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: The Original Farnsworth Mark series Fusor.
Date: Jul 10, 01:12 am
Poster: Richard Hull

On Jul 10, 01:12 am, Richard Hull wrote:

>Ok, I must be getting some wrong information on the Farnsworth devices.
>It's the only explanation because I was under the impression that multi-pacting (electro-optic) technique at Super High Frequency (SHF) was a superior method than star mode.


Farnsworth and his team struggled from 1959-1963 with this EXL concept and it was a terrible bust at that time. Still, they learned what did not work. RH
>I was also under the impression that the neutron count on the Mark II and III device was above 10 to the 12 neutrons per second while Miley's have only reached 10 to the 7 neutrons per second.


This is incorrect.

Once the Team started to work on the ion collisional systems, they started geting results!
By 1964 they had not exceed about 10e6 or 10e7 n/s

Hirsch showed up and made a similar but much simpler ion collider machine and got nearly the same results as the hugely complicated and expensive ion gunned Mark series systems.

Hirsch then used a 50-50 mixture of Tritium and Deuterium and hit 10e10 neutrons with ease above 60KV.

The electron knot machines failed due to technique used. The ion colliders or mark series worked but used only Deuterium. After 66 the Hirsch D-T machine put the ion gunned machines out of business on a cost alone basis.

Miley's machines are using deuterium only, so far as I know. Thus, his lower numbers. Try and get a tritium site license!!!! The idea of nuclear materials on campus and accountability for same is a political nightmare and only old institions have them. RH
>Now, I've been reading the patents and some historical accounts so I was under the impression that the above were true.
>But something does not seem correct.
>If the Hirsch device is so superior, why are formal researchers trying to make there systems work like Farnsworth's Mark series.


They feel there may have been something overlooked by Farnsworth and his team, but the have to have the bucks to get into the game.
>In the first Farnsworth patent, you can see that the first device is almost identical to the Hirsch device.
>The patent was filed in 1962. It was approaved in 1964. Hirsch was just getting his Doctorate at the University of Illinois under Miley at that time and it was not until later that year that Miley got a call from Farnsworth to see if he should hire Hirsch.
>So, why did they move away from the superior "Hirsch method" which seems to be a slite modification of the original 1962 Farnsworth device?


ITT killed all funding in 67! Over....finito....get out of here.....etc.

The AEC was given a demo of the Hirsch/Meeks design in an effort to keep the whole thing alive., and was hugely impressed but no funding came forth, much of this due to political fighting for funds and complaints from the hot fusion folks at princeton.

Within 1 year after the demo Hirsch was working at the AEC in management. (They loved his presentational style.) RH

>It also seems to me that Hirsch would have objected to the progression of the Farnsworth researh if the original method was better.

Hirsch is no longer involved in research! RH