"Electric Fusion Systems"

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15020
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Richard Hull »

If you are looking at just achieving a positive Q it means you have a negative Q. From this we assume you have not even demonstrated or detected fusion at any level versus the input power level of any experimental run!

A total Q of 0.0000000082 is a positive Q value and says you have detected real fusion at a net loss. A total Q of 1.0 means you have neither gained energy nor lost any. You have merely broken even. No big deal even at break even. No useful power there at break even.

Question....Have you detected fusion? If so give the total Q with no real details beyond a stated total electrical input to all devices supporting fusion inside and outside of your reactor vessel versus the measured output of all particulate energies, both stated in Joules.

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: 3184
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis Brown

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Sorry if this all sounds harsh (certainly my post.)

Unfortunately, you have been taken in by a series of articles that are simply put - nonsense and terrible science. Yes, Rydberg matter is a very interesting state of matter. Its use for fusion is not appropriate because the person that wrote the article was not properly (or not at all) peer reviewed and far worse, they simply made a host of things up with no proof. What they did was Q-anon level nonsense (very common, tragically here in the US of A, too.)

Frankly, we all want some things that are too good to be true, to be, well true. Worse, when we read something like this, we like to run with it and get invested in the idea because it looks so useful and interesting (hey, that isn't a bad trait but dangerous if one does not cross check with proven sources.) Then it is in our nature to resist counter proof once we get invested in an idea - even if overwhelming proof to the contrary is given. That is normal - many people live in such bubbles and thanks to the internet and its predatory programs, extremely destructive rabbit holes are created (of course, for profit), and far too many fall for this (yes, even my favorite is fully guilty - YouTube - ugh!)

Fortunately, science tends to be self correcting and it is not an area that one can easily defend an interesting concept w/o proof or use a discredited source. As such, this can be hard to handle - none of us like to be wrong or shown to have been taken in (certainly has happen to me - ugh again.)
JoeBallantyne
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by JoeBallantyne »

I hope Ryan Wood hasn't sunk too much money into this venture, or that he is at least in on the con. (Sorry but I can't consider it anything other than that until I see some real data, that actually makes sense.)

Kenneth, you still haven't answered ANY of the questions I posed in my earlier posts.

You latest post is essentially nothing more than a rehash of your earlier posts.

Still no data. No explanations of the equipment in the videos. No neutron counts.

Bottom line is this: if you aren't getting neutron count rates when running your reaction that are significantly higher than background neutron count rates - like at least a factor of 5 or more, then YOU AREN''T DOING ANY FUSION. See my previous post about the fact that the fusion reaction you are claiming to do, has a competing side reaction that will also occur, that DOES produce neutrons.

You still haven't even shown us that you can detect background neutrons, let alone any neutrons from your experiments.

I hope that Ryan is reading this thread. If not, I suggest you have him read it. I'd also be happy to talk to him on the phone a bit in early February as well if you like.

Joe.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15020
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Richard Hull »

Sadly, as we all note, no real data of value that allows for any form of critical review ever flows from these dreamy startups!
However, we have no shortage of promises and explanations of the processes involved tightly coupled with not one scrap of data that can be analyzed by anyone competent in the fusion community.

We are not asking for your super secret internal or confidential information! We are just asking for proof that a fusion signature is there and for numbers related to your actual metering of the process of fusion at this point in the endeavor! I bet if metered at all, it is crap! Very low numbers that would, indeed, be believable and show no real level of success.

Who the hell is overseeing this effort at the scientific level coupled to investors. I worry that so many of these startups are just high end cons in a nation desperate for the fusion God of future energy promise so often touted, yet never seen or accomplished at any real level of substance!

Go get 'em Joe...

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
Kenneth Kopp
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2023 4:48 am
Real name: Kenneth Kopp

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Kenneth Kopp »

Greetings,
The EFS website has been updated with much higher technical detail information.
Best Regards
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

This latest post from Kenneth Kopp has been 'reported' to the Admins as 'off topic and nonsensical' since it is all based on speculation, no data, and unverifiable claims.

Anybody else care to weigh in?

Should we just lock it down and let it fade into the archival ether?

--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 15020
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Richard Hull »

Tough call. We hate to lock someone out who thinks they are doing stuff towards a fusion goal. However, for those here who have done and reported properly with data on their way to fusion, it seems a slap in the face to those true participants to allow continued failure to share data in a fusion specific manner. This is especially true it the effort seems so far out with no plausible path to fusion.

We thrive, grow and learn from useful, shared data.

I revisited their website as asked above. A suitcase image and some coils in an image. zero-point-zero (0.0) experimental, run data given. All fluff and gobble goop laden word salads.

Dump it!

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: 329
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:08 pm
Real name: Joe Ballantyne
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by JoeBallantyne »

It appears the primary goal of their posts is to drive traffic to their website.

Not to share data or insights about fusion, or to discuss technical problems, or to ask for help.

I've already read their site twice, and neither time did I find any real data. Just marketing spiel. (That is the most generous description I can give it.)

On the previous iterations I read, when you read their site closely and carefully, technically what they are saying makes no sense, and there are mistakes that any competent fusioneer would just not make.

I have zero desire to read it again, to see which mistakes they have attempted to fix.

If I were an admin, I think I would try to take a middle path, and lock down this thread, but not lock Kenneth out of the site.

Yet.

Joe.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2123
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Frank Sanns »

I was a little out of position today so I am just getting to the business of the site now.

The thread was neither started nor spammed by Kennth Kopp. He simply joined the site and gave information on their work and some links. This is hardly grounds to ban anybody. On the contrary, within reason, it is good to see that people in other ventures do come to our site. They may show us something new or they may learn something new or not.


It seems the thread has worked its course and productive commentary seems to be substantially completed. I have locked the topic but no other actions taken. Mr Kopp is still free to participate with the site with concrete questions and answers that are consistent with current or plausible physics.
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
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: "Electric Fusion Systems"

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

I concur.
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
Locked

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”