This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
"Because an exactly omnigenous reactor has no neoclassical transport (in the collisionless limit),[3] stellarators are usually designed in a way such that this criterion is met." But the previous sentence says that stellarators are usually NOT omnigeneous. Are stellarators designed so that they have no neoclassical transport despite that? The two sentences together are hard to parse, and I'm not familiar enough with this corner of physics to be sure I know the answer. User:R.J.J.Mackenbach would you care to weigh in? PianoDan (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, good catch. I meant to say that a generic stellarator (that is some random stellarator which is not optimized) does nt have this property. Stellarators nowadays are optimized for this criterion, and hence modern stellarators do come close to being omnigenous. Thanks for comment. R.J.J.Mackenbach (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
