Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Reflections on fusion history, current events, and predictions for the 'fusion powered future.
Post Reply
Klaatu
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:08 pm
Real name:

Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Klaatu »

Did Farnsworth start the whole fusor idea? Was he the first person to say fusion could be done inside a vacuum tube? Using "electrical" means?

Was Farnsworth the first person to build a tube specifically for this purpose? Was he the first person to achieve fusion-on-purpose inside a fusor?

Help me here. I am a Farnsworth fan, but I read a great deal of down-playing here regarding his contributions to the subject. Being a fan, I have to say up front: Great credit must be given to the person who first comes up with an idea that others can perfect (even if he only has marginal success himself.)

If the fusor was Farnsworth's idea, I would advise others to give respect and credit where it is due, and to explain fairly why his work was limited (obstacles, fatigue from a lifetime of being beaten down by others who would steal and profit from his original genius, limited finances due to the aforementioned thievery...etc.)
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Richard Hull »

I stopped worshipping genius idols like Tesla and Farnsworth years ago. They were just very smart men who had good ideas and did good things. They also were wrongheaded in many ways and had all their share of human limitations.

As regards the fusor concept in a shepical accelerator, Langmuir and Blodgett did the first work in relation to spherical diode characteristics back in the 1920's. As related to fusion, Elmore, Tuck and Watson investigated the IEC concept long before Farnsworth in the late 40's and early 50's. This is mentioned in the book "Project Sherwood". Nothing ever came of it.

Farnsworth, more or less, arrived at his ideas independently, it seems, in the late fifities. His personal work in fusion was nothing to write home to mom about. His ideas didn't have much shine on them until Robert Hirsch joined the team and expanded on Farnsworth's ideas.

Of course, none of these ideas are functional as far as any sort of power producing system is concerned.

Farnsworth will always have his name associated with the IEC fusion concept.

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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Wilfried Heil
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:31 pm
Real name:

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Wilfried Heil »

Farnsworth has his name attached to a number of things.

He may not have been the first, and perhaps not even successful, at producing fusion in the way he intended. But he pioneered on the right track which did lead to success, at the time at least. My understanding is that the Fusor was intended as a demonstrator, and never as the final solution of a fusion power reactor.

It is the insight and genius of a few that advances knowledge, rather than the agglomerated efforts of mediocrity of many. While genial in their way, these individuals are still prone to the same fallacies and shortcomings as any of us.

Today, the standard is average and declining while those with visions are few. Even physicists are highly conservative about new ideas and will keep their heads low, unless they can cite an authority that supports their claims.

Personalities like Farnsworth are an exception to this rule.
Attachments
CF-50.JPG
BrettWilder
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:01 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by BrettWilder »

Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...... getting his name tattooed somewhere on your body. [preferably with a heart and an arrow....]

haha, :) yeah no.

-brett
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Richard Hull »

Make no mistake Farnsworth could be a true nutball. He had no illusions or thought of a test bed or concept demonstator. NO! He would make energy himself, on Pontiac street within months if not a year or two. I have talked with the head engineer of that project George Bain.

Once the fusor team got a green light on funding from ITT, almost the entire first year's budget was found to be gobbled up when Farnsworth, without telling or consulting his own team, ordered a two ton, custom built, electrical inverter/converter delivered to Pontiac street!

This was openly called "Farnsworth's folly". Farnsworth had an idea hung in his brain that the fusor was going to produce energy and that he even knew what type and the method of extraction. Thus, he had a special converter assembled and delivered in expectation of coupling it directly to the fusor! This is all documented fact! The thing had no place in the lab as it was a leviathon and thus was stored out on the loading dock just where the original fork lift set it from delivery. It was out in the weather, but somewhat protected from direct snow and rain.

As it turns out, it never entered the giant plant at Pontiac street as the fusor never worked!!! Farnsworth wasted a year's worth of much needed capital for the project. The thing stood as a giant plastic wrapped monument to a failed and doomed mission for all to see who ate their lunches on the dock during the spring, summer and fall and something that needed to be cleaned of drifting snow and rewarapped periodically in the winter.

Several people on his team who were ultimately reassigned within the plant after Farnsworth's departure in 1966 said that the giant converter device was never connected to anything at any time and long after Farnsworth's death it was dismanteld in place on the dock and scraped right where that fork lift dropped it many years before. What a loon!

Farnsworth had many such grandiose schemes and plans that cost other people dearly in time and money. Often these were among his most trusted and impassioned followers and supporters.

The converter was just a single example of his whimsical disregard for needs and realities vs. pie in the sky dreams.

Do some research and talk to a number of folks still alive who knew him and you will have an epiphany.

A genius? Absolutely!
Flawed? Also, absolutely!
One who would be costly to a lot of other lesser people's dreams and hopes? Again, Absolutely.

Like Hitler, Farnsworth had a force of personality, an aura about him, that drew people to him and his dreams. And, like those who followed Hitler, a lot of them were injured in the journey.

Again, like those who followed Hitler, some of even the most severely injured would come to, still, speak highly of him.

Farnsworth was a very special person.

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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

Richard, I get your point here but please... comparing Farnsworth to Hitler?? What's next, comparing George W. Bush to Richard Nixon? --PS


Richard Hull wrote:
>> Like Hitler, Farnsworth had a force of personality, an aura about him, that drew people to him and his dreams. And, like those who followed Hitler, a lot of them were injured in the journey. <<
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Richard Hull »

I have no shame here, for the comparision is clear and clean. Hitler just was a policatical genius who led millions over the edge. Farnsworth hurt far fewer. It is a matter of degree rather than of outcome. Both will be remembered for many years in history. One in a better light and the other not.

Both have been spoken well of, mostly by their immediate followers. Once the followers of each die off, the degree of injury caused by one will forever characterize him as a monster. While the injury inflicted by the other will be forgotten and accomplishment that remains will actually acquire a fine polish that hides the pain of those who sacrificed and suffered in his wake.

I see genius in both a net good and bad result. People don't follow true idiots to their continued detrement. It ain't natural.

Only inspired genius can drag a cadre of mankind, whether it is 20 or 20 million, through the dirt and still be spoken well of by any quantity of those so dragged. Only the brightest of the cadre, so abused, will wake up and smell the coffee, but only once they are abused.

This doens't mean that the non-followers and abusers of the genius in Hitler, Farnswroth, Marx, Napolean, Ceasar, Edison, Tesla or Einstein are inherently wiser for good or ill, it is just that the particular venue of genius displayed did not appeal. They will follow their own little geniuses in their turn. In the end Genius is human based and as such flawed from the get go.

Idol whorship by impressed lessers will always remain just that and will be interpreted in many ways due to multiple re-writes of history based on societal mores du jour. As the ascerbic but wise writer posits "history will lie, as usual".

I remain far less impressed by supposed genius than most. For I know there is always a more or less hidden shoe that can be dropped.

With Hitler the shoe was huge and its fall will be remembered forever. With Farnsworth the shoe is of a similar venue but much smaller....Yet, still droppable.

The Perfesser did his research too, and added to my knowledge of Farnsworth due to his interviews with folks I never talked to as I added to his knowledge having interviewed a couple he never talked to. We both hold back part of the "other shoe" on Farnsworth for his accomplishment in Television is a net positive. The other shoe could be used to what might be considered a needless "stomp" by many...... so we relent.

To be a famous genius whether good or ill is to be micro-analyzed, often within the life span of one's direct confidants, friends enemies, and relatives who will often share most intimate details. This is what a historian lusts for (supposedly, the truth). How it is interpreted, placed in the public domain and, ultimately, how it is remolded over time is often not related to any form or function of truth, but of spin.

I know I wouldn't want my life micro-analyzed! But, I have little fear of that. Worker bees don't blip the radar.

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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Wilfried Heil
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:31 pm
Real name:

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Wilfried Heil »

I see the fame of Farnsworth more in the field of Television rather than fusion.

Since we are using his concepts and those of others, whose ideas we are trying to duplicate with some success, we should give the proper credit to those who deserve it. That includes Hirsch and Farnsworth.

Farnsworth developed an ingenious concept for a fusion reactor that didn´t fuse, but might have, under the proper circumstances. From what I read here, Farnsworth appears to have created his own obstacles as well.

Hirsch modified this concept into a fusion demonstrator which does fuse, but can´t be scaled up with any useful increase in efficiency.

Both their contributions made possible what we have now: a demonstration unit which shows that fusion can be done.

A physical hat trick and an educational toy.

The original concept (the multipactor fusor) is quite ingenious and innovative, even or especially from today´s viewpoint. It is a loss that it has not been pursued further.
Todd Massure
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:38 am
Real name: Todd Massure

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Todd Massure »

"Great Inventions" is supposed to be on the History Channel's Modern Marvels today at 1:00 & 7:00 Pac. time. One of the things they are supposed to cover is television. It will be interesting to see if they mention Farnsworth
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

I looked at the listing for this at historychannel.com and it looks like a re-run of an episode of "Modern Marvels" that they ran a couple of years ago. If my memory serves me, yeah, TeeVee was one of the inventions covered, and they managed to get about 60% of the Farnsworth -v- RCA story right. Worth seeing if you haven't seen it before. Better to TiVo it and skip through all the bullshit. --PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
Todd Massure
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:38 am
Real name: Todd Massure

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Todd Massure »

On the show they gave credit to Zworykin, and Farnsworth, in that order and it was very brief. They also made a point of saying that television was the result of the efforts of many, not just one, which is true to some extent, but most of us here know the true story - more or less.

Todd
User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Paul_Schatzkin »

Yeah, "History" -- brought to you by a committee. Nobody ever does anything truly original unless they have a company bearing their name to prove it.
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television: 2023 Edition – https://amz.run/6ag1
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 60 years in the past and we missed it."
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by DaveC »

Not to nitpick on semantics, but correction: Farnsworth's "Fusor" did do fusion. Full stop, end of sentence.

At least as far as the neutron evidence is concerned. And fusion is still being done by the fusors, even though the energy output will not light a flashlight.

The issue remains, whether in the gigantic Government funded projects, or in amateur experiments, how to get enough energy output so that the device can be self-sustaining.. and become a net power producer.

As the saying goes, "A miss is as near as mile".. however close anyone may claim to be to "breakeven", until and unless a device of some design becomes self-sustaining, fusion remains a pious dream and will do little for the good of mankind.

If and when that breakeven condition is achieved, the log-jam will have been broken, and scale-up, cost, and reliability will become the focus of discussion... all good, practical engineering tasks. Till then, it is my expectation that progress will be by hard won, and by small steps on the rock walls of the mountain. That's where everyone is, right now.

Dave Cooper
Wilfried Heil
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:31 pm
Real name:

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Wilfried Heil »

Now, this is a question of historical interest: Did Farnsworth´s original multipactor fusor succeed in producing detectable levels of fusion?

Not the later design with colliding Deuterons, with which we are well familiar. Shooting Deuterons into Deuterium will produce some amount of fusion. Since there is no threshold for fusion reactions, the fusion itself isn´t the problem. It is having enough of it to be able to detect it.

Many concepts have been tried to compress and heat up Deuterium with Laser light, heavy ions and the like. If this is also possible with electrons, then Farnsworth´s concept would have worked. Does anyone know how much fusion, if any, the multipactor fusor was capable of and with what energy input?
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Proper credit to Farnsworth would be...?

Post by Richard Hull »

Farnsworth's original multipacting electron fusor did not work! This was Farnsworth's original idea! It began to gel in his head from about 1950 to his eariliest efforts in 1959 According to all interviewed, no neutrons were detected while refining this device. (59-62)

Once they turned the thing around as a deuteron collider, they got neutrons. (62-68). The results were very poor with D-D and the designs they first used were poor and it wasn't until some modification that decent numbers started coming forth. (64-68).

D-T fusion's start date is nebulous as most intereviewed could only warrant they were using it from 1965 onward with one or two thinking that they may have switched over in late 64.

Farnsorth's original design never functioned. His design shown in his ion collider patents did work, but never worked to the point where the 50kw power converter he had custom built needed to do more than sit and rot on the loading dock at Pontiac street. His best interation of D-D, even with ion guns, worked to about the level of Jon Rosenstiel's best runs. (10e7n/s)

The best D-T systems were Hirsch's ion gunned "cave" systems. (10e12n/s). Still, very very whimpy when one looks at power in vs. power out.

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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Post Reply

Return to “Fusion --- Past, Present, and Future”