What are we doing here?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Bob Reite]

We do have a section for "Other than fusor fusion". Perhaps this is where those working on BOT, Zpinch etc. should post.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[Frank Sanns]

Careful Joe, your narcissism is showing again.

For the record, the work of ALL of the people on this site have contributed to the information that you and others have read to construct their devices. The foundation that has been laid are the springboard for the next wave of innovations. Creating any criteria that minimizes ANY of their contributions for some newly implemented ones, ignores the reality.

Being sure everybody is a winner is not the point. It is giving everybody with different knowledge, financial, and time constraints an opportunity to look, learn, and hopefully build at whatever level they choose.

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.

[Frank Sanns]

The posts are fine where they are. Just please use the TITLE to define what kind of fusion device it is. This will help with the search function.

You name does not have to be in the title as it, by default, appears as the person originating the thread. This also helps the search function because you can search by author as well as keywords.

[Joe Gayo]

Look in the mirror Frank, as I seem to have hit a nerve.

Of course all accomplishments build on others. Some people just have a hard time reflecting honestly on what they have actually accomplished.

[Frank Sanns]

Ok Joe, you now have hit a nerve. It is called respect for forum members and in particular the Site Admin.

You now have been given a 24 hour suspension from the forum.

[Aidan_Roy]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. okay now. There is definitely hostility in these responses and there’s no need to get nasty. I was quite content with how Richard had left it. The ideas are out there and it was an important topic to discuss. Maybe it came a little earlier than need be, yes, and maybe it was a bit frantic sounding, however that is better than never. I agree that there is no need to change anything on the forums as they are now, whether it be section titles or the location we want people to post. I also agree that having a way to filter the types of people participating here, and subsequently an appropriate way to recognize them, is also important. One thing Frank said put it best and I hope it can be the main idea of this discussion. This place is to give everybody with different knowledge, financial, and time constraints an opportunity to look, learn, and hopefully build at whatever level they choose. Encouraging this and maintaining a healthy and scientifically backed wide range of interests in this area of study should be the goal. The best of the best will always remain in the spot light as their works, especially as of recently, will continue to be really really great. Shifting all focus of current and future work to specifically those deeds however is a slippery slope that I think Frank was attempting to point out. Just as with the recent discussion on whether or not Tim should be considered “amateur”, deciding at what point the cost and complexity of a project leaves the generally accepted realm of feasibility for the group as a whole can and will greatly effect the demographic of people who join and continue to use the site. That is what should be known.

With the most recent actions of Frank I edited this response a little but I am not choosing sides. There really is no need for such harsh words and strong action. This has gone far beyond what I had expected the outcome if this thread to be and I think we can all agree that dispute like this has no place. If this thread is to have any future success or development, a more civil and level headed discussion will be a must, as I hope all can agree.

Aidan

[Richard Hull]

Aidan, youthful wisdom suggesting cooling the jets. Thanks once again. The only side to take is the one of acceptance of all views without rancor. Amateur fusion is the mission here whether one is dirt poor or a millionaire, so long as it is an amateur effort, self-funded, self-assembled and operated. We are open source. No secrets. Open sharing of tech, operational techniques and quantified results with full imaging of kit and related hardware are expected. This has always been the stomping and proving ground for "doers", past and present. One hopes for the future as well.

Richard Hull

[Andrew Seltzman]

To respond to Franks initial post:

I don’t feel the recent operational fusor audit was meant to exclude anyone, just to get a general feel for how many of us still have operational systems, not just one-and-done fusors that demonstrated neutron output and were subsequently dismantled as people moved on to new hobbies. Neutron activation was just a benchmark of a “reasonable output flux”, and one hour was a “reasonable operational time”. I would personally consider any system that can be turned out and demonstrate neutron flux as an operational fusor.

Scintillator/oscilloscope, BF3 tubes with a removable moderator, He3 tubes, Bubble detectors, activation, beta spectroscopy are ALL acceptable means to prove fusion. Bubble detectors have been chosen by some to demonstrate (especially with lower output fusors) that actual neutron production is occurring, not just noise pickup; their dose integrating nature allows long duration runs at fluxes where a BF3/He3 tube would not provide accurate counting statistics. My first demonstration of fusion was with a bubble detector for just this reason (operating in the ~15kv range), while now with much higher output flux a BF3 tube will easily demonstrate neutron production in my fusor. There is nothing wrong with using one method over another as long is the demonstration of neutron production is clear and the detector and counting statistics are well matched to the neutron flux and signal to noise ratio.

With improved technology, surplus equipment, and understanding of neutron generator technology, the logical urge is to push to higher neutron numbers. Whether by “IECF”, beam on target, pinch, etc... The progress in increasing neutron output continues, as it should. Sure, beam on target is used commercially, but so what, we are an amateur group building neutron generators for fun as a hobby. While IECF was the initial focus of this forum, this was more of a historical occurrence starting with the 1998 Tom Ligon article and Richard Hull’s fusors that kick started armature neutron production as a hobby. Fusors are just more showy as you can see the plasma, though it could just as easily have been a dominantly beam on target hobby but for a flip of a coin on the neutron generation method in that fateful article in 1998.

Absolute flux is a good benchmark. I don’t think separating out into separate beam-on-target, pinch, groups would be productive or necessary. If people can and want to get higher flux with beam-on-target, good on them. Anyone who unambiguously demonstrated “neutron production” (no requirement on flux, just a positive confirmation) should be a member of the neutron club. Likewise, any neutron producing device should, for the purposes of neutron club membership or classification as an “operational fusor”, be accepted. The addition of new and novel designs such as the cube fusor, beam on target, and other designs have pushed the neutron rate to higher levels and fostered technological innovation.

I strongly oppose restricting to, or even implying that, this forum should be IECF based, in the main, because an “IEC fusor” does not have a distinct neutron generation mechanism within the realm of plasma physics. The Hirsch-1967 spatial distribution of fusion neutrons inside the cathode that was originally attributed to virtual electrode formation (poissors) was actually due to beam-on-target effects. The SIGFE experiment at UW Madison demonstrated over a decade ago that the majority of the neutrons produced in the Hirsch-1967 fusor were in fact produced by beam-on-target fusion with the interior surface of the cathode, in addition to beam-on-beam and beam-on-neutral fusion outside the focal point. https://iec.neep.wisc.edu/usjapan/13th_ ... chalak.pdf

The salient findings were:

• Less than 0.2% of the D-D fusion reactions are from center of SIGFE device
• Virtual potential well structures and other space-charge related physics at the center of the SIGFE cathode are not a significant source of fusion
• D-D and D-3He fusion protons observed from center are consistent with beam-background fusion
• The results of the SIGFE imply that beam-embedded fusion in the cathode lenses is the dominant D-D fusion mechanism in the SIGFE

While generations of multiple virtual electrode formation (Poissors) may exist, they do not exist within the optimum parameter space for highest neutron production of an “IECF” device (eg we operate in star mode rather than Poissor mode), as such, for all intents and purposes, there is no physics basis to claim that "Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion" reaction rates exist to the extent that IEFC is a distinct fusion mechanism for device classification. The term “IEC fusion” is used from historical establishment to describe a spherically convergent gridded electrostatic ion accelerator that is used for neutron production, (our “fusors”), in reality, the dominant neutron production in these devices is NOT due to the originally proposed multiple virtual electrode formation, but rather, beam-on-target, beam-on-neutral, and beam-on-beam effects. Therefore claiming a distinction between “IEF fusors”, beam-on-target, cube fusors, etc does not have a rigorous basis; all these devices generate neutrons by a wide range of mechanisms.

[Richard Hull]

Great post Andrew! The salient points you outline are certainly correct in every respect and not only from our findings but those of others from academia. For me, and long stated in the Neutron club information is the statement that all forms of proven fusion will make news and be accepted here. Paul formed this entire venue back in 1998 for Folks to discuss and experiment in the Farnsworth fusor concept, and fusion in general. I was attracted to the process as a possible source of neutrons for experiment. Others have come and gone and contributed over the years for their own reasons. I feel this is what this forum is all about.

What you put into it is what you get out of it for as long as you wish to be here, for your own reasons, using your own initiative, and in a manner that teaches you something and that you share and are willing to teach and assist others.

A large number have come here to compete against others or even themselves. That is fine if it pleases them. The real winners, of course, are the doers, the learners and the teachers who have come and gone as well as those who remain, and those who will arrive in future in search of some goal that only they can define from their own perspective.

Richard Hull