What's in a name? Verbiage may matter.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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