Talk:Fusor

message: The list of fusioneers at the bottom of the article needs to be moved to its own page. Enough people have built this device that including a (partial) list of people to build this device falls outside the scope of this page and reads like an achievement list. I have restored the tag that I put up last month, which was removed by an unregistered user.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencbartlett (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The list really is getting a little silly now; people are registering accounts just to add themselves to it. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of fusioneers should be moved to a separate article 

message: An electron volt is a unit of energy. How can it be equal to 11604 degrees? -phma
Temperature measures the kinetic energy of particles' vibration.  E = (mv^2)/2, so a particle's velocity is the most important factor in a material's temperature.  All electrons have the same mass, so the mass drops out of the picture.  So, an electric field will accelerate an electron to a speed which is proportional to a temperature. By the way, thanks to the person who rewrote it, knew about the history, bremstrahlung losses and got the picture.  It's much improved.  User:Ray Van De Walker
Specifically, E = (3/2)kT, where T is the temperature in Kelvins and k is Boltzmann's constant.  1 eV is equal to 1.6022e-19 Joules. Rearranging the equation, 
T = {2E \over 3k} = {2 \times 1.6022 \times 10^{-19} \mbox{J} \over 3 \times 1.380650 \times 10^{-23} \mbox{J/K}} = 7736.5 \mbox{K}.
Hmm.  So either I'm wrong or the article's wrong, or we're talking about different things.  At least it's the same order of magnitude. -mako
:Okay, I know what I'm talking about now. An electron volt is defined as the energy an electron gains from falling through a potential of one volt: 1.6e-19 Joules. This can be associated with a "temperature", since the units of k*T is (Joules/Kelvins)*Kelvins = Joules. Rearranging eV = kT,
:T = {eV \over k} = {1.6022 \times 10^{-19} \mbox{J} \over 1.380650 \times 10^{-23} \mbox{J/K}} = 11605 \mbox{K} - mako 06:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  electron-volts and temperature 

message: What's up with the "fusion power" box?  (replicated here)
Energy source
Fusion power
Extracting net energy from a nuclear fusion reaction. Fusion, if it can be achieved, may be the best option for a truly sustainable or long term energy source because some fusion fuels (deuterium, for example) are virtually inexhaustible and readily available throughout the world.
It's almost totally content-free (even with my additions), it's basically wrong, and it's irrelevant to the page - nobody has any idea how to extract power from fusors, and it's not what they're for.  I'll take it out, and if anyone can explain why it should be there, feel free to do so and then put it back.  Andrew 22:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
: I believe that farnsworth was trying to get "excess" energy from this in his initial research (IIRC). I'll do some looking around. JDR 22:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fusion power box 

message: What particularly interested Farnsworth about the device was its ability to focus "electrons" at a particular point (for example, between nuclei). 
What does the above mean? Again why the quotes? --Gbleem 18:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  focus electrons between nuclei 

message: I uploaded two pictures from Bussard's patent for use in a future section about him... - Omegatron July 2, 2005 01:26 (UTC)
Help!  I tried to edit a small part of the article, to add a little bit of text, and an error message occurred, after which, when the edit was accepted, the whole article was replaced!  That was not my intention!  Somebody please revert!
:Don't panic - it's done --DV8 2XL 18:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bussard's patent 

message: Could the fusor be used to provide neutrons
for fission and produce power without
a chain reaction and produce net power?
--Gbleem 13:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutron source for fission 

message: I have strong reservations about including the following statement:
:However, this study lacks a self consistent collisional treatment of the ion distribution function in velocity space, crucial for adequately estimating the fusion rate and recirculating power.
In the reference given, this is the only line in 258 pages that so much as mentions recirculating power. The author does not even provide a reference to more detailed work, much less justify the statement himself. I don't remember the details of Rider's derivation, but I believe it was a lower limit that did not require an exact calculation of a particular distribution. If this is the only verifiable criticism we have of Rider's work, then I think we should leave it out altogether. At the very least it must be rephrased to make it clear that it is one voice, not a scientific consensus. --Art Carlson 14:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a self consistent collisional treatment 

message: [Bussard's Google Talk]
The fusion reactor that he's looking for money for is obviously a decendant of the Fusor. The ions are still confined using electrostatic confinement but the light electrons are now confined using a magnetic field rather than the grid. It's a thousand times easier to confine electrons than it is to directly confine the ions because of the mass difference so even when the electrons are thrown out a near lightspeed they can be captured by the magnetic field and routed back into the 'core'. With an overabundance of electrons confined in the 'core' the ions don't really "want" to leave (ie electostatic confinement) so you get a ball of plasma rather than a 'star' as the ions evacuate.
There will of course still be large numbers of electrons lost, anything pointy or even just metal will appear to suck them right out but from the video it appear these losses can be kept down low enough to be replenished easily. The result; reaction rate going up at the SEVENTH POWER of the reactor size is definitly worthwhile!
So I think this should be added to this page in a more explicit manner but I can't think of a good way to do it without removing half the 'this cannot be used for fusion' parts.  
86.16.135.53 08:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to need a better argument than "from the video it appear these losses can be kept down low enough". --Art Carlson 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, all we have is Bussards reputation as I can't find the overview paper that's been published and he hasn't completed a full paper yet. However, this guy has one hell of a reputation and he's literally saying that it will work if build the "core" in this way (the rest of the equipment needed is 'just' a large fusor). Wikipedia obviously cannot say the same thing unless we see it working (whatever the guy's reputation - perhaps on his page) but I do believe this page should acknowlage the linkage. Not to worry I'll think about it some more. 86.16.135.53 09:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found the Polywell page; that will do nicely. 86.16.135.53 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bussard's Google talk 

message: Demining#Nuclear_detection says "A better neutron source is to use a sealed tube electrostatic D-T neutron generation tube".  Is this a fusor? — Omegatron 05:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no.  A Neutron generator is an accelerator powered by a DC voltage of tens of thousands of volts, with a solid target.  To my knowledge, no one has claimed that they could ever produce energy.  They are commercially available now and a good description is at . Paul Studier 05:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demining 

message: Taylor Wilson is the most well know amateur fusioneer.  He did win a science fair for his construction of a fusor, he was on CBS news (3/30/2013) for the work and he did present this to the president at an event at the white house.  So why has his photo been taken down from the amateur fusor section of this page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.70.3 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Taylor Wilson 

message: This one might be interesting enough to add, Conrad Farnsworth. Here's his story: http://trib.com/lifestyles/home-and-garden/teen-makes-nuclear-reactor-in-dad-s-shed/article_e9576aa3-9df4-550a-9778-29c4843104ed.html AE7EC (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur Builder Additions? 

message: Look, there are plenty of people who are working on fusors.  But, this wikipedia article should limit itself to amateurs who have actually done fusion, actually detected neutrons.  This is still not a small list of people (somewhere in the region of 75, or higher) and it is also a bit dicey, since these people are often self-reporting.  Richard Hull maintains a list and he places rules, there are different hoops you have to get through, first vacuum, first glow and first nuetrons, ect... and the folks have to demonstrate progress along this path, to move forward.  Amatuers should be listed if they get covered by the local news, or win a science fair, or a win a well known science scholarship, because they detected neutrons created by fusion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHelper2134 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has Robert Murray-Smith Gotten Neutrons? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fusor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2FUU_EAD%2C2160
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040905182509/http://solarsystem.estec.esa.nl/Moon2000/abs58_kulcinski.PDF to http://solarsystem.estec.esa.nl/Moon2000/abs58_kulcinski.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fusor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2FUU_EAD%2C2160
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916055636/http://robofusor.aditl.com/ to http://robofusor.aditl.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: After reading the material in the Talk section on Plasma Physics and in other sections contributed by Art Carlson (which do an excellent job at de-bunking this body of work), I would seriously suggest that this whole article on Fusors and the like be downgraded in importance and perhaps should NOT be part of the Physics Portal. The article is valid in its own right as a historical account in Inventions. The article cites many contentious and dubious sources. In my opinion, this can be lumped with "Cold Fusion" and other dubious science. MxBuck (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to downgrade the importance of this article