Zuo's recent comments about D-D fusion

[Richard Hull]

I am starting a new thread here to follow up on Zuo's recent comments in the "introduce yourself" forum.

Zuo is new to the list and apparently has no experience with D-D fusion beyond his reading of standard literature.

The fusor pressure of Deuterium gas in our fusors is in the area of 8 microns (.008 torr or 8 X10e-3 torr) Some here claim they run in the 15 micron region.

At this pressure, the mean free path is on the order of 50mm -100mm. This is much shorter than the many meters Zuo claims or envisions.

The cross sectional curve for the D-D reaction is never zero in theory and in fact. Fusion in a fusor can be readily detected at only 10kev deuteron energies. I have, personally, detected fusion at 7.5kev in my fusor IV using my ultra-sensitive He3 detector. For complete presented data on this see:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5526#p33970

At 30kev, a typical 6" diameter fusor is pumping out about 50,000 to 80,000 neutrons/ second (isotropic emission).

None of the above is theory. It is recorded fact by as many as 5 fusioneers here who have decent neutron counters and who know how to use them. I am the only person to ever verify this with a fast neutron bubble detector which will detect nothing but fast neutrons. This verifies all work reported with normal moderated BF3 and He3 electroninc detectors.

We are doing fusion.

The fusor is a very poor light bulb as it puts out only about 13 LUX by my light meter with 300 watts applied. To the eye, when looking through a vacuum view port, the centeral region of the fusor appears as a smallish, dull lavender plasma ball of low brightness. A video camera, usually used for monitoring, and always used for image capture will make this appear 100 times brighter due to the silicon imaging devices extended red and IR visibility range. This gives the false impression that the core is a hot seething plasma ball of electrical energy. It is hot, as a plasma, but not as we normally relate to heat. The actua visible light output is very, very low.

It is a far better fusion reactor than it is a light bulb.

NOTE******

This post retraces the steps of many, many posts prior to this where a new person or someone in doubt about our actually doing fusion is concerned. For people on the list , this is all old material and is no longer an issue of concern as the deed is done and fusion is produced as has been proven over and over again with many different methodologies and careful measurement. All this has been done by several private individuals and many scientific institutions using many different fusor designs and many different instrumentalities.

Richard Hull

[zuowei]

At 30kev, a typical 6" diameter fusor is pumping out about 50,000 to 80,000 neutrons/ second (isotropic emission).

The out Power is: 3.27E6 eV x 80,000 x 1.602E-19 =4.19E-8 W
It is too small.
Many people said that detected neutrons, but power out is very small.
I think that Mean Free Path of Deuteron in Fasor still has problem.

[Richard Hull]

No reasonable person on this list envisions any future whatsoever for the fusor, as currently used here, to produce any net power output under any circumstances. I have noted this many, many times in many, many posts.

The fusor is doing fusion. 80,000 neutrons every second is actually 160,000 fusions per second that is numerically a lot of fusions in a 6" chamber operated by amateurs.

This shows that nuclear fusion is very, very easy to do!

It can be done on a kitchen table by resourceful amateurs for less than the price of a set of golf clubs. Yet the greatest scientists can do no better beyond using more energy and getting more fusion that still will not hit break even.


The fusor is not, nor will it ever do power fusion, just like the billion dollar wastes of money such as tokamaks, stellarators and mirror machines produced by all the major labs around the world. Fusion, as currently practiced in any machine on earth, will not produce any net power out exceeding its total input energy.

In spite of all this we are doing fusion as are all the wasteful scientific institutions. None of us are doing any real power work. It appears we never will be.

Richard Hull

[davidtrimmell]

Dam! This is Mr. Hull at his finest. I was a believer in the fusion powered future at one time, but with the real science and work I have seen here it is not to be with current methods. We all know that if we hominiods hang for long enough we will figure out 'something'. But what?!

Regards,

David Trimmell

[Brian McDermott]

I wouldn't concede just yet. Somebody may stumble over "the fusion secret" one day. There's no telling what the future will hold.

[Richard Hull]

I really believe fusion will be turned to value, ultimately, by man, but just not in gas or plasma environments in the current big boy venue of thermal plasmas.

When and how all this will be done is the real question. We are too stuck on where we are now to see much beyond what we know. Some donkey will stumble onto something. You can bet your boots on that.

Richard Hull

[3l]

Hi Folks:

Richard is absolutely correct.
We have yet to find the music that makes power from fusion.
To cop a line from General Groves " We can't find the music Hell We can't even sing the tune"
Fusion will look like nothing we see today.

Happy Fusoring?
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech

[Adam Szendrey]

In my oppinion, our imminent goal seems to be the hybrid. If we can get that to work, we are on track. First we need to increase neutron output, without raising the input power to insane levels. If we reach the required emission rate, we may be able to construct a primitive, but functional hybrid, as a proof of concept.
It may turn out that a target (ion gunned or otherwise) system is the way to go, maybe the plasma sheet device...it is obivious that there is a lot of work, and research to do, along with countless experiments...thus, we are very far from depleting the possibilities...

Adam

[Captain_Proton]

What a nice cut-and-paste...
This gentleman is obviously on a mission to debunk what is being done here without reading what is being accomplished in our work, or how we come to do fusion of light elements with this type of apparatus. He hasn't done his reading at all, by evidence of that last post. You can only tell someone so many times... I propose we close this thread and carry on...

[Alex Aitken]

zuo,

If we are ever able to replace the stainless steel methods of currently building fusors with a bullshit paste, or any other form of waste slurry, we will come back to your post and it will be well used.

[Richard Hull]

At least this boiler plate post is in the right forum thanks to my transferring the topic here.

However, I don't see how this relates even obliquely to fusion beyond the discussion of gravity which we can't use.

This makes for an interesting read for the purely theoretical physics exposition, but doesn't touch on key issues revolving around fusion.

Stuff like this is OK, and I suppose I have spun up on distant topics, but all were linked to our concepts of particles and their interactions in fusion. Also my discourses have come from my mind and thoughts and not boiler plate from another source.

Take it for what you think it is worth gentlemen.

Richard Hull

[davidtrimmell]

The zero point energy thing is revealing. I say no more...

David Trimmell

[Richard Hull]

To some, the concept of zero point energy (the quantum vacuum) is an unknown.

The energized vacuum is more or less demanded to stabilize and explain parts of quantum physics as you move out in it. But so are point particles with no extent in space. Much is counter intuitive and it is up to the average person to investigate these concepts, if they dare.

There have certainly been numerous attempts to identify the vacuum energy or zero point as real or demonstrable in a manner that science could work with. Thus far all efforts have come to zippo. Only the supposed casimir effect hints at something more. I am not so sure it is not some sort of van der wals force thing being mis-identified. However, this is not my bag and so I have only done some minor digging.

Richard Hull

[zuowei]

I think that may exist nuclear “fusion decay” for light nuclear, it is same as heavy nuclear a, b decay. This is why we can find fusion reaction form cold fusion and fusor. “fusion decay” reaction is very slow and have a “half fusion life” in millions years.
also please see attached about how to achieve fusion reaction on lower D ion energy.

[Alex Aitken]

zuo,

This theory best furthur abreviated from 'BSM' to 'BS' explains nothing.

Sarg is attempting to singlehandedly replace physics. All of it.

He is not explaining his ideas fully enough for anyone else to be able to make meaningful predictions, ie he is the sole prophet.

His assumptions contradict basic conservation laws no experiment has ever shown to be false and rather than explain why this is, he instead concentrates on showing how his theory can be bent to explain existing pop-phenomena well understood by current physics.

The end of the pdf,
"The current technology of particle accelerators now possesses the technical means that may allow the fulfilment of the conditional Eq. (1) in order to obtain 4 He or 3 He. Ad-ditional consideration related with the relaxation constant of the vacuum structure, however, are also important and must
be taken into account. They are not subject for discussion in
this paper."

In other words experimental physics is now finally reaching a stage where he deams it can do the experiments to prove him right but the conclusion in the paper isnt his prediction because it doesnt include effects he isnt willing to discuss but vitally affect the result.

Probably a good idea someone does the experiment first and lets him show how his theory 'predicted' the result afterwards, Eh?

[Richard Hull]

At least the paper touched on fusion. It would be real nice if the rare, D + D = He4 reaction could be boosted.

Of course, like Marvin notes, There is a vast complexity introduced within Sarg's theory that would demand more than backfiguring into what you want from what you imagine. Not a good example of occam's razor and certainly not intuitive.

Richard Hull