Talk:TRANSP

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: This page makes claims that the code is important for multiple publications etc. However, there are no sources for any of these claims. Detailed sources must be provided since without them the claims should be deleted and then there is nothing in this article that would validate notability.

Ldm1954 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Article should mention computer languages used by this sw package.

Noleander (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

What to do with paragraphs on specific simulations/experiments

These two paragraphs strike me as particularly dense and possibly not warranted:

"A precursor experiment with deuterium plasma was accurately modelled by TRANSP, and then a mix of deuterium and tritium was substituted into the model. The predicted fusion gain Q_DT, defined as the ratio of fusion energy produced to the external heating power applied to the plasma, was 0.32. Later deuterium-tritium experiments in 1993–1996 achieved a maximum Q_DT of 0.28.

TRANSP is also being used to predict results from future experiments in ITER. One early example, supports the prediction of achieving Q_DT in the range 5–14, and possibly higher. Other examples include Murakami’s Integrated modelling of steady-state scenarios and heating and current drive mixes for ITER, which demonstrates the feasibility of achieving Q ≈ 4.3 with fully noninductive current drive using theory-based transport models and experimental edge profile scaling. Kessel’s Simulation of the hybrid and steady state advanced operating modes in ITER, uses multiple 1.5D transport evolution codes, including CRONOS, TSC/TRANSP, and ONETWO, projected fusion gains of 3.5–7 in steady-state mode and 5.6–8.3 in hybrid mode, depending on the assumptions used for transport and source modelling"

The citations on these seem fine and I am going to put them under a heading ("Notable Uses"?) and see about crosslinking pages where I can, but it just feels a little out of place to me. Any second opinions or advice would be great - I am still very new to Wikipedia editing! Bigwelds (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)