Page 2 of 2

Re: Proposed polarity-reversal experiment

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:07 pm
by DavidHansen
The crude experiment I was referring to was the train car reactor core. I think Farnsworth's devices are beautifully elegant, not crude. The solid palladium (or palladium-plated) target is a good idea. Or, perhaps a spherical palladium screen - recirculation of ions could still occur, so the bombardment would be effectivly greater than if it was a solid sphere.

I still wish to know which of Farnsworth's machines was involved in this spectacular runaway.

David Hansen

Re: Proposed polarity-reversal experiment

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:44 pm
by Brian McDermott
I think it was the Mark 2 prime, which is the one seen in all the "warp core" images.

Re: Proposed polarity-reversal experiment

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:50 pm
by Richard Hull
The mark II prime was Gene Meeks machine and was a T + D machine. It never ran away. The runaway machine was not identified to me though I have surmised that it was the mark II operated by three people present. George Bain, (engineering head), Fred Haak, (Systems Engineer) and Jim Fisher, (technician).

Richard Hull

Re: Proposed polarity-reversal experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:04 am
by Adam Szendrey
Richard,

Is it known what material did they use for the cathode in that runaway device? Was it tungsten?

Adam

Re: Proposed polarity-reversal experiment

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:38 am
by Richard Hull
The grids used by the Farnsworth teams were all stainless steel.

Richard Hull

Re: Proposed polarity-reversal experiment

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:54 am
by Adam Szendrey
There are at least two facts againts the cold fusion runaway idea.
One is that in "conventional" CF cells there is no neutron count increase (if there is any). But in case of a runaway there is a massive neutron blast.
Second is that i've never heard of CF experiments using stainless steel.
Any ideas?

Adam

Re: Proposed polarity-reversal experiment

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:18 pm
by Richard Hull
I think there are two different runaways here and we are doing an apple and oranges comparison here. CF runaway for the most part appears to be totally aneutronic. Fusor runaway appears to be good old hot fusion doing something weird.

I realize that some here wish to try and boost or insure some sort of runaway by trying CF related materials in a fusor grid. This is laudable, but linking the two forms is out of line just for the moment. CF is found to be a surface effect in a much kinder, gentler environment. Nothing in the fusor is kind or gentle. Still, all this is worth a shot especially to those looking to push the envelope or grab at straws depending on your obervational position.

Richard Hull

Re: Proposed polarity-reversal experiment

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:07 am
by Adam Szendrey
What i meant was that there are at least two things againts linking the fusor runaways and CF runaways.

Adam