A very interesting and thought provoking paper

[Adam Szendrey]

Looking at the last 10 years, "THEY" did s**t , while amateurs ("WE") did fusion, and boy "WE" are good at it compared to those monsters "THEY" have created. What was the budget? Thousands of dollars, maybe tens of thousands...for a "small" tokamak? Millions and billions of dollars...
One half of my face cries while the other laughs.

Adam

[3l]

Hi Adam:

Don't worry their time is fast approaching.
DOE put off doing anything for 30 years in the vain hope they might accidently find something.
They have not.
Soon in an ironic twist of fate Farnsworth will rule the day.
They can't cut our funding so our effort will go on.
Pityfull we might be ,but I like it.
Hirsch was right in his small is beautiful assesment of fusion.
Our folks in this group will carry on long after the mainline folks pull their websites and put all the gear on Ebay.
Get your fusion posters now,soon they might go byebye.

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech

[dabbler]

People hate uncertainty. The higher up the ladder they are, the more
they hate it. Everything they do has consequences, some of which
are completely unpredictable. Now a bunch of eggheads comes along
with an idea that might well turn half to three quarters of the economy
on its head.

Even though it sounds wonderful, in terms of what it will do, they want
it put off into some dreamy future that will come around on someone
else's watch. Why? Because there are so many uncertainties
involved. What is at work here is cowardice more than anything else,
besides, some expert somewhere back in fifties said this IEC
business would never work, right?

The other approaches haven't worked either and, in my best
judgment, they never will. If we are going to have fusion power, it will
be IEC or some variation thereof.

[Paul_Schatzkin]

yeah, it's hard to say what the output of a fusor is per unit of volume, but I've always maintained that there is no match for a fusor in terms of out put per dollar.

[Richard Hull]

This is an absolute fact and is uncontestable.

Richard Hull

[dabbler]

I found an interesting discussion of something like this in the .pdf that
John Hendron posted a link to here:

https://fusor.net/board/
view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_links&key=1093901178

Near the end of the chapter they talk about fusion taking place in a
titanium target that has adsorbed deuterium. They are bombarding the
target with deuterons, but they are NOT cooking deuterons out of the
target in advance of bombarding it.

There is a lot of stuff that seems to be of worthwhile interest in this old
book. A lot of the techniques discussed will eventually become
important to fusor work once budgets will allow for their
implementation.

[Richard Hull]

A lot of this has to do with the rather well documented surface chemistry of metal-deuterides, whereby the deuterium resides in bulk near the surface lattice interface.

Richard Hull

[dabbler]

Well, here I go thinking again. This might be a good way to charge/
replenish a fusor with deuterium. The tube guys used finely divided
titanium or finely divided zirconium as a hydrogen reservoir to extend
the life of tubes that needed to be backfilled with H2.

I worked in chemical plant that used a lot of titanium piping and valves
and "hydriting" of the titanium components was a common problem.
Titanium becomes very brittle once it is saturated with hydrogen. The
upshot is, causing titanium to adsorb hydrogen isn't much of a
problem. The real question I have is about what form is the hydrogen/
deuterium is in when it is forced back out of the metal. Will it be
atomic or molecular? If it comes out in molecular form, I suppose you
could surround the reservoir with a tubular plate and put a strong
positive charge on it. That should at least ionize the molecules if not
break them down into separate atoms.

dabbler.

[MARK-HARRISS]

I often wonder what neutron count this historical antique would produce with
a titanium plate and a deuterium charge in it.

http://www.r-type.org/static/round.htm

Mark H