F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

For posts specifically relating to fusor design, construction, and operation.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2097
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 9:38 pm

Thanks for feedback..

I agree 100% with Michael Bretti's first reply, the noise levels are high and I will explain why further down. it is also a good idea to repeat identical runs with air and deuterium for comparison, this is easy to do and I will.

I don't agree with Richard at all, he hasn't once acknowledged any understanding of what I am doing, and keeps referring to his experience with tea kettle fusors and how much power they draw, completely ignoring the fact that 99.9% of the power is used to heat the shell and produce x-rays.

Also it's a bit ridiculous to talk about wall outlet power when we are operating at 10^6 fusions per second, not even the big experiments account for this. Do you think papers published by JET account for vacuum pumps and lighting and computers etc.?, no way, and thats because all accessory power inputs don't scale with size so they are irrelevant for the results.

For proof of concept I am only interested in the direct energy input vs. output, which is what I am reporting. The direct energy input/output scales with size, and it's either a loss or a gain.

Reducing the noise in my system is easier said than done, for the simple reason that every fusion reaction sends positively charged particles to ground which in turn charges the cathode more negative (charge separation), this briefly increases the fusion rate in lots of small runaway reactions. I have studied this phenomenon for a long time and it's real.

A sufficiently experienced scientist should understand what I am doing, and not need to rely rely on a peer reviewed paper. Peer reviewed papers are what journalists rely on to report experiments to the general public.

At least some of the people here on this forum should have the ability to understand and even repeat my experiment and I recommend they do.

In the mean time I am moving forward already working on the next version which I hope will be more powerful and I also want to add a high voltage high impedance AC transformer with a spark gap, so Richard can have his wall outlet.


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

Michael Bretti
Posts: 153
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 10:01 pm

I still think it is always interesting to see different methods explored beyond the standard fusor, and applaud anyone's efforts in these pursuits.

On the topic of wall outlet efficiency, if you are going for pure input vs. output proof of concept directly relating to the energy feeding the plasma that's fine. Although for large systems, to be fair, even if you produce 2MW of power for 1MW in to the plasma alone, but the whole facility requires 10MW to operate (you need pumps and cooling after all to sustain the vital plasma!) then it's still not technically a net gain for the entire system. The rest of the energy to run the system still needs to come from some other source.

By peer review I was not referring to reviewing a paper specifically or in the common notion of the term, but literally reviewing the data and methods presented here as peers in science, and critically breaking down everything presented to make sure all facets of the system and claim are covered. The "peer review" here is literally the critique, questions, and suggestions made on the data provided. This, as you mention, does rely on one understanding your system, and also the physics behind the operating mechanisms for it, but also complete transparency on all sides and as rigorous experimental validation as possible. The true test to its validity will be in reproducibility from external researchers and efforts, which you invite others to try. At least you are releasing details of your efforts and not keeping them secret for others to try and follow.

Good luck with your new system and future efforts, the results will be certainly be interesting and beneficial to see regardless of the outcome. I look forward to following further developments.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2097
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 11:15 pm

Thanks again Michael,

You are correct, I am sharing my ideas and everything I understand on fusor.net, all in the name of science, no affiliation with any other interested parties and obviously, like most of the guys on the forum, I am funding the experiments from my own pocket.

Back in 2005 when I first started posting on Fusor.net there was a lot more excitement about fusion and many posts with interesting and crazy ideas were put forward and tested, however over the years new ideas were increasingly frowned upon and everyone has been more or less coerced into building 6" tea kettle fusors, thereby proving for everyone to see that break even fusion is 50 years away.

What keeps me going is a stubborn belief (gut feeling) that break even is possible, and that one day my work on fusion will be recognised as having made a small contribution.

If anyone wants to build a variation on my FICS reactor I would be more than willing to collaborate and share my experience for free, on the other hand if a well funded organisation wants to build a fusion power plant, I am available as a consultant ;)

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

Michael Bretti
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:58 pm
Real name: Michael Bretti

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Michael Bretti » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:19 am

Steven,

I respect your interest in the pursuit of science. I have seen many times a lack of transparency in the science and claims in this field, both in professional and amateur efforts. It can certainly be a challenge to release everything for anyone to try and critique, especially if you are pushing into new boundaries, or really have nothing truly to show. In my own efforts, I strive for complete transparency, and want to release whatever data and knowledge I collect to advance the science further. Often the best way to quell criticism is simply provide as much legitimate science and testing as possible, just present the facts, and supply the data that is requested. If we are wrong, then well, we are wrong, and knowledge is still gained either way.

I agree that break-even will probably one day happen, most likely through a unique or unconventional approach, though still not in small-time garage efforts like our own here in the forums. While my goals are not to achieve break-even in my own efforts, or pursue any of the conventional or common fusor designs, I share the same passion and drive to make solid and meaningful contributions in this field to help push science further along. It is certainly even more of a challenge on a self funded budget.

That all being said, I still do not agree that the mechanisms are working in your system as you claim, and that your data, callibration, and measurement efforts are not nearly enough to prove your theories. Nor do I believe the excess currents are anything more that leakage currents from the plasma in the system based on your system topology, coupled with inaccurate instrumentation and data interpretation, and do not see how physics supports that any nuclear reactions with deuterium are being converted directly to use able energy.

Again, best of luck in your efforts. Hopefully all of our small incremental efforts and contributions will one day push forward further advances needed to drive this science and technology to new heights, regardless of successes or failures.
Last edited by Michael Bretti on Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10980
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Richard Hull » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:17 am

I really did not care about the ancillary stuff, pumps and the like. I at no time asked for any power usage of such gear. I asked about the wall outlet, HV power supply demand only, that fed the energy to the fusor. Forget the pumps, electronics instrumentation, etc. What did your HV fusion supply take out of the wall to make fusion possible? I notice this remains unreported, yet it is a key factor, a critical factor. If reported, it will be telling the tale. Nothing can be artificially added or subtracted or differentialy cast off in measurements here. We just do a single AC voltmeter-ammeter measurement of the real power pouring into the HV supply to make the high voltage to make the fusion reactor go do fusion in full bore operation.

Unless you are trying to make a viable power reactor, the pumps and every other device in the fusion tool kit is un-important, save for the HV power supply draw from the wall when the amazing fusion is actually taking place continuously. What does it take to light off the fusion system's electrical supply in the midst of fusion?

I saw the noise in all the data, but consider it just part of the result of highly unstable operation pumped into a digital recording environment. I do not and will not ever believe that you are lighting a plasma and forcing deuterons, against their natural, scientifically proven, will to fuse at near zero or less than zero net input energy!

I sense self deception based on an unproven personal theory of fusion perhaps coupled with an over arching desire to do fusion outside of the norm.
I look at a failure to report the input power to the HV supply from the wall, a major failure in reporting.

Remember, cold fusion was done and claimed by the very best in their field of electro-chemistry. Many, many other good people followed in their wake to claim success in their labs. Slowly over about 15-20 years, it was abandoned and now is commonly shown on you tube by garage nut-balls bubbling electricity into common water with zero instrumentation beyond a DVM.

The issue was the prize winning electro-chemists knew nothing of neutron or gamma ray detection and had terrible instrumentation for the task at hand, but still made the claim as TV cameras shook the world at the time. As physicists came into testing their results with expert neutron metrologists dragged into the act, very, very slowly but surely, cold fusion melted away.

Lots of folks here have built tea-kettle fusors. Not one is rushing to F.I.C.S to test the idea, for they know what it takes to do fusion and most worry about the validity of your personally held theory, as do I. I worry more about your differential measurements of the device inputs "out of the supply" and failure to report the energy going into the supply, itself, during running conditions.

I am afraid I must file this in my mind as another "free energy" routine smacking with your data of possible negative input as just another example of a perpetual motion machine.

As with all such things, you might be the sole F.I.C.S maker and it and the self-generated theory behind it fade far faster than Cold Fusion. Cold Fusion at least had hundreds of competent people piling on to test it out with many reported early successes of replication. I am sure you will let us know if anyone ever duplicates your efforts. Many early cold fusion duplication efforts by others brought the early matching failures to seem like there might be something there as some claimed success and others failed. Perhaps the successes were me-toos piling on the band wagon, but the failures could also be looked at as bad technique in replication....No wonder they failed! It went on and on for years to the point of several large international conferences of scientists meeting to discuss their current work in cold fusion for years.

Will F.I.C.S ever get to this point? Just like all fusion machines it is certainly a bust, but not having the glory of the tokamaks, mirror machines, stellarators and the many other "top shelf" fusion efforts that were sure to work this go round.

Peer reviewed papers at least have an oversight by people in the field and have kept many bad ideas with numerous failures in technique and measurement from seeing the light of day. Many self-deluded, would-be scientific pioneers claim that the real scientists just don't understand their idea or want to keep it from the world or even steal it from them.

Real success is multiple replications with no failures done by competent people in the field. Until that time it is just an idea with adherents and detractors. Count me as a detractor of F.I.C.S. theory based on measurement anomolies coupled with reporting gaps..


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: 2097
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 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:03 am

Richard,

Okay I would rather have your negative feedback than no feedback at all, following I have a few short comments after your quotes;
Richard Hull wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:17 am
I asked about the wall outlet, HV power supply demand only, that fed the energy to the fusor.
What did your HV fusion supply take out of the wall to make fusion possible?
I notice this remains unreported, yet it is a key factor, a critical factor.
Sure I can easily put an amp meter inline with the wall outlet, but after 15 years reading this forum I was of the impression that measuring voltage and current into the reactor and converting it to power using ohms law was acceptable practice. If wall outlet power is the new standard then I think most of the guys on the forum have to recalculate their results.
Richard Hull wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:17 am
What does it take to light off the fusion system's electrical supply in the midst of fusion?
The answer is very little, because electrons are not lost to ground, they are syphoned off at 55kV where they still have lots of useful potential. this potential can be converted to useful electrical power by way of a spark gap and a step down transformer. As demonstrated in this video. https://youtu.be/TiI9C0MSBAU

Richard Hull wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:17 am
I do not and will not ever believe that you are lighting a plasma and forcing deuterons, against their natural, scientifically proven, will to fuse at near zero or less than zero net input energy!
What scientific proof says that deuterons have a will and don't want to fuse?
We live in a world full of matter heavier than deuterium, and it all assembled itself without my help.

Richard Hull wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:17 am
I sense self deception based on an unproven personal theory of fusion perhaps coupled with an over arching desire to do fusion outside of the norm. I look at a failure to report the input power to the HV supply from the wall, a major failure in reporting.
To be fair I have reported more failures than anyone else on this forum, that's because I have also experimented on more variations of the fusor than anyone else, and with each failure I learned something. I am acutely aware of the self deception risk, and strive to prove my results as rigidly as possible with the means I have available. At the time of writing this I believe my results are correct, but if consequent experiments cast doubt over the results, then I will just report this as another failure and move on.
Richard Hull wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:17 am
Remember, cold fusion was done and claimed by the very best in their field of electro-chemistry.........cold fusion melted away.
No new physics is required to explain how F.I.C.S. works, confined deuterons fuse inside the cathode and carry a positive charge to ground leaving the cathode negatively charged, no hokus-pokus happening here, just a more clever way of doing it.
Richard Hull wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:17 am
I am afraid I must file this in my mind as another "free energy" routine smacking with your data of possible negative input as just another example of a perpetual motion machine.
The fuel is deuterium and it only takes 13.6 eV to liberate 3.7 MeV of fusion power, that's not the definition of a perpetual motion machine. The fuel has explosive power and we need to find a way to tame the dragon. Wouldn't it be great if we could turn it directly into electrical potential?
Richard Hull wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:17 am
As with all such things, you might be the sole F.I.C.S maker and it and the self-generated theory behind it fade far faster than Cold Fusion. [snip]...Count me as a detractor of F.I.C.S. theory based on measurement anomolies coupled with reporting gaps.. Richard Hull
Fusion research is all about doing what's not in the book and what nobody can teach you, I like to say;

Research is what we do when we don't have a clue what we are doing!

That's what I do.

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

Tyler Christensen
Site Admin
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:08 am
Real name:

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Tyler Christensen » Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:08 pm

A fusor running on the order of a million neutrons per second puts out microwatts of power in radiation form. At 60kV output voltage, this would be picoamps-nanoamps of current gained by the fusion, even if 100% of the fusion energy were magically turned into electrical potential. You're measuring milliamps of current difference. This almost conclusively proves your measurement system is not up to snuff, by 5-10 orders of magnitude.

Although I imagine you have some reason that your machine produces extra power, because...
Steven Sesselmann wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:03 am
No new physics is required to explain how F.I.C.S. works
I thought you literally reinvented physics from the ground up over the last few years?

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2097
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 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:21 pm

Tyler Christensen wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:08 pm
A fusor running on the order of a million neutrons per second puts out microwatts of power in radiation form. At 60kV output voltage, this would be picoamps-nanoamps of current gained by the fusion, even if 100% of the fusion energy were magically turned into electrical potential. You're measuring milliamps of current difference. This almost conclusively proves your measurement system is not up to snuff, by 5-10 orders of magnitude.
This quote by Tyler, shows me that he and probably Richard too have skim read my posts without understanding what I am doing. On the subject of current produced Tyler is correct, two fusion reactions produce three positive charges that go to ground so in the range 1 million to 10 million fusions per second the charge separation accounts for around 1-2 picoAmps of current, way below anything I can measure directly.

What Tyler may not have thought about is that the hollow cathode on my reactor has a tiny capacitance of only a few pico Farad, which means when there is a burst of fusion in a fraction of a second, followed by a picoAmp of charge separation across -60kV I get a negative spike on the cathode.

Once again, no new physics required to explain this.

And to clear up further confusion, I never claimed that the "current out" which in the order of 5 mA came from fusion, obviously it comes from the wall outlet via the power supply, via the cathode and returns via the zener diode. The reason I count the output current as gain is because it comes out at a potential of -55 kV and is still capable of doing work after it has done it's primary job, which is to ionise the deuterium.

In my last post I linked to someones video showing how such high potential low current can indeed be recovered.

Still no new physics, just a better less wasteful way to fuse deuterons.

My theory which treats the coulomb force as a velocity can also be used to explain fusion, but for the purpose of understanding how my machine works the well established model works just fine.

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

Michael Bretti
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:58 pm
Real name: Michael Bretti

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Michael Bretti » Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:25 pm

A few additional suggestions going forward which I think could yield some further useful and tangible information:

1.) Run as many simulations as possible on your system. Model and analyze it completely. Get software such as SIMION, IBSIMU, Poisson Superfish, IGUN, etc, and do as thorough analysis as possible. Any serious efforts in exploring mechanisms and devices pursuing energy production from fusion requires such advanced tools to characterize plasma and particle mechanisms, and predict behavior. For all of my systems I am designing, I am simulating everything I can within reason: cad, thermal, electrostatic, magnetic, beam simulations, particle interactions, sputtering, etc. Compare what you observe experimentally with your simulations, I think it would be very interesting to see how an actual device behaves vs. predictive models. If you can't access the software yourself, see if you can work with someone who can do it. Either way, simulations are a powerful tool in predicting expected system behavior, if the simulations are set up correctly in the first place.

2.) See if you can work with some research lab or university to test the system further. If it's a plasma or fusion lab, they would probably have much more sophisticated methods of instrumentation that could yield more data and information possible than at home if on a very tight budget.

Just some thoughts on ways to yield data to help prove, disprove, or refine your system.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10980
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs

Post by Richard Hull » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:09 am

All deuterons are positive and all positive charges repel. This is why fusion is tough and there is a cross sectional chart related to fusion. The Lawson Criteria must be met in some form. 13.6 volt deuterons will not cut it. This is their barest ionization potential. Real energy must be applied to accelerate them. The more energy applied, the more they repel until a velocity, (thermal energies in kelvins), is attained and some tiny few fuse via quantum tunneling.

If this were not the case, the universe would burn up in seconds as all the ionized hydrogen, deuterium and tritium would go wild fusing. These ions do not want to fuse by the simple laws of physics. The fact that they are ionized and confined at 13.6 ev means nothing to fusion. Vast amounts of energy must be applied continuously to make an ions fuse. Be it applied potential to accelerate the ions or the crushing force of quintillions of tons of solar shell matter above a core heating it to thermal ion velocities of hundreds of millions of kelvins, real energy must be applied. Deuterons do not want to fuse unless forced against their very nature to do so. Forcing the issue means applying energy to a closed system of them or they repel to the four winds. It is what they do when confined among themselves.

I understand your ideas well and consider them wishful thinking based on a lack of understanding of doing fusion and following the energy around a circuit.

The video URL you just offered up is valueless in relation to the fusion process as no fusion is taking place and bears not even a remote representation of you ideas. Nor does it, in its silence, trace any energy flow. Loses abound in this crude demo and are not traced showing absolute ignorance on the part of the builder. It does show how applied energy can, with multiple loses throughout the system, be transformed to power a low voltage, low energy toy motor. Loses are found in the capacitor along with tremendous loses in the gap to name two major loses. A ridiculous offering on video.

Comparing the fusor to a spark gap as part of a useful way to use electrons in a fusion electrical circuit fails to see what a load to utilize all those electrons would mean as all the loss still remains in the fusor and the load. The best one might hope for is to supply a load in series with the fusor that equals its fusing impedance and you would still lose, at best, 50% of the applied energy in accelerating all those non-fused deuterons.

Someone needs some courses in electronics and power flow and lose measurement analysis technology.

A good first year college course in electronics engineering with associated physics classes would blow this stuff and such ideas out of the water.

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.

Post Reply