Cube fusor build

For posts specifically relating to fusor design, construction, and operation.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Frank Sanns »

Great work again Jon! Nice to see your latest evolution. My comments that follow are not a critique of your work but rather a quest for answers.

More and more of these anisotropy conclusions seem to be coming up. I am still skeptical of the conclusion because I have yet to see the separation between direction and location of neutron output.

Consider a black box cube. You cannot see in and you have no idea what is going on inside. You take a neutron measurement and find that neutron count is higher when you measure or activated at one of the faces. Does this imply that neutrons are directional or that they are being formed closer to the face? Any one experiment cannot distinguish. A minimum of two and preferably at least three measurements must be made to identify what is occurring.

Measurements can be done with coincidence counting, directional arrays, activation arrays, non directional sensor arrays to name a few.

One technique that I have used time and time again is the inverse square relationship. This occurred to me one day that Carl Willis and I were U ore prospecting. There was much radioactive sand in the area so there were many hot spots that we had to dig. Thinking that there must be a better way, I started taking measurements at various heights above the soil level. The inverse square law must be in effect so I took a reading then raised the probe until only one quarter the number of counts were seen. This distance then would be how far the source must have been from my probe. Of course this excludes the shielding effects of the ground but you get the idea. Found some great ore specimens those days with minimal wasted digging for diffuse radioactive sand.

The point is that the inverse square law is a powerful tool to not only see directionality but distance to the source. In the case of Jon's cube, a measurement or activation at 90 degrees to the suspected spot of neutron formation would be necessary to prove location of formation. Then backing off the two measuring or activation devices by double the distance should give one quarter the neutron numbers of both. If not, then the neutrons are indeed coming off in a shower in one direction over another.

I would really like to see this one resolved as it is an important result. I personally do not believe that the neutrons are coming of directionally but rather are being formed in a region that is deceptively giving higher neutron counts only because of closer proximity to the measuring device.

I may move this post to another forum so I do not contaminate Jon's excellent work but I feel it is relevant in this thread for the discussions already occurring.
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: Cube fusor build

Post by Mark Rowley »

Amazing work Jon. I may end up trying the cylindrical grid as well after a couple other mods are put in place.

Mark Rowley
Jon Rosenstiel
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:30 am
Real name: Jon Rosenstiel
Location: Southern California

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Jon Rosenstiel »

Frank, great idea that may help us get to the bottom of this conundrum, much appreciated. I’ve worked on this just enough to realize that the detector clamped in a lab stand is not going to cut it, takes too long to reposition the detector and is not very accurate. I’m in the process of upgrading my setup, but the bronchitis I contracted over the holidays isn’t helping one bit.

Jon R
Jon Rosenstiel
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:30 am
Real name: Jon Rosenstiel
Location: Southern California

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Jon Rosenstiel »

Sorry for the long delay Frank. Feedthrough puncture issues, other projects, a water-cooling mod and on and on.

All data runs were done at 8 mA, 44 kV, ~23.5 mTorr. Two detectors were used, a moveable fast neutron detector (2” BC-720 replica coupled to a pmt) and a stationary 1”x 22” He3 tube in a paraffin moderator that was used to monitor the fusor’s neutron output. The outputs of both detectors were displayed on an Ortec 778 dual counter. Run times were 60-seconds.

For the on-axis (0-degrees) inverse square measurement the detector’s initial position was 3.5” from the cube’s center. The detector was moved away until its count-rate was one-fourth the initial count-rate. When the one-fourth count-rate position was attained the detector had been moved 2.75”. If I have this correct that’s telling us that the neutron formation area (spot?) is 0.75” from the cube’s center. (Cylindrical grid is 0.75” in diameter and 0.75” in length, so the neutron formation area would be 0.375” from the end of the cylinder) The inverse square measurements were repeated two more times… results were nearly the same each time.

For the off-axis (90-degree) inverse square measurement the detector’s initial position was 3.5” from the cube’s centerline with the center of the detector in line with the previously determined neutron formation spot. As before, the detector was moved away until its count-rate was one-quarter that of the initial rate. When the one-quarter count-rate position was attained the detector had been moved 4.625”. The diameter of the cube’s bore is 1.875”. Subtracting 4.625” from the detector’s initial position of 3.5” to centerline places the neutron formation area 3/16” past the bore’s far wall inside of the cube’s aluminum body. I should note that with the detector at 3.5” the count-rate at 0-degrees (136.2 cps) was nearly three times the count-rate at 90-degrees. (46.1 cps)

Jon Rosenstiel
The setup
The setup
Cube anisotropy. Fast neutron flux measured every 10 degrees through a 90 degree arc. 90-degree segments combined to show a 360-degree chart.
Cube anisotropy. Fast neutron flux measured every 10 degrees through a 90 degree arc. 90-degree segments combined to show a 360-degree chart.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Richard Hull »

Fabulous work Jon! This tells the tale. I was stunned at the location of fusion production. Could it be we are looking at fusion due to a combo of opposing high speed deuterons colliding in a high energy zone or high speed deuterons from wall launch at near the full potential colliding with fast neutrals? The walls are out and the grid is out as a maximized fusion center. As in the movie the King and I...."is a puzzlement".

This sort of backs up the U of W findings of years ago that fusion is not taking place to a maximized degree in the grid, but in the gas volume of the device. Kind of makes sense as that is where the bulk of the fusion fuel is located.

Continued first rate experimental results.

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: Cube fusor build

Post by Frank Sanns »

Great work again Jon! Your follow through is always most excellent!

At first I thought I was looking at a Smith chart!

I think though that you may have just proven that the neutron production is completely isotropic. Only your precise measurements make this interpretation possible. If you don't mind, I have super imposed my explanation overtop of your photo for clarity.

The mechanism that I propose is that along the axis of the bore of your cube Fusor, there is fusion occurring. Each point along that axis is generating isotropic neutrons. They are escaping the cube. The ones perpendicular to the cube are being measured as they form and leave by the short route.

The isotropic neutrons that just happen to be traveling in the direction of the axis, continue on until they exit the end caps. The thing is, ALL of the other isotropic neutrons produced along the longitudinal axis are doing the same. I believe you are measuring the additive artifact effect of this. Think LASER without the mirrors or stimulated emission. Of course the light would be brighter looking down the bore of the tube than it would be looking in the side even when zero lasing is taking place. The calculation for this should be the integral from 0 to L for the r^2 of the fall off with distance.

The conclusions is that I think you have proven complete isotropy of neutron production.

You have also proven that it is not beam on target that is creating most of the neutrons. Had this been the case, you would have had a spherical dumbbell shape source of neutrons at the end caps which you do not.

Most excellent!
Attachments
Rosenstiel Cube Sanns Explanation.jpg
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
Jon Rosenstiel
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:30 am
Real name: Jon Rosenstiel
Location: Southern California

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Jon Rosenstiel »

Wow, very interesting hypothesis Frank, and great analogy, think laser without the mirrors. I had a great time doing the experiment. And that BC-720 replica I made nearly twenty years ago finally found a purpose.

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

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Very good experimental work. Creating high quality measurements and setups is essential and you did that.

Your results make a lot of sense and certainly provide support that fusion is dominated by direct collisions/capture between free ions.

Certainly just a professional demonstration of outstanding work by people here.

My orginal work almost two years ago showing that smaller fusors led to greater fusion rate only due to more fuel, rather then any special geometry or electric field effects, supports both Frank's conclusions and your data results.
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Joe Gayo »

Frank,

I don't think the laser cavity analogy really holds. Isotropic sources would resemble a candle or filament and obey the 1/r^2 law. The only definitive proof would be if Jon performed the experiment with the detector at a much greater distance so the line source would be approximated as a point and the readings would be isotropic.
LineIsoDist.PNG
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Richard Hull »

I agree with Joe. The laser bit is not really applicable with matter particles. The only reason you are strongly isotropic is this is a dual beam on target system this isn't working well. (But well enough!) The grid "form", as a cylinder, is the beam-line determining implement. The target is rather unloaded due to the focused beam current intensity. All, or the bulk of the deuteron velocities, are beam-line axially centric, thus, the axial emission.

I have believed the Washington State group's findings of years ago that the spherical fusor has anisotropic nodes. Most likely, this is a form of beam on target over a much larger volume due to the star rays impacting the shell. Maybe, the increased number of rays from a complex geodesic grid can improve the spherical emission?

My avatar shows thirteen beams! this was in fusor III, the first fusion in the amateur "fusor" world was done in this fusor. (circa 1998). The fusion results were poor due to my limited power supply in use at that time, and having to work with a less than ideal neutron counting arrangement long before fusor IV. (circa 2004) We no longer construct complex grids in any of the mega fusor reports and no one has done extended modern runs in the mega-fusion range with a complex geodesic grid in a spherical fusor. We dropped it for the simpler three loop grid long ago. and the three loop can have 6 beam lines only.

For a given fusion current, the more beam lines might be more friendly to local wall loading/storage of neutral deuterium due to less localized heating at impact points (parallel circuit theory), as the beam lines are part of a plasmic/ionic circuit. Would this be akin to distributing the target load? You would still have a form of beam on target but much more spherically distributed.

Just thinking it 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
Jon Rosenstiel
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:30 am
Real name: Jon Rosenstiel
Location: Southern California

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Jon Rosenstiel »

Joe, I don't know if you consider 20-inches a "much greater distance", but that's the limit of my setup.

Ratio of 0-degree to 90-degree count-rates at different distances.
At 3.5-inches = 3.0:1
At 10-inches = 2.0:1
At 20-inches = 1.7:1

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

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Frank Sanns »

I am a little surprised at the statements here. Isotropic is isotropic be it particle or photon. Of course in the case of a photon, orders of magnitude more are being emitted from a tube of plasma. It is still a statistical game be it emission of a photon or a neutron.

My drawing is a series of several isotropic emitters in a row. In reality, there is a near infinite number of emitters along the axis. Only by integrating the sum of their effects in both the axial and the transverse direction can the results be tabulated.

Then there is the detector. it is not a point source. Not even close. Knowing Jon, I am sure he consistently used a measurement. It matters not if it is the center of the detector to the center of the axis or if it is the edge to the edge or some other combination. It is important that the measurement procedure and geometry be the same for all measurements.

For those of you beam on target fans, please explain why there is not a dumbbell shape to the neutron emissions. Should not the end caps be the target and a spherical emission should emanate from the point of impact on each target end? Why no such result?

I am still not convinced that there is even a significant amount of beam on target fusion going on in the best of our fusors. The numbers just don't seem to be there. In the case of the cube fusor, an ion is formed on one side of the hollow tube grid. It is accelerated toward the tube and enters it. It is driving inside with no change in velocity because there is no electric field inside of the hollow conductor. The ion emerges on the other side and is slowed down by the same potential that accelerated it in the first place. It therefore must lose a significant amount of energy before impinging upon the far wall of the end cap. If the fusion cross section for impinging 40 KeV deuterons is not the greatest, how is a much lesser energy deuteron cross section to a stationary wall target?


Assuming there is a lot of deuterium in the walls, maybe on the order of 0.25 mole percent, what are the chances that a fast ion will find a deuterium atom in the sea of stainless steel atoms and have sufficient energy to overcome all of those nuclei and fuse? A fusor is not even close to looking like a beam on target machine. Not the 40kv applied voltage, not the SS end cap, not the pressure, not many things.

I do not want to derail Jon's excellent work but I see no evidence in the numbers of beam on target fusion.
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: Cube fusor build

Post by Richard Hull »

I fully stated the cube fusor here is a failed example of beam on target in my post. I assume it was never built as such. (first line of my post) Yet it still does fusion and not beam on target to any useful extent as beam on target. Jon's work showed no source of fusion on the end caps, just neutron emission strongly pouring out of them. The fusion is in the beam line! and even localized within it or around it. It fails as beam on target due to the very intense beam currents not allowing long term accumulation of any fuel material to make the ends a target! Simple really based on Jon's superb report.

Wall loading in a spherical fusor may not occur at the multiple ray impact points, (a guess), but more in the walls where the rays do not strike. The important point regarding spherical loading is fusion never ever occurs at the loaded wall... never has and never will!!... no fusion energy there just buried deuterium from fast neutral collisions and recoiling deuterons. What does occur is fast neutrals buried over the large spherical surface of a sphere can also pop out deuterons from the impact of electrons and other fast neutrals, boosting the deuteron population once the walls are loaded be it to a greater of lesser degree.

Jon's device seems to being doing fusion in or near the beam-line forcing some directionality by normal quantum tunneling just like every other fusor does fusion, but just in a different modality due to the grid form and the geometry of the cube.

It is sad, but just the way it works out that Jon can't get but so far away from his device as Joe suggested, but as amateurs, we are often space limited. Still, Jon's farthest measurement still showed anisotropic emission which militates for beam line emission.

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: Cube fusor build

Post by Frank Sanns »

Richard, apologies if it appeared that I was dissing your post. Not my intent. I don’t have a horse in this race. Just looking for some answers. Hope others ponder this and give there thoughts.

As for the loading of deuterium in the walls, I am going to suggest another possible mechanism for why a long running fusor runs better. Could it just be that all of that implantation just knocks other gasses from the interstices of the Stainless steel and eventually leads to a purer deuterium? Void of energy intercepting impurities will give more number of productive fusions.
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: Cube fusor build

Post by Joe Gayo »

Jon,

Mathematically 20 inches is far enough. Thanks for confirming the measurements I took when I started 2 years ago (although my cathode was different, I still had the single beamline).

Frank,

The red is Jon's measurements and the dashed line is a line source of isotropic emitters with infinite points.
Iso v Ani.PNG
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Frank,
I am curious about your postulation that a finite supply non D is knocked off the walls and poisons the plasma early in chamber conditioning as an explanation for what others perceive as wall loading for target fusion events.
I personally think that loading happens on the grid and is why grid material makes a difference in numbers.
I haven't quite resolved in my mind why chamber temp seems to flatten the neutron curve for me and others. I'm not sure it isnt about chambers getting leaky when they get hot. Or could it be just the grid getting hotter and not holding as much D?
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Someone needs to spend the gazillion dollars to buy a neutron camera to 'see' the tomography.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Frank Sanns »

Jon, thanks for the measurements. Joe, thanks for the graph.

I did the first terms by hand and came up with a 2.3 to 1 estimate for an isotropic radiator and that is right on your plot Joe. Of course it needs to be 1 far away and the theoretical plot does show that.

I really need to get good math program as once my old Maple software went dark a decade ago, I have not had cause to pay for a new subscription based software. Then there is the syntax subtleties that makes an equation solve or give an error. I have even given up on my graphing calculator for the same reason. Use it for complex math so infrequently that the pencil and paper comes out before it does.

Back to the problem at hand. So there will be an APPARENT anisotropy of 2.3 to 1 for an isotropic radiator. Jon's measurement is showing an anisotropy of 3 to 1.7. A troublesome conundrum for sure.

What can account for this particular rate of drop? Should the near measurement be around 3.9? What is the theoretical ratio if it is both end caps? What if it is in the beam line? What if it is in the center where the grid is? Systematic measurement error? I will have to ponder that as a good solution does not seem to pop out.
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
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Dennis P Brown »

In many neutron measurement systems, a serious problem is the lifetime of neutrons (15 minutes!) and their ability to be cooled by many common substances. As such, one can build up a lot of stray neutrons in a local area that then do not appear to come from the source at all. This has bitten many experimenters in the field making their measurements.
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Joe Gayo »

Frank,

If you look at the image below you'll notice I altered the axis00 equation to have preferential emission 1.6x that of axis90. I would say within the error of measurement and only evaluating 2 angles this closely approximates Jon's data.

Joe
Iso v Ani - 2.PNG
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Frank Sanns »

Ok, so I think I have it. In an earlier post in this thread I mentioned the distance of the detector from the source. It is important because a detector is not a point. It is a volume. Most importantly it has a thickness.

For a far field measurement, a half an inch difference between the face of the detector and the center of the detector is negligible to the overall distance. The near measurement though, it becomes more and more important. At the 3.5' close measurement, having the center of measuring scintillator being a 0.5" inch farther away (not sure of Jon's exact detector dimensions) thank its face, will give a significantly lower reading with the inverse square law at play. It is my belief that that is why the curve that Joe made matches it well but I think accounting for the thickness error in the scintillator distance would tie up the accounting error.

We have to realize that even with the measurements given, they are around +/- 30% of theory. This includes operating a fusor consistently during the time of the experiment and measuring those ephemeral neutrons. All in all, I would say outstanding work to Jon!
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: Cube fusor build

Post by Joe Gayo »

All that I've trying to show, in a general sense, is that the measurements that Jon took are best described by an anisotropy volume source, not an isotropic volume source.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Frank Sanns »

Either I am not understanding the original data chart or I do not understand the interpretation. I looked through everything again and I am just not getting something here. How can it be anisotropic if measured around the fusor or is it? Is this a two dimensional x,y plot or a one dimensional linear plot? How can a count be 90 dI am not sure why I am so confused by the results. My interpretation was the graph was a perimeter measurement of the output of the fusor; a 2 D plot.
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
Jon Rosenstiel
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:30 am
Real name: Jon Rosenstiel
Location: Southern California

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Jon Rosenstiel »

Frank,
I sat on that graph for quite a while because something didn't seem quite right about it, but I never could put my finger on what it was.

Here is a similar chart from the attached paper.
Screenshot 2019-12-19 15.24.59.png
DD Anisotropic neutron emission.pdf
(1.99 MiB) Downloaded 598 times
JonR
Jon Rosenstiel
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:30 am
Real name: Jon Rosenstiel
Location: Southern California

Re: Cube fusor build

Post by Jon Rosenstiel »

Detector position for the 90-degree data in an earlier post was in-line with the neutron formation area (0.75” off center) not the cube's centerline.

Below find close-up 0-degree/90-degree data taken with the detector on the cube's centerline at both 0-degrees and 90-degrees.
data_1.jpg
data_1.jpg (22.12 KiB) Viewed 11823 times
Each distance data-point consisted of four 60-second runs in an alternating order. (0-deg, 90-deg, 0-deg, 90-deg) Total run time, including a warm-up, recording results, repositioning the detector, and a quick bathroom break was 58-minutes. Cube temperature was 37.6 C at the beginning and 39.3 C at the 58-munute mark. Wow, water cooling to the rescue! Input power was set to 8 mA, 44 kV. At the end of the 58-minute run the current had dropped to 7 mA and the voltage had increased to 46 kV. Chamber pressure was in the 22.5 t o23.5 mTorr range. The 1” x 22” He3 detector that I used as a control was positioned 36” from the fusor. It’s highest count-rate (406 cps) occurred during the 3.75” run. It’s lowest count-rate (392 cps) occurred at the very end of the 6.25" run. Wow again, seems impossible, doesn't it? I didn’t measure the cube’s TIER, but based on previous runs it was probably around 2.0E+06 n/s.

Plotting the 0 / 90 data in Excel: Best fit (r^2 value of 0.97) was obtained with a power trendline. At this point I’m not really sure if what I’m doing is kosher, and I know it’s dangerous to extend a trendline too far out (thinking about a Corona-virus chart from our government that showed the virus gone by the end of May) but anyway, here it is.

Jon Rosenstiel
0 / 90 chart
0 / 90 chart
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor Construction & Operation (& FAQs)”