Fusor Forums

Why do you assume the possibility is "minimal?"

Non-radial particle orbits with angular momentum exist. Just like planets orbit a star with elliptical trajectories, particles can orbit the cathode in a fusor with elliptical trajectories. They can run right into each other at high energy outside the cathode. The solid-cathode experiment does not preclude that.

>The density of neutrals around the rod is in general higher than the average gas density, as this has sort of a compression ratio, which I noted in another experiment with an open ended cylindrical grid spewing ions out of the open end.


The density of neutrals is generally higher? Really?

I think when you put the opened-up tube in there you get a hollow-cathode discharge inside. Maybe my reasoning is too conventional.

-Carl

I see nothing wrong in the conclusions drawn Carl. "Minimal" doesn't exclude other orbitals but does exclude all fast on fast at the focii which now inside the rod and beam paths through the grids which centre on the rods.
Ions colliding with the rods and neutralising or bouncing will have lower energy and diffuse away and thus create a pressure gradient. This also follows for hollow cathode discharge.
I think you are being argumentative.
Just my opinion.
Dustin.

Hi Dustin,

I said what I said because I don't think those two conclusions follow from the experiments offered in evidence. They may be correct. They may not be. Either way I think they are speculative. Hence my argument.

About the neutrals and whatnot....I can make an argument that more are formed near the outer wall. How's that? Ion energies are lower there. Stopping power in the residual gas is higher. Who's correct? We don't know. The experiment offered didn't test that question directly.

-Carl

About the neutrals and whatnot....I can make an argument that more are formed near the outer wall. How's that? Ion energies are lower there. Stopping power in the residual gas is higher. Who's correct? We don't know. The experiment offered didn't test that question directly.

I myself have made that argument before as secondary electrons created would probably neutralise ions at their low kinetic energies near the shell.
Of course, diffinitive proof of any logical argument is required to accept it as fact.
All else is speculation an inference.
Dustin.

One thing is, and probably will always remain in effect: This system, due to its simplistic operation, lack of controls over vast ranges of operation, is so complex as to virtually defy analysis at anyhting like a comprehensible level to the amateur and of little useful value, if pinned down, to the professional.

We can speak and experiment on zones of special interest, ion production, massive recombination, electron losses, deuterium purity, grid geometry, etc. In the end, there will be little if any advance in fusor system output without a correspnding increase in complexity and cost. Thus, pushing this device ever closer to mimicing the costly and oversized fusion debacles already extant.

It will apparently always be possible to muse, cogitate, and spend time and treasure chasing an amateur illusion to useful fusion.

Take heart though, We only have a 10e9 to 10e11 improvement factor to go. Certainly, it is just a matter of money and engineering.

Richard Hull