Fusion Message Board

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: Theory
Date: Aug 08, 6:09 am
Poster: ???

On Aug 08, 6:09 am, ??? wrote:

>Well I don't think fusors of any kind will
>be possible with all the "Secret operations"
>being done. It is not wise to hide information
>as is being done.

They have to keep it secret, because both of the major camps in the IEC game have made promises that they may not be able to keep. Both camps got there funding with the promise that they had the solution to breaking even with an IEC. As for the amateurs this is why I started this post, because I want the ideas to flow again.

>Secondly this is a hobby and as such it is the
>old trial and error type of construction. Nobody
>will get a Ph.D. on home fusor theroies of operation
>.(Or none that I know of).

So, is that any reason why to prevent the amateurs from expressing there point of view and there ideas, NO.

>Thirdly I don't know of any fusor models of operation, that one can calculate to contruct a fusor of better quality.

The IEC concept is one of the most unknown territories in fusion research, for no matter what they tell you, almost all the simulations are about 99% incorrect the day they run them and with a little hand waving suddenly a 2D simulation can predict a 3D dynamic reaction. Can anyone catch the problem here? This is exactly how IEC simulations currently work.

I agree, that the current forms are limited in performance, but if we look at this board there were a lot of fresh new ideas coming out and little by little other people shot them down until they went away. The fact is that ideas are ideas and the people who think of them should have the opportunity to express there ideas in this board without facing the kind of opposition that they have met with in the past.

I agree that an amateur will probably never make a break even device, but there is no power on earth that can prevent an amateur from figuring out how to make a break even device. For all the education of the professionals, the acquisition of knowledge is not the monopoly of the PhD's of this world.

A perfect example of this is the economy, because a large amount of PhD's work in companies started by entrepreneurs that in many cases lack a college education.
They can be considered amateurs in there field also, for the exception of the fact they invented some new thing without the benefit of the so called educational background. If you don't believe me just compare the amount of patents filed by PhD's and the amount filed by common people.

Again knowledge is not limited to a PhD.

>Forth and finaly, Even if you get Break even
>you need a gain of about 4 or 5 to be practical.

>PS, But who knows until you try.
>I can see it now... Radio Fusor
>Hey this is realy crummy reception -- Music
>hiss pop crackle more music... true but then you only have to replace the 00-FSR tubes evey 10,000 years and you never need batteries.
>PPS. This message board needs a online spell