Mark II IEC

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
Post Reply
guest

Mark II IEC

Post by guest » Sun Feb 03, 2002 3:04 pm

The problem is the inner grid is a physical obstacle to ion circulation; the solution is its eventual elimination. Lets a assume that the Polywell concept by Bussard works, well now you have break even fusion with a device whose cooling requirements to protect the Polywell cathode will only increase with reaction rates.

So, even if you solve the initial problem, because you have a physical obstacle to protect in reality all you are doing is differing the problem to a later time.

So, the easy answer is to just get rid of the inner cathode in its current form. I would like to make a note that the Hirsch method while simple and capable of achieving a significant rate of reaction is not a suitable platform from which to solve the problems of the IEC. As I have posted in the old board, the Mark II from ITT was a superior design end of story.

It’s a more sophisticated device and also more complex, but it was showing significant progress in a very short time. It used very sophisticated secondary electron emission from the inner wall of the secondary spherical inner cathode, if you look at it, it effectively eliminates the main problem of circulation of the ions, because of its method of operation is so unique when compared to the Hirsh Farnsworth devices.


Sincerely,

Hector

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12210
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Mark II IEC

Post by Richard Hull » Mon Feb 04, 2002 8:04 pm

Unfortunately, for all its beauty, the Mk II was a very poor performer. Gene and Steve Blasing and even the project engineer, George Bain on the team admitted as much. It was an interesting, complicated and elegant design, but never produced more than 10e6 neutrons/sec, if that. The final simple fusor by Hirsch/Meeks produced on the order of 10E8 or more neutrons/sec. The gunned, "Cave" fusor and Gene Meeks own Mark II prime (totally separate machine) produced in excess of 10e10/sec. These were six gunned machines, true, but used D-T fusion.

The firgures for the MK II in the Farnsworth book "Distant Vision" are ridiculously incorrect.

By the way.....The Mk II was a bell jar machine with guns in the base.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

guest

Mark II prime not Mark II (fake)

Post by guest » Mon Feb 04, 2002 9:19 pm

The Mark II prime as you call it, was not identified as such in the scientific paper that spoke about it, still this is the machine I'm refering to.

So, to clear the air, the machine I'm refering to is the "Mark II prime", not this other Mark II (fake).


Sincerely,

Hector

User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 740
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 4:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Mark II IEC

Post by Paul_Schatzkin » Tue Feb 05, 2002 4:29 pm

Richard, what do you mean,

"The firgures for the MK II in the Farnsworth book "Distant Vision" are ridiculously incorrect." ?

Can you be more specific? Which figures, which pages in Pem's book? On what do you base your conclusion about their accuracy?

--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television - http://farnovision.com/book.html
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 50 years in the past and we missed it."

User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 740
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 4:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Mark II prime not Mark II (fake)

Post by Paul_Schatzkin » Tue Feb 05, 2002 4:36 pm

Hector... nice to see you posting again.

I aparently missed an earlier msg you refer to here. What "scientific paper" are you refering to?

I'm sorta surprised to learn that there was any kind of "scientific paper" written about the "Two Prime," as Gene Meeks liked to call it. That machine apparently occupies a special place in his heart and mind, and I'm not aware that there has been much discussion of it.

I don't think the "Mark II" was a fake, it was just a different machine. The nomenclature for these variations is hard to follow, and by the time Hirsch shows up, is fairly irrelevant. I believe what we're calling "Two Prime" (as opposed to "II Prime" to avoid any confusion with the "Mark II") was developed during this period. I've got a picture of it somewhere I could post if folks want to see it... actually, I think Richard's got one on the web somewhere already.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television - http://farnovision.com/book.html
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 50 years in the past and we missed it."

guest

Re: Mark II prime not Mark II (fake)

Post by guest » Tue Feb 05, 2002 6:54 pm

Hi Paul, I have to dig the paper up, I’ll do it tomorrow, it should be in my collection of IEC related papers, and Bob Hirsch wrote it in 1967.

I ask Bob about it in an e-mail and he could not recall much about it, but on the cover of the paper it shows the Mark II prime and on a separate, but related paper it talks about the ion guns and their exact construction, which is no more complex than making an amateur IEC device.

On another paper I have, it shows the method they used to aim the ion guns and the basic calculations they used, but that’s not a published paper, it was just part of some lab notes from the ITT period. I think it’s in my collection of the ITT pictures if I’m not wrong.

Just give me a day and I’ll post the references.


Sincerely,

Hector

atomiccat
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 6:16 pm
Real name:

Re: Mark II IEC

Post by atomiccat » Fri May 03, 2002 6:12 pm

Where can I find a schematic drawing and description of the Mark II...it may be similar to a design I had in mind with some differences.

Post Reply