Financial Entropy

For posts specifically relating to fusor design, construction, and operation.
Post Reply
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Financial Entropy

Post by Joe Gayo »

As a general observation, the never ending stream of high dollar and not necessarily high engineering or scientific quality systems is somewhat disheartening. As a community we have 100s of systems, many with high value vacuum, power supply, and detection equipment that largely all do the same thing (and not very well).

Of course, everyone should be free to pursue interests and spend whatever money they have available, but it seems collectively we could do more. At the very least we could standardize data collected and add to a central database that would facilitate answering the individual's question of "is my result interesting?". Another thought is more rigorous "best practices" in terms of vacuum and construction.

Learning something for oneself is valuable, but it has limits. Fusor.net is about collaboration, I get it, but in my opinion we are devoid of true collaboration. I'm as much of the "problem" (if there is one) as anyone and maybe "solutions" are destined to fail because this is amateur science.
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: Financial Entropy

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Joe,
I recall some similar discussion on the forum in the past especially around standardizing neutron calibration. For example, it is well within reason to calibrate silver foil activation to the point that it could be compared from one system to the next. For example, a silver foil of prescribed dimensions, prescribed moderator, and a 2 inch 7311 LND pancake probe could be an accepted method that compared one system to the next.

Voltage and current are also useful variables for comparison.

Just some thoughts.
User avatar
Liam David
Posts: 518
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Re: Financial Entropy

Post by Liam David »

There have been a few efforts to establish better collaboration, but most seem to have trailed off for one reason or another. For example, viewtopic.php?f=47&t=11331 was an attempt at a community data log, but lacks any real details and discussion. Nathan Marshall, Nicholas Krauss, and I have just barely begun collaborating on simulations, and I've had reasonable success modeling basic plasma dynamics, charge exchange, etc... We'd like to use simulations to better inform and justify design choices, but that's a topic for another thread. I don't think collaborations are destined to failed just because this is amateur science, but the lack of centralized funding, spatial separation, and other responsibilities make it more difficult of course.

One obstacle to better collaboration is simply the wide variety of system constructions. The cathode and chamber geometry/symmetry are obviously exceedingly important, but other than general spheres, crosses, and cubes, there's little consistency from which we might be able to see patterns or at least do more comprehensive parameter sweeps. Much of that is simply due to Ebay availability, I'm sure. And many systems are kind of just thrown together, because pretty much anything that resembles wires in a chamber will do fusion. The cube systems are a great upgrade over the usual conflat chambers and give a lot more engineering flexibility, but I count only four people in various stages of construction/operation (including myself). I've been itching for more details so I don't end up treading old ground, but that brings me to another obstacle: intellectual property and credit. I could see having a special sub-forum, much like the Advanced Technical Discussion Area, only it would be behind another layer of authentication. Only active, more advanced and trusted members would be explicitly given access, but I am well aware of the issues inherent in making something like that.

It seems that high-quality data collection, i.e. more than just coarse voltage/current/pressure/neutron numbers and a plasma camera, is something that's been lacking. Those are the bare minimums, but where are the computer data acquisition systems, spectrometers and Doppler broadening measurements, Langmuir probes, RGAs, plasma startup measurements, etc...? The barrier there, at least for me, is........... cost. I don't find myself burdened by a lack of ideas (I have plenty that I'd like to try), just my ability to execute them. Having an aluminum chamber precision machined and electropolished per new engineering ideas (something I'm considering) would be nice, but I'm in no position to spend hundreds for every new iteration.

I second that the silver foil standard would be helpful. It's easy and cheap, especially compared to a bubble detector, and people who are serious about research tend to do activation anyways. (I haven't been willing to shell out for bubble dosimeters and have thus resorted to neutron transport simulations for "calibration". The results are reasonable but a better, more accessible method would be nice.)
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Financial Entropy

Post by Richard Hull »

I had a masterful reply post nearly completed and the power burped during a storm and lost it.

Here is "all that I can remember"..... (the title of a great book by Otto Frisch the famous physicist's auto-biography)

This is a great thread! Posted by some of our best and deepest thinkers and doers. The thing that stops higher end work is money, as mentioned and implied in the title of the thread. It is to be remembered that this site was formed to boost an interest in the fusor and amateur fusion. It is now far beyond that and has matured a tremendous amount. I hear frustration in the voices over shoving this work into high gear along many fronts to achieve some sort of lock-step, more ordered and regimented, scientific effort that goes a good bit farther than what amateur fusion might typically demand. More rigor and standardization, if you will. I have no issue with this provided some one or group is setup to define and annunciate such standards. Within the amateur framework, I strove to lock out the "in-it-to-win-it" crowd to, first, the neutron club, and just recently the plasma club. I feel it has worked as we don't see so many applicants with limited funds who lack the verve needed to satisfy even the basics set forth in the new rules.

Each of us have set goals and limits within our fusion quest. As such, we are true "lone wolves" who have joined in to work as a "pack". Lone wolves, you say?? Yes! Just how many self-funded, private citizens on this planet have working fusion devices built with there own hands and treasure? The recent post on counting fusors here will tell the tale, due to the pitifully low number, plus or minus 2-3 unknown scattered outriders. This abysmally low number virtually defines lone wolf to most any observer in the normal sense.

One thing about lone wolves in a pack, one will aspire to lead, and justly so. The rest begrudgingly follow, but after the meal might stay near the group, yet roam off to do their own thing. The term lone is part of "loner" which in human terms tend to mean, set aside, not in the main stream, aspiring to off beat goals and desires. With human lone wolves, it is rare to be a "joiner" especially if the group rules are beyond their scope of acceptance. It is often a wonder any lone wolf types can form any sort of cohesive unit with others of their ilk.

Keeping this in mind we might create doable things and standards. The big boys here are hot and advancing at light speed and the big boys always win. The old boys may have pioneered the entire amateur fusor/fusion field, but mere tenure counts for zip. There is a time when the young go getters are the future. Try not to become too effete or you might just find potential good lone wolves might not be able to play and the group becomes, small, closed and self-centered. The inspired lone wolf will have died then due to some form of accepted conformity and sense of specialness having put aside the original lone wolf, free wheeling spirit. I worried and determined that exclusivity of the neutron club would create just such a self-centered specialness with the rules tightened. But I realized if you are just willing to tough out the road to fusion with good results and reporting, you have every right to feel special, but never superior, just accomplished and capable of more than most.
Just my two cents

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
Scott Moroch
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:48 pm
Real name: Scott Moroch
Location: New Jersey

Re: Financial Entropy

Post by Scott Moroch »

This is a great thread. A lot of the recent discussions/posts have made me eager to jump back into my fusor work. I finished undergrad a few months ago and have been working full time until grad school in the fall. Unfortunately, my equipment is currently split between two states, but will soon be reunited.

It would be great if there could be further collaboration on the forum. Recently I have been working on the development of ion sources for fusors. I have used SIMION for simulations extensively (and have shared some of those results on this forum in the past). I am now working on a simulation in COMSOL Multiphysics of the plasma dynamics in the fusor. This has a far better chance of representing reality than SIMION ever will.

I am hoping in the coming months to year I can begin making valuable contributions to some of the open questions that have been presented.

-Scott
"In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity"
-Albert Einstein
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Financial Entropy

Post by Richard Hull »

This reply is dated, but Joe's post here was a real poser. Liam brought out good points. Among Liam's best thoughts were the 2"diameter silver foil activation standardization. I am all for that. However, as Liam points out it could still wind up in a tangle based on moderator differences...(we could demand a standard there too)...Differing fusion chamber geometries...(not so easy to standardize while driving at new systems of higher performance)... Also anisotropy in fast neutron emission from the variety of designs....( basically a real dilemma and standardization killer).

Should we at least give the foil/pancake/moderator standardization a try and codify/standardize at least to that level. I can't see that being a huge monetary issue or burden on many of us.

I will throw this out there A 7311 2" pancake by LND. A 2" diameter silver foil in relatively close, near contact, with the mica all within the direct center of a 6" HDPE cube moderator. A BNC cable run to a digital counter that can be set to accumulate a count over an agreed to period and reported as a result of activation. (count to begin immediately at shutdown of the fusion device under study.)

I guess, in the end, this may go no where, But Joe is right about some sense of standards, regardless, as is his sad admission that this may fail due this being an amateur effort, after all.

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: 3159
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: Financial Entropy

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Interesting posts. For the majority of the people here, obtaining equipment is often hit or miss so matching others using such equipment is not likely. Worse, geometry and fusor size/power supply all come into play big time and need to be similar - not too easy to achieve.

That all said, I think your idea Richard is perfect. You have a fairly calibrated system, and all the required equipment. You should post such an experiment and then this could be a "Gold standard" for anyone interested to match. That would provide a standard that others could create, then use to check not just their fusors but detectors, and even models. A solid point in the vast phase space that is formed by fusors, equipment, methods and designs.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: Financial Entropy

Post by Frank Sanns »

The rigorous proof is really in the gamma spectroscopy of the activated products. Anything short of that, including bubble detectors are inconclusive.

I am not even sure a half life curve from a geiger counter would provide inconclusive proof.

With all of that said, those of us that are experienced can look at a good color photo and the current and voltage and say if it is producing neutrons or not.

I am still undecided on the proof needed for such endeavors. As for the elaborateness of the systems or not, at the end of the day, they are really a non-factor.
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: Financial Entropy

Post by Richard Hull »

This has nothing to do with proof of activation. That is a given as all are doing activation in this effort! This effort is about quantitative measurement in a rigidly codified activation detection system of a simple, easily activated element, silver, that all might build with limited to no expense. It would be a rather precision instrument detection head, a repeatable source of fast neutron emission data.

This would serve to also hunt for hot spots of fast neutron emission around a fusor or any D-D fusion system. Once a hot spot was found, by moving the 6X6X6 detector head around, a closely regulated distance from the device would speak volumes about apples-to-apples comparison of the efficacy of the design of a given fusion system.

The only instrumentation demand would be a BNC input digital readout GM counter with an adjustable, timed period of count.
I will set about working this simple system out for all, as a mere submission, if there is any sort of real interest. This is where the rubber meets the road. Anyone interested in taking this a bit farther down the road?

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 “Fusor Construction & Operation (& FAQs)”