Fusor Forums

We have recently had, and it looks as if we will continue to have, folks claiming fusion in this or that wonderful device for which they have a special place in their hearts, and minds. Unfortunately, they show up with no proof of fusion at all.

It is abundantly clear that most are not only under instrumented, but have no instruments on hand at all. Many systems are operated in some sort of pulsed mode that appears as immensly powerful, albeit short lived, RF output levels guaranteed to interfere with any electronic radiation counting system.

In such cases, only the electronically blind BTI type neutron bubble detector will herald fusion neutrons. So, we must ask that all claimants of this or that wonderous fusion system that will revolutionize the entire planet's concept of energy, please supply an image of a BTI bubble detector with bubbles in it near the end of any amazing videos.
We would prefer seeing the bubbles pop into existence with the video camera next to your running system.

It is a proof we demand of ourselves as well as others.

For those who would follow up on this advice, please refer to past posts by searching this forum on "Bubble detector" or "BTI". I warn you though, be prepared for never seeing your first bubble.

Richard Hull

I second this movement

Here here

I don't totally agree. With proper instrumentation, using light Hydrogen as a control, I would consider results from BF3 and H3 detectors, along with MCA analysis of neutron activation as valid proof of neutron generation. It helps to correlate the electronic defectors with bubble detectors, as it indicates that at least some of us are technically competent. For those who are trying experimental designs or claim 'unusual' neutron flux, etc, I'm with Richard - SHOW ME THE BUBBLES!

I would like to try a pulsed Fusor, and I would like to believe that I could persuade everyone if I presented full documentation including light vs heavy Hydrogen neutron electronic detection.

One thing this forum has not discussed much is false detection issues.

Yes Richard,

I agree. Bubbles should be the preferred prerequisite to any claim of meaningful levels of hot fusion. It is by far the least expensive, most reliable method of confirmation we have at our disposal.


I will however entertain other hard evidence that abides by the same standard of proof. Death by radiation poisoning would be quite convincing, and would be the logical result of a few of the claims I've seen were they correct.

I would also accept less fatal proof such as activation (confirmed via MCA), or the rare combination of superb instrumentation and immaculate experimental technique.

My work is low voltage <10,000V and only pulsed. I only use a bubble detector. It takes time to get accustomed to the occasional background bubble that pops up. You soon get a feel for what is background and what is not.

If I ever see repeatable bubble formation from my device, (after the laughing subsides) will probably pack the thing up and ship it to someone better equiped with electronic detection.

As I have noted on many occasions, if you are working at the edge of fusion and the edge of neutron detection, only the He3 detector will help out. Unfortunately, there is the pulsed fusion community out there. Some good and some laughable, but He3 detection is delicate and noise prone. Thus, it is not an ideal detection method for low level pulsed fusion experiments.

I follow and agree with all the arguments about light hydrogen fills as a null test against electronic noise errors. This is all viable provided identical conditions are applied.

Regardless, all these super claims that this or that is the new energy fusion item of the future, should be producing enough fusion, according to their claimants, to drive some bubs out into a BTI dosimeter.

One thing about such amazingly fabulous claims..... They are easily given the lie using a BTI.

Richard Hull

The big problem the bubble detector addresses is a human problem, namely, the proclivity of the uninitiated researcher (or huckster) to leave measurements as an afterthought, to be intellectually lazy in his analysis, and to be susceptible to wishful thinking. The mistaken thinking is that, after building one's novel world-saving contraption, one just runs out and buys a black box that--presto!--indicates whether neutrons or some other telltale kind of radiation are present. The bubble detector is the closest thing to a foolproof black box that detects neutrons. It eliminates considerations of the user's higher thinking, wishful thinking, laziness, or aptitude from the equation. It's also inexpensive to the point that a huckster cannot fall back on the defense of insufficient funds to explain away a poor measurement setup.

Other technologies, in the hands of careful, honest, and well-informed researchers, can certainly detect neutrons reliably. The electronic methods are trustworthy when the worker methodically tests for electronic or radiation interference. With a BF3 or He-3 detector, a simple test of sensitivity to the presence of a moderator can be convincing. Yes, that's a simple and costless test, but you can be sure that someone who hasn't done their homework and is treating their equipment as a black box will neglect it.

-Carl