Help.

[Peach2u]

I have been in a long-running debate with my family as no doubt many of you have. They want to know what the EU version of the sun's fusion model is. I'll post bellow my father's last email to demonstrate.

You need to have a model to have something to prove right. Your electric guys have no model. There is No “this is how it works” explanation. Cleaver... they can’t be proved wrong that way.

How will you know when they’re right if you don’t know what?

Send model next

Your Old Man
Now....My understanding is that the fusion on the sun works the same way as in a modern reactor. The magnetic fields confine and trap the plasma and they collide and this is where the fusion happens. If this is accurate, fine, but that is not good enough for him. He wants the actual theory laid out in it's entirety.
This is not good enough... https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/1 ... -fusion-2/
It does not explain it enough. We need an A->Z explanation...well I do anyway. I have argued the EU for a long time and it always comes back to this. Thanks

[Michael Mozina]

I have been in a long-running debate with my family as no doubt many of you have. They want to know what the EU version of the sun's fusion model is. I'll post bellow my father's last email to demonstrate.

You need to have a model to have something to prove right. Your electric guys have no model. There is No “this is how it works” explanation. Cleaver... they can’t be proved wrong that way.

How will you know when they’re right if you don’t know what?

Send model next

Your Old Man
Now....My understanding is that the fusion on the sun works the same way as in a modern reactor. The magnetic fields confine and trap the plasma and they collide and this is where the fusion happens. If this is accurate, fine, but that is not good enough for him. He wants the actual theory laid out in it's entirety.
This is not good enough... https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/1 ... -fusion-2/
It does not explain it enough. We need an A->Z explanation...well I do anyway. I have argued the EU for a long time and it always comes back to this. Thanks

Well, the first thing you should recognize/realize is that there are actually *at least* three different "EU/PC solar models" to choose from, not just one, including Alfven's (pretty standard) fusion model, Birkeland's cathode model, and Jeurgen's anode solar model. The first two are (typically) internally powered models and could presumably generate fusion inside the sun in pretty much the same way as the standard solar model.

Juergen's model was originally conceived of during the "missing neutrino" days of solar physics, and Juergens assumed that most of the overall "electrical power" of our sun came from *external* electrical sources, specifically from the circuitry of the universe itself.

Unlike the other two EU models, Juergen's anode solar model predicts fusion to occur "near" the electrode surface of the sun in z-pinch processes related to coronal loop/magnetic rope activity. The electrode surface IMO is located about 4800 KM *under* the surface of the photosphere. Dr. Scott's model has the electrode surface closer to the surface of the photosphere however, and fusion occurs all along the surface of the elecrode, again presumably in z-pinch processes related to plasma pinches near the surface.

https://electric-cosmos.org/Electronic%20Sun.pdf

Here's one paper describing such a fusion process:

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

That particular paper describes CNO fusion in a specific solar flare event, but P-P fusion would tend to be the most "common" type of fusion, and it's typically related to z-pinch process inside of coronal loops/magnetic ropes.

One of the important considerations of any EU model, and specifically an anode model is that SAFIRE has observed what they call a "transmutation" of elements inside their chamber, which may in fact release some neutrinos in the process, depending on what the actual cause might be. In other words, the overall neutrino emissions need not *necessarily* be related to P-P fusion alone. SAFIRE needs to spend some time figuring out the exact cause of this "transmutation" process they've observed in their experiments before such a concept could be confirmed, but it may be that not all neutrino emissions are directly related to P-P fusion.

[Peach2u]

Thank you.
The way I have always tried to explain it is that the fusion process itself is not really the point of contention. It is the "Where" more than the "how." Is this a correct way to look at it?
The "where" being done at the sun's surface inside the confined magnetic fields vs. the "Where" in the core using pressure. The "how" part being theoretically...more or less..agreed upon by all parties.

[Cargo]

I find most people just have the basic concepts and words backwards. Plasma (the 1st State of Matter)
Fusion is a byproduct of a Star. Not it's source.

The no model or no math punch lines are an indicator of sheep talk though. Sorry.

[Peach2u]

I agree

[neilwilkes]

Here is more information on the Juergens model:
https://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k ... tric-i.htm
This includes a theoretical circuit diagram, so for anybody to ever try & claim that EU has no models and no theoretical foundation is humbug - Peratt & Alfven's works are full of all the theory & mathematics anybody could ever wish for. Peratt's website can be found at https://plasmauniverse.info/
See the following text books too - expensive but very well worth the money I thought:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Plasma ... 1461478189
and (with apologies for the insane URL, but that is Google Books for you)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CYj ... op&f=false

[Peach2u]

Thanks! I had not seen that first one. I found part 2 as well.
Appreciate it!
Charles

[Open Mind]

Just curious based on the recently released results of the Safire Project, which model between Alfven's, Birkeland's, and Jeurgen's, is more substantiated at this point?

[Peach2u]

I am not the total expert here. I would never claim such a thing but from a layman's look, it looks like Juergens' model would come out on top, if confirmed. I'll humbly take a correction on that if warranted.

[Michael Mozina]

Just curious based on the recently released results of the Safire Project, which model between Alfven's, Birkeland's, and Jeurgen's, is more substantiated at this point?

I'm pretty sure that will depend on whom you ask.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

It's important to note IMO that Birkeland and his team experimented with *both* an anode sphere and a cathode sphere, whereas SAFIRE has only worked exclusively with one of those models, specifically the anode version. Before one could draw a lot of conclusions from lab work alone, one would need to do *all* of the relevant experiments, not just half of them.

The other important consideration is that we must also compare the lab results to in-situ measurements from space to determine which model is the better fit to what we actually observe in space.

IMO that last part (in situ measurements) tends to favor a cathode model over an anode model. If you look at cosmic rays, they are almost (not quite) *exclusively* positively charged particles. From the perspective of cosmic ray content, the surface of all bodies in space are likely to be negatively charged with respect to that cosmic ray bombardment from "space". As Birkeland correctly predicted, *both* electrons and positively charged ions flow from from the sun to the Earth. We have also observed cathode rays (electron beams) coming from the sun as Birkeland also correctly predicted.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sune ... trahl.html

The mainstream calls the higher velocity electron flow "strahl" electrons, and that is also a correct prediction of Birkeland's cathode model.

Having said all that, I don't believe that we currently have a "real time; full picture of all the particle movements into and away from the sun yet, so I wouldn't personally rule out an anode model yet, or Alfven's model just yet for that matter.

All three of them are "better" candidates than the currently popular solar model IMO.

I would however tend to believe from the SAFIRE images that I've seen thus far, that the corona around a cathode sphere is likely to be more "stable" over a wider surface area and a wider range of voltages and amperage than an anode model. That however would tend to again depend on the actual conditions of space, which brings us right back to the importance of in-situ measurements.

[Webbman]

perhaps the problem is that it is both at the same time. i.e it is dependent on whether current is incoming or outgoing and has multiple currents at the same time.

[Michael Mozina]

perhaps the problem is that it is both at the same time. i.e it is dependent on whether current is incoming or outgoing and has multiple currents at the same time.

It's even hypothetically possible that there are some AC elements to the current exchanges which we don't fully understand yet.

Instead of wasting tens of billions of dollars on dark matter snipe hunts, we should be experimenting with spheres in the lab like Birkeland and SAFIRE. SAFIRE is *already* producing useful and interesting results, and the investment in that program has been a mere drop in the bucket compared to investments made in dark matter and gravitational wave research.

[Peach2u]

Does anyone have any idea when we can expect to see any published results from SAFIRE?

[Webbman]

perhaps the problem is that it is both at the same time. i.e it is dependent on whether current is incoming or outgoing and has multiple currents at the same time.

It's even hypothetically possible that there are some AC elements to the current exchanges which we don't fully understand yet.

Instead of wasting tens of billions of dollars on dark matter snipe hunts, we should be experimenting with spheres in the lab like Birkeland and SAFIRE. SAFIRE is *already* producing useful and interesting results, and the investment in that program has been a mere drop in the bucket compared to investments made in dark matter and gravitational wave research.

it is definitely ac since we know the sun changes polarity on a cycle. Thus it has a frequency and a polarity shift....ac

[Peach2u]

Is the following statement..more or less..accurate?
Current fusion reactors use electricity to power magnets which move the hydrogen around inside the reactor and excite it and there is collisions, etc and this is what makes fusion happen.
Just as...
The sun, theoretically, in a giant electric circuit, generates a magnetic field due to said electricity. It confines the plasma causing collisions, etc and this is what makes fusion happen.

Attempting to draw a parallel so it is easier to explain to others.