Talk:Direct Fusion Drive

how many kelvins?

The Principle section contains this phrase: "hot (100 keV or 1,120,000,00 K) plasma, " That temperature is missing its last zero. Or it erroneously contains an extra ",00" on the end (my guess). Needs fixing. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@OsamaBinLogin:. I fixed it now. The last zero was missing. That said, I wish this article said how this relates to other fusion approaches. Is there something about this approach that makes it much easier to build a thruster with it than to build a power plant? What's the best Q number archieved for this technology, and how much is needed for this to be a useful thruster? Right now the article reads like it's glossing over inconvenient details about how far away this is. Amaurea (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Enormous ?

Why the strangely unscientific definition of nuclear fusion instead of just pointing to the correct explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion ? There is nothing "enormous" about the amount of energy of a single nuclear fusion and we also usually do not need "enormous" amounts of propulsion in spacecraft that are already out of Earth gravity. The point would be the exceptionally good relation between the weight of the motor and the amount of energy it can provide in total. I would suggest to prune the explanation to a minimum and instead point to the real deal. JB. --92.195.107.18 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Advert template

All references seem to be primary sources. Tone is promotional. Borderline deletion. Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, so I am a fusion expert (policy rather than tech) and reviewed this tech in the literature. It's actually a prize-winning design, with some mention in the secondary literature. I'll see what I can do to improve the article from the secondary lit over the next 72 hours. Johncdraper (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Added several citations which I think justofy the article. That the article is not encyclopedic and relies on too many primary citations is another problem. Johncdraper (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should be deleted. None of the physics makes any sense and the mix of round vs specific numbers betray that fact. Fusion has not been solved on Earth, in a much more controlled and diagnostically capable environment. 76.102.108.45 (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Heating and electricity generation

The Principle section attributes the plasma heating to "a rotating magnetic field" and separately "a specially shaped radio frequency (RF) antenna". Do both of these sources contribute to plasma heating? Is the rotating magnetic field more about containment than compression? These two statements should be reconciled and combined into one.

Similarly, the same section has two descriptions of the electrical generation subsystem: "Bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation emitted from the plasma are captured and converted to electricity..." and the statement in the next paragraph about the "closed-loop Brayton cycle generator". These sentences appear consistent but also need to be combined into one statement. 98.207.38.69 (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Pulsar Fusion

Pulsar Fusion says it is also pursuing "direct fusion drive" (see https://pulsarfusion.com/products-development/fusion-propulsion/ ). Should it also be mentioned here? Is its technology sufficiently similar to (or based on) that of Princeton Satellite Systems, or should the introduction describe the concept of direct fusion drive and then separately describe the technology of these two companies? Are there any other companies pursuing direct fusion drive? 98.207.38.69 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)