The device that I built

[Chris64Strev]

I did the experiment with a deuterium spectral tube excited by high voltage as well as the rf field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Q9bBfqHOA

When I uploaded the video to U tube I could only get 56 seconds to load and that took 9 hours to upload on a 100 MBts cable line indicating that a very large file had been generated containing a huge number of errors. This indicates that radiation was being received by the digital camera. The gieger counter did show strong activity but that does not show neutrons and that amount of activity does not normally affect the camera so it looks like a large count of neutrons were generated that effected the camera indicating the fusion was going on.

Chris.

[Tyler Christensen]

It is absolutely incredibly unlikely that neutrons would cause a digital video camera to generate an excessively large file that still contains all the video data (whereas there are dozens of reasons that the video may have taken quite a while to transmit despite a fast internet connection). This is zero proof of neutrons. You'll need to get a better detector to make any claim that anyone will believe regarding neutron production.

[Carl Willis]

>This indicates that radiation was being received by the digital camera.

>a large count of neutrons were generated that effected the camera indicating the fusion was going on.

These conclusions are not supported by the experiment, nor are they supported by a common-sense, informed background in the subject matter. They are uncritically pulled out of thin air.

The poster persistently refuses to consider or acknowledge mundane and simple alternatives to fusion, neutrons, radiation, etc. that can readily explain the RF issues, camera problems, etc. offered in evidence. This is a pattern, and it is a pattern of abuse.

Having reached such a dead end long ago, I'm in favor of terminating this thread with extreme prejudice. Fusor.net ought to remain a venue for reality-based discussions and should not be an open podium for persistently unscientific offerings. There's room to be open-minded, but there's no place for obstinate hogwash.

-Carl

[lutzhoffman]

Hello:

I think that everyone would be best served here to review their own internal approach to the issue of fusion.

Yes experiments can reveal wonderful things, which are sometimes not explained or even predicted by the theory, but to be fair, this only happens when the theory is incomplete, or flawed in some way.

When a theory is pursued on "faith", or on a "belief", then the same parameters apply, which hold true for faith, and religion. If we choose to go here, then we need to apply what I call the "faith insanity test", which can then be used to further define the issue, and to restore a productive path.

The point at which religion, or faith, crosses the line, separating sane, from insane, can be simply defined as:

"When faith is maintained, in the face of proof to the contrary "

So if proof can be found, and it can then be supported, it stands, if not then it falls into the dust bin of history, and it deserves no further consideration.

I suggest to everyone to redirect your efforts into finding proof, and support, this is a most noble quest. At the same time however, do keep your mind open to proof to the contrary, which can be a scientists greatest gift, because it helps provide direction, in the path of discovery. I am sure that history is littered with brilliant minds, which were spent in trying to find the corner, from within the sphere.

Good Luck to All : )

[Carl Willis]

I think I'm in agreement with you, Lutz, but the guy has seen critique of his unscientific, conclusion-heavy presentation time, time, and time again. Paul, the moderator, has warned him.

At this point it's a matter of executive removal, because the warning has already come from "on high." The only logical remedy is a flat-out "chavectomy" without hindrance or delay.

-Carl

[John Futter]

Carl /Lutz

I agree
looking back at my post on the activation of Fe with 12MeV protons the neut field was so intense that it toasted a brand new CCD camera 2 metres away from the beam giving the camera a multicoloured starry background --for life. Yes my file size was large but of the expected size due to the digitising equip and the resolution of the camera.
CCDs are more susceptable to neuts than other forms of electronics so I wasn't surprised

A quick note to Lutz and Carl
We have NEC here @ work @ the moment installing our new Accelerator

Spent most of the day shifting the analyising magnet to its permanent position all 7 tonnes of it ---pics soon in a new post

Lutz -- it is insulated with SF6 no mix @ 80PSI and yes it has scrubbers to get rid of the F- products from breakdowns during conditioning

[Chris64Strev]

I will try to obtain a neutron detector. I believe they use a plastic material containing anthacene wrapped in aluminium foil. They are in the form of a rod with a photomultiplier to detect scintillations flashes of light when hit by something and then the amplitude of the pulse and shielding to reduce other particles from hitting the plastic to isolate neutrons.

I think they would be too expensive for me.

So I will shut up.

I do listen to criticism if I understand it.

[StevenClark]

I'd like to weigh in here as a recently retired member of the O/P's team.

(I was safety officer, and for a while "team leader")

Long story short:

I've seen the team take a standard specimen tube of deuterium, fit two circular copper electrodes to the outsde of the tube, and light it up using high voltage. It glows predicatably purple, and they have an optical spectrometer, plus the look up data, that confimrs it is indeed a tube of deuterium gas, glowing nice and purple.

Then they fit into into the "Strevens-Bagnall Transfusor" hereafter referred to as the SBT, and do their thing with the time variant E/M field etc. until the tube stops glowing purple and takes on a murky green aspect.

As Safety Officer although very new to the role I did get them to attempt to measure neutron emissions, but as many have pinted out here, lacking a reliable neutron calibration source, We consider our neutron measurements untrustworthy.

I am educated to (barely) electrical engineer level and by way of a hobby I like to debunk alt/science things whenever possible, just to allow me to concentrate on the interesting stuff.

Although all members of our team (Including myself) are pretty "crackers" in one way or another, we have (as I like to call it) "ruined" several lovely sealed glass sample tubes of D, so that it no longer forms a purple plasma but forms a "dirty green" plasma. I do not claim to understand what I've witnessed, but witness it, I have...

Theyy have worked hard and overcome a LOT of obstacles to get this far, and deserve some financial recompense for their time, (and for "bringing back the fire" I have come to believe) they really do. They worked, hard and for over a decade at their own expense.

I don't lie, that's what I've seen.

I'm very open to an alternative explanation for why the gas in the sealed tube changes it optical emissions that does not mean I just walked away from a team that actually is doing practical scale thermonuclear table top transmutaion that makes an element that the world needs out of relatvely common deuterium....

[JoeBallantyne]

Why did you drop your first post on a 14 year old completely unrelated thread?

If you really want to discuss your fusion transmutation, please start a new thread. Please also introduce yourself at least a little bit.

Moderators, please kill this post and the previous one, so that the now tainted thread can go back into obscurity.

Thanks.

Joe.

[Paul_Schatzkin]

Joe,

It turns out that 'StevenClark' is a legit user - somebody I've corresponded with (albeit under a different handle/name than the real one he used here, so give him props for that) for several years about the Townsend Brown stuff.

Steven contacted me this morning to ask why his posts had been scrubbed, and once I realized what had happened I restored this and the other that he posted elsewhere.

Thanks to Frank's counsel while we were in Richmond, I deleted neither Steven's account or posts, so was able to restore them easily.

I'll leave it to him to explain himself from here.

Thanks,

--PS

[StevenClark]

Hello Joe. You asked a fair question, which deserves a fair answer.

I deliberately sought this forum out, and looked to see if the name "Strevens" appeared here, knowing that he is a prolific and appallingly ineffective self publicist. Unlike most such people one sees on the web (At least for me) I've been watching and occasionally helping him do his thing for many years. He formed a team of three geographically separate people (one in another country) and some how got us to replicate his device to a level where it ruins tubes of deuterium as if by magic, or possibly even a more efficent variation of what you guys do.

I'll admit straight off the bat that it's all as unfeasible as it comes, but I strive to be as close to Heinleins concept of a "Fair Witness" as you are likely to meet, so within my limits, I'm happy to answer your questions.

I'm motivated by wanting to get Chris Strevens a bit of respect and acknowledgement for his basic idea and what appears to be no mean achievement.

He says I understand his ideas as well as anyone, yet I freely admit, how exactly the bloody thing works in either of it's intended modes is a bit of a mystery to me, BUT I stand my my assertion that it does take a sealed tube of deuteruium which glows purple as it should and then with no direct contact whatsoever, (save the two copper rings outside of the tube required to light it up) transforms it into a gas that now glows a murky green.

Thank you for sorting out my membership status, I assert strongly that I'm not here to troll, bot, cause mischief or do harm. I did write an intro, I don't expect to make much more of a contribution than to testify as to what I've seen, in the hope that I have actually seen what I think I have seen. Sharing here seemed like a good idea at the time. I believe that I know this to be a farily honest part of the internet, and honesty believe it's a rightful thing to be doing. And you guys might see the elegance in his thinking. He runs his fusions in cylces like a two stroke engine, not as always-on-bonfire like most people think fusion should be done. He uses resonance to get the field strengths he needs, and that seems to work with a bit of screwing about (ten years actually, betwwen his first doing and then getting it "duplicable" by the other guy). Where it gets screwy is that he reckcons he can get a standing wave of huge current induced in the plasma strip casued by the energy of the fusions, and use it as teh first tapping of a transformer to directly extract the energy. I thought it was all a bit far fectched until I witnessed teh second machine turning the gas discharge from purple to green over time, in a setting that I was familiar with, and an operator who I can trust to be doing exactly what I appeared to be seeing over the conference call, and where I had had a hand in the instrumention, data collection, documentation and safety aspects.

[JoeBallantyne]

Feed a sample of the gas from the tube into an RGA (residual gas analyzer), and figure out what it has in it before and after running the experiment.

My expectation is that you most likely will find that some of the material on the inside of the tube, has been etched by the plasma created while running the experiment and then contaminates the D2 gas, changing the emission spectrum from the deuterium's purple to your murky green.

No fusion required, and most likely no fusion occurring.

Run the experiment. Analyze the gas.

Joe.

[Ryan Ginter]

Color change is a common occurrence for plasma confined in glass. This can be easily tested using a microwave oven.

Place a small strip of aluminum foil in a glass cup (preferably borosilicate) and set the cup upsidedown in a microwave. Starting the microwave will produce a ball of blue plasma confined inside the glass cup, but as the plasma continues to be maintained it begins to sputter ions off the container's surface. The blue plasma ball will turn a yellowish-green after around 10 seconds of sustained heating (likely due to sodium and boron from the glass entering the plasma).

I find it highly improbable that any transmutation is occuring in the setup you've described. As Joe has said, analyzing the gasses would be a good first step to making a testable claim.

[Richard Hull]

It is good to restore ancient posts where logic and knowledge give the lie to inexperienced experimentation and resultant claims of great things.
As Carl noted way back when, The internet is not where you find a lot of accurate claims by the common man working alone in a vacuum.

I think Carl's comment: "Pshaw" sums up the value of this long diatribe of posts and it's original claim to a tee.

Richard Hull

[Dennis P Brown]

I have experience with a deuterium filled tube of gas under electric excitation. In college , I measured the deuterium spectrum. Strange but I discovered a very strong sodium line. After cleaning, the sodium line went away. After handling, it reappeared. Cleaning gone again.

Contamination is a big issue. The amount of salt on my hands is trivially small, and yet, it diffused through the thick quartz and contaminated the gas. Yes, it was able to diffuse out, too. But a glass tube under vacuum is far, far too easily contaminated to consider nuclear transmutation is the answer to a color change unless one does a lot of careful work. Besides, the gamma radiation would be easy to detect.

[Cinar Kagan]

There was a saying of Carl Willis (I think) for a similar device but for p-p (harder) fusion.

If there was enough fusion happening to alter the color of the plasma, you and anything neighboring you would have died in the following days.

I cannot back numbers behind my post but I think Joe Gayo can. He produced the highest number of n/s (>1e8) and he has optical spectrometer as far as I know. Hopefully he can provide data from the alteration (if any) of the output of the color spectra.

Cinar Kagan

[Joe Gayo]

This sounds like the dead grad student problem.

I use high-resolution spectroscopy as a diagnostic and have never seen (nor expected to see) transmuted elements in the emission spectrum. The neutron emission rate is several orders of magnitude beyond 1E8/s, which requires significant shielding and distance to stay safe.

[Richard Hull]

One, especially newbies, must never confuse "neutron numbers or TIER" as we use them....(total isotropic emission of radiation) in neutrons per second with the term "neutron flux" which we amateurs virtually never use.

Neutron flux is the number of neutrons found at any range from the source, passing through one square centimeter of area per second. 1e8 flux field of fast neutrons you could not survive. 1e8 TIER from a fusor at the closest range (shell or chamber wall) has not been reported here. (1E7 TIER is the max) This is not dangerous for short periods of fusor operation and is a near impossibility to achieve for the casual fusioneer.

Finally, the TIER figure for a fusor is a difficult calculation fraught with inaccuracies in the hands of all but the more advanced amateur fusioneers with the best neutron detection gear in hand.

In short we never tend to use the term "flux" as related to a fusor.

example: A flux of one fast neutron per square cm (1e0) at the shell of a spherical fusor of radius 7.5cm would be a TIER of...about

4(pi)r^2 = 4 X 3.14 X 56.25 or a TIER of 706 n/s.
from here is is easy to expand...

A flux of 1E1 or ten = 7,060 TIER...flux of 1E2 would be a TIER of 70,600 n/s ....Flux of 1E3 would be a TIER of 706,000 n/s...etc., etc..

Thus a flux of 1E3 or 1000 neutrons per square cm/sec at the shell of a 6-inch diameter spherical is just short of what we call a mega mark TIER fusor.
This is rare number for over 95% of all folks who ever made the neutron club!! This means the typical claimant to the neutron club never hit a flux of 1eE3.

A flux of 1E8 would be a TIER of 100,000,000 or 100 million n/square cm/sec.

Richard Hull

[Joe Gayo]

You are correct regarding flux.

[StevenClark]

JoeBallantyne said:
"Feed a sample of the gas from the tube into an RGA (residual gas analyzer), and figure out what it has in it before and after running the experiment.
*snip*
Run the experiment. Analyze the gas."

Thanks Joe, that sounds like practical and useful advice I can pass along. Much appreciated.