The Safire Project - More out then in?

[antimony]

Hi, i have recently started to take a second look at the Safire Project, and it seems like it in the future, possibly could put out more then it takes in.
What i wanted to ask was, do you think it will be possible in the future to use the findings of the Safire project, to build on and make a electrical generator that puts out more then you put in, or could be selfrunning like our sun is?

Thanks in advance.

[Metryq]

What leads you to believe SAFIRE is a perpetual motion machine?

The orthodox view of the Sun is that it is a ball of gas driven to sustained fusion under its own gravity. There are a variety of problems with that idea. And while there is no consensus in the PC/EU community, an electric Sun is externally powered, if I understand correctly. (In other words, building a Dyson sphere would do exactly the opposite of what it is designed to do.)

[Michael Mozina]

What leads you to believe SAFIRE is a perpetual motion machine?

It's obviously not a perpetual motion machine, but it may end up being a more efficient and more stable fusion generator than current designs. It may also generate matter/antimatter annihilation processes as well. Z-pinch fusion is a logical (actually documented) possibility with enough current, and electrical discharges are known to create positrons which should then annihilate themselves inside the chamber.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-lightning ... atter.html

[antosarai]

What leads you to believe SAFIRE is a perpetual motion machine?

It's obviously not a perpetual motion machine, but (snip)

As proposed, isn't the Electrodynamic Electric Universe, as a whole, a perpetual motion machine?

[Metryq]

As proposed, isn't the Electrodynamic Electric Universe, as a whole, a perpetual motion machine?

I guess it's a matter of scale. One of the refreshing things about EU is that it does not presume to explain "everything" about the universe—like when and where it came from, and everything that happened, in detail, during the first few picoseconds.

On a human scale there are no perpetual motion machines, at least not yet. Many eco-warrior types seem to forget that electrically powered vehicles must get the power from somewhere. Maybe solar is sufficient for cars.

Anyway, before getting too far off track, I know of Z-pinches and antimatter in lightning storms. (So much for all the philosophical hand-wringing over where the "missing" antimatter went that must have been formed 50/50 with matter during the Big Bang.) And I have not read much in detail about SAFIRE. I understand the similarity to fusion efforts, but aren't the best fusion reactors only barely "breaking even" for something like a millionth of a second? That's not enough to say we have fusion power. If SAFIRE really put us that much closer, I would expect banner headlines on this site. It would certainly be the biggest "Ha! Told you so!" to the mainstream ever.

[Michael Mozina]

What leads you to believe SAFIRE is a perpetual motion machine?

It's obviously not a perpetual motion machine, but (snip)

As proposed, isn't the Electrodynamic Electric Universe, as a whole, a perpetual motion machine?

Absolutely not. It's fusing atoms together and converting rotational energy into induced current. Alfven's cosmology model also allows for it be powered by 'ambiplasma", a type of preexisting matter/antimatter plasma. His "bang' model simply begins with preexisting matter and antimatter and converts it into annihilation processes that generate motion. It's absolutely not a "free lunch" like Alan Guth's nonsense about inflation.

[antosarai]

As proposed, isn't the Electrodynamic Electric Universe, as a whole, a perpetual motion machine?

Absolutely not. It's fusing atoms together and converting rotational energy into induced current.

Never heard of such processes. Would you care to comment?

Alfven's cosmology model also allows for it be powered by 'ambiplasma", a type of preexisting matter/antimatter plasma.

So, do you believe the universe's expanding?

[Metryq]

So, do you believe the universe's expanding?

Heck, no!

Matter and plasma move around, but the "space itself" expanding is nonsense.

[Solar]

What i wanted to ask was, do you think it will be possible in the future to use the findings of the Safire project, to build on and make a electrical generator that puts out more then you put in, or could be selfrunning like our sun is?

Thanks in advance.

The question references the plasma related principle demonstrated by such works as:

Alexander V. CHERNETSKII: Self-Generating Discharge Plasmatron

I've not seen any indications that the Safire Experiment will investigate such matters.

[Michael Mozina]

As proposed, isn't the Electrodynamic Electric Universe, as a whole, a perpetual motion machine?

Absolutely not. It's fusing atoms together and converting rotational energy into induced current.

Never heard of such processes. Would you care to comment?

You might look up the term "homopolar generator" and electromagnetic induction. Aflven basically used the standard solar model which is based on fusion power generation and the concept of a homopolar generator to link all the circuitry together and induce currents in the sun's surrounding plasma. Essentially it's converting spin energy into electrical current over time.

Alfven's cosmology model also allows for it be powered by 'ambiplasma", a type of preexisting matter/antimatter plasma.

So, do you believe the universe's expanding?[/quote]

Personally? No, absolutely not. I think that we live in a static universe and that photon redshift is related to 'tired light/inelastic scattering", not 'space expansion". It the universe is expanding, it's likely due to object movement and time dilation, not "space expansion".

[Cargo]

it is referred to as a reactor, and hence by simple definition, an apparatus or structure in which fissile material can be made to undergo a controlled, self-sustaining nuclear reaction with the consequent release of energy. A star in a jar.

[JHL]

...isn't the Electrodynamic Electric Universe, as a whole, a perpetual motion machine?

Isn't that a fantastic question? I've been asking it for decades: What, in any creation myth or model, drives spontaneous existence? Existence simply violates the Void and so too do Bigly Bangisms and even endlessly circulating energy, electrical or otherwise.

From what and from where and how and why. What a lovely problem...

[nick c]

As proposed, isn't the Electrodynamic Electric Universe, as a whole, a perpetual motion machine?

Isn't that a fantastic question? I've been asking it for decades: What, in any creation myth or model, drives spontaneous existence? Existence simply violates the Void and so too do Bigly Bangisms and even endlessly circulating energy, electrical or otherwise.

From what and from where and how and why. What a lovely problem...

A "machine" (as implied in any of the common definitions) has to exist within a larger environment. The word machine carries with it the assumption that there are other objects and forces outside of the object that is the machine.
The Universe is by definition everything that is. Therefore there can be no environment (objects, forces, or otherwise) existing outside of Universe.

Furthermore, the word "perpetual" is an expression of a temporal condition. Time, if it is something, must then be a part of the Universe. It does not exist separate from or outside of the Universe.
There can be no outside point of view from which to observe or measure the Universe.

Labeling the "Universe" as a perpetual motion machine is nothing more than a metaphor that attempts to help us to understand something that our species is not capable of understanding. So, if calling the Universe a perpetual motion machine makes it easier to deal with the unfathomable then i guess it is okay, as long as we accept the limitations of the metaphor.

[JHL]

A "machine" (as implied in any of the common definitions) has to exist within a larger environment. The word machine carries with it the assumption that there are other objects and forces outside of the object that is the machine.
The Universe is by definition everything that is. Therefore there can be no environment (objects, forces, or otherwise) existing outside of Universe.

Labeling the "Universe" as a perpetual motion machine is nothing more than a metaphor that attempts to help us to understand something that our species is not capable of understanding.

It'd be strictly metaphoric if there were a way to resolve the point that according to its own purported thermodynamic law against the spontaneity of matter and energy, the Universe, as the closed-but-not-closed entity you've invoked, made sense by our usual terms. It does not, of course, and that is the problem. The Universe no more makes sense as the timeless entity in which time marks all things than as an entity of an eternal state that was brought into existence at a point as the violation of that prior pre-existential Void it must logically be.

It's a metaphysical conundrum. By its own lights it cannot exist as it does, at least not if our thermodynamic understanding applies. Even our constructs - our laws of its properties and states - find themselves conflicted by its appearance. As a machine it simply has no external condition or environment, in which conundrum the word, as defined, cannot apply. Crazy stuff.

It's as if G-d has en enormous desk on back the corner of which there are two electrodes. Between them hovers a soft glow in which light moves at a fantastically slow velocity, the whole thing energized by a electrical cell and in which is at least one minuscule ball on which infinitesimally small beings try to figure the thing out. But the idea that the thing produced itself to exist without external context, that's a tough one.

[antosarai]

(snip) Labeling the "Universe" as a perpetual motion machine...

I didn't mean to label the "Universe" as anything. What I was asking, and still am, is: Does the cosmological model of the Electrodynamic Electric Universe as proposed comply, or does it not, with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?