Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 515770
  • *Total Topics: 15377
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor  (Read 31841 times)

Offline Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« on: November 20, 2007, 04:46:22 AM »
Eric Dollard mentions the multipactor "tube" in some of his work and I ran across this article:

http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/fusion/vassilatos.html

"poissors" are interesting point-plasma entities that can be manipulated without magnetic confinement - very interesting

http://farnovision.com/chronicles/fusion/index.html

http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/multipact.htm  - over 100% efficiency?

ns switching speeds - can't get that at the local hardware store:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10933/4066654/04066661.pdf&isnumber=4066654&prod=JNL&arnumber=4066661&arSt=442&ared=450&arAuthor=Forrer%2C+M.P.%3B+Milazzo%2C+C.

Quote
"At one point in his television work, Farnsworth had seen a strange and unexplained blue glow in one of his Multipactor tubes, and he had wondered ever since if it was a spontanious emission of energy.  He had come to believe that there must be a totally safe way to harness the atom for peacetime purposes, and around the time he had refused to join the Manhatten Project, he had begun to devote more and more time to thinking about nuclear fusion."


More on the "Blue glow":
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA142&dq=farnsworth+multipactor&ei=NFZCR9uMLJ_a7ALb09T1Bg&sig=xr0UYHKpUp5bPe0_wcdXemvw-Ug&id=7aM80L9WUGsC&as_brr=3&output=html

Wow.  See this comment from Eric Dollard back in 1997: (about half-way down the page - highlighted words)
http://www.coastalpost.com/97/3/20.htm
...sounds like Eric had a "visit" from some people who didn't appreciate his work.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« on: November 20, 2007, 04:46:22 AM »

Offline Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2007, 10:52:25 PM »
This is the text that Dollard posted in the link mentioned above:

Alternative Energy Attempts Snuffed

As a scientist and engineer, I find Mr. Scanlon's essay on fusion uninformed. Not yet forgotten is the fact that fusion-related devices existed here in Bolinas.

In the 1930s, a man by the name of Philo Taylor Farnsworth II was creating radio and tv tubes far more advanced than the usual tubes in use then or now. The theories of Dr. Einstein found practical form in these tubes, one in particular, the multipactor tube, showed signs of producing electric energy directly from the primordial medium with no fuel or mechanical force. The study of these phenomena by Farnsworth led him to the construction of a successful fusion tube. He called this the fusor. I had the good fortune of witnessing the existence of these devices and the notebooks relating to them.

In conjunction with the investor's son Philo III and a young lab assistance, I set out to recreate important aspects of these fusion devices with equipment donated by the RCA Bolinas station at 451 Mesa Road (not to be confused with Commonweal). A lab was set up in the old Marconi building. The process of stellar energy creation was produced successfully at the RCA site. No nuclear waste or violent instability problems exist with this type of phenomenon.

At the point at which Farnsworth became successful in his work, his lab was closed. Several years after he died, his work was forgotten. Our lab was closed and all important devices vanished. The important old RCA equipment was destroyed by hired vandals. Later on, important historical tubes began to disappear from Philo's home at the end of Elm Road. Philo died a short time later, his ashes dropped upon the RCA station. Presently, the last vestige of RCA is being snuffed.

So ends the history of workable fusion. Such discoveries are a threat to a thermodynamic culture. Both the part that operates it, and the part that wants to save us from it are very wealthy from its existence. No alternative is to be tolerated, particularly in Bolinas.

E.P. DOLLARD

BREAK: KDGOSX

Bolinas

-------------------------

Another post using BREAK: KDGOSX

Free Radio Persecuted

One can only laugh at the idea of a disaster preparedness program for the town of Bolinas. Not only are our so-called local officials too wrapped up in political action committees (PACs) and scam operations so as to be dysfunctional, but the rapidly emerging police state regards such as a survivalist threat.

Not so long ago, less than qualified individuals deep in PAC-scam made an attempt at creating a disaster radio system. As with their "Radio Free Bolinas." The idea sounded great, but was doomed to fail due to the nature of those involved. I, being a licensed professional radio engineer, set off with my partner to create a functional system. This system could not only maintain in operation under the most adverse conditions, but could also be adapted to detect violent storms and large earthquakes days in advance of their physical occurrence.

Construction of the system began utilizing military field radios hidden within a working botanical garden, so as to not spoil the so-called view. Materials were donated by the nearby RCA (now MCI) station to help facilitate completion of this project. About this time the PAC-scam got the notion that their phone calls were under our scrutiny. The rumor was advanced further by the children's newspaper, "Bolinas Hearsay News." Not only was the radio system a threat to the criminal operatives in Bolinas, but also a threat to the growing cell phone empire at the fire department.

At first vandals were sent in the night to cut wires. Next the community development agency (CDA) set upon the property owner. "We don't like your radios," barked Miz Nannen, CDA. Abatement proceedings were instituted. Park ranger man joined in and falsified complaints were issued. Unmarked jeep Cherokees with no license plates staged at the firehouse began staking out our lot. We now were at war.

Needless to say, the county SWAT team destroyed our federal licensed (KDGOSX) disaster station, on the eve of the Pearl Harbor anniversary. All gone now folks, so just dial 911. But wait for the dial tone.

BREAK: KDGOSX

Bolinas



Offline Mr.Entropy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2007, 03:45:13 AM »
Farnsworth Fusors do indeed produce fusion, but not enough to pay back the power you put into them.  Wikipedia has as nice page about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor


EarthTech actually built one -- their only successful excess energy experiment (Pout/Pin = 1.0000000001):

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/fusor/bigsys3.html


This method of fusion has been advanced greatly in recent years by (sadly and recently deceased) Dr. Robert Bussard, who is most famous as the inventor of the Bussard Ramjet.  He gave a really good talk about his work to Google when he was looking for more funding:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=fusor


His work continues at EMC2Fusion.org, funded by a non-profit organization:

http://emc2fusion.org/


Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2007, 03:45:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2009, 08:10:50 PM »
Eric Dollard mentions the multipactor "tube" in some of his work and I ran across this article:

http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/fusion/vassilatos.html

"poissors" are interesting point-plasma entities that can be manipulated without magnetic confinement - very interesting

http://farnovision.com/chronicles/fusion/index.html

http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/multipact.htm  - over 100% efficiency?

ns switching speeds - can't get that at the local hardware store:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10933/4066654/04066661.pdf&isnumber=4066654&prod=JNL&arnumber=4066661&arSt=442&ared=450&arAuthor=Forrer%2C+M.P.%3B+Milazzo%2C+C.
 

More on the "Blue glow":
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA142&dq=farnsworth+multipactor&ei=NFZCR9uMLJ_a7ALb09T1Bg&sig=xr0UYHKpUp5bPe0_wcdXemvw-Ug&id=7aM80L9WUGsC&as_brr=3&output=html

Wow.  See this comment from Eric Dollard back in 1997: (about half-way down the page - highlighted words)
http://www.coastalpost.com/97/3/20.htm
...sounds like Eric had a "visit" from some people who didn't appreciate his work.

patent to recovery energy from multipactor effect:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=lkACAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
 

Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2009, 09:08:02 PM »
It's important to remember that fusion is nuclear hot fusion. It produces
both relativistic neutrons which damage it's confinement and creates
radioactivity in shielding material and always produces dangerous gamma
radiation EMF that requires shielding, but does not do neutron synthesis in
it's shielding.

Certain types of fusion like boron fusion require a temperature density
confinement time of 100 times of that of deuterium fusor energy but
gets by without producing neutrons, though it still produces gamma
radiation.

Of course all this is still better than heavy metal fission reactors where
tons of metal are left highly contaminated by neutron synthesised nuclear
waste. But I think you can see that these fusor tubes, which have been
built by a number of people, are a *long* way from the design of an
actual fusion power producing reactor. All fusion reactions, that I know
of, are not chain reactions therefore cannot run away or go out of control.

This is completely opposed to CF cold fusion, which depending on the
choice of target materials emits only heat.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2009, 09:08:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tak22

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2011, 12:21:54 AM »
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39121161/Secondary-Electron-Emission-by-Bruce-Darrow-Gaither

Go to link, click Print icon, then Download and Print

Quote
In this era of energy shortages we have all daydreamed about owning a device which would take the energy that we have and multiply it. Imagine how happy we would be if you could simply plug in a device which would double your electricity. Numerous researchers, writers and inventors have sought to do just that.

But scientists have cautioned that the law of conservation of energy dictates that energy is never created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another. None of these schemes, they say, would ever work. They are just perpetual motion machines.

The purpose of this book is to discuss advances in electronics and materials science which have made things possible which were not contemplated when the laws of Thermodynamics were postulated decades ago.

Secondary electron emission is a well-known process. It is that effect which causes additional electrons to be emitted when a substance is bombarded by a stream of electrons. This secondary emission effect was discovered a century ago, and it has found application in a variety of devices which are in use today.

Advances in electronics and the development of new materials have revealed new methods and substances which make this secondary electron emission even more effective. In fact, today the impossible is possible—one electron at a time.

If a beam of electrons is aimed at a target electrode coated with a given substance then electrons are emitted from that target. The number of electrons emitted from the target which has been bombarded is compared to the number of primary electrons in the original electron beam. The electrons emitted after bombardment by primary electrons are called secondary electrons.

The material’s propensity to emit electrons after bombardment is called the “secondary electron emission coefficient”. That is expressed as the number of secondary electrons divided by the number of primary electrons.

A secondary electron coefficient of less than 1 means that the substance does not emit as many electrons as it is bombarded with. A coefficient of greater than 1.0 means that the substance emits more secondary electrons than bombarded it

We are interested in this book in those materials which exhibit a high coefficient of secondary electron emission. The goal is to perfect a device which will emit more electrons than you started out with. Some devices have been invented to minimize or eliminate secondary electron emission, but those are not within the scope of this book.

Years of testing and research have resulted in well-known coefficients of secondary electron emission for scores of materials. Research first focused upon basic substances such as copper, steel, silver, gold and other metals. Then more exotic combinations and alloys were tested, such as oxides and alkalai metal combinations. Some metals and some combination coatings worked much better than others.

In recent years miniaturization and nanotechnology as well as chemical vapor deposition of thin films have come up with even more effective secondary electron multipliers.

In fact today’s plasma televisions and LED lights are examples of such substances and processes.

A reference to various charts is now possible to determine at a glance exactly what the secondary electron emission coefficient is for these materials.

But the devil is still in the details.

Two variables are of importance as to the materials. One variable is the angle at which the primary electrons impact the target. In general it has been found that a better result is obtained when the primary electrons graze the target material at an angle rather than hitting straight-on. But the physics of the secondary emission process and the atomic and molecular structure of the target materials mean that the optimum angle is different for different materials. The second main variable is the voltage of the beam of primary electrons. Some substances max out their secondary emission coefficient at very low
voltages and some materials reach their highest secondary emission only at much higher voltages. This is believed to be due to the depth to which the primary electrons impinges the material and the amount of tunneling into the substance.

Therefore care must be be paid to the research of the variables in the individual research papers and patents and there is no magical formula which will work for all materials. The configuration of the device used in the secondary emission process will need to vary to meet the characteristics of the target material.

Once the primary electrons have impacted the target material and secondary electrons are released, then the secondary electrons do not form a focused beam. Instead they tend to just sit there in a cloud of electrons. Meanwhile the primary electrons will usually bounce off the target at an angle equal to the angle with which they make incidence to the target. This means that the kinetic energy of the primary electrons is greater than that of the secondary electrons after impact. In other words the secondary electrons are indeed a larger number of electrons—but they are of low voltage.

However numerous methods exist to increase the voltage or kinetic energy of the secondary electrons.

One process which is common in devices which employ secondary electron emission is that of multiple impacts upon this emissive target material. The great inventor, Philo Farnsworth, was the first to devise methods to facilitate these multiple impacts upon emissive materials. He called his devices “multipactors” because of the multiple impacts they made with secondary electron emissive material. Thus, if a target electrode had a
secondary electron emission coefficient of 2 then the number of primary electrons would double when they hit the target electrode. If there were two successive impacts then the primary electrons would double, and then that total would double again—or be four times the original primary electrons put into the device.

If the primary electrons were somehow sent through a series of 8 target electrodes then the multiplication factor would become astronomical, and each of the impacts would result in an exponential increase of electrons based upon the coefficient of secondary electron emission from that material.

So various devices were designed and perfected to make the primary electrons impact numerous electrodes one after another. One branch of these devices is employed by photomultiplier tubes. Many of these devices are capable of multiplying the primary electrons one hundred million times. Thus minute electric currents can be sensed and multiplied so that they can register on scientific equipment. But numerous other configurations and devices are in use today.

One method is to bounce the electrons off of two opposing electrodes over and over again, like a game of ping pong. Another configuration would be to have the electrons strike electrodes arranged inside a circular tube so that they impact coated electrodes over and over again. A third method is that of forming a cascade of specially-coated electrodes and having the primary electrons bounce off off each successive electrode until they all come
out the end.

Another genre of devices are called “channel” devices. In these designs the primary electrons are sent down a waveguide or tunnel of some sort and the entire length of the device is coated with the emissive materials. The electrons keep bouncing off the walls of these guides until they reach the end and the repeated impacts result in a high multiplication of the primary electrons.

One of the axioms of electricity is that current will not conduct very well when exposed to the atmosphere because the gas acts as an insulator. Therefore most secondary electron emission devices were made in the form of vacuum tubes. The electricity goes through the vacuum without loss and then the impacts upon emissive material have the desired result.

However secondary emission and multipactors have been made into semiconductors and chips. These use the process of “avalanche” multiplication in many instances, where the electrons hit the emissive substance and are then multiplied and pass through a solid state stack of materials. Sometimes the semiconductors include a tiny vacuum space and they act in the same way as a vacuum tube.

However there is a snag or two for the use of secondary emission in chips. The first problem is “space charge”. That is the effect of completely filling up a given space with electrons. One you saturate the evacuated space with space charge then an equilibrium state is achieved and the primary electrons will no longer multiply as desired. As you might guess, the greater the area the more electrons will fit into the space before the space charge saturates the area. The space charge, then, has been found to diminish as to the 4/3 power of the area of the evacuated space. This means that, for instance, if you triple the size of vacuum space then that would result in 3x 4/3 power= 12/3 power (or the 4th power). Then a tripling of space would end up in shrinking the space charge by the 4th power. The bottom line is that bigger is better.

The second drawback to micro multipactors is that the vacuums must be higher than in vacuum tubes, and this is hard to achieve. Also many devices use sharp points as electrodes because more electrodes will emit from sharp points than from blunt shapes. In the micro world though the sharpness of the sharp point has to be correspondingly sharper. The finer the point on the electrode the harder it is to fabricate and fit into the layered semiconductor devices.

What this book hopes to achieve is not the simple multiplication of electrons to provide light or brightness but to generate electricity on a larger scale. The aim is not to build a generator station for thousands of people but to scale the multipactor devices to work with individual appliances and vehicles. Thus the size and rated capacities of the components in the proposed multipactors must be designed to be in the range of home current up to the amount of voltage and current required to power an electric car.

At this point the discussion of secondary electron emission must include some of the math and physics. Don’t let your eyes glaze over. Everybody knows a little bit about electricity—and it is pretty simple. But there is a hazy horizon on the amount of knowledge of the basics of electricity. The terms are VOLTAGE, AMPERAGE and
POWER. The easy rule of thumb is that VOLTAGE x AMPS = POWER.

You need to throw in the RESISTANCE into this formula—but for now we will stick with VOLTSxAMPS=POWER.

OK—so we will calculate one AMP. An Ampere involves the amount of “charge”, which is calculated in terms of a COULOMB. A Coulomb is -6.24151 × 1018 electrons. So the process of secondary electron emission results in a lot of electrons. The secondary electrons are not moving very much after they are multiplied. So they have low voltage—but they DO have AMPERAGE because of the presence of lots of electrons.

The purpose of this analysis is to point out that we have low volts and high amps from secondary emission. When you remember volts x amps = power then you can see that we have to have just a high enough voltage to meet the requirements of modern electrical devices.

There are numerous well-known devices which can act as VOLTAGE MULTIPLIERS. These devices will increase the voltage, but only at the expense of a proportional decrease in the amperage.

The end product of these multipactors can be made usable, therefore, by running these high amperage currents through a voltage multiplier. You just fine-tune the voltage multiplier to give the right mix of volts and amps.

In short, secondary electron emission creates NEW electrons. We put the new electrons to use by stepping up the voltage to required levels.

In this way the laws of conservation of energy are negotiated. The multipactor creates new electrons and THEN the energy is converted from one form into another. But there is indeed a creation of new electrons in multipactors.

I will leave it to the scientists and inventors in their respective papers and patents to describe the manner in which the secondary electrons are created and how the multipactor devices are designed.

The point of my analysis is simply that the multipactors will create new electrons and the new electrons can be made usable through voltage multipliers.

One of these voltage multipliers is a Cockroft-Walton circuit. Modern electronics has manufactured numerous cheap transistor devices that you could get at Radio Shack or electric supply houses. A Cockroft-Walton circuit is simply a ladder of diodes and capacitors (pennies apiece) which double the voltage at each step of the ladder. So a multi-step ladder creates a multiple doubling of the original voltage. Some of the older designs apply a step-up transformer to do the same thing.

So we see that there is a problem with voltage in secondary electron emission. The inventors have figured out a method to use voltage to their advantage in the multipactor devices. They apply the rule that opposite charges attract. This accelerates the cloud of secondary electrons so that they will impact the next target with it’s emissive coating. The electron is a negative charge. So the inventors manipulate the sluggish cloud of negative charge by providing a positive electrode to put it into motion.

Some designs will make the next electrode one with a positive charge, so when the primary electrons strike the first target and are multiplied then the cloud of secondary electrons is accelerated right up to the second electrode coated with emissive materials. hen they make a long chain or cascade of these target electrodes then they give each of them a successively higher positive charge so that the ever-increasing cloud of secondary electrons is accelerated one step at a time in the desired direction.

Other designs use an electrode which is positioned between the first impact target and the second and they give that intermediate electrode a positive charge to accelerate the cloud of secondary electrons in the desired direction. This intermediate electrode might be in the form of a screen or grid or a tube. The positive charge, in every instance, attracts the opposite charge on the electrons and they are suddenly accelerated through the holes in these intermediate electrodes and then the electrons continue with their increased voltage until they impact the coated electrode. This step may be repeated again and again.

The positive charge on these attracting electrodes is often provided by using Cockroft-Walton circuits. So either a single or a multi-step CW circuit may be used to multiply an initial small current to give a charge bias of increasing strength to a series of attracting electrodes. Oftentimes the CW circuit contains “taps” which tap the current at a certain step in that multiplying step ladder. The step would then have one voltage level to apply to the attracting electrode, and then the next step would have a higher voltage which could be tapped at that level and applied to the next attracting electrode, and so on.

Going back the purpose of this analysis again: we are trying to get as many electrons as possible out of the multipactor. So the gameplan is to select the coating material for electrodes which has the highest secondary electron emission coefficient. Then the voltage at which the primary electrons must be accelerated to achieve the optimal secondary emission must be applied. The spatial requirements are important too because we want the right angle and the right depth for the impact zone. So we get the highest electron multiplication at each step. Then we take that level of electron multiplication and exponentially multiply it by the number of impacts in the multipactor device.

Some devices, as aforestated, simply bounce the electrons back and forth between two opposed electrodes. In these designs the electrons are moving at the speed of light, so they hit the opposite electrode in a known length of time. Then they bounce back to the original electrode. The desired effect is to have but one cloud of secondary electrons bouncing back and forth, and not a lot of different clouds. Therefore the two electrodes are given opposite charges, positive and negative, and these charges are sequentially reversed so that the electron cloud always moves away from the first electrode after they have been multiplied and then toward the target electrode for more multiplication. Since we know the distance between the two electrodes and because the speed of light is known, then we can determine the FREQUENCY at which the electric charge is reversed on these electrodes. So, take the speed of light and divide it by the distance between the electrodes. Say, 186,000 miles per second divided by 6 inches.

The resulting frequency is in the range of billions of cycles per second. There are modern oscillator chips which cost pennies which can do that.

The point here is that we take the secondary electron coefficient, and let’s say that this is 2 for the sake of argument. Then we apply the frequency of the impacts on these emissive electrodes—and that is perhaps one billion times per second. In this example we would then obtain 2 to the one billionth power!

Are you beginning to get the picture?

If we make the device the right size so that the space charge does not saturate the vacuum then we can generate sufficient electrons so that we can step up the voltage and step down the amperes to achieve the desired power characteristics for our electric appliance or motor.

For the purposes of our last example we have a secondary emission coefficient of 2, or a doubling of the primary electrons at each impact with the electrode with the emissive coating. But what if the secondary emission coefficient were 10…or 100…or even 1000? Just apply the math and you can see the possibilities of these multipactors.

Attached to this anthology is one of the latest research papers from Korea where scientists have obtained a new record for the secondary emission coefficient: 22,000!

Thus reason dictates that the proper coating must be selected for the electrodes. Then the rest of the components must be selected and positioned so that the size, frequency and angle of impact are optimal.

I think I heard somebody say, “Hey, Einstein—it still has to be hooked up to electricity to start up and to power the attracting electrodes. What about that?”

The answer lies in the principle of feedback and self-oscillation. We know that many oscillators are known to exhibit the characteristic of self-oscillation. Once you get them going then they tend to keep on oscillating on their own. This process works in multipactor-oscillators. It just takes a little electricity to get them started and then the
internal processes take over and they self-oscillate, producing electrons without the input of outside electricity.

Many electronic devices apply the principle of feedback, especially in audio devices. We can remember Jimi Hendrix hitting a note on his guitar and then holding the guitar in front of his amplifier. The amp’s sound creates a feedback loop with the guitar and a sound is created which is self-sustaining without the additional input of playing another note. Numerous transistors work with feedback loops to take the electrical output of the device and split that output and send part of it back to the original input where it is again amplified. So the coupling of the output to the input wires is what is required. So using either feedback or self-oscillation or both a multipactor device can be fabricated so that it will have self-sustaining output of electrons.

That still leaves us the positive bias charge that is placed upon the attracting electrodes to accelerate those sluggish clouds of secondary electrons.

Again, we simply split the output signal and loop part of it back to the accelerating electrodes, and this is the positive charge remember. So the negative charge goes back to feedback the input and the other loop goes to the voltage multiplier. A Cockroft-Walton multiplier can be either positive or negative in charge—you simply reverse the connection between the diodes and capacitors and it multiplies the positive charge.

Therefore, we could use batteries to start up the multipactor and then apply common electronics components and devices to split the output and loop it back to the input and bias the positive electrodes. Then the battery can be shut off, and even recharged while the multipactor runs on self-sustaining current.

That guy who used Einstein’s name like a dirty word again wants to voice his opinion, “Hey, genius, this stuff is a bunch of hooey! How do we know this would work?”

How do we know?
Because of TELEVISION.
These multipactor devices were invented by Philo Farnsworth when he invented television. Just one glance at this super-egghead fellow should give you the answer. This guy was a super-brain and he just NEEDED to have special vacuum tubes to strengthen the broadcast signal of television from remote locations to make the picture tubes bright enough to see—so he simply invented multipactors to multiply that weak input signal.

If these multipactors work then why didn’t Farnsworth take over the whole world?
The reason is related to the laws of business and not the laws of physics. Philo Farnsworth saw the value of television and his multipactors but he had an independent streak which caused him to form his own Farnsworth Television company with which he intended to put RCA and GE out of business. Instead they put Farnsworth out of business by using monopoly tactics. But Philo Farnsworth applied his principles based upon secondary electron emission to the point that he invented a nuclear fusion reactor before he was through.

The heyday of vacuum tubes was filled with imitators of every sort. There is even an International Patent classification which contains only “Farnsworth Tubes”.

Since Farnsworth’s day the vacuum tube was supplanted by the Japanese transistor and then the Silicon Valley semiconductor chip. Nobody makes vacuum tubes anymore and the vacuum tube multipactor concepts have been lost in the world of microelectronics.
But even today secondary electron emission is applied in the plasma television sets where scores of little holes and dots are brightened by electron multiplication. Other areas such as scintillation counters and electron detectors and night vision goggles use the process, often in the solid-state configuration. There exists an offshoot applying vacuum tubes— the sector called PHOTONICS which use vacuum tubes to multiply light into electronic signals.

As stated above, there are several basic methods of achieving multiple impacts of electrons.

These graphs and excerpts were developed over a period of time. The more ancient the research the lower the coefficients. As newer and newer materials were invented and tested there is a general trend toward higher and higher coefficients. I would respectfully call your attention to the source material in the following sections for detailed analyis of the methodology and results of individual studies and devices with various emissive materials.

Attention should be paid to the voltage required to obtain a certain coefficient of secondary electron multiplication. The graphs are not in parallel so they are slightly different pictures. But they should give a general idea of how much electron multiplication could be obtained by a particular substance.

The following chapters will discuss individual studies and patents. Some of these resource documents contain excellent discussion of historical development of the secondary electron emission devices. It is of note that secondary electron emission was first discovered about a century ago, and the first patent for a vacuum tube as applied for in 1919.

The discussion also includes mention of “work factor” as an indicator of secondary emission coefficient. The lower the work factor the higher the coefficient.

Another area of interest is that of “negative electron affinity” as an explanation for secondary electron emission. In short, the term affinity implies that a particular substance either likes or rejects electrons. The materials with negative electron affinity then are predisposed to not like negatively-charged particles and thus reject them when bombarded.

Treatises on vacuum tubes have been consulted and quoted in pertinent part. Patents are inserted to this anthology to examine their significance at particular points in time. Various studies on the individual materials exhibiting secondary emission.

Finally, I include several of my own designs for multipactor devices to power electrical appliances and motors.

tak

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6826
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2011, 02:34:54 AM »
Tak
A snippet from your above Doc

"For the purposes of our last example we have a secondary emission coefficient of 2, or a doubling of the primary electrons at each impact with the electrode with the emissive coating. But what if the secondary emission coefficient were 10…or 100…or even 1000? Just apply the math and you can see the possibilities of these multipactors.

Attached to this anthology is one of the latest research papers from Korea where scientists have obtained a new record for the secondary emission coefficient: 22,000!
"
--------------
Tak is this what William Barbat is doing?

Holy Cow!
Chet

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2011, 02:34:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tak22

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2011, 05:50:44 AM »
Chet,

Interesting, I hadn't thought about Barbat when I skimmed it, just had multipactor
on my mind. Does sound most familiar though ...

tak

Offline Terbo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2011, 07:37:41 AM »
patent to recovery energy from multipactor effect:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=lkACAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Wings --

The multipactor patent you reference is very interesting since it uses over-pressure instead of a hard vacuum in its envelope.  Specifically, this device uses 10^13 to 10^15 Torr pressures.  By comparison, 1 Atmosphere pressure = 760 Torr, so we are talking EXTREME pressures exceeding 1 billion normal Atmospheres.  I don't believe these pressures are achievable.  What am I missing? 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2011, 07:37:41 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2011, 08:51:14 AM »
Wings --

The multipactor patent you reference is very interesting since it uses over-pressure instead of a hard vacuum in its envelope.  Specifically, this device uses 10^13 to 10^15 Torr pressures.  By comparison, 1 Atmosphere pressure = 760 Torr, so we are talking EXTREME pressures exceeding 1 billion normal Atmospheres.  I don't believe these pressures are achievable.  What am I missing? 

the effect also at medium low pressure ?

http://www.google.com/patents?id=IG8BAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1965.msg23706#msg23706

« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 09:23:33 AM by wings »

Offline wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2011, 08:57:28 AM »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2011, 08:57:28 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Terbo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2011, 04:03:33 PM »
Wings --

The multipactor patent you reference is very interesting since it uses over-pressure instead of a hard vacuum in its envelope.  Specifically, this device uses 10^13 to 10^15 Torr pressures.  By comparison, 1 Atmosphere pressure = 760 Torr, so we are talking EXTREME pressures exceeding 1 billion normal Atmospheres.  I don't believe these pressures are achievable.  What am I missing?

@Wings

A closer check of this multipactor patent indicates that the pressure ranges are incorrectly printed (typos) in the patent.  For example, the published pressure value of 10^13 Torr in the patent should really read 10 to the minus 3 Torr or 1 milliTorr.  The clue to this error comes from Figure 6 which shows experimental pressure values in the milliTorr range. 

This soft vacuum used in this multipactor is easy to achieve and is a nice enhancement over the hard vacuums required by the original Farnsworth devices.  The use of a plasma instead of a heated tungsten filament is also a nice feature.  This plasma multipactor seems to have much in common with the Correa PAGD devices. 

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6826
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2011, 10:19:20 PM »
Terbo.
Sir you speak with authority!This goes over my head,but I know there are fellows here that could Play safely with this.

How do we "Harvest" from this anomoly?
Or at the very least "see" that it can be OU?[which I'm quite sure would fill these pages with experimenters]

Reading the above post by Tak,I see that this electron bombardment tech has seemingly unlimited OU [Korea 22,000X OU]
Its no stretch to see what you see in Correa's PAGD.[That Our friend "Wings" posted the link to]
Can you share any ideas here??
Thank you
Chet

Offline Terbo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2011, 07:18:24 AM »
Terbo.
Sir you speak with authority!This goes over my head,but I know there are fellows here that could Play safely with this.

How do we "Harvest" from this anomoly?
Or at the very least "see" that it can be OU?[which I'm quite sure would fill these pages with experimenters]

Reading the above post by Tak,I see that this electron bombardment tech has seemingly unlimited OU [Korea 22,000X OU]
Its no stretch to see what you see in Correa's PAGD.[That Our friend "Wings" posted the link to]
Can you share any ideas here??
Thank you
Chet

@ramset
Thanks for the warm welcome.  I find multipactors interesting because it is easy to understand how free electrons from secondary emission can create real OU energy when accelerated in a potential field.  Additionally, it appears that the Meeks plasma multipactor being discussed is not too difficult to construct.  Since the Meeks device outputs energy in the 4-8 MHz (HF) range, it could be used to operate lights and heaters directly. Fig 4 in the patent shows how that output could be tapped.  The bigger problem, especially with the Farnsworth devices that output energy in the VHF and microwaves, is how do you convert the RF output to DC for transportation, and to 50/60 Hz AC for appliances?  Semiconductor power rectifiers required for this conversion really don't function well above about 1 MHz. Since the operating frequency of the Meeks plasma device is inversely proportional to it size, maybe one could build one large enough to run in the 100 KHz range where the RF output could be easily rectified to DC.  Any thoughts?

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6826
Re: Farnsworth Fusor and Multipactor
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2011, 02:47:20 PM »
Terbo
Quote:
 Since the Meeks device outputs energy in the 4-8 MHz (HF) range, it could be used to operate lights and heaters directly.
-----------------------------------------------
Sir,
The Fact that this is solid science,and being done at "Amazing" levels[22,000 more times Out than in] dictates a much closer look for "US".

Your above quote  would be a great start [OU heater]!,Making a low vacuum tube seems very possible [Wings link above]
I have seen other members here that have beautiful examples[XS NRG]!
This specific material that enhances the "Bounce" or production of electrons "Seams" to be a secret?

I spoke on the phone with William Barbat  some weeks ago
and this Chemical [what he called it]was a problem for him,although he had figured it out and was going into agreements for production.

Can you shed any light on a replication protocol that would show OU at any freq?
Thank you
Chet

 

OneLink