Talk:Fusion reactor: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:21, June 17, 2008

Supermagnetic?!

I don't see the point in having a 'conventional physics' section in these articles if they're going to be based on Star Trek technobabble - current theory on magnetic fusion does not use supermagnets (assuming this terms refers to neodymium magnets). I think it would be far better to produce a concise summary and use references to point to articles on the current state of whatever technology is in question

Agreed. But all of it would be speculation anyway since this piece of technology has been mentioned but not fully explained. --ED_(talk)^(shockfront) 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Deuterium-Tritium

Doesn't Deuterium-Tritium reactions produce a significantly greater amount of energy than the suggested Deuterium-Deuterium reaction? This is why I don't understand why the UNSC would use a deuterium-deuterium reaction rather than the other when the energy output is actually less that it can potentially be.

question

shouldn't this be combined with the article Fusion Core? --Lt. CommanderFile:CPT.png^COMM_Work 16:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Doesn't Deuterium-Tritium reactions produce a significantly greater amount of energy than the suggested Deuterium-Deuterium reaction? This is why I don't understand why the UNSC would use a deuterium-deuterium reaction rather than the other when the energy output is actually less that it can potentially be.
+==question==
+shouldn't this be combined with the article [[Fusion Core]]? --[[User:Lt. Commander|'''<span style="font-family: comic sans ms; font-size: small"><font color="Green">Lt. Commander</font></span>''']][[Image:‎CPT.png‎ |28px]]<sup>[[User talk:Lt. Commander|<font color="Blue">COMM</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Lt. Commander|<font color="Black">Work</font>]]</sub> 16:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)