News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X stell... by raverbashing on Sunday December 11, 2016 @03:57AM (#13150236)
I'd say the smaller the Stellerator is, the stronger the magnetic fields have to be, as the curve radiuses are smaller

So there's probably an ideal size

Re:Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X stell... by krashnburn200 on Sunday December 11, 2016 @05:32AM (#13150474)
my math suggests something approximating the size of a star could achieve fusion by using only gravity for containment.

I wouldn't want to stand too close to that sucker though.

Re:Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X stell... by pavlov on Sunday December 11, 2016 @06:36AM (#13150634)
If someone had built such an object, say 10,000 light years away, what would it look like to us?
Re:Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X stell... by krashnburn200 on Sunday December 11, 2016 @11:58PM (#13155651)
nothing for 10,000 years - however long ago they built it.
Re:Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X stell... by analognoise on Sunday December 11, 2016 @08:21AM (#13150952)
I read this as such dry humor, I have to ask if you are English.
Re:Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X stell... by krashnburn200 on Sunday December 11, 2016 @09:24AM (#13151171)
Texan
Re:Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X stell... by k__ on Sunday December 11, 2016 @06:45AM (#13150660)
but aren't stars varying extremely in size?
Re:Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X stell... by wolrah on Sunday December 11, 2016 @11:18AM (#13151675)
> but aren't stars varying extremely in size?

Woosh.

A star is a fusion reactor using only gravity for containment.

Re:Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X stell... by photogrammetry on Sunday December 11, 2016 @03:42PM (#13153075)
Well, they're only just barely contained. Things spew out radiation like nobody's business.