Farnsworth Questions

Reflections on fusion history, current events, and predictions for the 'fusion powered future.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Richard Hull »

Frank may also speak to this question.

A linac accelerator is intrinsically a drift tube in which many hollow cylinders of increasing length are aligned and fed with a high power, high frequency signal such that electrons or ions entering the drift tubes are accelerated. A concept of spheres within spheres with multiple orifices might also create the same result, but with far more energetic net beam convergence at a single point. This is a nice idea, but has yet to see any physical embodiment. Such a system was loosely looked at by the original Farnsworth team with their single internal dynode systems. The issue of importance is how many spheres within spheres are possible and or desirable due to the complexity that each must be fully isolated and insulated from the neighboring two spheres all of which require separate external connections.

Far less complex and easier to implement would be a spherical arrangement of linacs arranged to focus to a single point ala the NIF laser system. The spherical drift system is a great concept, but again, just an idea and theoretical musing. If possible to realistically implement, such a spherical system might prove an interesting construct. Multiple linacs can be made simply and inexpensively if made in quantity at fusion voltages under 100 keV. A 100 keV linac is a snap to make compared to the 5-10 meV linacs of research. An initial spherical drift system for experiment would be complex and, at the early stages of investigation, would involve far fewer spheres than found in linac drift tubes. This would allow for less costly, ($1 million) implementation, but might be a proof of concept system. That very cheap million dollar figure would not begin to pay for lab, staffing and related equipment to investigate and assemble the cheap million dollar device. Such a device would certainly never do usable fusion, but might move the per watt input versus fusion energy output several orders of magnitude forward.

The beauty of the spherical drift system would be that if you could implement this into a physical reality, the number of "effective linacs" in the system might be limited only to the number of concentric precisely aligned holes you bore into the multiple spheres!

Near microscopic ion drift tube sources at the very low power 3-5kv ion source level are currently used that can plug into an IC socket!! Most are used in small mass spectrometers.

Like Frank says 60 years have passed since the ITT effort. Modern miniaturization is amazing and some firm which might seek to use this concept in the vein of IECF might bear the expense of developing something quite compact as a proof of concept, linearly or perhaps even spherically. Anything along the original Farnsworth musing back then would have been larger and far more tough to implement requiring far more money than ITT could supply and as regards PTFA, a bridge light years beyond their grasp. As with many landing here with ideas, they have no money or the "doing" interest or ability. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Implementations of those ideas are always another matter.

Check this out

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-00248-w


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: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Frank Sanns »

Thanks for the info Richard.

To continue and clarify my earlier statement, there were some design elements of the Cave Fusor that were interesting. The ion gun side arm was fed through a small hole in a larger otherwise solid inner cathode. There were six such ion guns and six small holes in the inner cathode. The entire cathode was at operation voltage which in at least one photograph, was set at 62KV.

The ion gun then spewed out fusible ions (deuterium and or deuterium/tritium mixtures) which only had a small acceleration gap until it entered via the orifice into the large solid cathode. Inside the cathode, there would be no work done on the ions since there is an absence of a field inside of a conductor. The focus set outside would not be distorted by our current fusor inner grid wires. It would stay focused except for the normal defocusing that happens when you have a bunch of similar charges repelling each other.

So the Cave fusor had a single drift sphere. That is an interesting arrangement but what I had envisioned was an extension of that using multiple spherical drift chambers with acceleration going on between strategically placed ones. To further what Richard has said, a linac for example uses an RF field and a series of hollow cylinders along its axis. A charge is accelerated towards the leading edge of the cylinder by the RF field. During one cycle, the RF is negative so a positive ion would see acceleration. The the RF cycle would go into opposite phase. At this time the positive ions would be traversing the inside of the cylinder and not feel any RF potential. They are "timed" to emerge from the cylinder to just at the moment the field goes negative again. They would be accelerated to the next cylinder picking up energy as they were accelerated. Again they traverse the gap between the tubes and at the right time enter the next tube to continue along their axial path unimpeded by any external RF fields. As the ions gain energy (speed), each successive drift tube is longer and longer to shield the ions as they move through the system. This is a simplified version of what happens as both phases are actually used to push and pull the ions but it complicates the concept for this post.

What I imagined then was to take what Farnsworth had done and jump it up to a set of nested spheres that would use the same RF principle to accelerate the ions from the ion guns. This would allow for much higher collisional energies without the need for ultra high voltages to be applied. This has significant advantages for efficiencies in a fusor.

No I have not yet build this yet but it is an intriguing variation on an initial idea that was present in that cave fusor.
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: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Richard Hull »

As Frank notes, timing is everything and a lot of careful calculations force the mechanical design say even in the three nested sphere system. The RF power would still be very high even if the applied vlotage is rather low. This is the same with a the cyclotron. You can't get something potent in output without a far superior potency on the input. Make no mistake about this. In the end, nested spheres is a great idea.

The other aspect is will we need and ion gun for every hole?? Not necessarily. Think on this aspect. See if you might noodle this statement out.

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: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Nicolas Krause »

Hi Frank,

If I recall correctly, Paul noted that the Farnsworth cathode had a number of einzel lenses on it, but I believe he was referring to the large ports. Were the small ports for the ion streams einzel lenses as well, or were they simply passive elements? In addition are there any engineering drawings of the actual assembly of the cathode? I've been pondering the design for a bit, and have some ideas about how I might go about implementing an einzel lens on a sphere, but I'd love to see how the problem was solved originally. I'm also operating under the assumption all the einzel lenses on the cathode were operating at exactly the same voltage levels, was there ever any consideration given to the ability to "tune" different lenses via some sort of variable voltage control?
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Frank, you appear to be assuming that higher energy ions alone somehow offer an advantage in fusion. Since fusion in a fusor is by tuneling, higher energy ions above what has already been shown to be ideal simply waste energy and will not increase rates of fusion via that process. If you are simply using brute force collisions to create non-tuneling fusion, again, much above the energy required to over come the Coulomb force is just wasted energy. What I would think is better are more fusion capable ions (current) of proper energy.

Nicolas, the classic electro-static accelerator tube using such lens does exactly what you are suggesting.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Richard Hull »

We must remember the wisdom to be found in the Lawson criterion's 3 key points! ( cross section -tunneling probability), energy of the particle, confinement, and time of confinement.

The more ion energy be it in velocity space or in collisional events which the ion guns force in the "cave" device the more fusion, tunneling or not! Likewise, the increased amount of fuel present, (ion current), at high ion energy means more reactions in velocity space or collisional space meaning more fusion. As neither machine is involved deeply in genuine, realizable confinement, the third Lawson term, that issue is rather moot. However, what volumetric ion kinematics we have acts over an infinite period of time, (fusion for as long as we run the machine).

Two out of three ain't bad, considering we will never do any power fusion. Actually, any one fusion device, at the amateur level, regardless of design, is hard pressed to do more than just one of the three goals to any real focused advantage without letting one of the other criteria be any more than merely fortuitous or aiding, at best!

We have noted that, regardless, our fusors tend to use many fusion scenarios in a lot of interesting and, at first, unsuspected ways. Everyone of these little unsuspected fusion benefits that are brought to bear, helps. Yet, due to its simplicity there are also a lot of wrong headed and limiting factors thrown in the mix. We take the good with the bad and come out smiling at the amateur level. We are doing 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: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Frank Sanns »

Nickolas,

For some reason this thread fell under my radar. As it turns out, the design I thought was Einzel lens were not. They were to confine or recycle in electrons. I also looked more closely at the drawings that were posted here in one of the threads and that indeed is what was trying to be done. A multipactor approach rather than a collimated Fusor approach. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the multipactor was a productive path to fusion.

Lensing though into the spherical drift tubes though is very interesting to me. And yes, micro adjustments of the focus elements could ensure precise alignment at all current and magnetic and electrostatic field contributions. I think this is an area for work. If nothing more, it can shed more light onto the inner workings our of fusors.


Dennis,

I do not think more energy is good. As say the right amount of energy is the solution sort of. While infinite current will produce essential zero fusion at 1 volt, it does not really get much better up to around 5 KV. As the voltage rises above 5KV things start to happen and begin to plateau (for D-D fusion). It is a log scale so really the cross section does not really maximize until over 200 KeV. It would seem than that the ideal voltage for fusion would something just under that so that the maximum number of fusions will occur per incidental collision.

I think this will affect the recombination force-time to but I have to work through that one as I am a bit foggy this evening. I think I need to take up drinking during this quarantine that is just now finally lifted only to be told the past few days not to venture out because our city was looted.
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: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Richard Hull »

I have always noted that for D-D fusion, 100kv is the effective amateur limit if you have under $100,000 to invest in the marginal gain to reach 200kv. Very few people have any concept of the added costs and expertise needed to fabricate, insulate and work at useful currents in the 200kv range. So far no amateur has come really close to 100kv applied. The true fusion gain of a full 100kv beyond 100kv is truly marginal in the cross sectional regime which rules all fusion. The real useful payoff for the amateur is over 30kv but the top end with $10,000 spent from a cold start might be 80-90kv.

Most of the breakdowns in the Farnsworth team's recorded work result at voltages over 100kv. Arcing was the big issue. They spent over $6,000 on an early Linde artificial sapphire rod 3/8" in diameter to suspend the inner sphere against break over arcing. (Story from Gene Meeks who would say it was one of the biggest wastes of cash in all the team's effort, but Farnsworth wanted it.) This was in 1966 when budgeting allowed for it. Even 100kv is very tricky if you are running increased pressure to allow for more fusion fuel. A quick check shows runs that worked over 100kv were at 5 microns pressure and very low currents. They tried to trade cross section, (KV applied) for fuel pressure and fusion current. I am actually stunned that while using D-T they went over 100kv!! I attach a cross sectional chart......D-T cross section actually drops beyond 60-70kv! We see that less than one order of magnitude will be gained in cross section between 100kv and 200kv in D-D fusion. Is the effort really worth the pain and expense at the amateur level? Some one with experience, drive, good hands-on fusion knowledge, fat wallet, and the needed space might give it a shot.

Unless the blown-up, hopeless dreams of Kent Farnsworth and several million dollars are brought to bear on any pure IECF fusion, it is unlikely much in the way of advance can be made. This is for sure and for certain in the hands of amateurs unless some sort of group project is hatched, which is highly unlikely beyond a lot of high spirited righteous discussion with an attendant mighty gale of wind over the decks as is so typical of such really positive "starts", followed by stagnation and dissolution.

Question, where is this sapphire rod today? Needless to say, such a rod might be obtained for only a few hundred 2020 dollars, now, as such artificial, beyond gem grade, pure materials are common now.

Richard Hull
Attachments
fusion-xsecs.png
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: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Frank Sanns »

I understand all of what you present Richard. The relative fast increases in cross section really start to level out above 110 kev. From this alone, there is no reason to go higher.

There is however, another factor that needs to be considered. That is the area under the curve. It is not just a 1:1 fusion event. It is a minuscule event because of the tunneling statistics. At higher energies, there are more chances at fusion occurring in subsequent collisions. Once you have a high energy particle, it will bounce around off of other atoms. More of these collisions can occur that have the potential to yield a fusion collision until sufficient energy is drained away.

MFP is dependent upon the energy of the deuterium. At high energies, higher pressures can be used. Higher pressure means more available fuel per unit volume and that too is important to the overall efficiency to fusion.

The optimum conditions for maximum fusion energy is NOT just based on the cross section curve.
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
Nicolas Krause
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:36 pm
Real name: Nicolas Krause
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Nicolas Krause »

Has there been any research done in to non-linearities in the fusor setup? Star mode is an interesting configuration whereby the plasma seems to organize itself in to a non random structure. I appreciate that at the time that a lot of the initial work in chaos theory and non-linear dynamics was being done, such as Lorenz's weather model, it was the 1960s and 70s and its highly unlikely the initial Farnsworth effort would even have been aware of the mathematical developments. However, I was wondering however if anyone is aware of any subsequent developments, mathematical models or simple experiments related to the fusor?
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Richard Hull »

Frank, I have long called for the Lawson criteria here in hundreds of posts. Energy at cross section, pressure, containment. No one on earth has run a fusor at real high energy, high pressure fuels and high current. All fusors will and forever suffer at very high energy ions, being forever limited to operate at low pressures and low currents. I doubt if anyone ever will..... Certainly, never at the amateur level. By this I mean 200kv applied, 100 microns pressure and 100 ma current or better. This would be a fusor breakthrough leaving us only 7 or 8 orders of magnitude away break even! I am really waiting for someone or group to belly-up to the bar to "show me".

Nicolas, "Star mode" means absolutely nothing in relation to the fusion process! it does indicate a, clean, somewhat limited, symmetrical, internal operational regime. There are no instability issues in the fusor as built here. The fusor is a bungling mass of disorganized, bull headed electrostatic goings-on in an ionized plasma that cannot help but fuse due to the very uncontrolled nature of the effort. It is mostly a velocity space fusion system with a bit of target-fusion coupled with fortuitous re-ionization possibilities. Working against all of these fusion methodologies is the bedlam going on through out the device. There are no instabilities in the system because there is no attempt at stability in the very simplicity within the device. We have enumerated in many posts over the past years the exact mechanisms pro and con that we think are going on in the simple fusor.

Add multiple precision ion guns, several biased internal, ported,shells and perhaps ultra-high frequency, high voltage, high power oscillators to get a bare, hoped for improvement in stability and control of the processes involved and.....Who knows?

We have what we have, it does fusion. In this ball of bedlam, the simple amateur fusor, mathematics is the outsider regarding any precision of understanding. Certainly no trained physicist familiar with fusion and plasma would give it the analysis you seek as it is just does not show any merit or display any chance of re-paying the effort involved. Too many variables and processes coming to light only from empirical experiment and, perhaps, processes not even identified at this time, 20 years later.

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
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Dennis P Brown »

As I've posted before, fusors, no matter the number of ion guns or increase in density or other tricks these devices will never even match the Sun for energy output (on a volume bases) much less exceed it. In the Sun, even at a million times our atmospheric pressure and millions of degree's C the net fusion via tunelling runs at all of about 300-500 W/ m^3 per sec (try figuring out how much hydrogen and deuterium is in that cubic meter - I did that once and it is vast.) That is barely more power than what the average fusor puts into their device. If those vast pressures and temps produce such tiny amounts of released energy, what is any fusor under vacuum ever going to achieve? Give it a rest; no way will a fusor based on tunnelling ever give real power (above net.) When you think about the conditions in the Sun's core and its puny energy release - trying to get a fusor to exceed even this rather unimpressive level is just plan silly.

On the otherhand, without this strong restriction, life would never occur in the universe since otherwise, star's would burn up in no time. We should be happy that tunneling is so ineffiecent.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Richard Hull »

Tunneling is a mere rolling of the dice......... the P-P cross section is so miserable coupled with casting the of dice, solar fusion is pitiful. The solar core temps are also rather pitifully low. (thank goodness) Also written and calculated out in past posts years ago.

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: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Nicolas Krause »

Have any of Farnsworth's notes survived to the present day? In reading Richard and Frank's recent posts I was struck by how so much of the discussion of his ideas has to rely on secondary sources. I would love to see any scrap of paper where he wrote down his ideas about what he was trying to accomplish. I think I am consistently struck by how someone who was so wrong on details (ie: polarity of the grid) could also be so right in generalities. This is a man with very little formal education, and yet he laid out a device that produces respectable rates of fusion compared with the huge mega science projects. I understand his explanation of what was going on was incorrect in the device, but he still built a device that when you flipped the wires powering it, it magically generated fusion.
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by JoeBallantyne »

Yes, many of them. The Marriott Library at the University of Utah has a large collection of Philo Farnsworth papers.

The vast majority of which are technical. Included are lab notebooks from Hirsch, and Meeks, as well as Farnsworth.

I have about 30+GB of pictures of said material. I took said photos in the late fall of 2019. I ran out of time to take pictures of everything, since it is a very slow tedious process, but I believe I got photos of most of the fusion related material.

Philo was brilliant, and IMO understood a lot more than what Richard gives him credit for.

My 2 cents.

Note that I would be happy to share the pictures of the above material.

Joe.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Richard Hull »

I have a large cache of this work here as well, but nothing on the planet substitutes for the words of those involved in the hands-on doing. In the end, based on 100% of those involved in the day-to-day work and who were doers interviewed.....Farnsworth did not do in the lab and when rarely, he was involved, he self-deluded especially in the early work. From early 1962 onward he was a rarity in the lab save for pats on the back and at-a-boys.

He was known to think and think some more, entombed in his office on the second floor. His thoughts were directed from his office with occasional meetings with Bain and later, Hirsch. Phil was an executive and along with the admiral and a couple other onsite physicists and mathematicians constantly kept producing feel good documents related to progress and did yeoman duty keeping the work in the labs funded. Phil and the admiral and others were working hard with ITT patent attorneys correcting and amending rejected submissions. What Phil did do was keep the project alive in concert with the admiral ensconced at the NY HQ.

Regardless of any Farnsworth brilliance on paper, the net result 1958-1968 was zip as related to the advancement of fusion, beyond another proof of how not to do useful fusion. They literally did produce the easiest way to do demonstrable fusion on a table top and a future path for amateur 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: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Frank Sanns »

What other fusion approach from conception to multiple devices did any better in a ten year span? I say none.
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: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Richard Hull »

One must remember that others in fusion, over any ten year span, built models of their ideas of some size at a minimum of 20-50 times the volume and 100 times the expense. Just like the ITT effort they all showed a net value of zip. Many did not last ten years due to loss of the outrageous funding need to keep them alive. So, build in the small from a concept and spend very little for 10 years and fail or build in the large from a concept get the thing done in 4 or 6 years spending huge amounts and fail. Net result: two failures going at it in two different ways. Brilliance in theoretical concept is one thing, turning that concept into a successful physical embodiment for a predicted, valued result is quite another.

Never fear, we will soon, (well, maybe not so soon after all), have ITER on the pile of ultra big, super over budget, and embarrassingly late running fusion project fails..........In the sense of a 24-7-365 fusion reactor that produces net, viable, continuous, un-interrupted fusion energy.

If ITER fails to meet the full goal, will we enter the next phase of hyper-big fusion systems. We have been through the small, medium, big, bigger, large, very large, gigantic and now the ultra-humungous, international funded assemblages. There remains only the hyper humongous, totally Global effort.

Will the lucky donkey bring forth fusion in the solid state?

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
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Speaking of large machines that limp along with large funding the (South) Korean "Star" tokamak proves that not only are these machines essentially worthless (for future possible fusion power plants) but even adding just a few extra seconds takes years of efforts. This would be sad if not for the fact they think this is some type of achievement to be noted. At least they mention that they are reaching the absoult end of what any tokamak can achieve - all of 20 seconds. Pulsed plasma at a cost of many billions per unit is no way to generate power even if it (ever) works.

See: https://phys.org/news/2020-12-korean-ar ... -long.html
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Richard Hull »

I was delighted to read that they hit 20 seconds. What was not said was "could you immediately do it again?" If not, why not? We're off to the races now! It's 24-7-365 or bust! So far, it is a bust. Still, it is nice to recognize a doubling of working plasma time.

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: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Frank Sanns »

Nicolas

Here is an excerpt of the actual Philo Farnsworth vision of use of fusion energy. These are the dreams that I read and was impressed with. A vision for all. This is only the first part. There is much more but it is in his words and the part relevant to this thread.

I have the permission from the family to link to the full document so I will be putting that up in its own spot.
Attachments
Farnsworth Peacetime Uses of Fusion Energy.   Sanns Excerpt.  NOT ENITRE DOCUMENT.png
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
Nicolas Krause
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:36 pm
Real name: Nicolas Krause
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Nicolas Krause »

Thanks Frank! Always love to read the original stuff. After reading Joe and Richard's comments I remembered I'd downloaded an archive of documents that had been posted on Fusor.net awhile back (I can't remember who posted them, my apologies!), but with school and other work I'd simply forgotten about them. Now I'm slowly poking through them as time allows, I believe they come from the archives Joe mentioned at the Marriott Library.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Frank Sanns »

Joe has indeed posted those. There are many though, like this post that, that are originals that come from the Farnsworth family and are NOT part of the UT archive. Thanks Jonathan Moulton!
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: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Farnsworth Questions

Post by Richard Hull »

I have this document as well. I hope everyone knows this is part of a prospectus for PTFA. Don't let the 1965 date fool you. This was written after Phil's forced medical retirement in 1965 ( just left work and never returned...Went on a long bender and had to go to rehab). ITT was paying his salary on sick leave for a while, but soon sent him his notice of termination. ( I have this document as well) As he recovered, he was already figuring on PTFA back in Utah. The admiral did not survive the ITT purge of its fusion program either and was terminated.

In the document snippet that Frank sends, above, Phil always refers to "We", meaning PTFA and not ITT. This was pure fluff that he seemingly believed to be his and PTFAs mission. Again, always dreaming into the future. A future that was doomed from the outset. Any living entity that could take Phil's dream document as viable and at its face value, I am sure, already had in their possession, a deed to Brooklyn Bridge. I find it amazing that a man of Phil's supposed genius could pen something like this load of codswallop.

Once ensconced in Utah, Farnsworth asked ITT, in a letter, to sell the fusor patents to PTFA. ITT must have been stunned and had apparently read or had knowledge of this prospectus for PTFA. I don't know if they were worried that he could pull off a small fusion device if they sold or if they just did not normally sell or transfer patents. Some of the files I have contain two terse letters from ITT one telling him, NO, that they would not sell the patents and ITT attorneys forbidding him and his company, PTFA, from work on a fusion device that in any way trod on any part of the patents that ITT held.

This effectively blew Farnsworth's fusion dream to hell. I also have a letter from Gene Meeks of PTFA asking a company if they might be interested in contracting his labors in electronics and engineering skills from PTFA. This is how desperate PTFA was for money as it sank rapidly in the first year of operation in Utah. George Bain told me that Phil even asked him to farm himself out under contract so PTFA could get money!! In the end, Phil would drag his best ITT team members out to Utah and try and use them outside of PTFA to keep his dream floating. This speaks to his ability to attach people to himself and his dreams. In the end, they all left Utah and returned to Indiana. George said he and Eva had a rough go of it for a while. Much of this is in "Richard's attic" history.

Farnsworth like Tesla went from feast to famine all through his life with great dreams and pronouncements. Television was Farnsworth's peak in this world, Just as AC power was Tesla's peak and gift to the world. Everything that came after was an ever steepening inclined slide down into the rabbit hole of history with unfulfilled dreams and promises from both of these geniuses.

I am glad that folks are interested in the ITT - Farnsworth story. It is the origin of all of this that we now do here. The history of the origins of all of this is important.

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 “Fusion --- Past, Present, and Future”