F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

For posts specifically relating to fusor design, construction, and operation.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:52 am

Now that my FICS fusion rig is more or less operational I am starting a new thread to report on my experimental results.
Hardware description is here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10479

After making a few minor modifications to the zener diode I was able to get three good runs in before the cheap oil pump broke and pumped two litres of dielectric oil all over my workshop floor, which put a stop to the experiments for today.

Attached is the data from my best run today (Feb. 24 2018). Primary Neutron Counting was done with my GS-NEUTRON which was roughly calibrated with a source at University of Sydney, and these counts more or less agree with my old Victoreen neutron counter, so I am confident that my log is in the ballpark. Labview was sampling at 1 Hz here, but I just figured out how to speed up the sampling for future runs.

The results are pretty impressive and I am not even pushing the rig to it's limits, just idling at 65kV, and the 7 mA reported here is the input current not the differential current, which would make it much less.

My experimental results raise questions about the understanding of fusion, because when you understand what is going on here, you will see that I am effectively generating 4x10^6 neutrons with an accelerating potential of only 5kV. Most of you would say this is impossible, but because I have virtually no current leakage to ground via the fusor end caps, I know the ions are created at -65kV and the electrons are syphoned off at -60kV, so the ions fall through a potential of only 5kV.

Someone care to explain this?

Steven
Attachments
180224-tier.PNG
Neutron TIER
180224-torr.PNG
Pressure
180224-current.PNG
Current
180224-kv.PNG
Voltage
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10809
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Richard Hull » Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:02 am

Good work. You values across the board seem to be rather stable. A big improvement. Sorry to here about the break down and oil mess.

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.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:57 pm

I thought the results of recent experiments were significant enough to write a brief paper. The paper can be downloaded from my RG page here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... riment_V11

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

Dan Knapp
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:34 pm
Real name: Dan Knapp

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Dan Knapp » Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:16 pm

Steven
Thank you for posting your first draft paper on your device. I enjoyed reading it. I will be interested to see subsequent versions with more detail. a key question is what are the potentials on the other dynodes in your device?
I think what you have built is a variation of Alex Klein's "MARBLE" device (https://iec.neep.wisc.edu/usjapan/13th_ ... LEtalk.pdf), which is essentially a linear beam fusor. I think if you plot your fields, you will find that the -65 kV from dynodes 9 and 11 penetrates through your cathode opening so the center three electrodes essentially form a -65 kV cathode. Your neutron counts are impressive for the first runs on a new device, but I think your claim that this was done with a 5 kV acceleration of deuterons cannot be substantiated. I think you are doing -65 kV IEC.
Dan

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:29 pm

Dan,

Thanks for feedback on my experiment paper, I hope I can address the lack of detail in my replies.
Dan Knapp wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:16 pm
Thank you for posting your first draft paper on your device. I enjoyed reading it. I will be interested to see subsequent versions with more detail. a key question is what are the potentials on the other dynodes in your device?
John Futter was the one who suggested I install a voltage divider across the dynodes to ensure an even voltage potential, so I installed a series of 20 x 64 Mohm resistors, but I soon realised it didn't make a bar of a difference, other than drawing extra current, so I did a quick snip with the wire cutters and now they are gone. These dynodes are floating with air on one side and vacuum on the other I believe there is enough conductance in the air/vacuum junction to distribute the charges on these discs evenly. Think of it as an ultra high impedance divider.
Dan Knapp wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:16 pm
I think what you have built is a variation of Alex Klein's "MARBLE" device (https://iec.neep.wisc.edu/usjapan/13th_ ... LEtalk.pdf), which is essentially a linear beam fusor.
Yes I have a pile of those MARBLE devices and they don't work, 15 years of experimentation says it's almost impossible to get a stable plasma to burn in a double ended accelerator.
Dan Knapp wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:16 pm
I think if you plot your fields, you will find that the -65 kV from dynodes 9 and 11 penetrates through your cathode opening so the center three electrodes essentially form a -65 kV cathode. Your neutron counts are impressive for the first runs on a new device, but I think your claim that this was done with a 5 kV acceleration of deuterons cannot be substantiated. I think you are doing -65 kV IEC.
Dan
I understand your scientific scepticism, but let me try to explain the difference.

In a regular fusor, it is the electrons streaming from the grid (-65 kV) to the grounded shell which are responsible for ionising the gas, right? Random collisions between electrons and deuterons within the fusor establish a plasma with a Maxwellian distribution of energies. Realize that the kinetic energy of an ion in a fusor is a function of where (at which potential) it lost it's electron. As the fusor enters STAR mode, more particles ionise towards the centre and so the distribution of velocities becomes less Maxwellian with the peak shifted towards the lower energy side. The problem is that fusors don't do this very efficiently and electrons keep streaming across the gap from the grid to the shell, producing unwanted fast particles and current losses.

My F.I.C.S. fusion device addresses this by creating almost exclusively cold ions (ions with ultra low kinetic energy), it does this by creating a potential between dynodes 9,11 and the cathode, so when the gas pressure is at optimum ~5 Micron, a plasma strikes across 911 and cathode, but not between cathode and ground (much larger gap), and this can actually be measured.

I start with what I call the input current, this is the current drawn by the one and only power supply, a Glassmann 125 kV lab supply. The input current is logged via a 1-10V output on the back panel.

The HV from the PSU is connected to the 911 dynodes only.

The cathode has no connection to high voltage, instead it is connected to a 60kV zener diode, and then to ground via a 1K Ohm shunt, so by measuring the voltage on either side of the shunt, I get 1 volt for every milliamp of current that returns to ground via the shunt.

The input current and the output current and differential currents are electronically logged using Labview and a DAQ. (Data acquisition module).

To test and calibrate the current logging, I plug the high voltage from the power supply straight into the top of the zener diode and set the voltage to just exceed the zener threshold, and then calibrate my meters so input current matches output current, and the differential current reading 0.00 mA.

Now when I am doing a fusion run I can see how much power goes in and how much comes out, the difference is assumed to go to ground via the accelerator end caps.

Virtually no current is lost, I can not say zero because the noise in the system would make this statistically unreliable, but I can with confidence say that it is less than 1 mA.

Unlike the energy lost in a spherical fusor, the energy lost in my Zener diode is "theoretically" recoverable via a high impedance inverter. 65 kV high impedance inverters are not common, but in the high voltage power transmission systems they are apparently used.

The key idea to take away here is that the idea of high temperature fusion is a fallacy. The Lawson criterion is a $100+ Billion nonsense idea. Stupid money is being wasted on high temperature plasma confinement, when deuterons will simply fuse by themselves if you slow down and just let them.

How would couples on a dance floor ever embrace and fall in love, if the DJ didn't play a Rod Stuart song every now and then ;)

Steven

* Rod Stuart - British crooner from the 1970's with a bad hair day.
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

Dan Knapp
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:34 pm
Real name: Dan Knapp

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Dan Knapp » Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:43 pm

I would highly recommend that you plot your fields. You may be surprised at what you find.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:18 am

Hi Guys,

Over the last couple of weeks I have been messing around with the vacuum gauge on my machine. After my Edwards gauge failed, Andrew Seltzman suggested I get an MKS 901P of which there were several for sale on eBay, so I bought a couple of those, but living in Australia everything takes at least two weeks, so we had to do a bit of waiting. BTW, the MKS is a neat little vacuum gauge, very sensitive in the low end. Today is Saturday so with wife and kids out of the house and vacuum gauge fixed I decided to fire up the machine for a test.

My objective was not to push the reactor to it's breaking point, but to see how stable it could be and how long I could run it for without something breaking. Everything worked as expected and I had a smooth uninterrupted run for more than 15 minutes at which point I had collected enough data and shut the machine down "gracefully" for a change. From the excel plots below it is pretty clear to see the outcome and why I am pleased with it.

Let me first explain how I calibrate the current input vs output.

INPUT CURRENT
The input current is logged directly from the power supply, it has an analogue output 0-10V on the back panel which is proportional to the current 0-16 mA. The voltage is logged and scaled by a factor of 1.6 in Labview.

OUTPUT CURRENT
The output current is the current which goes through the zener diode to ground, and is measured across a 1K ohm 1% wire wound resistor shunt on the ground side of the zener, the shunt voltage is logged directly in labview, 1V = 1mA.

DIFFERENTIAL CURRENT
The differential current is simply the difference between the two inputs above.

CALIBRATION
Measuring the differential current is critical to my experiment, so I need to be confident about the calibration, so before I start a fusion run, I disconnect the high voltage line from the reactor cathode and plug it straight into the zener diode, effectively bypassing the reactor completely. I then set the HV to the same voltage as my fusion run (65 kV) which is above the zener threshold. In labview I then trim the differential current interphase to read 0.00 with an accuracy of two decimal places. Now when I run the reactor I read the actual differential current drawn by the fusion plasma device. Hope that makes sense.

SUMMARY OF RUN
The FICS fusion reactor run lasted around 900 seconds, during the first 600 seconds the input voltage was left at 65 kV and yielded a constant 1.5 x10^6 neutrons, I then increased the voltage to around 69kV which pushed the neutron tier up to around 2 x 10^6 which is quite respectable, however the current draw is as far as I can tell is minuscule, and as far as I can tell consistent with zero. During the run I was watching the instrument panel in labview, and the differential current meter seemed to be more in negative territory than in positive.

Should I claim the first Q = 1 ?

Probably not yet, because I would have to prove it to 6 or 7 decimal places, but I am 100% sure I could get there before any of the big guys. My approach is exactly one million times cheaper and about 20 times faster to build than ITER (assuming one person building), more importantly, my device converts fusion power directly into electrical current, no need to heat up water and make steam while at the same time keeping superconducting magnets at cryogenic temperatures (a crazy idea). My machine separates electrical charge directly by way of the kinetic energy of the fusion ash, thereby generating a high potential difference between the cathode and ground. Converting the high potential low current into useful energy is relatively easy, we simply replace the zener diode with a spark gap and a reversed x-ray transformer. The spark gap required for 62kV is around 20 mm in air.

As far as I can see there are no more technical challenges here, this one is in the bucket.

Steven



KILOVOLTS
Cathode potential is logged in Labview from the analogue output at the back of my Glassman power supply. The run started at 65 kV and was pushed up by 4kV to 69kV after about 10 minutes.
180407-Kilovolts.PNG
Kilovolts potential on the cathode
CURRENT
As described above, the average differential current draw in the period 100 to 800 seconds was -0.189 mA i.e it appears to have made more energy than it used, arguably 0.18 mV is way more than would be produced by charge separation alone.
180407-Current.PNG
Current input vs. Current output
NEUTRON TIER
I am logging this using an uncalibrated GS-NEUTRON detector installed 20 cm, from the centre of the cathode. The signal is counted and scaled in labview. The detector reading is consistent to within 20% of my Victoreen 488A. My next step is to get one of my Li6 scintillation detectors formally calibrated, so I can increase the confidence level of this measurement.
180407-Neutron-TIER.PNG
Neutron TIER
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

Michael Bretti
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:58 pm
Real name: Michael Bretti

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Michael Bretti » Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:06 pm

A couple of immediate and important points that need to be addressed, for the sake of proper peer review:

1.) Based on the data for the current readings, your noise level is way too high for any useful information to be extracted from the differential current measurement, especially for the accuracy and significance required by your claims. Your noise floor needs to be orders of magnitude lower than your signal. You will need to use a very high precision low noise calibrated current meter and eliminate all external noise. Preferably a multichannel calibrated unit with at least picoampere resolution.

2.) Your calibration with the supply across the diode is not enough to calibrate and zero your measurements. You need to compare and calibrate your fusion run results against non-fusion runs. This means you need to take identical experimental measurements with the system operating with a non-fusion plasma, such as helium, nitrogen, argon, etc. Best to run numerous runs with a variety of gases to establish baseline current measurements, noise, and bias levels to check the validity of your claims that you are indeed producing current from the fusion reaction and not some other source of leakage current with a plasma operating in your system.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10809
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Richard Hull » Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:49 pm

Bottom line.....What was the draw from the wall outlet of your power supply? Did you put power back onto the grid? There is no such thing as a zero power usage to obtain 2 mega neuts/sec. We may measure in a myriad of ways with all manner of self deception, but the power company bills us for KW of usage. They have a great idea about what we are really doing, power wise.

When I push out 1.3mega neuts/sec at 43kvdc and 16ma, that is about 700 watts to the fusor. The wall outlet is putting in 230 volts at 7 amps to just the x-ray xfmr! That is about1600 VAR. (Some like to call VAR, watts, but with no phase angle, VAR is correct.) Loses occurs in my saturating the core, dumping energy into the ballast resistor and a butt load of other sad losses. My voltmeter is a simple connection across the two fusor terminals, (shell and grid). The ammeter is measuring shell current between the shell via the conductive ionization of the gases to the grid. (real power applied!) My neutron counter is a solid 3He detector that has not moved since 2004 and calibrated to spec against a 2 different bubble detectors over 4 years. The counts are not filtered or massaged through any D to A or A-D system, but just pulses fed directly to a NIM counter system.

Finally countless folks have seen my system in operation in person and on the few You Tube videos. Those who have built their own systems know it takes power to get neutrons. Increased fusion probability demands increased power to force the issue.

All fusors are characterized by huge losses requiring 10e9 times more input energy to actual fusion energy out. That is the physics of the way things work, wall outlet to fusion in a fusor.

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.

Michael Bretti
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:58 pm
Real name: Michael Bretti

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Michael Bretti » Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:47 pm

I agree with what Richard Hull says. All losses need to be accounted for, including all power inputs to run the entire system, accounting for the efficiency percentages for every powered device used to operate it. That is probably more important than the other measurements for now. Neutron producing systems, as stated above, are massively innefficient - probably some of the most efficient class of neutron devices for D-D fusion in terms of input power to flux are probably in the range of DPFs - even so nothing comes remotely close to unity.

The same thing applies to discussions prior about breakeven systems using accelerators - whenever it is brought up, those proposing the idea always forget to account for the shear amount of power put in and how abysmal all system efficiencies are - power, rf, cooling, magnetics, infrastructure, secondary nuclear conversion processes, etc. Everything needs to be factored. I suspect whatever currents are being measured, apart from the large amounts of noise, are leakage currents somewhere in the system when operating with a plasma, not due to net power gain. As is I am still unclear how it is possible at all for energy to be directly generated in this setup from D-D fusion.

I think it is still very cool to see an alternative variation to the standard fusor topology being explored, but I think we need to remain highly critical and scientific about any claims of potential net energy generation, since this has been explored by thousands of brilliant minds for many decades now with lots of money, resources, and various configurations without any luck still. Not saying it's an impossible feat, but quite a formidable challenge that has yet to be realized.

Post Reply