What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Announcements and items of immediate importance.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Richard Hull »

Frank brought up an interesting point recently. How do we described the fusion device so all understand? Fusor was the de facto standard for many years. In writing my recent post on reading the table of the isotopes, I used fusion system a lot for the activation discussion. This is a great generalized term and I will adopt it as much as possible.

As there are many ways to skin the proverbial cat, so there are many possible fusion systems. Fusors are typically spherical devices, but cylindrical fusors are so similar they are fusors too. Cube fusors are different for sure. They tend to be more beam on target, B.O.T., types. While not true 100% B.O.T, I think in future we might differentiate in our posts what we are talking about related to our and other folks systems. True B.O.T. fusion devices are really bombarding target accelerators. (Usually linear in nature) Thus, such fusion systems should be referred to as B.O.T.

Let's start talking about "Fusion Systems" in general discussions related to fusion theory, etc.
For specific fusion producers, let's use terms like "fusor" for spherical and "Cylinder", "Cross", as well as "Cube" fusor or "B.O.T." to differentiate these special fusion devices and fusion constructions.

The types of fusion systems has multiplied with new ideas and implementations over what was envisioned in 1998 when this site kicked off. There is no failure of mission here. Quite the contrary. The vibrant mission of amateur fusion continues, unbated, now spread over many amateur assembled devices.........or fusion systems.

So let us know what you are talking about. With what seems to be only 1 remaining spherical system, (perhaps mine), the term "fusor" may, should I change out my system, no longer describe what 1998 started in the purest sense.

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

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Nicolas Krause »

We could all agree to call this website Fuser.net (as in people interested in fusing) and if anybody new asks we just say it's a typo and getting the domain name changed is too hard at this point.
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

I don't think we should change the name at all. Fusor.net is as good as a brand. It is known broadly for what it is.

This site has been known for more than just fusors for quite some time. It has been a useful forum for a range of topics beyond the specifics of fusors, including radiation detection, power supplies, and vacuum tech. Do a Google search for stuff like that and you can easily find fusor.net without ever mentioning fusors.

The only change that could help, if any would be opening new topics for other types of fusion if folks really have a hard spot not segregating.

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

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Mark Rowley »

I’m with Jim. Leave everything alone.
If anyone is inclined to dig into the site archives, experimentation outside of the classic two electrode fusor design was alive and well in the mid 2000’s. It was highly supported back then and there were no problems… smooth sailing. All this upset is really odd and in my opinion not necessary. We should just continue as we have been doing.

Mark Rowley
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Frank Sanns »

Mark,

That is easy to say. I mean I get it however this site is owned by Paul Schatzkin. His book, his mission, and this site is about the Farnsworth Fusor. Look at the home page of Fusor.net and you will see it.

I have been dancing a tightrope trying to accommodate the evolution of this site with Paul's original mission. Read the thread of the Waterstar Summit from last year if you want to see how much this site is dedicated to Philo T. Farnsworth.

That is exactly why I was questioning classical fusor or just make neutrons any way you can. It is not odd. It has become inconsistent with the original mission that this site was organized as and has been run as until very recently.

Not trying to get another post that is perceived as frantic but I genuinely do not know how to organize the site to meet all objectives. I would rather not have to limit or piss the members off nor let Paul down. Neither is a good option.

It has been several months since Paul and I have spoken about such things but I will have a one on one with him about this to see if he is amenable to loosening the mission of the site.
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
Mark Rowley
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:20 am
Real name: Mark Rowley
Location: Sacramento California
Contact:

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Mark Rowley »

Frank, did Paul have issue with the direction of the site between 2002-2010? There were considerably more posts about achieving record breaking neutron counts, non-fusor devices, and ion-gun systems in those days than now. Why wasn’t this addressed 17 years ago if such topics are not following the site mission?

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

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Richard Hull »

Site mission? Phooey! It was to do fusion in follow-up to Farnsworth's efforts and discussion of fusion in general. There was never a rule on how it must be done, only a suggestion.

In the end, for the amateur, being legal, fusion is the only way to procure neutrons. No one here has tried and succeeded in proving any form of aneutronic fusion. fusion = neutrons. If fusion is your goal neutrons will be there. If neutrons are your goal fusion will be needed. As fusion is achieved by whatever legal means to the amateur, it is D-D fusion. Purity of retaining the idea of a specific device by a specific modality
is limiting if you want to do fusion or get neutrons....Remember, if you get 590,000 neutrons per second you are doing fusion at a rate of 1,180,000 fusions per second. Don't like the neutron concept of fusion? Talk only about the fusions actually being done.

What about utilizing the high speed tritons or better still, the fast protons internally released by fusion? Look at the table of the isotopes and see what high speed protons can bombard and make active (especially the gamma emitters that can go through the shell walls for detection.). Line the interior with it...The neutrons are just the only thing that exits the system reactor's walls and a mere gauge of fusion itself.

We already have the story on Farnsworth here, and a sad one it is, as well as interesting. Read all about it. Farnsworth wanted to do fusion, so let's do fusion and not quibble over devices or methodologies. Leave purity to the Puritans. We are the junk yard dogs of fusion. Amateur fusion. We do fusion the way it works for us as individuals and for what purposes we choose. We are already constrained and held back by D-D fusion. Let's not lay down any specifics on how it must be done. Freedom to do things on our own it a right, but there are rules, if you want any sort of recognition from the group. Proof you are doing fusion is one of the rules. It is a good rule here as we all want to be fusioneers and recognized for that achievement. To lord such achievements over others here is a sign of vanity. To state what you have done in an advance in your work is a rightful sign of pride in accomplishment.

If fusion is the goal....Let's do fusion.. If neutrons are the goal........Let's do fusion. If activation is the goal.....Let's do fusion. If fusion theory is the goal......Let's talk 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's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Frank Sanns »

I am not sure which site you are looking at during that time period but 100% of the neutron club members until at least 2010 (Doug Coulter with a cylindrical grid). Almost all after that the same thing until very recently.

Ion guns were a big thing as they were an integral part of what we know as a classic fusor. Nothing unusual there.

The change is recent and I don't believe Paul is on the site to weigh in on this so let's not throw him under the buss for 2002-2010 work. The way I remember it, the real work and neutron productions were with classicals until more recently.

Maybe Richard can weigh in on past neutron club work.
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
Mark Rowley
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:20 am
Real name: Mark Rowley
Location: Sacramento California
Contact:

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Mark Rowley »

99% of all my BoT research came from this site. All were previous attempts and successes detailed here. Additionally, the “who can get the highest neutron yield” was from here as well during the aforementioned time period.

In order to complete my projects, I had to draw from the previous BoT and non-fusor work done by Andrew Seltzman, Carl Willis, Robert Tubbs, Dennis Brown, Thomas Rapp, Steve Sessleman, and several others. All the threads are still there.

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

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Richard Hull »

Again, the only reason neutrons were ever discussed was that was the only way to prove D-D fusion was being done. All the other fusion debris is caught in the SS walls or pumped out of the vacuum system. Once the fusion rate got up a bit, (rare in the in it to win it crowd.), activation of silver and indium became possible and a simple GM counter is all you needed to prove fusion.

Activation is nothing new. It has been done rather continuously since 2002 starting with Jon Rosenstiel. activation has picked up considerably lately, not to prove fusion but to show how well a fusion system is working. It is a new gauge to add with all the other gauges used now and in the past.

No one ever suggested throwing Paul under the bus! As noted, I may be the last classical operator here. Maybe it will be a museum piece in future. Carl got rid of his and turned it into a steam punk exhibit! Cool beans. Jon just told me his is no longer around. Trading in a model T for an 8 cylinder model A is no crime.

Wanna' see a classic, working model T? Come to HEAS 32, 2021!

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's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Frank Sanns »

I will repeat that a vast majority of member of the site started with a classical design. They learned and built and evolved into other things. At no time did anybody suggest that other designs and efficiencies were not welcome. All work and evolution is welcome no matter the build or the theory. Nothing has changed here.

The question becomes, what does fusor.net represent to a new person coming onto the site? While I said mason jars were good, that is stretching it. I think we all agree that somebody with at least some skill and drive will take the plunge and build at least a reasonable vacuum system and power supply. It is up to them what is next.

Where the verbiage comes in has more to do with the flow and mission of the site. I do not have this answer hence the threads. It is a classical fusor site first for education and historic reasons or is it all all out rush to neutrons any way you can? If the later, the less serious will take the path of least resistance. It is this portion of the mission of fusor.net that needs to be clarified. It is not to limit anybody or their contributions but rather, what is the path? I think this is an important question that we are only now on the brink of having to make.

Also are some related safety issues that we as a group continue to warn new people about. X-rays, neutrons and even some fusion byproducts from the ultra high neutron producing units. We are pushing the envelope and more as time goes on and have to be aware of some of the secondary ramifications.
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
Mark Rowley
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:20 am
Real name: Mark Rowley
Location: Sacramento California
Contact:

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Mark Rowley »

Specific to BoT, pinch, or whatever, I contend those are the path of more resistance. Device complexity, supporting infrastructure, and lack of amateur builds to draw from make these a migraine in comparison. I just don’t see the threat. Any motivated newbie or rookie will assuredly begin with a classic fusor.

I’m in 100% agreement on your last point Frank. May be worthy of a separate post or an off-line discussion.

Mark Rowley
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Frank,
You presented two options for what forum should be without really presenting the best option.

You questioned whether it should be a traditional fusor site or a rush to neutrons site. I submit that, while closer to the former, it is currently neither. This forum is already a spot where people share data for "amateur" study of fusion. The fusor is most common because it's the easiest. What is really wrong with that? Are not people intelligent enough to make up their own minds what data they take away? If someone wants to build a fusor, shouldn't they be bright enough to pick out what they need from the forum?

If all the forum needs to do is teach how to build a fusor, we may as well just lock it for posting now. It's already done.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Richard Hull »

We have already noted that Joe is near some sort of personal safety limit, which he is busy covering as best he can.

At some point, if another amateur stumbles into the 60-70kv and above range, the typical warnings must be reiterated. Naturally, no one and I mean no one in the rank amateur class will show up here and in month or two be pumping out deadly radiation. Not even dangerous radiation or any significant dose.

Most arriving will do what they have always done. Fail! A few will do fusion and prove it and then disappear like a fart in a whirlwind. .1% will stick learn and contribute having done fusion and learned all about safety via the FAQs and admonitions. The safety issue is one for the advancing fusioneer looking to break the 60kv barrier, for whatever personal reason. They will typically have the smarts to protect themselves and any others who many be observers. A ton of Safety posts exist in the radiation forum and FAQs related to mainly X-rays which are the number one problem due to current at voltage.

Oh, there is no low hanging fruit methodology to obtaining fusion or neutrons.

The mission and kit will always be a personal one and not a fusor.net issue.

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's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Frank Sanns »

I am surprised with all of the turmoil of these threads. We are looking at an ADMINISTRATIVE choice of the mission of the site. It in no way affects the work being done from start to finish.

Everybody seems to have been in acceptance of the site layout and evolution up to this point. All of the basic forum structure has come from reflection on where the site has progressed to.

This latest evaluation of of flow and layout is nothing to be so agitated about. They are legitimate questions for NOW. If something was missed in 2002 then maybe or maybe not it is time to look at it now.

NOTHING of the work or recognitions will change. What MAY change is the flow of people being introduced to a historical site called fusor.net. It may be as simple as another FAQ that brings people through the operation and history of a classical fusor first. Then maybe more descriptive titles for variations on the theme of the type of neutron producing device for clarity and search function.

I have already had an email exchange with Paul and we are talking this week so keep you input coming but let's not get too carried away.
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
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

Checking in from the void...

Frank gave me a heads up on this discussion, he and I will talk later in the week, and then perhaps I'll weigh in.

Bus? The only bus I know of is the one that Philo T Farnsworth III (oldest son of TV/Fusor inventor) spoke of, and all he ever said about a bus was "face the front of it."

--P
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Richard Hull »

Yes, the front of the bus points to where it is headed. Its destination. A destination is whatever it is when you get there. Where you came from may be different from your destination. However, what your work product was at your origin, (fusion), so it should be at your destination to stay on mission. (fusion).

History is always important especially to me, a history buff. This is especially true since I was there at the beginning and sought out the pre-history via travel and spending treasure to interview the originals. This history has been shared already here by me and Paul. 60 years ago it all started with Philo and his dream and his team. 24 years ago it restarted here via songs, Intranet and now, fusor.net. The one thing that has never changed is the mission of fusion. Only the kit to get it done has changed. Neutrons are proof of successful fusion. More neutrons....More fusion. More activation, more fusion.

I see no contention here just dead-on mission, continuing unabated with recent improvements fully welcomed. This is an amateur effort. Always has been and always should be. I don't receive a paycheck doing this nor does anyone else here. I only see money going away from me in this biz.

All who read this..... I am about to send Paul a check to support his continued having to pay for this venue. You might also consider doing the same.

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

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Richard Hull »

I have composed a PDF that summarizes my feelings on the purposes, activities and expansion of efforts on fusor.net. (attached)

Richard Hull
Attachments
Origins .pdf
(113.65 KiB) Downloaded 176 times
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's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Joe Gayo »

Richard,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

As someone that enjoys working on analog circuits even when a digital solution may be "superior", I can appreciate the nostalgia of the Farnsworth fusor. One common trait that lives on, and in my opinion one of the most beneficial, is the scrappiness of the 1950s fusion research. Fusor.net is the pinnacle of DIY and equipment recycling. We as a community take the discarded equipment of yesteryear and coax it to teach us something new. The ingenuity of early atomic physics research and the royalty of instrument builders lives on here in these forums.

Regards,

Joe
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Certainly the forum has changed just as approaches and needs of its community have changed. Yet at its core, one part never changes - this is a place to share and discuss scientific topics related to - atomic tunneling.

For let's not lose sight of this incredibly amazing aspect of fusors - that these devices, as well as ion guns used for fusion, depend on this extremely strange phenomena called atomic tunneling. A process that has no parallel in our normal macroscopic world but is purely quantum in nature. It is this atomic tunneling alone that enables mere amateurs to create fusion in their home's; yet, it also leads one to the aggravating fact about this type of fusion - that nothing we can do will enable significantly more fusion events then its trivial output of energy and very limited flux of neutrons. And so like the will-o-wisp in a forest at night, this process can often lead people astray - chasing the belief that net energy production can be attainable. Yet atomic tunneling is like a mirage - a process of energy production that will always remain useless in our so limited endeavors but will always entice someone seeing it to continue on this hopeless energy quest.

Yet how can one not be thrilled by controlling the very process that powers our own Sun? Then add the wonder of a somewhat useful source of neutrons to the mix and what isn't there in this world of nuclear physics, at its most powerful, not to want to master? Also, throw into this mix the need and opportunity to learn details of both the process and the black boxes that make it all possible and this too heightens one's desire to enter this excusive club.

Yes, the price of entry to control this magic is high and even dangerous but that too adds to its allure; for controlling the very thing that gives our universe its most important source of energy, and one that the experimenter can even gaze upon*, is even magical. To see the very plasma that contains the atoms that are fusing together via this mysterious quantum effect - a process where quarks within the very nuclei are changing flavor by a mechanism that is, even by the standards of quantum effects, utterly mysterious. This in turn also creates the most strange of all material things in our universe - antimatter in the form of a positron. So thanks to this forum many more people have had this opportunity to share in this type of experience; and as many of these people can attest to, well worth the investment of time, money and effort.

* Safest to view via a mirror since the Gorgon can be dangerous, after all.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

Post by Richard Hull »

Naturally, all fusion is solely due to tunneling. Whether in our fusors, BOT, in stellarator, NIF, JET or ITER. Power-out is a factor of power-in within all fusion systems. Fusion will never go beyond the concept of a crap shoot, probability, and being a game of chance whether at 400 watts input or a gigawatt input.

In the matter of fuel, fusion fuel does not want to fuse so even if you have the non-extant on earth, Tritium or the more abundant but still difficult to obtain natural deuterium, you are no where without massive input of energy PLUS a containment field. Fusion does not want to occur even with endless amounts of fuel at hand.

Fission fuel is relatively abundant in selected rock on earth... Once you have the fission fuel in hand, zero energy is required to start the fission reaction. No intense magnetic field is needed to contain it. and, regardless of the fission methodology, more fissile material and even fusion fuel is created amidst the radioactive by products and debris. That is why most of France's electricity is totally nuclear fission today and a significant amount of our electricity is also fission based.

The only demand made on earth bound fission or fusion is that the fuel must have a neutron or an over abundance of them. Neutrons within all nuclear fuels are the key to both reactions on earth.

True protium will not fuse until confined in the core of a star and the best reactions don't occur even in the core at a useful rate until deuterium is produced which means until the neutron is created creating a decent cross section amidst the nuclear fuel in the core of the sun. The first fusion in a star creates the neutron. Neutrons, on their own, have no normal, natural existence as they are all radioactive with a short half-life.

I have always felt that the strong force only exists within the bound neutron in the first true atom, deuterium. We have never seen a 2P atom even in the supposed and predicted p-p fusion, deuterium is the product.
There are no proton stars! Neutron stars are well known and recorded.

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”