Fusion Achieved!

Administration forums. These are mostly old posts that are no longer relevant. It also contains numerous files that were not located in the proper forums by the original authors. As such, it is a smattering of just about everything. This is a Read Only section. No new posts or replies are permitted.
Tidbit77
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:02 am
Real name:
Contact:

Fusion Achieved!

Post by Tidbit77 » Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:45 pm

Well, it's been a long journey, yet I am sure it is only the dawn of a much longer one.

Here is that data supporting my claim of fusion:
*************
Measurements taken from a boron-10 lined proportional tube approximately 7" from the poissor read by a Ludlum Model 3 at bias voltage of 772v.

Runs all ~21.5kV
Background: Fusor off: 1.44 counts per minute
No neutron moderator, Fusor on, deuterium on: 1.411 counts per minute
With neutron moderator, Fusor on, deuterium on: 6.122 counts per minute

Due to the lack of an increase in count rate from background to the unmoderated reading, I can conclude that the tube is not detecting gamma or x-rays from the fusor.

Therefore, the increase to 6.122 cpm when the tube is placed inside the moderator indicates that the reactor is indeed doing fusion.

The count rate is truly pathetic right now, but I have a feeling that it will increase over time (as seems to be the trend).
**************
My setup:
(pictures below)
6" spherical stainless steel chamber, with conflat and custom hardware.
Welch 1399 single stage mechanical pump
Veeco EP-2A air-cooled 2" diffusion pump
Glassman 30kV, 10mA PSU
AEC B-10 tube in a 9/8" thick HDPE moderator
30L of deuterium
(I do use a viewport camera, it is not pictured)
***************
Hopefully, my neutron counts will increase soon, and I will be able to play around with activation and other fun things like ion sources soon. I definitely intend to keep on experimenting.

Richard, could you please add me to the neutron club, providing you find my data conclusive?

Happy Fusing

-Will Jack
Attachments
small1.jpg
small1.jpg (239.56 KiB) Viewed 1923 times
small2.jpg
small2.jpg (289.71 KiB) Viewed 1923 times

Tidbit77
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:02 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Fusion Achieved!

Post by Tidbit77 » Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:51 pm

It seems to me that the images are not working, if they are not working for you, you can view them by following the links below:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-I1xACLgmXwY/T ... small2.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lMTG8IVB85o/T ... small1.jpg

-Will

benbartlett
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:34 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Fusion Achieved!

Post by benbartlett » Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:00 pm

Congrats! (I'm sure the count rate will increase over time.) Your grid looks very well-constructed; is it welded or the made with the Rosenstiel method?

I'm sure that data would be considered conclusive.

Ben

User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2840
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 11:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Fusion Achieved!

Post by Carl Willis » Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 pm

Hi Will,

Congratulations on an evident success making neutrons.

As I'm sure you can already attest, this is not the end of the road but in many ways a new beginning with many new possibilities for future direction (you'll probably have your hands into fusion for the rest of your life).

Nice photos of the setup. What's next on your agenda?

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277

Tidbit77
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:02 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Fusion Achieved!

Post by Tidbit77 » Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:07 am

Ben, the grid was made with the Rosenstiel method.

Carl, I would really like to add an ion source to the fusor. The three types I would like to experiment with in specific are DC magnetron sources, rf sources, and anode layer sources.

-Will

abhaylett
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:59 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Fusion Achieved!

Post by abhaylett » Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:13 am

Congratulations on achieving fusion Will.

-Looks like a nice setup you're putting together there. I'm sure we're going to be hearing more from you!

Ben

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Fusion Achieved!

Post by Chris Bradley » Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:33 am

Good work Will. Yes, the journey in which all the details of the build, operation and reporting of a project to everyone's satisfaction, most of all your own, is usually a near vertical climb!

I have a couple of questions, Will; over how long did you take your reading, and how did you count the total counts?

Also, I note the probe cable has some foil wrap. Did you find this was necessary, or just a precaution against RF? When you did not have the moderator, did this cable take a different route around the set-up?

It may be interesting to note the operating pressure and the current drawn during the run, also.

Tidbit77
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:02 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Fusion Achieved!

Post by Tidbit77 » Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:50 am

Chris, I do not recall the operating pressure precisely for my first run. If I recall correctly, it was around 8 millitorr. I just put together a current measuring device, and I will report back with accurate measurements in a minute.

I took each reading for about 1-2 minutes, and I counted them with pen and paper, as the count rates are so low.

The aluminum foil is precautionary. and the cable took roughly the same route to the tube when the moderator was removed.

-Will

DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:13 am
Real name:

Re: Fusion Achieved!

Post by DaveC » Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:49 am

Hi Will --

Let me add my congratulations to the others, for a very nicely done effort. Your picture of the grid and plasma, is art worthy .... very pretty.

Looking forward to you continued progress...


Dave Cooper

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Fusion Achieved!

Post by Chris Bradley » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:24 am

Hello Will,

Will Jack wrote:
> I took each reading for about 1-2 minutes, and I counted them with pen and paper, as the count rates are so low.
It would be advisable to take longer readings if you are nudging around in one-to-three counts per minute (and extracting 4 significant digits from such a count is not to be advised). A question over statistical significance might still be raised if, for example, your background is, say, 3 cpm and the two reading you have are just natural variations up and down.

I suggest you take a couple of hours of background readings and get familiar with how your device responds to background. Your fusing run measurements should show they pull clear of that noise.



> The aluminum foil is precautionary. and the cable took roughly the same route to the tube when the moderator was removed.
The reason I asked is because your counter appears to be sitting directly on top of the moderator, so I would presume you put it somewhere else when the moderator was not present. If the cable is routed past power cables only during your fusing run, then there may be additional noise there for that run only. You could also vent a neutral gas into the chamber as an alternative 'control' to removing the moderator, if you don't want to disturb the rest of the setup arrangement.

These items I mention are aspects of 'the scientific method'; consistency between test set-ups (the same equipment configurations, and getting all available data measurements in place so you can repeat and report), using 'controls' to alter the experiment and see what has an effect, and statistical significance of results. This isn't just to look good to others, it is so that you have a full understanding of your experiment so that if you make changes then you are sure you know whether it is getting better, worse, or no change, without kidding yourself about it ["experimenter-bias"]

Also, if the results you are getting from two nominally identical runs are different beyond statistical significance, you can/should go looking for what has been nudged or broken - or accidentally made to work better!

You've done the grunt work building the kit, and done so admirably. This testing work and your future modifications are the time when you can reap the outcome of that hard work and enjoy doing 'testing' rather than 'building'!

best regards,

Chris MB.

Locked