SAFIRE

[Zyxzevn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNcGpQCX8a0

There's a interesting video on youtube about ITER that's well worth watching.

They are going totally the wrong way with using Magnetic fields
as a compression mechanism.
That will never be stable and sustainable,
it costs an immense amount of energy.

The main problem is the magnetic breaking that happens
when a charged object or conducting object moves through a magnetic field.
This is like trying to drive a Ferrari with all wheels locked with your breaks.
It breaks your car.

The Safire works because it uses the electric current that is also visible on the sun.
The double layers may cause compression of certain ions that are responsible for fusion.
And in a Fusor we can already see that this happens automatically, without much effort.

Theoretically this may be fine tuned with better understanding of the parameters
and the plasma behaviour.
Without strong magnetic fields, the compression of the ions in the plasma will be much easier.

I think that most of their observations are correct, as they are also confirmed by
independent organisations. Including the US nuclear weapon research department (via SO).
This simply means that the Astronomers were wrong about the sun again.
Which happens every time when you study the details.

It seems to me that Safire has been able to replicate some of the fusion
that takes place on the electric Sun.
And this is good news for everyone.


(Except for the mainstream Astronomers, who will lose their funding for their bullshitting).

[Michael Mozina]

Even still, the overall process was apparently producing *excess* energy, not making the chamber "cooler". Whereas the original calculations (and original experiments) required 100 percent input to achieve 100 percent of predicted chamber heating, the introduction of different elements resulted in 100 percent of predicted chamber heating at only 7 percent input. Whatever elements might be being fused inside the chamber, it's evidently a net energy *producing* process.

Fusion is not creating any net energy. It's not credible.

Your criticisms are simply not credible. You have no logical specific explanation for the temperature increases they observed, or to explain the new elements present on the anode. You've offered me nothing more than handwaves and arguments from ignorance in fact.

There is absolutely no detail to determine what is being measured here and where, but, even if I take that trace at face value, I note that the higher current lasts for a massive 12ns.

It doesn't matter how long it 'lasts" for, the point is that the temperatures and kinetic energy associated with these events is significantly higher than the input energy to the chamber.

And that was the *first* (small version) experiment. Somehow the chamber is 'storing' energy and releasing that energy in highly concentrated discharges that far and away exceed the input voltages/amperage. It's undoubtedly *these* types of sudden energy release processes that are resulting in fusion.

Yeah, it released 0.000067 of the maximum steady state energy being produced per second. And as I pointed out, you need voltage to accelerate the particles to the energies required - high current is just a lot of charged particles, each with low energy. (~600eV too low for the lowest energy fusion)

Actually you don't even know with certainty that the voltages within the actual discharge processes are limited to 600 volts. It would take a hell of a lot of current to generate 10MW at 300 volts.

Fusing elements up to Z=58 with a 600V discharge is magic.

No ti's not. There are even models related to LENR fusion which do not even require massive voltages to begin with. It's *laughable* that you give your own beliefs a "free pass" with respect to *grossly* violating conservation of energy laws and have the sheer audacity to complain about "magic". Sheesh. You're engaging in blatantly hypocrisy.

I expect them to carry out research and publish papers on the EU electric sun model, which is what they were set up to do. If they were doing that I wouldn't have a problem.

Yes you would. You'd be complaining to us about whatever they choose to do, particularly if they do publish future papers related to an anode solar model comparison to their experimental results. I have no idea what they might be working on with respect to that particular topic, and neither do you. Their experimental results however have broader implications as it relates to fusion energy, at least as they see it, so it only makes sense for them to pursue that lead as well.

Instead of which they are setting up a dodgy business.

This is nothing but an irrational and dodgy personal attack. By your definition, *every* endeavor related to fusion energy research is "dodgy" business. The difference is only measurable in terms of dollars spent, and by that measurement, their business is orders of magnitude less "dodgy" than ITER or any other fusion energy experiment.

Not in this case. The voltage is what accelerates the ions - you can't impart more energy to the ions than the voltage available (regardless of current).

And by personal decree, you immediately (and personally) decide to eliminate all LERN models of fusion. You call that 'science"?

Fusors aren't electrical discharge devices, They are basically particle accelerators.

They are essentially both. They all involve electric fields and particle acceleration. They all result in 'discharges" within the chamber.

I do know that. Even if I accept their claim at face value, (note that the voltage and wattage are all over the place, so this looks like noise on the instrument) the extra energy in the discharge is tiny, and the voltage is still limited to 6ooV, not enough for the lowest energy fusion reaction.

LERN fusion models don't require the same voltages to start with, and you're simply "guessing" at everything else! The amazing part from my perspective is that you first erroneously complained about them supposedly violating conservation of energy laws (over-unity), while doing *exactly* that very same thing with your LCDM model (twice), and now you're falsely asserting that fusion is not possible in spite of the fact that it's been done repeatedly n a lab with other discharge experiments, and in spite of the fact that LERN fusion models exist. You're all over the map on this issue and you're actually the *only* one who is actively promoting "overunity" models!

What specific "chemical reactions" produce the new elements that they found in the chamber?

That question is like the old saw about when did you stop beating your wife. There are no new elements.

That's nonsense. You are simply asserting your own ignorance based opinions as "fact". They have the ability to measure the elements present in the chamber and on the anode, and the elemental composition of the discharge areas of the anode have been verified by external parties. You have no specific explanation for the heat increases observed, or for the additional elements found on the anode. You have nothing but an argument from ignorance fallacy to offer, and you're not even involved in the experiments to start with.

No - in everyday life when we see exothermic reactions they are chemical. They are ubiquitous. It is simply more likely that any extra energy was as a result of something burning up. It sure isn't likely to be from fusion, given the conditions in the chamber.

If you identified the specific chemical reactions you're alledging, you wouldn't be handwaving. As it is however, you've got no evidence to support your assertion, and not even a specific chemical reaction to even cite in the first place. It's pure handwaving. Essentially all of your argument are arguments from ignorance, and none of your arguments are based on first hand knowledge.

Why should I care. It's your government, your beef.

Why should you care about Aureon? How is that *your* beef? What country do you live in? ITER isn't just funded by *one* government, it's funded by *many* of them and they are throwing *billions* of *public taxpayer* dollars into a machine that isn't even capable of producing excess electricity, and which will require *new technology* to even get to the stage that it's 'might" produce excess heat energy for short periods of time. Talk about "dodgy" physics.

Auroeon's next project wouldn't even involve taxpayer money to start with, and it's *peanuts* compared to the billions being wasted on ITER. You're engaging in pure hypocrisy to picking on one *privately* funding experiment, and not complaining about the complete waste of *public* tax dollars at ITER, and dark matter experiments, and dark energy experiments, etc.

You challenge them. Whether or not ITER is over-hyped or will work, is completely irrelevant to whether these claims are credible or whether Aureon is taking its investors for a ride. Even if ITER is a scam, it still doesn't excuse this lot.

It's so hypocritical of you to complain about privately funded "scientific research" while you insist that we continue to throw huge amounts of tax dollars into holes in the ground in same lame hope of finding evidence of exotic matter in spite of the fact that we've already wasted *billions* of dollars on that research project and found exactly *no* evidence to support it. What a bunch of hypocritical nonsense.

You apparently missed this:

The SAFIRE team does not endorse or support any particular theory or model. We welcome proponents of theories to design experiments that will test the validity of their model.

They aren't endorsing any models, they simply list some current LENR models of fusion. Sheesh.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNcGpQCX8a0

There's a interesting video on youtube about ITER that's well worth watching.

They are going totally the wrong way with using Magnetic fields
as a compression mechanism.
That will never be stable and sustainable,
it costs an immense amount of energy.

The main problem is the magnetic breaking that happens
when a charged object or conducting object moves through a magnetic field.
This is like trying to drive a Ferrari with all wheels locked with your breaks.
It breaks your car.

The Safire works because it uses the electric current that is also visible on the sun.
The double layers may cause compression of certain ions that are responsible for fusion.
And in a Fusor we can already see that this happens automatically, without much effort.

Theoretically this may be fine tuned with better understanding of the parameters
and the plasma behaviour.
Without strong magnetic fields, the compression of the ions in the plasma will be much easier.

I think that most of their observations are correct, as they are also confirmed by
independent organisations. Including the US nuclear weapon research department (via SO).
This simply means that the Astronomers were wrong about the sun again.
Which happens every time when you study the details.

It seems to me that Safire has been able to replicate some of the fusion
that takes place on the electric Sun.
And this is good news for everyone.


(Except for the mainstream Astronomers, who will lose their funding for their bullshitting).

Yep. It's rather ironic that HIggsy complains about Aureon conducting additional experiments while promoting MRx models which have never, and could never produce a full sphere sustained solar corona in a real lab experiment. I think they're all just afraid of empirical physics and empirical experiments because such experiments are a direct threat to their pseudoscience and their metaphysical "over-unity" mumbo-jumbo.

It just blows me away that Higgsy is whining on and on about the mere "possibility" of private parties losing their relatively modest investment in fusion energy research, while ignoring the fact that public tax money *galore* has been and still is being wasted on other fusion energy experiments which aren't even capable of producing excess electrical energy *by design*. At the same time he continues to support metaphysical "dark" matter research without even a single specific physical definition of the stuff, "dark" energy research in spite of that fact that the whole concept violates conservation of energy laws, and while he continues to promote pure "pseudoscience" according to Alfven.

For all his complaints about SAFIRE, at least they were able to produce a full sphere sustained hot corona in a real lab experiment, whereas HIggsy's MRx heroes have *never* and will *never* even do that much with MRx. The hypocrisy aspect is just unbelievable.

[Zyxzevn]

..The hypocrisy aspect is just unbelievable.

For me the mainstream astronomy has started to mean:
a psychotic play of hypocrisy and incompetence.

I don't even care about their simulation of possible orbits about a hypothetical black hole.
Or their sigma enhanced ghost voices on their LIGO.
Or their artwork about possible parallel universes that might have started the hypothetical big bang.
They can stick it where the sun does not shine.

With Safire we see real world verifiable data that has can have real world consequences.

The real world must be scary.

[Michael Mozina]

The real world must be scary.

It's so scary to them that they have ban all discussion of it from their websites and burn all the empirical heretics at the virtual stake.

It's simply mindbogglingly to realize that circuit theory has explained the solar corona, and even been used to simulate the solar corona in numerous experiments for more than a full century, and yet to this very day astronomers still cannot explain the heat source of the sun's corona, let alone simulate it in the lab. Talk about *willful* ignorance. Wow.

I really hope that the JWST program finally frees us from the dark ages of astronomy. It's like watching the astronomy "experts" of the early 1400's badmouth Aristarchus of Samos and the "pseusdocience" of heliocentrism, while extolling the everlasting virtues of Ptolemy.

I've been burned at the virtual stake now more times than I can count.

[Higgsy]

Fusion is not creating any net energy. It's not credible.

Your criticisms are simply not credible. You have no logical specific explanation for the temperature increases they observed, or to explain the new elements present on the anode.

What new elements? It is not credible that the energy in that tiny little plasma, driven at 600v will fuse elements up to Z=58. Elements above iron require supernovae to fuse in nature. There is no evidence of fusion whatsoever, no neutrons, no gamma rays, no neutrinos. If all these fusion products that require vast energies and hugely energetic fusion byproducts were actually being produced, Childs and all his researchers would be dead, instead of creating a dodgy business. If indeed those elements were detected on the anode, then either they were present in the chamber all along, or they are present in the anode to start with, or the sample has been contaminated after it was taken out of the chamber, or the detection is mistaken. The claim is so radical that no sensible person could take it seriously without a vast amount of supporting data, including identification of the fusion pathways, detection of the fusion byproducts, and independent replication of the experiment, none of which are available (and none of which, I predict, will ever be available).

There is absolutely no detail to determine what is being measured here and where, but, even if I take that trace at face value, I note that the higher current lasts for a massive 12ns.

It doesn't matter how long it 'lasts" for, the point is that the temperatures and kinetic energy associated with these events is significantly higher than the input energy to the chamber.

Of course it matters how long it lasts for. The energy produced in that noise spike is tiny - 0.12J when the steady state is producing 1800J per second. It would never result in an increase in chamber temperature, never be detected in a calorimeter test (which I notice they haven't even bothered to do - one of the basic tests for excess energy). Talking about 10MW is just for the rubes.

Fusing elements up to Z=58 with a 600V discharge is magic.

No ti's not. There are even models related to LENR fusion which do not even require massive voltages to begin with.

Which LENR claims to fuse, say carbon, never mind cerium? (Note LENR is not the same as fusors - LENR normally refers to an electrochemically driven process where high concentrations of deuterium are adsorbed into palladium electrodes and allegedly fuse into helium. LENR has never been show to produce any excess energy.) I repeat: Fusing elements up to Z=58 with a 600V driving voltage is magic.

Instead of which they are setting up a dodgy business.

This is nothing but an irrational and dodgy personal attack.

Nothing irrational about pointing out that their claims are absurd and the money anyone invests is bound to be lost forever.

Not in this case. The voltage is what accelerates the ions - you can't impart more energy to the ions than the voltage available (regardless of current).

And by personal decree, you immediately (and personally) decide to eliminate all LERN models of fusion. You call that 'science"?

Well as I pointed, LENR is not the same as fusors and SAFIRE, but claim to rely on huge partial pressures of deuterium. Not 1 or 2 torr. Fusors are accelerators and operate at 10kV. SAFIRE creates a little plasma from 600V.

Fusors aren't electrical discharge devices, They are basically particle accelerators.

They are essentially both. They all involve electric fields and particle acceleration. They all result in 'discharges" within the chamber.

SAFIRE operates at about 1/20th the voltage of fusors.

You have no specific explanation for the heat increases observed, or for the additional elements found on the anode. You have nothing but an argument from ignorance fallacy to offer, and you're not even involved in the experiments to start with.

But they don't have any specific explanation for the heat increases, such as they are, either. What specific nuclear fusion pathways led to these "new" elements in a way that produced no fusion byproducts and didn't kill the experimenters? I don't have specific chemistry and they don't have specific fusion reactions - but the physics says that any "excess" energy is overwhelmingly likely to be produced by the mundane process of something in the chamber burning up.

No - in everyday life when we see exothermic reactions they are chemical. They are ubiquitous. It is simply more likely that any extra energy was as a result of something burning up. It sure isn't likely to be from fusion, given the conditions in the chamber.

If you identified the specific chemical reactions you're alledging, you wouldn't be handwaving.

And if they identified the specific fusion reactions for this ragbag set of fusion products and explained the lack of fusion byproducts, they wouldn't be handwaving.

As it is however, you've got no evidence to support your assertion, and not even a specific chemical reaction to even cite in the first place. It's pure handwaving.

As it is however, they've got no evidence to support their assertions - it's pure handwaving and grasping at woo explanations like hydrinos and slow neutrons, and not even one specific nuclear fusion reaction to even cite to explain the dozen or so claimed fusion products up to Z=58.

You apparently missed this:

The SAFIRE team does not endorse or support any particular theory or model. We welcome proponents of theories to design experiments that will test the validity of their model.

They aren't endorsing any models, they simply list some current LENR models of fusion. Sheesh.

Why describe all this woo on their website then, if it isn't to make ignorant marks believe that there might be an explanation for their patently ridiculous claims? Hydrinos? For heaven's sake.

[JP Michael]

Magic to those confined to the intellectually bankrupt mainstream, but misunderstood to us searching for answers. SAFIRE (still) does not understand how it happened. Yes you can question if it happened, or how they got 'contaminants' on the anode surface, but as long as you're still compartmentalising your thinking according to mainstream vomit, all you'll end up with is the same revolting mess.

Why don't you take my challenge, Higgsy, and calculate the location/direction of the magnetic fields of a finite spherical current sheet?

Or think of a ball poked all around with copper pins (wires) with a spherical aluminium sheet covering it, or a hakea laurina flower (consider the white stamens as the wires/current directions):



Where will the magnetic fields form, and in which direction? What will happen to a particle, positive or negative, that enters the magnetic fields, and where will it go? Calculate for both a core anode and outer cathode, and core cathode and outer anode.

SAFIRE's spherical double-layer current sheet is creating magnetic fields. WHERE ARE THEY?

[Michael Mozina]

What new elements?

Well Higgsy, I don't know what happened to the last few responses I had posted here prior to the board problems, including your "what double layers" comment, but oh well. Ssuffice to say that It really doesn't bode well for your argument when it begins with denial.

It is not credible that the energy in that tiny little plasma, driven at 600v will fuse elements up to Z=58.

Your argument from ignorance fallacy of an argument really isn't helping your case either IMO. What you personally find "credible" and what you don't really doesn't matter to me. Your belief in dark stuff, and your multiple violations of conservation of energy doesn't seem all that credible to me either.

Elements above iron require supernovae to fuse in nature.

Maybe so, but maybe not. I really don't know that for a fact yet.

There is no evidence of fusion whatsoever, no neutrons, no gamma rays, no neutrinos.

I know they don't have the ability to even measure neutrinos, and I kind of doubt they have the ability to accurately measure neutrons either. I also don't know for a fact that no gamma rays were observed either. Can you support any of those assertions?

If all these fusion products that require vast energies and hugely energetic fusion byproducts were actually being produced, Childs and all his researchers would be dead, instead of creating a dodgy business.

Your argument seems pretty dodgy since there's no mention in their work of how much of any new elements they found, so far all I know it's nowhere near enough to harm anyone. You're making a whole lot of assertions, none of which is supportable from the information at our disposal.

Admittedly SAFIRE's statements aren't well supported by documentation either but why would you choose to engage in the same behavior?

If indeed those elements were detected on the anode,

According to their statements, the elements found were also verified by a third party.

then either they were present in the chamber all along, or they are present in the anode to start with, or the sample has been contaminated after it was taken out of the chamber, or the detection is mistaken.

I have some sympathy to the possibility that such elements may have been present in the chamber to start with (part of the cathode for instance), but from what I gather, it wasn't present on the anode, and contamination wasn't likely.

The claim is so radical that no sensible person could take it seriously without a vast amount of supporting data, including identification of the fusion pathways, detection of the fusion byproducts, and independent replication of the experiment, none of which are available (and none of which, I predict, will ever be available).

Well, at least on this point we aren't actually that far apart. I remain somewhat skeptical myself, and I certainly wouldn't bet the farm yet on anything in particular without a lot more supporting experimentation and published results, but again, I can't just logically "assume" it's all wrong either. I'd say that some skepticism is surely still in order, but that doesn't mean it's not worth further experimentation, if only to get that kind of information. You're expected a lot from an experiment that wasn't even originally designed to test for LENR or fusion reactions to start with.

Which LENR claims to fuse, say carbon, never mind cerium?

None that I'm aware of, but none that work quite like SAFIRE works either.

I repeat: Fusing elements up to Z=58 with a 600V driving voltage is magic.

Your "magic" commentary wouldn't be so ironic if you weren't also extolling the virtues of a cosmology model that violates the conservation of energy laws *twice* no less. There is no magic involved in SAFIRE's claim regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

Nothing irrational about pointing out that their claims are absurd and the money anyone invests is bound to be lost forever.

You mean like all that money wasted on your dark matter snipe hunts? How many *billions* of dollars is that now? Get over it already. You're the last one on the planet to be whining about the possibility of squandering money.

I''ll just skip some of the redundant parts of our conversation.

Why describe all this woo on their website then, if it isn't to make ignorant marks believe that there might be an explanation for their patently ridiculous claims? Hydrinos? For heaven's sake.

This from they guy that cannot decide if "dark matter" is made of axions, WIMPS, SIMPS, sterile neutrinos or something else entirely? You have to blown up the irony meter a dozen times in that last post of yours. Everything you accuse SAFIRE of *potentially* doing, your industry has done a thousand times over. You're the last person on the planet who should be whining about "woo" when your entirely cosmology model is based on metaphysical woo galore and violates conservation of energy laws to boot! Get over it.

[/quote]

[JP Michael]

And we're back!

[JP Michael]

Higgsy, my previous post on double layers got lost. You seemed to doubt their existence in SAFIRE specifically, which is bizarre.

SAFIRE EUUK 2018 Report included some numbers on this stuff, pages 24-27.

Other than digging up the places in their extant videos where they also go over the same data (like this video), this was all I could find in terms of numbers.

As much as I wish they would release more papers specific to SAFIRE's double layers and plasma regime parameters, they have not chosen to do so. We only have the scraps to pick at for now.

[Higgsy]

Higgsy, my previous post on double layers got lost. You seemed to doubt their existence in SAFIRE specifically, which is bizarre.

SAFIRE EUUK 2018 Report included some numbers on this stuff, pages 24-27.

Other than digging up the places in their extant videos where they also go over the same data (like this video), this was all I could find in terms of numbers.

As much as I wish they would release more papers specific to SAFIRE's double layers and plasma regime parameters, they have not chosen to do so. We only have the scraps to pick at for now.

Which is why I doubted it, but thanks for the links. They talk about double layers all the time, but there seems little or no actual data to support their existence. Some of the data you linked to above (in particular the electric field versus position data, and electron density data) is supportive, but on its own it's very sparse, and there are other explanations for the data. If I were in their shoes, and given the importance of double layers to their narrative, I would demonstrate the existence of double layers unequivocally. But, anyway, let's say I accept the possibility of their existence.

As an aside, I deplore their sensationalism in those documents. 81,000K electron temperature is just over 6eV. That isn't very much in the context of several hundred volts driving potential. And 8000V/m isn't really a strong electric field - given the size of the chamber and the applied voltage, what field do they expect? It looks like the applied voltage is 300V over a little less than 10cm. The breakdown voltage for dry air at STP is about 3 million V/m - you'll get that off your nylon shirt.

[Cargo]

Are you doubting the pure existence of double layers? As like, they are not real anywhere?

I know you're the internal anti-skeptic, but that would be a serious stretch of credibility.

[JP Michael]

Are you doubting the pure existence of double layers? As like, they are not real anywhere?

Pretty sure Higgsy was referring to SAFIRE specifically, not plasma regimes generally, although the role of plasma double layers, especially in space, is severely neglected in mainstream cosmology and astronomy.

Peratt's textbook, chapter 5, is dedicated to the topic with extensive literature from the last ~40+ years.

[Higgsy]

Pretty sure Higgsy was referring to SAFIRE specifically, not plasma regimes generally,

Of course.

although the role of plasma double layers, especially in space, is severely neglected in mainstream cosmology and astronomy.

OK, I'll bite. Can you give us a couple of specific examples where there is evidence for double layers forming in space, and where it is being severely neglected by scientists? Don't forget to include some quantification of the effect itself, and what consequence the neglect has on our understanding of the particular phenomenon and on cosmology or astyronomy generally.

[JP Michael]

Read the chapter in Peratt's book. If you're too lazy to do your own source work, so am I.

The failure of mainstream to acknowledge the role of double layers in cosmic plasma is as old as Hannes Alfvens.