Aneutronik

Welcome!

Hello, Aneutronik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Moses' comments

Hey Aneutronik,

I removed the first of the two paras because it basically said something that was no longer true - it was Moses' prediction of ignition in the short term, essentially just a progress report about the ongoing LIFE project at that time. If this was February then an up-to-date statement about the status of the effort is definitely worth including, but that was a better part of a year ago and the statement simply isn't true any more. Am I missing something here?

The second one has a single useful bit of information in it, the statement about the thickness of the ablator. This is now mentioned in passing in the historical section, see the new reference from Nuckolls. The rest of that para is not factual - the lasers do not risk explosion AFAIK, but etching, and whether or not the laser has enough energy is well covered throughout. I believe this para is also "out of place" and suggest a statement specifically about ablator thickness tradeoffs in the description area, far up the page.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I introduced a red herring. My concern with the Moses statement is not the failure part, but the era. The comments in question were made early in the year, talking about things that would occur during the year. Now that those things have actually occurred (or not), the statements no longer seem germane. Especially because those precise events are covered in the section above this.

Basically my concern is that this prediction was following a description of those actual events. The timeline is upside down. If you think it's worth adding a quote back into the section above, by all means, go for it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well now you've got me thinking... given the constant stream of positive reviews from the project managers, and the constant stream of negative reviews from 3rd parties, there's got to be enough material for a whole article of he said/she said. Hmmm... Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

MagLIF

Thanks for your comment Aneutronik. MagLIF is a different fusion method and configuration and not just the name of a Sandia labs Z machine project. The Z machine at Sandia has to be modified to accommodate it. Normally in a Z pinch machine they don't (and cant) use the MagLIF method (use a laser to preheat a cylinder with magnetized fuel). In MagLIF magnets have to be added to magnetize the fuel and so inhibit thermal conduction sufficiently -- and there must be a laser to preheat the fuel. It won't suffice to put MagLIF within the Z machine page because its a new method that only happens to be tested at the Z machine facility. It would be like placing laser ICF only within NIF. There may be other MagLIF machines getting built in other locations. Z machine had a donated laser from NIF for the purpose of backlighting so that was convenient to transform it to a MagLIF capable facility. But it still required years of modification (one year left) to be turned into a MagLIF capable facility. Hope this clarifies. Johansosa (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)