Talk:SPARC (tokamak)
Add topic | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
20T magnets claimed operational
[edit]MIT is quoted by phys.org claiming the 20 tesla magnets have been demonstrated . An independent source would be great for the article. Maybe one listed above. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
(Q > 1) in 2027
[edit]"The project is scheduled to start operations in 2026, with the goal of demonstrating net power (Q > 1) in 2027."
This article would benefit from a clarification of which type of "net power (Q > 1)" that is supposed to be demonstrated.
Is it scientific breakeven, engineering breakeven, extrapolated breakeven or something else ?
Also see Wikipedia article on "Fusion energy gain factor" 123johanlindeberg (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- The first reference clarifies this:
Fusion gain is defined as the fusion power generated in the plasma divided by the external heating power absorbed in the plasma, including ohmic power.
- So we are talking about "scientific break even".--Kallichore (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- I believe this page would benefit from being more clear. It is educational content, after all, not easily understood by the layman.
- The layman cannot be expected to have any knowledge of the non-intuitive concept of breakeven in fusion. And a link from Q to the page "Fusion energy gain factor" could be hard to notice.
- As it is now this information seems to imply that in the future this device will generate a surplus of energy. That is probably not the intention and is misleading.
- I'm not going to change this page. I'm merely suggesting that it could be improved. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I tried to clarify the article with this edit. I think that the article Fusion energy gain factor should contain the details, because scientific vs. engineering vs. commercial breakeven is relevant for all fusion reactors.Kallichore (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. I believe that it is now easier to understand. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- I tried to clarify the article with this edit. I think that the article Fusion energy gain factor should contain the details, because scientific vs. engineering vs. commercial breakeven is relevant for all fusion reactors.Kallichore (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
First plasma in 2027
[edit]@Rbourke, that first plasma ETA needs to be sourced, and the rest of the article needs to be made consistent (the infobox currently says first plasma in 2026). Can you share where on the CFS youtube channel you saw that they expect first plasma in 2027? Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- I changed the source to this TechJournal.uk article that quotes Brandon Sorbom. It seems they might not have a specific estimate for Q>1 anymore; just sometime soon after first plasma. Justin Kunimune (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2026 (UTC)