Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:12, 3 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ITER article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	ITER was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 23, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. European Union Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Technology & engineering / Science & education Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force. This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force. Science Policy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages itself is assumed to be a Reliable Source, then a decade of this same false/misleading claim on the English, French, and Chinese Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

2) Misplaced Pages is NOT a Reliable Source. From WP:CIRC: "Do not use articles from Misplaced Pages (whether this English Misplaced Pages or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Misplaced Pages is considered as a user-generated source. Also, do not use websites that mirror Misplaced Pages content or publications that rely on material from Misplaced Pages as sources. Content from a Misplaced Pages 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."

3) You still have not provided ANY Reliable Sources WP:RS to support your CLAIM that anyone will misunderstand this (other than you). ---Avatar317 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 . - 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 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Outdated sentence in the opening

My attempt to remove a sentence has been reverted, so I open this discussion. The sentence was obviously added before the start of JT-60SA and the end of the Joint European Torus:

ITER will be the largest of more than 100 fusion reactors built since the 1950s, with ten times the plasma volume of any other tokamak operating today.

Here are the numbers for plasma volumes in m³: ITER 840, JT-60SA 140, JET 100 (reference). I decided against changing to "six times" because of Misplaced Pages:No original research. Kallichore (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd be ok with changing that statement to "since the 1950's, with six times the plasma volume as JT-60SA." with the new reference, just please don't remove the old reference, it is informative to the reader to state that we've build more than 100 fusion reactors to date. ---Avatar317 00:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There is also a doubling of "largest reactor" in the first paragraph, which makes it possible to remove one sentence:

ITER (initially the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, iter meaning "the way" or "the path" in Latin) is an international nuclear fusion research and engineering megaproject aimed at creating energy through a fusion process similar to that of the Sun. It is being built next to the Cadarache facility in southern France. Upon completion of construction of the main reactor and first plasma, planned for 2033–2034, ITER will be the largest of more than 100 fusion reactors built since the 1950s, with six times the plasma volume of JT-60SA, the largest tokamak operating today.

Are there objections to this change? I also prefer "creating energy through nuclear fusion" instead of "creating energy through a fusion process similar to that of the Sun", but this is another point. --Kallichore (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I changed the first paragraph. For this I had to move the wikilink for Magnetic confinement fusion.--Kallichore (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

World map of participating members needs changing.

As per the lead both The United Kingdom and Switzerland who are currently highlited shouldn't be. I unfortunately can't make the changes myself so hopefully somebody sees this and does so. Also there should probably be some sort of highlighting done for the four partner countries. Brandon Downes (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "ITER Pressure Suppression System performance"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Performances of the ITER Pressure Suppression System during unstable steam condensation regimes

The fact comes from the following source:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/ad7b59

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

 {{Citation |title=User:DErenrich-WMF/Add A Fact Experiment |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/User:DErenrich-WMF/Add_A_Fact_Experiment |work=Misplaced Pages |date=2024-09-30 |access-date=2024-09-30 |language=en |quote=and if we can support making it possible to contribute productively to Misplaced Pages from outside of Misplaced Pages, and if guidance to the contributor from a large language model (LLM) could be useful in this process. The idea was developed and workshopped with Wikipedians at}} 

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Chemipanda (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How is that a "fact"? It's a sentence fragment without context Ita140188 (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chemipanda: was this post entirely machine-generated? It is nonsense. VQuakr (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ita140188 and VQuakr: See the "How it works" section of the https://meta.wikimedia.org/Future_Audiences/Experiment:Add_a_Fact - Yes, it is all machine generated; I got an invitation to use this tool but I didn't think it would be good at paraphrasing text so I haven't tried it. ---Avatar317 18:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: seems like it needs more work in a sandbox before it gets used in article talk space. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

After seeing this post, I agree. ---Avatar317 19:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• C-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of High-importance
• C-Class energy articles
• Top-importance energy articles
• C-Class European Union articles
• Low-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
• C-Class Russia (technology and engineering) articles
• Technology and engineering in Russia task force articles
• C-Class Russia (science and education) articles
• Science and education in Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class Science Policy articles
• Top-importance Science Policy articles