Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Ignition Facility/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

National Ignition Facility

edit

The NIF is an interesting (IMHO) big science project that is poised to be the first device to create "ignition" level fusion. A few of us have completely overhauled this article over the past few weeks. We have added a clear description of how the laser works, as well as a separate section on how it is used to create fusion. NIF has not been problem free, and the article also covers these problems in a neutral fashion, complete with plenty of refs in case anyone from LLNL complains. To top it all off, it contains a number of interesting pictures with clear and concise captions.

BTW if the edit history makes it look like a work in progress, it's not. There were a number of specific items we wanted to make sure were mentioned in the article, and the last one went in today.

Maury 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Needs proper formatting of references, needs sourcing of some weasely statements ("some say"), that's just what I've spotted quickly. Also, you might want to put an FAC box on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yeah the refs thing bugs me too. But they are SO hard to edit! Is there a tool out there for doing this? BTW, what's a FAC box? (oh, duh, answered my own question) Maury
  • Oppose The prose in the article is very good. I really appreciate how the text is readable by the layman, but also contains enough information to keep people with more knowledge reading on. I did some minor copy editing. However no matter the prose, the article needs: 1) more references 2) removal of weasel words. Also KDP_crystal.jpg needs a size on it, how big is "huge"? I will continue to do copy editing to the article but unfortunatly I do not have access to any sort of scientific journals so I can't help with the references. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the auto peer review script (left results on talk page) there is also some minor things that can be done to the article like increasing cross links. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm glad that someone has taken the time to do this page - but there are a number of errors and misleading statements. Briefly. Introduction: The first light date is certainly incorrect - I think the correct date would be Dec 2002. Description: 1) millions to hundreds of millions K is too broad a range - insert 'few tens of millions of K'. 2) The usage 'internal temperature' is confusing. I would rephrase 'the combination of heating and compression create the required conditions for fusion'. NIF and ICF. 1) Remarks on the failings of NOVA are just plain misleading. NOVA was also an indirect drive machine. One major point that the authors do not seem to grasp is that beam uniformity (e.g. the spatial uniformity of an individual beam)is not a significant issue for indirect drive ICF. In indirect drive ICF the RT instability is seeded, over short spatial scales, by capsule non-uniformities, and over longer spatial scales, by irradiation non-uniformities caused by the fact that each beam creates its own hotspot where it interacts with the wall - which radiate more x-rays than the surrounding wall- this creates lesser, but (with the smaller number of beams on NOVA) problematic fluctuations in the x-ray drive at the surface of the capsule, which drive Rayleigh Taylor over longer spatial scales. With DIRECT drive beam uniformity is a HUGE issue since the lasers actually hit the capsule. Beam non-uniformities in indirect drive are 'spatially smoothed' by the fact that the scale length of the non-uniformities are much less than the distance from the wall to the capsule. (Practical example to aid understanding: hold two light bulbs (not spot lights or flash lamps - just regular bulbs) one foot apart, six inches above your desk. You see non uniformity in the radiation on your desk. Hold them them twenty feet above your desk and you won't see any non uniformity : spatial smoothing). 2) I might be being a little picky here, but most of the proposed NIF hohlraum variants are made of an alloy of predominantly heavy metals not 'some heavy metal' : the alloy is designed to have a particularly high opacity to the x-rays which drive the implosion. 3) It's true that x-ray ablation is more efficient. However only in the sense that if you are comparing 100kJ of x-rays to 100kJ of laser light actually falling on the capsule you'll do more work with the x-rays. The main problem with direct drive is that of laser imprint driven Rayleigh Taylor instabilities seeded by both beam non-uniformity and the difficulty in evenly illuminating the surface of a capsule with multiple beams (circular beams will always overlap for any n number of beams with n>2). If you could do away with this problem direct drive would have a MUCH higher real efficiency since you lose so much energy in heating the hohlraum wall. Which brings me on to 4) The amount of x-ray energy actually driving the implosion is much less than 600kJ to 1MJ. Your reference is valid (though used inappropriately): it represents a speculation along the lines of 'if we did x, y and z then this might become possible' though. It doesn't reflect what they are definitely intending to do at present (except regards using alloy hohlraums as previously noted). Your diagram gives a better reflection of what is being proposed at present (10-20% of 1.8MJ on capsule) and the lower of those two figures is perhaps better grounded in past experience. Unfortunately, there may be issues with making some of the changes proposed in the reference you use (e.g. running in green), and more experiments are needed to determine whether there would be a problem or not - which is why it isn't 'the plan' for the ignition experiments - and why these aren't the right numbers to use for this article.
    • Comment: I believe I have addressed all of these too. Except for one, the Dec'02 date, isn't that for NOVETTE? BTW, "some heavy metal" meant "one type of heavy metal among several possible choises", not "a little bit of heavy metal", I did fix this wording. Please, keep them coming, the article gets better with every one! Maury 14:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout. Here are random issues at the top.
    • First sentence trips up: "The National Ignition Facility, or NIF, is an ultra-high energy, very high-power laser research device currently under construction at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in Livermore, California." "Currently" adds nothing to the present tense: please remove it. If you want to specify the year, maybe, but best if someone remembers to change the wording when construction has finished. "As of May 2006, sixteen of the lasers have been completed." Shouldn't that be "had"?
    • "The device's main roles"—better as "The main roles of the device".
    • "high energy" as a double epithet should be hyphenated, to match what appears in the first sentence.
    • Year links ... um ... why? When I hit 2009, I find that it starts on a Thursday, and is the last year in the current decade (disputable, anyway). Then it tells me about Bulgaria. Hello ...
    • "The basic goal of any inertial confinement fusion (ICF) system is to quickly heat the outer layers of a "target" with the laser. This heat explosively vaporizes the outer surface of the target and heat it into a plasma." "Heat" x 3, and the last one is ungrammatical. "An", not "any", which is a unnecessary amplification. Tony 03:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Reads well, but too much like the promotional material written by the tech editing staff of a national laboratory. Needs fewer adjectives & a more technically accurate rewrite. Egregious examples:
  • "very high density (many times the density of lead for instance)"— so how dense in gm/cm³?
  • "very center of the compressed fuel"—as opposed to the "center of the compressed fuel"?
  • "millions of kelvins"—"millions of Kelvins" or the more traditional "millions of °K" (yes, I’m old enough to be old fashioned)
  • "extremely symmetrical"— how symmetrical?
  • "single ultrabright flash"—how bright is ultrabright?
Williamborg (Bill) 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/National_Ignition_Facility/archive1&oldid=210877592"