FusionWiki - User contributions [en]

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2021-03-01T15:38:29Z

Solo55:

untested project in an embryonic state.

for further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

to get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can have a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

'''direct insight''' and some provisional notes at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

feel free to post any kind of comment at the '''discussion''' of this page.

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (CEST)

The mentioned paper contains too many mistakes, and this text must be corrected.
However, the proposed configurations of magnets remains the same.
It seems to be possible a much more different approach, but it's too difficult to understand yet.
--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 13:26, 1 June 2020 (CEST)

User:Solo55

2021-03-01T15:37:14Z

Solo55:

I'm an independent researcher, whatever the word “independent” may mean.

In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways.

Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it is a very unorthodox work, since it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or researches, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.

It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.

I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.

On the other hand, since I’m an ''amateur'', my means are so small and my technical knowledges are so limited that I feel here at FusionWiki as if I were standing on the shoulders of giants.

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2021-03-01T15:22:29Z

Solo55:

untested project in an embryonic state.

for further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

to get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can have a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

'''direct insight''' and some provisional notes at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

feel free to post any kind of comment at the '''discussion''' of this page.

full paper: [[File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf]]

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (CEST)

The mentioned paper contains too many mistakes, and this text must be corrected.
However, the proposed configurations of magnets remains the same.
It seems to be possible a much more different approach, but it's too difficult to understand yet.
--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 13:26, 1 June 2020 (CEST)

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2020-06-01T11:26:06Z

Solo55:

untested project in an embryonic state.

for further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

to get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can have a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

'''direct insight''' and some provisional notes at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

feel free to post any kind of comment at the '''discussion''' of this page.

full paper: [[File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf]]

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (CEST)

The mentioned paper contains too many mistakes, and this text must be corrected.
However, the proposed configurations of magnets remains the same.
It seems to be possible a much more different approach, but it's too difficult to understand yet.
--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 13:26, 1 June 2020 (CEST)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2020-06-01T11:19:05Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* R.W. Moir and R.F. Post [[doi:10.1088/0029-5515/9/3/009|Nucl. Fusion 9 (1969) 243]]
* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor that were used as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]])13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Sorry. where I said in last post "or a multi-phase pulsating direct current" I mean "or a multi-phase full-wave rectified alternating current".

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (CET)

now I think it's probably clear that, if it were possible, it would work with a multi-phase a.c only, since a pulsating d.c. or a full-wave rectified a.c. would produce divergent B-field lines from the central area of confinement.

then, it seems that the problem with a multi-phase a.c. lies in finding the proper balance between the applied electric current and the magnets inductance to achieve a minimum of useful frequency to confine relatively the D-T mixture at the central area of the devices and to induce it a certain '''spin'''.

in spite of the apparent current tendency to think that "more is better" and even "much more is best" respecting many linear devices, perhaps "less is more" in the case of the A models here proposed.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 21:18, 25 September 2016 (CEST)

All previous hypotheses are wrong.
They are no more than speculations with no technical basis.
It seems that the proposed configurations require a very different approach.
Though these magnets seem to generate a null field at the central area,
direct current would produce confinement losses when applied to them
or, at their best, particles recirculation with a same loss as a result.
--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 13:18, 1 June 2020 (CEST)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2020-06-01T11:18:09Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* R.W. Moir and R.F. Post [[doi:10.1088/0029-5515/9/3/009|Nucl. Fusion 9 (1969) 243]]
* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor that were used as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]])13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Sorry. where I said in last post "or a multi-phase pulsating direct current" I mean "or a multi-phase full-wave rectified alternating current".

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (CET)

now I think it's probably clear that, if it were possible, it would work with a multi-phase a.c only, since a pulsating d.c. or a full-wave rectified a.c. would produce divergent B-field lines from the central area of confinement.

then, it seems that the problem with a multi-phase a.c. lies in finding the proper balance between the applied electric current and the magnets inductance to achieve a minimum of useful frequency to confine relatively the D-T mixture at the central area of the devices and to induce it a certain '''spin'''.

in spite of the apparent current tendency to think that "more is better" and even "much more is best" respecting many linear devices, perhaps "less is more" in the case of the A models here proposed.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 21:18, 25 September 2016 (CEST)

All previous hypotheses are wrong.
They are no more than speculations with no technical usefulness.
It seems that the proposed configurations requires a very different approach.
Though these magnets seem to generate a null field at the central area,
direct current would produce confinement losses when applied to them
or, at their best, particles recirculation with a same loss as a result.
--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 13:18, 1 June 2020 (CEST)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-25T19:18:11Z

Solo55:

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-25T18:13:29Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* R.W. Moir and R.F. Post [[doi:10.1088/0029-5515/9/3/009|Nucl. Fusion 9 (1969) 243]]
* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor that were used as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]])13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Sorry. where I said in last post "or a multi-phase pulsating direct current" I mean "or a multi-phase full-wave rectified alternating current".

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (CET)

now I think it's probably clear that, if it were possible, it would work with a multi-phase a.c only, since a pulsating d.c. or a full-wave rectified a.c. would produce divergent B-field lines from the central area of confinement.

then, it seems that the problem with a multi-phase a.c. lies in finding the proper balance between the applied electric current and the magnets inductance to achieve a minimum of useful frequency to confine relatively the D-T mixture at the central area of the devices and to induce a certain '''spin''' to it.

in spite of the apparent current tendency to think that "more is better" and even "much more is best" respecting many linear devices, perhaps "less is more" in the case of the A models here proposed.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (CEST)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-25T16:52:28Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* R.W. Moir and R.F. Post [[doi:10.1088/0029-5515/9/3/009|Nucl. Fusion 9 (1969) 243]]
* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor that were used as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]])13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Sorry. where I said in last post "or a multi-phase pulsating direct current" I mean "or a multi-phase full-wave rectified alternating current".

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (CET)

now I think it's probably clear that, if it were possible, it would work with a multi-phase a.c only, since a pulsating d.c. or a full-wave rectified a.c. would produce divergent B-field lines from the central area of confinement.

then, it seems that the problem with a multi-phase a.c. lies in finding the proper balance between the applied electric current and the magnets inductance to achieve a minimum of useful frequency to confine the D-T mixture and to induce a certain ''spin'' to it at the central area of the device.

in spite of the apparent current tendency to think that "more is better" and even "much more is best" respecting many linear devices, perhaps "less is more" in the case of the A models here proposed.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (CEST)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-25T16:15:13Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* R.W. Moir and R.F. Post [[doi:10.1088/0029-5515/9/3/009|Nucl. Fusion 9 (1969) 243]]
* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor that were used as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]])13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Sorry. where I said in last post "or a multi-phase pulsating direct current" I mean "or a multi-phase full-wave rectified alternating current".

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (CET)

now I think it's probably clear that, if it were possible, it would work with a multi-phase a.c only, since a pulsating d.c. or a full-wave rectified a.c. would produce divergent B-field lines from the central area of confinement.

then, it seems that the problem with a multi-phase a.c. lies in the proper balance between the applied electric current and the magnets inductance to achieve a minimum of useful frequency.

in spite of the apparent current tendency to think that "more is better" and even "much more is best" respecting many linear devices, perhaps "less is more" in the case of the A models here proposed.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (CEST)

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-25T13:18:21Z

Solo55:

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-25T12:56:39Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* R.W. Moir and R.F. Post [[doi:10.1088/0029-5515/9/3/009|Nucl. Fusion 9 (1969) 243]]
* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor that were used as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]])13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Sorry. where I said in last post "or a multi-phase pulsating direct current" I mean "or a multi-phase full-wave rectified alternating current".

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (CET)

I think it's clear that, if it were possible, it would work with a multi-phase a.c only, since a pulsating d.c. or a full-wave rectified a.c. would produce divergent B-field lines from the central area of confinement.

then, it seems that the problem with a multi-phase a.c. lies in the proper balance between the applied electric current and the magnets inductance to achieve a minimum of useful frequency.

in spite of the apparent current tendency to think that "more is better" and even "much more is best" respecting linear devices, perhaps "less is more" in the case of the A models here proposed.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (CEST)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-25T12:46:05Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* R.W. Moir and R.F. Post [[doi:10.1088/0029-5515/9/3/009|Nucl. Fusion 9 (1969) 243]]
* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor that were used as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]])13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Sorry. where I said in last post "or a multi-phase pulsating direct current" I mean "or a multi-phase full-wave rectified alternating current".

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (CET)

I think it's clear that, if it were possible, it would work with a multi-phase a.c only.
a pulsating d.c. or a full-wave rectified a.c. would produce divergent B-field lines from the central area of confinement.
then, it seems that the problem with a multi-phase a.c. lies in the proper balance between the applied electric current and the magnets inductance to achieve a minimal useful frequency.
in spite of the apparent current tendency to think that "more is better" and even "much more is best" respecting linear devices, perhaps "less is more" in the case of the A models here proposed.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (CEST)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-25T12:40:18Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* R.W. Moir and R.F. Post [[doi:10.1088/0029-5515/9/3/009|Nucl. Fusion 9 (1969) 243]]
* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor that were used as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]])13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Sorry. where I said in last post "or a multi-phase pulsating direct current" I mean "or a multi-phase full-wave rectified alternating current".

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (CET)

I think it's clear that, if it were possible, it would work with a multi-phase a.c only.
a pulsating d.c. or a full-wave rectified a.c. would produce divergent B-field lines from the central area of confinement.
then, it seems that the problem with a multi-phase a.c. lies in the balance between the applied electric current and the magnets inductance to achieve a minimal useful frequency.
in spite of the apparent current tendency to think that "more is better" and even "much more is best" respecting linear devices, perhaps "slightly less is more" in the case of the A models here proposed.

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (CEST)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-25T12:39:47Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* R.W. Moir and R.F. Post [[doi:10.1088/0029-5515/9/3/009|Nucl. Fusion 9 (1969) 243]]
* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor that were used as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo55]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]])13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Sorry. where I said in last post "or a multi-phase pulsating direct current" I mean "or a multi-phase full-wave rectified alternating current".

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (CET)

I think it's clear that, if it were possible, it would work with a multi-phase a.c only.
a pulsating d.c. or a full-wave rectified a.c. would produce divergent B-field lines from the central area of confinement.
then, it seems that the problem with a multi-phase a.c. lies in the balance between the applied electric current and the magnets inductance to achieve a minimal useful frequency.
in spite of the apparent current tendency to think that "more is better" and even "much more is best" respecting linear devices, perhaps "slightly less is more" in the case of the A models here proposed.

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (CEST)

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-24T19:19:46Z

Solo55:

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-09-24T18:30:14Z

Solo55:

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-07-27T07:19:24Z

Solo55:

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-07-14T15:55:58Z

Solo55:

untested project in an embryonary state.

for further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

to get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can take a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

'''direct insight''' at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

full paper: [[File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf]]

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (CEST)

File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf

2016-07-07T19:00:16Z

Solo55: Solo55 uploaded a new version of "File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf"

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-07-07T18:34:55Z

Solo55:

untested project in embryonary state.

for further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

to get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can take a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

'''direct insight''' at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

full paper: [[File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf]]

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 20:35, 28 June 2016 (CEST)

File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf

2016-06-28T19:49:16Z

Solo55: Solo55 uploaded a new version of "File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf"

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-06-28T18:47:14Z

Solo55:

untested project in embryo state.

for further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

to get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can take a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

'''direct insight''' at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

full paper: [[File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf]]

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 20:35, 28 June 2016 (CEST)

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-06-28T18:35:21Z

Solo55:

Untested Project in embryo state.

For further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

To get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can take a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

Direct insight at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

Full text: [[File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf]]

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 20:35, 28 June 2016 (CEST)

File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf

2016-06-28T18:32:49Z

Solo55:

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-06-28T18:31:37Z

Solo55:

Untested Project in embryo state.

For further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

To get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can take a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

Direct insight at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

[[File:1 nuclear fusion - a different approach.pdf]]

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 20:14, 28 June 2016 (CEST)

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-06-28T18:19:01Z

Solo55:

Untested Project in embryo state.

For further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

To get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can take a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

Direct insight at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 20:14, 28 June 2016 (CEST)

Alternative fusion devices

2016-06-28T18:17:52Z

Solo55: /* See also */

Economically viable energy production based on [[nuclear fusion]] in a [[magnetic confinement]] device
has not been demonstrated yet.
The mainstream [[tokamak]], [[stellarator]], [[spheromak]] and [[Reversed Field Pinch]] designs may achieve energy production by fusion in the future, but it remains to be seen whether these designs will lead to economically viable and attractive power plants, as fusion reactors based on these designs will almost certainly need to be very large.

Given this situation, there is considerable interest in developing alternative designs.
Their common goal is to achieve fusion power generation at lower cost by exploiting the hypothetical improved plasma confinement properties of a different magnetic field configuration (or other design features), which would allow a reduced size of the power plant.
<ref>D. Clery, ''Fusion's restless pioneers'', [[doi:10.1126/science.345.6195.370|Science '''345''', 6195 (2014) 370]]</ref>
<ref>M.M. Waldrop, ''Plasma physics: The fusion upstarts'', [http://www.nature.com/news/plasma-physics-the-fusion-upstarts-1.15592 Nature '''511''', 7510 (2014)]</ref>
Currently, none of the alternative designs have achieved these potential benefits.

== Alternative designs and associated companies ==

* [http://www.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/ Levitated Dipole Experiment]
* Compact Spherical [[Tokamak]] - [http://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/ Tokamak energy Ltd.]
* Colliding beam reactor - [[:wikipedia:Tri Alpha Energy, Inc.|Tri Alpha Energy]]<ref>L. Grossman, ''Inside the Quest for Fusion, Clean Energy’s Holy Grail'', [http://time.com/4082939/inside-the-quest-for-fusion-clean-energys-holy-grail/ Time, Oct. 22, 2015]</ref>
* [[:wikipedia:Polywell|Polywell]] - EMC2 company
* Magnetized target reactor - [http://www.generalfusion.com/ General Fusion]
* Dense Plasma Focus - [http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/ LPP Fusion]
* [http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html Compact Fusion] - Lockheed Martin (Skunkworks)<ref>D. Clery, ''Updated: Are old secrets behind Lockheed's new fusion machine?'', [http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/10/updated-are-old-secrets-behind-lockheeds-new-fusion-machine Science, 17 October 2014]</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Fusor]]
* [[Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement]]

== References ==
<references />

Alternative fusion devices

2016-06-28T18:17:33Z

Solo55: /* See also */

Economically viable energy production based on [[nuclear fusion]] in a [[magnetic confinement]] device
has not been demonstrated yet.
The mainstream [[tokamak]], [[stellarator]], [[spheromak]] and [[Reversed Field Pinch]] designs may achieve energy production by fusion in the future, but it remains to be seen whether these designs will lead to economically viable and attractive power plants, as fusion reactors based on these designs will almost certainly need to be very large.

Given this situation, there is considerable interest in developing alternative designs.
Their common goal is to achieve fusion power generation at lower cost by exploiting the hypothetical improved plasma confinement properties of a different magnetic field configuration (or other design features), which would allow a reduced size of the power plant.
<ref>D. Clery, ''Fusion's restless pioneers'', [[doi:10.1126/science.345.6195.370|Science '''345''', 6195 (2014) 370]]</ref>
<ref>M.M. Waldrop, ''Plasma physics: The fusion upstarts'', [http://www.nature.com/news/plasma-physics-the-fusion-upstarts-1.15592 Nature '''511''', 7510 (2014)]</ref>
Currently, none of the alternative designs have achieved these potential benefits.

== Alternative designs and associated companies ==

* [http://www.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/ Levitated Dipole Experiment]
* Compact Spherical [[Tokamak]] - [http://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/ Tokamak energy Ltd.]
* Colliding beam reactor - [[:wikipedia:Tri Alpha Energy, Inc.|Tri Alpha Energy]]<ref>L. Grossman, ''Inside the Quest for Fusion, Clean Energy’s Holy Grail'', [http://time.com/4082939/inside-the-quest-for-fusion-clean-energys-holy-grail/ Time, Oct. 22, 2015]</ref>
* [[:wikipedia:Polywell|Polywell]] - EMC2 company
* Magnetized target reactor - [http://www.generalfusion.com/ General Fusion]
* Dense Plasma Focus - [http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/ LPP Fusion]
* [http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html Compact Fusion] - Lockheed Martin (Skunkworks)<ref>D. Clery, ''Updated: Are old secrets behind Lockheed's new fusion machine?'', [http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/10/updated-are-old-secrets-behind-lockheeds-new-fusion-machine Science, 17 October 2014]</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Fusor]]

* [[Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement]]

== References ==
<references />

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-06-28T18:15:42Z

Solo55:

Untested Project in embryo state.

For further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

To get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can take a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

Direct insight at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 20:14, 28 June 2016 (CEST)

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-06-28T18:14:49Z

Solo55:

Untested Project in embryo state.

For further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]
To get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can take a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

Direct insight at: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproachboard/ Some Technical Details]

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

--[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 20:14, 28 June 2016 (CEST)

Alternative fusion devices

2016-03-06T21:05:37Z

Solo55:

Alternative fusion devices

2016-03-05T11:10:36Z

Solo55: Undo revision 5133 by Solo55 (talk)

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-03-05T11:09:58Z

Solo55:

For further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

To get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can take a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

'''most probably, it does not work, since I'm incapable to visualize the magnetic fields interactions and the trajectories of the particles.'''

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 12:09, 5 March 2016 (CET)

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-03-05T11:09:04Z

Solo55: Undo revision 5134 by Solo55 (talk)

For further information, you can visit: [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/ Nuclear Fusion: a different approach]

To get a general idea on what the whole project is about, you can take a look directly at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.

[http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/User:Solo55 Oscar S. De Rus]

'''most probably, it does not work, since I'm incapable to visualize the magnetic fields interactions and the trajectories of the particles'''

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 12:09, 5 March 2016 (CET)

User:Solo55

2016-03-05T11:06:58Z

Solo55: Undo revision 5135 by Solo55 (talk)

User:Solo55

2016-03-05T08:58:05Z

Solo55: Blanked the page

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-03-05T08:57:47Z

Solo55: Blanked the page

Alternative fusion devices

2016-03-05T08:57:05Z

Solo55:

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-03-04T16:07:02Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor that were used as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo55]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]])13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Sorry. where I said in last post "or a multi-phase pulsating direct current" I mean "or a multi-phase full-wave rectified alternating current".

[[User:Solo55|Solo]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (CET)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-02-29T16:04:10Z

Solo55:

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-02-29T12:55:50Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric energy input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo55]] 13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-02-29T12:53:16Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
three-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo55]] 13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-02-29T12:52:12Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
thrre-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible).
but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better, if any.

[[User:Solo55|Solo55]] 13:52, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-02-29T12:48:36Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
thrre-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt at this moment is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible). but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better.

[[User:Solo55|Solo55]] 13:47, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-02-29T12:46:37Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
thrre-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt at this moment is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible). but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better.

[[User:Solo55]] ([[User talk:Solo55|talk]]) 13:47, 29 February 2016 (CET)

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-02-29T12:45:13Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
thrre-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt at this moment is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible). but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better.

[[User:Solo55]]

Talk:Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement

2016-02-29T12:44:26Z

Solo55:

There seems to be some similarity between this concept and the Yin-Yang coils of the MFTF-B mirror machine. See

* [[:Wikipedia:Tandem_Mirror_Experiment|Tandem_Mirror_Experiment]]
* [https://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-mftfb-story-fusion-or-confusion/ The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?]

[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (CET)

In fact, these coils are not only similar, they are exactly the same than those of the "Yin-Yang" configuration for a Tandem Mirror Reactor as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, improving in this manner the previous Baseball Seam Coil that had been designed for the same function.

However, the way to arrange them is different now and, most important, the electric energy input too.

according to what I've read, Yin-Yang coils did work as a quadrupole, since a DC was applied to them to enhance the mirror effect at the central cell.

But these new configurations seem to allow the possibility to apply a multi-phase electric input, producing in this way a very different resulting magnetic field at the central area of the reactor.
thrre-phase for the A 3.0 model, four-phase for the A 4.0 model and five-phase for the A 5.0 model.

My doubt at this moment is between two options with probably very different effects: either a multi-phase alternating current or a multi-phase pulsating direct current (if this were possible). but I lack the technical means and knowledges to find out which could be better.

User:Solo55

2016-02-28T08:20:33Z

Solo55:

User:Solo55

2016-02-28T08:10:43Z

Solo55:

I'm an independent researcher, whatever the word “independent” may mean.

In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways.

Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it is a very unorthodox work, since it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights.

It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency.

I believe we as thinking human beings are fortunately far more complex and capable than what our own limited reason can explain, and this is why I try to be always open-minded to new and unexpected possibilites, though some of them may not coincide with our culturally established standards.

On the other hand, since I’m an ''amateur'', my means are so small and my technical knowledges are so limited that I feel here at FusionWiki as if I were standing on the shoulders of giants.

Oscar S. De Rus