F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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
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
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
- Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15039
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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
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
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
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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
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
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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
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
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
Dan,
Thanks for feedback on my experiment paper, I hope I can address the lack of detail in my replies.
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![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Steven
* Rod Stuart - British crooner from the 1970's with a bad hair day.
Thanks for feedback on my experiment paper, I hope I can address the lack of detail in my replies.
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.
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 11:16 am 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 understand your scientific scepticism, but let me try to explain the difference.Dan Knapp wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:16 amI 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
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
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
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
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
I would highly recommend that you plot your fields. You may be surprised at what you find.
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:58 pm
- Real name: Michael Bretti
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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.
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.
- Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15039
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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
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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
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
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:58 pm
- Real name: Michael Bretti
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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.
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.
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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
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
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:58 pm
- Real name: Michael Bretti
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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.
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.
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Steven
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
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:58 pm
- Real name: Michael Bretti
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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.
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 12:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.
- Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15039
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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
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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
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
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
Richard,
Okay I would rather have your negative feedback than no feedback at all, following I have a few short comments after your quotes;
We live in a world full of matter heavier than deuterium, and it all assembled itself without my help.
Research is what we do when we don't have a clue what we are doing!
That's what I do.
Steven
Okay I would rather have your negative feedback than no feedback at all, following I have a few short comments after your quotes;
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 4:17 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.
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/TiI9C0MSBAURichard Hull wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:17 amWhat does it take to light off the fusion system's electrical supply in the midst of fusion?
What scientific proof says that deuterons have a will and don't want to fuse?Richard Hull wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:17 amI 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!
We live in a world full of matter heavier than deuterium, and it all assembled itself without my help.
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 4:17 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.
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 4:17 am Remember, cold fusion was done and claimed by the very best in their field of electro-chemistry.........cold fusion melted away.
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 4:17 amI 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.
Fusion research is all about doing what's not in the book and what nobody can teach you, I like to say;Richard Hull wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:17 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
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
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:08 pm
- Real name:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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...
Although I imagine you have some reason that your machine produces extra power, because...
I thought you literally reinvented physics from the ground up over the last few years?Steven Sesselmann wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:03 am No new physics is required to explain how F.I.C.S. works
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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.Tyler Christensen wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:08 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.
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
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:58 pm
- Real name: Michael Bretti
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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.
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.
- Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15039
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
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
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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
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
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
I reiterate my earlier comment. I think if you plot your fields you’ll find that the -65 kV penetrates into your center electrode and what you have built is a single beam linear fusor.
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
Dan,
Thanks again for pointing that out, I am not discarding any hypothesis at this stage. As you suggest it may be operating as a simple linear collider, keep in mind that I have built and tested several versions of simple linear colliders before and found them all to be very unstable, plasma seems to light up on either one side or the other, or sometimes the plasma will oscillate between flashing on one side then the other.
My current triode arrangement seems to work much nicer than the simple diode version.
The physics of what I am doing is really quite simple, so I don't understand why some folks on this forum have such an issue with it. When I create ions at low potential they lack the kinetic energy to climb up the potential well, so the ion density builds up in the core. I don't think it really matters weather there is a beam or not.
But to test this idea I am working on a new core design which does not have an open path through its core. If this works it should eliminate the beam on beam hypothesis. The image below shows a section of one end only. I am doing this modelling in Autodesk Fusion 360 which I find quite intuitive and easy to use.
Maybe the 3D drawings can later be imported into an application like Simion for some PIC modelling.
Steven
Thanks again for pointing that out, I am not discarding any hypothesis at this stage. As you suggest it may be operating as a simple linear collider, keep in mind that I have built and tested several versions of simple linear colliders before and found them all to be very unstable, plasma seems to light up on either one side or the other, or sometimes the plasma will oscillate between flashing on one side then the other.
My current triode arrangement seems to work much nicer than the simple diode version.
The physics of what I am doing is really quite simple, so I don't understand why some folks on this forum have such an issue with it. When I create ions at low potential they lack the kinetic energy to climb up the potential well, so the ion density builds up in the core. I don't think it really matters weather there is a beam or not.
But to test this idea I am working on a new core design which does not have an open path through its core. If this works it should eliminate the beam on beam hypothesis. The image below shows a section of one end only. I am doing this modelling in Autodesk Fusion 360 which I find quite intuitive and easy to use.
Maybe the 3D drawings can later be imported into an application like Simion for some PIC modelling.
Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
I have the new chamber modelled in 3D now, so if anyone with access to SIMION wants to give it a go please PM me and I shall send the STP file.
Thanks... Steven
Thanks... Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
-
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
- Real name: Patrick Lindecker
- Location: Maisons-Alfort France
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
Hello Steven,
I just finished to read the two very interesting topics about your FICS apparatus.
One thing astonished me is this original way to recover part of the kinetic energy (even if in your device, you recover a very small part, but...), by electrostatic influence, the energy E recovered being equal to (if I follow you) E=Q.delta U (with Q the Coulomb charge of ions colliding the cathode and delta U the potential "climbed" by the ions).
I don't see this way using a Zener (note that I ignored up to today that such Zener could exist) in the various "direct energy conversion" systems (kinetic to electric here) on the Net. Is it a known system or your invention?
I just finished to read the two very interesting topics about your FICS apparatus.
One thing astonished me is this original way to recover part of the kinetic energy (even if in your device, you recover a very small part, but...), by electrostatic influence, the energy E recovered being equal to (if I follow you) E=Q.delta U (with Q the Coulomb charge of ions colliding the cathode and delta U the potential "climbed" by the ions).
I don't see this way using a Zener (note that I ignored up to today that such Zener could exist) in the various "direct energy conversion" systems (kinetic to electric here) on the Net. Is it a known system or your invention?
-
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:29 pm
- Real name: John Futter
- Contact:
Re: F.I.C.S Fusion Runs
Patrick
I introduced Steven to making these high voltage zeners from Transil diodes
These diodes exhibit extremely low leakage ie femtoamps so they can be used for self biased electrodes (such as secondary electron suppression and einzel lenses) and i have been using them for 15 years to provide the anode cathode potential for an ion source elevated to the anode potential above earth.
So a 3000 volt zener made from Transil between anode and cathode of the ion source but the anode to ground voltage is 120kV so I can run a system with only one power supply that does the ion source and accelerating potential at the same time --especially useful for anode layer source type ion sources but it also works for cold cathode penning ion sources as well
I introduced Steven to making these high voltage zeners from Transil diodes
These diodes exhibit extremely low leakage ie femtoamps so they can be used for self biased electrodes (such as secondary electron suppression and einzel lenses) and i have been using them for 15 years to provide the anode cathode potential for an ion source elevated to the anode potential above earth.
So a 3000 volt zener made from Transil between anode and cathode of the ion source but the anode to ground voltage is 120kV so I can run a system with only one power supply that does the ion source and accelerating potential at the same time --especially useful for anode layer source type ion sources but it also works for cold cathode penning ion sources as well