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 Nucl. Fusion 9 (1969) 243
- Tandem_Mirror_Experiment
- The MFTF-B story – Fusion or conFusion?
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.
Solo (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".
Solo (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.
Solo (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. --Solo (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2020 (CEST)