Why no mention of the WB series? On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> Speaking of Philo and the Fusor ... > > Farnsworth discovered an anomalous self-focusing space-charge phenomenon of > electrons - which made the Fusor viable. Normally the tendency is to think > that mutual Coulomb repulsion of electrons makes them impossible to > control, > but in fact spheres of them (plasmoids) can be self-controlling - whereas > with magnetism, which seems easier to manipulate, like-charges want to > naturally break free of bounds. This may not sound like a big difference > but > it is now $20 billion hit on the economy, at present. > > The USA, in effect, chose the wrong horse when we went magnetic in pursuit > of the grail of deuterium fusion. It is too bad that the hot fusion > (boondoggle) did not capitalized on the control phenomenon which Farnsworth > invented - but instead pursued magnetic confinement to the exclusion of a > better system. In retrospect, this decision to "supersize it" in the > Big-Mac > tradition may have killed any chance of using deuterium fusion for cheap > electrical power. Magnetic confinement resists supersizing (negative > feedback) whereas electrostatic confinement is the opposite: > self-controlling (positive feedback) ... but only in a optimal geometry > (think "ball lightning"). > > There is a reason why ball lighting seems to only happen in balls that are > never large. These self-focusing space charges are sometimes called > "plasmoids" and they can be voltage controlled and they can coexist with > unionized gas which is even more surprising: even contrary to "common > sense". Why they have an optimum size is unknown, presently. But they are > limited by some unknown physical property to a maximum size and it is not > large. Philo named the spheres "poissors" when they when they were small > point-plasmas which provided "pixels" for his "other invention" ... which > was Television. Yep, Philo invented TV too. > > Another one of the under-utilized inventions of Philo was the multipactor. > Poissors and plasmoids can be created in space and controlled without walls > by multipactors. Early Farnsworth multipactors utilized twin opposed > concave cold cathodes and this layout evolved directly into the Fusor. > Nowadays, there is a "multipactor" terminology in EE - but it is a slightly > different beast than in PFs original conception, which he felt could be > extremely efficient (even a hint of OU). > > The design feature of concave electrodes permitted the re-discovery of > electron optics, which was a departure in the world of electron tube design > at time that PF started inventing television (in the Green Street Lab in > SF) > Of course, he did use magnetic control as well. Electron tubes were > essentially an RCA monopoly and that company tried to ruin Farnsworth ... > but Geneen and ITT came to the rescue. ITT later funded the Fusor for many > years until the conglomerate started to fall apart from too many > acquisitions. > > The fourth mini-paradigm-shift of Philo which led to QM-based nuclear > fusion > (in addition to the multipactor, the poissor or self-containing ion sphere, > and electron optics) was "virtual electrodes". Of course all of these > factors are intertwined in the Fusor. But the main reason the Fusor works > so > well at such miniscule input - is "spherical confinement". This is why the > Fusor can be three orders of magnitude more efficient than the Tokamak > (which employs toroidal/poloidal confinement, a poor substitute). > > The possibility has always loomed that the Fusor (rather several of them) > could have been combined with magnetics to provide a better fusion device. > IOW the Fusor uses electrostatic spherical confinement which is hard to > scale up. Magnetic toroidal confinement is insufficient, too but for other > reasons ... However ... we must ask: can synergy be squeezed out of a > combination of the two? Imagine a string-of-pearls type of device with > multiple Fusors are connected via magnetic solenoids. > > I doubt if we will ever know, since the hot fusion program is such a > financial mess and dead-end street ... with greedy fingers in the pie that > refuse to look at the bottom line. Too many of our top Universities have > joined in the money scramble, with no accountability - to ever see an > acceptable end-game for the USA. They are still begging for more - shame, > shame. One can only hope that the Chinese will not be so hindered by the > Tokamak, as a technology precedent - and that they will pursue the synergy > of magnetics and electrostatics. > > Ironically, if China or anyone else succeeds, then we will also succeed. At > least all that filthy air from burning coal, which ends up in the USA in a > matter of days, will be reduced. > > Jones > >
