The device that I built

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Chris64Strev
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:58 pm
Real name:
Contact:

The device that I built

Post by Chris64Strev » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:49 am

My device is not a circularly polarised thing at all. The ions are held in their complex orbits by the force of repulstion between unlike currents. The force is approximately I^2/d^2 times e0. If the orbit is helical then this force has to equal the centripetal force of an orbiting ion. Mv^2/r.

So Mv^2/r=(qv)^2/(R-r)^2 e0 where q is the ionic charge and e0 is the permittivity of free space.

The collision energy=mean free path x e-field strength. Since the ion moves in a helical path it travels much further than the length of the tube. I do not know the pitch of the helix so I cannot work out the maximum path length.

The orbit of the ion is complex and it is forced toward the axis where the density is highest and where the collisions occur.

I believe the small amount of power generated comes from the naturally occuring deuterium in hydrogen. However since the equivalent temperature of the collisions was calculated as over 200 million K it could be proton fusion that is occuring and that generates no neutrons according to a poster here.

My calculation also indicates that to generate a self sustaining system that generates net power using hydrogen a pressure of 1000 Tor with an exciter power of about 45000 watt would be needed for my set up. I have no means of doing this and at that exciter power my conductors would melt and the Pyrex tube likewise.

So I would like to try a deuterium tube at the same pressure as I am using now (10^-4 Tor) which, according to its lower ignition temperature it should start up at only ten watt. I believe the reaction makes neutrons so I cannot do this here in my back bedroom or all around me and me would die.

I would therefore like someone with more resorces to carry out this experiment.



However:

I did another experiment tonight. As before the transmitted power indicator rose from 35 to 45 scale divisions and the newly attached current meter showed an increase of circulating current from 9 amp to 12 amp. The Geiger counter gave a reading of up to >0.5 micro Sieverts an hour. And the reverse power meter rose from 0 to 5 watt. I then changed the capacitor of the reactor to give minimum reverse power. The transmitted power indicator did not change much and the current meter rose a little but I found I could not reduce the reverse power below 2 watt. I conclude that I was generating 2 watts of fusion power with 100 watt exciter power. I noticed that when I turned off the exciter the Geiger counter reading showed >0.3 micro Sieverts per hour that lasted for several seconds.

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: The device that I built

Post by Chris Bradley » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:13 am

Chris64Strev wrote:
> The ions are held in their complex orbits by the force of repulstion between unlike currents. The force is approximately I^2/d^2 times e0. If the orbit is helical then this force has to equal the centripetal force of an orbiting ion. Mv^2/r.

> The collision energy=mean free path x e-field strength. Since the ion moves in a helical path it travels much further than the length of the tube.

Chris, if you make two guesses at what is going on and reach a conclusion with them, you don't get 'a piece of evidence'. You simply end up with a third guess.

Show us that there are unlike currents, and that ions are moving in helical paths with fusible energies... what evidence do you have for this?

User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 11:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: The device that I built

Post by Carl Willis » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:40 am

Chris, every previous criticism of your analysis remains valid and unaddressed.

I'm of the firm opinion that none of the observed effects are unusual or due in any way to fusion. Getting support from serious or educated fusioneers is an uphill battle for you. Getting support from the quack community might be easier...some of those guys have a lot of money.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277

DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:13 am
Real name:

Re: The device that I built

Post by DaveC » Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:34 am

Chris64...

I am in full agreement with Carl.

One really can't even be certain what you are attempting to do. If it's establishing ions in some sort of helical path, then this method does not differ from ANY other ion collision process, and thus has all of those limitations.

It would sure help to have some photos of your rig, and a sketch or two of how it works... even circuit diagrams would help.


Dave Cooper

Kade
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:42 pm
Real name:

Re: The device that I built

Post by Kade » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:42 am

What you seem to have here Chris, is a transformer, where the primary is the copper coil, and the secondary (one turn) is the ionized gas in the tube. Certainly the electrons in the ionized gas must be flowing in the opposite direction to the electrons in the primary, and the +ions would presumably be rotating in the opposite direction to the electrons in the ionized mixture, which will presumaby provide a centripetal force to both the ions and the electrons. do you expect colisions between the oppositely rotating electrons and ions to result in some form of fusion?

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: The device that I built

Post by Chris Bradley » Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:40 am

Frank, I thought those findings were put down as being due to the adverse influence of Stark effect radiative dis-equilibrium. That would be a really *obvious* interpretation!!

I think you're looking too deeply into a trivial example of quantised muon diffusion in self-organised atomic structures. But the Navy does like to consider the outside possibilites, and I could quite easily believe that they would chase good money after your comments, if only someone actually pointed out it may not be atomic diffusion of the muons at all but it *could* be lepton/gauge-boson anti-modal resonance coupling*! I think they *would actually* sign that off!

(*flavour-independent - obviously!)

Chris64Strev
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:58 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The device that I built

Post by Chris64Strev » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:09 pm

The repulsion of unlike currents and their existance comes from the normal laws of induced current electrity.

Chris64Strev
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:58 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The device that I built

Post by Chris64Strev » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:11 pm

No the ions collide with other ions or unionised atoms near the axis near the mid point of the coil.
Attachments
091202-1433-23 new setup for radiated power measurement.jpg
091202-1433-23 new setup for radiated power measurement.jpg (31.31 KiB) Viewed 2918 times

Chris64Strev
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:58 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The device that I built

Post by Chris64Strev » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:14 pm

I did another experiment today. Here I used a Pyrex test tube containing hydrogen at a pressure of 3 Tor. The reactor was excited with 100 Watt RF at 3.7 MHz. It settled down quickly and by tuning the reactor I found that the reverse power could not be reduced to below 2 Watt. I surmise that this power in being generated in the gas by fusion of protons.
The radiation level was only slightly above background. Here is my video of the run.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzT4QA6ymLU
This second video shows the background after the exciter was turned off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJFa7qcujXA

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: The device that I built

Post by Chris Bradley » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:00 pm

Chris,

As I and others keep pointing out, you've said what you think is happening..OK..then you've had questions on it as a response (that need a reply)..that's usual... but then you just keep going on about what you think without answering any of the points...*not* OK.

I have explained that this is, therefore, a conversation with yourself. No-one can stop you talking to yourself, but I just hope that you understand that this is the case and don't expect any particular replies....

No-one is going to swoon at your fantastic 'invention' because, to us all bar none [any exceptions??..make yourself known], it looks like an RF induction plasma, no more than Carl's experiment that you've already been directed to (and, frankly, that looks far more convincing an experiment than yours due to the clear imagery of ions being extracted under control).

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2910#p12420

So, I trust you now understand not to expect any responses - because you don't engage with those responses.

Post Reply