nuclear fusion: a different approach by Oscar S. De Rus author's preliminary note: 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 shared points of view on creativity 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 way 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 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. !1 abstract this brief paper tries to outline some connections only that could probably lead from the current linear models to the single-pointed magnetic confinement model for a nuclear fusion reactor, because of the coherence of the latter with the stars working structure and constitution, due to the close similarity of this magnetic confinement model with the natural gravitational confinement produced inside of them. the ideas here proposed and the questions here raised are founded on some available data for a non-specialized understanding, and this is why its author cannot claim nor pretend to be authoritative when dealing with some general concepts on nuclear physics, but only suggestive to the open-minded research with no academic prejudices. the sections included in this document have no other intention than to offer a general insight and introduce some new questions about this subject, and this is why they are not so expanded here as it would be possible with a deeper exposition. introduction the analogical way of thinking, not concerned with particular ideas only but with the possible relations (analogies) between them, seems to provide a wider range of connections to understand how Nature works, just like Bionics proceeds "asking" Nature about her solutions to her biological problems, trying to find out then how we can apply them to our technical necessities. this kind of reverse engineering, turned towards Nature in its widest sense instead, seems to be the most secure way to face our technical challenges when trying to reproduce the internal conditions of a star on Earth. whether this is simply to proceed by observing similar natural structures as constructive metaphors or as "silent advices of the Book of Life for the waking reader" could be the subject for an additional approach. however, the question arising now in mind is the following one: are we wiser than Nature when trying to reproduce a nuclear fusion reaction by artificial means? the answer is clear and simple, and perhaps we should consider this initial condition before of trying to create something like this on our own means. 1 fractal vs. euclidean geometry this seems to be a superficial contradiction. from a deeper point of view, the euclidean mathematical interpretation of space founded upon the three basic dimensions (x, y, z) is a constructive metaphor of the human body, a mental representation of its basic physical structure, an intellective projection of itself just like, in a more material way, a pencil is a physical projection for the finger or a computer is for the brain. on the other hand, the fractal interpretation provides a wider perspective, though not so attached to the apparent structure of the human body, when trying to understand other possible manifestations of Nature attending to the careful observation of other ordered structures, some of them clearly represented by the complexity of multiple natural patterns that may present, for example, scalar self-similarity and other properties not easily described in traditional euclidean geometric language. however, there is only Space, and fractal or euclidean are simply different relative interpretations of the same undifferentiated reality which essential absoluteness is not altered by them, and we need to understand their relativity to be able of an even wider conception of this spatial aspect of the Universe. !2 2 the linear concept from the first experimental field reversed models and some magnetic mirror configurations to the current toroidal devices, with the only exception of inertial electrostatic confinement models (from Fusor to Polywell) and some inertial confinement attempts using high-energy beams of laser light, there seems to be a certain progression (Tokamak, JET, ITER, Stellarator) leading to consider the linear magnetic confinement concept as the only possible or best, though it doesn't seem to correspond to the apparent working structure of stars. to focus laser beams inwards, for example, is not coherent with the natural model they provide. they proceed by gravitational confinement, their natural way to achieve a higher internal density by means of a physical compression that then produces a fusion reaction at their core and, therefore, a huge outburst of energy, light and heat outwards. however, if we transcend the limitations determined by all these previous models, if we go beyond these preconceived ideas and have a look at how universal Nature works, the single- pointed magnetic confinement concept will arise sooner or later in our mind, not as another possibility only, but as a necessary object to study much more coherent with the natural working structure of stars. and, from this different perspective, other models can be designed according to this concept, just like, for example, the following ones. 3 the single-pointed concept these are three models (see the nine images below) for a same constructive system. they can be designed by means of euclidean geometry, the standard mode preloaded on every software for design purposes, but they cannot be conceived initially by simply thinking "on screen" or using any other bidimensional means, because of the impossibility to think at first in the usual views for doing it so. ground plans, elevations, sections, mostly one-sided views, are not possible to think before their design process, because it's necessary to conceive them directly on 3D terms for a better understanding. however, this is not the main feature of this constructive system, but just abandoning temporarily the cartesian standard and going beyond the basic concept of the "three coordinate axes" (x, y, z), predetermined in our minds too. according to this euclidean interpretation of space, a main vertical axis (commonly the main rotation axis too) coincides always with one of these three virtual lines, thus conditioning and restricting our constructive capabilities because of the limitations imposed by this preconceived idea. but instead of this, if we make to coincide this main verticality (rotation axis) with the alternative virtual line (red in the first model) described by the points where always x = y = z and -x = -y = -z, this becomes the basic concept that makes possible to conceive and design, for example, the A 3.0 model and it also enables us to conceive and design the other two models A 4.0 and A 5.0 as a consequential progression of the same constructive procedure. then, the coincidence of the main vertical axis with one of the three coordinate axes initially predetermined by the euclidean interpretation of space is already not so determinative to properly understand all the constructive possibilities of this system. but are these models simply anachronistic because of referring to the magnets formerly designed for a tandem mirror reactor now regarded as an outdated concept? not necessarily, because those magnets, though initially conceived as end stoppers to minimize leakage of positive particles from the ends of a center mirror cell, were also designed to provide an easier manner for achieving a higher concentration of their magnetic fluxes on a central area, a very necessary condition for a good single-pointed confinement device, though the way to arrange them is different now and the coils polarity too, as it is explained in the following sections. !3 Model A 3.0 Model A 4.0 Model A 5.0 it could be argued these configurations lack axisymmetry, but this term refers to an object having cylindrical symmetry only (no change when rotating about one axis). however, rotational symmetry of order n, also called n-fold rotational symmetry or discrete rotational symmetry of the nth order, with respect to an axis means that rotation by an angle of 360°/n (120°, 90° and 72° for the A models) does not change the object either (1). do we really know what would happen inside of these devices and which would be the effects produced with these new configurations? !4 at this point, it is imperative to remember we are not only constructing a physical object, a single- pointed magnetic confinement reactor, but shaping the magnetic fields produced inside of it, and to know the effects of their resulting magnetic field is probably the most difficult question this proposal tries to put forward.