Fusion power at home, how small science will defeat big science!

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Fusion research is known for its huge projects — and its huge lack of tangible success. Big machines like the Princeton tokamak and the Livermore laser have indeed managed to fuse a few nuclei, but have required too much energy to get too little in return. A Brooklyn web developer named Mark Suppes recently created fusion in in his own home, using a much simpler device called a Farnsworth fusor. Accessing declassified experiments, and using open-source software, open-source hardware and crowdsourced funding, he has turned the traditional approach to scientific research on its head — and he makes it look easy.




So what do you think ATS will this guy succeed when so many others have failed or been suppressed?

Think of the implications for humanity, nearly unlimited power in you own home! I dont think TPTB will be very happy all the same!

www.extremetech.com...
edit on 22-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


It... is an empty pod? Anyway, you link is broken.

I just luuuve those free-energy-tinkerer. Every single one of them is completely confident that he has the answers to anything, and anybody else who might think along the sciency-ways of proof and theories and such obvious nonsense ist just a shill of Big Power, can't think outside the box, wants to hold back the population for Rockefellers' profits and so on and on.

Okay, to prove to me (or any other engineer) that this machine is working, do the simple following things:


  1. Draw a technical diagram, complete with quantities of used fluids etc.
  2. Can you build a working machine? Do it. If it is working, you may introduce it to experts. Enough at every university, you WILL find someone who is not paid by Big Power. Yes, that is possible. My professors would have been happy for having private sponsorships.
  3. Let that machine run for a year or longer continously. See Kalina/x-orca in Iceland. They went bankrupt, but that is beside the point: they built their machine (geothermal energy) and let it run for years in a powerpant open for observation.
  4. Patents. ACCEPTED patents.
  5. Explain the process. For example, I know how a nuclear power plant works, but not in the details, so I couldn't build a new one if I wanted. Nevertheless, the process is documented and traceable. And still yours.


If one thing or another of this list is not feasible, DOCUMENT that and EXPLAIN why not. Not enough money for the machine? No patents? WHY?
edit on 22-2-2013 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Buddy im an Electronic and Electrical engineering and i cant prove it to you. This goes way above my level of understanding.

That does not mean its not possible through!

Link is fixed now.

edit on 22-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I can't really comment on his claim to "nuclear fusion" as I read over his blog but didn't get into too much detail. I will say though, it does not seem he has the personality of the standard snake oil salesman, crank, crackpot "backyard inventor" trying to sell the next stupid idea that makes them coffee money.


"The blog was my way of connecting with the community, and over the course of a couple years, it came to the point where real physicists were following and commenting on it. I would try, and it would fail miserably, so I'd post about it and someone on comments would explain what I was doing wrong -- that was amazing. It's a really relaxed learning environment -- there's no shame in not knowing something."

Suppes gets the majority of his kit for building the reactor from eBay ("you would not believe the stuff you get on eBay -- high-powered lasers, incredibly dangerous high-voltage stuff, it's really dangerous and I love it") and any bits he can't find, he 3D-prints. He's dipped into Kickstarter for funding and documents the whole thing on camera with hundreds of time-stamped photos loaded to his Flickr feed everyday.

Of course, four years is a long slog, and it's been more mishaps than success -- but the successes more than make up for it.

"Failure is really important -- it's really all failure, that's the backbone of the project. But then there was the plasma -- that was a very exciting moment, seeing that, my hairs were standing on end. And then achieving nuclear fusion, and levitating a superconducting magnet."


Sounds more like a young kid with dreams, that may have never fully grown up. But, he does offer some humility and admits clearly he has no idea what he is doing. He seems awful sincere.

If I were to make a bet on all the homegrown inventors, this guy I might drop a dollar on for stumbling on something he had no idea was there to begin with, wouldn't be the first time, nor probably the last.

As of now, he doesn't appear to be the standard Charlatan. So I give him credit.

His blog can be found here.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
It would be great we're this real. However, if it is, it would never make the light of day. He'd be struck by lightening or some other strange death.

Until the energy mogels find a way to profit from it.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ctdannyd
It would be great we're this real. However, if it is, it would never make the light of day. He'd be struck by lightening or some other strange death.



Back in the real world, he is the 38th person to build one of these devices, using a lot of technical know-how floating around on the internet.

The way people talk here, you'd think he had actually invented something new.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Nice diagram... CF fittings however are not designed for high pressure, they are used for vacuum. Also, he would probably require a turbo pump, and GOD no please dont use NPT fittings on something like this, Swagelok or VCR are the way to go


Also using bellows for expansion... ooooh no no no no no, please don't do that, if you want to use those to help reduce pressure build up, there are better ways, bellows are typically used to allow for about -1 bar g differential pressure and for temperature contractions/expansion. They are not for holding back the very high pressures required to achieve fusion.


Will it work?

Depends what you want it to do... if you want a flash looking stainless steel sphere with lots of vacuum ports, that doesn't really do anything, you would need a method of recovering the energy, and i dont really see any from this basic diagram.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Here is the NASA source: The nuclear reactor in your basement.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


Farnsworth fusors are old hat. They never were classified, except the polywell versions. Many people have built them.

At one time, Daimler-Chrysler would sell you one ("FusionStar") for a neutron source.




Fusors don't reach anywhere near breakeven, although if you build them right, you can make a very strong neutron generator.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Im just quoting how Mr Suppes says he achieved his end results. I dont know if the technology is classified or otherwise.

Why were the Polywell versions classified?

What did they do that the others did not, or did they just generate a larger neutron source?
edit on 22-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Im just quoting how Mr Suppes says he achieved his end results. I dont know if the technology is classified or otherwise.

Why was the Polywell versions classified?

What did they do that the others did not, or did they just generate a larger neutron source?
edit on 22-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


The story of Dr Bussard is long and twisty.

Basically, there was a guy named Dr Robert Bussard, who was a very well known fusion physicist. You might have heard his name in 'Star Trek', they named parts of the warp engine after him.

Anyway, Bussard worked with Hirsch, who had worked with Farnsworth before that on the fusor. Bussard became interested in solving the big issues with the fusor, which are mainly related to electron recycling efficiency. A number of experiments were done, it started looking promising, and the Navy (Naval Sea Systems) stepped in. They wanted a fusor to run subs with. They offered Bussard funding, but a lot of his lab assistants/grad students were not able to get clearance and had to be dumped. (a big stink at the time)

The project moved to Naval Sea Systems, then the brass sorta liked it so the classification went up a notch, they moved it to Naval Weapons, and it went pretty dark for a while. I lost detailed track of it as it went into NW, since I didn't have any contacts at that location and didn't know the project officer, and didn't have any need to know so, I didn't. However, they banged out the issues and supposedly just as they demonstrated way over breakeven, the project was defunded and boxed up, and the patent holding co EMC2 was dissolved. Bussard passed on.

However, in an odd twist of fate, as far as you could tell from the funding office docs, the project wasn't defunded, it just changed locations again. The project code is still active, there's still a project office, there are personnel assigned to it, it's still classified.

Legend has it that the project has in fact been resurrected and is now refunded, but really, it didn't look like it ever actually stopped. Just swapped locations again. While they might have recycled the code for a totally separate project, it had the same personnel for a while, which didn't seem to fit.

Anyway, there's Navy hanky-panky going on there. And I do believe it did finally produce net power. It'll be a shame if they shove it into sub service and never let it out.

BTW, Farnsworth's original fusor was not a lot like a F-H fusor. Farnsworth claimed to be able to run his fusor above breakeven back in the 60s.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Thanks for the info Bedlam, i found it interesting.

I take it Dr Bussard is the same physicist that came up with the ram scoop idea? Harvesting hydrogen from the interstellar medium using magnets, then using it for propulsion.

edit on 22-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
Accessing declassified experiments, and using open-source software, open-source hardware and crowdsourced funding, he has turned the traditional approach to scientific research on its head — and he makes it look easy.

So what do you think ATS will this guy succeed when so many others have failed or been suppressed?

www.extremetech.com...
edit on 22-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


Question. How does he turn anything on its' head and make it look easy if he has not accomplished anything yet? I will skip ahead and spoil the ending. He fails. ATS claims suppression.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Buddy im an Electronic and Electrical engineering and i cant prove it to you. This goes way above my level of understanding.

That does not mean its not possible through!

Link is fixed now.

edit on 22-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


Hey buddy, engineer? Me too. But maybe my posting sounded too personal, I was directing it merely on every person who wants others to believe in her/his machine of wonder. I don't doubt that you don't have the information I suggested should be presented, as you are not the inventor/tinkerer mentioned above.

Nevertheless, I underline the need for proof or giving out details. Not all details but enough that we engineers don't have to think in the lines of "oh dear, another try at positioning magnets and their virtual never-ending powers to provide a machine with unlimited free energy."

Magnetic powered machines are always not-selfpowered enough to provide power for lets-say 1 year running or for powering some external device like an 80W-lightbulb. I have never seen otherwise and there is no scientific method to derive this kind of power without any external powersource outside those cleverly positioned magnets.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
No offence taken mate! Say's electronic and electrical engineer on my HND, im pretty much a PC technician meaning i maintain, repair and build systems all day long. You sound like a proper Engineer.

Do you really think there is no possibility now or in the near future of someone actually designing an overunity engine/device?
edit on 26-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
No offence taken mate! Say's electronic and electrical engineer on my HND, im pretty much a PC technician meaning i maintain, repair and build systems all day long. You sound like a proper Engineer.

Do you really think there is no possibility now or in the near future of someone actually designing an overunity engine/device?
edit on 26-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


Actually, no. Any effect or any machine we ever built does not show any sign of overunity. I don't want to speak about some "laws of thermodynamic", as those are accepted by every engineer, but are not necessarily universally in effect.

There is a difference between knowing and hoping - we know of a lot of energy-conversion-machines (like a steam-machine, a nuclear-powerplant, a solar-photovoltaic module and so on). We know that none of those machines, available and described in every needed detail to understand their way of working, is capable of over-unity.
We can hope for more.

But there are no signs.

Sure, there are a lot of people who WANT me to believe in their machine and its unexplained overunity. Usually, they ask for some money the next moment, "just for some minor adjustments, so it will work better - oh, and buy my books". Those are frauds and imposters.

Give me some schematics of a machine, don't leave the central area blank: "here is where the wonder happens, but it is right now in the process of patenting, so shush-shush. Buy my books".
And stop expecting magnets to work with overunity. They don't, won't and can't do that. No clever design in the universe could achieve that.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


So we are stuck with entropy must increase in a closed system then? I understand we cannot negate the laws of thermodynamics, however there must be some way of going around them, i mean the earth is one big perpetual motion device working in conjunction with our Sun and the rest of the planetary bodies in our system. If the multiverse can do it there may still be hope of us Monkeys scalling it down and achieving the goal of overunity. It sounds arrogant i know.

One must retain a measure of hope through.

Tesla had some great ideas regarding overunity devices, essentially tapping into the power grid of the planet. Do you not think "They" may have perfected his ideas?
edit on 26-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


So we are stuck with entropy must increase in a closed system then?

The closed system being the whole of the universe, yes. We can't configurate the closed system any smaller, as that kind of thing depends on completely impermeable walls - which are physically impossible.


I understand we cannot negate the laws of thermodynamics, however there must be some way of going around them, i mean the earth is one big perpetual motion device working in conjunction with our Sun and the rest of the planetary bodies in our system. If the multiverse can do it there may still be hope of us Monkeys scalling it down and achieving the goal of overunity. It sounds arrogant i know.

Sorry, but the solar-system is not a system with overunity. The planets are rotating around the sun, but as soon as you would develope a machine to derive some energy out of one planet's orbit, that planet's speed will decelerate, bringing that planet closer to the sun. There is no way for the planet to get to a more distant orbit again without being accelerated again.
So, no overunity.

And, btw: the planets are slowed down by microscopic dust in space, although I have never heard of any numbers concerning this - I suppose that effect is negligible. So, no eternal movement, another sign of not-even-unity.



One must retain a measure of hope through.

Tesla had some great ideas regarding overunity devices, essentially tapping into the power grid of the planet. Do you not think "They" may have perfected his ideas?
edit on 26-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


Hope keeps us getting up every morning

What is the power grid of the planet? Magnetic fields? Well, if I would ever tap HEAVILY into those, I would affect those forces which produced the magnetic field in the first hand - which would be the moving parts of the earth's iron core. Don't mess with that on a global scale, please! If the magnetic field would weaken, we would experience first hand what a nice warm shower some of sun's more energetic lights truely are........!

Anyway.
Over-unity is defined as a process which sets more energy free than it self uses or the included system does have. Therefore, you can't keep taking energy from one bucket and telling everyone that that bucket does have "over-unity" - you are just draining some kind of battery.

One day, the "world power grid" would be empty.

Or the process of refueling it might severly damage mankind, but as long as we haven't defined the true nature of that grid, we can't foresee or foretell the consequences of draining it.


I have hopes for "more efficiency". Or for "using renewable ressources". Or even for "using ressources which are in true abundance on earth (H2O, silicium, something like that)". This is possible. And we are working on it.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   
'Fusors' have been around for quite a while now without any really promising publicly released results apart from the fact that fusion can be achieved (at great expense compared to the output). And consider the fact that really good results would most likely leave the experimenter, his family and possibly even neighbors suffering from a lethal dose of neutron radiation making less than mediocre results probably not such a bad thing for a typical hobbyist effort at this (no shielding, no 'safe' zone etc etc).



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 




Fusion power at home, how small science will defeat big science!


History shows us that the biggest breakthroughs come from small labs and not the huge industrial ones. So long as we have the freedom to think and invent... and so long as those inventions make it successfully to the public, there is a light at the end of every tunnel.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join