Fusion Results Data Collection

Announcements and items of immediate importance.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion Results Data Collection

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:25 am

Garrett created a good list here, but as of recent it seems to be broken.

The last entries are not calculating the Q and not propagating through to the other pages. I assume Garrett must be busy with other things at the moment, have tried contacting him to ask for editing rights, but with limited success. He did receive my message earlier this week and deleted one line on the spreadsheet for me, but hasn't fixed the other issues yet.

Hopefully he gets around to it soon and I also think he should assign editing rights to a few other trusted members, else I think we should recreate his list.

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: 277
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:03 am
Real name: Bob Reite
Location: Wilkes Barre/Scranton area

Re: Fusion Results Data Collection

Post by Bob Reite » Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:52 am

Humm, I wonder if the phpbb forum upgrade of a few months ago broke it. It would be a shame to have lost all of that data. I have another idea for getting 100 KV worth of neutrons with only 50 KV potentials above ground, but that means buying or building another HV supply and right now, I got a lot of "Real Life" work that is bringing in money. Of course that money could go towards a nice new Spellman supply.
The more reactive the materials, the more spectacular the failures.
The testing isn't over until the prototype is destroyed.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10902
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusion Results Data Collection

Post by Richard Hull » Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:34 pm

Would that idea ultimately produce 100kv worth of x-radiation? That's just nasty. A whole new world of shielding and worries about leaks, scattering and reflections. More power to anyone breaking the 100kv applied barrier. Nice thought though on splitting the voltage up outside the chamber. I assume the external chamber body would not float 50kv above ground?

If you want to explain in further detail on this, open a new thread in the HV or construction forum.

Did Garrett move, change jobs; I hope he is still checking in every now and then.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion Results Data Collection

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:27 am

Reading a few posts around the forum it seems Garrett has moved on to other things, at least for the moment, so I have taken the liberty of copying his form data onto another spreadsheet and basically recreated most of what he had there.

I would be happy to share editing privileges with a few others here on the forum, so the list can be kept alive, so please PM me if you would like help maintain the spreadsheet.

This is a beta version and I would love to get suggestions for improvements.

The Data Entry Form is here:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp ... Q/viewform

The Entered Data goes here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

* Note the tabs at the bottom link to plots and calculated data

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

Rex Allers
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:39 am
Real name:
Location: San Jose CA

Re: Fusion Results Data Collection

Post by Rex Allers » Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:37 am

Steven,

Your update fixes look good. One minor thing I noticed: On the last chart, "Fusion runs by energy Quotient", the Y-axis numbers, I think, are 1000x the values being displayed from the Calculation of Q column.

What sort of spreadsheet is underlying what the web pages show, is it Microsoft Excel?
Rex Allers

Tom McCarthy
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 7:36 pm
Real name: Tom McCarthy
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: Fusion Results Data Collection

Post by Tom McCarthy » Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:09 pm

The spreadsheets are based on Google's Sheets software Rex. If you have a Gmail/Google account you can account use it at sheets.google.com

The software itself isn't as good as Excel, but it's all online and freely accessible from anywhere for anyone.

Tom

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion Results Data Collection

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:55 pm

Rex Allers wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:37 am
Steven,

Your update fixes look good. One minor thing I noticed: On the last chart, "Fusion runs by energy Quotient", the Y-axis numbers, I think, are 1000x the values being displayed from the Calculation of Q column.

What sort of spreadsheet is underlying what the web pages show, is it Microsoft Excel?
Rex,

Thanks for feedback, yes I changed the TIER input value to be the absolute number and present it in scientific notation. Most of us are familiar with quoting our neutron counts in terms of 10^6 n/s, so when you input the data you have to include all the zeroes.

I also dropped the column with the grid size, but if you guys think it is an important parameter to compare, i can put it back in.

How about chamber leak rate, should we plot it, and if so in what units?

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

Rex Allers
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:39 am
Real name:
Location: San Jose CA

Re: Fusion Results Data Collection

Post by Rex Allers » Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:41 am

Steven,

I think you missed what I was saying. The issue I saw is only on the Q chart. The TIER charts seem ok.

On the Q chart there is a data-point for each fusor. The X-axis is just the order of each fusor row in the spreadsheets. The Y-axis is Q, a unit-less value from Pout/Pin that is calculated on the Calculations sheet, column E.

If I click on the Q chart and hover over your F.I.C.S point, I see the value 9.77E-09. That is the value that was calculated in row E. The issue is that if I look at the Y-axis scale that point appears to be 9.77E-07. (In my earlier post I said the scale was off by 1000x. I should have said 100x. Oops, but still wrong.)

With the guidance from Tom, I was able to open my own google account and copy the spreadsheet into my drive space where I could see the details. Looking at the chart editor for the vertical axis I saw there was a scale factor of 0.01 applied. I changed it to 'default' and the scale numbers became what I would expect, matching the data-point values.

-Rex
Rex Allers

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Fusion Results Data Collection

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:22 am

Rex,

Thanks, I got it now and it should be fixed..

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: 277
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:03 am
Real name: Bob Reite
Location: Wilkes Barre/Scranton area

Re: Fusion Results Data Collection

Post by Bob Reite » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:55 am

Oh I will be posting more on the split supply. I will post a new message about it once I've run a few tests and I think it's novel enough that I filed a provisional patent for it. The USPTO took my money, but I'm waiting for confirmation that I did it right.
The more reactive the materials, the more spectacular the failures.
The testing isn't over until the prototype is destroyed.

Post Reply