Topic: Thermodynamic
Research question
– Is the thickness of wall insulation directly related to the insulation properties of the material?
: – Is adding insulation on the outside walls effective in-house installations? (more specific)

· Select a claim to be evaluated

· Identify the relevant scientific concepts associated with the claim

· Pose a research question addressing a specific aspect of the claim

· Conduct research to gather scientific evidence that may be used to address the research question and evaluate the claim

· Analyse the data to identify sufficient and relevant evidence

· Identify the trends, patterns or relationships in the evidence

· Interpret the evidence to construct justified scientific arguments

· Interpret the evidence to form a justified conclusion to the research question

· Discuss the quality of the evidence

· Evaluate the claim by extrapolating the findings of the research question

· Analyse and identify any limitations present in the evidence you find

· Suggest relevant future research ideas related to your research topic

· Communicate findings using appropriate scientific language and genre (i.e. empirical essay)

A research journal is to be used as evidence of the research and planning process

171972
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
April 2018
Research investigation (20%)
This sample has been compiled by the QCAA to Help and support teachers to match evidence
in student responses to the characteristics described in the instrument-specific marking guide
(ISMG).
Assessment objectives
This assessment instrument is used to determine student achievement in the following
objectives:
2. apply understanding of special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model to develop
research questions
3. analyse research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model
4. interpret research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model
5. investigate phenomena associated with special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard
Model through research
6. evaluate research processes, claims and conclusions about special relativity, quantum
theory or the Standard Model
7. communicate understandings and research findings, arguments and conclusions about
special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model.
Note: Objective 1 is not assessed in this instrument.
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
April 2018
Page 2 of 11
Instrument-specific marking guide (ISMG)
Criterion: Research and planning
Assessment objectives
2. apply understanding of special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model to develop
research questions
5. investigate phenomena associated with special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard
Model through research
The student work has the following characteristics: Marks
• informed application of understanding of special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard
Model demonstrated by a considered rationale identifying clear development of the
research question from the claim
• effective and efficient investigation of phenomena associated with special relativity,
quantum theory or the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ a specific and relevant research question
­ selection of sufficient and relevant sources.
5–6
• adequate application of understanding of special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard
Model demonstrated by a reasonable rationale that links the research question and the
claim
• effective investigation of phenomena associated with special relativity, quantum theory or
the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ a relevant research question
­ selection of relevant sources.
3–4
• rudimentary application of understanding of special relativity, quantum theory or the
Standard Model demonstrated by a vague or irrelevant rationale for the investigation
• ineffective investigation of phenomena associated with special relativity, quantum theory or
the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ an inappropriate research question
­ selection of insufficient and irrelevant sources.
1–2
• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. 0
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
April 2018
Page 3 of 11
Criterion: Analysis and interpretation
Assessment objectives
3. analyse research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model
4. interpret research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model
The student work has the following characteristics: Marks
• systematic and effective analysis of qualitative data and/or quantitative data within the
sources about special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ the identification of sufficient and relevant evidence
­ thorough identification of relevant trends, patterns or relationships
­ thorough and appropriate identification of limitations of evidence
• insightful interpretation of research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the
Standard Model demonstrated by justified scientific argument/s.
5–6
• effective analysis of qualitative data and/or quantitative data within the sources about
special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ the identification of relevant evidence
­ identification of obvious trends, patterns or relationships
­ basic identification of limitations of evidence
• adequate interpretation of research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the
Standard Model demonstrated by reasonable scientific argument/s.
3–4
• rudimentary analysis of qualitative data and/or quantitative data within the sources about
special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ the identification of insufficient and irrelevant evidence
­ identification of incorrect or irrelevant trends, patterns or relationships
­ incorrect or insufficient identification of limitations of evidence
• invalid interpretation of research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the
Standard Model demonstrated by inappropriate or irrelevant argument/s.
1–2
• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. 0
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
April 2018
Page 4 of 11
Criterion: Conclusion and Assessment
Assessment objectives
4. interpret research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model
6. evaluate research processes, claims and conclusions about special relativity, quantum theory
or the Standard Model
The student work has the following characteristics: Marks
• insightful interpretation of research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the
Standard Model demonstrated by justified conclusion/s linked to the research question
• critical Assessment of the research processes, claims and conclusions about special
relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ insightful discussion of the quality of evidence
­ extrapolation of credible findings of the research to the claim
­ suggested improvements and extensions to the investigation, which are considered and
relevant to the claim.
5–6
• adequate interpretation of research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the
Standard Model demonstrated by reasonable conclusion/s relevant to the research
question
• basic Assessment of the research processes, claims and conclusions about special relativity,
quantum theory or the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ reasonable description of the quality of evidence
­ application of relevant findings of the research to the claim
­ suggested improvements and extensions to the investigation, which are relevant to the
claim.
3–4
• invalid interpretation of research evidence about special relativity, quantum theory or the
Standard Model demonstrated by inappropriate or irrelevant conclusion/s
• superficial Assessment of the research processes, claims and conclusions about special
relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ cursory or simplistic statements about the quality of evidence
­ application of insufficient or inappropriate findings of the research to the claim
­ ineffective or irrelevant suggestions.
1–2
• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. 0
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
April 2018
Page 5 of 11
Criterion: Communication
Assessment objective
7. communicate understandings and research findings, arguments and conclusions about
special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model
The student work has the following characteristics: Marks
• effective communication of understandings and research findings, arguments and
conclusions about special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ fluent and concise use of scientific language and representations
­ appropriate use of genre conventions
­ acknowledgment of sources of information through appropriate use of
referencing conventions.
2
• adequate communication of understandings and research findings, arguments and
conclusions about special relativity, quantum theory or the Standard Model demonstrated by
­ competent use of scientific language and representations
­ use of basic genre conventions
­ use of basic referencing conventions.
1
• does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. 0
Task
Context
Investigate one of the following claims:
• The Lorentz factor that is included in special relativity formulas is a mathematical convenience, not a
physical reality.
• The Big Bang theory remains scientifically unchallenged and should now be considered a fact.
• Bruce Banner absorbs ambient gamma radiation, converting its energy into mass during the
transformation into the Hulk.
• The Flash can travel at, and even faster than, the speed of light.
• Carbon dioxide is unfairly blamed for anthropogenic climate change, because all greenhouse gases
contribute equally.
• Mobile phones cause cancer.
• The dream of almost limitless clean energy from nuclear fusion is close to being realised.
You may identify an alternative claim in consultation with your teacher. This claim must be related to Unit
4 subject matter.
Task
Gather secondary evidence related to a research question in order to evaluate the claim. Develop your
research question based on a number of possible claims provided by your teacher.
Obtain evidence by researching scientifically credible sources, such as scientific journals, books by wellcredentialed scientists, and websites of governments, universities, independent research bodies or
science and technology manufacturers. You must adhere to research conventions.
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
April 2018
Page 6 of 11
Sample response
Criterion Marks allocated Result
Research and planning
Assessment objectives 2, 5 6 5
Analysis and interpretation
Assessment objectives 3, 4 6 6
Conclusion and Assessment
Assessment objectives 4, 6 6 6
Communication
Assessment objective 7 2 2
Total 20 19
The annotations show the match to the instrument-specific marking guide (ISMG) performancelevel descriptors.
Key: Research and
planning
Analysis and
interpretation
Conclusion and
Assessment
Communication
Note: Colour shadings show the characteristics evident in the response for each criterion.
Research and
planning [5–6]
a considered rationale
identifying clear
development of the
research question
from the claim
The rationale shows
evidence of careful,
deliberate thought. The
sequence of ideas
involved in the
development of the
research question from
the claim is easily seen.
Communication [2]
acknowledgment of
sources of information
through appropriate
use of referencing
conventions
The use of in-text
referencing fits the
purpose of an essay.
Nuclear fusion
Rationale
The claim, “The dream of almost limitless clean energy from nuclear
fusion is close to being realised” has several aspects that could be
investigated. The first aspect is the assertion that nuclear fusion for power
generation is a clean process. A power generation process is considered
clean if it uses renewable resources, and has minimal threat to human
safety and environmental health (Haluzan, 2010). The second aspect of
the claim is that nuclear fusion can provide limitless amounts of energy.
The third aspect is the assertion that power generation from nuclear fusion
is close to being realised. Initial research indicated that nuclear fusion is
theoretically 1000% efficient (i.e. the amount of energy released is up to
ten times greater than the energy required to produce the fusion reaction
(HyperPhysics, 2017). This suggested that the assertion of almost
limitless energy is simply a poetic way of saying that nuclear fusion runs at
an energy surplus. The remaining two aspects of the claim are in part,
interrelated to each other. Some techniques are considered theoretically
clean, but are not close to realisation. Others are operational (Hurricane
et. Al, 2014), but are not considered clean. Research revealed a fusion
technique developed by the Tokamak Energy company that is both close
to realisation, and that involves reactants and products that may, on
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
April 2018
Page 7 of 11
Research and
planning [3–4]
a relevant research
question
The research question
is developed from the
claim and connected to
the topics covered in the
unit. However, it is not
clearly defined.
Communication [2]
appropriate use of
genre conventions
The use of headings
and paragraphs fits the
purpose of an essay.
Research and
planning [5–6]
selection of sufficient
and relevant sources
Sources throughout the
response are scientific
and provide enough
evidence for the
development of a
scientific argument that
responds to the
research question.
Communication [2]
acknowledgment of
sources of information
through appropriate
use of referencing
conventions
The use of in-text
referencing fits the
purpose of an essay.
further investigation, be considered as clean. Subsequently, the research
question to be investigated is as follows:
Is the Tokamak Energy nuclear fusion power generation technique able to
be considered as clean?
If it can be established using evidence, that the Tokamak Energy nuclear
fusion power generation technique is clean, then the first aspect of the
claim can be supported.
Overview of the Tokamak Energy nuclear fusion
power generation technique.
The UK based Tokamak Energy organisation has built a reactor that fuses
hydrogen atoms. Theoretically, effective fusion of hydrogen atoms
requires them to be heated to 100 million degrees Celsius. At this
temperature, hydrogen is a plasma. This means a reduction in the
electrostatic repulsion between hydrogen atoms. This allows nuclear
forces to bind two hydrogen nuclei. At this stage one of the protons
decays into a neutron, forming deuterium and releasing energy.
Deuterium can then be fused to form helium, releasing energy. The
energy used during the heating of hydrogen enables enormous amounts
of energy to be released during each stage of the fusion process.
(Tokamak Energy, 2014 and HyperPhysics, 2017). The goal of the use of
a fusion reaction is to produce enough energy to maintain conditions for
continued fusion as well as sufficient surplus energy (i.e. heat) to generate
electricity via traditional methods. The Tokamak Energy organisation
reactor only achieves a plasma at 15 million degrees, but is working
towards the required 100 million degrees. They predict that they will be
producing commercially available power by 2030 (Tokamak Energy, 2014).
The difficulty encountered with the Tokamak Energy reactor is the
management of the plasma. The extreme heat of the plasma will either
damage or destroy the containment facility. This will result in heat loss and
a state change back to gas. Two models of containment are currently
being explored: magnetic field confinement and inertial field confinement.
Of these, magnetic field confinement has been explored and tested for
over 50 years with some advances in recent years, however significant
and rapid advances in inertial field confinement have also been seen
recently (Lindl & Hammel, 2004).
The renewability of resources required in the
Tokamak Energy nuclear fusion power generation
technique
The renewability of energy resources is dependent on whether the energy
source is available in “undiminished quantity at present costs for as long
as the current relationship between the sun and Earth persists” (Cohen,
1983). Subsequently, both the efficiency and availability of an energy
source must be considered when determining whether an energy source
is renewable. Power that is generated via thermal power requires the
burning of fossil fuel, hydro power generation requires large amounts of
water in a position of relatively high gravitational potential energy, and
nuclear power generated is currently restricted to nuclear fission reactions.
At this point in time, worldwide coal-fired power plant efficiency average
35.1% in 2007 (IEA 2010), and may achieve up to 44% efficiency. This
efficiency is higher than many other forms of power generation. The
efficiency of an energy source is important because the higher the
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
April 2018
Page 8 of 11
Analysis and
interpretation [5–6]
identification of
sufficient and relevant
evidence
The evidence is
appropriate for the
purpose of responding
to the research
question. It is applicable
and directly connected
to the formation of the
scientific argument.
Communication [2]
fluent and concise use
of scientific language
and representations
The response is easily
understood, avoids
unnecessary repetition
and meets the required
length.
Analysis and
interpretation [5–6]
thorough and
appropriate
identification of
limitations of evidence
The response identifies
limitations of evidence
that affect how well it
can be used to develop
a response to the
research question.
justified scientific
argument/s
The scientific argument
uses a process of sound
reasoning and draws
upon valid and reliable
evidence.
identification of
sufficient and relevant
evidence
The evidence is
appropriate for the
purpose of responding
to the research
question. It is applicable
and directly connected
to the formation of the
scientific argument.
efficiency, the lower the amount of the energy source is used.
Theoretically, a fusion reactor similar to Tokamak Energy’s reactor can
produce energy at an efficiency of 1000% (Hyperphysics, 2017). An
efficiency of this magnitude indicates that the amount of the energy source
used during energy production is minimal.
The Tokamak Energy fusion reactor uses hydrogen as its energy source.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe (Live Science,
2017) and accounts for approximately three quarters of all known matter.
It can be reasonably predicted that there will be sufficient hydrogen able to
be sourced for use in fusion reactions for as long as the Earth-Sun
relationship continues. Having established that hydrogen is likely to be
available in undiminished quantity, attention should be turned to
determining the costs associated with accessing hydrogen fuel. The
evidence gathered during research was limited by the absence of any
data on how much it costs for the Tokamak Energy company to harvest
the hydrogen fuel. As such, to truly evaluate whether the Tokamak energy
nuclear fission power generation technique uses renewable energy
sources, more information is required to establish the cost effectiveness of
using hydrogen as a source.
Tokamak Energy nuclear fusion power generation
technique threat to human safety and the
environment
The threat that nuclear power generation has to human safety can be
approached statistically. Nuclear power generation has been used since
the 1950s (Bright Hub Engineering, 2017). Incidents such as the
Chernobyl disaster (1986) have brought fuel availability and radiation
losses to local surroundings into public debate. Overall, there have been
eleven significant incidents with nuclear power in the last 60 years,
resulting in significant effects on the local environment, and in some
instances fatalities (DiaNuke.org, 2017 – see Appendix A for full ranking of
these incidents). A concern with the use of (fission) nuclear power is the
management of waste associated with power generation, and the risk of
catastrophic failure of the plant. Nuclear waste must be isolated for up to
50 years (World Nuclear Association, 2017) to allow radioactivity decay to
occur to a safe level, then disposed away from possible interactions with
the biosphere where it can harm humans. Importantly, “In more than 50
decades of civil nuclear power experience nuclear wastes have not
caused any serious health or environmental problems nor posed any real
risks to people. There has been no pollution or plausible hazard from such
material routinely removed from power stations…” (World Nuclear
Association, 2017). Compared with the several thousand-year timeframe
associated with biohazards released from coal-burning, this is a more
manageable risk. In terms of failure risk (and by inference, health risk),
Forbes, in an article titled “How deadly is your kilowatt?”, (Forbes, 2012)
has considered overall deaths able to be attributed directly to forms of
power generation on a per kilowatt basis, and have identified that
worldwide coal-powered fuel generation is over one thousand times more
dangerous than nuclear power.
The Tokamak Energy reactor uses hydrogen and produces helium gas.
Helium gas does not need to be stored in the same way as products from
nuclear fission reactors (Tokamak Energy, 2017). It is an inert gas and is
not dangerous once dispersed in an atmosphere (Tokamak Energy,
2017). Whilst it has been established that the Tokamak Energy nuclear
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
April 2018
Page 9 of 11
Analysis and
interpretation [5–6]
thorough and
appropriate
identification of
limitations of evidence
The response identifies
limitations of evidence
that affect how well it
can be used to develop
a response to the
research question.
thorough identification
of relevant trends,
patterns or
relationships
The identified
relationships are
adequate for the
purpose of responding
to the research question
and can support a valid
conclusion. They have
direct bearing upon and
are applicable to the
formation of the
scientific argument.
Conclusion and
Assessment [5–6]
insightful discussion
of the quality of
evidence
The discussion shows
how the limitations
identified in the analysis
have affected the use of
the evidence to evaluate
the claim.
extrapolation of
credible findings of
the research to the
claim
The response uses the
conclusion to the
research question to
support or refute the
claim within the
limitations of the
evidence identified in
the analysis.
Communication [2]
fluent and concise use
of scientific language
and representations
The response is easily
understood, avoids
unnecessary repetition
and meets the required
length.
fusion power generation technique produces helium that does not pose a
threat to humans or the environment once dispersed in the atmosphere,
data was not found regarding the quantity of helium that is produced.
Without further research determining the amount of helium released,
establishing the safety of humanity and the environment of nuclear fusion
power generation cannot be done. As this data was not found in the
Tokamak Energy company literature, the evidence gathered is limiting,
preventing any firm conclusion to be made that the Tokamak Energy
nuclear fusion power generation technique does not pose a threat to
human safety or the environment.
Another difficulty in establishing any firm conclusion, is that the
mechanisms required to heat hydrogen fuel to 100 million degrees Celsius
may require processes that threaten human safety and the environment.
The safety of the processes undertaken during power generation and the
threat that the quantity of waste is yet to be established because no data
was found about how the Tokamak Energy technique achieves the high
temperatures required. However, unlike nuclear fission reactors, there is
no danger from loss of confinement of the fuel (i.e. only hydrogen gas
would be released), and no unsafe waste from the process, then risks
associated with the production of nuclear fusion power appear to be
minimal (Tokamak Energy, 2017).
Quality of the evidence
The statement, “in more than 50 decades of civil nuclear power
experience nuclear wastes have not caused any serious health or
environmental problems nor posed any real risks to people. There has
been no pollution or plausible hazard from such material routinely
removed from power stations…” was made by the World Nuclear
Association in 2017. It is suggested that a second source confirming this
would be required to remove claims of bias, and to have greater
confidence in the accuracy of the statement.
A lot of the information about the Tokamak Energy nuclear fusion power
generation technique was sourced from the Tokamak Energy company.
Whilst there is no indication that Tokamak Energy company is negligent,
dishonest or biased, it is essential that an outside authority confirm the
information as true at some point in the future. Understandably, evidence
such as this is likely to be commercially sensitive, making it publicly
available may threaten their business opportunities. As such, it is not
suggested that an outside authority act on behalf of the public, but as a
confidential agent of a nuclear fusion certification authority such as the
Nuclear Regulatory Authority.
Assessment of the claim
The research question, “Is the Tokamak Energy nuclear fusion power
generation technique able to be considered clean?” was addressed by
gathering evidence. The evidence suggests that the Tokamak Energy
nuclear fusion technique uses fuel, and produces waste that bears no
threat to humans or the environment. However, as no evidence was found
regarding the cost or processes required to source the hydrogen fuel, heat
the fuel or the human or environmental impact of the quantity of helium
waste produced, it cannot be fully established that the technique can be
considered as ‘clean’. The findings of this investigation, if applied to the
claim, suggest that the claim is not yet able to be supported with the
evidence gathered in this investigation.
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
April 2018
Page 10 of 11
Conclusion and
Assessment [5–6]
suggested
improvements and
extensions to the
investigation which
are considered and
relevant to the claim
The improvements
address the limitations
associated with the
evidence. The
extensions identify
modifications that would
complement the findings
of the investigation and
have the potential to
provide new evidence
that could be used to
evaluate the claim
further.
Conclusion and
Assessment [5–6]
justified conclusion/s
linked to the research
question
The response uses
sound reasoning and
valid and reliable
evidence to support
conclusions that directly
respond to the research
question.
Communication [2]
acknowledgment of
sources of information
through appropriate
use of referencing
conventions
The use of a referencing
system fits the purpose
of an essay.
Improvements to the investigation
In order to address the limitations of the evidence identified previously,
some improvements could be made. The first improvement would be to
research how the hydrogen fuel is produced. It would be important to
establish the cost of this process, and the risk to the environment and
human safety associated with this process. Further data is required to
establish how they hydrogen fuel is heated to such a high temperature.
This process itself may not be ‘clean’, suggesting that the nuclear fusion
process in its entirety is not clean.
Extensions to the investigation
It is recognised that the research question used to direct this investigation
focussed on one aspect of the claim. An aspect of the claim that clean
energy is “close to being realized” was not been directly considered in this
research. Further research that could be considered is whether timelines
being publicised by private corporations conducting research and building
power plants are realistic. Further, research could be conducted to
estimate the amount of fuel (hydrogen) required to provide power for a
city, or country, and whether this amount of fuel is readily available on
Earth. Finally, research into the processes involved in containing the
hydrogen fuel during the reaction should be conducted. This will help
establish the likelihood of achieving containment using inertial or magnetic
methods.
Conclusion
It can be seen that not enough evidence has been gathered to establish
whether nuclear fusion processes for generation of power, using Tokamak
Energy’s technique, are clean. However, no evidence was found to the
contrary. As such, the claim “The dream of almost limitless clean energy
from nuclear fusion is close to being realized” cannot be supported by this
research, but at the same time, it was not refuted by the findings of this
research.
Word count: 1973
Reference List
http://www.thegreenmarketoracle.com/2017/05/nuclear-fusion.html, The
Green Market Oracle, accessed: 28th May, 2017
Power generation from Coal – Measuring and reporting efficiency
performance and CO2 emissions, OECD/IEA, 2010 International Energy
Agency.
https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/coal-mining, World Coal Association,
accessed: 28th May, 2017
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmingpotentials, United States Environmental Protection Agency, accessed:
28th May, 2017
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-compare-theefficiency-of-different-power-plants/, Bright Hub Engineering, accessed:
28th May, 2017
Physics 2019 v1.1
IA3 high-level annotated sample response
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority
April 2018
Page 11 of 11
http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-futuregeneration/outline-history-of-nuclear-energy.aspx, World Nuclear
Association, accessed: 28th May, 2017
http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-futuregeneration/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx, World Nuclear Association,
accessed: 28th May, 2017
How Deadly is your Kilowatt?, Conca, J., Forbes, 2012
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprinta-price-always-paid/#5ac75005709b accessed: 28th May, 2017
Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source (Bernard Cohen),
Department of Physics, university of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 1983
Reaching for the stars (https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-atnasa/1999/prop12apr99_1), accessed: 28th May, 2017
Fuel gain exceeding unity in an inertially confined fusion implosion, O. A.
Hurricane et. Al., Nature 506, 343–348 (20 February 2014)
doi:10.1038/nature13008, Received 01 November 2013 Accepted 07
January 2014 Published online 12 February 2014, Corrigendum (June,
2014)
First plasma in new reactor brings the UK a big step closer to fusion
energy, Tokamak Energy, http://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/first-plasmain-new-reactor-brings-the-uk-a-big-step-closer-to-fusion-energy/,
accessed: 28th May, 2017
Facts about Hydrogen, Agata Blaszczak-Boxe, January 23, 2015,
http://www.livescience.com/28466-hydrogen.html, accessed: 28th May,
2017
Nuclear Fusion, HyperPhysics, http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/fusion.html, accessed: 28th May, 2017
Lindl, John; Hammel, Bruce (2004), “Recent Advances in Indirect Drive
ICF Target Physics”, 20th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference (PDF),
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, retrieved August 23, 2014
Haluzan, Ned. 2010. Clean energy definition, 22 November 2010,
http://www.renewablesinfo.com/energy_definitions/clean_energy_definition.html, accessed 28th
May, 2017

Published by
Medical
View all posts