Talk:Fusion torch

The quoted efficiencies are actually atrociously bad compared to what could be obtained if microwave heating were also utilized. This is amplified if the fact that some materials are better microwave susceptors than others. Zaphraud (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written, and includes a serious misunderstanding about climate science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.123.166 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added dispute template - at least some of this article is based in conspiracy theory. Please can someone rewrite it? 67.237.56.112 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor writing[edit]

Just look at the article. There's nothing good about the design, which hardly looka like a Wikipedia article. Somebody rewrite this piece of grarmpitutty into an article that looks like a proper article. Also, I suspect they ripped everything directly from the paper. The fusion torch is a cool idea, but has an article with no redeeming value. ^いくらBraden1127 _イクラꅇ 13:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It wasn't ripped off, I checked. ^いくらBraden1127 _イクラꅇ 14:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks, AmericanAir88, for actually making this less of a piece of grarmpitutty! ^いくらBraden1127 _イクラꅇ 16:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean as in actually making the contents contents, now actually has resemblence to an article, very un-grarmpituttied. The factual accuracy is disputed. ^いくらBraden1127 _イクラꅇ 14:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]