With Instructables you can share what you make with the world, and tap into an ever-growing community of creative experts.
Tell us about yourself!
No, the reactor puts out something like a millionth of a watt, and there's no practical system to capture that energy so you get nothing. Even if you could capture it, this power is so low that for example, it'd take well over an entire human lifetime to charge a cellphone once.
Sort of, it'd be highly sub optimal because fusion pressure is around 5-10 microns. Usually these pumps take a very long time to reach that 6 micron pressure you mention, so to get the atmosphere in there mostly deuterium it'd be difficult but if the chamber is really leak free probably possible. I don't recommend this method if actually achieving good fusion results is the goal.
You will not get any measurable fusion. You need 15-20kV to get any fusion with a fairly high end detection system, and 25-30kV to detect any fusion with a typical low end neutron detection system (small BF3/He3 tube, silver activation, or BTI bubble detector would be the typical options available to someone starting out).
The tungsten is heated by wasted energy input. It appears to heat fast because it has very little thermal mass so it takes little time to start glowing.The vast majority of the generated energy (in the form of neutron radiation) passes through the stainless steel chamber and is eventually absorbed by surrounding materials outside the reactor.
I don't really know how hot it gets, my only basis for saying is that steel grids melt at full power, so somewhere between 1500C and 3400C.Total fusion output is around a microwatt or less. So it's nearly a billion times inefficient. Yes, in pure theory, if you captured ALL thermal loss plus the neutrons, you could run it forever (put in 400 watts, get 400.000001 watts out). In reality, there is currently and never will be any technology for thermal energy capture efficient enough to make this practical (you'd need a 99.999999%+ efficient thermal waste collector). So it truly is "in theory". In practice, a reactor like this will absolutely never be practical for energy generation or self-powered operation.
Yes, it has been done. 2.75" crosses are generally too small to handle the thermal load of a several hundred watt fusor, the grid will be tiny, and you'd be lucky to get more than 20-30kV in before something arcs over. But purely to achieve fusion, yes it can be done. A 6" spherical chamber is hugely more effective and will result in much higher fusion rates.
Not to my knowledge
What's the point of 99% of things on this website? The point is to do it. If this is a waste of resources, it seems you're missing the whole point of the maker community.
Depends on your goals and schedule. Between 1k and 10k generally, with a very common spot in the 2-4k range.
Let your inbox help you discover our best projects, classes, and contests. Instructables will help you learn how to make anything!
© 2016 Autodesk, Inc.