Fusion reactors by energy quotient

For posts specifically relating to fusor design, construction, and operation.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
benbartlett
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:34 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by benbartlett »

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

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

Ben
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
benbartlett
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:34 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

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

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Bob Reite
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:03 pm
Real name: Bob Reite
Location: Wilkes Barre/Scranton area

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
The more reactive the materials, the more spectacular the failures.
The testing isn't over until the prototype is destroyed.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Thanks Bob,

Nice work, you are now on the list.

Steven
Bob Reite's Run #3
Bob Reite's Run #3
Bob-Reite-Run3.png (96.71 KiB) Viewed 7274 times
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by 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
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Andrew Seltzman
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:02 pm
Real name: Andrew Seltzman
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by Andrew Seltzman »

I don't see Carl Willis' "Carl's Jr" fusor on the list:
from a run in 2008: 75 kVDC, 12 mA, 12 mtorr, > 2E+06

This would equate to a Q of about 2.6e-9

https://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... -carls-jr/
Andrew Seltzman
www.rtftechnologies.org
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion reactors by energy quotient

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Andrew,

Okay I have added Carl's documented run to the list, I have no reason to doubt his figures. Normally I add people to the list by request, so if anyone else has a best run they want added to the list, please give me the link to the run report.

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

Return to “Fusor Construction & Operation (& FAQs)”