Talk:ITER

POWER GAIN

This statement "ITERs goals are: to achieve enough fusion to produce 10 times as much output power as input" is false. I have attempted to correct it but two other editors, for what seem to be to be arbitrary reasons, insist on keeping the sentence in, and as is.

If Wikipedia itself is assumed to be a Reliable Source, then a decade of this same false/misleading claim on the English, French, and Chinese Wikipedia ITER pages (until I corrected them) should be sufficient evidence of the importance of being accurate and precise on this matter now. http://news.newenergytimes.net/2019/02/10/a-decade-of-false-and-exaggerated-iter-power-claims-on-wikipedia/

I have run out of time. For now, this Wikipedia page will mislead readers who either fail to read the third paragraph or get confused at the apparent inconsistency. This is likely to cause non-experts, students, and journalists to think, citing Wikipedia, that is okay to say that one of "ITER's goals is to achieve enough fusion to produce 10 times as much output power as input." That phrase, as is, if published by people who are informed on the subject, is a lie and is an abuse of the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

1) The source you cite is YOUR OWN website. WP:SPS

2) Wikipedia is NOT a Reliable Source. From WP:CIRC: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a user-generated source. Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.[10]"

3) You still have not provided ANY Reliable Sources WP:RS to support your CLAIM that anyone will misunderstand this (other than you). ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If you think everyone apart from you is driving on the wrong side of the road... you might re-evaluate who is misunderstanding things. --mfb (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@StevenBKrivit:@Avatar317:@Mfb: Incidentally, Sabine Hossenfelder talks about this very issue in her latest Youtube video. That video itself is not a reliable source, of course (the author is a physicist though). But maybe it can help to locate better sources and improve the neutrality of the Wikipedia article. Some reliable sources are linked in the video description. It seems like the issue raised above is actually a very real one, but most WP:RS get it wrong. Renerpho (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Renerpho:, yes most "WP:RS" sources got it wrong. I made this very clear in my film, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnikAFWDhNw&t=1s released on April 11, 2021. I also made it clear in my book Fusion Fiasco, published in 2016. My work has been cited internationally for many years in many reputable sources. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/about/in-the-media.shtml.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand that Steven Krivit and his New Energy Times Web site are not considered by most Wikipedia editors as reliable sources and that my conversation with Nick Holloway, the UKAEA/CCFE spokesman, as I published in my 2016 book Fusion Fiasco http://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/10/05/uncovering-the-700-mw-input-needed-for-the-joint-european-torus-reactor/ cannot be cited by Wikipedia. You can cite this one instead for a RS for the 700 MWe input that JET required: It's a EURATOM document in the University of Pittsburgh Archive http://aei.pitt.edu/94542/1/jet_joint..__50695.pdf

Oh, and reliable sources to show that people have misunderstood fusion power gain?

June 15, 2021, New Scientist: "The plan is to create 500 megawatts of usable energy from an input of 50 megawatts."

Oct. 21, 2020, World Nuclear News: "Iter is a major international project to build a 500MW tokamak fusion device requiring an input of 50MW."

Nov. 11, 2019, Nuclear Engineering International: "Iter, a 500 MW tokamak fusion device, requires an input of 50MW."

March 27, 2017 New York Times: "ITER will benefit from its larger size, and will produce about 10 times more power than it consumes."

HUNDREDS of other examples where people got it wrong http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/iter/ITER-fusion-reactor-effects.shtml

@Mfb: "If you think everyone apart from you is driving on the wrong side of the road... you might re-evaluate who is misunderstanding things." You could be right. It's also possible that the Emperor doesn't have any clothes. History will show who was helpful to other people on this matter and who was not.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You assert that most "WP:RS" sources got it wrong – even if we take this as granted (and you have not provided a compelling reason why we should), the fact remains that all WP can do is echo to its readers what the reliable secondary sources say. There is an essay somewhere (I can't be bothered digging it out) which says something to the effect of "If Wikipedia were around in 1500 it would report the consensus that the Sun orbits the Earth, and that would be A Good Thing". For WP to take any side, even the one that posterity judges to be the correct one, in an ongoing scientific dispute, would be to violate its policy on neutrality – to violate it egregiously, in fact. I would also note that the sources you refer to would typically be considered reliable, and any attempt to put your own personal website on the same level as them is likely to constitute a conflict of interest (in addition to having serious likely problems re undue weight and promoting marginal views). Per mfb above, it might be time to drop this particular WP:STICK. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: I guess you are referring to Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#"But_I_know_the_truth!". There is a difference here, in that the scientific literature on ITER most certainly has it right; it's just what's reported by the media, in statements made by politicians, and in statements by scientists directed at media/politicians, where the error frequently pops up. So it shouldn't be too hard to find the correct meanings of the reported Q values, hidden in the scientific literature. One just has to be careful taking secondary sources (news reports etc.) as reliable at face value. Renerpho (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have been attempting to address this issue myself in the last couple of edits. I found a good source for the misleading Q-value problem and added the following sentence to clarify this section: "The European STOA Fusion Project cautions that this figure refers only to the energy of the plasma itself, and that practical capture of this energy for electricity production would introduce significant inefficiencies which ITER is not designed to overcome." It was partially removed by an anonymous editor, but I hope the clarifications are to their satisfaction. Ddevault (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"ITER's thermonuclear fusion reactor will use over 300MW of electrical power to cause the plasma to absorb 50 MW of thermal power, creating 500 MW of heat from fusion " So, it will create 500MW, but consume 300MW. That's not a ten fold gain, that's a barely 50% gain. Using the 500 MW / 50 MW == 10X is the most dishonest creative accounting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E41C:1C01:6D77:3D5A:30C:42ED (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

New map needed

This map is inaccurate the UK and Switzerland should not be dark blue I suggest make a new map and make these countries along with Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and Thailand light blue to differentiate between them and the dark blue countries Black roses124 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The UK and Switzerland are not non-members though. They operate through the EU signatory (Fusion For Energy) which is a member. Therefore I don't think the map needs changing- and if it is changed, the UK and Switzerland should not be put in the same category as non-members. Mark63424 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The UK and Switzerland are in a unique position where they operate through the EU signatory. This is very different from the non-members. Mark63424 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

ITER do not list the UK as a non-member on their about page and instead reference it in a separate paragraph saying "The United Kingdom will continue to participate in ITER post-Brexit through its membership in Fusion for Energy, the European Domestic Agency for ITER.".

Since the UK is operating through the Fusion for Energy signatory it is in the same position as an EU member state (despite no longer being in the EU). Mark63424 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank @Afiaki Black roses124 (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

new particle or a big bang theory

sorry for asking, i just wonder iter and tesla almost the same, just like old time energy using sun and heat. sorry afaik QuaMbear (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Empathy for readers with poor internet connections

Earlier today, I made nineteen modest edits to the "See also" section, where I added brief descriptions and links to a few major research efforts in the United States that were otherwise not referenced (e.g., MIT’s Alcator C-Mod reactor, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s National Spherical Torus Experiment, and the Helically Symmetric Experiment at the University of Wisconsin–Madison). I also expanded brief descriptions of the advanced tokamak of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, the stellarator of the Max Planck IPP in Germany, the UK’s concept for an affordable Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production, as well as the extraordinary statistics characterizing Nuclear power in France. I hope these expansions (and several others) meet with the approval of senior editors; I welcome any improvements.

However, a major impetus behind my edits today was empathy for Wikipedia users with slow internet connections — which I myself suffer sometimes, even as a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Merely having internal links without an informative description of what the reader will get if they hit on a link can be frustrating for those with poor interconnectivity, as this ties-up one’s computer unnecessarily to access an inadequately described Wikipedia page that’s ultimately not useful. Thus I added links with brief but informative descriptions, as well as expanded existing links, to better describe what they offer a reader. Theophilus Reed (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Theophilus Reed

The informative descriptions are GREAT and useful, Thanks! It is quicker to read an inline description than to click to read the article, no matter how fast your internet. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove false claim from the first paragraph

The claim ITER is "...aimed at creating energy by replicating, on Earth, the fusion processes of the Sun" should be removed from the first paragraph because it is false. The Sun relies on fusion of "standard" hydrogen (sometimes called protium in context) - a fuel that really is cheap and limitless. No contemplated fusion facility on Earth, and certainly not ITER, relies on this physical process. All tokamak-type reactors rely on deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion, a significantly different physical process. This change is important because the "fusion processes of the Sun" falsehood helps propagate the more significant "cheap and limitless fuel" myth. I say "myth" because tritium is expensive and severely constrained, not cheap and limitless. As the concerned community confronts the reality of the worldwide tritium shortfall later in the 2020s and 2030s, it will become increasingly important to correctly describe the physical processes involved in order to reset understanding of the issue after decades of such falsehoods. This proposed change is a first step in that direction. For a less technical discussion of the issue, see https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started; for a more technical discussion, see https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/abbf35/pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.194.99 (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for not creating an account until now - I am "73.240.194.99", the creator of this paragraph. Pdxjjb (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, (and that Science.org source could be used for a statement in the article) but as in any summary or teaching of a subject, we start with generalities which may not be exactly accurate and then progress to the exceptions. I've changed that to a hopefully more accurate statement. Thanks for pointing this out. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Article seemed to ignore the 2022 construction problems and effect on timescales

Article seemed to ignore the 2022 construction problems and effect on timescales - eg [1]. - Rod57 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a brief mention in Manufacturing (using an older ref) - now also noted in Introduction and Timelines and status. - Rod57 (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Article needs updating, many sections have "as of 2023", and claims about "by the end of the year"; a time that has already passed.

I wrote the whole comment in the title InterGraphenic (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Eric Lerner in criticism section

Lerner is a well-known crackpot with a personal financial interest in dismissing ITER. I don't see a reason to give him a platform as primary source (!) in this article. Any objections to removing it? --mfb (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I support removing it, and also the following sentence, ("Other critics, such as Daniel Jassby, ...")sourced to an advocacy organization. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)