Sander said:That's because fusion reactions are extremely hard (almost impossible so far, in fact) to create stably and hence get mentioned a lot less than fission reactions. A fusion reaction is still a nuclear reaction and is still referred to as a nuclear reaction.
Thanks, just as I thought so, but I wasn't sure.
On a second note, it is possible that since fusion reaction is being tried to be exploited much later than fission, scientists don't want to scare people (not excluding politicians) off by using the word 'nuclear'.
The same thing happened with MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), which was NMRI (Nuclear ...) in the beginning. But who would dare to put his/her head into a machine that says 'Nuclear'!!! Funny...
Per said:The full term is "nuclear fusion".
Wikipedia and Google exist.
I actually did try Wikipedia, but on reactor and not on reaction, as a reactor is more relevant if you want to compare it to a car engine.
With fission reactor, I got redirected to nuclear reactor technology, and with fusion reactor I was spot on. So that's why I was a bit confused.
And Brother None is right, the word 'nuclear' has so many meanings, that it isn't really a good choice to use it in relation to fusion reaction powered anything. Of course unless you have no clue about it.