Talk:ARC fusion reactor

SPARC

Should this link to https://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/topics/sparc? --User:Haraldmmueller 19:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

... and, more important, should the sentence "No plans to build such a reactor exist at this time" in the introduction be removed, because - as I understand it, but maybe I'm wrong - there is now the SPARC plan? --User:Haraldmmueller 09:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

... all well now. Thanks! --User:Haraldmmueller 06:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

'Reactor' vs. 'Power Plant'

There has been a recent move toward using 'power plant' for fusion power plant designs, rather than 'reactor,' in order to avoid confusion with fission reactors. Would there be objections to moving this page to ARC Fusion Power Plant? The title of the original ARC paper uses 'ARC: A compact, high-field, fusion nuclear science facility and demonstration power plant with demountable magnets.' Lightthesparc (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources generally refer this as a reactor, which is what it is. I oppose the move. A power plant includes a lot of other things, while this is a design for a reactor. I don't see why people would mistake it for a fission reactor. Reactor is a general term. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'm also for "reactor". Where do you see that "recent move" - in the WP? where? - or in the literature? where? --User:Haraldmmueller 14:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

diagram?

Could a diagram be included if at all possible? Thank you in advance Bucky winter soldier (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)