Miley's table top fusion machine
britz
There was an article, "Neutrons for Sale", in the Dec. 13, 1997 issue
of new Scientist, describing a table top gadget invented by George
Miley, which makes fusion happen. It is nothing anomalous and does not
produce more energy than it consumes, but it does produce neutrons and
is an interesting device, I think. I wonder why this has not remarked
on in this news group? This is fusion, and it's real. A discussion of this
could be relief from all the off-topic stuff and infighting we normally
get.
-- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db
Harry H Conover
britz (br...@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: There was an article, "Neutrons for Sale", in the Dec. 13, 1997 issue
: of new Scientist, describing a table top gadget invented by George
: Miley, which makes fusion happen. It is nothing anomalous and does not
: produce more energy than it consumes, but it does produce neutrons and
: is an interesting device, I think. I wonder why this has not remarked
: on in this news group? This is fusion, and it's real. A discussion of this
: could be relief from all the off-topic stuff and infighting we normally
: get.
Sounds interesting. Does the article include a technical description
on how the apparatus operates?
Harry C.
Teresa Tutt
The University of Wisconsin-Madison has essentially a table-top
tokamak called MEDUSA. It's a low-aspect ratio device with its
vacuum vessel measuring ~25 cm from top to bottom. It's pretty
nifty. Check out their site at:
http://elvis.neep.wisc.edu/~medusa/MEDUSA.html
--
Teresa E. Tutt email: tu...@psfc.mit.edu
Graduate Student, (G1) Phone: 617-253-9853
Alcator C-MOD Group, Office: NW17-281
Current project: Diamagnetic Loop diagnostic
britz
Yes. The article also gives some of the history behind it. Someone named
Philo Farnsworth apparently thought of something like this 40 years ago. He
aimed deuterons at the centre of a sphere, there to collide. This stopped in
1967, when he retired, and Hirsch took over. This was called IEC, for
intertial electrostatic confinement. Robert Hirsch reached 10^10 n/s, quite
a few OOM above what CNF people reckon they get. That project fizzled,
Hirsch went on to bigger things. 20 years later, Miley took up the work
again, and developed the last idea Hirsch had, adding a charged wire cage in
the sphere's centre. The deuterons zoom through the centre many times,
getting pulled back by the charge, so they have many chances to hit others.
I am not sure why but Miley initially got 10^6, but now gets 10^9 n/s - why
not 10^10 like Hirsch? Maybe this is because Hirsch used a mix of deuterium
and tritium which has a larger cross section (here I am spouting technical
terms, as if I knew anything about all this), whereas Miley uses deuterium
only. Anyway, he hopes to boost the flux higher still. The whole thing is
said to be football-sized. Someone who knows all about this stuff had better
read that article. What with all the commercial applications this device
has, I don't see why Miley is fiddling with anything else, like transmutation,
which is highly questionable, whereas this thing is real science/engineering.
James Logajan
Hmmm...all the old ideas become new again. Here is one somewhat dated, but
perhaps still useful(?), reference that includes some papers on electrostatic
confinement (I've photocopies of most of the papers from several years ago;
that is the only reason I mention this here!):
"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,"
"Electrostatic and electromagnetic confinement of plasmas and the
phenomenology of relativistic electron beams" Volume 251, May 8, 1975;
ISBN 0-89072-005-3
Hirsch and Farnsworth are of course referenced by most of the papers
presented at the conference.
britz (br...@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
Gary Reichlinger
>There was an article, "Neutrons for Sale", in the Dec. 13, 1997 issue
>of new Scientist, describing a table top gadget invented by George
>Miley, which makes fusion happen. It is nothing anomalous and does not
>produce more energy than it consumes, but it does produce neutrons and
>is an interesting device, I think. I wonder why this has not remarked
>on in this news group? This is fusion, and it's real. A discussion of this
>could be relief from all the off-topic stuff and infighting we normally
>get.
>
Penning cells which produce neutrons have been around since
the 1930's. They have been in use for many years as oil well logging
tools. If Miley has a better design, the oil field service industry
would be his best market. The energy input greatly exceeds the energy
output in a Penning cell, but it does produce a steady stream of
neutrons suitable for various instrumentation functions.
C. Cagle
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.980527...@kemi.aau.dk>, britz
<br...@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
> There was an article, "Neutrons for Sale", in the Dec. 13, 1997 issue
> of new Scientist, describing a table top gadget invented by George
> Miley, which makes fusion happen. It is nothing anomalous and does not
> produce more energy than it consumes, but it does produce neutrons and
> is an interesting device, I think. I wonder why this has not remarked
> on in this news group? This is fusion, and it's real. A discussion of this
> could be relief from all the off-topic stuff and infighting we normally
> get.
>
> -- Dieter Britz. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db
Well, Dieter, proving that the neutrons have their origin in fusion takes
a lot of resources. More, I believe, than Miley has had at his disposal.
Assuming they are fusion generated neutrons takes no resources at all.
Miley has a history, in my opinion, of publishing for facts what have only
been assumptions. George Miley is quite incompetent, oh yes, I know he's
taught at Chicago for years but he's still incompetent when it comes to
understanding nuclear fusion.
John S. Vetrano
In article <singtech-300...@sle03-pm3-15.teleport.com>,
sing...@teleport.com (C. Cagle) wrote:
Charles,
To start with, Prof. Miley is teaching at Urbana-Champaign, not Chicago
(two differenc Univ. of Illinois campuses). I don't know if he taught in
Chicago in the past (which may be what you are referring to).
Second, unless you can prove that the neutrons are not from fusion, you
should probably refrain from calling him incompetent. When I say prove,
I'm talking about your experiments that conclusively (or even most likely)
indicate their origin is other than fusion. I've seen your "Project
Sherwood" references and the ball lightning from last century, and have
read your statements about various new physics, but I've yet to see your
experimental evidence to back any of it up. In your words, you also have
a history of "publishing for facts what have only been assumptions". I
have to admit, though, I haven't kept up to date on your fusion machine
(sorry, I forget the name right now). Perhaps (hopefully) it is up an
running and will prove me wrong.
Regards,
John Vetrano
p.s. I've never met Prof. Miley and don't have a strong opinion of his
competence wrt fusion, but I felt that Charles' statement justified a
reply for reasons stated above.
--
All opinions are mine and not those of my employer.
C. Cagle
In article <js_vetrano-01...@wd20548.pnl.gov>,
Since, I've been the subject of Miley's professional opinion which was
rendered without benefit of even an attempt to discuss details, and that
opinion cost me the support of a very interested sponsor, my opinion of
him is rather low. Since that time I've see some of the projects he's
been involved in and feel justified in my opinion of his incompetency.
But more than that I've discovered a "general case' which describes the
interaction of charged particles in terms of whether or not they occupy
the same momentum space. This general case shows Coulomb's Law to be a
'special case'. Once the general case was understood and defensible then
Miley's incompetency became a done deal (of course, that goes for almost
all other physicists in the world at the same time, so Miley is in a broad
company of other incompetents.)
Now you might suppose I harbor a bit of rancor and I suppose I did for a
while but I merely feel he needs the same exposure as do people like
J.R.R. Searle. I was rather hoping to draw the man himself out to defend
himself but I suspect he's rather too busy drawing funds out of some poor
unsuspecting soul who has a weak grip both on his money and on common
sense.
VCockeram
In article <singtech-030...@sle04-pm3-45.teleport.com>,
sing...@telestream.com (C. Cagle) writes:
>Well, Dieter, proving that the neutrons have their origin in fusion takes
>> > a lot of resources.
Well Charles, assuming that there were neutrons, where do the
neutrons originate?
Vince
britz
I cite the above just for context. I thought that my posting would maybe
start a discussion, but it hardly did that. I got a private email from
Rothwell, which I guess is a copy of something he sent to the Vortex list:
===========================================================================
From: Jed Rothwell <72240...@compuserve.com>
Subject: Britz: Miley's table top fusion machine
Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240...@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex; >INTERNET:rmfo...@earthlink.net; >INTERNET:br...@kemi.aau.dk
Rich Murray cross posted comments by Dieter Britz regarding the Farnsworth
Fusor:
Someone named Philo Farnsworth apparently thought of something like this
40 years ago.
He did not "think of" something "like this." He invented the device and built
it. Farnsworth was a famous U.S. industrial scientist. He invented television,
among other things. Working at ITT, he succeeded in making the fusor
self-sustaining for short periods. That is: he made it over-unity, the holy
grail of CF and hot fusion. His reward was predictable. His funding was cut
off, he was forced out the company, harassed, and driven to an early death.
This is one of the few well-documented examples of deliberate, cold-blooded
suppression of a new energy technology. Cold fusion is another, although most
of the suppression has been done by the people who invented it.
G. Vassilatos wrote a superb article about this, "The Farnsworth Fusor: the
Most Notably Forgotten Episode in 'Hot' Fusion History." I do not think he
ever published it, but he might have incorporated it in a book. He describes
the sickening end to the story, and the ignominious death of one America's
greatest scientists:
In quick successions, ITT asserted its complete ownership of all Fusor
applications in the future. ITT warned Farnsworth that it would dominate
all Fusor research forever...despite its "unfeasibility". ITT then cut
all formal financial ties with Farnsworth and left him virtually
bankrupt. ITT now holds the Farnsworth patents...and bears the social
debt of responsibility for suppressing Fusor technology.
In July 1969 Farnsworth built a small Fusor lab in a Brigham Young
University cellar room. With purchased equipment from ITT he continued
his research with generous University support. Creditors were crowding
him on every side. During this time an offer came to him from SONY. He
felt unable to continue. Physically ill for a long time and emotionally
scarred, he died from pneumonia in 1971.
Britz adds:
What with all the commercial applications this device has, I don't see
why Miley is fiddling with anything else, like transmutation, which is
highly questionable, whereas this thing is real science/engineering.
A despicable comment. Miley's transmutation and excess heat results are also
real. Britz and his ilk have never found any real reason to doubt that.
Miley's Farnsworth replication is valuable, but his CF excess heat and
transmutation results are revolutionary.
- Jed
=============================================================================
Clearly, he is up to his usual form, informative and insulting at the same
time. I checked with Altavista under Philo Farnsworth and you get some
interesting links, some of which he provides here. I don't find myself so
despicable, though. This gadget works, without any hedges or doubts,
pouring out neutrons, whereas the transmutation is, to say the least,
arguable. Also the device has immediate applications. It may be, of course,
that the fact that it is not new, limits what profits can be made out of it.
The article in New Scientist did say that Miley had a novel twist to the
wire cage at the centre of the device. This leaves unexplained the several
orders of magnitude lower neutron flux he gets at present, compared with
what Farnsworth got several decades ago.
So, is the Farnsworth story a true (and rare) case of conspiracy and
suppression? Or is there, as usual, a more sober explanation?
C. Cagle
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.980605...@kemi.aau.dk>, britz
<br...@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
> On 5 Jun 1998, VCockeram wrote:
>
> > In article <singtech-030...@sle04-pm3-45.teleport.com>,
> > sing...@telestream.com (C. Cagle) writes:
> >
> > >Well, Dieter, proving that the neutrons have their origin in fusion takes
> > >> > a lot of resources.
> >
> > Well Charles, assuming that there were neutrons, where do the
> > neutrons originate?
neutrons originate from microdomain cross sections of current elements
which have a high positive rate of change of current density. Such
microdomains experience a pi/2 radian rotation of the current vector which
produces a micro ring current or micro current loop. Such loops
continuously oscillate between the toroidal current mode and the poloidal
current mode which means they oscillate between being a magnetic dipole
system and an electric dipole system. Such loops are easily identified as
neutrons.