Page 2 of 2

Re: Fusion Claim - Jackson Oswalt

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:47 am
by Richard Hull
Jackson could you have someone take a photo of you by your gear and post it in the Image Du Jour forum. Please title it "youngest fusioneer - 12 years old. Give a bit of history on your project. Obviously, you had financial support. I assume your parents? What grade are you in? put all of this in the text with the image.

You have replaced Taylor Wilson as the youngest fusioneer.

Thanks.

Richard Hull

Re: Fusion Claim - Jackson Oswalt

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:38 am
by Jerry Biehler
Ian, the chance of getting suck back on a modern rotary pump are negligible. Probably even less of a chance of you losing power during a run or a pump randomly failing.

Re: Fusion Claim - Jackson Oswalt

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:26 am
by ian_krase
It happened to me though!

Re: Fusion Claim - Jackson Oswalt

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:33 am
by Dennis P Brown
Congratulations and well done Jackson on both fusion and being the youngest to date!

I agree with Richard - after the controlled experiments I did a few weeks ago I confirmed that a significantly smaller effective chamber does do more fusion than a larger chamber for the same voltage/current but this smaller chamber had less ionized deuterium! This was done by way of installing a anode grid in the larger chamber: effectively creating a smaller effective volume in the original chamber.

Critically, this is due solely from the higher pressure - not from more ionized deuterium in the chamber as I showed in the experiment. In fact, I had about 1/3 the ionized deuterium gas volume in the effective smaller volume chamber than the larger chamber (where the small anode grid grid was removed.) Flow rates were nearly identical in both experiments as well (I use a very precise feed micrometer valve. Also, both used the same sized cathode.) All aspects were the same except gas density.

See post: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12048

Some years ago I have read about solid deuterium (yes pure D2 ice, and around 3 K!) that showed significant fusion when a high voltage and current ran through (acted as a Z-pinch.) I considered this interesting then.

Yet, these current fusor experiments and my controlled experiments do tend to indicate that density matters a great deal and does increase the probability that tunneling will occur for fusion - that is, tunneling numbers increase more readily at higher densities. Remember, my smaller "effective" chamber volume had less ionized deuterium but did exhibited a higher density - the only manner my fusion rate could increase over the larger chamber that had significantly more deuterium gas (at lower density) would be if the probability of fusion increased and that can only be due to the tunneling probability increased.

Aside: I did build an actually smaller chamber and reran the test using the same power levels in deuterium with the bubble detector and obtained the three bubbles in a similar time period. The operating pressure was closer to 25 microns, however this smaller chamber did require a significantly smaller cathode, as well. While this effort was primarily done to look into how physically smaller chambers behave compared to my original larger chamber - I was concerned about issues like high voltage flash over/shorting - this small chamber behaved very well. As Richard pointed out, far faster/easier to evacuate compared to large chambers. Another advantage to smaller chambers.

Re: Fusion Claim - Jackson Oswalt

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:01 pm
by Jackson Oswalt
Just finished my Images Du Jour post: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=12120.

Re: Fusion Claim - Jackson Oswalt

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:15 pm
by Jim Kovalchick
Congrats Jackson!

You have a fine system. What are your plans for it? I recommend some activation. With a small fusor you can get in close with your samples. Silver is an easy starter.