Be my guest. I got a bit riled, but I didn't need to. The money is spent and the data are coming no matter what we do, and we all are eager to see what it is. I particularly defer to you and Rick since you both have had a close look at the data and worked with the machines. You can still be dead wrong, but your instincts have more input to work with than mine do.Tom Ligon wrote:I hear you ... all we've seen from the earlier work is a wiff of fusion. I'm content, at the moment, to await peer-reviewed results to see if the scent is now stronger, and if the dogs know which way to track.
Sorry for the sign error. Of course I meant for my (positive) ion to be formed outside but near the magrid and accelerated to the wall. I was thinking of DD fusion with adsorbed deuterium, not any spallation reaction with the stainless steel. I believe the voltage will not be high enough to get much going beyond Z=1/Z=1 reactions. There can well be evidence that speaks against this mechanism, but it seems the data is lacking to conclusively rule it out. The actual source of the neutrons could be something completely different, but still not thermonuclear fusion. It's speculation either way.Tom Ligon wrote:The point has already been answered that a magrid charged to attract electrons will not attract the sort of ions we expect to form. I allow the possibility of negative ions, but doubt they're much of a factor in such a high-energy environment. Driving ions to the outer wall is certainly a possibility, although in that case I would expect reactions during the big discharges that terminated the WB6 runs, rather than immediately preceeding the discharge and while the well was deep. What reactions would you get in stainless steel at 10 keV? Would the energy of the neutrons be distinguishable from DD fusion? I've recommended methods other than electronic thermalized neutron counters be employed. Bicron 720 comes to mind (fast-neutron specific, and with some neutron energy resolution capability), with a backup of bubble dosimeters (require fast neutrons to make bubbles).
I know hydrogen is hard to get rid of, even if all you let in is deuterium. On the other hand, I don't know but that a few percent deuterium might be enough.Tom Ligon wrote:In my test runs, I deliberately tried to saturate the machines with deuterium, but the RGA said I was not having much success ... the gas that blows off in the bright glows remains mostly hydrogen, although you do start to see some HD peaks with continued use. But we've noticed the present EMC2 website photo shows a helium plasma ... I have to wonder if they're deliberately trying to avoid deuterium loading.
How do you measure 0.002 fusion neutrons per shot?Tom Ligon wrote:I would add that the extensive runs of WB-4, essentially WB-6 with a bad geometry, should have made the same apparent high fusion results if the effect were ions going to the walls. The reports say it produced fusion, but at a rate about three orders of magnitude down from WB-6. The evidence for either is relatively thin, but it does suggest WB-6 was doing something unique and worth looking in to.
I'm sure I could not have done any better under the circumstances. Of course, there are many other tests you would like to do, like comparing pure hydrogen to pure deuterium, but when your fifth shot under the relevant conditions destroys the machine, that kind of puts a cramp on your experimental protocols.Tom Ligon wrote:I set up the counters to not trigger on electric arcs (I shielded the entire setup strongly and super-filtered the power lines). The result was a background count rate of something like 3 counts per minute. They would not respond to a 20 kV cap-discharge arc right beside the counter. I understand they've now taken this a step or two further. I do understand any concerns about the possibility of false counts due to this cause ... Farnsworth reportedly faked results for one early demonstration before Dr. Hirsch showed an easier way to build fusors that actually worked like a charm.