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This article reads a bit like an advert for the technology being produced by one company (Lockheed Martin). It gives the impression that a number of aspects which are generically true for magnetic confinement fusion devices (i.e. no production of weapons grade material, low waste, "clean" energy) are unique for this particular configuration. Does anyone else agree? Dtlloyd (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst I would like to see a commercially viable fusion reactor in my lifetime, I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Nick Hill (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Dubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR)

Rename the article? Hcobb (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's more of a description than a title. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

High Beta is more of a boast than a description. Hcobb (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No, lay off the hyperbole. It's another description, but a more narrow one than compact fusion reactor. The LM page is entitled Compact Fusion, but doesn't appear to use any specific name. I'm not sure where the name "T4" comes from, but if it can be reliably sourced, perhaps T4 compact fusion reactor would be the best name. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC) be nice to have a

T4 is one specific iteration. CFR is the overall project. Hcobb (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The title and indeed the whole article should be rewritten to convey that this is a concept in an early stage of development. Many of the claims are not proven, and should be explicitly presented as speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.183.100.166 (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that most of LM's sources and others use the name Compact Fusion Reactor, I'm moving the page to Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor as a natural disambiguation. - BilCat (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The move has left a redirect High beta fusion reactor which now seems out of date since there are other high beta fusion reactors : spherical tokamak. Need hatnote or disamb ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)