What are we doing here?

Announcements and items of immediate importance.
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
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 »

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.

Joe Gayo wrote: Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:18 pm 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.
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
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 »

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.
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 »

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
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 »

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.
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
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 »

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
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 »

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
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
Andrew Seltzman
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:02 pm
Real name: Andrew Seltzman
Contact:

Re: What are we doing here?

Post by 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.
Andrew Seltzman
www.rtftechnologies.org
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 »

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
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”