SAFIRE

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Mon May 13, 2019 1:48 pm

Mjolnir wrote:From http://www.safireproject.com:

DYNAMIC EARTH

SCIENCE CONFERENCE

JULY 6th 2019, UNIVERSITY OF BATH, UK

http://www.electricuniverseuk.eu

Montgomery Childs and Michael Clarage of the SAFIRE PROJECT will be presenting at the 2nd Electric Universe UK conference, the University of Bath, July 6th, 2019.

Recent experiments suggest every element resonates to specific voltage ranges, creating organized stable structures of dark mode plasma in an electric field - the precursor to self-organizing visible double layers.

The spherical visible plasma double layers work as a transforming capacitor trapping ions, electrons and molecules, generating energy densities analogous to the Sun. They appear to be the means by which nature produces extremely high energies. The implication? High energy production.

Warm plasma nucleosynthesis is a primary component of Electric Sun models in which heavier elements are formed within the photosphere of stars, and not deep within their cores. In 2018 Montgomery and Michael reported intriguing elemental changes on the surface of the anode. This year they will present new anode chemistry data, further supporting this line of exploration.

They will also be able to discuss in more detail the role that electric double layers play in creating a stable solar atmosphere.

Based on recent evidence from the SAFIRE lab Montgomery and Michael are able to draw remarkable new connections between plasma physics, astrophysics and heliophysics.

The new key developments will be described in detail, along with the specific technologies used to obtain the data, and how the data is being analyzed and interpreted.


Oh #%?$ yes! I gotta say, a very, very big part of why I came back to this forum was to continue monitoring the SAFIRE project. Here's to waiting for them to upload that discussion to YouTube!
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby Mjolnir » Sun May 19, 2019 3:45 am

Some updates to Michael Claridge's blog this month:

http://mclarage.blogspot.com/

One long piece that appears to be from a talk at a suspicious observers conference that mentions SAFIRE, a travel report from Spain, some strange experiment, and a book review.

Mjolnir
Mjolnir
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:09 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby Mjolnir » Sun May 26, 2019 5:12 pm

A "Safire Lab Walkthrough" at safireproject.com

It doesn't say when it was published, but I think it is pretty new. At least I had not seen it before.

Mjolner
Mjolnir
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:09 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby jacmac » Tue May 28, 2019 6:25 pm

From Michael Claridge's blog:
http://mclarage.blogspot.com/

From this topic:
Why is it Difficult to Observe Electric Currents in Space

This statement near the end:
The forces that govern the initial formation of a solar system could well be different from the forces that govern its growth.

I would add ...and different from the forces that sustain its continual operation.
jacmac
 
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Wed May 29, 2019 10:55 am

Wanted to share this list of previous and new experimental results from the latest video walkthrough of the lab up on the website:
    Stable self-organizing plasma double layer shells
    Stable plasma tufts analogous to stellar plasma tufting in the photosphere
    Trapping of ions, electrons and molecules within the double layers
    Energy densities analogous to the Sun
    Electromagnetic inertial confinement of matter (not sure what this means exactly, or how it's different than the third point in this list)
    Steep voltage drop just off the surface of the anode
    Acceleration of ions from the SAFIRE core
    Spectral line broadening showing higher energies in plasma corona
    Gravity shielding of matter within the double layers
    Uniform thermal radiation emission - low thermal buoyancy
    Creation of concurrent collisional and non-collisional plasma
    High energy discharges with low power input (may be analogous to solar CMEs)
    Chemistry as a catalyst to double layer formation
    Slowing the speed of light by 5x (as a response to dense plasma)
    Analogous transformer/capacitor behavior
    Dark mode plasma electromagnetic structures
    Sequestering of heavy elements to the SAFIRE core
    New elements confirmed by mass/optical spectra, SEM and EDAX
    Extreme atmospheric pressure changes as a response to high energy plasma discharges (may be analogous to the changes in the velocity of the solar wind due to CMEs)

That's one hell of a list of observable phenomena in the chamber! When are we going to start seeing papers about this, either published in journals or from the SAFIRE team themselves? The video summaries over the last few years have been really great, but it'd be fantastic to have something meatier to sink the teeth into.

In particular, I'm really interested in the fact that we're getting "slow/tired" light in the chamber at a factor of x5 based on plasma density. That kind of demonstration of plasma red-shifting could really be a game changer, in particular at this point in time when the divergence in figures regarding the rate of space expansion is causing a huge controversy in the astrophysical/cosmological community.

Also super interested in the fact that the plasma is able to trap matter within the double layers. I'm curious what the relating factors are in terms of where different kinds of matter get trapped within the double layers. That, factored together with the fact that each double layer is independently rotating, could be really exciting in terms of planetary orbits.
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby WLMorgan » Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:47 pm

from the previous correspondent:
1 Stable self-organizing plasma double layer shells
2 Stable plasma tufts analogous to stellar plasma tufting in the photosphere
3 Trapping of ions, electrons and molecules within the double layers
4 Energy densities analogous to the Sun
5 Electromagnetic inertial confinement of matter (not sure what this means exactly, or how it's different than the third point in this list)
6 Steep voltage drop just off the surface of the anode
7 Acceleration of ions from the SAFIRE core
8 Spectral line broadening showing higher energies in plasma corona
9 Gravity shielding of matter within the double layers
10 Uniform thermal radiation emission - low thermal buoyancy
11 Creation of concurrent collisional and non-collisional plasma
12 High energy discharges with low power input (may be analogous to solar CMEs)
13 Chemistry as a catalyst to double layer formation
14 Slowing the speed of light by 5x (as a response to dense plasma)
15 Analogous transformer/capacitor behavior
16 Dark mode plasma electromagnetic structures
17 Sequestering of heavy elements to the SAFIRE core
18 New elements confirmed by mass/optical spectra, SEM and EDAX
19 Extreme atmospheric pressure changes as a response to high energy plasma discharges (may be analogous to the changes in the velocity of the solar wind due to CMEs)

here are some comments on the itemized list in the previous posting (i added the numbers). unlike the rest of you, i use my real name. my credentials, for what they're worth, are (1) that i worked on SAFIRE from 2013 until March of 2019, (2) i have written the only two papers to come out of the project to be published in mainstream journals, (3) i have BS degrees in physics, chemical engineering, & English and a PhD in physics - my dissertation was on gas discharge physics & plasma chemistry and on quantum electrodynamics, (4) i have 50 years of experience in these areas of gas discharge physics, plasma chemistry, spectroscopy, and a few other things and have published 80-90 scientific papers in these and other areas, (5) i was an adjunct professor at UC Davis & the U of Denver teaching mostly statistical physics, a visiting researcher at AT&T Bell Labs, a visiting research professor at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics and at the Joint Institute for Astrophysics in Boulder, a visiting research professor in the Dept of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics at Queen's University in Belfast, and a few other such gigs. with the advent of the Internet & You Tube it's a free for all and no one seems to care about credentials but, anyway, those are mine, which took more than a half century to achieve.

now regarding the points above, in order:
1 yes, that appears to be what it's about and, even though i'm no longer working on/for SAFIRE i am still investigating this, have written the draft of a long paper on this stuff, and am, in fact, presenting for the first time a talk on it at a physics conference (not pseudo-physics) in Europe in a couple of months. this is probably the only important and truthful non-trivial item in the entire list;

2 this phenomena in gas discharge was fully explained in seminal papers in Physical Review in 1930 & 1940. despite looking like phenomena in the Sun it has nothing to do with it.

3 we trap electrons (a small number), positive ions, and negative ions (mostly the latter) in double layers but not neutral atoms or molecules. the reason is simple: they are not charged.

4 this is utter baloney. the anode temperature is, at best, 10% that of the lowest temperature region of the sun, so, other than the electrons that have high temperatures in a gas discharge, the overall energy density is only a fraction of that in the Sun

5 i know what this means and won't explain it here, but it has nothing to do with SAFIRE

6 yes, it's know as the "anode fall" and has been known for 2 centuries and has nothing to do with the ES or EU

7 the anode is positive and, if you are talking about positive ions rather than negative ions, where else are they going to go but radially outward from the anode? some may be trapped in double layers and contribute to the space charge,

8 any SAFIRE spectral broadening is collisional, i.e. due to electron impact. you have to remember that these are cold collisional plasmas. only the electrons have energy > than the anode temperature. the neutral gas and ions don't. the positive ion energy is limited by charge transfer no matter how large the E-field is.

9 this is bull shit written or spoken by someone who doesn't know anything about this field. there is an interesting, but well known, gravitational effect on the trajectories of protons at low gas pressure that i mentioned once at an EU meeting much to the displeasure of Monty but that i am including in the manuscript that i'm writing because it could actually be a diagnostic

10 the thermal radiation, all of which comes from the 700 C anode is, of course, uniform into 4 pi steradians. the interesting radiation is the Lyman alpha VUV radiation. it's the only radiation that counts in this system.

11 all regions of the SAFIRE plasma are collisional - period.

12 these are spikes in the voltage of the DC power supply - recall that the plasma itself is an active circuit element, so that even though the power supply is nominally DC, with a dynamic circuit element such as the plasma, especially when it's in one of its dynamical modes, one gets a voltage/current spike. the power may be megawatts or more but the total energy integral is zilch. but it can cause the plasma to switch modes.

13 this is not what the term catalyst means. it know what whomever is try to say but not knowing the correct terminology merely implies that the speaker knows not what of he speaks.

14 this is not what it seems. it's a well known phenomenon in optically thick plasmas where radiation is transported by the process of emission, absorption, re-emission, re-absorption, and so on millions of times until the photon leaves the plasma. it's entirely a quantum mechanical effect. so, it takes a while for the photons to be transported across the plasma.

15 i'm not sure what this is about, but double layers may be possibly be treated or modeled as series of capacitor/resistor elements. that's a topic in the current literature. i've been making notes on using it a model for these phenomena.

16 i think this is bastardization of the correct terminology. yes there are such things as dark plasmas and, yes, we do get some of that albeit in a different form from the standard glow discharge effect.

17 this is utter BS because instead of a decent quadrupole mass spectrometer they have a crappy RGA the results of which are not to be trusted. it's a matter of wanting so much to believe something that they can find signal in noise where it doesn't exist. i performed a S/N analysis of this thing but it didn't agree with what they wanted. it matters little to me as my career in physics is well established and has no dependence upon the success or failure of this venture. i pursue the striated plasma problem because, as stated approximately in #1, it's a very interesting problem where instability or perhaps even chaos leads to new stable regimes. i want to know how that happens. i may even replicate the experiments here in my own lab. i have better diagnostic equipment than SAFIRE has.

18 this is even greater mis/dis-information than is #17.

19 i have no idea what this is about. jeez, i deal with shock waves and whatever goes on in SAIFRE is a very much weaker phenomenon that that.

so, folks, you can take this for what you think it's worth. i think SAFIRE was a good idea for an experimental plasma physics & chemistry lab but claiming that it has anything to do with Sun is worse than fallacious, it's a lie having its foundations in ignorance of the Sun, ignorance of gas discharge physics, ignorance of plasma chemistry, ignorance of the meaning of non-equilibrium physics & chemistry, and, very unfortunately, ignorance is how one designs, fields, and interprets experiments. living 1800 miles from Toronto and having other work as well, my ability to have hands on involvement was limited.

Lowell Morgan
physicist
Monument, Colorado
WLMorgan
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:52 am

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:35 am

WLMorgan wrote: i use my real name.

I have been too long on the internet to do that.
It can be dangerous for your career, if you make a little mistake.
I got a masters background in EM and electronics, did commercial work.

But thank you for contributing your expertise.
I agree with many of them.
A lot of the points are based on speculation and wild theories.

There are some alternative theories about the sun that you don't know about.
NASA claims that the sun is magnetic, which can not exist without some electric currents being present.
In the electric sun model, it is assumed that there are electric currents on the surface on the sun.
This also solves some major problems that NASA's magnetic sun model introduces.

To understand the currents in the plasma on the sun, the Safire project explores
different models, starting with some older models from Birkeland and others.


1. Stable self organizing plasma double layer shells
I think that this is due to a continuous electric current being applied through the plasma.

4. Energy densities analogous to the Sun.

the anode temperature is, at best, 10% that of the lowest temperature region of the sun, so, other than the electrons that have high temperatures in a gas discharge, the overall energy density is only a fraction of that in the Sun


Which temperature on the Sun are you talking about?
The NASA's temperature model is out of limits.

Here is the temperature based on CO lines (with link to related paper):
https://imgur.com/x4tRx4M
This shows a gradual temperature change, as you would expect from a radiating object.

In a electrodynamic system, the color related temperature can be very different from what it really is.
A diode and plasma can give off blue light, even in a cold temperature.
NASA often uses the color related temperature, which can give different answers for the same object.

6 Steep voltage drop just off the surface of the anode
6 yes, it's know as the "anode fall" and has been known for 2 centuries and has nothing to do with the ES or EU


This is actually very important for the sun.
On the sun we observe a very strong zeeman effect near the start and end of plasma currents.
This is used as proof of the magnetic sun, as the zeeman effect relates to magnetic fields.
This occurs mostly in sunspots.
If these voltage drops are so strong, it means that the electrical fields are very strong in the same areas.
And this means that instead of the Zeeman effect, we are also measuring the Stark effect.
And this means that the plasma currents on the sun are actually driven by electric fields and electric charges.

This means that foundation of the NASA magnetic model could be completely wrong.

This shows that at local level there are indeed electrical currents, as the electric sun model predicts.
It does not show any large scale currents, which some electric models theorize about.

7. Acceleration of ions from the SAFIRE core.
While obvious, this is used in the electric sun models to explain the solar wind,
and accelerations in the solar wind.
This is not explained by the NASA magnetic sun models.

8 Spectral line broadening showing higher energies in plasma corona
8 any SAFIRE spectral broadening is collisional,

Can broadening be enhanced by stark effect and zeeman effect?

13 Chemistry as a catalyst to double layer formation
13 this is not what the term catalyst means. it know what whomever is try to say but not knowing the correct terminology merely implies that the speaker knows not what of he speaks.

I think it refers to the chemical reactions on the sun.
See Sky Scholar , the periodic Table and the Chromosphere

14 Slowing the speed of light..
14 this is not what it seems. it's a well known phenomenon in optically thick plasmas where radiation is transported by the process of emission, absorption, re-emission, re-absorption, and so on millions of times until the photon leaves the plasma. it's entirely a quantum mechanical effect. so, it takes a while for the photons to be transported across the plasma.

Since we are in this area, do you know some more about redshift of light in plasma?
Laboratory experiment: redshift caused by fee electrons in plasma
With your expertise you may know of some more papers or information related to this phenomenon.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:47 am

WLMorgan wrote:from the previous correspondent:
1 Stable self-organizing plasma double layer shells
2 Stable plasma tufts analogous to stellar plasma tufting in the photosphere
3 Trapping of ions, electrons and molecules within the double layers
4 Energy densities analogous to the Sun
5 Electromagnetic inertial confinement of matter (not sure what this means exactly, or how it's different than the third point in this list)
6 Steep voltage drop just off the surface of the anode
7 Acceleration of ions from the SAFIRE core
8 Spectral line broadening showing higher energies in plasma corona
9 Gravity shielding of matter within the double layers
10 Uniform thermal radiation emission - low thermal buoyancy
11 Creation of concurrent collisional and non-collisional plasma
12 High energy discharges with low power input (may be analogous to solar CMEs)
13 Chemistry as a catalyst to double layer formation
14 Slowing the speed of light by 5x (as a response to dense plasma)
15 Analogous transformer/capacitor behavior
16 Dark mode plasma electromagnetic structures
17 Sequestering of heavy elements to the SAFIRE core
18 New elements confirmed by mass/optical spectra, SEM and EDAX
19 Extreme atmospheric pressure changes as a response to high energy plasma discharges (may be analogous to the changes in the velocity of the solar wind due to CMEs)

here are some comments on the itemized list in the previous posting (i added the numbers). unlike the rest of you, i use my real name. my credentials, for what they're worth, are (1) that i worked on SAFIRE from 2013 until March of 2019, (2) i have written the only two papers to come out of the project to be published in mainstream journals, (3) i have BS degrees in physics, chemical engineering, & English and a PhD in physics - my dissertation was on gas discharge physics & plasma chemistry and on quantum electrodynamics, (4) i have 50 years of experience in these areas of gas discharge physics, plasma chemistry, spectroscopy, and a few other things and have published 80-90 scientific papers in these and other areas, (5) i was an adjunct professor at UC Davis & the U of Denver teaching mostly statistical physics, a visiting researcher at AT&T Bell Labs, a visiting research professor at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics and at the Joint Institute for Astrophysics in Boulder, a visiting research professor in the Dept of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics at Queen's University in Belfast, and a few other such gigs. with the advent of the Internet & You Tube it's a free for all and no one seems to care about credentials but, anyway, those are mine, which took more than a half century to achieve.

now regarding the points above, in order:
1 yes, that appears to be what it's about and, even though i'm no longer working on/for SAFIRE i am still investigating this, have written the draft of a long paper on this stuff, and am, in fact, presenting for the first time a talk on it at a physics conference (not pseudo-physics) in Europe in a couple of months. this is probably the only important and truthful non-trivial item in the entire list;

2 this phenomena in gas discharge was fully explained in seminal papers in Physical Review in 1930 & 1940. despite looking like phenomena in the Sun it has nothing to do with it.

3 we trap electrons (a small number), positive ions, and negative ions (mostly the latter) in double layers but not neutral atoms or molecules. the reason is simple: they are not charged.

4 this is utter baloney. the anode temperature is, at best, 10% that of the lowest temperature region of the sun, so, other than the electrons that have high temperatures in a gas discharge, the overall energy density is only a fraction of that in the Sun

5 i know what this means and won't explain it here, but it has nothing to do with SAFIRE

6 yes, it's know as the "anode fall" and has been known for 2 centuries and has nothing to do with the ES or EU

7 the anode is positive and, if you are talking about positive ions rather than negative ions, where else are they going to go but radially outward from the anode? some may be trapped in double layers and contribute to the space charge,

8 any SAFIRE spectral broadening is collisional, i.e. due to electron impact. you have to remember that these are cold collisional plasmas. only the electrons have energy > than the anode temperature. the neutral gas and ions don't. the positive ion energy is limited by charge transfer no matter how large the E-field is.

9 this is bull shit written or spoken by someone who doesn't know anything about this field. there is an interesting, but well known, gravitational effect on the trajectories of protons at low gas pressure that i mentioned once at an EU meeting much to the displeasure of Monty but that i am including in the manuscript that i'm writing because it could actually be a diagnostic

10 the thermal radiation, all of which comes from the 700 C anode is, of course, uniform into 4 pi steradians. the interesting radiation is the Lyman alpha VUV radiation. it's the only radiation that counts in this system.

11 all regions of the SAFIRE plasma are collisional - period.

12 these are spikes in the voltage of the DC power supply - recall that the plasma itself is an active circuit element, so that even though the power supply is nominally DC, with a dynamic circuit element such as the plasma, especially when it's in one of its dynamical modes, one gets a voltage/current spike. the power may be megawatts or more but the total energy integral is zilch. but it can cause the plasma to switch modes.

13 this is not what the term catalyst means. it know what whomever is try to say but not knowing the correct terminology merely implies that the speaker knows not what of he speaks.

14 this is not what it seems. it's a well known phenomenon in optically thick plasmas where radiation is transported by the process of emission, absorption, re-emission, re-absorption, and so on millions of times until the photon leaves the plasma. it's entirely a quantum mechanical effect. so, it takes a while for the photons to be transported across the plasma.

15 i'm not sure what this is about, but double layers may be possibly be treated or modeled as series of capacitor/resistor elements. that's a topic in the current literature. i've been making notes on using it a model for these phenomena.

16 i think this is bastardization of the correct terminology. yes there are such things as dark plasmas and, yes, we do get some of that albeit in a different form from the standard glow discharge effect.

17 this is utter BS because instead of a decent quadrupole mass spectrometer they have a crappy RGA the results of which are not to be trusted. it's a matter of wanting so much to believe something that they can find signal in noise where it doesn't exist. i performed a S/N analysis of this thing but it didn't agree with what they wanted. it matters little to me as my career in physics is well established and has no dependence upon the success or failure of this venture. i pursue the striated plasma problem because, as stated approximately in #1, it's a very interesting problem where instability or perhaps even chaos leads to new stable regimes. i want to know how that happens. i may even replicate the experiments here in my own lab. i have better diagnostic equipment than SAFIRE has.

18 this is even greater mis/dis-information than is #17.

19 i have no idea what this is about. jeez, i deal with shock waves and whatever goes on in SAIFRE is a very much weaker phenomenon that that.

so, folks, you can take this for what you think it's worth. i think SAFIRE was a good idea for an experimental plasma physics & chemistry lab but claiming that it has anything to do with Sun is worse than fallacious, it's a lie having its foundations in ignorance of the Sun, ignorance of gas discharge physics, ignorance of plasma chemistry, ignorance of the meaning of non-equilibrium physics & chemistry, and, very unfortunately, ignorance is how one designs, fields, and interprets experiments. living 1800 miles from Toronto and having other work as well, my ability to have hands on involvement was limited.

Lowell Morgan
physicist
Monument, Colorado


Ooooooh, escandalo! This is quite a bit of controversy indeed! Ex-member of the SAFIRE team is challenging the claimed findings of the experiment. I appreciate you taking the time to hop into the forum and share your input with folks. Right now what I'm wondering is whether Monty or Michael will hop into the thread as well to address any of this, because you're laying down some pretty big challenges to the claims that they're making.

I have a few questions about your experience working on the project first, and then a few about the comments you made regarding each bullet point, if that's okay:
1) You said you worked on the project from '13 to March of '19; why'd you leave? Was it by choice, or were you pushed out of the project?
2) What were these two papers you're referring, because I know that there were papers put out some time ago but they've become pretty hard to track down and read. Do you have a DOI for them that I can look up?
3) Do you imagine that more papers will come out of this project at this point (i.e. without you on the team) or have we seen all of the scientific literature that will come out of SAFIRE already?
4) "...but claiming that it has anything to do with the Sun is worse than fallacious, it's a lie..." harsh words, are you saying that literally none of the phenomena demonstrated in the lab can be used to better understand/model anything happening in Sun? If that's the case, I think folks here (including myself) would appreciate a much more in-depth explanation as to why, if you're willing to provide one.
5) After your time working on the project, how do you feel about the hypothesis of the Sun's atmosphere an electric discharge phenomena? Do you think the hypothesis still has merit in terms of investigation, or have you thrown it out as a possibility?

Now, on to the comments you made regarding my previous list:
1) So you're saying that this is really the only real content to come out of the experiment. What are the possible implications in regards to solar physics? Why do you find this aspect of the phenomena worth further independent investigation, and when will folks be able to read that paper?
2) Can you provide DOI's to the papers that explain these phenomena, I'd definitely like to read them. Likewise, can you give a brief explanation from your point of view about why the two phenomena (in the chamber and in the Sun) aren't connected, despite being similar to one another?
3) You're basically saying "this isn't surprising, or unexpected," correct? And you're also saying that it's false that molecules have been trapped within the double layers, that it's only electrons and ions?
4) Could you explain this more please? My understanding was that with plasmas like one in SAFIRE, we're dealing with scalable phenomena, so while the temperature of the anode surface and its "corona" atmosphere aren't literally burning at the same temperature as the Sun, the proportions between the two maintain the same relationship as in the actual Sun. Is this not the case?
5) You chose not to explain this point, so, nothing really to question or critique here. Care to explain more?
6) So again, this is just fluff? Nothing new or unexpected, this is just typical plasma discharge behavior?
7) Same here as above with #6, nothing new? I mean that's to be expected I guess, because a lot of these phenomena were demonstrated a long time ago with Birkeland's own experimental setups, so I can understand that it's not something surprising. I guess what's more important to as is, "is it relevant to solar physics?" Can the accelerations of the positive ions inside of the chamber away from the anode help us understand what's happening in the Sun's atmosphere, or in are they unrelated in your opinion? If so, can you explain why?
8. You mention this in another point, that all of the regions in SAFIRE are collisional. Why?
9. Could you provide materials/papers about this effect so that folks can educate themselves? Likewise, you said that it could be a diagnostic. In what way?
10. Is there anything important that folks should know regarding the LA VUV radiation from the experiment? Anything you can share with us?
11. Again, see #8. Why are you saying this? You didn't provide an explanation, or say why this is important to know.
13. What are they trying to say here, if the terminology isn't being applied correctly?
14. So this has no relation to red-shifted light?
15. Again, can you provide any literature/resources for people to learn from?
17. Oh damn, so this isn't happening then? Straight up incorrect? One of the biggest "draws" of the SAFIRE project for me was how well-designed the experiment appeared in terms of data acquisition, diagnostics, and analysis. You're saying that the team is knowingly using less-precise equipment to manipulate the results? That's deeply unfortunate if that's the case...
18. Damn, so this is just completely false then? Because it's easily the biggest claim that they've made so far, it implies some kind of fusion happening in the reactor.

Definitely hoping to see a response from you, thanks for sharing your perspective.
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby WLMorgan » Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:24 am

i don't understand the format of this forum and one does replies but one or two long comments showed up after i posted my critique of SAFIRE last night. i stopped working on SAFIRE because they ran out of money to pay me. i've been a self-employed physicist for 30+ years - it's how i make an income. SAFIRE had a long run and i enjoyed working on the problems associated with it, mostly because they are difficult and i like difficult, complicated, multi-disciplinary physics issues, but i can't afford to work for free. even at that, i was limited to 78 hours/month and often put in 20 to 50 more hours/month than that because i felt obligated to make some progress every month and to get it right. sometimes i had large block of time to devote to it when there was a hiatus in the other contracts that i have. despite not being paid for it i am still pursuing the research of item #1 and will sometime in the future publish it. it's a very difficult problem because it involves an ordered system becoming chaotic and than landing in some other stable ordered mode. this is an area of chemical physics for which the late Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize. the mode shift seems to be caused by something external - all the videos that i took show arcing before the formation of the striations for example. the few times that i was actually there i took along a 24 Mega pixel Canon camera and sat in the control room taking notes and taking photos & videos of everything that looked to be interesting that showed up on the monitors. they never got any quantitative data from SAFIRE that i was able to make use of. but photos & videos show a lot and, being digital, i can analyse them using various mathematical techniques in order to obtain some useful quantitative information. when i do write something on the double layers & striations (actually i've written ~40 pages but i still don't have The Answer) i'll post it on ArXiv and mention it here. it'll be a while. not only is the problem, or at least the level of physical explanation that i want to achieve, difficult (i know how they come about but i want to be able to show a simulation of it) but i am anal about getting the scientific papers that i write accurate and clear. since i'm not being paid for this work and have to juggle it with my other paying work, which is very different from this, this will take me a while. i have nothing against those working on SAFIRE and, as people, i've enjoyed hanging out with them the few times that i've been to Toronto, but they have no technical expertise and experience in this field, which is formally known as the physics & plasma chemistry of low pressure collisional non-equilibrium gas discharges. i've been doing this stuff for half a century and am still truckin.

there were lots of interesting & good comments & questions posted about what i wrote but it will take me a while to make notes on them and respond. i will respond but i do have clients who pay for my time so, as with the study of double layers & striations, it may take me a while to reply.

by the way, the first paper i wrote on this was published in the Institute of Physics journal (the IoP is the English equivalent of the American Physical Society aka APS) Plasma Sources Science & Technology in 2015. the citation to it is WL Morgan and MW Childs, Plas. Sour. Sci. Technol.,24, (2015), 055022 having the title "Study of striations in a spherically symmetric hydrogen discharge". the second paper by Morgan, Clarage, Anderson, & Childs having the abnormally verbose title "Breakdown of low pressure N2 and H2 in sphere – plane geometries vis a vis
Pashen’s law" will be published sometime this year in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. i got the referees' comments back last week and have to revise the manuscript, when i have time, and re-submit it. so those are the two published papers in mainstream journals that i've written on the SAFIRE stuff. this second one was difficult to write because the data from SAFIRE themselves were good but were not enough to merit their own publication. so i had to do lots (months worth, well after my paychecks ended) of horsing around constructing mathematical models, writing computer programs, doing computer graphics, and so on to demonstrate why these data are interesting and showing how difficult a problem it really is. it's really, in practical terms, the first of its kind.

by the way, here's a beautiful image that i took from the 2014 experiments:
Fig-1.jpg


it ended up on the cover of the journal. a first for me anyway.


Lowell Morgan
WLMorgan
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:52 am

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:28 pm

It's always unfortunate to have to leave projects when the cash-flow dries up, sorry about that. But happy to hear that it was for something like that as opposed to something like being shoved out of the project, in particular because you didn't agree with Monty or Michael, for example.

I understand completely about wage-work having to dominate most of the time you have to do this research as well. But I'm looking forward to your response to my questions/notes, and definitely looking forward to that paper you're working on. Please do post the arxiv paper once it's ready and online!

For folks who may want to read them, here's the links to the paper they're referencing that was already published in IoP:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 055022/pdf
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby WLMorgan » Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:59 pm

i've been making notes on responses to your beaucoup de questions and will probably post them next week. i still have to change the latest SAFIRE paper in order do satisfy the referee (i've known her for a long time but i still can't dodge her comments - she knows lots more about the area associated with this paper than do i. i think that she could, were she so immodest, claim to be the world's most knowledgeable expert in the field addressed by the paper).

regarding one of the questions about whether there will be more SAFIRE papers forthcoming, i doubt it. none of these people has ever published a research paper in physics. it's a non-trivial exercise part of which, besides writing in clear concise English and, very importantly, knowing what you're talking about, is knowing what a given journal and the referees associated therewith expect. so, in addition to knowing what you're presenting, you must know the prior literature in the field and the reason why you're researching & writing about this particular topic. the topic of the SAFIRE plasmas is multidisciplinary, i.e, it involves (actually to a minor degree) plasma physics but, more importantly, the physics of collisional plasmas, which is a field of ionized gas physics that is pretty much an entirely different field from collisionless plasmas, which is what most of astrophysics is concerned with. SAFIRE is very much an interdisciplinary science involving plasma chemistry, atomic & molecular physics, electron collision physics, non-equilibrium (NLTE) electron physics via Boltzmann's equation, and the radiation transport, or lack thereof, in optically thick media. one doesn't learn this stuff by watching a couple of You Tube videos or by reading gas discharge physics for dummies. i've been working in this field for half a century and feel as though i've only scratched the surface. i've learned an amazing amount just from working on the analysis of the SAFIRE experiments over the past half dozen years.

what they're are working on now, which i haven't been privy to for 6 months or more although, from what they had been talking about, i suspect that it's out there in wishful thinking space, may be publishable in a fringe journal such as Progress in Physics or a few other similar journals. i don't know how that works, however, as i've always published in mainstream journals. the mainstream gets a bad rap. we have nothing against new ideas, indeed that's the whole point of this exercise that we call research. but you need to provide a pretty good reason why your vision of the truth is better than that of others. that's where string theory comes from, which i'm a fan of, mostly because it makes sense to me. multiple dimensions > 4 (perhaps even multiple time dimensions) also make lots of sense to me. but then, i know lots of mathematics. i don't think the world must be entirely described by 19th century physics, or non-mathematically. if people aren't willing to learn what this stuff is all about, including the mathematics associated therewith, then they have no business even commenting on it. there's nothing new about the EU or the ES. it's been known since the mid-19th century that B-fields can't exist without E-fields, even among astrophysicists. although, depending upon the symmetry, you can change what is known as gauge (basically a coordinate transformation) and the B-field vanishes. that's always fun. analogous symmetries even exist in the SAFIRE plasmas, in which the divergent geometry plays a significant role. the important element in the entire SAFIRE plasma is space charge, which is a non-solar concept.

a comment regarding the craze that i've seen in past couple of EU meetings (i think i've been to five but i'm unlikely to go to any more). it has to do with the concept of thermonuclear fusion. that's something that i know someting about as i worked on ICF (i.e., laser fusion) in the early 1970s and designed hydrogen bombs in the early 1980s. stars are driven by fusion in the core, period. there's not viable alternative except for wanting to be different for the sake of being different. although the solar corona is nearly hot enough for fusion of some elements, the density is zilch. the rate is the cross section for the process times the densities of the two species involved when their energies are greater than the reaction barrier height. even with tunneling and resonant interactions, which can enhance the cross section, the densities just aren't there. unless someone can demonstrate some kind low temperature fusion involving solar densities near the chromosphere, it's not going to happen. and so far, again the wishful thinking of finding signal in a system where S/N << 1, LENR has shown nothing interesting, even the few frauds haven't demonstrated anything worth spending time on.

as a final comment, regarding the region of the Sun where T is the lowest - something like 4000-5000K, i think that's a good candidate for finding a double layer were one to exist in the sun. double layers are interesting. that's the region of the Sun that SAFIRE is attempting to address. there's a large disconnect there, however. that region of the Sun, while not entirely thermal, still has a heavy particle temperature of 4000-5000K. the highest heavy particle temperature in SAFIRE is around 1000K. that factor of 5 is important. the heavy particle densities in that region of the Sun are much larger than those to be found in SAFIRE. the electron temperature (there really isn't a well defined electron temperature as such, that's an equilibrium concept) in the Sun may be somewhat larger than the ion & neutral (there are some neutrals in that region of the Sun) temperatures but in SAFIRE it amounts to 10k to 100k Kelvins because there's a relatively large electric field driving the electrons. there is no similarity at all between the solar plasma in that low temperature region and that of SAFIRE. the SAFIRE plasma is almost entirely molecular H2 with a bit of N2 and that of the Sun in that region is still mostly atomic hydrogen, i.e. the element H. the two are as different as night & day.

more comments on this & that down the road

WLM
WLMorgan
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:52 am

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby JHL » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:55 am

WLMorgan wrote:i don't understand the format of this forum


Try shorter paragraphs and capitals.
JHL
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby Mjolnir » Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:41 pm

Very odd ...

The Safire lab walkthrough video seems to have vanished from Youtube and https://www.safirepoject.com.
But a new poster at https://www.safirepoject.com more than hints that SAFIRE is producing energy. It says:

Most critical issue today: Climate change
The SAFIRE PROJECT has reverse engineered the sun's atmosphere in a lab on Earth.

Most critical need today: Clean energy
The SAFIRE REACTOR is now producing energy densities comparable to the sun's.


The poster invites industrial, business and research partners to meet SAFIRE at EU UK 2019. Before the video was taken down, Monty said in the comments section that some rather big announcements would be coming there.

So SAFIRE seems to be making some bold statements at the same time as a former member of the team posts strong criticism on this forum.

Last year it took quite some time before the SAFIRE presentations from EU UK were released, so I guess we have to be patient ...

Mjolnir
Mjolnir
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:09 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:45 am

Mjolnir wrote:So SAFIRE seems to be making some bold statements at the same time as a former member of the team posts strong criticism on this forum.

New science is always an area with a lot of speculation and criticism.

I think that there is some kind of connection between electric currents and some nuclear reactions.
We can see some nuclear reactions due to lightning strikes.
link

Nuclear reactions can vary due to temperature.
link (pdf)
Which again is disputed
A similar variation was found between nuclear reactions and the season of earth.
Which was also disputed.

Theoretically both are possible, even within our current understanding.
The temperature might cause different energy states of particles inside the nucleus.
And both may also be caused by the amount of neutrinos that are captured.

And I have not even touched the wide range of claims on low energy nuclear reactions.
link https://www.lenr-forum.com/

This all gives an indication that there is likely something
that can influence nuclear reactions, but we have not found
a good experiment to determine what it is.

And there is a huge opposition by scientists against such ideas.
And I am against the current scientists that claim that we know everything
there is about nuclear reactions. QED and Quantum Field theories are hacks,
not science. And they know it.

As we have found nuclear reactions in lightning strikes,
I think that it is entirely possible that Safire has indeed found some
kind signs of nuclear reactions.
As long we have no idea of what is causing it exactly,
we will not be able to use it at all.
And they will also meet a huge opposition from many scientists.

For anyone interested, I found a wealth of links on neutrinos and electromagnetism:
Impact of neutrino flavor oscillations on the neutrino-driven wind nucleosynthesis of an electron-capture supernova
Weak magnetism correction to allowed β decay for reactor antineutrino spectra
Solar neutrinos with electric charge?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests