Gayo 2021 Update

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

Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Joe Gayo »

Since designing and building the first "cube fusor" several years ago, I've been focused on surpassing 1E+8 n/sec TIER.

Recently, my latest version has consistently exceeded this threshold. I've validated this achievement with bubble dosimeters, calibrated REM ball, and activation foils.

Voltage/Current/Counts Data
CaptureRecord-Graph.PNG
Neutron TIER Calculation
CaptureRecord.PNG


Indium Activation (5min post-activation), 8000 cts in 60 seconds!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxQvoyQIpnE
Last edited by Joe Gayo on Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Richard Hull »

Fabulous work Joe! Very well presented data logging and reduction via the math. The voltage is what is getting you there, of course. The slope of the D-D fusion X-section is very steep from 10kv on up to over 150kv. This assumes a great fusor and system which you obviously have at hand. I never thought I would see a fusor approach a milliwatt of fusion energy. You are only one decade short of that seemingly impossible goal.

That right axis....Shouldn't it be current mA/100 instead of X100. Dividing by 100 would jibe with your 5.8ma avg. listed below. I love graphs created in a many axis clever way to present a lot of data with the axis notation clear and cleanly presented. Yours was a great one.

Your x-ray output must be something to be dealt with, even with the low Z chamber material.

Again, fabulous result!

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: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Extremely impressive results; adding some current pics would be welcome
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Joe,
Congrats on 10⁸!

How long can it run?

Stay safe.

Jim K
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Joe Gayo »

@Richard

Thanks! Good catch, I updated the units for current on the right axis.

The x-rays are quite fierce. At a distance of 25ft and through shielding my MIRION x-ray/gamma dosimeter registers a 0.4mRem (dose) for 10minutes of total operation.

@Dennis

I'll be posting more pictures (but there isn't much to see)

@Jim

Right now I'm limiting the runs to 1 minute out of an abundance of caution, but my intention is to keep pushing the time limit.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Frank Sanns »

Top rate work Joe. Congratulations.

My only questions are in the derivation of your neutron output. Within our group Jon Rosenstiel probably has the highest neutron numbers to date but yours are nearly 2 orders of magnitude higher.

Also, the University of Wisconsin has touched the 1 x 10^8 neutron level. The U of W needed nearly 200 kv and 75 ma of current to touch levels that you are exceeding with a small fraction of the power. What do you attribute a couple orders of magnitude improvement in output to?

For activation, the smaller fusors have a huge advantage dues to the inverse square law but the total isotropic numbers do not change. Curious of your thoughts.
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
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by JoeBallantyne »

Amazing work Joe!

Frank, Joe has spent years doing research, simulations, and real engineering to improve his Q.

If I were him, my answer to your question of why his Q is 2 orders of magnitude better, would be simply: Good ideas properly implemented with careful engineering.

I don't think he is necessarily going to want to disclose all the nitty gritty details.

Except perhaps in patent filings... :-)

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

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Richard Hull »

As I note in a just delivered new FAQ, there is a limit due to the physics. Joe is "pecking the lobes" of that limit. More might be possible, but fusion physics and cross sections rule. At the voltage limit of 150kv applied only higher currents stand a chance at fusion increase, thus demanding more robust energy absorbing internals. (Dissipation)
If current can be increased at 150kv without harm, then only pressure and deuteron number increases can go higher.

There are routes to more fusion, but limited by material science from what I can see.

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
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by JoeBallantyne »

A few years back I went to the Phoenix guys website. (Company started by Greg Pfeiffer - who also started SHINE.)

See https://phoenixwi.com/neutron-generator ... enerators/

They ship neutron sources that are DT and DD based.

I calculated their Q based on the then published neutron outputs and power inputs, and recall getting either 10e-4 or 10e-6. (Pretty sure it was 10e-4, but am not positive about that.)

Looks like they have buried some of the information that used to be available on their site. (Like voltage and current power supply outputs.)

So it might be more difficult to rerun their numbers.

But they were at least 3 orders of magnitude better than a typical fusor. (10e-9)

I would be really careful about declaring some physical upper bound on Q, or Joe Gayo may just set his next target at proving you wrong. :-)

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be doing any of the work he is doing, if he thought Q>1 was not possible.

Thermonuclear bombs would not exist if Q>1 was not possible.

They exist.

Joe.
Last edited by JoeBallantyne on Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Richard Hull »

Always happy about being proven wrong via the doing as it is the final word, but regardless, it will always obey the physics. I have clearly stated that fusion can be pushed in a fusor at the150kv limit. More current at that voltage will do it provided the material science and device will allow it. I see no issue with 10e11 Tier in a "special fusor-like device".

The instant such a device is marketed or taken on in a professional, scintific-scholastic or remunerative effort it leaves the realm of an amateur device. Currently, I assume it is just Joe and he is not being paid or working for a company to develop his device. Tom Ligon in 1997 was doing real D-D fusion for Doc Bussard and paid to do so by Doc's company EMCC or EMC squared, (Energy Matter Conversion Corp). Tom was not admitted to the neutron club at fusor.net until late in 2002 when he built his truly privately funded simple amateur fusor for display at a science fiction convention in that year. picture below.

We will forever be interested in any interesting professional devices based on a fusor-like assembly of novel design.

Richard Hull
Attachments
Tom Ligon's personal home built fusor that finally got him into the neutron club.
Tom Ligon's personal home built fusor that finally got him into the neutron club.
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Joe Gayo »

@ Frank

Thanks.

I'm well aware neutron flux density changes with the distance squared and therefore the proximity of the activation foil, bubble tube, neutron counter, etc. is critically important for relating measurements to total output.

I want to be very clear, I don't take reporting this result lightly and have performed numerous checks. The 1E+8 number has been confirmed by over 20 runs, all using 1 of 4 bubble tube dosimeters (waiting 30+ minutes after resetting the tube. That's why I have 4, so I can run about every 10 minutes with a new tube). The activation foils were just another check because as Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself. I actually told Jon R. earlier about my results (who has achieved 2E7, only a factor of 6 lower), because I'm very aware of the history here and I respect Jon immensely.
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Joe Gayo »

@Joe B

Thanks for the encouragement!

IMHO, patents are overrated, trade secrets are better (in some cases).

Traditional fusor's are very limited, as Richard has pointed out, but they can be useful and with some modification (still IECF) may be very useful.

What I hope everyone can collaborate on are standard measurement techniques. My top three priorities have become clear, they are diagnostics, diagnostics, and diagnostics. Spectroscopy (optical, mass, gamma), probes (electric and magnetic), thermal, etc. were specifically integrated into my latest design and have revealed new operating modes.

In my opinion, if we want this to advance we need to simulate, design, build, then measure!
User avatar
Liam David
Posts: 518
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 pm
Real name: Liam David
Location: PPPL

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Liam David »

Congrats on the 1e8 milestone!

In your screenshot of the fusion rate calculator, I noticed you have 0W for the ion guns box. Are these runs at "standard" fusor pressures with a conventional discharge, or are you using a dual-gunned design?
User avatar
Mark Rowley
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:20 am
Real name: Mark Rowley
Location: Sacramento California
Contact:

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Mark Rowley »

Amazing numbers Joe! Remarkable achievement.

The phenomenon of good neutron output coupled with higher voltages and subsequent low current draw is exactly what I’ve been seeing here as well.

Mark Rowley
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Joe Gayo »

@Liam

No. This is a completely new device/approach.

@Mark

Yes. There seems to be a growing trend.
User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Real name:

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Jim Kovalchick »

Joe,
Perhaps you are keeping some details of the new approach close, and I respect that. I am curious though. Does your new approach give more neutrons at lower voltages too, or does it only help in the upper ranges you dwell in now?
User avatar
Bob Reite
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:03 pm
Real name: Bob Reite
Location: Wilkes Barre/Scranton area

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Bob Reite »

Congrats on keeping 100 KV tamed. Up to around 50 KV, it's not too bad. At 100 KV, everything starts to become a big deal. Corona discharge, field control. Arcs will not take the most direct path but start following weird paths, due to density gradients in the surrounding air. And of course the X-rays.
The more reactive the materials, the more spectacular the failures.
The testing isn't over until the prototype is destroyed.
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Joe Gayo »

@ Jim

I haven't really done much testing bellow 80kV. As with every fusor, not all voltages are accessible or practical (due to pressure and current needs). I don't think my device would perform well at 30kV.

I'm intending on pushing the voltage higher. Every iteration takes longer than expected but I'm hoping to have the next version before the end of the year.

Shielding is becoming a bigger concern. My operator station is a little over 25ft away and a REM ball shows 3 mRem/h of neutrons (every minute run generates 1-2 bubbles in a dosimeter at my control computer).
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Richard Hull »

Some serious radiations over time at that range, Joe! That I would not like to take over time. At the 7 foot distant control chair from my unshielded system with 43kv applied, kicking out about 1mega neuts TIER, I see about 0.3mrem/hr of X-rays This is so low, I do not shield beyond a small lead shield at the view port.

Your are wise to operate remote at the levels you are getting.

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
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by JoeBallantyne »

The Phoenix folks had some pictures of their lab setup on their site a few years back.

They were using a stack of the 4'x4' HDPE caged liquid containers full of water for neutron shielding.

Behind that they had a wall of 2'x2'x6' concrete ecology blocks.

One well positioned 4'x4' 275 gallon tote full of water might work wonders for reducing the neutron exposure you are getting.

They aren't very expensive. (Compared to all the other equipment you have invested in...)

Water in southern cal is at least for now still basically free.

Joe.
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Joe Gayo »

I've decided on something similar. A wall of 5 gallon buckets (2 rows staggered) filled with Borax dissolved in water. The wall is placed in front of my lead sheets.
User avatar
Joe Gayo
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: USA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Joe Gayo »

I've been able to reduce the neutron rate measured at the operator station with water jugs, but as the overall numbers continue to climb, I need a more aggressive approach.

- Moving the operator station another 10ft (35ft total)
- Adding another staggered row of stackable 5gal Jerry cans

My general though has been to place shielding as close to the operator and far from the source as possible.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by Richard Hull »

This is the best method. I recommended a shadow cone shield years ago and detailed it. By letting everything around you at range get blasted by inverse square law reduced radiation make stopping that much weakened blast easier to shield the operator. The shadow cone was designed to protect an operator at 7 foot ranges by a 18X18 box with an 18X18 sheet of 3/8 inch thick lead plate on exterior of the of the box facing the fusor. Inside the box whose internal interior width is 4 inches, a piece of HDPE sheeting 18x18x1" thick is placed inside the box and the remaining 3" width has borax mixed with molten paraffin is cast in the box.

Jammed up close to the fusor, the lead would limit the x-rays and the interior would absorb and scatter the bulk of the fast neutron flux as thermals. This was for what was then an 85kv fusor design. The cone on the other side of the shield would allow for a 7 foot distant operator to be in the vast shadow cone cast by this shield.

In your case, a bit of both near heavy cone shielding and light distant shielding might be a good idea. X-rays are a major issue, but easily shielded close in by the lead and the paraffin/borax would really kill the bulk of the fast neutrons resulting in heavily scattered thermals, resulting in frontal, rearwards and sideways scattering of the original fast flux. Scatter, close-in, with the shield what is effectively a projected impacting onslaught of fast neuts will turn into a 360 degree sphere of thermal neuts. At distance, within the cone of the close-in shield further shielding should a snap, if an issue at all, due to the inverse square law.

Do your best shielding up close and live in the shadow cone.

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
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by JoeBallantyne »

I agree with Richard. Shield as close to the source as possible.

When I proposed using a single 275 gallon 4' x 4' tote for neutron shielding, my thought was to place it as close to the fusor as reasonably possible so that the fusor was centered on one face of the cube. Depending on the height of your fusor, centering the tote might very well require raising it a foot or so off the floor. On a short stack of pallets for example.

Then place the operator station as far away as possible on the same line that runs through the center of the fusor and the centerpoint of the face of that cube.

If you want to put even more shielding right in front of the operator station, fine, but I think you will get the most bang for your shielding buck by stopping as many neutrons as close to the fusor as possible.

To be clear, I don't think anyone else on fusor.net needs to be messing around with 275 gallon totes for shielding, but you are in a class by yourself at the moment, and the less irradiated you get, the longer you can keep doing your thing, making even more neutrons. The nasty thing about radiation doses is that they are cumulative, and every dose you get reduces your total remaining radiation handling capacity by that amount. Once your remaining handling capacity hits zero. Game over. No respawn.

Joe.
Last edited by JoeBallantyne on Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: Gayo 2021 Update

Post by JoeBallantyne »

One issue with that kind of neutron shielding up close to the fusor, is that it will likely affect your counts, because some of the neutrons will be reflected back and get counted with the shielding up close. You should probably run some experiments to determine if neutron shielding up close does indeed impact your numbers. I think it will artificially inflate them somewhat depending on the exact geometry of the fusor, shielding, and neutron detection equipment.

Joe.
Post Reply

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