Questions about Safire

[Michael Mozina]

I'm curious if the Safire experiments include any work with a *cathode* solar model, or if it's been primarily limited to studying the anode/Jergen's/Scott solar model?

[upriver]

Search SAFIRE dude...

[D_Archer]

I'm curious if the Safire experiments include any work with a *cathode* solar model, or if it's been primarily limited to studying the anode/Jergen's/Scott solar model?

It tests the anode model only.

Regards,
Daniel

[Michael Mozina]

I'm curious if the Safire experiments include any work with a *cathode* solar model, or if it's been primarily limited to studying the anode/Jergen's/Scott solar model?

It tests the anode model only.

Regards,
Daniel

I must say that I find that rather disappointing. Child's often mentions the work of Birkeland during his presentations, as well as Quinn & Fiorito, all of whom experimented with cathode sun models. It seems to me that both claims warrant further research, not just one.

[D_Archer]

I'm curious if the Safire experiments include any work with a *cathode* solar model, or if it's been primarily limited to studying the anode/Jergen's/Scott solar model?

It tests the anode model only.

Regards,
Daniel

I must say that I find that rather disappointing. Child's often mentions the work of Birkeland during his presentations, as well as Quinn & Fiorito, all of whom experimented with cathode sun models. It seems to me that both claims warrant further research, not just one.

This is not an issue for SAFIRE, it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, test the anode model. It costs money to do this and it is a quantitative study that takes time and resources that the Thunderbolts group is paying for.

I think the focus is exactly what this experiment needs. It contrasts the emperical lab results to known solar data.

Regards,
Daniel

[Michael Mozina]

I'm curious if the Safire experiments include any work with a *cathode* solar model, or if it's been primarily limited to studying the anode/Jergen's/Scott solar model?

It tests the anode model only.

Regards,
Daniel

I must say that I find that rather disappointing. Child's often mentions the work of Birkeland during his presentations, as well as Quinn & Fiorito, all of whom experimented with cathode sun models. It seems to me that both claims warrant further research, not just one.

This is not an issue for SAFIRE, it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, test the anode model. It costs money to do this and it is a quantitative study that takes time and resources that the Thunderbolts group is paying for.

I think the focus is exactly what this experiment needs. It contrasts the emperical lab results to known solar data.

Regards,
Daniel

Don't get me wrong Daniel, I'm *all* for testing the anode model.

Birkeland was IMO an example of the quintessential scientist. He followed his scientific curiosity to the ends (poles) of the Earth to take in-situ measurements of the Earth's magnetic fields during solar storms so that he could compare those measurements to results that he got from the lab. In the lab he tried *lots* of variations, including anode spheres, *and* cathode spheres, as well as neutral spheres. He used different textures and tried various materials for the spheres. He tried variations in the magnetic field strengths inside the spheres as well. The whole point of his experiments was to test a *range* of ideas. Through that process he learned a great deal about our universe.

Since Birkeland was the grandfather of electric universe and plasma universe theory, I think it's vital to look at the *successful* predictions that he made about our solar system, including successful predictions about solar atmospheric behaviors.

He correctly predicted the existence of Birkeland currents around the poles of the Earth, and correctly described the electrical nature of aurora, in contrast to Chapman's simplistic "mainstream" beliefs. He correctly predicted the existence of *both* types of charged particles flowing from the sun, another observation that was eventually verified by satellites in space. He correctly predicted that solar flares were electrical discharges processes caused by a charge separation between the surface of the sun, and the surrounding "space", or what we'd call the heliosphere today. He correctly predicted the existence of polar 'jets' where high speed particles flow from the sun. He correctly predicted the existence of cathode rays/electron beams flowing from the sun, another observation confirmed in only relatively recent times.

It's worth noting that all of those are successful predictions he made using a *cathode* solar model.

I'm not even knocking SAFIRE's desire to try an 'anode first' series of experiments, I"m simply curious if they've done any *other* types of experiments, if only out of pure scientific curiosity.

I also don't think that science should be mixed with politics, or limited by politics. If only out of pure scientific curiosity, I would assume that sooner or later the scientist will want to explore *both* wiring options. I'm simply curious if things have progressed to that point yet?

[D_Archer]

Don't get me wrong Daniel, I'm *all* for testing the anode model.

Good.

I think you are taking a more intellectual stance to SAFIRE, you simply know too much, Charles Chandler is also an intellectual and also wanted SAFIRE to test 'cathode setup'. For him it was to test HIS pet theory.

In the end anode or cathode does not really matter, there was a thread about this > http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 10&t=10457

I said and Lloyd replied:

DanielArcher: The solar wind proves the Sun is anode. End debate. So is there a reason why this is a question at all? Am i missing something?

Yes, there's much more evidence of net negative charge outflow than inflow.
Defining Anode and Cathode
The following is from http://www.av8n.com/physics/anode-cathode.htm. From this it seems that it might be best not to use the terms anode or cathode. Both positive and negative charge are outflowing from the Sun, but more of the outflow is negative than positive and the Sun is net-negative charged.
- Definition: The anode of a device is the terminal where [positive] current flows in from outside. The cathode of a device is the terminal where [positive] current flows out.
- To avoid misconceptions, remember that the anode/cathode distinction is based on current, not voltage. Anode/cathode is not the same as positive/negative or vice versa. Illustrative example: for a battery being discharged, the positive terminal is the cathode, while for the same battery being recharged, the positive terminal is the anode.
- As a trustworthy rule, keep in mind that anode and cathode refer to function, not structure.

So what is the anode function in the SAFIRE setup? I say charge inflow via the poles of the Sun and that is why EU calls it an anode. Now you may see 'cathode discharge' features on the Sun and that is expected where there is net outflow, like from the equator (and surface). But it really depends on your perspective, where you are looking and or measuring.

I found this nice PDF about Birkeland, you can see he had many setups, anode, cathode separate from where the discharge occurs (figure 3 for example), how would you determine that the sphere is anode or cathode?

---

I'm simply curious if things have progressed to that point yet?

No, they have not. And probably will not in the foreseeable future, SAFIRE will get bigger though, a bigger chamber and higher voltage, i think this could be dangerous (safety hazard with radiation etc), but who am i.

Regards,
Daniel

ps. and my head hurts, with trying to visualize it all. SAFIRE presentation soon, hope they got some good pictures.

[antosarai]

Perhaps this Feb 2014 article could add some distance and perspective?

http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/what-a ... -model.htm

[Michael Mozina]

Don't get me wrong Daniel, I'm *all* for testing the anode model.

Good.

I think you are taking a more intellectual stance to SAFIRE, you simply know too much, Charles Chandler is also an intellectual and also wanted SAFIRE to test 'cathode setup'. For him it was to test HIS pet theory.

Far be it from me to speak for CC, but I think all of us who hold a preference for a cathode solar model understand and respect the fact that Birkeland was the originator of the concept. We've discussed several physical variations on Birkeland's basic theme, but I doubt anyone alive is trying to take credit for being the first to promote a cathode sun theory.

In the end anode or cathode does not really matter, there was a thread about this > http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 10&t=10457

I said and Lloyd replied:

DanielArcher: The solar wind proves the Sun is anode. End debate. So is there a reason why this is a question at all? Am i missing something?

Without reading the entire thread, I would say that it *might* make a difference with respect to the solar power source. Birkeland (and I) presume(d) that the sun is mostly internally powered, whereas Jergen's model was primarily externally powered. Brant's cathode sun idea was pretty cool, and allows for both internal and external power sources. I kinda liked that idea.

I'll grant you that even Birkeland's model emitted both positively and negatively charged particles, so referring to it as simply a cathode tends to hide some of the complexities of the physics involved, but it does correctly describe the charge of the solar surface with respect to 'space' according to Birkeland.

I found this nice PDF about Birkeland, you can see he had many setups, anode, cathode separate from where the discharge occurs (figure 3 for example), how would you determine that the sphere is anode or cathode?

I read his major volume on the topic of his experiments and he typically specifies the polarity with respect to various images. Granted, he played with both configurations, but he did ultimately support a cathode solar model as you'll see from this presentation he made:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 946296D6CF

No, they have not. And probably will not in the foreseeable future, SAFIRE will get bigger though, a bigger chamber and higher voltage, i think this could be dangerous (safety hazard with radiation etc), but who am i.

I would hope as they ramp up, and scale up their experiments that they will begin to add some of the various control mechanisms that Birkeland experimented with, including the texture of the sphere, EM fields within the sphere, and of course the polarity of the sphere.

I definitely like what I see in terms of the sophistication and professionalism of the SAFIRE project and the scientists that are part of that project. It would just be a crying shame if a guy from 100 years ago still had the most comprehensive set of "electric sun" experiments, only because we haven't been curious enough to duplicate *all* of his work. How would we even know if we had the "best' solution if we didn't try *both* options?

[Michael Mozina]

Perhaps this Feb 2014 article could add some distance and perspective?

http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/what-a ... -model.htm

I'd say that there are a lot of sometimes conflicting ideas being bantered around in EU/PC theory, and it's pretty clear that we don't have all the answers yet, and there is not even necessarily a consensus amongst ourselves on every topic related to EU/PC theory.

I do think it's possible to have multiple models for every object in EU/PC theory, including multiple solar models, perhaps multiple comet models, multiple planet models, etc. They can't all be correct, but they can't all be wrong either, or Birkeland's predictions about plasma behaviors inside of our solar system wouldn't have been so accurate.

Compared to the *enormous* problems the mainstream has with exotic dark matter claims, and their dark energy claims based on SN1A events that aren't even "standard candles" according to newer studies, the problems in EU/PC theory seem simple to resolve.

I think the author makes a few good points, but I think it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. The really *sweet* thing about EU/PC theory compared to Lambda-CDM is that all of it's ideas can be *tested in the lab*. That's why I'd like to see the cathode model tested as well in such a highly professional manner. It deserves their attention too IMO.

[seasmith]

antosarai wrote:
Perhaps this Feb 2014 article could add some distance and perspective?

http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/what-a ... -model.htm

The piece is unsigned. Would that be the Paladin Hossein speaking anonymously about Hossein ?