What are we doing here?

Announcements and items of immediate importance.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

What are we doing here?

Post by Frank Sanns »

Recent threads of active fusor lists and accolades has me again asking, What are we doing here?

One thread is a tabulation of how many fusers can activate silver within one hour from starting it. This is such a loaded question that I am not sure how to answer it (no offense to Mark Rowley that started it). This is also not a sour grapes response on my part for not making the list.

I cannot start up my fusor from scratch and activate in one hour. With that said, I have given MANY of you on the forum and others, a low neutron output demo of my device over the years. The point is not about ME but rather about what constitutes and operational fusor.

I personally do not have the room for multiple 1402 vacuum pumps, diffusion or molecular pumps, and gauges for all of my professional and hobby uses. My roughing pump may be connected through a cryogenic cold trap to my 1 cubic meter vacuum oven or my turbo pump may be bolted down to my ion implantation chamber. It takes me half an hour or more just to get the vacuum re plumbed in before I can even start to pump down my chamber. By definition then, I do not have an operational fusor. I concede that. But what does it matter if I plan a set of experiments when I do plumb everything in and do a couple of weeks of work? Why the 1 hour time frame for activation which is the subject of my next paragraph.

When did we start micro defining times and fusion? How is this in the spirit of builders that want to do fusion and stick with it and produce neutrons? It used to be that a simple oscilloscope display of the elevated neutron pulses in a plastic Hornyak button or other plastic scintillator was the proof that it was not RF of something extraneous.

After that was use of BF3 tubes. Here the proof was moving a moderator around the tube during a run and seeing if it affected the readings. If affected, then fusion.

Then the He3 tubes came into play and similar moderator effects where used to demonstrate fusion.

Bubble detectors became the next required indisputable proof of fusion. But then people were allowing them to get hot and bubbles came where there were not neutrons.

Now we have activation as the indisputable proof however no curve fits and identification of the two isotope decay rates required. Just a trailing off count rate.

Next will be beta spectroscopy of the beta decay emission from at least two activated materials to assure that there is no noise or other influence. We all know that any one test or data point gives a result with zero confidence.

Where will this end?


Next is the absolute neutron count in a neutron producing device. Notice I did not say fusor. IECF is a specific device for which this group was initially formed. While other forms of fusion are quite welcome, the IECF is what we have promoted and built. At least until more recently.

With the advent of beam on target devices, this has shifted the momentum of the group for higher and higher neutron counts and activation rates. This is great but commercial beam on target devices with a titanium or other deuterium absorber targets are ubiquitous in many industries.

These small units can hit orders of magnitude higher than any IECF fusor. The small package and higher operating pressures make them actually a simpler, easier device to operate.

So I ask again, What are we doing here? Shall we make 30 minutes the time to get a fusor up and operating? Shall we accept beam on target devices as a fusor? Shall we continue to make the Good Ole Boys' Club rules more exclusive and changing to meet our needs? Do we favor absolute neutron numbers no matter what the design? Do we favor neutron numbers over open source collaboration?

Many questions here and like I said, this is not sour grapes, I need not be on any list (anywhere actually) for me to know what I can and cannot do. With that said, I do think others are motivated by being on a plasma club list or a neutron club list. This is great but I think as a site, we need to be careful to not create criteria that keeps changing based on the work of a handful that are in the club. Doing this and then keep moving the bar so others have to comply with the new set of criteria for the day is truly the definition of a Good Ole Boys' Club. I do not favor this at all. Just sayin, I think we need some reflection here.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Joe Gayo »

Sounds like maturity and evolution, not exclusion.

What are we doing here? ... advancing the science of amateurs making neutrons.

By the way, Mark's efforts to do BOT and pinch fusion are awesome and should be welcome!

I don't think we all have to choose the same path to be a cohesive group.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Richard Hull »

I think Frank is a bit frantic here.

We are here to do fusion, regardless of type of device with emphasis on the IECF fusor. What Mark and I hope others agree on is......
1. Who has a functional fusor or fusion device, made with their own hands and own expense, which it still a connected system capable of fusion.
2. Who has successfully proved fusion. We have always and will always demanded proof of fusion.
3. The proof of fusion must come from a reliable source deemed correct and suitable for that detection. We have never demanded any specific neutron detection method be used. The method of neutron detection in vogue at any given time is of no concern whatsoever, so long as it is acceptable to anyone in the neutron detection biz and our oversight group of fusioneer peers.
4. Who here has been inducted into the neutron club and still contributing.

The audit, I think would include all the above with emphasis on #1 and #4.

Again, an audit is an audit. I did feel that the limit of up and running in 1 hour might be a bit strict, but as virtually 100% of all neutron producing fusors and their associated systems ever produced here are now scattered pieces-parts, due to in-it-to-win-it types, it would be nice to know what remains of active, whole systems. Activation is just great, but I don't think it is or should be demanded for the purpose of this audit.

OK

To allow for what is not going to add but 1 more system, Franks, most likely,....Who has a fully assembled and connected fusor system that has done fusion in the past and can still do it? Who among this jolly group of real working fusioneers own a working system?

I can already hear the crickets in the background.

OK, 11 systems extant that are fully ready and able to do detectable fusion in the past, present and future. Dead is dead, gone is gone and working is working or workable at a moments notice.
For that matter, how many functional demo fusors exist and are workable at a moments notice based on the new requirements???

I do not know if the new requirements or a falling out of fashion has caused the current dearth of DIY types to appear here, all dreamy eyed, or not. I prefer a glut of real activity by the few to a glut of skill-less "C" and "D" students fumbling about for epic fails.

It will always be "cricket city" for working anything here! Folks move on. These hallowed halls have only a few working professors on hand with hundreds of matriculated grads. Most of the grads were not really interested in more than the sheep skin of fusion. Some learned from the experience. Most came in rather valueless and clueless and left the same way in spite of their coveted sheep skin.

Finally, a fraction of those serious folks here are not here to do fusion, but for the wonderful content and advice given in one or more of the various forums that touch on specific areas needed to do fusion. Others among those here just want to learn about fusion at the IECF level, radiation detection, vacuum system basics, etc.. It's all here for those who value real data for working "doers" with a suitable touch of theory.

Can we modify this audit up to 11 working or workable, fully connected, operable, fusion systems???

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Frank Sanns »

Richard and Joe,

You are missing the point. I do not want to be counted. It is not that at all.

Can a 15 year old Dodge Neon beat a dragster on the drag strip? No they cannot. Counting devices with different operating principles is not apples to apples. BOT fusion has been done sine the 1930s. It is super efficient if you need a large number of neutrons in a small package.

Just like the dragster comparison, using activation where you can get very close to a wall where neutrons are produced is very different than a fusor like Tim K or mine which is 14" of more from the neutron source (fast neutral collisions).

Give accolades to each of the designs. I am totally ok with that but you can't mix and match when it is convenient. Same with pulsed fusion. Would you take a 1 joule laser that delivers in I micro second and call it a megawatt laser? Maybe can you do that 1 million times a second.

All reported data and accomplishments are good but ICEF is one in itself. Nothin frantic here but maybe I am after differentiation and comparing apples to apples.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Richard Hull »

In the end we are here for doing provable fusion with an original emphasis of the Farnworth fusor. However, no one has ever built a Farnsworth fusor and no one has even ever built a Hirsch-Meeks fusor. We sullied the purity of the Farnsworth's team's efforts of the 50s and 60s by just attempting to do IECF fusion. The number of fully successful pure BOT fusion systems ever here are countable on two fingers. What's more, we tend to recognize, wisely, that cross and cube fusors are a mix of BOT and IECF fusion. Thus, what we do here is the "junk-yard-mutt" fusion! We have no pedigreed, pure fusion system. We just electrically bang deuterons together. (no controlled hot stuff here!) At best, we take a system, any system, an try and wring out the most neutrons, (fusion events), per unit watt cast into the fray. Our original concept of purity led us to become neutron hungry, fusion happy, whores.

It is what it is. I am happy as a clam with being one of the more active whores. We are just trying to determine who is doing the constant and best whoring as most of the whores left the whore house over these many years.

Who's still in the biz of fusion here and who is not.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Joe Gayo »

Today the most useful application of neutrons is activation, so I think "accomplishments" are focused on that metric. As things advance, it may become imaging with neutrons or TOF analysis with pulsed systems.

If we want to establish "accolades" for vacuum (levels or lack of impurities), power supplies (max voltage, fault tolerance, etc.), or detection (minimum threshold, imaging, TOF, etc) then great.

Fusion, vacuums, particle detection, high voltage all have been done for a long time and I don't think the lengthy history of a subject makes it less challenging or interesting to recreate.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Richard Hull »

Joe is correct. A good person can prove fusion via activation at 30,000 n/s TIER in my simple spherical, un-cooled fusor. I just did it 4July, 2021. We don't need to demand this metric, but it is the cheapest and easy way to prove fusion. A GM counter and a chunk of metal is all you need assuming you have good and accurate counting methods in play, with a working fusion system of even the most pitiable of outputs. Activation just demands good detection skills and the right materials to activate, if all you want to do is prove fusion.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Frank Sanns »

If raw neutron output is our metric then we need to change our site name from fusor.net to neutrons.net.

I predict the winning device will be a beam on target with a blend of T and D. Against the target will be a plate of U-235 for neutron multiplication and you will win the prize for the highest number of neutrons. For amateurs, it will just be D and a lead plate to multiply neutrons.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Joe Gayo »

I don't think you clearly understood what I was trying to say. (I don't want to speak for Richard)

It's about pushing the boundaries, where ever they lie. Lower cost high voltage power, higher voltages, easier activation, challenging activation, etc.

When you push you learn, that's it.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Richard Hull »

We or rather I suggested a form of wall loading where the beaming was doing some limited fusion about 10 years ago. So our fusors as spherical multiple BOT IECF systems is an old concept.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Mark Rowley
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:20 am
Real name: Mark Rowley
Location: Sacramento California
Contact:

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Mark Rowley »

The question posed was purely curiosity based and if anyone recalls, I wasnt the first to ask it. It was asked about 2 years ago by another very senior member of the group. But regardless, I still feel the question was worthwhile as the term “research grade fusor” has been periodically used and defined as a device that can activate. After being in the doldrums for a few years, I think the current numbers of such fusors are a testament to the pages success. It’s anything but a “good ol boys” club. In fact, that very perception (which includes the neutron club) is the very thing I’ve been trying to rectify for several years now. As stated before, we should stop or dramatically reduce our highlighting of prohibitively expensive equipment as the only path to success. Continuing to do so paints a strong picture of elitism. This is not my opinion, it’s what’s been told to me by many others who possess an aversion to the website. To be fair, it’s considerably better now than before but I think more work could be done.

Regarding “other forms of fusion” or topics. Early on I realized there wasn’t much interest here in BoT, pinch, putt putt, etc types of fusion. However, since there is a wide range of crossover disciplines this would be the place to discuss and learn. Not unlike many of the other unrelated topics here (sputter coating, ion guns, mass spectrometers, etc), it was understood the project would be somewhat welcome, which it was. I am most appreciative to those who have responded and offered guidance.

Historically speaking for those of us who have been here 20 years, in the mid 2000’s ion guns and BoT technology were the leading edge of Fusor progression. Carl and several others worked tirelessly on those technologies until they moved on to other life endeavors. To me, those days are fresh in my mind so it only seems natural to experiment in those arenas. I would think anyone who gets to the “research grade” stage of their fusor would want to explore the next level.

In all respects, this whole thing is not unlike building a race car engine. You can keep adding to it, modifying it, and testing what works and what doesn’t. I don’t think limiting what we do with our engines (like NASCAR) is healthy for the group or the research.

Mark Rowley
User avatar
Mark Rowley
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:20 am
Real name: Mark Rowley
Location: Sacramento California
Contact:

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Mark Rowley »

Richard, for whatever reason your initial response did not populate on the thread as well as one of Joes. My response was crafted without seeing either. That aside, I agree with your points. And as far the as the strictness of the 1hr requirement, I’d like that to be taken in the spirit of the concept rather than the letter of the law. Currently, I’m trying a new idea with my PSU so as of today I could not activate anything within one hour. But like Frank, after a brief time of getting things back in order I’ll be within those parameters again. In other words, brief interludes, intermissions, disruptions, modifications work, etc should not be used as a rigid parameter.

Anyway, at risk of being repetitive, advancement of the tech (even if hybrid) should be acceptable. After all, we all know darn well the famous pit fusor has little in common with the simple gridded designs 99.99999% of us build here today. But it’s still regarded as acceptable fusor tech.

Mark Rowley
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Richard Hull »

I agree. This thread has developed at light speed and whoever hits the submit button first gets to be next post in line. Thus, the responses are jumbled a bit.

In the end, who has a full fusion capable system at hand... and..... are still contributing with or without running their fusor, BOT or pulser recently. With the proviso that they should be in the neutron club here.
Phantom devices, unknown to us be they amateur or professional, are not part of any count here. We know about Tim's and Frank's........Any more? I would doubt it.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Aidan_Roy
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:08 am
Real name: Aidan Roy
Location: Massachusetts

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Aidan_Roy »

Richard and Mark,

I think you two were right on the money with response to Frank’s questions and the nature and future of the site. I do not think his intention was to be accusatory or dismissive of anyone’s work but more to try and gauge what the true future of the site, and community, will be. With the amount of progress made in the past few decades and very rapid advancement in just the past few months it is certainly understandable from where I see it. I believe that any newcomers right now could easily be turned away by the complexity and costs of the current projects dominating the forums. I think it would be safe to say that he is a member of the old guard and holding onto the past a little bit. It’s just that maintaining our focus on the more “reasonable” (probably the wrong word for this group but true for many people) aspects of this amateur work is still important. At least that is what a gleaned from his words.

The progress is great and those who can push forward should but, in order to keep this place active running long into the future, there will need to be continuing advancement and appeal for the newcomers who will hopefully stay long and not just be “in it to win it” as Richard has coined it. The stricter requirements and zero tolerance policy for entertaining the totally inept have certainly helped push that goal but if we go too far it will start to seem that only geniuses and the wealthy can be apart of this great work, turning away those who could likely be great contributors to the site.

But that’s just my two-cents. I’m not trying to put words into others mouths. A little outside perspective as I see it is all.

Aidan
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Richard Hull »

Thanks for the input Aidan. The amateur aspect is what this site was built for and so it shall remain. Many of the advanced and advancing amateurs here are college grads, 25-75 year-olds, have a lifetime of experience, skills, talents, and often a good deal of disposable income. They are still amateurs and old boys, both in real life and in their tenure here. Young amateurs who arrive with less experience and limited funds are nurtured with a massive number of informative FAQS. If they read and heed the advice, they can advance apace to their verve, ability and funds. It is the way life works. Whether you are 15 or 70. You gain respect by the doing and accomplishing here regardless of age.

We know the younger folks are in a rush to do fusion and many efforts are blunted and usually ended by college demands. Those who do not go to college but start out slow in starter jobs are a bit more lucky in that if they have the resolve and start the fusion quest at 17, and perhaps by 19 or 20 they are successful.

Work, marriage, and a budding family will almost always kill the continuation of doing fusion, perhaps until a later date. So much depends not only on verve and ability, but the willingness to not leave amateur science, itself! For the truly inquisitive who is a "doer", amateur science has a life-long grip on the psyche.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Frank Sanns »

Aidan gets it.

Two important missions and I have fought and pushed for both:

1. Mentoring
2. Technical advancement

When the works of people on the site are too advanced, expensive, or complex, new good people may never give it a go. When the works are casually simple, less technical people are attracted and are flashes in the pan. I view both of these as essential on the site as we want a path for both the casual and the advanced person. It is not better to allow a non science person to make their own plasma in a mason jar than to have never done it in the first place? They may be young or non science people but that will be an experiment that they did with their own hands and will remember it for a long time. This is part of introducing science to those that will not be professional engineers or scientists. It is part of the mission of the forum. We just have a forum structure that segregates these people into the New User Chat area where they can collaborate with others and not contaminate the technical forums. This works.

My comment about the GOB Club still stands. I don't think it productive to add more and more criteria on what constitutes a neutron producing fusor. It either does or it does not produce neutrons. Hanging other criteria on there gains nothing other than to exclude those before us that have already done their work long ago. This is recorded in the fusioneers section that Richard keeps up to date. It is the appropriate repository for such things. It is also has been the area for accolades and appropriately so. Details of individual accomplishments are there for all to see. There are two clubs; Plasma, and Neutron.

Creating other criterial to be counted and listed as things evolve is not productive for new people or historical people that have made neutrons and no longer are here to post. Just remember that is the historical members that have shared their work and knowledge so newer people can build on it. The information base here today is a result of those people collectively.

I have no problem with a poll of how many operational fusors are on the site right now. It is a good poll question. Where I draw exception is the 1 hour time frame. Had that been a day, I would say yes, that is reasonable to start up a fusor that may not be fully assembled at any moment in time. Similarly, saying that neutrons must be detected with a He-3 tube is not criteria that should matter any more that saying bubble detector or silver activation. These criteria overly narrow the definition of what is making neutrons and constitutes a working fusor.

Fusor. Yes the last portion of my rant. Maybe I am indeed holding on too tightly to some aspects but maybe not. Perhaps the answer that I could live with is a better differentiation of what the new advanced working units are. Calling all of them fusors is not properly descriptive. Most to date have built the classic Hirsh/Meeks/Hull design. It is what the forum has come to call a fusor. Others on the site are doing pinch, BOT, pulsed, linear, and a few others. This is great and it is advancements toward fusion which I consider our primary technical mission here. But I think we need to refer to these approaches in the title of the technical posts of each. That way, an interested person can see at a glance which of the technologies is being used and they can then choose the direction they want to mimic or improve. It is ok to even say a hybrid of two technologies. I could make sub forums for each of the technologies but I do not think it productive to separate them out of the normal discussions. I favor just titling them properly for identification.

The appropriate place to list these approaches and the accolades that they afford should be in the master neutron club list. One list, all accolades and device type of fusion next to a person's name.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Joe Gayo »

I think there is some irony in this thread ...

Step 1 - Fusor.net laments that there are an overwhelming number of simple mason jar attempts and reminisces of the days when people were contributing advances

Step 2 - Fusor.net starts to have slightly more technical setups (many accomplished using bootstrap techniques)

Step 3 - Fusor.net starts to encourage these efforts

Step 4 - Someone feels left out (of course denies that's the problem)

Step 5 - Let's get back to basics and make sure "everyone is a winner"

Step 6 - The old guard stays with some having more advanced approaches, but mostly the new efforts happen in the background and realize Fusor.net is where you tell someone for the millionth time to fix their user name, don't use block quotes, and for the love of science get a real vacuum guage.
User avatar
Bob Reite
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:03 pm
Real name: Bob Reite
Location: Wilkes Barre/Scranton area

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Bob Reite »

Joe Gayo's step 6 had me laughing out loud!

Don't forget, we also have the listing of fusors by Q. Who makes the most neutrons for the least input power. Needless to say, to make this list one needs a calibrated method of measuring neutrons which can be the biggest hurdle.
The more reactive the materials, the more spectacular the failures.
The testing isn't over until the prototype is destroyed.
User avatar
Nicolas Krause
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:36 pm
Real name: Nicolas Krause
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Nicolas Krause »

I just wanted to add my two cents as someone working in the background, having not yet achieved enough to be included in any list! As far as I can tell this is a group of amateurs in the old sense of the word, those who love what they do. There's zero reason to build a fusor or any of the other myriad of devices here other than you think it's neat and are curious about it. Indeed people who build a device for a purpose (winning a science fair, getting on tv as the youngest fusioneer etc...) leave as soon as that goal has been achieved, that was their motivation and having achieved it they have no real interest in going further. So I think two sorts of things about what's going on here.
1. I think the increased restrictions on the 'official' plasma/neutron club listing were a good thing. Its always possible to argue about the details of these sorts of lists, but to me that's not their general purpose. You want a filter to ensure that the people who come here are deeply interested in the subject matter. I don't know of any other way to demonstrate that interest other than to make it difficult to be a part of a group. It is an imperfect tool to be sure, and as such it will always be subject to debate.
2. This website is a really really impressive collection of knowledge. I can't tell you how many times I reference the FAQ's or threads here when I'm trying to do something. I think Frank's post also has some implications for how this library is organized. Like a lot of things this changes over time, it started out as people building a single type of device, a bunch of people then built copies of that device and now people are trying different configurations and entirely new devices. To me a lot of technical advancement starts with knowing what has been done before so that something new can be tried. I think the easiest way to start with Frank's question is to start with what is well defined. Everyone here has a good idea of what a classical amateur fusor is, the charged grid in the vacuum chamber. I would suggest that be the first point of classification, if like me you're still trying to build a classical fusor, there should be some label or title on your thread acknowledging that. If like Joe you're building something new, that knowledge will be there implicitly since it's not a 'classical fusor'. Alternatively you could create two new forums, one for classical devices and ones for new devices.
Hopefully that adds something useful to the discussion here!
User avatar
Bob Reite
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:03 pm
Real name: Bob Reite
Location: Wilkes Barre/Scranton area

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Bob Reite »

We do have a section for "Other than fusor fusion". Perhaps this is where those working on BOT, Zpinch etc. should post.
The more reactive the materials, the more spectacular the failures.
The testing isn't over until the prototype is destroyed.
User avatar
Mark Rowley
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:20 am
Real name: Mark Rowley
Location: Sacramento California
Contact:

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Mark Rowley »

Rob, that is exactly where those are posted. I’m not aware of any infractions unless they’re deep in the history of the site.

What Nicolas was referring to appears to be hybrids. Like a classic fusor design with target material or one with ion guns. I’d contend those should not be lumped in with a pincher or non-fusor based BoT.

Mark Rowley
User avatar
Nicolas Krause
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:36 pm
Real name: Nicolas Krause
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Nicolas Krause »

I was just attempting to suggest the simplest classification scheme I could think of. I like dumb rules that are easy to follow. That of course means the rule is dumb. I think there's a myriad of different non-classical fusor devices, BOT devices, ion-gunned fusors, and lots more. It seems to me the largest group of devices that's easy to put in a labelled box is the classical fusor system. The rest are messy and not as easy to file away.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Richard Hull »

Nicolas you are very wise in your support and comments. We need a long time poster, who has not done fusion yet, to chime in with such views. Thanks for the sage comments from a long time poster here.

As to Bob's thoughts.... I just think all fusion projects need to be covered in the construction forum and the images forum. We are amateur fusioneers. Shunting any project off to some limited forum seems to just isolate many great attempts at fusion.

The other forums Bob speaks of are for discussions related to other forms of fusion and theory. Wind being blown over the decks, as it were, speculations and discussions, etc. The doers related to such discussions should show their work in hardware in the construction forum and tittle the effort appropriately. Images should be along with their project advances in the construction forum. Detection efforts of a specific nature in hardware should appear with images in the radiation detection forum. The same is true for vacuum system design and assembly. Specific projects and images should appear in their relative forums.

The image forums are for event images, singular items, show and tells, slightly off topic images but of a scientific or amateur nature of interest. Claims of plasma or neutron club entry should have all the relevant images and data of proof presented in the images forum, as well.

I feel the forums can stand as they are. We have walled-off the newbies in their own Newbie discussion forum until they get their feet wet, and while hopefully, reading the FAQs. There is room for everything within these walls related to the full range of Amateur fusion efforts.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Mark Rowley
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:20 am
Real name: Mark Rowley
Location: Sacramento California
Contact:

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Mark Rowley »

Richard, just to be clear….
You would prefer that non-fusor related fusion device construction efforts be posted in “Fusor Construction and Operation”?

The title “Orher Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URL’s” specifically states “construction”. Maybe the word “construction” should be removed.

I have no problem moving all the linear pinch and other stuff over to the Fusor construction area if that’s what’s decided on.


Mark Rowley
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by Richard Hull »

Mark, move nothing! Leave all as it is now. I just want us all to be one regardless of methodology. With the word "construction" in the title, my error, continue to post where appropriate based on forum description.

Sorry about that. You did good.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Post Reply

Return to “Announcements and Site Administration Topics”