The Waterstar Foundation / Excalibur Fusion Fund

[Paul_Schatzkin]

.
Now that we've got a tax exempt (501c3) non-profit organization it's time to expand the scope.

As I have written and discussed often, I got sucked into the Farnsworth story almost entirely because of this riddle: How do you bottle a star?

Yes, I am endlessly fascinated by the origins of video and the decades of industrial intrigue and corporate avarice that have buried that remarkable story under the rug of revisionist history. Why, I've even written a book a book about it!.

But that book is really about the larger story of how Big New Ideas emerge on the fringe of orthodoxy – and the tribulations their emissaries experience, riding their ideas over the tumultuous tides of avaricious capital and through the labyrinthine gauntlet of vested interests.

From my experience, I have come to believe that video – one of the epic technological breakthroughs of the 20th century – emerged from 'a well of knowledge' that humans get only occasional access to – and that further down that same well lay the secrets civilization will require if it is even going beyond its fossil-fueled, 19th-and-20th-century industrial limits.


Hear me out:

Some of you will be familiar with the story of the moment Philo Farnsworth first conceived the Image Dissector – the electronic camera tube that made video possible. While just a teenager tilling fields in Idaho...

The notion of television never stopped tugging at Philo’s imagination. In his relentless pursuit of the subject, he learned about the properties of electrons. He learned how they could be deflected by magnets. He also learned how certain substances could be caused to glow when bombarded by electrons within something called a “cathode ray tube.” With those three elements—the electron, magnetic deflection, and the cathode ray tube—Philo began to believe he would find a solution.

Those elements crystallized in a instant when he looked back at the field he was plowing under the hot Idaho sun in the summer of 1921.

A few months later he drew this sketch or his high school science teacher in Rigby, Idaho:

.... and I contend that every one of the billions of video screens on the planet today (including the one you are looking at now) can trace its origins to that sketch.

In the years since writing that paragraph, I have come to believe that there is much more to the story than just being observing those parallel furrows and being suddenly inspired to scan an image with similarly-parallel rows of electrons.

I think now that in the few years prior to that moment, the auto-didactic, aspiring young inventor assimilated a singular body of basic information that – with the added ingredient of his own divine intuition – made him uniquelly qualified to peer into what I am calling 'the well of knowledge' where he found not just the solution to 'moving picture that could fly through the air' but an even richer vein of extraordinary possibilities.

That conception in the Idaho field was just the first step on a journey of intuition-led learning that Farnsworth described as "a guided tour" along "the invisible frontier." Over the course of five decades, that singular journey eventually led him to the cosmic riddles we ponder here at fusor.net.


A Fresh Perspective

Some of this fresh thinking about the mystical dimensions of the Farnsworth story flashed at me this past winter when I recorded the audiobook version of The Boy Who Invented Television.. As I read the material aloud for the first time in more than twenty years, parts of the narrative bore new meaning for me.

For example: There are a couple of passages at the end of Chapter 4 (The Damn Thing Works!) that illustrate Farnsworth's unique modus operandi:

Phil had an uncanny ability to see a destination and guide his men there... “He could go through the orchard and just pick things out without breaking his rhythm,” one observer noted.

Cliff Gardner marveled that “The amazing thing about Phil was his ability to invent solutions without even realizing he was inventing. He was just providing solutions to the day-to-day obstacles we’d encounter. He always had an answer when one of us asked ‘what do we do now?”

As I read those passages I wondered anew: How did this farm-bred kid with little formal education know so much that he could earn more than 150 patents, singlehandedly refining electronic video to the point that it was first introduced to the public in the summer of 1934 – five years before David Sarnoff started re-writing the story at the New York World's Fair in 1939?

Farnsworth was actually kinda famous in the 1930s. Sarnoff took care of that.

.
And the answer I keep coming up with – silly as it sounds – is: Because... he... just... knew stuff.

And not just that he knew stuff, but that his unique path showed him more stuff: The weak signal form the first Image Dissectors demanded a novel approach to amplification, starting with the electron multiplier he built into the tubes' anode stem. That experience led to the development of the muiltipactor tube, which in turn suggested his experiments with the spherical multipactor, where he first observed a rudimentary plasma, which twenty years later supplied the inspiration for the fusor.
.

Once you've seen into 'the well,' one thing just leads to another....

.
.
Billions -v- Millions

As has been discussed at length all over this site, it is ironic to the point of bemusement that countless billions of dollars have been spent on brute-stgrenth approaches to controlled nuclear fusion – but nary a dime spent to dig deeply into the riddle of the Farnsworth Fusor.

Yeah, yeah, I know the prevailing wisdom: Farnsworth himself was incapacitated the whole time the fusor project was burning through (really, not a whole lot of) ITT's cash in Fort Wayne; The fusor is just another idle curiosity and will never really amount to anything useful other than as a neutron generator.

And then there is the even more debilitating insistence that useful energy from controlled fusion lives forever beyond the reach of human understanding: it's twenty years in the future and always will be.


Maybe we're asking the wrong humans

I also know what I learned from spending a lot of time with Farnsworth's family, in parrticualr his eldest son Philo III, and his insistence that his father "rarely went down blind alleys" – and certainly not with a major conception like the fusor.

The bottom line for me is: where the fusor is concerned, there are more questions than there are answers. Chief among them is the question I posed to Robert Hirsch – who cut his teeth as a Fansworth colleague before becomig the DOE's top fusion bureaucrat and steering mountains of money toward the tokamak in the 1970s and 80s. .

When asked Hirsch why the ITT Fusor project ended so inconclusively, he answered with three damning, inscrutable words:

Not enough money.

And why not? Because the bureaucracy that Hirsch eventually commanded was suspicious of Farnsworth, his background and his methodology. Hirsch also said:

The scandal in the whole thing, and the thing I don’t understand to this date—and maybe never will—is how those people would not open up to the possibility of a Farnsworth-like idea.

I think they were ... uncomfortable with Farnsworth... an inventor...with just dribs and drabs of education, who in fact conceived and developed one of the most significant technological advances of the 20th century, and here he was coming along in fusion? I don’t know whether it was ego or what but there is something strange there...

Strange? Ya think?

And then I'll read yet another press release from yet another company that has raised nearly a billon dollars to build yet another brute-force fusion machine.

So how exactly is it that a field as compelling as fusion energy can draw billions for sprawling, complicated monotliths – but nary a dime for something as simple and elegant as the fusor?

Well, it's time we found out.


Hence The Waterstar Foundation.

Now that we have a 501c3 tax-exempt organization, it's time we run this sucker up the flagpole and see if we can get anyone to salute.

Paraphrasing (and updating) what I first wrote in The Waterstar Manifesto back in 2019:

Before it was dissolved in 1968, the Farnsworth fusion program cost ITT an annual budget of $400.000.  That translates to roughly $4-Million in 2024 dollars.

Under the 501c3 umbrella, I propose to raise $100-million.

Not to spend. To invest in a perpetual endowment.

An annual draw of 4% from an endowment of $100-million will provide $4-million/year – the 2024 equivalent of the money ITT was not willing to spend in 1968.

Given the relatively low cost of building and operating a fusor, that should be sufficient to sustain a meaningful effort to arrive at a definitive conclusion: Either the fusor produces useful fusion energy, or we will conclude without equivocation that the approach is a dead end – at which point the endowment will be dissolved.

This is a win-win proposition with no deadline. Either we find a path toward useful fusion energy (the benefits of which are incalculable) or we reach an incontrovertible dead end and return the princpal funds to their sources or divert them to some other useful purpose. LIke, I dunno, sending Elon Musk to Mars.

I admit I am well out of my depth here. I've never raised the kind of money I'm talking about here. The most 'capital' I've ever raised was the $1,000 two friends and I invested in 1995 to start songs.com (which we sold five years later for several million - not a bad return on the initail investment).

Maybe I am deluding myself thinking this sort thing done happens all the time, that it might be possible to get some oligarchs to care enough about their tax deductions to pitch a few million into a philanthopic effort to solve the world's climate-and-energy challenges.

I'm not sure where to start, but it can't hurt to at least try. And as the (draft) mission statement for the Foundation says, there are other elements of this initiative that could draw attention to these initiatives.

Consider this post the first flag planted.


The Metaphysics of It All

After 25 years of working with him in the devlopment of this website, I am intimately familiar with Richard Hull's curmudgeonly insistence that the fusor will never amount to anything truly useful. At least Richard and I are in complete agreement that all the other efforts to control and utilize fusion energy will likewise come to naught.

And it could be too late to overcome the other consensus – based largely on considerable time Richard spent with the the alumni from Pontiac Street – that Farnsworth was out of his gourd, incapacitated and disengaged in the real work that was going on there.

But I am more inclined to think that he was sandbagging.

I think Farnsworth knew exactly what he was doing (even if the polarity of the first iterations of the fusor may have been inside out). His initial inspiration – drawn form the depth of that well he first dipped into five decades earlier – made him uniquely qualified to see beyond a mere replacement for fossil fuels to a civilization far beyond what we can foretell with our chemical-and-combustion-constrained imaginations. And I am not surprised that he harbored deep reservations about whether mankind is ready to take such a leap.

I think this reticence is reflected in something that Farnsworth himself said that I have been quoting lately in my presentations about my books.

I know that God exists. I know that I have never invented anything. I have been a medium by which these things were given to the culture as fast as the culture could earn them. I give all the credit to God.

Now, I am the last person to put any credence in ancient, anthropomorphic deities. But I do think Farnsworth has expressed here the real reason there are so many questions about the fusor: some things must remain out of reach until the culture has earned them.

Until then, fusion research needs the spirit that Cliff Gardner invoked back in 1930.

When Vladimir Zworykin visited the Farnsworth lab in San Francisco – in order to purloin Farnsworth's work for his employer back east, David Sarnoff's RCA – he was shown several techniqutes unique to the Green Street operation . As described in Chapter 7 (A Beautiful Instrument):

One of the features of the Image Dissector that caught Zworykin’s attention was the flat, optical glass sealed into the end of the tube. Marveling at the construction, Zworykin said to Phil and Cliff, “My people told me this couldn't be done.”

"Well," Cliff replied, "we didn't know it couldn't be done, so we just went ahead and did it."

.
That's what fusion research needs. Somebody who does't know what can't be done so that they are free to just go-the-fuck-ahead and do it.

Which is the ultimate metaphysical logic behind The Waterstar Foundation and the dare-to-dream endowment that I would like to call "The Excalibur Fusion Fund" – as envisioned in this passage from the epilogue the book:

Like the mythological sword Excalibur, the secret of the Fusor lies frozen in the rock of institutional orthodoxy.

A few nuclear physicists around the world are beginning to experiment with the Fusor, but their funding is still inadequate. There is also a dedicated cadre of scientific amateurs who are building their own small Fusors.

So let us build an endowment, to which professional and amateur alike can pitch ideas that would otherwise receive no consideration or funding. And then...

Like the knights and squires of the ancient legend, these would-be kings can stand on the rock and try with all their might to pull the sword from the stone. But when the time is right, the mystery will reveal itself, the stone will unlock its secrets, the quiet passion of Philo T. Farnsworth will be reawakened, and the dawn of a new civilization will be upon us.

It may sound outrageous, but... there are a lot of dumber ideas out there that are getting all the money they ask for.

Honestly, it's all about the story. And this is a damn good one!

The harder part is getting even a few shekels siphoned off for the unorthodox ideas that are found only on the periphery.

The GoFundMe portal for the Excalibur Fusion Fund is now open .

[Dennis P Brown]

Read your post and certainly agree that Farnsworth had great insight and a good grasp of the required physics/electronics required to see that (to us, now) simple approch that was so revolutionary. Your own quote about Devine guidance as a source was first used by Srinivasa Ramanujan Aiyangar to explain his own beyond incredible insight into extremely complex and (at the time) impossible to prove mathematical equivalences

While certainly not something I believe, I do believe as you said, he used his deep knowledge and tremendous insight to achieve his breakthrough - through I'd like to hear some more on any of his significant other ideas/patients.

I do have good insight from working in the field that direct drive fusion via very short wavelength UV lasers could achieve economical fusion. Also, no one has ever ruled out that deuteron beam fusion via accelerators would not work; again, via direct drive. So, economical fusion energy is still very much possible. Just magnetic, even via the stellarator, is just too costly no matter how successful (Q many orders of magnitude above unity).

Not sure anyone wants to invest capitol in a long range fund simply because the big money people only want big rewards, now. But it is a noble endeavor and you are certainly the person that could make it happen.

[Rich Gorski]

Paul,

Love the idea of the Excalibur Fusion Fund. Perfect name, It's not the Kings that pulled out the sword...

Rich G.

[Richard Hodson]

This large amount, forget how much, $750 million?, is slightly huge, dude. It is not usual for fusion projects to expect to accumulate that much and live off the interest while children starve. Some like TAE accumulated too much VC money so started a battery tech and personal transport company or something like that. They were looking for a way to keep investors money and continue drawing salaries while forever testing. You need to plan for minimum amounts just in case to survive. Fusion projects seek VC funds but some never succeeded in that like the dynomak?

Your team should start research and design on paper and then testing and ask for grants plus crowdfunding etc. Hopefully enough for decent salaries too. My 2 million request was mostly for salaries and a decent house for a location for the team to stay and be comfortable in bad weather or just live there. I was estimating $100,000 for parts and equipment which is high for what I need and I would be frugal and return unused funds. Your non profit would just go on and use remaining funds for a different project design or continuation after design changes. Your team would have to justify donations in the near future if your efforts seem futile. Or you could fake it until you make it like other projects. It is good to get down to the bottom of things like you said. I'm impressed by the knowledge of many people here but tend to like to not overcomplicate speech and am limited in some respects. Also your educational and history aspect would continue and should include information on college prep courses to help people not end up like me. I decided to push the public domain aspect after roadblocks from secrecy and because of patent fights etc. Significant contributions to a design are considered for credit by patent laws. Your team may develope a better design that is unique from my unique variation in important ways. My design is not unique, new or novel but a unique variation of preexisting designs. There are many possible variations but limited too and people maxed out on trying.

[Richard Hodson]

I reread this a few times. The Water Star page is from 2019? It has an address of waterstar.com and I was off kilter about it being in limbo and it seemed longer than that. Your plan sounds solid but $100 million is still a high goal. A project could run on 1 million a year with a 25 million reserve invested I suppose if you have rich friends. 3 years reserve of 3 mil is good. $100,000 total is not bad. Much depends on your design. The positively charged isolated spherical capacitor needs to focus enough. Polarized plasma won't create as much Bremsstrahlung and the field will be easier to maintain. Electrons try to recombinate with fuel in designs with electron cores. A positive plasmas forces should even out even with a plasma structure. The zoom on the focus looks like isotropic plasma but 1000 times denser than a tokamak. Multiple capacitor layers increase the capacity but pull the field away from the interior so I decided on one layer. It should be as smooth as possible and at least 30cm dia. A window for a magnetron. Small intake and exhaust ports. Quartz tubes for preheat and electrical isolation. One meter dia. is large for this but would allow more distance for ions to slow and collide with the wall, (good), and reaccelerate towards the center. It doesn't use attraction like electrostatic acceleration normally does. That is limited.

[Richard Hodson]

Waterstarproject.com or follow the link for more information and to donate. I recommended purchasing and investing in your own long term Water Star research lab and team instead of funding others. A residential commercial comfortable earth and pet friendly design. Plus add a museum area and RV park and or whatever you want. A for profit could be used also, not sure. I was just thinking that much money invested for interest could end up invested in Blackrock stuff etc and be subject to bubble collapse funny stuff. I'm not sure where you want to locate. Also beware big shots etc buying board seats and taking over. They can even fire the CEO founder of a non profit. I hoping you get at least 3 million to get your own project going. My design is public and people can use it or not for free but if any design ignites DOE regulations immediately apply. I know of possible donation sources but your team should know about these already. I recommended contacting them when you have a lab lined up and fusor models you designed on paper ready to build and test and a non proprietary information sales pitch about what ignition really takes, focus. This project is still in the planning stage and a .org site may be used also, not sure. If you start research in a lab on a design public or not I will try and bolster your teams credibility and seek donations.

[Paul_Schatzkin]

.
I was pleased to see this thread getting a little bit of attention last week. I've been thinking about how to respond over the weekend. Now let me see if I can gather some coherent thoughts...

Richard Hobson left several messages over the past week that are both contstructive and confusing; I will attempt now to make sense of them while also offering some additional insight into what "The Waterstar Project / Foundation" is about.

I reread this a few times. The Water Star page is from 2019?

There are iterations of The Waterstar Manifesto that are even older than that.

The earliest iteration goes back to 2001, when Kent Farnsworth, his son-in-law Tim Moulton and I first uncrated the 1966 era (Hirsch) fusor that Kent had stashed in his garage. At that time we met with Gene Meeks, who talked us through some of the functioning principals. There are photos and audio recordings of those conversations. Both Kent and Gene are now deceased; It's been a minute since I've had any contact with Tim, but his son Jonathan Moulton is Board Member of the Waterstar Foundation.

It's funny that you found the 2019 edition of the Manifesto, because I actually updated it last week. Not a whole lot new, but some tweaking to the figures and layout.

FYI, there is a fair amount of (slightly) more recent info from the The Waterstar Summit in Los Angeles in January 2020, with photos of all the fusor artifcacts we found there along with that 1966 Hirsch Fusor.

It has an address of waterstar.com and I was off kilter about it being in limbo and it seemed longer than that.

FWIW, the Wordpress site I created for these ruminations is hosted at www.waterstarproject.com . When I created the 501c3 Foundation last summer I obtained domains for it, i.e. www.waterstarfoundation.org. Rather than creating yet another website, I am using 'redirects' to steer the new domains to pages on the existing site.

Your plan sounds solid but $100 million is still a high goal. A project could run on 1 million a year with a 25 million reserve invested I suppose if you have rich friends.

Which brings me to the major theme that's been running through my head since reading these posts last week.

Let me be frank: What I am calling "The Waterstar Project" is... for lack of a better term.... a pipe dream.

But it is a pipe dream that I have been puffing on for almost 50 years now, since I first learned of Philo Farnsworth's fusion work in the late summer of 1975.

Having said that, I then have to ask myself / others: is it really a pipe dream, or a fiber in the verly slowly-weaving fabric of human evolution?

I cannot help but think that there is a mystical dimension to all of this fusion talk.

I was tempted to say something along those lines when Richard Hull started his Who shows up here, stays here and leaves here thread – because I think there is something – at the very least mysterious if not mystical - about the allure of fusion.

On some very unscientific level fusion speaks to us from an uncertain future. I think there are reasons beyond any rational explanation why the promise remains simultaneously alluring and unattainable.

However long visitors choose to stay on this site, however much effort gets put into building things, we are all responding to an appeal from humanity's future. Like the civilians in Close Encounters of the Third Kind we were invited.

Invited.. by who, and to what?

To something that is nestled between two totally unscientific notions.

The first, again, is the passage cited above , which I have been quoting more frequently of late when speaking of Farnsworth:

I know that God exists. I know that I have never invented anything. I have been a medium by which these things were given to the culture as fast as the culture could earn them. I give all the credit to God.

And the second is the passage that Pem Farnsworth wrote by hand in the otherwise empty lab journal that we found in the archives a couple of years ago:
.

.
I get that on the one hand, these statements do not provide any rationale for what ultimately must be a scientific undertaking. On the other hand, the 'rational' approaches to the cosmic question ("How do you bottle a star?") have not produced much beyond considerble expense of public and private treasure over decades.

So you have to allow for this possibility: that we're not getting any closer to solving the riddle because... it's just more than this species – these Apes with Nukes – can absorb into their culture under their current political, economic, and cultural paradigms.

Translation: this kind of energy, this kind of power... is not for a species that will fight and kill over invisible borders or differing interpretations of an unknowable afterlife. Or let billions starve while single individuals amass billions.

And, yeah, I know that sounds moralistic, pendantic and delusional – but can anybody reading this offer up a better explanation why humans have not been able to solve the riddle? I mean, we've only been at it for what... like 80 years now? And what do we have to show besides... bupkus? Promises and bupkus.

And so The Waterstar Project becomes a very long term proposition in pursuit of a mystical objective. This is decidely NOT your run-of-the-mill Silcon Valley startup.

A project could run on 1 million a year with a 25 million reserve invested

Sure, we could create a footprint if we had a million/year to start with. That would be a 'feasibility study' phase – getting some sense of what would ultimately be neeed in terms of space, facilities, and personnel and how/where we should start on actual designs.

I came up with the $4M/year because that's the inflation-adjusted amount that Farnsworth (OK, actually at that point it was Hirsch) was trying to get out if ITT (via the AEC) back in 1966-68). At 4% draw per year, $1MM year calls for an endownment of $100MM.

I suppose if you have rich friends....

Well, that's the immediate impediment. With only one possible exception that I can think of (who has shown little interest in any of this material and earned his considerable fortune mostly in oil-and-gas investments) I don't really have any "rich" friends. My friends all tend to be pocket-poor creative types like Nashville songwriters.

If this initiative is going gain any traction, what it needs now is a "first follower" – somebody who has the means to make the first substantial contribution and has the 'rolodex' (boy, there's an antiquated term) of other deep-pockets who could benefit from the tax write off.

Because: This is NOT one of those Silicon Valley / venture-capital funded startups where the principals say "give us tens or hundreds of millions and we'll deliver useful power in 3, 5, 10 or pick a number of years.

No, this is something entirely different and requires an entirely different mindset.

This is an attempt to recreate what a long-ago dead man was thinking.

And moving forward from the 'pipe dream' phase is going to take a committment of funds from people who can accept that we'll only solve the puzzle when the the culture has "earned it."

Given where we are today on the current arc of history, that could take for-fucking-ever.

This requires the very non-profit-driven motive that "there is something we've missed here, and we need to go back and see if we can find it." That's very different form the current mindset, "give us $XX-million and we'll give you electricity in X-years."

It's entirely plausible that the Waterstar Project will not find the result it is looking for during the lifetime of anybody living today. So the funds need to be found among some unique clientele that is willing to commit them for no reason other than the tax break they'll get for contributing ot a non-profit.

No promises, no expectations, just pure exploration based on a couple of abstractions.

A tall order if there ever was one.

If it ever truly manifests, the Waterstar Project is a leap of profound faith.

So I'll end this post with the quotation that begins Chapter 20: That's All I Need To See of The Boy Who Invented Television

No real progress is made unless real leaps of faith are made —John Nye

What I need now is that "first follower" who will make just such a leap with me.

Thanks,

--PS

[Richard Hull]

Great informative post, Paul. Perhaps for the first time I understand your "pipe dream". It seems a philosophical quest of the human condition that keeps good things from happening. In this case, fusion.

Fusion, in the end, is a purely scientific quest. You seem to seek a study of the human condition related to the failure of this quest. Long term study of this philosophical probe seems circular in many respects. You don't usually put the study of such matters, no matter how well meaning, in the hands of the subjects themselves. This, despite man's often temporary ability of great introspection and insight. You are looking for an outcome that might also demand a lucky donkey of unusual insight and ability to convey to the masses. You do seem to realize your first lucky donkey will be a "no strings attached" source of funding

I fear there is yet too much of the animal and desire to survive at any cost against perceived enemies remaining deep within man, nations and clans.

Naturally, all the very best in this search for answers that have perplexed the best minds since we became "civilized tool makers". (Oh what tools we make and oh what tools we are.).

Richard Hull

[Paul_Schatzkin]

As I was writring my previous reply in this thread, some other questions came up that I saved for a separate post. I think some clarification is in order.

My 2 million request was mostly for salaries and a decent house for a location for the team to stay and be comfortable in bad weather or just live there. I was estimating $100,000 for parts and equipment which is high for what I need and I would be frugal and return unused funds.

Richard (Hodson): Did I miss something in your posts? What are you talking about here, did you obtain $2MM funding for a fusion project of your own? Your posts seem to cover a lot of knowledgeable ground but it's difficult to tell how it all adds up, or where you are on whatever you're doing.

I did find the thread you started back in June re: My gridless spherical fusor design may have been tried already? - is that the project you're speaking of?

I recommended purchasing and investing in your own long term Water Star research lab and team instead of funding others. A residential commercial comfortable earth and pet friendly design.

Yes, that's precisely what I have in mind: one facility with all the necessary resources. In a continuation of the 'open source' nature of fusor.net, the operation provides a mechanism whereby interested and knowledgeable parties can make proposals for experimentation. Some kind of governing committee would assess the proposals and determine which warrant further investigation. The challenge there would be to eschew the orthodoxy as in: "that's a pretty nuts idea.... let's try it!"

One thing that re-caught my eye earlier this year while I was reading the audiobook of The Boy Who Invented Television was how poorly and reluctantly ITT provided for Farnsworth's fusion initiative.

This, ultimately, is the Great Tragedy of the Farnsworth Story: I suspect he knew along that he had bigger things to offer than just (just?) electronic video. He tried as mightiliy as he could to create an environment that would foster his uniquely educated and unorthodox perspective on the quantum realm, where he didn't have to answer to anybody when his ideas challenged the mainstream.

But between the shortsightedness of his own backers in the 1930s and the juggernaut of David Sarnoff and RCA, by the time he turned his attention to "what's next," he was in a state of what I have come to think of as "corporate destitution" – dependent on the judgment of less-enlightened superiors to determine his future course.

So, when I re-read this passage from Chapter 20:

“In a conciliatory gesture, ITT relocated the fusion lab to new quarters at the rear of the first floor of the Pontiac Street plant. This was still not the kind of environment that Farnsworth felt he needed, but it was an improvement, providing an exhaust hood, residual gas analyzers, and a power supply capable of 100kv (kilovolts). The entire operation occupied one relatively small room. To shield the workers, the Fusor itself was eventually placed on a hydraulically operated elevator so that it could be lowered into a fourteen-foot hole that was dug through the floor of the basement. Farnsworth had wanted to operate his Fusor in an entirely separate location; ITT put it in a pit.”

... I am reminded that for Philo Farnsworth, the entire Fort Wayne fusion project was a "one hand tied behind his back" proposition.

And in my fanciful imaginings. I suspect that what happened the night of the 'nocturnal visit' to the lab and "I've seen all I need to see..." is that, yeah, he ran the fusor-in-the-pit well beyond its nominal parameters in order to see, just that once, what would happen if a fusor was run at something close to the potentials he imagined if he'd had facilities at his disposal more capacious than that stupid pit. And it's not surprising therefore that elements would have burned out, that the team would arrive the next morning and find the fusor "fried," because that was the one time it was ever run at anything close to its true potential.

But that is all mythology, not scientific evidence.

Plus add a museum area and RV park and or whatever you want.

If we could set up a remote facility like Farnsworth originaly ensvisioned, that would probably not be conducive to a "museum' experience.

However, also under the umbrella of The Waterstar Foundation, a separate initiative is afoot to observe the Centennial of Video in 2027. One grand possibility that has surfaced in those preliminary discussions is to make a musuem out of the building at 202 Green Street where Farnsworth delivered electronic video in 1927. If such a (yet another fanciful) dream can be achieved, then that facility would include an exhibit about Farnsworth's fusion work and reference wherever The Waterstar Project is being pursued.

As I write all this, I begin to imagine that there is a cultural initiative brewing over the next couple of years: to, first, raise the world's awareness of a guy named Farnsworth who did in fact enable all the screen technology in the world and, second, to infuse the culture with some sense of what else he had to offer that has been forestalled, and, ultimately, to make that mystery part of the cultural firmament of the 21st century.

Something else I've been saying lately: Electronic video emerged from the same well of cosmic knowledge that produce the atomic bomb. The world celebrates Oppenheimer - who gave us the means to blow it all up - but few have heard of Farnsworth, who gave us the means to pull humanity together. There was more where that came from.

I know, it sounds like I've been smoking the sinsemilla buds that Philo T. Farnsworth III (eldest son) taught me now to cultivate in the late 1970s but I assure you: it's been almost four decades since I have had a sniff, a sip, or a puff.

I have other questions about the things Richard Hodson has posted in this thread and elsewhere, but I think this will suffice for now.

Thanks,

--PS

[Dennis P Brown]

First off, I am unclear on the approch you really desire to try producing neutrons (fusion; or are you?) A fusor approch will never do that in a practical sense of the word. Farnsworth was 'barking up the wrong tree'.

Richard's post said everything in addressing the main issue with current approaches and why nearly all these current devices (except the stellarator) are doomed to fail (and likely in a very ugly fashion - ITER.)

As for why fusion can not create 'high energy' output (even just a Q=1) that is simple to understand - it is nearly impossible to do without using the only sure fired method - building conditions matching a real star. Yes, we apes have achieved that level of fusion via bombs. So fusion energy production via a small scale but high energy output generation system would, in fact, create the exact opposite result. Rather then destructive forces (which we have in abundance via MIRV'ed ICBM's) it would, if costs are not ridiculous (in reality, it would be), create a far safer and better world.

I too find Farnsworth development of the basic principle that created the cathode ray tube pivotal. That approch was absolutely critical in providing us the most important electronic device created in that century - the oscilloscope (and yes, the transistor was NOT that device despite some claims it is/was); the cathode ray tube was the singular device that dwarfs all other such devices during that time frame in our ability to move science forward. It did, in fact, create all the conditions that finally enabled the creation of transistors/integrated chips/LED's (even nuclear power!) to become the vast tech we depend on today.

As for poor Oppenheimer (in terms of being an idealist) he did oversee creating the atomic bomb (that saved far more lives then it took) but also the critical idea on how to really hold that heinously dangerous Genie (the hydrogen bomb) in its bottle. So, while the hydrogen bomb was, indirectly, created by him he did offer the powers that be a method to prevent that nuclear arms race from happening. Utterly closed minded people in power ignored him on that issue - whether that will turn out to be a good or bad thing, only time will tell.

[Richard Hull]

I am a Teller "feller" Teller was a forward thinker. In a later interview, he said quite rightly: "if we had not developed the hydrogen bomb, the Russians surely would have. It was just a matter of time. Such a bomb was an obvious next step."

Teller is often cast in a bad light due to his testimony at the security clearance hearing. He felt that he would feel much safer if the future of nuclear security were in the hands of someone he could understand better. Truman, a no nonsense man, after hearing Oppie complain that he had blood on his hands said: Don't ever let that man in my presence again! Truman felt he was just an intellectual sob-sister.

Oppie was a God-like figure to many in the Manhattan project. Teller's testimony was part of the denial to renew Oppie's Class Q clearance. From that point on, many of the old A-bomb scientific intellectual team ostracised Teller.

Farnsworth won his creds with Television. He never did useful fusion, that is for sure and for certain. Did he have a secret? Yes, but only on the TV show, I've Got a Secret. A fusion secret? For my part it is one of Pem Farnsworth's claims and nothing more. I have to go with what I was told by the four living Farnsworth fusion, ITT, team members that I personally interviewed in 1999 and 2001 in personal, private, face-to-face discussions and many prior and subsequent phone calls, 1998-2006. In other words, Farnsworth was far out of his depth in fusion matters.

Richard Hull

[Paul_Schatzkin]

Farnsworth was far out of his depth in fusion matters.

And yet, here we are... building devices based on his ideas (albeit simplified by Hirsch and Meeks).

Those colleagues from Pontiac Street... they probably told you exactly what he wanted them to tell you.

--PS

[Richard Hull]

The real bottom line: This world will never know his deep dark secret that Farnsworth took to his grave. He effectively kept useful, overunity, controlled fusion, from ever benefiting mankind who he, in his mind, considered heathens. He and he alone took it to his grave. What a great man..
pish-posh...

Richard Hull

[Dennis P Brown]

A quick point: As for what Oppenheimer was getting at about enabling a true test ban on hydrogen bomb development was certainly possible at the time. That is, without testing, one cannot build a viable hydrogen bomb - period. He knew that, Teller knew that, Truman would have been told that by all in the know that this was, in fact, true. At the time, simple existing seismographs could easily detect any test explosion by an atomic bomb. A hydrogen bomb is vastly more powerful and so vastly easier to detect, yet again (exactly how we still enforce the ban today.) So, a test ban treaty - if both sides had agreed - would have been 100% fool proof to certify and hence, would have been trivial to enforce. Keeping a few bomb prototypes ready for testing would be easy so if someone broke the agreement, a real bomb would be ready in no time. So the development of a bomb that can truly end the world need not have been developed if both sides had agreed to such a treaty (here Oppenheimer is being an idealist thinking the other side would agree to that condition; possible but unlikely.)

I try to imagine a world where there was no development of an oscilloscope - that device was so vital as to be incomprehensible to me that science and electronics could have really moved forward like it did without that device. The cathode ray tube was the essential component to enable that device at the time to be developed.

Aside and post edit: when I first saw Farnsworth's statue in San Francisco it was of him holding a cathode ray tube. I was puzzled at the time because from people here I knew he invented the first true television device so why was he holding a cathode ray tube? However, the people who erected that statue obviously realized that was the invention which was so vital to our society; and hence, represented both the core discovery and amazing insight by Farnsworth that paved the way for so much scientific and technological advancement.

I'm amazed by the fact that his idea of how to control/direct an electron beam (and even how to exploit that achievement for visualization) was so straightforward (in hindsight, only) yet so incredibly insightful yet only he (while in High School!) thought of it. The real mark of a true genius, and IMO the reason that inventor was a true giant in his time.

[Paul_Schatzkin]

.

Farnsworth was 'barking up the wrong tree'.

First – and possibly apropos of nothing pertinent to this thread – that is precisely how Farnsworth described the pre-historic mechanical attempts to produce video when describing his all-electronic concept to potential backers in the 1920s; The spinning wheels and mirrors developed by Baird, Jenkins and others were "barking up the wrong tree."

Second: if Farnsworth's approach to fusion was 'barking up the wrong tree,' then what are the proponents of the Tokamak, NIF, Z-Pinch, Stellarator etc. barking up?

And while I reluctantly defer to the general consensus that the fusor doesn't offer any promise beyond its neutron flux, I hope others can see that it least offers a more appealing approach in terms of practical engineering (i.e. how many neutrons has ITER produced for how many billions spent so far?)

Finally, Dennis, I am finding your comments about the indispensable nature of the Oscilloscope quite intriguing and will do some more digging on that topic.

I have learned in recent months that CRTs were used for video display with mechanical camera/transmitters [/i]prior[/i] to Farnsworth delivering the complete system in 1927, so the question for me becomes how instrumental was the higher-resolution electronic input (i.e. form the Image Dissector) to obtaining higher-resolution output in later iterations of the oscilloscope?

I'll let you know what I find out.

Thanks,

--PS

[Dennis P Brown]

Maybe Farnsworth was barking up the wrong tree but ITER is the dog running through an active mine field while blindfolded.

I'm glad that post of mine has sparked an interest in his contribution to that device. I never realized that aspect of his work until you gave me such insight to the man's accomplishments.

[Richard Hodson]

Gad zooks! I don't have notifications push thru I guess. I will try and read more of this very soon. I had plans for my own project for a years since my final design in January 2017. I should of just built it myself like Hull and Sanns and other instructors recommend. I understand this and am still trying to understand the people I am communicating with so as to not waste anyone's time.

I am very happy about your decision to start a lab. You could start research in a house with lower cost and recycled equipment etc. Still not sure where the board and you want to locate. NM is not too bad ways. Yes I noticed your different financing approach and like it. Gofund me said 19% of $100,000,000 and I'm thinking that is for $15,000 because it sounds too good to be true. As for rich friends I have many aquaintances and try not to bother people because I seem to be good at it. If you have 19 million you are very fortunate so far. This could gain much more interest, you already know universities slowly add to their huge endowments. I would request a short phone call appointment in no hurry after I write some topics and questions down. Your lab doesn't need to be fancy at all to start. You have everything you need. Hire a couple techs. Your board are engineers etc. You are all scientists in my opinion. If I call someone by there last name it means I think they are a scientist. You will get more equipment as needed just have enough space available. You just need to be actively engaged as an entity is a first testing something so I can advertise your quest. Hollywood would love this plus if environmental protestors gave $ you might get a billion+.

[Richard Hodson]

Test. It was a book about Farnsworth fusors I read in about 1995 at the public library while on lunch from yard cleaning and mowing day for my friends business, poor but happy because I was very tired of my drafting job after 6 years. I can't find it in a search and forgot the title and author. I had studied extra nuclear science and aerospace research etc in highschool at lunch time and the NE building was very boring when I took ME at UNM. The ME classes were not what I needed and too much math but I did try to understand the basics. I studied many fusion projects and all methods before returning to electrostatic confinement. Because of Farnsworth and that book.

He was probably depressed and hit a wall like Sesselmann and I did, plus no job because of funding will do that to a guy. I think I found the only possible configuration that can ignite and maintain ignition. It was conceived in January 2017 and a few days later I had finished it. It was a little confusing still once I had the solution I thought would finally work. I just used basic electronics and electrical physics, plasma physics, gas heating, metallurgy, former scientists research and poof! It had a few different configurations to start before I decided on the natural design that is best. I'm not that knowledgeable but a really good electromechanical designer up to a point or use to be.

My designs on paper all had center grid mods like your clubs many efforts and there are many different fusor patents besides the Farnsworths and Meeks Hirsch. Then I realized my gridless permanent magnet bionic cusp design was junk and tried one last electrostatic design. This was long after studying Sesselmanns many designs and patent but it's what I drew on but his work is messed up in ways don't study it just look at the pictures. His ground potential theory is useless complicated nonsense to me and unnecessary for fusion.

Farnsworth could of drawn my design on paper in a few months more or less if funding had been there. If he had not hit a darn mental wall and drawn my design ITT would of sang a different song fast. This tech can power Chinas navy but is not so bad as for humans to have to wait for some more evolution and should of been discovered in the 60s forget 50s?. Instead fission took over. Farnsworth could of built my design before fission reactors were built.

[Richard Hodson]

My design is low cost to build. Some long term fancy future lab is not needed but that is also needed, if successful ignition or not. If so negotiate some contract work for the government etc. Funding and awards will come if success but I wouldn't try to charge people to use this like royalties or fees but DOE will and will love you and charge them. If not so what, you tried.

I will vouch for you and address peoples negative controlled fusion science conclusions. Patenting my design is still possible if your team wants to share credit. Junk or not it would be good for future scientists to see but I recommended a shorter clearly worded patent easier to understand. I would tell patent officials you know every fusion patented design so far has failed but are still useful as a record of research, but that this could actually ignite and you want it not to be stopped as being disruptive or dangerous because it is already public, and it's almost impossible to control other countries use of this anyway.

Even current big projects could change designs or just have a yard sale instead of a successful project limiting others from using a breakthrough. That would be much more disruptive to projects, jobs, investment capital, etc. Build my design and I would ask someone to call you if need be for encouragement. They may want to visit and say something like, test this quickly but safety please, we can offer help. This should not be needed. They may call you on their own offering encouragement and haste. This can't be hidden from China anyway if it works. If it takes forever like you say just make it into a school.

You are right about needing a secure location ranch type property. They are lower cost here in NM. The State business department would probably help.

I don't like the San Francisco buildings design or city location or street setting. My friend from there says San Francisco property is very expensive. This is probably why it is not being sold if it's setting empty falling apart. I know negotiating techniques but this may be a waste of money. You could possibly get donations just for museum if there is enough parking which I doubt there is. Would enough people go see an old guys junk in junky town? Would the windows last another mostly peaceful demonstration?

The lab needs an RV park and cots inside too. Definitely don't want public wandering in or on the property but make it a nice private club. My device would need some shielding and distance to the controls and PS etc. Neutron detection would be useful for startups and of coarse if ignition. A thermal imaging camera would show ignition because the unit will cool down if not ignited after the starting heater is turned off so the field can work better.

[Paul_Schatzkin]

I am very happy about your decision to start a lab. You could start research in a house with lower cost and recycled equipment etc. Still not sure where the board and you want to locate. NM is not too bad ways.

I'm intrigued that the scheme sounds so formidable that somebody has decided to "start a lab." It does seem an obvious direction, but there is a lot of ground to cover before it actually gets to that point.

Yes I noticed your different financing approach and like it.

Every new fusion start up I read about... I just find so laughable. In order to entice profit-motivated venture capital, they have to make a case that "we're going to put wattage into the grid in X years..." So many emperors, so many new suits.

Gofund me said 19% of $100,000,000 and I'm thinking that is for $15,000 because it sounds too good to be true... If you have 19 million you are very fortunate so far.

Uh... where are you seeing that? $19 million? Not even $19,000. Hell, I just threw in $100 just to get past zero. That takes care of the $100 part, now all I need is the 000,000.00 part.
.

.

This could gain much more interest, you already know universities slowly add to their huge endowments.

Exactly. If I can get this thing out of the gate... there's no telling how far around the track it could go. Or how many laps it will take.

Here's the link if anybody else likes the approach enough to move the needle (however negligibly).

I would request a short phone call appointment in no hurry after I write some topics and questions down.

Maybe the week btw X and NY? DM me your phone # and let's at least make contact via text msg.

Your lab doesn't need to be fancy at all to start. You have everything you need. Hire a couple techs. Your board are engineers etc. You are all scientists in my opinion. If I call someone by there last name it means I think they are a scientist. You will get more equipment as needed just have enough space available. You just need to be actively engaged as an entity is a first testing something so I can advertise your quest. Hollywood would love this plus if environmental protestors gave $ you might get a billion+.

I really appreciate your open mindedness about this, especially in the wake of Richard Hull's calcified cynicism above. I am preparing a response to Richard's "pish posh" that I will carefully consider and compose before posting. The first takes sound like a celebrity roast (absent the celebrity).

I think what you recognize is that a body of knowledge and expertise has been formed here. That was the intent from the earliest formation of this site / forum almost 25 years ago.

So, skeptics among you, forgive me if I think there is more to do with that knowledge and experience.

As I keep inferring (if not outright saying): what you know is what you know; progress come only from what you don't know.

Thanks,

--PS

[Richard Hodson]

Yikes. I thought you had 19 million lol not funny I feel sick. I'll talk to Robert Downey on his fb page, he likes me. I know he will be interested and get a few dollars from friends but it could take time. Don't waste time with VC sharks but some donate to charities too. Chris Sachas (sp?) fund is lower carbon capital and he would be interested in this. They probably would be satisfied with a home build attempt of my design. I told Robert long ago it was not a sure thing but the best possible design so far but could not take funds because I had no physical project, which is not necessary, but also no business, which is a requirement for many donors. Mckenzie? Scott, JB himself? You lean liberal so keep that in mind when seeking help. Republicans often just think oil and gas will last forever.

[Rich Gorski]

Actually Farnsworth is not best known for the cathode ray tube and its use for scanning an electron beam across a phosphor screen.

This technology was around long before Farnsworth as far back as the Crooks tube in the mid 1800s. The credit for development of the display CRT probably belongs to Karl Ferdinand Braun for his development of the CRT in 1897 which was able to display rudimentary geometric shapes.

Farnsworth's contribution to the video screen and visual communication was his invention of the “Image Dissector” or known as the first all-electronic camera tube that could convert an optical image into an electronic signal with no moving parts. Farnsworth then combined the idea of the image dissector with the cathode ray tube to develop the first electronic television system in 1927. One could argue whether it was Farnsworth or Zworykin (RCA) that demonstrated the first all-electronic TV system. One must also realize that no TV system would have been possible without the invention of the vacuum tube (diode and then triode) 20 years earlier by De Forest. So where is his credit? Every advancement stands on the shoulders of those who came before.

Anyway, in talking about the developmental history of the cathode ray tube its fascinating to realize the level of complexity that the color electron gun actually achieved in the last years of production (and by millions of units per year at a cost of 1 buck per gun). The last electron guns designed in the industry (circa 1980) were for color computer monitors and were quite complex in terms of their electron optical design.
They achieved an electron spot size small enough to allow 1000 line scan resolution in a 20” CRT bulb and with three electrons beams (R, G, B) all within a gun structure that fit inside the glass neck only 25mm inner diameter.

These electron guns no longer were simple cylindrical symmetrical optical systems where each of the three e-beams had its own independent electron optics column. Instead the three beams were pushed together in a combined structure that still provided individual focus ability using a complex three dimensional series of open area electrode shapes. These were not designed by a seat of the pants approach as the earlier cylindrical Egun electrodes for monochrome CRTs. Companies such as RCA, Zenith and Sony had to develop their own in house three dimensional electron optics software for electron gun design.

The results of this work was the introduction of complexities such as “inline” electron gun structure, common lens design and dynamic focus signals. Dynamic focus signal of several hundred volts were applied to the focus grid to correct for the beam spot distortion due to the changing image distance from the center of the screen to the edge.

On top of that when electron guns were developed for computer display the spot size produced had to be even more improved to allow for 1000 line displays. This required the adoption of quadrupole lenses (one for each beam) that compensated for the beam distortion and defocusing produced by the magnetic deflection fields. Without those dynamic correction lenses and correction signals applied, the electron beam spot size could not reach the small size required for alpha-numeric display especially at the edges of the CRT screen.

The quadrupole lenses were a set of plates with crossed rectangular apertures for the beams to pass through. When a potential difference was applied between plates a quadrupole field was formed that was timed with the deflection signal. All very complex.

One may now ask why was there so much beam focus distortion created by the magnetic deflections fields? The reason is that the magnetic yoke did not produce a simple dipole deflection field. A simple dipole field could not keep the three beams (R,G,B) in convergence at every point on the screen due to the increasing distance as the beams are deflected from center to edge and the fact that the three beams are electrostatically angled in toward each other so they coalesce into one electron spot at the screen center.

Remember the set of convergence magnets attached to the neck of the color CRT? These are composed of three sets of two rings. A dipole set, a quadrupole set and a hexapole set. By adjusting the three ring sets one could deflect the three beams into perfect convergence at the screen center. So the convergence issue at screen center was taken care of by the centering/convergence rings but that didn’t keep the beams in convergence when deflected off center.

Three beam convergence off center was done by including higher order magnetic fields in the yoke. These were 6 pole fields and 10 pole fields.
An unwanted consequence of the higher order fields was a quadrupole defocusing action on the electrons beams that had to be compensated for.

Thus the inclusion of electrostatic quadrupole fields in the electron gun that is aligned in opposition to the quad fields produced by the deflection yoke. So, not only was the electron gun a complex structure of weird three dimensional shapes but the magnetic deflection yoke was also a weird combination of winding distributions that created these second order hexapole and ten pole fields. All requiring 3D computer simulations to design.

Sorry for my spouting off about the design of these CRT items but I was heavily involved in all of this during my time at Zenith Electronics Corporation. One might say there was some magic here that through the work of Farnsworth (Zworykin and De Forest) brought the world a little closer together with greatly improved video communication continuing into the digital world.

- - -

Now, back to the Excalibur Project, we all know that a typical Farnsworth-Hirsch or the Hirsch-Meeks fusor will never be capable achieving Q anywhere near 1.

So if the purpose of the Excalibur fund is to ultimately bottle a star with net power out the type of reactor will have to be something quite different. In terms of the triple product criteria, the gas density and the confinement time in a typical fusor is way too low to have any hope of reaching a Q > 1.

The triple product criteria is a figure of merit given to a fusion plasma and states that the product of confinement time, plasma temperature and particle density must be greater than the value of 3^21 keV s/m^3 in order for the fusion energy output to be greater than the energy input needed to create those conditions.

The main difference in various fusion reactor types is in the density and the confinement time.

For example on one end of the scale we have the tokamak magnetic confinement type. This attempts to satisfy the triple product by having a low density plasma that is compensated by a very long confinement time.

At the other end of the scale is the reactor such as NIF laser/Hohlraum type which tries to satisfy the triple product by very high density that lasts only for a very short confinement time. In this case the confinement time is simply based on the fuels own inertia. Once the energy is put in the fuel simply can’t get out of the way due to its own inertia.

None of these concepts seem to be practical for a power plant even if they can reach Q = 1 and to really be practical they need to reach Q of 10 or more. So where should the Excalibur fund place its money assuming it can find money? It seems not many groups (if any) are working in the middle of these two triple product extremes. Maybe concepts of that kind would be a good place to throw funding. To state it simply a reactor designed for medium particle density with medium confinement time. Anyone have an idea how to achieve that?

Rich G.

[admin note Dec 20, 2024: Rich, large blocks of text like you originally posted here tend not to read easily on screens, so I have taken the liberty of inserting some paragraph breaks in your text. I hope that makes the post easier to read. Actual comments to follow.]

[Richard Hodson]

That is the post from June 27, 2024, disclosing my unique variation of existing fusor designs that I designed in January of 2017 and kept secret until then. I have the original drawings but the notebook isn't very good. It is a spiral one with pages from other inventions torn out to be burned and the drawings are not so good.

There are not many fusor variations left untried. I had drawings with a glass layer inside for electrical insulation of the ions from the wall but that is not needed. I will try and build some tests for focusing and heating and did things fast and accurate when younger but my hands hurt now and I only have a year or two to work on this left before I'm too messed up.

After 13 years of study and design attempts I quit and just tried to get a fusion project going but also did not want to give it away to people who discriminate against hiring me and made good money while I suffered laboring in the hot sun. I don't want to debate physics or design anymore reactors, just build and test this one. First some other gases for focus tests because it could be difficult to see any plasma structure.

You can build my design or not. If not you will have to use your plan to study Farnsworths old designs and devices. Discuss and draw designs with your team. Test Farnsworths old designs and or design your own designs. That is probably a very very long term plan. Like say bye bye Nobel prize plan. But you do you. I have no desire to work on his old designs or any current fusion project. I could build my design next to yours with one tech and discuss heater engineering etc with the team if needed. About 6 months to know if it's junk or not and probably much sooner. About a year to ignition if it's not junk and two years max. If their is money for two teams. It's really one team and me. I wrote Chris Sachas a month ago about my fusor design needing testing. I suggested he put a team together and finance it using the numbers I gave you. If you decide not to build my design just sell him your long term snooze plan. It's still better than any other project. Also you said to evaluate pitches so that's good. Not crazy ideas though, good scientificly thought out designs.

Tell him Richard Hodson wants a fusion project for his possibly ignited unique variation of fusor design called a Hodson fusor and Hot Sun fusor only if it ignites. He wants to work for your company for a short while on this and would volunteer his time but needs accomodations and only has a year or two good years left. He could also help online instead if too far too move. You can sell shares? Give him a board seat? Avalanche could test this faster than Horne and has the funds. They ignored me and only want resumes even if no degree. This is called a spherical electrostaticly focused deuterium plasma fusion device. It is a type of lamp but metal and specialized for deuterium fusion. It shines x-rays etc. The neutron count would be very high IF ignition is successful and water tank cooling and shielding is ideal. This water could possibly form more D2 fuel. Tell him this needs no cryogenics, huge or powerful magnets, massive capacitors, lithium blankets, spinning molten lead chambers with compression pistons perfectly timed, etc. Tell him this is the best way forward!

[Paul_Schatzkin]

.
I'll have more to add to this thread over the weekend, but for now

I'll talk to Robert Downey on his fb page, he likes me. I know he will be interested and get a few dollars from friends but it could take time.

Downey would certainly be an interesting guy to talk to.

You might post a link to this on his FB page.

When I saw this scene in Oppenheimer my immediate thought was "no, the culmination of 300 years of physics is not a weapon of mass destruction. It's controlled fusion."

But, you know. Humans. We like to blow shit up.

--PS

[Richard Hodson]

I sent an explanation of my project and situation to lower carbon capital a month ago and nothing back yet. I let them know I only needed a few people and they could handle finances.

I sent another message today reminding them and presenting your site and intentions. I am not going to hold my breath for anything and often have to do things myself. I said that your long term research plan using Farnsworths old notes and devices is very good even if you ignore my design etc. Plus to preserve this history and items.

You will possibly have to use the first capital for a real location and project at low budget before they commit more funds. That's what I would do if a wealthy donor. You can increase invested savings as you go. It's still a better long term business model. I don't know your boards positions and what happens if something happens to you etc. Small donations can really add up too. I still think a million a year can keep a project going with enough reserve for a year or two.

I also notified the Chan Zuckerberg foundation about your site and intentions. Like any site with contact info it will take time to sort thru the flood of mail but I think they would find this interesting.

I would invest in a decent property for a good deal if you don't already own a large home or need a better research center type thing with enough for salaries and utilities etc.

Robert Downey and his company FootPrint Coalition do not have a contact for good reason like many these days. They get word and research possible investment contacts. You have to write to their company in California. I don't ask for money just present the information I think they might like and let them decide.

I researched endowments and like the quasi flexible model and think it will take a long time for the fund to get large. I liked that it can be set up so people can donate to a project and not the permanent funds. I'm waiting to donate and will probably get more equipment and parts anyway. My card is vulnerable and I don't like using it and would only donate to a build I like. You are running this site and new non profit fund together for now but I understand you need funds to operate this site and hoping your usual fund raising is not as bad. I will try to donate plus I will notify extinction rebellion and Greta Thunberg and list your site and say very little about it. Just please consider this. Small amounts are very welcome too.