Fusion reactors by energy quotient

[Steven Sesselmann]

Steven's Fusor List...

This list of fusion reactors by energy quotient was started way back in 2008 and was manually maintained by myself, but technology advances and Garrett Young has now started a similar list on a shared Google Spreadsheet, which is simpler to update, so let's continue with Garrett's spreadsheet.

Use the form URL to submit your data.

Form: https://goo.gl/forms/rw6Wm6EMPKzn2fsz1

Results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1029807507

http://www.gammaspectacular.com/fusion_calculator.html

If you submit a new improved result for the same fusor it will replace the prior entry, and if you build a new fusor and submit new results then it will receive a new entry in addition to the old entry i.e. Fusor III, Fusor IV etc.. The purpose of this list is to establish which reactor designs are more efficient at producing fusion and to create a bit of healthy competition in the design area. The list is not about generating the largest amount of neutrons, it is about optimum design. Do your experiments with scientific diligence and have fun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

• FUSION REACTORS BY ENERGY QUOTIENT

Rank

-1-

• 2007 Aug 01
  University Of Wisconsin (not an amateur fusor)
  Std.Farnsworth Fusor
  Reported Q = 1.97E-08
  http://iec.neep.wisc.edu

-2-

• 2009 Jan 06
  Rosenstiel's Fusor
  Std.Farnsworth Fusor
  Reported Q = 8.42E-09
  viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2899#p12409

-3-

• 2016 Jul 05
  Andrew Seltzman Mark3 Fusor
  Std.Farnsworth Fusor
  Reported Q = 4.64E-09
  viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10294&p=71572&sid=3 ... 0b5#p71570

-4-

• 2009 Oct 20
  Richard Hull's Fusor IV
  Std Farnsworth Fusor
  Reported Q = 3.27E-09
  viewtopic.php?f=18&t=11061&p=73119#p73058

-5-

• 2008 May 24
  Wilfried & Noemi
  Std.Farnsworth Fusor
  Reported Q = 2.63E-09
  viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8139#p57762

-6-

• 2008 Feb 17
  Carl Willis - "Carl's Jr."
  Std.Farnsworth Fusor
  Reported Q = 2.60E-09
  https://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... -carls-jr/

-7-

• 2014 Oct 22
  Bob Reite's Fusor
  Standard Farnsworth Fusor
  Reported Q = 2.49E-9
  viewtopic.php?f=18&t=9689

-8-

• 2008 Feb 02
  S.T.A.R. Hollow cathode collider
  Reported Q = 6.82E-10**
  viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8139#p57761

-9-

• 2010 Aug
  T.E.R.A. Ben Bartlett Cylindrical Farnsworth Fusor
  Reported Q = 2.28E-10**
  viewtopic.php?f=7&t=366#p2691

-10-

• 2012 Oct 28
  Daniel Firth's Fusor
  Standard Farnsworth Fusor
  Reported Q = 1.09E-10
  viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7908#p55867

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Indicates a statistically unreliable measurement of less than 25 bubbles

Page maintained by Steven Sesselmann | Bee Research Pty Ltd |

[Richard Hull]

You can add mine.

3/24/08 fusor run.
Fusor IV.
Richard Hull
stock fusor


Using your program, it showed the run had a Q= 1.63 X10e -9

~640,000 n/s

Richard Hull

[DaveC]

Steven -


Nice approach. What about adding a column for that actual ITER value of n/sec?

[Frank Sanns]

My fusor runs have been from a low Q of 4.87 E -11 for a dirty start up fusor all the way up to 1.46 E-9 for my best run (with asymetric grid systems). Someday I am going to make a pretty inner grid with good symmetry just for a strong neutron run! I resist too much symmetry because it can mask effects that might be otherwise observed.

Frank S.

[Steven Sesselmann]

Dave,

It is very likely that TIER value and Q values are related, but as far as we know it may not be a simple correlation.

I suggest putting as much information in the reporting post as possible, and keeping the table simple, but with an active link to the originating post.

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

Frank,

Can you edit the post above and give us the name and type of your fusor as well as an approximate run date.

You can use the spread sheet and copy/paste the data.

Steven

[DaveC]

Steven -

I had a reason for suggesting recording the TIER (not ITER, sorry!) value. It helps put the Q value in perspective. Some plasma characteristics are scale invariant, but surface to volume ratios are scale dependent, as well a chamber resonances, (as distinguished from plasma and ion resonances), system impedances and so on.

But your point is well taken, that the table could get less useful if too much data is presented.... Further, it's your table.

Dave Cooper

[Wilfried Heil]

We start out with power levels and neutron numbers to calculate Q, so for calculating TIER you can do the same in reverse:

TIER [n/s] = Q * P [J/s, electric] * 8.55E+11 [n/J, fusion]

[JohnCuthbert]

Perhaps I'm just in a funny mood but I wonder if there's any comparable data for things like "JET"?
If so it might be interesting to make the comparison.

[Richard Hull]

I am sure that somewhere down in the bowels of now unemployed JET engineers you will find someone who ran or could run honest energy numbers where the infrastrure and support energy needed to operate JET would be brought into subtraction against the actual computed fusion energy release during the scant few seconds it ran on its best day.

With this said, We are just using the input energy to the plasma as well in our calcs. To be able to decry JET, we should also include out vacuum pump system energy, etc. However, I doubt if it would more than halve our efficiency.

If Jet had a similar loss to us in this respect, that would reduce their break even claim to only 50% efficient.

You may forever rest assured that the official JET press release energy calculation guys would seek to just insulate the hell outta' anyone with full access to the real ancillary support energy figures from coming forward with honest numbers.

They might have a stooge who will come out of the rear of the crowd and supply a lump figure for ancillary support, but never will he have a listing, a tabulation for close examination. The public just does not NEED to know how energy bleeds are handled at such core levels.

No one knows how they compute for the press releases. I doubt that there is a precise, well delineated tabulation available to the public.

I, like you, would love to be able to see how they run the numbers.

I just wish we could "go figure"

Richard Hull

[Steven Sesselmann]

Jon Rosenstiel has just pushed his fusor a little harder and pushed the benchmark up for all of us, his best run has been improved from a Q of 8.09e-9 to 8.42e-09 (a 4% improvement).

See Jon's post here;

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2899#p12409

Here is how it calculates out on my Bubble calculator...

http://www.beejewel.com.au/research/fus ... ulator.htm

Calculations
Power input: 1680 Watt
Neutron flux at detector: 1.07 e3 n/s/cm2
Neutrons isotropic 1.21 e7 n/s
Total D+D fusion reactions 2.42 e7 fusions/s

Proton energy (3.02 Mev) 3.65 e13 ev/s
Neutron energy (2.45 Mev) 2.96 e13 ev/s
Triton energy (1.01 Mev) 1.22 e13 ev/s
Alpha particle energy (0.82 Mev) 9.92 e12 ev/s

Total fusion power 8.83 e13 ev/s
Total fusion power (converted) 1.41 e-5 Watt/s

Q = Energy out vs. energy in 8.42 e-9

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

All,

The University of Wiscounsin have good data of their best run in their Homer IEC fusor, this fusor is large in comparison with the amateur fusors, and they are feeding it with plenty of juice.

http://iec.neep.wisc.edu/results.php

I plugged the data into my Q calculator and here are the results.

Calculations;
Power input: 14250 Watt
Neutron flux at detector: 7.64 e3 n/s/cm2
Neutrons isotropic 2.40 e8 n/s
Total D+D fusion reactions 4.80 e8 fusions/s

Proton energy (3.02 Mev) 7.24 e14 ev/s
Neutron energy (2.45 Mev) 5.88 e14 ev/s
Triton energy (1.01 Mev) 2.42 e14 ev/s
Alpha particle energy (0.82 Mev) 1.97 e14 ev/s

Total fusion power 1.75 e15 ev/s
Total fusion power (converted) 2.81 e-4 Watt

Q = Energy out vs. energy in 1.97 e-8


Steven

[benbartlett]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=366#p2691

This is the run right before I blew out my XRT.

Ben

[Steven Sesselmann]

Ben,

Your fusor is on the Q list, and I am confident that you will get better numbers as your fusor burns itself in (for lack of a better expression

When you report a better run, I will move your fusor up the list.

Steven

[benbartlett]

Thanks, Steven.

Hopefully I will get better numbers, after I get another power supply, which hopefully will let the fusor "burn itself in" while not "burning itself out"!

Ben

[Steven Sesselmann]

Richard has a good run with FUSOR IV and moves up the list.....Watch out Jon!

Steven

[Richard Hull]

Jon's 10e7 super run is quite safe. I pushed fusor IV pretty hard and probably came close to arcing my insulator, but thankfully did not have that happen. I am right at the limit of my supply and hardware capabilities.

It is a good thing that fusor IV was not damaged in the record run as I have 20 folks from the Virginia chapter of the American Nuclear Society due to come over tomorrow evening to see the fusor in action. I am not planning on ramming the coals to the device the way I did for the VPI students.

Richard Hull

[Steven Sesselmann]

As we have had many newbies lately and not so many reports of fusion, I am pushing this post up into the recent threads, and hopefully inspiring some new reports.

The list at the head of this thread, is a list of fusors in order of efficiency. The purpose of the list, is to identify which fusor designs work better.

Submit a detailed report of your fusors best fusion run, preferably with "bubble proof" results and your device/fusor will be added to the list.

Don't worry if your results won't place you at the top of the list, simply doing fusion is a noteworthy achievement, and you deserve to be on the list. Knowing what makes a fusor perform badly is just as important.

It is good discipline to keep a notebook with detailed records of all your experiments. record details such as, date, build version, pressure, voltage, current, time, neutrons etc.. A simple exercise book with a few columns will do the job.....

Steven

[Richard Hull]

Good man Steven! Push the important stuff forward lest it remain in the doldrums. This certainly deserves to be tended to by new fusioneers who will, hopefully, log their data in the required detail.

Richard Hull

[Steven Sesselmann]

Thanks to Tyler Christensen, I have regained my editing rights so I can maintain this page.

Today I have added Daniel Firth's fusor to the list, which is a standard Farnsworth fusor, and a very nice one I might add, click on the date in the table above, to find the original post that describes his fusor run.

Daniel and others, please note that I am more than happy to edit the table above with more recent data, to reflect improved performance.

Don't forget, the objective of this survey is to build a database of what works and what doesn't.

As Chris Bradley has often said, any revolutionary new fusion reactor design with dramatically improved efficiency, will show improved efficiency from as little as 5kV

Keep at it...

Steven

[Richard Hull]

Everyone must remember..............If your efforts are to be cataloged by Steven, you MUST give adequate information or he can't figure out what you've done. This means full, accurate metering of voltage and current from the supply and a good neutron count based on an accepted neutron counting method.

For more info on what is demanded see:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7893&hilit=faq#p55852 -re: faq

Richard Hull

[Steven Sesselmann]

Hi Guys,

Some of the more recent members may not have seen my fusor list here and not many have claimed a listing recently. Thanks to frank I now have editing privileges and will start maintaining this list again. See the first post in this thread for the conditions required to claim a rank for your fusor.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2826&p=12336#p12336

Steven

[Bob Reite]

Ah! My best fusor run would be between #4 and #5 on the list as it is today:

Bob Reite's standard fusor.
Standard fusor.
22 Oct 2014
Q = 2.49 e-9
40 KV @ 7.0 mA
42 bubbles over 5 minutes
33 b/mRem

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=9689 Run #3

[Steven Sesselmann]

Thanks Bob,

Nice work, you are now on the list.

Steven

Bob Reite's Run #3

Bob-Reite-Run3.png (96.71 KiB) Viewed 7324 times

[Steven Sesselmann]

Announcement,

July 2016 Andrew Seltzman's superb effort with his Mark3 fusor has been added to the list in position 3, technically it should be number two on the list since the benchmark #1 on the list is not an amateur effort, in any case I have a feeling Andrew is not giving up just yet.

Steven