New design for fusion reactor.

[William_Estlick]

This thread relocated to this forum by Administrator 5/24/15. Frank Sanns



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl_4Nc4-IX4

Let me know what you think.

Thanks

[Bob Reite]

I built and tested a similar design and actually got measurable neutrons with it. A description and some photos are archived at viewtopic.php?f=18&t=9952&p=67720#p67720 However I did not use a positive pointed electrode, I just connected the positive power supply output to the stainless steel vacuum chamber. The other differences is that I have a supply capable of up to 40 KV, you will be hard pressed to detect any neutrons operating at 15KV no matter what the electrode geometry. Most people here find that they need at least 25 KV to be able to detect neutrons and prove fusion. You will also need a turbo or diff pump if you intended to actually do fusion. While a Really Good mechanical pump can get down to the 10 micron range you need to get down to 0.1 micron before introducing the deuterium gas, so that you will have at least 99% pure deuterium in the chamber.

Please take the time to read the FAQs for each section of the forum. They will answer a lot of questions and you will avoid "reinventing the wheel".

[William_Estlick]

I see, but did you insulate the (-) electrodes to restrict the electric field as this would concentrate the plasma.
Thanks

[Bob Reite]

I left about 1 inch bare, but since the electrodes were pointed, it tended to concentrate the plasma between them as seen in the picture.

[Richard Hull]

I can't imagine any significant fusion being done with two pointed electrodes, compared to a properly assembled and operated fusor.

Finally this is a forum for reported data or serious system discussion and if this work is reported at all, it might be better placed in the Construction forum....Or better still, the new user forum. I can't see any advanced work done here by the original poster. A significant technical discussion would have in depth technical details, as well.

As this posting is progressing, I will purge the duplicate material in the Construction forum. In future, first posters here should respect this forum and use it for real detailed research efforts and hopefully detailed data related to any runs. This was to be a very sacred forum for real detailed, in depth scientific efforts and not a "hey guys check this out...Whatta ya' think about this?". Read the premier post in this forum put up by Frank Sanns, its originator. We are trying to put the best of the best in this forum.


I re-read your original report, Bob. You gave a good account of your numbers. It seems this was a most interesting effort on your part. I bet the X-rays would be fearsome! Did you make any x-ray readings? As noted throughout, you and Jon have been the ones to "play" with other central electrode designs.

The key, I feel, was that you and Jon did use the wall as the positive electrode and this might have accounted for those numbers. It was a fusor with a non-fancy central electrode. I figure much the same recirculation might have occured, but the electrode heating would be fearsome. Did you sense any tendency for electron emissive runaway where the current suddenly jumped off scale due to tip heating (emission)?

In hind site, Bob, did you find that the numbers were better with the standard grided fusor configuration at similar operational regimes?

Richard Hull

[Frank Sanns]

I have also done much work with alternate grid configurations and also the dual plasma electrode setup too. There are many configurations and voltage/pressure settings that can work. Having a voltage differential between two negative electrodes can supply self ionization energy at very low pressures. This is an advantage to keep the electrodes cool. Also large diameter electrodes will work and the plasma can be further confined from the insulator with small magnets. Somewhere I have a patent on this but the number escapes me.

Frank Sanns

[Frank Sanns]

Here is the US Patent #7550741. It can be found at http://patents.justia.com/inventor/frank-sanns-jr

[Bob Reite]

Here is a comparison between my two pointed electrode experiments (2 p) and the reinstalled conventional grid (g) measured with my REM ball:

Code: Select all

Setup       E      I    Flow rate      pressure         mRem/H       det distance   calculated neutron emission
2 p        40KV   5ma     5 sccm      20.0 microns        5.0          26.67 cm            3.48 x 10^5 n/s
g          40KV   5ma     5 sccm      13.7 microns        3.0          26.20 cm            2.01 x 10^5 n/s     

This was for the best run for each configuration. It would appear that the dual electrodes actually work better, my theory is that the ions are not being "wasted" heating the grid, but that they actually heat the plasma line between the electrodes which is what we want.

The outstanding question is why my most recent standard grid runs were relatively poor.
Last year I was able to get 5 x 10^5 n/s at 40KV without too much effort once the leaks were fixed and the system "broken in".
One possibility is that the 2014 measurements were done with a bubble detector, which has now expired. The REM ball system was calibrated using the
average calibration correction factor shown in the SRM-200 manual, so it could be way off. The other possibility is another problem with the gas system affecting gas purity, even though I regenerated the silica gel for the dryer.

My next steps are:
1. Send the REM ball system to Ludlum measurements, Inc. for NIST traceable calibration. This will be less expensive than buying another bubble detector.
2. Run the grid system again. If I cannot get at least 500,000 n/s isotropic with the freshly calibrated REM ball, then find and fix the issue. Once that is done...
3. Reconfigure back to the dual pointed electrodes and take a set of readings on that system.

P.S. To answer one of Richards questions, no I did not take X-ray readings, other than to note no deflection on the 200 millirem dosimeter that I have in my shirt pocket while operating the system. I have lead shielding around the chamber when it is powered up.

[William_Estlick]

Thank you Frank for sharing that. I did not see the drawings but from your description, there seems to be differences.
The plasma in the central region does not act as an electrode as the plasma is positively charged. The electrodes in the center are negatively charged thereby attracting the ions.

At a distance, the two cathodes (-) in the center look like a single point charge to an ion (+). As the ion accelerates toward cathodes, there path tends to (split the difference) and pass between them. They then tend to begin orbiting around the center electrodes.

The advantage of this configuration is that as we know, is that plasma does not like to be squeezed. This configuration allows the plasma to form freely being pulled toward a common center.
There seems to be no limit in scale-ability.

William

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”

[Frank Sanns]

Both center electrodes ARE at a high negative potential. The differential between them can be zero to something higher for ionization purposes. In many ways that is what you are doing with your third wire coming in from the side of positive potential.

[William_Estlick]

The third wire (anode) is assists in directing the ions on a path between the cathodes. Once the ions enter an orbit, it probably serves little purpose but to maintain potential after that. I have found that the anode needs to be far enough away for a plasmoid to form.

[William_Estlick]

The anode on the side helps direct the ions path toward the cathodes. As they orbit the central region, collisions ionize particles and impart energy. I do find the highest temperatures and concentrations of plasma to be at the center, but I believe that is due to higher energies and tighter orbits.

[William_Estlick]

The third wire maintains potential, but the point of zero potential in the middle (cusp) would not contain high energy ions. It is the high negative potential pulling positively charged ions toward the central region that accelerates and holds high energy ions. I have observed pink vortexes between the two cathodes but it does not show up in the video.

[Frank Sanns]

Are you changing the chamber pressure during the run? What causes the arc from the side to nearly extinguish? What pressure and gas are in your chamber? Do you have any means to measure x rays and neutrons?

[Richard Hull]

Frank just asked for data instead of speculation. It would be nice for those who want to follow this thread. Sort of what I asked for at first. Bob gave a great account of his effort.

Richard Hull

[William_Estlick]

I am vacuuming down the pressure during the run as it is the only variable I have at the moment besides electrode spacing. There is a sweet spot and when the pressure goes below that, I loose the plasmoid.
The arc apparently diminishes when the majority of the ions are orbiting the central region. It is just proof of concept and the gas is just air at this time.
I think I am producing radio waves, as my metal detector inadvertently went off 8' away. I am producing UV and that is probably what is overwhelming the cameras CCD.
Other than that I have no means of measurement though I am thinking of obtaining a spectrometer. I have observed green plasma probably due to to the copper anode.

[Bob Reite]

More likely the CCD camera is getting swamped by infrared. The color filters do not cut off below visible light and the CCD is sensitive to IR.

[Richard Hull]

Bob is correct again. The average board type camera, especially B&W models are hyper sensitive in the IR and a grid that is cold to the eye through a view port is glowing in video. One that is just barely a dull red through the viewport looks white hot in the video.

To test your camera, light a cigarette or cigar. Point the lit end of the smoke at the camera lens. Turn out the room lights and if your camera has an IR filter and is doing its job, you should see nothing. If you see a bright spot, your camera has no effective IR filtering.

Richard Hull

[John Futter]

Richard
well said
you can also use a standard IR remote like you use for your telly
point it at the camera if you see a blue dot your camera is IR sensitive

[Rich Feldman]

The offending camera filter behavior is what astronomers call a red leak.
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/nicmos/perform ... leaks.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997hst..prop.7661D

The first time it came to my attention was in 2000 with my first-ever digital camera.
Took a picture in the dark of a red chemical light-stick next to a red-hot electric range element of similar luminance. The latter appeared light violet in the image.

William: in your shoes I would outfit the "vacuum cooker" system to measure plasma current, then to measure chamber pressure. Can you stabilize the pressure at levels higher than minimum, by throttling the connection to vacuum pump?

[William_Estlick]

It's UV.
I took photos of camp fire coals and my sons black light.
There where a few white spots in the coals, but the black light whited out.
I don't know if there is any point to detecting x-rays as I am not running deuterium as of yet.

Has anyone tried varying the voltage in the gigahertz range and how did you do it?