In this space, visitors are invited to post any comments, questions, or skeptical observations about Philo T. Farnsworth's contributions to the field of Nuclear Fusion research.
Subject: Re: More bad news for fusors
Date: Jul 17, 9:50 pm
Poster: Don Harris
On Jul 17, 9:50 pm, Don Harris wrote:
>>>In a thesis written by Dr. Todd Rider entitled "Fundamental Limitations on Plasma Fusion Systems Not in Thermodynamic Equilibrium" (like in non-Maxwellian plasmas or fusors) he points out that even if fusors can overcome all other losses, ion collisions, electron losses and so fourth there is an even larger loss mechanism that they may not be able to solve, and that is Bremsstrahlung losses.
>>In a recent popular mechanic magazine i noticed an artical about a fuel oil powered fuel cell that used extremely low quantities of fuel to produce infarad radiation that powered solar cells what is the spectrum range of the fuser at low voltage?
>>Thanks for the reference and info.
>>Bremsstrahlung is just a form of X-radiation....And there is plenty of that in the fusor!
>>I have always said that the fusor, as we work it, will never do well. Others are struggling to work out the bugs. Let them have their moment.
>>I have been and always will be enamored with the system as the cheapest and most economical way to do fusion! ..........not a lot of it...........not efficiently........,but it can be done on a kitchen table top by the average guy with some stuff kludged together. It is the only easy nuclear process open to the amateur. It is perfect for the amateur scientist and the only way an amateur can get neutrons in any decent quantity. Plus, it is fun to operate and nurse up to decent levels.
>>I have always noted, for as long as this board has been around, that the simple fusor and most advanced variants have an absolute zero chance of self ignition, breakeven, or even efficient operataion. They are simple and easy to assemble and operate and let the builder state with honesty and confidence...........
>>"Yeah,...fusion?,...Been there, done that."
>>"I have operated a fusion reactor".
>>"Fusion is easy!"
>>Few on this board have ever experienced the incredible hollow cathode glow of a demo collider device and fewer still, can say the above three sentences.
>>Once one has achieved fusion due to the sweat of one's own brow and with one's own hands, the importance of doing it better will have a bit more meaning, than wanting to move from the armchair theorist stage to a breakeven reactor quest.
>>I choose to bask in the not too warm glow of a weak neutron field of my own making before proceeding ever deeper and deeper. Three full years of hands on and doing fusion coupled with helping others in the quest feels good enough right now.
Richard maybe A lot of the heat you have been talking about, on the fusor shell, is coming from
the bremstrathlung radiation being absorbed.
On another subject. Do you think the QF type vacuum flanges will work on my SS fusor shell?
I'm worried about the O-Rings outgassing and maybe getting to hot. The QF's are simpler to make and the O-Rings are cheaper to replace. I
need flanges to join the two shell halves together and the prices for commercial flanges seem to be in excess of $200 for the 6 in. Id units. Any help based on your experience or judgement will be appreciated.
- Re: More bad news for fusors - Richard Hull Jul 18, 10:37 am
- Re: More bad news for fusors - John Jul 17, 10:33 pm