Archived - Second attempt at Smallest Fusor fusion claim.

[TannerOates]

Hello once again, I have been working very hard to get rock solid evidence of Neutron production from my 1.33" IEC device. Since my last attempt, I have added an electronic D2 flow meter and controller as well as a more substantial electrical feedthrough capable of handling the higher voltages without arcing. I also am using TWO different methods of detecting and am filming bubble production in real time. I am not aware of power input due to the fact of me short circuiting my old readout for my glassman ML series PSU. If we can keep this thread as professional as possible, that would be GREATLY appreciated. Thank you for your time, video link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkBB1CXvU3Q

[Richard Hull]

Being very professional and critically honest.

I see no indication of fusion taking place here. Why?

I have been fusing for 13 years. I have purchased three different BTI detectors over this period and am extremely familiar with their use, operational scenarios and failure modes.

Reason for not granting fusion at my end.

1. No data of any scientific value is really supplied
a. In spite of bad luck no voltage or current readings
b. In spite of bad luck no pressure readings
c. In spite of poor to non-extant neutron readings on the victoreen, no significant counts.
d. Bubble chamber burns and rapid bubble formation make any bubble readings suspect.

2. Sole case for fusion given is large, irregular, jagged bubbles in bubble chamber.

In my experience and in numerous images of other BTI bubble chambers operated properly, the bubbles are flawless spheres of small size only about twice the size of the fine bubbles often seen in the device. I do not believe these are bubbles made by neutrons, but heat based bubbles probably formed from x-rays issuing from the chamber. The wearing the the gloves really was a telling issue. Too hot to be near.

We know how BTI chambers function. BTI makes gamma detectors the same way with slight alterations of the neutron chamber technology. I have owned them. A new BTI detector can be ruined quickly if over heated. The signature of a bad BTI that is either old or failing is large (huge) irregular tear shaped bubbles. All here who have had a timed out old BTI are familiar with this.

Bubble detectors are never placed closer than 5 cm from the chamber and then not in the convection chimney but below the chamber usually with a piece of thin aluminum foil on a cardboard to reflect radiant IR.

The rate of bubble formation depicted, if real, would have pegged out the victoreen on the X10 range. Way too many issues based on real experience here.

Thus, as a studied and practicing fusioneer of 14 years, I must say I see no fusion scientifically proven here.

None of the required criteria are met here at all. Really nice gear though.

Richard Hull

[Steven Sesselmann]

Tanner,

Thanks for posting the video, and although I agree with Richards points, but I think his comments are harsh and discouraging..

Yes, you have omitted to provide some essential information, but judging by the relatively professional looking equipment and general neatness of your project, I very much doubt that you are making it all up.

The Victoreen, which I am very familiar with registered a few counts, which, I think were a few neutrons from your fusor, but the bubbles that continued appearing as you were rubbing the BTI detector against the chamber, may have been from heat, thereby explaining the localisation of the bubbles .

Note also, as the bubbles were appearing in front of your eyes, yet the Victoreen was not reading anything.

The BTI detector should have been be placed 5-10 cm from the device, and maybe received 2-3 bubbles in 10 minutes.

Your setup is good, but I would redo the experiment one more time, and record all parameters.

Deuterium Gas supply?
Voltage during run?
Current during run?
Pressure during run?

Oh, and by the way, how did you keep the voltage/current stable during the run, without at least one hand on the control?


Steven

[Carl Willis]

Tanner,

You have a truly first-class assemblage of equipment, out of reach of many hobbyists, and there is no reason to doubt that demonstrable fusion can be done with it.

But like the other guys, I'm of the opinion that the video doesn't shed any meaningful light on your operating conditions or good evidence of fusion.

I mentioned previously that the supply you are using has an internal divider to measure voltage at the output, regardless of setpoint. It's literally a one-minute project to hook those pins up to a multimeter and get a good idea of delivered voltage. What do you mean about "shorting out" your previous readout? I don't know how you could possibly damage the power supply by shorting out the resistively-protected D-connector signal lines. As you know, questions about the voltage handling ability of this miniature hardware have always been front and center in the community's curiosity about its performance. Even if you can't tell us anything else, you should be able to find an answer to that question.

How old is your BTI bubble detector? Your bubbles look like the irregular and "flake"-shaped compressed bubbles that appear when the detector is overheated or ages beyond its usable life (typically about a year), and incompletely compresses during reset. There comes a time in the life of a BTI where it develops bubbles that are essentially permanent. They may disappear or mostly disappear during compression, but pop right up again when the piston is released. Obviously, this kind of bubble is not evidence of neutrons; it's evidence that you need another detector.

Where you want to go with this project is your own business. If this is strictly a YouTube vanity project, then it's fair to say on the basis of equipment alone that it's a success. If the goal is to add meaningfully to the fusion community's knowledge base particularly on the performance of miniature fusors, you really need to bring some rigor to your instrumental approach and analysis, and serve up some credible numbers. Let us know how we can help you do that.

-Carl

[Richard Hull]

As Carl noted, we are eager to have fusioneers join the neutron club, but like any special goal based group, we demand certain minimum proof. Those demands are constantly met by many successful fusioneers, past and present and we expect them to be fully met in future. You asked for a professional review it was given in that you failed to supply key data demanded. No one ever claimed any fakery here. Instead, statements of failure to deliver key data were clearly delineated. Among them timed data. While videos can be definitive proof in some instances. A written report is also expected. There are and have been clearly stated rules for acceptance of fusion.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1125

Both Myself, Steven and Carl have noted the fabulous and rather impressive gathering of some very expensive gear in your set up. In the right hands, fusion with this assemblage in a normal chamber is absolutely guaranteed. What stuns me, personally, is the fact that what appears to be fabulous vacuum system with the gear all hooked together in a very credible manner, begs the simplest data gathering and reporting materials. (voltmeter, ammeter, vacuum gauge, image of working grid, stopwatch to report timed data, reliable neutron counter or a bubble chamber that inspires confidence in its viability). Just too much missing and absent. No professional report while asking for a professional opinion of the work.

Remember, many here are very accomplished and wise from many years of fusing, taking data, reducing it and using all manner of instrumentation. We know how things respond and what base conditions deliver what kinds of reponse and in what timed sequence things take place. Such things are not learned overnight, but once in hand, critical reviews of claimed fusion can be made.

You now have three reviews of your work by people who have done fusion repeatedly over time. Suggestions have been made in good faith, criticisms regarding process have been made, but ultimately, good reliable proof will be demanded.

Richard Hull

[Rich Feldman]

Tanner,
As I suggested the last time around,
you are in a good position to apply for World's Least Instrumented Working Fusor.
The challenge is to get peer acceptance of the Working part.

Is that not really an objective?
As others have said, it looks like you have the money or time to add key measurement tools.

You previously said electricity is not yet a strong point of yours.
Can you find a tutor or mentor to help you over that hurdle quickly? I would volunteer, if this were not a bad month at home.

Respectfully,
Rich Feldman

[TannerOates]

Hey, sorry for the delayed reply. I have been absolutely swamped in school, I will be able to adress all of these later tonight. Thank you for your patience.

[TannerOates]

Thank you all for your feedback.

Richard Hull:

I understand your experience with IEC Fusors and other Fusion devices is far past that of my own. My BTI detector was relativity new and could detect neutrons just fine from my larger reactor even after the small burn marks, I could post pictures of the bubbles if you would like. I agree that the shape of the bubbles do look different, so some of them could be attributed to heat, even though the detector was not very hot. I got some interesting readings on the detector so I went ahead and tried for a second run with more evidence. I am nearly done with the new HV supply readout and controller. The new detectors are in the mail and I will take your advice with the thermal shielding and distance from the chamber. My small VP did fail after a few more runs after this video, and finals are approaching so I will not be able to post another attempt for a little while until I have the view port fixed. My gloves have nothing to do with heat at all, they are very thin Nitrile exam gloves, I was wearing them for electrical insulation purposes. Prior to filming this video, I had a small shock from the pressure getting too low and an improper ground. I understand that none of your criteria were met, and will go ahead for a third time around after repairs. I do appreciate your patience with my lack of experience.

Steven Sesselmann:

No problem at all, my pleasure to share with the Fusor community. Thank you for your supportive feedback. I completely agree that heat may have played a crucial role in possibly altering the BTI readings. In my next attempt I will take steps to mitigate this issue such as more distance between the chamber and the detector, and aluminum foil to act as further thermal insulation. As far as D2 gas supply, in my next run, I would be more than happy to provide footage of the flow readout during the run as well. Voltage should be measurable after I finish the controller as well as current. The pressure is still an issue, I am planning on getting a pressure reading just below the chamber above the EXT-70H pump. I think it will be much easier to find a gauge of that size. There is a local control on the Glassman unit itself that is a 10-turn Pot. I turned the output to max and just regulated the pressure to make sure it did not get below extinguishing plasma.




Thank you all.

* I WILL ADDRESS THE REMAINDER OF THE COMMENTS ASAP *

[Richard Hull]

The requirements are only mine in that I wrote the FAQ. Overall, however, they are ours. Ours in the sense that other neutron club fusioneers agree with my original posting and most had to go through the same, yet, unspoken, unposted process in the past. We were forced to create a uniform, written code, (FAQ), rather recently for the neutron club admittance due to a couple of folks apparently claiming false results with little or no surrounding data that did not jib with what everyone knew needed to be the case.

I realize that you are already in the neutron club and have successfully done fusion in a larger device, but this current device must stand the same test for fusion before it can lay claim to the smallest fusor

Sorry to be so seemingly difficult, but rules is rules.

Richard Hull

[Chris Bradley]

Tanner. Please do complete the experiment and see what you can extract from it as far as viable data goes. I've been fascinated with the 'size' of accelerating spaces for some time and I think it is entirely possible that below a certain size nothing much might happen. This is because the viability of this depends whereabouts you are on the Paschen pd curve - as the d comes down the p can go up, for given voltage, but does the mpf come down quicker than the efield needed to cause a cascading breakdown? I am suspecting that there is, actually, a critical size below which the mpf is insufficient to permit a reasonable population of beam ions/fast neutrals to reach the shell at sufficient energy for fusion.

It's a potentially significant experiment, which begs results of archival value.

(... I was expecting to see some pics of the experiment here, in this forum??...)

[Steven Sesselmann]

Chris,

Your thinking is correct, but if you also introduce a tiny ion source, then one should be able to make a very tiny fusor indeed. I recall an article, and I believe we discussed it here, where someone was making a micro neutron source on a chip. Would like to try this one day.

Here, I found the article again..

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-neutron-tubes-chips.html

This is an area I believe one could do some really interesting things with 3d printing.

Steven

[Chris Bradley]

... someone was making a micro neutron source on a chip....

But does this actually work? There are/were too many unknowns about this to comprehend what it may or may not do.

There are so many 'articles' these days that proclaim 'This COULD be a way to X or Y'. Once in a while we'd like to see a headline read 'This IS a way to X or Y, and you can buy it here for $X'. Once it is on the market, then you can be reasonably sure it is not simply a pitch for some Government research gravy-train funding based on marginal armchair physics theory.

In regards running an ion source - the problem is not the source of ions in a small fusor, it is that the pd is sufficiently small that you end up in a state of complete electrical isolation between the electrodes. Now, that might appear a good thing at first sight, but the question of whether it actually is will all hinge on how/what the origin of neutrons in a fusor is. If the ions are produced at the centre then how would they accelerate to speed. And what are they going to collide with to fuse? When you have the 'beaming' behaviour in a fusor, the sputtered electrons at the ends of the beams intersecting the shell is a continual source of ionisation right there at the upmost point in the electrical potential. That'd not happen if you have an ionisation source in the middle, and if you put a few ion sources at the shell then would they achieve the same rate of ionisation as when the shell is bombarded with mA's worth of high energy electrons and fast neutrals? I'm not suggesting I have any answers, I just think some well-run experiments at the smaller scale may help generate some worthwhile data to this effect.

If the pressure is too high in a small fusor then does the mfp get so small that particles thermalise before they even get to the centre? If the pressure is too low, then would that adversely affect the population of ions that can be sustained, thus reducing collision rates?

[Richard Hull]

The discussion here is drifting to neutron detection and this is an issue for another important forum. This thread was about a claim on fusion in the smallest fusor yet. Change forums for more discussion on this please.

Richard Hull