Jones Beene wrote:
The problem there is that the neutron count is pitiful - ... say it
is in the 10,000 per second range or double that, which may sound
decent at first, after all it is *real fusion* (hot fusion) - but on
closer look it is way to low to be interesting for real world energy
use, and cannot be scaled up easily. It is far away from breakeven.
G.Vassilatos wrote a fascinating paper about Farnsworth, "THE
FARNSWORTH FUSOR: THE MOST NOTABLY FORGOTTEN EPISODE IN "HOT" FUSION
HISTORY." He claimed that the fusor self-sustained on at least one
occasion, and that the technology was suppressed. Quoting the paper:
"On October 5, 1965 the Fusor Mark II-Model 6 was tested.
A reconfigured, high-precision ion gun arrangement produced 1
G-neutrons cc/sec at 20 Kv. and 1 mA....a record achievement. On
December 28, 1965 tritium was admitted into the test
chamber...producing 2.6 G-neutrons/sec. at 105 Kv. and 45 mA. . . .
The Mark III Fusor produced startling high records in
quick succession. By the end of 1965 the team was routinely
measuring 15.5 G-neutrons/sec. at 150 Kv and 70 mA.. The final
problem to be tackled involved the poissor itself. . . .
SUSTAINED FUSION REACTION
Dr. Farnsworth reported that his team achieved a
self-sustaining reaction on several occasions...and could repeat the
effect. He once invited his wife to watch a test-run of this feat. As
power was applied to the Fusor the neutron-reading meter achieved a
steady threshold and there remained...until a slight increment of
power was applied. Then the needle went off the scale. Dr.Farnsworth
cut the applied power...but the needle remained in place for thirty
seconds or more as the reaction continued.
ITT gradually absorbed the entire project. All related patents were
assigned to ITT as success was achieved in steady steps. . . .While
steady progress was being achieved at a modest cost . . . ITT was
being influenced by powerful professionally hired "opinion makers" to
drop fusion research. Suddenly even Wall Street analysts were
publishing their "concerns" for ITT and its absorption of the
Farnsworth subsidiary. Farnsworth himself was made the focus of every
corporate death-word. These outlandish accusations indelibly remain
in newspapers from the time period.
The suppression and assassination of technology is historically the
response of frightened competitors...
Piercing voices appeared from everywhere against Farnsworth. A large
reception at the Waldorf was astir with executive unrest concerning
the Farnsworth research project. While dressing, Farnsworth suffered
a mild stroke. The AEC was mounting the nuclear fission race and the
"anti-fusion" race simultaneously...and using every tactic to achieve
total dominance of the energy field. He was relieved of his research
project. . . ."
I do not know if this was ever published, where Vassilatos is today.
- Jed
