Archived - Fusor V Operational

[Steven Sesselmann]

Robert,

Well done, great effort...

Just on your wording, we usually refer to TIER or Total Isotropic Emission Rate, as one generally uses the term flux for particles travelling through a volume of 1 ccm/s. It is however correct to speak of flux at your 3He tube.

Steven

[Carl Willis]

Congratulations, Robert. This is the reward for a lot of patience, hard work, background research, and the investment of lots of time and money--but also represents a new beginning: now that you have a fusion machine, you have to decide what to do with it next.

Good work and welcome to the Neutron Club.

-Carl

[RobertTubbs]

Thank you all, this has been quite an adventure, funny how it's just beginning of the hobby though.

I believe I began eyeing those DD neutrons back in my first year of highschool when I built my first isotopic neutron source which was about 50µCi, I graduated to some 40mCi Americium and small Californium sources but still needed something with a little more juice to perform hard core neutron activation and thus came about the desire for a Fusor.

I greatly appreciate the help and advice that's been given to me over the last 5 years by the forum, I hope I can contribute even a tenth of what has been given to me.

Thanks,

Brian McDermott for being my first contact and getting me started all those years back (and for the wise tip on getting those informational videos from Richard.)

Richard Hull for the Informational DVD's on fusor operation.

Tyler Christensen for helping me on my ever constant power supply troubles (until I finally boycotted high frequency hahaha) and for the loan of the vacuum gauge after mine took a hit from my multiplier and got thoroughly toasted.

Carl Willis for the loan of a model 12 to which I owe as soon as I surf through my couch cushions. And also for greatly aiding in the design of my Silvered Geiger-Muller neutron detector. Oh, I almost forgot, thanks for knocking some sense into me back when I was trying to pump down that sewer coupling and shove 60,000 volts into it, I'd probably still be doing that if it wasn't for Carl.

Also thanks, Ma, Pa, Amy, Jeff, Julia, Kurt and all the other great weirdos and teachers in my life.

P.S. Sorry for the confusion as to the correct vocab the change from flux to TIER has been made. Thanks Steven for correcting that.

RT

[benbartlett]

Congrats! The video was really informative (I guess a video is worth a thousand pictures!); I wasn't aware you were using pulsed work. (I assume that's what you were doing with the capacitors.)

Anyway, congratulations; that is a beautiful discharge you have in the photo!

-Ben

[benbartlett]

Also, just a thought. About sticking a webcam near the fusor: I have gone through several (I think three) cheapo webcams to monitor my fusor. I don't pretend to have done much research on why this occurs, but I would assume that they keep breaking because of EMP's. (Unfortunately, that is an area that I know little about.) Granted, I was using a tad more power than you did on your first run, but just wanted to warn you in case you step up the power before you go sticking a $100 Logitech webcam there.

Congrats on your neutrons!
~Ben

[dbrown]

Fantastic accomplishment and congratulations on both a great working (Lots, and lots of Neutrons!) and looking system. Excellent detector equipment, too. You need to consider experiments to try in order to boost your neutron count and improve the process – look forward to reading (and seeing) more results.

[RobertTubbs]

Thank Ben, Dennis..

As of Friday morning I was pushing about 250,000 neutrons on the fusor, quite a bit more than I thought possible with my silly electrolysis setup but pleasing non the less. I modified my power supply the previous night (which by the way is actually not a pulsed PSU but a homemade mains frequency voltage quadrupler made from 24 microwave oven capacitor's, diode strings and driven by now 5 microwave oven transformers with their secondaries in series) to give me 60,000 volts at over 100mA under fusor load. I pushed the limits of my circuit breakers for 6,000 watts and used brute force to get a TIER of 250,000 n/s.

I would love to see this thing run on some clean D2 cause currently I feel like I'm running a Ferrari on corn oil, the very least I'm going to try and do tonight is add a cold trap in addition to my drying stack to attempt to remove more D2O vapor from the D2.

Here is some more eye candy..

The first picture is of the ludlum with the helium 3 counter 3 feet away reading when I first broke 2,000 CPM @ 3 feet (100,000 n/s TIER.)

The second picture is when I duct taped my camera to the view port to capture the x-rays effect on the camera's CCD during neutron production.

The third is what the fusor looks like when I'm haphazardly shoving 50-60kV in it at 100mA while it vomits out about 250,000 n/s using simple electrolysis. Can't wait for a real cylinder of D2.

RT

[Steven Sesselmann]

Robert,

Thanks for posting...

The 6 Kw heater will come in handy in winter

Steven

[benbartlett]

Wow. 6000W? I cross-checked this (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), but at 6000 watts, you're pumping the highest energy into your fusor of anyone here (Rosenstiel fusor = ~2KW). I'm going to take a wild guess that when you get your cylinder of D2, your neutron rates are going to go into the millions. I'm guessing you use a tantalum/tungsten grid? (Especially at 100ma)

This looks really exciting. Can't wait to see more results from the gas cylinder.

Ben Bartlett

[Carl Willis]

Hi Robert,

I think you've reached a performance milestone among fusioneers using electrolytic gas supplies. (Even so, I have no doubt that clean cylinder deuterium would work wonders to improve your numbers. If you want a LB-A cylinder with about 500 psi still on the gauge, let me know.)

Did you calibrate your He-3 countrate against something like a BTI? I didn't see this mentioned but maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention.

-Carl

[Chris Bradley]

I trust that Jochen will not mind reproducing his diagram under the circumstances.

His website covers this in more detail.

Basically, you should aim to use multiple transformers by employing one side of them as voltage-doubling auto-transformers (and isolate/disregard the other side).

...I have presumed your transformers have an earth [or other] centre tap, but if they don't then you just shouldn't use them for what you are trying to do.


.

[Carl Willis]

Chris, you're not being helpful. Are you even familiar with microwave oven transformers? All the available evidence suggests you're not.

The image you borrowed from Jochen Kronjaeger's site comes from this link (why you can't provide the link I don't know): http://www.kronjaeger.com/hv/hv/src/obit/index.html

That's right, the context there is OIL BURNER TRANSFORMERS. They are a center-tapped transformer. MOTs are not. This method is not applicable. Your condescension with Robert is unwarranted. Provide your link it if is relevant, otherwise get out of the thread. Come to terms with the fact that people will do things that are not UL- or CE-approved. Seems to me the risks are understood and acknowledged and, in Robert's embodiment, are not life-threatening.

Carl

[Chris Bradley]

Carl Willis wrote:
> Seems to me the risks are understood and acknowledged and, in Robert's embodiment, are not life-threatening.
This did not at all appear to be the case here, because he seems to think sitting them in an oil bath will fix the risk. It doesn't.

Condescension was not intended. The immediacy of trying to avoid harm was. If I am in error on this, then sobeit. If these MOTs aren't centre earthed then they are not suitable for stacking in any configuration. Period.

[Carl Willis]

>If I am in error on this, then sobeit.

No, not "sobeit." The error wasn't a minor factual mistake that will slide by; we all make those from time to time. The error is your belief, still in evidence after you've been shown to be off-base, that you know what someone else (e.g. Robert) is doing better than he does.

>If these MOTs aren't centre earthed then they are not suitable for staking. Period.

I'm going to call your bluff. Go ahead and explain your background and experience having to do with the other MOTs (other than "these") that aren't centre earthed.

>If these MOTs aren't centre earthed then they are not suitable for staking. Period.

Thousands upon thousands of hobbyists worldwide have used MOTs in all manner conventional and unconventional. Primaries get rewound, shunts get knocked out, oil insulation gets added. Transformers get stacked and paralleled in myriad different configurations to meet users' needs. There are decades of experience with this transformer type in the Tesla coiling community. With that extensive history in mind, tell us about what you have specifically done and what you know about them that calls into question Robert's use. Do it now.

-Carl

[Chris Bradley]

Carl Willis wrote:
>Chris Bradley>If I am in error on this, then sobeit.
> No, not "sobeit." The error wasn't a minor factual mistake that will slide by

If you cannot see a way to 'let this slide by' then, on your initiative, let's do this: I see nothing I stated that is incorrect. Please restate the sentence that contains errors and then we can examine any errors you consider I have made in an objective manner.

The error I may have made [for which I said 'sobeit'] is to have bothered trying to be concerned. I see no factual errors. If there are, please repeat the sentence/paragraph that contains these errors.

I'll help you a little. I have [aimed to have] said;
1) Putting secondaries in series will cause a potential between the windings.
2) The potential exists from a secondary at one end of the stack, across to the primary, through the mains, back into the primary at the other end, and across to that secondary.
3) The potential of 5 transformers in series is in excess of the voltage you'd expect those transformers to be designed to tolerate between windings. (They will, of course, be designed to tolerate higher voltages for a short period of time but cannot be relied on to do so.)

Not sure I have said anything else without conditionalities like 'I think' or 'I am not convinced by'... so, what is in error, 1, 2, 3 or something else I didn't notice I had stated?

[Carl Willis]

You told Robert his setup was "wrong." You said it was "not the way" to wire transformers. You baited him with the offer of a link that you claimed showed the only safe way to wire transformers. He asked you for it. Instead of a link, you provided a drawing (taken out of context) that isn't applicable because it pertains to a kind of center-tapped transformer, and then you said "I have presumed your transformers have an earth [or other] centre tap."

Thus, after all this cautionary bruiting, it turns out you were oblivious to at least one commonly-understood aspect of the equipment being discussed. I have to wonder what kind of experience or background informs your singularly-vehement alarmism, and I think you owe a further explanation.

Lots of people use materials and equipment in ways (conventional or unconventional) that may threaten the equipment or present other risks. If a person is aware of the risks, then it is up to them to choose an appropriate level of exposure. If a person is unaware of the risks, then telling them about the risks is appropriate IF you are a credible voice on the topic. You seem to be judging Robert to be unaware of certain risks (which ones you think he's missing isn't clear) and you seem to be judging yourself a credible voice on the topic. And I question your judgment on both counts.

-Carl

[Chris Bradley]

Carl Willis wrote:
> You told Robert his setup was "wrong." You said it was "not the way" to wire transformers.
I stand by that. If it were the way to wire transformers, then show me any reference or manufactured device that employs this technique.

I claim that you will not find this referenced as a correct means for connecting transformers in any guide or information, and is not used in any equipment approved for use.


Carl Willis wrote:
> You baited him with the offer of a link that you claimed showed the only safe way to wire transformers. He asked you for it. Instead of a link, you provided a drawing (taken out of context) that isn't applicable because it pertains to a kind of center-tapped transformer, and then you said "I have presumed your transformers have an earth [or other] centre tap."
I admit it has been a long time since I handled a MOT, and they may even be difference UK/UK. In any case, I linked to an arrangement using centre taps, with the obvious inference that if you don't have centre taps then you can't stack them, and my poor recollection, or otherwise, does not figure into that particular 'fact'.

I still see no 'wrong fact'. You are trying to use inference to hold up your case.

>
> Thus, after all this cautionary bruiting, it turns out you were oblivious to at least one commonly-understood aspect of the equipment being discussed.
Not really, it didn't matter whether I specifically know MOT's have centre taps or not. This is a non-sequitur, because the issue I raised was connecting secondaries serially is wrong. If the only outcome is to use centre taps then I don't need to know if the transformer you, Robert, or anyone else needs has a centre tap, only that you can't use it for auto-transform doubling unless you have another tap somewhere on it, and therefore if it cannot be so used then it is unsuitable.

I did not state MOT's have a centre tap, and therefore I could not have wrongly stated it.

I still see no 'wrong' comment. What I can see is that you choose to draw inferences and claim that these are factual errors that you cannot bear to leave unchecked. So, feel free to repeat the sentence(s) that contain the errors and we can discuss them objectively.

It seems to me that you have decided that I have stated MOTs have a centre tap as a fact, and that as this would have been a factual error *had I made it*, so you now take it upon yourself to correct this *pre-emptively*. This appears to be the source of your chagrin. I have not stated this. I have stated that it is wrong to stack transformers serially.

Thinking on it a little more, I neglected to consider that one end of this stack is effectively tied to earth. Therefore the most negative transformer will be seeing the full voltage across it. If the stack is meant to give 10kV overall then it is being obliged to hold up that 10kV, which, if it shorts, will put HV onto the mains.

What you might be saying, then, is that I have been wrong to point out that a transformer may not be able to hold up x5 its rated voltage. If I were pushing a 10V transformer to 50V then I might agree with you that it is a non-issue for short term use, but given the HV potential failure mode with MOTs, I would still claim it is wrong. So long as Robert understands he's pushing an HV transformer in this way, then it's up to him. His comment of putting it in oil did not appear to bear up understanding of this, but I trust he now does and can judge for himself.

I've made my point, you've made yours. Go on, Carl... have the last word... how could you resist?

[Tyler Christensen]

Not to jump into the middle of this wonderful argument that will probably be deleted in a few days, but I'm curious why you think oil won't help to solve the issue? It is well established that oil has a higher dielectric property as compared to air. The secondary is coiled on a bobbin that holds it away from the core, when you put it in oil which has a dielectric strength of at least 4x that of air, then you could run the secondary floating to 4x designed voltage with the same arc risk that you get running it at designed voltage in air. That'll easily get to the 10kV with some decent oil.

And I'm personally looking at a MOT right now saying this, I'm not just making it up that it's on a bobbin and not physically touching the core.

[Chris Bradley]

Robert Tubbs wrote:
> Chris it has been WELL established that you are one of our tin foil hat wearers

I wish to briefly remind you, Robert, that the last time Carl had a go at me for being over the top was in regards the guy who had a 2kW RF generator, and I stated he should not use it because he'd get his fingers burnt by RF as he was inexperienced.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3025#p18838

Carl declared me as you have just done, solely based on the fact that this guy said he'd run a few watts to start with.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3025#p18847

When he posted, he had gone straight to 1500W on his first power-up and burnt his fingers.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3048#p12558

Did this make me a "WELL established tin foil hat wearer" because I was right, or because I said it? I am confused - and I also have never turned to ad hominem comments unlike yourself and Carl.

I am truly sorry I ever bothered to try to flag a caution to you. It seems to have throughly offended you.

[Carl Willis]

>I still see no 'wrong' comment.

I called you out for purveying bad advice, not for having a particular fact wrong.

To reprise: The advice is bad because it lacks relevant and appropriately specific information. You accused Robert of being out of line on a safety matter, but never identified the supposed misunderstanding. Your only assistance consisted of an irrelevant drawing plucked from someone else's website and a sweeping "abstinence-only" message about not placing transformers in series. Although the abstinence argument never wins points for incisiveness since it is the trivial solution, commanding the forum's attention to lecture on the trivial solution to the present matter is particularly insulting because the purported no-no is already widely exploited in the hobby community, AND there is a body of authoritative evidence about what works and what doesn't that Robert cited (and you ignored).

Anyway, I decided that the underlying reason that your advice was so bad (i.e. so irrelevant, so unspecific, so insulting, so devoid of authority) was that you, in fact, have very limited experience with MOTs. You have now basically confirmed as much, although you shirked any responsibility by padding the admission in a couple of face-saving and improbable excuses that do your credibility no favor ("I admit it has been a long time since I handled a MOT, and they may even be difference UK/UK").

Your persistence in continuing the dispute for its own sake is also noteworthy. You "stir the pot" by linking to unrelated threads; contort my positions and attempt to shift the discussion by a variety of obvious straw men; and continue to ignore your obligation to either substantiate your insulting safety sermon or desist from poisoning the thread with it. Seems that Paul will have to consider (once again!) the question of your role on this forum. Basically, any decision to keep you on board must hinge on a finding that there are ameliorating circumstances outweighing the unarguably-vast tide of pseudo-expertise and contention and EPIC FAIL that comprise almost all of your oeuvre. I don't know how such a finding would be possible.

-Carl

[Richard Hull]

Shouldn't this power transformer issue have floated over to the fusion POWER forum?

No finger pointing, but someone, at some point, should have announced a transfer to the correct forum. This was a post of joyous accomplishment and should have remained so.

Now, the points that were made may just go up in smoke.

Robert, we often might useful colorful vernacular terms for emphasis and to transfer a sense of verve in our posts, but to use such language directed at another poster in these forums is very bad form, regardless of how much our dander is up.

The net allows for vitriol that would never occur face to face and this is sad.


All this may disappear soon as Paul has been notified at Robert's request.

Richard Hull

[Chris Bradley]

Richard Hull wrote:
> No finger pointing, but someone, at some point, should have announced a transfer to the correct forum.

Richard,

it is only fair that I accept blame for that. I did not anticipate the argument-tangent that occurred, and hindsight suggests I should've taken my observations into a different thread from the very start.



Robert,

I am, really, sorry for my part in the way this thread went. I sincerely apologise for the thread divergence from your announcement and for causing you to have such bitter words for me.

[dbrown]

First, sorry for posting on your great thread and absolutely wonderful achievement and as I said before - congratulation! and a beautiful setup. Your great fusor really shows a tremendous amount of professionalism as well as pride of workmanship! You should be really proud and I am sorry your thread of sharing a VERY HAPPY AND FUN moment was distracted from.


Boy, these last few posts sound somewhat familiar and echo back to when I foolishly suggested that one could put two x-formers in series for a higher voltage (so I wasn't completely wrong unlike the a comment or two posted in answer to my suggestion) and I got flamed but realized that 1) I survived and 2) people were really just pointing out important information but not in the nicest fashion and that happens – we are adults and need to see that we are trying to help each other.

However, at the time I refused to get angry or post retorts - we are all here for the same reason and that is to learn and exchange ideas on this great topic. Some may post dumb ideas (been there/done that) but we should all be civil since we all benefit from comments and learning from so many great people here (and my project would never have gotten off the ground except for the wonder help so many here provided.)

One thing that has not been said – even if you are unsure or don’t have 100% knowledge, I feel that safety issues should always be raised – better to suggest a not needed caution rather than see people die- tragically, I have seen this occur a number of times in the research environment (yes, deaths) and there are often no second chances in high voltage or radiation mistakes - so, even if someone is wrong in calling out a possible safety issue, their concern is what matters and they are trying to help.

My 2.013 cents

[Carl Willis]

Risks can be acknowledged or misunderstood, but among informed people exposure is a personal choice (except where a line is drawn by the law). This has long been the operating philosophy in hobby communities. Tesla coilers routinely push IGBTs to ten times the manufacturer's current rating. Amateur chemists use household products in contravention of "proper use" instructions. And someone here is pushing the envelope using oven transformers in a way that others before him have found to work.

All of these activities involve some specific risks. (Getting out of bed in the morning involves some risks too.) None of these activities are inherently "wrong," "poor form," "unsafe," "extremely dodgy," "not suitable," "generally dangerous," or "questionable," to sample the various barnyard noises from this thread. As someone once said (long ago in an era when a now-dead language was spoken), "De gustibus non disputandum est." Don't like what Robert does with MOTs? Don't do it then.

In the situations where we might be able to improve someone's understanding of what his risks are, by all means we should share our wisdom and experience to prevent accidents. We have a duty to be relevant, accurate, specific, and to fairly represent our expertise. But telling a person his activity is flat-out "wrong" is among the strongest assertions of authority, consequently carrying an even higher burden for relevance, accuracy, specificity, and honesty. So IF you set yourself up this way, if you project such confidence that you're willing to take on an overtly deprecating manner in the delivery, and then you fail to follow through...prepare to go down hard. Safety is important, and it's NOT going to be co-opted as a vehicle for pseudo-expertise (or for trite and insulting castigation), well-intentioned or otherwise.

-Carl

[Paul_Schatzkin]

This thread is locked (or should be) until I figure out what to do with.

Did somebody say "train wreck"?

-PS