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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Mjolnir
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:09 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by Mjolnir » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:49 pm

Sci-Phy wrote:Reading on neutrinos:
http://mb-soft.com/public4/neutrino.html
Cheers.
This is one of the papers by Carl Johnson listed as supporting evidence for the Structured Atom Model which has been presented on the EU conferences alongside SAFIRE. The way SAM explains "transmutation" could perhaps fit well with Monty's use of the term, rather than "fusion". Monty mentions in one of the comments to the latest SAFIRE video that they are in contact with Edwin Kaal. I have just started to look at SAM, but it seems they have recreated pretty much all of the elements of the periodic table.

Mjolnir

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by paladin17 » Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:37 pm

I have few serious concerns regarding SAFIRE.
One of the biggest ones probably is Monty's claim (that he made at least in Bath, I don't quite remember if that was made anywhere earlier) that their findings "prove the predictions of the electric Sun model" (not an exact quote, but very close). That raises eyebrows immediately.
First of all, it's not clear, what exact "electric Sun model" is he talking about. Because from their documents it's just an extremely vague (and here's an exact quote)
M. Childs wrote:fundamental process of charged plasma affecting matter of a different electrical potential
I'd imagine that in order to prove a model, the model should give at least some exact predictions in the first place, right? So naturally we should ask - what exact model are they using and what predictions does it give? If there is no such model in reality, and no predictions have been made (I highly suspect that to be the case - see below why), then the initial claim about "proving" it is simply false. At the very least it's ill-founded.

All that aside, it's still not obvious at all that the conditions in the SAFIRE chamber might be directly translated to what is observed at the Sun - in any respect whatsoever.
As it has been correctly indicated in this thread, SAFIRE anode is different from the Sun in many respects:

1) SAFIRE anode is at an externally driven higher electric potential with respect to its surroundings (the cathode and chamber walls).
No obvious driver of such potential difference is known for the Sun (you might just invent ad hoc ideas like Juergens' magically generated negative potential).

2) SAFIRE anode does not put any significant gravitational (or any other charge-neutral) influence on the surrounding plasma.
While the main plasma domain of the heliosphere - the solar wind - is highly influenced by gravity. The gravitational escape velocity at the surface of the Sun is of the same order of magnitude (~ 600 km/s) as the speed of fast solar wind far away from the Sun. I.e. the solar plasma spends roughly half of its total energy to just counteract the gravitational forces; and I'm not even talking about the natural formation of ambipolar electric field due to plasma expansion in the gravitational field (electrons are lighter, so escape faster, which naturally forms a double layer with electric field directed outwards), so even the properties of plasma per se are altered by gravity. So you cannot just ignore it and pretend it's not there. You might claim that gravitation-less system is only some vague approximation - perhaps.

3) Perhaps the worst of all: SAFIRE chamber is not magnetized (I've asked Michael Clarage about this directly, and he didn't respond anything), whereas the solar plasma is. And it's very significant. The behaviour of plasma is heavily influenced by the magnetic fields and all the dynamics associated with them - it's not a big revelation.
So as a product of this, SAFIRE chamber doesn't have anything even remotely approximating:
- "solar" cycle;
- active regions;
- "solar" flares;
- "solar" energetic particle emissions;
- prominences or CMEs;
- "heliospheric" current sheet;
- coronal holes;
- Alfven (and other plasma) waves,
etc.
And, mind you, all of these are exactly electromagnetic phenomena, so if your "electric Sun" can exist without these, you're just not quite sane, I would claim. This is exactly what we should see - first and foremost. E.g. prominences are the discharge phenomena. And if SAFIRE doesn't have them, it's not very "electric" and it certainly isn't about the "Sun".

4) The non-trivial character of plasma scalability is completely ignored (as far as I can see) by the SAFIRE team. Here I refer to Alfven's "Cosmical Electrodynamics" (e.g. see p. 31, similarity transformations).
a) SAFIRE setup seems to have (again, I've asked Clarage directly about the parameters, and he said it's "proprietary information", so I have to use other sources) about 600-700 V of potential difference and a current of about 3 A (see also here, p. 25).
According to Alfven, both the total current and total voltage should be the same in both the scaled-down and the original system - otherwise the plasma behaviour would simply be different.
This means that if we are to translate SAFIRE with their 1.8 kW of power to the solar scales (say, a chamber of 1 m in size vs. 10^9 m - the size of the corona), their "Sun" would be near absolute zero in temperature (10^(-13) W of thermal emission power per m^2; so less than 0.1 K temperature). Very far from 6 kK, I think. To get 10^26 W of luminous power (the one which is observed), - assuming it's driven by the thermal action of the current - you need to put exactly that amount in your laboratory system. Otherwise you'll get a very different plasma that would behave very differently.
b) The density of the medium should scale as L^(-1) (L being the linear dimension of length) to preserve mean free path and the associated collisional dynamics in plasma.
SAFIRE has pressure of ~ 1 Torr, while the corona has densities of ~ 10^9 cm^(-3). Taking the same 10^9 scale factor, you get the needed (for proper scaling) density in SAFIRE chamber of 10^18 cm^(-3) to model the corona, i.e. about 100 of Torr (by order of magnitude), not 1. I.e. it should be much closer to the atmospheric pressure than 1 Torr vacuum.
c) To properly scale the magnetic field (which SAFIRE lacks completely) e.g. in the corona, you'd need - again, assuming a 1 m scale of chamber and 10^9 m scale of the corona (plus about 2 uT of magnetic field in the corona) - about 10^3 T of magnetic field in the SAFIRE chamber.
Should I specifically indicate that no magnetic field and a thousand tesla magnetic field (only achieved at the strongest pulse facilities today) makes a big difference in plasma dynamics or is it obvious right away?

So, to sum this all up, we see that SAFIRE chamber doesn't scale the solar plasma dynamics down properly; it doesn't include important gravitational interaction (it actually does - but of the wrong kind: of the gravitational field of the Earth; e.g. you can see the effects of plasma buoyancy - which distorts the otherwise spherical layers - e.g. at the p. 51 here - this explanation actually comes from Michael Clarage, though it contradicts Childs' statement at the next page about "no sign of being affected by gravity"); it doesn't include the even more important magnetic field and thus completely ignores all the proper e/m phenomena in the stellar atmospheres (including solar wind, for example). So it seems like this experiment has very little to do with the Sun in the first place. It might catch some isolated phenomena the analogues of which are observed in the solar plasma - but just because, more or less, any plasma would demonstrate similar phenomena.

If Monty Childs did acknowledge straight away that he was using e.g. Juergens' model, then some other questions might have been asked (e.g. why is there a net positive current from the cosmic rays inflowing into the Sun; or where do the suprathermal electrons from the Sun come from; or why are the ENA emissions from the edge of the heliosphere stronger during the solar minimum etc.), but since he doesn't and prefers to be vague instead, we'll just leave it at that.
I think it should be clear by now that SAFIRE chamber has nothing to do with the Sun. It might be vaguely similar to the Sun at the very best - because the electrode is spherical, heated up and surrounded by Hydrogen plasma. But that's pretty much it.

P. S. OK, now I took some time to review the video from Bath (only some parts of it rather), and Monty literally just says - twice, actually
M. Childs wrote:in our tests and experiments we have found no disparities with the electric Sun model
(maybe there was a stronger quote that I didn't catch; I don't know, since I didn't review the whole video).
Well, I can only say with regards to that that if one formulates the model as given in the first quote of this post, then surely you wouldn't see any disparities; because the formulation itself it prediction-less and doesn't even contain any statements about the Sun in the first place. So in this regard Monty's claim is totally consistent with what I've said: SAFIRE is a great and fascinating experiment that deals with "fundamental process of charged plasma affecting matter of a different electrical potential", but it has nothing to do with the Sun at all (aside for maybe the presence of Hydrogen plasma in both).

P. P. S. It is quite unfortunate that Lowell Morgan's posts (if that was indeed him) got removed. Perhaps I'd have seen some answers that I'm looking for there (I wasn't quick enough to read them). In the forum topic specifically devoted to discussing SAFIRE results I'd imagine a person who worked there for few years would have something useful to say.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:15 pm

I made the comment in private (and unanswered) correspondence to the SAFIRE team that SAFIRE represents a highly idealised electrical sun model. In some sense, it is operating far too 'cleanly' to be a true representation of our actual sun. SAFIRE doesn't have orbiting planets drawing from its power, its anode surface starts smooth and round (as opposed to whatever suprise of a surface awaits us for the sun's heated orb), and its tufts form highly a highly stable and self-organising system, most unlike the moving, changing and morphing updraft-downdraft currents and ring currents within the sun's corona-chromosphere.

Eugene's criticisms above would go well to tightening the criteria of necessary observation and repetition, but one wonders for the safety of the researchers if they were to degenerate the system from its current 'clean' operation to something far dirtier that we actually see in our own sun.

Mjolnir
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:09 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by Mjolnir » Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 am


jacmac
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by jacmac » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:45 am

I have said on this thread:
The sun is completely surrounded by the solar system, the heliopause, the interstellar medium, and beyond.
There is no connection to a voltage source other than as listed above.
there is a third alternative to an anode or cathode sun.
I think the sun(the internal sun under the photosphere) is acting as a Psuedo electrode; its charge(?)
comes from the totality of electrical activity outside the core.
There is NO COMPARABLE DIRECT CONNECTION of the inner sun to any external power source....
The inner sun is completely enclosed by its outer parts (photosphere, chromosphere, corona) and by the far away heliosphere.
Thus the term Anode for the sun is incorrect and does not represent what seems to be happening with the sun.
The solar circuit has yet to be determined.
So, i agree with paladin 17 when he says:
SAFIRE anode is different from the Sun in many respects:
#1
1) SAFIRE anode is at an externally driven higher electric potential with respect to its surroundings (the cathode and chamber walls).
No obvious driver of such potential difference is known for the Sun (you might just invent ad hoc ideas like Juergens' magically generated negative potential).

User avatar
neilwilkes
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by neilwilkes » Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:41 am

One question:
Does Paladin 17 accept as reality the "Big Bang", Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Expansion of the Universe and the domination of Gravity as the driving force behind everything?
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by paladin17 » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:42 am

jacmac wrote:I have said on this thread:
Yes, I've seen your comments and others' as well. That's why I prefaced mine with
paladin17 wrote:As it has been correctly indicated in this thread
in the first place.
neilwilkes wrote:Does Paladin 17 accept as reality the "Big Bang", Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Expansion of the Universe and the domination of Gravity as the driving force behind everything?
It is absolutely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

jacmac
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by jacmac » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:36 am

paladin 17
No obvious driver of such potential difference is known for the Sun
neilwilkes
Does Paladin 17 accept as reality the "Big Bang", Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Expansion of the Universe and the domination of Gravity as the driving force behind everything?
Because something is not obvious does not mean it does not exist.

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by paladin17 » Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:00 am

jacmac wrote:paladin 17
No obvious driver of such potential difference is known for the Sun
neilwilkes
Does Paladin 17 accept as reality the "Big Bang", Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Expansion of the Universe and the domination of Gravity as the driving force behind everything?
Because something is not obvious does not mean it does not exist.
I agree.
But if one claims that the solar e/m emission is caused by externally driven current (as Juergens did, for example), then one would have to introduce it explicitly. And show where the source of this current is. And how exactly it works (again - Juergens did that, though his conjectures are not supported by observations).
Unfortunately, none of this can be seen in the SAFIRE documents [available to the public]. So from that I assume that no testable hypotheses have been made about it at all. The current just "is" by default.

jacmac
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by jacmac » Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:56 pm

paladin 17
if one claims that the solar e/m emission is caused by externally driven current......then..... show where the source of this current is. And how exactly it works
Yes.
If the sun is an anode, and there is discharge, then there must be an incoming "current" to supply the power.
As in Safire.
My view is that Dr Scott has explained it all in his book The Electric Sky.
All that is, but "The Solar Circuit".
He describes a double layer (DL) as plasma being able to " isolate one section of itself from another" P 74.
And "plasmas have an almost magical ability to isolate themselves from foreign intruders". P 74
Add this ability to his "drift current" explanation (P 103) whereby the plasma of the entire solar system condenses down toward the sun until the current density is enough to "enter the arc region of the plasma. This is the photosphere, the region of anode tufts".

Here is where I see the photosphere as the inside of the Double Layer that is the sun.
The photosphere looks to me as the top of the inside plasma,
(the tufts being an attempted discharge that is denied by the nature of the double layer)
and the corona is the bottom of the outside plasma,
with the chromosphere the space between the two layers.

With the concentration of all the plasma within the solar system at the Double Layer Sun there is no need for an
additional current to power the EU Discharging Sun.

As this is the topic of Safire, I will stop here.
Jack

Mjolnir
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:09 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by Mjolnir » Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:11 pm

Hi,

Monty has responded with a lengthy comment to a video discussing SAFIRE from BEM2019:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StU1duCeDTU

Also posted to the E-Cat Wold forum:

https://e-catworld.com/2019/11/16/monto ... onference/

He touches on what makes the sun positive:

"The Electric Universe (Wal Thornhill) and Electric Sun (Don Scott) I’m sure would love to talk to you at the next EU conference this coming year in the US. I have said to them that you do not need the Sun to be “plugged” in as Crooks discovered using Rubies and that if you have enough matter coalesced into a large “blob” it will be positive relative to its environment. But your explanation is so much better!!
For Safire, we just plug the darn thing in to get it to be positive."

The explanation mentioned I think starts at about 8.45 of the video and has to do with something called EVOs.

Mjolnir

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by paladin17 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:29 pm

jacmac wrote: If the sun is an anode, and there is discharge, then there must be an incoming "current" to supply the power.
As in Safire.
My view is that Dr Scott has explained it all in his book The Electric Sky.
All that is, but "The Solar Circuit".
He describes a double layer (DL) as plasma being able to " isolate one section of itself from another" P 74.
And "plasmas have an almost magical ability to isolate themselves from foreign intruders". P 74
Add this ability to his "drift current" explanation (P 103) whereby the plasma of the entire solar system condenses down toward the sun until the current density is enough to "enter the arc region of the plasma. This is the photosphere, the region of anode tufts".

Here is where I see the photosphere as the inside of the Double Layer that is the sun.
The photosphere looks to me as the top of the inside plasma,
(the tufts being an attempted discharge that is denied by the nature of the double layer)
and the corona is the bottom of the outside plasma,
with the chromosphere the space between the two layers.

With the concentration of all the plasma within the solar system at the Double Layer Sun there is no need for an
additional current to power the EU Discharging Sun.

As this is the topic of Safire, I will stop here.
Jack
The problem is, the Sun isn't an anode.
1) Large scale potential differences are impossible in plasma (due to high conductivity).
2) There is a net positive current towards the Sun from cosmic rays (of the order of 1 mA).
3) There is an outflow of energetic electrons from the Sun (which also accelerates the solar wind).
All these points contradict the simplistic Juergens' anode model (I'm not even talking about his completely ad hoc hypothesis that the potential of the Sun keeps magically dropping over time).

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:41 pm

And I, like Eugene, am disappointed that important questions regarding the SAFIRE Project were ignored by Monty Childs in the recent livestream.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:09 pm

paladin17 wrote: 1) Large scale potential differences are impossible in plasma (due to high conductivity).
> a. plasma is a semi-conductor, not a conductor.
> b. a conductor can still hold a high potential difference when active.
> c. plasma can form double layers with high electrical fields, when active.

There also may be a sustained current due to a nuclear process that we do not understand yet.
With this I mean that nuclear reactions might cause electrons to be ejected into far space.
(Same could work for protons).
This does not work in our laboratories due to magnetic confinement.
But it will probably work in top-secret nuclear explosions.
Hint: Sun is not very magnetic at all, many of the effects that we see are due to electrical fields.

The ejected electrons will cause a sustained current on the surface of the sun.
These currents can affect nuclear reactions again, if we include LENR mechanisms.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by paladin17 » Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:14 am

Zyxzevn wrote: > a. plasma is a semi-conductor, not a conductor.
> b. a conductor can still hold a high potential difference when active.
> c. plasma can form double layers with high electrical fields, when active.

There also may be a sustained current due to a nuclear process that we do not understand yet.
With this I mean that nuclear reactions might cause electrons to be ejected into far space.
(Same could work for protons).
This does not work in our laboratories due to magnetic confinement.
But it will probably work in top-secret nuclear explosions.
Hint: Sun is not very magnetic at all, many of the effects that we see are due to electrical fields.

The ejected electrons will cause a sustained current on the surface of the sun.
These currents can affect nuclear reactions again, if we include LENR mechanisms.
a. This is your own idea, I assume?
b. Electric field inside the perfect conductor is zero (otherwise it would cause infinite current). In plasma in particular the formation of double layers is exactly about that: they are produced to nullify the electric fields which arise for some other reasons (e.g. gravitation, thermal/density fluctuations etc.).
c. Yes. Double layers are formed to nullify the external electric fields (in plasma rest frame).

I agree that there might be unknown nuclear processes. But I disagree with what you describe later.
If a nuclear reaction in some system produces extra electrons (which are thrown outwards), it would keep increasing the charge of the system until the resulting electric field would be enough to keep the electrons inside. This is often called ambipolar field.
So this type of current is only possible as a transient phenomenon.

The Sun is extremely magnetic. The magnetic field is the most important factor in charged particle behaviour in solar plasma. The electric currents that are associated with e.g. solar flares or prominences would be impossible without the magnetic field of the Sun. It's not hard to notice, as the sunspot cycle is directly related to the magnetic field cycle.
As I've said above, the scenario you propose is only possible as a transient phenomenon, until the electric field would shut it down.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests