FAQ- The herald of real fusion - good measurement

If you have a question about this topic, the answer is probably in here!
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10782
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

FAQ- The herald of real fusion - good measurement

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:50 pm

In an effort to keep interesting postings in the proper forum, I am reposting this piece I wrote in the Theory forum as a reply. It touches on the very essence of this particular forum, specifically, and the need for verification of fusion in general, by all who would claim to have achieved it.

So that it may be found readily in future by search, I have turned it into a FAQ. Feel free to comment or expand upon this with replies. RH

****************************************
Question authority.
Question results, especially amazing results and claims outside the common experience.
Never just read and accept. Instead, one should weigh and consider.

Many here are very leary of anyone claiming to have investigated any form of fusion with claims of positive results, especially stunningly amazing results or results far outside of the common experience of practicing fusioneers. Such a claimant is expected to have considerable edvidence regarding the insturmentalities used in procurring their results.

The proof is not only in the "measured pudding", but mostly in others here having confidence in the measurement verbage put forth. A good investigator will constantly question his own data and measurement technique. Only when confident and ready to defend his measurements will he be ready to announce and prove to others his findings are valid.

Any process that involves neutrons and claims of fusion or neutrons, also demands visible measurement devices and a confidence on the part of the audience that such devices are at hand and that the user is competent to use them.

All of this radiation instrument discussion is so very important against self-deception that the Radiation/measurement forum found here, rightfully, dwarfs all other forums related to even the very fusion we are trying to do! Fusion, itself, often suckles on hind tit to discussions and displays of instrumentalities heralding it to the investigator.

If fusion is claimed or suspected, it will never be believed by anyone here without some elaboration related to the claimant's instrumentation and methodology. Images of specific instrumentation is demanded as simple proof it exists in the hands of the experimenter claiming fusion results.

This need for confidence in fusion discussions is recently evidenced by the lemming like rush to the BTI bubble detector as a final arbiter where, before, an electronic neutron specific counter was the norm.

Electronics can be fooled by noise, misapplication or misinterpretation. It is real hard to have this happen with a bubble detector. No bubbles....no fast fusion neutrons.....then no fusion, regardless of all the hopes and dreams or mounded up hardware or years of experience.

This bodes well for all but the deluded, for at one sweep, all pretenders and hopefuls are swept from the field leaving only true fusioneers standing by their constructions, be they humble kludged up artifices, bolted to an old serving cart in a musty basement or reactors of great beauty in a structured, well financed lab enviroment.

For most here, bubbles talk and BS walks. Bubbles backed by an electronic count from a specialized neutron specific counter is considered, here, to come from a fusioneer who holds his pants up with both suspenders and a belt.

For those believing they are really doing a lot of fusion, they can totally dispense with any form of expensive neutron detection. Just grab a piece of silver foil and a cheap GM counter. Neutron activation is the ultimate qualitative test for fusion and a lot of it. In general, 100,000 n/sec are needed for a credable differential measurement out of the noise, while 500,000n/sec will be so obvious a child could prove his fusion effort is successful. In the right hands and using a bit of math, activation can also be quantitative.

No person here, who has done fusion or who has truly worked a single plasma, believes for one moment that there has ever been a proven plasma fusion device that has ever self-sustained, self-powered or has given as much as one microwatt of excess energy output. Most see plasma fusion as light years from the mark of power ready fusion. A few, such as myself don't see it really happening at all, but are willing to be amazed, though not excited.

Still, we all either do fusion or investigate and study plasma environments. Only a few here really believe our efforts will be significant on the world fusion stage. Many feel we can make contributions, however.

In the final count, we are all as serious as a heart attack about "doing fusion", proving that we have done it to the satisfaction and edification of our peers and, after that, improving on our last effort.....Not so much as a path to useful world wide power, but more in the spirit of one well executed step at a time.

With great re-assurance, we realize it is our treasure that funds our efforts and that we deceive neither ourselves or others nor encumber their or community treasure in the work. As such, our efforts are pure and unsullied even if in vain as relates to some seemingly un-attainable goal.

This is why there is so much of value here in most every posting.

I am honored to be sent to herd with such spirits.....both the dreamers, theorizers and doers, for all have their feet well planted on the pyramidal foundation of science as their minds and hands constantly work towards a goal that most all of us can applaud.

Believable, repeatable, verifiable measurement is the key in our fusion effort and the lens by which results are studied and gauged.

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.

AFW
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:51 pm
Real name:

Re: FAQ- The herald of real fusion - good measurement

Post by AFW » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:48 pm

Richard
I'm a very new newbie, who came across your early work, and am still finding my way around this site
Where can I find basic info on bubble detectors? Are they home - constructable? What bubbles? is it a liquid sealed under "vac", i.e in sat. vapour?? If one took a tube of liquid and hot it with ultrasound, just short of the intensity to cause cavitation, would incoming neutrons (or other particles) cause bubbles to form and promptly collapse, with audible results? and how does one calibrate detectors?
Sorry to put a lot of probably elementary questions, but I suspect that some other participants would also be interested

Regards

Tony Webb

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10782
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FAQ- The herald of real fusion - good measurement

Post by Richard Hull » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:34 pm

We have a separate FAQ on bubble detectors. They are not generally able to be made at home.

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.

Post Reply