POPS is definitely not arc fusion. It is still questionable if it plays out to any advantage at all. Again, no investigative reports of experimentation done here in these forums.
Pulsed fusion in a sub or near-fusion biased fusor has also yet to be examined in a controlled experimental setup and might turn out interesting as the pulse energy would not have to be that great and could possibly be handled at rep-rates in the 1khz range using conventional and readily obtainable hydrogen thyratrons.
Cold body arc fusion, operated at immense energies, relative to the scale of the device, is more akin to destructive testing than viable fusion work. Same as above....No credible reports of fusion details on this site.
Richard Hull
Pulsing fusion
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15037
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Pulsing fusion
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
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
Re: Pulsing fusion
Carl
I am not really interested to continue this - I reiterate; -
>A simple sparkgap filled with D2 will get you a Neutron burst when discharged.
and a focus fusion device proves this - take it or leave lt or build a differiental one for yourself then comment.
I am not really interested to continue this - I reiterate; -
>A simple sparkgap filled with D2 will get you a Neutron burst when discharged.
and a focus fusion device proves this - take it or leave lt or build a differiental one for yourself then comment.
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Pulsing fusion
>I am not really interested to continue this - I reiterate; -
>A simple sparkgap filled with D2 will get you a Neutron burst when discharged.
If you are not interested in continuing, why do you keep bringing this stuff up? So we can just read it uncritically and not express any interest in details?
>and a focus fusion device proves this'
A focus fusion device is not a "simple spark gap."
>build a differiental one for yourself then comment.
YOU are the one commenting about your purported experiments and accomplishments, and YOU owe explanation, not me.
This conflict does touch on the essential character of fusor.net as a reality-based community, one with standards. Play ball or go home--I'm serious.
-Carl
>A simple sparkgap filled with D2 will get you a Neutron burst when discharged.
If you are not interested in continuing, why do you keep bringing this stuff up? So we can just read it uncritically and not express any interest in details?
>and a focus fusion device proves this'
A focus fusion device is not a "simple spark gap."
>build a differiental one for yourself then comment.
YOU are the one commenting about your purported experiments and accomplishments, and YOU owe explanation, not me.
This conflict does touch on the essential character of fusor.net as a reality-based community, one with standards. Play ball or go home--I'm serious.
-Carl
-
Conrad Farnsworth
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:35 pm
- Real name: Conrad Farnsworth
Re: Pulsing fusion
Chris,
I honestly dont know what im aiming for. Although it may not be scientifically "correct" or easier, I very much love "adding a dash of this and lets see what happens".
I honestly dont know what im aiming for. Although it may not be scientifically "correct" or easier, I very much love "adding a dash of this and lets see what happens".