Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:38, 1 March 2021

untested project in an embryonic state.

for further information, you can visit: 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: Some Technical Details

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

--Solo (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. --Solo (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2020 (CEST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-I'm an independent researcher, whatever the word “independent” may mean.
-my concern in relation to the nuclear fusion problem is in 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 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 see I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals, but I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminative tool 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.
+untested project in an embryonic state.
-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 not a scientist, my means and technical knowledges are so small and limited that make me feel here like standing on the shoulders of giants.
-for further information, you can visit '''nuclear fusion: a different approach''' [https://sites.google.com/site/asingleapproach/]
+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 at section '''3 the single-pointed concept'''.
+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'''.
-Oscar S. De Rus
+'''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)

Single-Pointed Magnetic Confinement: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:38, 1 March 2021

Navigation menu

Search