Got it. Yeah, some intuition would make you think that the problem is somehow symmetrical, since other electromagnetic systems don’t have this ‚organic‘ kind of shape.
My understanding is that the different sections of the torus experience different forces (inside vs outside due to the varying radii, top vs bottom due to gravity), which the Stellarator design attempts to compensate for by twisting the plasma so that no particular clump spends all of it's time in the same section.
> The basic concept was a way to modify the torus layout so that it addressed Fermi's concerns though the device's geometry. By twisting one end of the torus compared to the other, forming a figure-8 layout instead of a circle, the magnetic lines no longer travelled around the tube at a constant radius, instead they moved closer and further from the torus' center. A particle orbiting these lines would find itself constantly moving in and out across the minor axis of the torus. The drift upward while it travelled through one section of the reactor would be reversed after half an orbit and it would drift downward again. The cancellation was not perfect, but it appeared this would so greatly reduce the net drift rates that the fuel would remain trapped long enough to heat it to the required temperatures.
Symmetrical except for gravity that always points downwards. I wonder if it's easier to pull off fusion in a (close to) zero gravity environment because the plasma doesn't budge by other effects than the container's.
As I wrote: the tradeoff is the complexity of the device.
I once listened to a fairly long podcast on the history of Wendelstein-7X, and apparently the mathematical/computational modelling required to figure out a decently optimized stellarator simply couldn't be done when the first ones were built, so they were very inefficient and easily beaten by the Tokamaks, and so interest and funding understandably shifted.
That changed when compute became much cheaper, and apparently some researchers created software models that they could run on their PCs and the late 80s, maybe early 90s. This was largely ignored for quite a while, as all the focus was on Tokamaks, for example JET and later ITER.
Having cracked what to build, and somehow gotten funding, the problem was then actually building it. Very, very challenging, and it did take a lot longer to build than even initially planned, and it wasn't clear that they would succeed in building it. But they did.
And ever since then, it's been humming along nicely.
The release of information on the USSR's [better performing] tokamak design in 1968 indicated a leap in performance. After great debate within the US industry, PPPL converted the Model C stellarator to the Symmetrical Tokamak (ST) as a way to confirm or deny these results. ST confirmed them, and large-scale work on the stellarator concept ended in the US as the tokamak got most of the attention for the next two decades.