SAFIRE Project

[CharlesChandler]

This just popped up in one of my searches:

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/GEC14/Session/MW1.84

Abstract: MW1.00084 : Study of striations in a spherically symmetric hydrogen discharge

Authors:
Lowell Morgan (Kinema Research \& Software, LLC)
Monty Childs (Aurtas International, Inc.)
Michael Clarage (Aurtas International, Inc.)
Paul Anderson (Aurtas International, Inc.)

We have observed, in experiments similar to those of [1, 2], multiple spherically symmetric striations or double-layers in a hydrogen discharge, sometimes containing a small amount of helium having a total gas pressure in the range 0.7 - 5 Torr. The discharge is a positive corona around a 6mm diameter steel anode driven by a 600V, max 3 Amp DC power supply. Using mass spectrometry we have found that sometimes as much as 10{\%} of the H2 is dissociated into atomic hydrogen. The dominant positive ion is H+3. We have performed UV, visible, and near-IR spectroscopy of the plasma looking at line ratios and Stark broadening in order to obtain an estimate of electron temperature and density. We have also performed Abel transforms on images of the striations in order to find the true relative broad band emissivity from the optically thin plasma as a function of radius out from the anode finding that, typically, it peaks several anode radii out into the plasma striations. Some modeling and simulation of the plasma chemistry and transport will also be presented. Research supported by the International Science Foundation. \\[4pt] [1] Nerushev, \textit{et al}., Phys. Rev. E \textbf{58}, 4897 (1998).\\[0pt] [2] Belikov {\&} Sakhapov, J. Phys D \textbf{44}, 045202 (2011).

If anybody knows where the full paper can be found, please let me know.

[Lloyd]

Have you tried asking the authors where to find it? Here's info on how to contact Lowell Morgan: http://www.whereorg.com/kinema-research ... re-2665553

Is this one of their papers that you previously commented on?
https://community.jmp.com/servlet/JiveS ... 0Paper.pdf
which is linked on the bottom of this page: https://community.jmp.com/docs/DOC-6676.
Have any parts of that paper been posted on this forum for discussion?

[CharlesChandler]

Have you tried asking the authors where to find it? Here's info on how to contact Lowell Morgan: http://www.whereorg.com/kinema-research ... re-2665553

I haven't been getting responses from them. Go figure.

Is this one of their papers that you previously commented on?
https://community.jmp.com/servlet/JiveS ... 0Paper.pdf
which is linked on the bottom of this page: https://community.jmp.com/docs/DOC-6676.
Have any parts of that paper been posted on this forum for discussion?

Yes, we discussed that briefly, starting on page 2 of this thread. My comment was that nobody is going to even look at research if it uses a "proprietary design" for the apparatus. There is no way to interpret the results if you don't even know how they got them. It's like saying, "We measured a temperature of 86 degrees, and we conclude such-and-such." Well, OK, where did you take this measurement? And what kind of thermometer was it? Without that information, "86 degrees" is meaningless. For anybody with any scientific aptitude whatsoever, Anderson's presentation of statistics without revealing the specifications of the apparatus, and without even revealing the raw data that were collected, was just as meaningless.

We're not going to fight bad science WITH bad science, are we?

[phyllotaxis]

I still submit that all of their research will be released in time - and besides, what can we do but wait bud?

[CharlesChandler]

what can we do but wait bud?

We can continue with our investigations.

[upriver]

It seems as though if you use a bigger electrode you would be able to see double layer features much better as well as put an electromagnet inside...

Thats what I thought SAFFIRE was....

[upriver]

And so they are going to do the exact same paper as cathode measurements, right?

Its possible that at the right current and pressure the sun does a Abnormal Glow Discharge causing a CME...

Some Reflections on Gas Discharges and PAGD Pulses
http://www.aetherometry.com/publication ... er_gas.pdf


Recovered: Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge Plasma
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ?f=7&t=175

[CharlesChandler]

And so they are going to do the exact same paper as cathode measurements, right?

Exactly the same as what? All that they did so far was to set the voltage on a spherical anode low enough that they didn't get any arc discharges, but they did get a couple of anode spots in glow mode. (They could have gotten the same effect by putting a rheostat on a plasma lamp.) Then they found a strong statistical correlation between their anode spots and solar granules. I challenge them to run the exact same code to test for a correlation between sunspots and the freckles in the following image, and I predict that they'll find a much stronger relationship than between the anode spots in a plasma lamp versus granules. Look at the spacing, the latitudinal grouping, and the umbral/penumbral differentiation. If she ever pops a zit, I'll be tempted to call it a CME.

http://www.cureforsure.us/wp-content/up ... ckles1.jpg

To make a meaningful correlation between two things, you have to do more than just show that they look alike, at least to the satisfaction of whatever extremely loose-fit statistical methods you're using. Rather, you have to show that they look the same, and for all of the same reasons. But what SAFIRE is doing is what I call pseudo-scientific statistical sleight-of-hand. So why would they bother?

IMO, they're preparing for a Discovery Channel program to be aired sometime in the not-too-distant future. They're going through all of the motions to make it look like they're doing science. And they have high-power backing. But what they're doing isn't going to pass critical review. Thus they're not going to convince any serious scientists. So why bother? I "think" that there is only one possibility -- they want to smear some sci-fi all over the Discovery Channel, this time in the name of the EU, to further polarize the mainstream against the EU. Then, anybody who talks about any sort of EM theory will get labeled as one of those people, and won't be taken seriously. This is why I can't get any traction with my EM theory of tornadoes -- people have already heard of electric tornadoes in sci-fi shows, and they associate electric tornadoes with UFOs, ESP, etc. The stunt that Richard Heene (father of the Balloon Boy) pulled was carefully choreographed. He believed in electric tornadoes, and UFOs, and he built a UFO-shaped balloon to launch into tornadoes to study them. Then he staged a media event that surprisingly (?) went sour on him, and totally discredited him and everything about him, including electric tornado theory. I'm not making this up -- I had more serious discussions with theorists before the Balloon Boy stunt -- now nobody wants to touch EM tornado theory with a 10-foot pole. The mainstream meteorological community was quite pleased. So, I'll be a little bit surprised if I see the Discovery Channel cover SAFIRE in conjunction with UFO and ESP theories, but not overwhelmingly surprised, considering the apparent agenda. They're not trying to do solid science -- they trying to stereotype the EU as sloppy pseudo-science.

[Lloyd]

Charles, do you think the SAFIRE experimenters are not genuine EU fans? Or do you think they're being manipulated by outside interests? Like NASA or whom? Oliver Manuel worked with NASA in the early 70s and he's an EU fan, apparently. So it doesn't seem impossible that some other NASA people might be fans too.

The Velikovsky affair, though, supports the fact that the mainstream is biased against catastrophism as well as EU theory. I think in 1974 Margaret Mead was president of the AAAS and she was buddies with some scientists who were supporting the theory of global warming at a time when other scientists had theories of global cooling. I get the impression that she helped set up the kangaroo court against Velikovsky that year in order to discredit his theory that Venus is a young planet, which is why it's a very hot planet. Mead's buddies were taking Venus' heat as evidence that CO2 causes global warming, so his theory needed to be discredited.

Talbott's Pensee' magazine, #7, covered the AAAS conference that year and showed the extreme bias in the media reporting on the conference. Velikovsky actually did rather well in defending himself there and the opposing scientists (including mainly Carl Sagan, I believe) did poorly, but the science media said the opposite.

Velikovsky actually had a lot of support among many scientists up till then. That conference probably greatly eroded his support, but not enough to satisfy the mainstream, as a book was later published, called Scientists Confront Velikovsky. Velikovsky's supporters came out with a rebuttal, called Scientists Confront Scientists Who Confront Velikovsky, or something similar.

Have you looked into the backgrounds of the SAFIRE people?

[CharlesChandler]

Have you looked into the backgrounds of the SAFIRE people?

I'm in no position to judge them personally, because I don't know them personally. But from an objective point of view, I am in a position to judge the work that they're doing, and I know bad science when I see it. Extrapolating from there to the underlying agenda is perhaps a dubious enterprise. Still, we all have to prioritize our time, and we have to decide what to scrutinize and what to neglect. And it doesn't hurt for us to voice our opinions, to hear ourselves talk, and to expose our opinions to counterpoints. So engaging in a little bit of speculation concerning ulterior motives isn't totally inappropriate, as long as we are open to being proved wrong. But yes, their behavior is fully consistent with other things that the mainstream has done to discredit their opponents. It's called the fallacy of the illogical extreme, to discredit a thesis by highlighting the most outlandish aspects of it, such that in the minds of the observers, the entire endeavor is characterized as outlandish, and therefore, isn't to be taken seriously. It's that polarization of competing opinions that kills rational thinking -- on both sides of the argument. The truth is frequently to be found somewhere in the middle. But the human mind loves contrasts, and people who seek to manipulate the situation will enhance the contrasts to rule out the middle. The whole thing isn't really worth dwelling on, since to whatever extent one gets wrapped up in that kind of thing, one isn't getting any work done. But it IS worth a casual comment every now and again.

[Roshi]

Does SAFIRE project have a website? Was looking for one to find out more about their results, I think this is the way forward to really discover stuff and "do science", Terrela experiments, like Birkeland did. Can't find anything when doing a search, except some thunderbolts video and this:
http://www.everythingselectric.com/safire-project/

Is that their website?
Here http://isciencefoundation.org/safire/ , it says they got at least 1 mil $ for their experiments, for sure they could create a simple blog if not a site...

Also I find:
http://www.safire-project-results.eu/ - which is a totally different thing.

[nick c]

Also I find:
http://www.safire-project-results.eu/ - which is a totally different thing.

Yes, that SAFIRE is unrelated to the EU (Electric Universe.) And to further complicate matters, it is related to the EU (European Union.)
So apparently there are two SAFIRE projects by two very different organizations both of which have the name abbreviation of "EU". They are unrelated to each other and cover totally different topics; an unfortunate and confusing coincidence!

[Mjolnir]

Also, the SAFIRE project seems to have a website here:

http://www.safireproject.com/index.html

Not much on it, though.

[Bomb20]

Does SAFIRE project have a website? Was looking for one to find out more about their results,

At least you could watch the 5 long videos of EU2015 about SAFIRE on YouTube. Did you do it?

[Roshi]

At least you could watch the 5 long videos of EU2015 about SAFIRE on YouTube. Did you do it?

I watched the recent videos about SAFIRE on tb youtube channel. Then I looked for a link, to find out more, and I wanted to use the link on a forum where I sometimes argue - to show that there is real science done in support of EU theory. Could not find anything satisfactory.