Oct4Run1023

Data from actual runs of fusors goes here, we can discuss it elesewhere in other sub forums I will create as needed -- let me know.
Forum rules
Put data and fusor information from actual runs here. We'd like to know how well you are doing, and how you did it in some detail here. We can discuss elsewhere, this is for real reports from actual experiments only, or at least, mainly.

Oct4Run1023

Postby Doug Coulter » Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:31 am

I've had the great good fortune to have been visited by John Futter for the week, and just before heading up to HEAS, we decided to make a run and report our results. We are basically now able to get 2 million neutrons/second minimal, with or without the ion source, which mainly allows us to run slightly lower pressure and fine-adjust the current our "batch mode gas control" system draws. Today, we hit somewhere between 6 and 7 million neutrons a second during a time of instability, and yes, we really did - silver activation backs it up.

(as usual, click on any picture to enlarge it for better viewing)

First, our crew:
BillDougJohn.JPG
Yes, we're smiling - we just did great and set another record!

Who were brave enough to help with the pictures and videos while not in the "safe zone" behind the maximum shielding. Thanks for taking one for the team, fellas!

This is the basic setup. During this short vid, the fusor is going on and off on its own - I have just the threshold gas pressure for it to "light off" without an ion source. We are using the hornyak from Eljen as our data-aq sensor, which as calibrated using Richard Hull's fusor at HEAS 2009, just happens to work out as about 980 cpm/million neuts/second (as agreed by all the others present there with their own calibrated detectors). The clicking/rushing sound heard in this video when the thing is "going" are two other neutron detectors. One (left channel) is a 3He tube about 10" from the shell wall, the other channel is a WWII vintage B10 tube by GE about 30" from the action.
http://youtu.be/rtmccSMwlt8


We ran a bit to heat things up...then pumped back down and started fresh for a longer run with more-pure D. My new Boron Nitride HV feedthrough is still outgassing a bit, but it's working fantastically well, and looking like it is going to last "forever" - so that issue is finally solved once and for all.
Here is the data aq from that first run.
Screenshot-1.png
Early run to bake things out


On the left, the green is the neutron counter, the red is a pancake geiger right in front of the fusor (but behind as much lead as we could manage - that's all scatter X rays during the run). You can tell when I turned off the fusor as the neutrons drop to zero, then there's a short pause while I fetch the silver out of the activation oven and place it over the geiger tube to count the activation. This being a log plot, you can extrapolate back to when the fusor was shut off - so the variable time it takes me to do that job doesn't matter with this kind of data aq system (designed and built here, with help from Joe Jarski). The right hand plot is a few a/d inputs we took during this run, time-synced. The line at 2.5v is a precision voltage reference I use later in data mining to calibrate out any error in a/d full scale range (changes with the computer power supply). The blue line is log pressure - you can see the drop after the run when I pump back down, but without some math, you can't really see the pressure variations during the run (I do that with other software that knows how to handle this raw data and change it into real units). The red line is the HV - topping out at 50kv. The green is the current - about 22 ma max except right at the end when I cranked up the limit a good bit (this plot is linear) - and notice it didn't really help the neutron output - by that time, there's water, H, 3He, and T in the gas in our batch mode gas handling system. Essentially, we've also lost all the D from the tank walls, where some fusion occurs (maybe half when the walls are loaded, and at present, no special D holding material is there - it's just stainless steel). We get about double the net fusion when the walls have D on them, and more in earlier experiments when the walls had Pd and Ti on them. On this first run, you can see considerable instability during the startup - in all the parameters, mostly due to the thing going on and off at the gas threshold pressure, all by itself. You can see the correlation between the neutron counts and the current input (green on both plots). Did pretty well for a warmup run, silver going to something like 1.5k cpm activation (2" sq sample over 2" geiger window).

On John's suggestion, while we let things cool off, we put in about 9e-2 mbar of D to let the ss tank walls absorb fresh D while cooling, then made our "money" run. Actually, we did this twice or so, since we were having some fun doing it.
You can see the pumpdown and then pressure increase for one of those in this shot:
Screenshot-3.png
Crummy run followed by background, pumpdown, then adding extra D. Note pressure plot is a log of the pressure (PKR-251 sensor comes out that way)


Now for the ideal "money run" where we hit I believe almost 7 m n/s.
MoneyRun.png
The money run. Not shabby for me. 50kv tops.
(we see neutrons at about 16-17kv, well out of the noise, for reference)

You can see where we hit our peak output - just as we hit current limit at about 220-something seconds, before we'd baked the D back out of the tank walls. All downhill from there, but still darn good. I am going to wind some cooling water coil around the tank at this point, so we can keep that D, and coat the wall with Ti again to hold more than stainless steel will - it's obvious we've created some sort of tandem accelerator with our fusors, and much of the fusion takes place at the tank walls if you set up things so it can happen there, or obvious to me - this isn't the first time we've seen this. We also took video during this run, but it's taking its time to upload in HD, so I will add that link when it is finished.

Great runs, great fun to have John here - another truly talented hands-on kinda physicist - to advise and teach me things. Thanks John Futter! Hope you had as much fun as I did exchanging our ideas and some culture (along with some decent beer during our theory sessions).

The other great news from my POV is that it appears that the HV feed-through problems are finally solved for good and all with that tight fitting BN insulator inside thick-wall pyrex, but extending 1.5" past the glass. No more sparking, no more longitudinal arcs around a too-small piece of BN (started small - that stuff ain't cheap!). A little grid material sputters onto the end of the BN, and vice versa - sandpaper after a few hours running, and it's all new again, and it only takes about one wipe of 320 grit to get all pristine again. This REALLY beats replacing cracked pieces of glass/quartz in the FT, believe me.

Here's a video Bill took of the last run.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdacMDo8-OU
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Oct4Run1023

Postby Doug Coulter » Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:27 pm

Stay tuned. This was our second best grid (broke the best one, rebuilding that). The best is 2x more output. Loading the walls with D, if they're coated with Ti at the time - another 2x. So our ~~6 m m/s shown here should be about 4x'd when I do those things. We are on the move! And oh well, then there's that 100kv, 200ma supply we just built but haven't used yet. This was all at 50kv or less.

I'm especially interested in that part of the run where we were making significant neutrons with only 6-700 ua input (at 50.2kv). Sad that I didn't write a log file so I could use my data mining code to plot Q. I think we set a record there too...
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Oct4Run1023

Postby Starfire » Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:52 pm

Doug
what moderation are you using with the hornyak? - I have a couple made by Tom Dressel many years ago.

John.
Starfire
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: North Ireland

Re: Oct4Run1023

Postby Doug Coulter » Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:17 pm

No moderation at all. That's how hornyaks work (unlike almost everything else). A fast neutron knocks a proton out of the plastic, then the zinc sulfide is hit by it and produces a pulse of light - detected by a phototube, then amplified to TTL levels for counting.

With moderation, there'd be not enough energy in the knocked-out proton to make light (or for the proton to be knocked out of the hydrocarbon at all - that takes real energy - at least 10's of ev). It's not a 1/V sensitive type device, like the other detectors (which ARE moderated, in general, with about 6" diameter HDPE). We also use a "neutron oven" made of HDPE, sitting right on top of the side-arm where fusion takes place, to activate our silver "gold standard" neutron detector we use as a back-check to make sure our good numbers from the electronic detectors aren't due to things like EMI. In this case, all 4 detection methods agreed to quite good confidence levels. We generally do ~ 5 minute runs as our standard, which is about as long as we can go without melting (or burning) our neutron oven - putting in .5 to 1 kw means there's quite a bit of heat on the chamber walls!
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Oct4Run1023

Postby Steven Sesselmann » Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:50 pm

Hi Doug,

Well done on those runs, and great to hear that John F. visited your lab.

I'm interested in the hornyak detector as well, can you tell me where to get the hornyak scintillation plastic?

Is it the same as what they call BC720?

Steven
http://www.beeresearch.com.au....take a difficult problem and find a simple solution!
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia

Re: Oct4Run1023

Postby Doug Coulter » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:16 am

It was great to have John here - we had a lot of fun.
I'm using a 1" hornyak from eljen at present: http://www.eljentechnology.com/index.ph ... -detectors and yes it's BC720 type. With our phototube/preamp and settings, it's showing about 980 cpm/million neutrons/second.
You have to shield it from gammas a bit, as it will see those to, mostly as noise, but with no shielding, some false counts too. Those could be from very high energy capture gammas (~2.2MeV) from the other moderators around here?
If so, they aren't really invalid counts - they are still the result of neutrons, just not ones directly hitting the hornyak. At any rate, this is behind some lead - about 1/8" on the detector, and another 3/16" on the tank itself.

I've also made my own which are about half as good (so far), it being hard to get the plastic/scintillator ratio just so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC8Tq9yd7W0


I got the ZnS:Ag from Eljen too. They aren't listing it now, but might sell it if you ask. The version I made had the scintillator layers a bit thin due to the way I made it. A little thicker scint plus thinner plastic would have been better.

FWIW, Joe Jarski came down after HEAS and we did a little more exploring on that low current mode. It did turn out to be very high Q - some hundreds of thousands of neuts/sec (almost a million), but with only 600 uA input at 50.2kv.
Next time I replicate that it'll get it's own post here, but Q for that mode is way higher than we've ever seen in a non-pulsing mode. You can't see any rays, and barely can see a pencil at the focus of the grid in that mode.
Call it 20 times the normal Q, or in that range, at least. I'll get more data and report on what I find, it's pretty exciting to get that high a Q, and if this combines with a few other tricks (especially including that high Q pulsing mode that requires
a tuned circuit to be added in the ballast but increases power out/power in a few hundred times) then we are darn close to something useful as a power source.

In general what we find here is that yes, pumping in more power makes more neutrons, but when plotted as Q, Q goes down at higher currents/more gas. At lower gas pressures and currents, we see far higher Q, theory being fewer collisions with neutrals, less space-charge defocus and so on. There is probably less charge-exchange and fusion at the walls in that mode, but I haven't measured for that yet.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Oct4Run1023

Postby Steven Sesselmann » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:34 am

Doug,

Thanks for that, I just fired off an email to Eljen, asking for a quote. I suppose they can supply the scintillator part only, as I make my own detectors now. http://www.gammaspectacular.com/gamma-spectroscopy/scintillation-detectors

Those figures you quote from your last run are pretty impressive, and would place you on top of the list for amateur fusion energy quotient (around 4e-8) . It also sounds like you are gaining a good understanding of the conditions that generate the best Q value. BTW were you using any ion source, and was the grid hot or cold during the peak Q value?

I suspect most of the current drawn by fusors is just electrons boiling off the hot grid and going to ground, pure waste of energy. The experiment I did back in 2005 with the STAR hollow cathode reactor, had no hot grid, and consequently it would draw so little current, that fusion could be sustained for 10 minutes after turning off the power. This strange behaviour led to all kinds of confusion about activation, because x-rays persisted long after the apparatus was turned off. I still have the old video on my Youtube account. http://youtu.be/t7SWLCbRqvs

One day you should take a trip to New Zealand and check out John Futters lab, he has some pretty cool stuff over there.

Steven
http://www.beeresearch.com.au....take a difficult problem and find a simple solution!
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia

Re: Oct4Run1023

Postby Doug Coulter » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:33 am

During that run, I did turn on the ion source just a little to control whether I was going "unlit" or hitting the set current limit. The main power supply is a beast that can melt that tank, so there's always a limit set on it. The grid was hot most of the time.
What I think I'm finding is that in high output (but not as high Q perhaps) conditions is that at least half the fusion, if not more, is at the tank walls due to charge exchange and negative D ions hitting D in the wall in beam on target fashion - we've made a tandem accelerator, and Chris Bradley's math on cross sections seems to back that idea up. This falls off rapidly at high powers as those and the electrons heat the walls and drive out the D there. In that run, the main grid base (which is graphite) got about orange hot. I've not seen any difference due to grid temps at all, even with ones that "should" emit more electrons when hot - they never get "that hot" so as to operate like vacuum tube cathodes. Some secondary electrons are certainly knocked off by ion hits, particularly in grids not designed as lenses so the ions miss the grid rods. Sadly, those seem required to ionize enough D to keep the thing going under all but the higher pressure conditions, where collisions with neutrals cut fusion (and Q!) way down. I might experiment with an axial H field so fewer electrons are required, while not affecting the ions too much - force the electrons to take a more-spiral path to the tank walls and therefore increase ion production at lower gas pressures.

The current grid is my second best, with the slight twist (which was an accident), and carbon ends, .040" tungsten rods. The best I broke, but am rebuilding. It was more accurate, perfectly straight, Ti back end, carbon front end, and wires .020" tungsten. With the that one, I had non-monotonic response to the ion source - partway through the curve, increasing the ion source power would actually turn it off, then later, back on as the ion source was turned up. Thinking about trying to make an oscillator with either the grid in there (monotonic) or that one to see what I see, since I've got power gain there, and in general, I see most output AND Q during onsets of the reaction, before the dynamic equilbrium is hit (a strange attractor for stable but low output operation seems to exist in most fusors).

My ion source distorts the field a bit if I crank it up. It's just another grid out in the main tank, that due to Paschen's law will "light" at 5-10kv even when the main one in a 6" sidearm won't "go" at 50kv. So I use it near threshold volts/current to "fine tune" the main grid current, it's a triode, in effect - with quite a bit of "power gain". But you can see its field deflecting other beams in there if you over-do it.

My microwave ion source (which doesn't distort the DC fields) is out of there for the moment, as there's not room for where it was at present due to improved HV insulation nearby. When I was running that (remember we run in batch mode re gas, and we do build up measurable amounts of T and 3He as I've demonstrated), after a long run, we had *neutrons* coming out after the main power was turned off, not just X rays which could be from anything, like activation of some part of the fusor or something nearby. We tested and could turn the neutrons on and off with the microwaves, with no main power at all turned on, for quite awhile after a good run. Not sure about why, just that we did actually measure that and it's real.

In the really high Q mode, we have far better visual focus, and I've not yet measured the ratio of focus to wall fusion in that mode, but plan to. I expect to see more at the core there, but you never know till you measure. Turns out that what looked like neutron beams wasn't - it was merely locality of neutron production where the beams hit the walls, so a small sensor might see more or less depending on position. (TylerC and I have both documented the "beams". It's not true till someone else dupes it!)
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Oct4Run1023

Postby Steven Sesselmann » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:36 am

Doug,

Just quickly on the Hornyak button, I got some specs from Eljen, and if I understand it correctly, the efficiency is quite low, an nvth in the order of 0.08 for the 2" button, does that sound right?

My B10 detector has an nvth of around 1 from memory, and the He3 is up around 8.4 cps/nv.

steven
Last edited by Steven Sesselmann on Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.beeresearch.com.au....take a difficult problem and find a simple solution!
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia

Re: Oct4Run1023

Postby johnf » Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:41 am

Steven
As I understand the Hornyack detector it is a fast neutron detector
It is inefficient due to the limited scintillator in the detector.
but it is small and portable.
I did buy one from Frank Sans at HEAS
I will let you know how it works out --Iv;e got a few Bicrom NaI detectors that have gone bad so i will mount the Hornyack instead of the bad NaI and test in our neutron field from the accelerator
johnf
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: Wellington New Zealand

Next

Return to Run Data -- just the facts please.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron