found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

This area is for discussions involving any fusion related radiation metrology issues. Neutrons are the key signature of fusion, but other radiations are of interest to the amateur fusioneer as well.

found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

Postby JamesBroussard » Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:41 pm

is this true?'

While others have chronicled the life and times of P.T. Farnsworth, my interest lies in his inventions and patents. More specifically, how the design of those separate devices led up to the final development of the Fusor - the only fusion reactor ever designed and operated at better than break-even efficiency! Farnsworth's Fusor produced neutron counts measured in the billions-per-second. . No other fusion device built, even 30 years later can match this performance. It is unfortunate that Farnsworth died before perfecting the device into a commercial product, but that does not detract from his accomplishment in the least. That one man could conceive of and design a working fusion reactor is a phenomenal personal achievement. It would be nice if someone would build another working device.

"Fusor produced neutron counts measured in the billions-per-second."
JamesBroussard
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:06 pm
Real name:

Re: found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

Postby Jon Rosenstiel » Sat Sep 29, 2007 6:44 pm

No.
Jon Rosenstiel
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:30 am
Location: Southern California
Real name: Jon Rosenstiel

Re: found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

Postby JamesBroussard » Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:17 pm

okay thats what i thought lol...
JamesBroussard
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:06 pm
Real name:

Re: found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

Postby Richard Hull » Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:22 pm

The apocryphal tales of Farnsworth's machines are many and varied.

There was no really significant neutron numbers in any of Farnsworth's fusors until they went over to using D-T in the 63-64 time frame. Not one person there could remember even the specific year they started using D-T, but they felt it was about the time Hirsch arrived on the scene. The team, itself never held a tritium license! Another lab and reseracher did have tritium in the same building and they used his site license.

The two camps/cliques within the pontiac street effort vied for neutron numbers, Farnsworth's ideas never produced decent numbers until he left the positive grid system and went over to ion guns. Ultimately, it would be Hirsch who came up with the highest figure of over a billion n/sec in the cave fusor using D-T near the end of the program in 1968.

Thus, Farnsworth, in his machines, never hit those numbers.

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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10318
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

Postby JamesBroussard » Tue Oct 02, 2007 5:28 pm

ahh thx richard, well my main interest was on the number recorded, 1x10-9
if true its the highest number of n/sec iv seen so far from iec devices, is this the highest recorded?
JamesBroussard
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:06 pm
Real name:

Re: found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

Postby Richard Hull » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:24 pm

To my knowledge, yes.

I am sure Jon or Carl could equal that in their machines if they could use 50:50 D-T. That is where the numbers are in the Farnsworth effort, NOT in the fact they had such good devices!

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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10318
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

Postby MarkS » Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:30 pm

It'd be incredible to see the record broken by an amateur.
MarkS
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:07 am
Real name:

Re: found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

Postby Richard Hull » Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:32 pm

Certainly, long, ago both the U of I and U of W fusor teams could have beat that record in their devices, but colleges no longer want to hazard using tritium in any, on campus, system. The new rule is NO RAD stuff on campus.

There was a time when colleges vied for their own reactors and made their own isotopes on site with small piles or swimming pool reactors. Nuclear engineering and nuclear physics departments and their respective curriculums blossomed. Almost all have withered on the vine since the 70's.

With litigious lawyers driving slighted students and frightened families, coupled with a modern day view of "everything is bad for you", no college is willing to introduce any suspect program or percieved hazard into their school. They realize that any student looking for a free ride or parents needing money will have a cadre of lawyers at the ready.

Many of those schools with nuclear programs in place since they first begged for them in the 50's, have, during the 80's, totally dropped the courses or so emasculated them that all work is now done on computers rather than in the radioisotope labs or reactor building on campus. The old labs are now normal class rooms and the reactor building is now an extra gymnasium.

Thus, Tritium is just not in the cards, even for high end acedemia in forward looking, physics research efforts. The rule is, "If you think you need tritium for your research, find something else to research."

Professors are not happy with the stuff either for they are would be the last guy in the finger pointing contest if something goes wrong and all of us have seen the modern day "cover you ass" mentality in acedemia.

I am the proud owner of an "in-house" created and printed nuclear program handbook for students at U of Pennsylvania in the late 60's. This was a lab type work book of about 100 pages.

The professor who wrote the manual glibbly notes that... "When the emergency nuclear alarm klaxon sounds in the reactor building, all students must immediately go outside to the designated nuclear emergency area and wait for the all clear siren."......" The alarm klaxon is loud, unmistakable and most offensive in nature. The "all clear" siren is a standard police siren."....."Do not just ask others if there is a real emergency or if this is a false alarm or test; all such alarms are always either tests or false alarms. Simply stop what you are doing and evacuate immediately"......"Our nuclear site licenses and AEC agreements for continued reactor use depend on all people immediately obeying the klaxon....just obey, get out, and wait"

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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10318
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

Postby JamesBroussard » Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:41 am

haha, "If you think you need tritium for your research, find something else to research.", to bad they would stifle the creativity of scholars wanting to use rad substances for research even because of the inherent danger... anyways, recently i had the privilege of talking to a nuclear reactor safety adviser on radiation (at least thats what he did if not the name of the job), and he let me in on a few good tips, protection from these high velocity particles, and seeing how water is the best protector (cheapest at least) thats what ill be using...

but i have a question is there an equations i can use to calculate amount/thickness of water i need for how many volts(or energy of the D-D reaction put into the neutron?)

also i know its hard to produce but what are the prospects of antimatter fusion if it was easier to obtain/produce (assuming this hasn't been brought up in the forums before, if so sry to bring it up again lol)
JamesBroussard
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:06 pm
Real name:

Re: found this interesting info in the P.T Farnsworth patent section

Postby Hector » Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:48 pm

Another reason why UI and others don’t care to use D-T is that by knowing what the reaction rate of the D-D reactions are for there devices, they can quickly calculate what the reaction rate would be if they use D-T, thus forgoing the hazards of Tritium.

On another note, the problem I’ve always had with the Hirsch approach is that while it achieves a higher neutron count on the front end it does so by sacrificing reaction efficiency and thus the potential to achieve breakeven or above in the long term.

In my opinion Bussard and Farnsworth had it right, if you confine the electrons to the point of creating a deep potential well with them, the ions will fallow and you would have eliminated the primary loss mechanism of the electron confinement IEC devices, which are simply electron losses to the grounded outer spherical grid or wall member.

The Hirsch approach suffers from both electron losses and ion losses to both the positive and negative grid members, so its long term potential as an efficient breakeven device does not seem promising.

At the end this is only my opinion and nothing more.
Hector
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 1:15 pm
Real name:

Next

Return to Neutrons, Radiation, and Detection (& FAQs)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest