SAFIRE

[Higgsy]

No, my "triggers" is the fact that *to this very day*, I know of no laboratory experiment which has actually demonstrated a *unique physical difference* between ordinary induction in plasma and 'magnetic reconnection". To my knowledge, no such extensive and basic testing on the MRX claim has ever been done. I therefore lack belief that there is any physical difference between ordinary induction and MRx. Furthermore, almost all (I know of only a few exceptions) of the "magnetic reconnection" experiments to date begin and end with *electric fields* which are used to move plasma from one place to another. The moment the electric field is cut off, the whole experiment ends with a whimper. It's not even magnetic fields that drive most of their experiments, it's *electric* fields that drive most of them. The only exceptions I've seen relate to using lasers to generate two moving *currents* electrical energy, and none of them have bothered to show any excess energy was generated by "magnetic reconnection" rather than ordinary induction.

Alfven spends a good portion of his book explaining why it's important to look at the *whole circuit* when looking at various processes in plasma. It's not MRx that allows for *individual* coronal loops to remain continuously heated to millions of degrees, it's the circuit energy of the whole circuit that provides that energy and which sustains the process over hours and days on end.

To date nobody has even generated a single sustained hot (hotter than the surrounding plasma) coronal loop based on "magnetic reconnection" in a lab. Why not? It's incredibly easy to heat plasma filaments to higher temperatures using electric fields and electrical circuit to sustain them. What does that tell you? Nature almost always takes the *easy* path, not the complicated one.

That's all very well and you have expressed your paranoia about magnetic reconnection before, but you still can't produce a well accepted mainstream model, and show in detail how it "fails to account for *all of the circuit energy* in the whole circuit" and how it "consistently underestimates the full energy release potential of an exploding double layer", as well as the potential speed of that release of energy, which was your original claim. You could, for example, select a mainstream model of coronal loops (if that's the example that's floating your boat), and show in detail how it "fails to account for *all of the circuit energy* in the whole circuit" and how it "consistently underestimates the full energy release potential of an exploding double layer", as well as the potential speed of that release of energy.

[Michael Mozina]

The point is that the higher the atomic number, the harder it is to achieve fusion and the less energy out per reaction. Fusing hydrohgen (deuterium actually) to helium is by far the easiest and yields most energy, but fusors which use these fuels are still orders of magnitude from break even. And Aureon want investors to believe that they are going to produce energy with this mishmash of supposeed fusion pathways?

They are simply reporting their results which includes a *variety* of different elements, all of which are below Iron AFAIK. What do you want them to do, *not* report the heavier elements?

The obvious logical reason is that SAFIRE's driving voltage is a fraction of of that of fusors, and that positive ions are going to be driven away from the anode where all this action is allegedly taking place.

My guess is what they lack in voltage they're making up for in amperage and in terms of the size of the anode. Again however, the fact fusor operate in much the same way precludes me from simply rejecting their assertions out of hand. They're also experimenting with various elements, which might also help to explain why they're seeing fusing of higher elements.

I simply don't believe in these elemental changes for the good reasons I have stated again and again.

Your concept of a "good' reason is pretty much based on your own personal biases which are devoid of any real understanding of their experiment or the results of their experiments. Do you even know which elements they introduced into the chamber? I simply admit that I don't understand the details of their experiments to know for sure one way or another. I therefore have no logical reason to assume they're wrong (or right for that matter).

It's not.

Yes it is. If I don't have all the details, the best I could do is 'guess". I therefore have to 'guess" as to whether they know what they're doing after years of experimenting with their own design, or they don't. I simply see no logical reason to assume they're wrong particularly when they've been operating pretty consistently within the guidelines of their own heat calculations for years until introducing new elements into the chamber. Suddenly, instead of it requiring 100 percent of their input to achieve 100 percent of their temperature limits, they're able to do so at 7 percent input. That seems like a pretty dramatic change to me. Add to that the fact that they're finding new elements which they cannot otherwise account for, and the possibility of fusion is reasonable IMO. If for instance they found new elements without any corresponding change in the temperature increases, I'd be more skeptical.

You didn't get the impression that they are claiming to be able to engineer a product and that they are looking for investors? Must be a different video.

That much I heard, but that's been true of every fusion experiment to date:

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/ ... piece-sun/

They *all* hold out their hands and ask for more money with the "hope" that the next generation machine will produce a stable excess of energy. The difference is that instead of asking for tens of *billions* of dollars, they're asking for tens of millions of dollars. They're asking for a mere *fraction* of what a typical fusion experiment costs.

The point is that they are misleading naive investors, intentionally or unintentionally.

Assuming that's the case, how is that fundamentally different than any previous fusion experiment to date, including ITER? At least the "risk" seems pretty reasonable compare to ITER.

Isn't pure scientific reasearch what SAFIRE was supposed to be all about? Funded by charities with tax advantages? The great hope of EU/PC solar science?

No, it's a *for profit* organization. Rgardless of where it's funding comes from, or what hopes the EU/PC community pins on them, their ultimate responsibility is to their *investors*, not our little community. Have you ever run an actual for profit business before?

But is that the actual nature of the SAFIRE project? That's not how it was hyped six years ago.

I've never been under any illusions about their company. Have you? I did in fact (and still do) expect them to publish a paper on the topic of the anode solar model since that is what they claimed to be 'testing" with their previous funding, but I never expected that they'd be EU/PC slaves for the whole of time. I've personally always been a bit disappointed at the fact they were only going to test the anode solar model. I've never had any illusions about the limited nature of the SAFIRE->EU connection.

Where have I heard that before?

Maybe every fusion experiment proposal ever put forth? ITER for instance?

It's amazing to me that you aren't bitching and complaining at the fact that public taxpayers are being put on the hook for *billions* at ITER, and it won't even fire up for another half a decade. It will probably never produce a sustained fusion process that leads to actual excess electricity from their efforts, yet you're complaining about a for profit institution that seeks *private* funding and asking for mere chump change in comparison?

What's up with that double standard? Why aren't you railing against the *forced misuse* of billions of dollars instead of complaining about the potential for *private* investors to lose their money? Your biases are simply incredible. You turn a blind eye to the ridiculous hype of the fusion energy industry in general, and the wasting of *billions* of public dollars on pipe dream research, yet you'll complain to high heaven over a private company asking for private investors to invest a small fraction of that kind of money for private research. Simply amazing.

This is a perfect example of how and why EU/PC concepts tend to draw out the very worst in critics. Instead of adopting a "live and let live" policy with respect to EU/PC theory and science related to EU/PC theory, astronomers get all freaked out over any possibility of their precious funding streams being threatened so they go on the war path. How many *billions* of tax payer dollars have astronomers *totally squandered* on exotic matter experiments to date? How many *billions* of tax payer dollar have "mainstream scientists" wasted on fusion energy research to date? You're really worried about a few measly millions of *private* funds? Give it a rest.

[Michael Mozina]

That's all very well and you have expressed your paranoia about magnetic reconnection before, but you still can't produce a well accepted mainstream model, and show in detail how it "fails to account for *all of the circuit energy* in the whole circuit" and how it "consistently underestimates the full energy release potential of an exploding double layer", as well as the potential speed of that release of energy, which was your original claim.

That's only because such calculation are never produced by the mainstream in the first place! Even first models of MRx were shown to be 'too slow" to explain something as simple as a solar flare, so they had to come up with completely different models *decades* later! The mainstream has been *consistently* underestimating the speed at which these discharges occur! All the crap they wrote about during Alfven's lifetime were based on models that *could not possibly explain* what they were claiming to explain! Most of it was based on a Sweet-Parker model which is *way* too slow to explain a solar flare.

You could, for example, select a mainstream model of coronal loops (if that's the example that's floating your boat), and show in detail how it "fails to account for *all of the circuit energy* in the whole circuit" and how it "consistently underestimates the full energy release potential of an exploding double layer", as well as the potential speed of that release of energy.

Oh for crying out loud. The mainstream cannot even *simulate* a single coronal loop in a lab based on "magnetic reconnection without starting with electric fields, let alone sustain one over hours and days on end based on MRx. Why would I even bother trying to "show" anything mathematically when the mainstream cannot "show" anything physically related to coronal loops in a real lab experiment?

A simple $20 toy plasma ball can demonstrate how a sustained electric field can generate a sustained (hotter than the surrounding material) spinning plasma filament, but for all their *millions* spent on MRx laboratory tests, MRx proponents still can't do even that much with MRx models. Sheesh and to think you complain about SAFIRE. Show me even one experiment on "coronal loops" done in a lab that doesn't depend on sustained electric fields?

If any of this lame MRx nonsense actually worked, they should be able to demonstrate their claims with a couple of moving refrigerator magnets. They can't even explain the heat source of the solar corona based on MRx a full century after Birkeland not only explained it, but also simulated it in a lab! Show me a lab experiment based on MRx that produces a full sphere hot (hotter than the surface) corona based on MRx? Even SAFIRE was able to that much.

[JP Michael]

I've changed my mind about the fusion. If it is occuring at all it must be occuring in the double layer/corona region and not the anode itself, and the new metals then migrate, because of their altered ionisation potentials, to the anode surface. Iron ions from the anode possibly fusing with additional high energy protons in the corona to form heavier elements.

This is similar to the self-sorting ion distribution in a Birkeland current. Metals, esp heavy metals, migrate to the centre while Helium/Argon/Nitrogen prefer the periphery.

Also why we detect heavy metal ions in the solar corona.

[Higgsy]

That's all very well and you have expressed your paranoia about magnetic reconnection before, but you still can't produce a well accepted mainstream model, and show in detail how it "fails to account for *all of the circuit energy* in the whole circuit" and how it "consistently underestimates the full energy release potential of an exploding double layer", as well as the potential speed of that release of energy, which was your original claim.

That's only because such calculation are never produced by the mainstream in the first place!

Then, since you are unable to back it up, We can conclude that your claim was pure rhetoric for effect only.

[Michael Mozina]

That's all very well and you have expressed your paranoia about magnetic reconnection before, but you still can't produce a well accepted mainstream model, and show in detail how it "fails to account for *all of the circuit energy* in the whole circuit" and how it "consistently underestimates the full energy release potential of an exploding double layer", as well as the potential speed of that release of energy, which was your original claim.

That's only because such calculation are never produced by the mainstream in the first place!

Then, since you are unable to back it up, We can conclude that your claim was pure rhetoric for effect only.

No, it's based on common sense. If you try to model a current carrying plasma filament strictly from the standpoint of the magnetic field energy, you miss including all the kinetic energy associated with that filament, and the energy of the electric field that continues to sustain the kinetic energy over time. Magnetism only tells you *half* of the picture related to EM fields in plasma. That's why most of the physical models of reconnection are simply too slow to even begin to address the high speed particle collisions occurring when two filaments "reconnect" and rewire themselves. That's why current coronal loop models cannot even explain how a single coronal loop sustains multi-million degree temperature for days and weeks on end, and it's exactly why your industry *still* cannot reproduce a working full sphere hot solar corona in a lab based on MRx models, a full *century* after it was done with circuit theory. You can't even show us a real experiment that sustains a single heated plasma filament for an hour in lab based only on magnetic fields.

MRx is exactly that Aflven said it was, specifically "pseudoscience". It's "pseudo" correct in terms of math because it's always mathematically possible to use Maxwell's equations to convert all the E's to B's, but it's *incorrect* to simply ignore the electrical field that sustains the whole process. Even most of the MRx "experiments" are simply driven by electric fields.. The moment the electric field is switched off, the whole process terminates immediately.

You can't ignore the kinetic energy inside the filament, or ignore the electric field that sustains the filament over time and expect to get accurate answers base *only* on the magnetic field components of that filament.

It's certainly not my fault that MRx proponents have never done even so much as a series of laboratory experiments that demonstrate that there is a unique physical difference between MRx and ordinary induction in a conductor due to changing magnetic fields. That's their fault, not mine.

I love how you've decided to fixate only on MRx now. Fusor experiments, and other fusion experiments like ITER blew your whole SAFIRE attack out of the water, and your precious LCDM model is a scientific law defying fiasco. Apparently all you have left to defend now is the "pseudoscience" called MRx. Man, that's just sad. All that complaining you've been directing at SAFIRE, but even they managed to produce a full sphere hot corona around their sphere, whereas your MRx proponents have been unable to do what circuit theory has done for more than a full century. What does that tell you about the uselessness of MRx theory in the lab. It's only one step up from the dark matter snipe hunt, and yet it's still woefully incapable of replicating even the simplest aspects of solar physics in the lab.

[Higgsy]

The point is that the higher the atomic number, the harder it is to achieve fusion and the less energy out per reaction. Fusing hydrohgen (deuterium actually) to helium is by far the easiest and yields most energy, but fusors which use these fuels are still orders of magnitude from break even. And Aureon want investors to believe that they are going to produce energy with this mishmash of supposeed fusion pathways?

They are simply reporting their results which includes a *variety* of different elements, all of which are below Iron AFAIK. What do you want them to do, *not* report the heavier elements?

They are reporting zinc, tin, barium, lathananum and cerium all with higher Z than iron. Every one of these reactions would not only need much more energy than hydrogen fusing, but would result in a binding energy per nucleon less than the binding energy of the constituents. So they would be sucking energy in, not producing it. (But, the conditions are not appropriate for producing these elements so I don't believe for a second that they are produced by fusion in the chamber).

What I want them to do is to do the science properly before they set up a company to engineer a fantastical and unbelievable energy producing magic machine.

The obvious logical reason is that SAFIRE's driving voltage is a fraction of of that of fusors, and that positive ions are going to be driven away from the anode where all this action is allegedly taking place.

My guess is what they lack in voltage they're making up for in amperage and in terms of the size of the anode.

Well you don't know that and neither of those things helps in this case. In order to accelerate ions to the energies needed for fusion what you need is voltage. Current means a lot of ions and electrons are flowing, but each individual ion won't have enough energy to fuse. Fusors work at about 10keV which is about the energy needed for fusing hydrogen. If you haven't got the driving voltage you won't have the energy.

Again however, the fact fusor operate in much the same way precludes me from simply rejecting their assertions out of hand. They're also experimenting with various elements, which might also help to explain why they're seeing fusing of higher elements.

The only thing that SAFIRE and fusors have in common is that they are both in a vacuum chamber.

I simply don't believe in these elemental changes for the good reasons I have stated again and again.

Your concept of a "good' reason is pretty much based on your own personal biases which are devoid of any real understanding of their experiment or the results of their experiments. Do you even know which elements they introduced into the chamber?

My reasons are based on physics. It doesn't matter what they introduced, the energy required to fuse up Z=58 is just not there.

Yes it is. If I don't have all the details, the best I could do is 'guess". I therefore have to 'guess" as to whether they know what they're doing after years of experimenting with their own design, or they don't. I simply see no logical reason to assume they're wrong particularly when they've been operating pretty consistently within the guidelines of their own heat calculations for years until introducing new elements into the chamber. Suddenly, instead of it requiring 100 percent of their input to achieve 100 percent of their temperature limits, they're able to do so at 7 percent input.

And instead of properly excluding much more likely explanations like chemical reactions, they make a dodgy video begging for money to develop a magic electricty generating machine.

The point is that they are misleading naive investors, intentionally or unintentionally.

Assuming that's the case, how is that fundamentally different than any previous fusion experiment to date, including ITER? At least the "risk" seems pretty reasonable compare to ITER.

Properly conducted fusion work operates within the bounds of physics. The engineering to get sustained breakeven plus is proving to be extremely difficult and I know all the jokes about how fusion power is just ten years away as it has been for the last thirty years. But no-one is claiming something that is not scientifically feasible. Childs is claiming something that is simply unfeasible.They are so desperate to represent what they have done as real that they actually suggest it could be caused by Mills's hydrinos. Really.

Isn't pure scientific reasearch what SAFIRE was supposed to be all about? Funded by charities with tax advantages? The great hope of EU/PC solar science?

No, it's a *for profit* organization.

SAFIRE is 'for profit'? Reference please.

Rgardless of where it's funding comes from, or what hopes the EU/PC community pins on them, their ultimate responsibility is to their *investors*, not our little community.

You'll have to show me how SAFIRE was set up as a for-profit organisation with shareholders.

Have you ever run an actual for profit business before?

Yes.

But is that the actual nature of the SAFIRE project? That's not how it was hyped six years ago.

I've never been under any illusions about their company.

What company? Aureon is a new company and the patents and applications that Aureon now have were all given to them by the International Science Foundation, a non-profit organisation which funded SAFIRE.

[Michael Mozina]

They are reporting zinc, tin, barium, lathananum and cerium all with higher Z than iron. Every one of these reactions would not only need much more energy than hydrogen fusing, but would result in a binding energy per nucleon less than the binding energy of the constituents. So they would be sucking energy in, not producing it.

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.

(But, the conditions are not appropriate for producing these elements so I don't believe for a second that they are produced by fusion in the chamber).

You keep asserting this as fact based strictly on input voltage and amperage, but you ignored their overall findings:

https://www.safireproject.com/ewExterna ... Report.pdf

Also measured were sudden, short-lived releases of high energy. Even though the power supply could only input 1,800 watts, the oscilloscope showed transient discharges of 2,000,000 to 10,000,000 watts.

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.

What I want them to do is to do the science properly before they set up a company to engineer a fantastical and unbelievable energy producing magic machine.

Fusion is not magic. Dark energy and "space expansion" are "magic" because they violate the conservation of energy laws.

Just out of morbid curiosity, *which fusion group or individual* do you believe has done their "science properly" to support their bold assertion that they're going to achieve a "net positive" energy system in their next experiment or in some future design? So far all I've seen from the entire fusion energy community for the past 50+ years are *epic failures* to produce the promised/desired effect of net energy production. I've seen a boatload of fusion hype for many decades, and nothing to show for it in terms of *sustained net energy production*.

What exactly do you expect the SAFIRE team to do on a shoestring budget related to a totally unrelated effort to test the anode solar model? What exactly do you think 'research' money and research funding is about anyway? It's not reasonable IMO to expect the moon from them *before* going on to further experiments. For all the "published" papers on the topic of sustained fusion energy, thus far at least, there isn't a single group anywhere on the planet that's delivered on net fusion energy production in over 50 years!

Well you don't know that and neither of those things helps in this case. In order to accelerate ions to the energies needed for fusion what you need is voltage.

Well, they sure as hell must be producing more watts somewhere in the chamber than their input voltage/amperage in order to go from 1800 watts total to discharges in the multi-million watt range. The discharge processes aren't even close to the same watt ranges as their input.

Current means a lot of ions and electrons are flowing, but each individual ion won't have enough energy to fuse. Fusors work at about 10keV which is about the energy needed for fusing hydrogen. If you haven't got the driving voltage you won't have the energy.

Again, energy isn't just about "voltage" it's about overall energy, including amperage, and there's no logical reason to assume that discharges in the chamber are always limited to the input voltage.

The only thing that SAFIRE and fusors have in common is that they are both in a vacuum chamber.

And high energy electrical discharges in plasma.

My reasons are based on physics. It doesn't matter what they introduced, the energy required to fuse up Z=58 is just not there.

The problem is that you don't *know* that, you just 'assume' that, and you flat out ignore the fact that the discharge wattage is *nothing* like the input wattage.

And instead of properly excluding much more likely explanations like chemical reactions,...

What specific "chemical reactions" produce the new elements that they found in the chamber? Chemical reactions do not produce new elements, and you can't even identify the specific chemical reaction which would produce the heat that they observed, let alone demonstrate it was possible based on the specific elements they introduced into the chamber. You're just handwaving about "chemical reactions".

....they make a dodgy video begging for money to develop a magic electricty generating machine.

By your own faulty logic, every fusion energy research project is "dodgy", and it's based on belief in"magic".

Wow, you really have a bee in your bonnet with respect to SAFIRE, whereas I haven't heard a peep out of you about all the *other* failed magic attempts at fusion over the past 50 years. Do you really believe that ITER is going to live up to it's hype? Honestly? When have you *ever* seen a fusion energy research project go as planned?

Properly conducted fusion work operates within the bounds of physics.

Except it never works like they claimed. Fusion energy hype never jives with the actual results.

The engineering to get sustained breakeven plus is proving to be extremely difficult and I know all the jokes about how fusion power is just ten years away as it has been for the last thirty years. But no-one is claiming something that is not scientifically feasible.

Feasible? I've been told for decades that fusion energy is supposedly "feasible", but it never seems to result in what they claim it would result in, namely sustained net energy production. The worst the SAFIRE team could hope to do over the next few years is squander what amounts to complete *peanuts* compared to ITER level experiments.

Childs is claiming something that is simply unfeasible.

You really don't know what is "feasible" since they haven't even discussed any new designs yet, and you have no idea how those new elements ended up in their current experiments. You're just "guessing".

They are so desperate to represent what they have done as real that they actually suggest it could be caused by Mills's hydrinos. Really.

Quote please.

No, it's a *for profit* organization.

SAFIRE is 'for profit'? Reference please.

My bad. That was obviously a misstatement on my part in reference to what the folks at SAFIRE seem to wish to do next with their lives.

My point is that the folks who work on SAFIRE aren't beholden upon the EU/PC community to produce results which are necessarily favorable to EU/PC models and beliefs. They aren't required to work on our behalf forever, certainly not without proper funding.

I've never been under any illusions about their company.

What company? Aureon is a new company and the patents and applications that Aureon now have were all given to them by the International Science Foundation, a non-profit organisation which funded SAFIRE.

As I said, I've been well aware of the limitations of the SAFIRE *anode* solar model experiments as they related to *my own* (cathode solar model) beliefs, so really it's no skin off my nose if the folks at SAFIRE wish to move on to a profit making process.

The way I look at it is simple enough to understand. If the folks that work at SAFIRE actually believe they've got a decent shot at generating sustained positive net energy fusion, they surely would wish to pursue that process. I can certainly understand why they'd wish to "move on" to that line of research if they actually believe it's a better scientific use of their time. Of course I'd love to see cathode solar model experiments performed eventually as well, but if I have to chose between fusion energy and another series of cathode sun model experiments, even I might be tempted to put the cathode testing on hold for awhile. Hell, astronomers have ignored Birkeland's work for more than a full century now, so it's highly unlikely they'd give a damn about another round of cathode solar model experiments anytime soon. If SAFIRE actually thinks they have a serious shot at fusion energy production, it makes (financial and logical) sense to pursue it. I don't begrudge them fusion energy research if that's what they think is a logical next step based on their existing work.

You still keep avoiding the key issue and ignoring the huge fusion elephant in the room. The money that Aureon (or whatever they wish to call themselves) is trying to raise amounts to mere 'chump change' in comparison to what has already been spent on fusion energy research over the last 50 years. The very "worst" that they might do is squander a few million dollars of *private* funding and fall short of their goals, whereas ITER is risking *billions* of dollars of *public* funds, and their new design doesn't even appear to have the capacity to actually produce a sustained electrical production process. At best case ITER *might* achieve a net energy surplus for a relatively short period of time, which *won't* even be converted to electricity, even *if* everything goes as planned. I don't even see the point of investing *billions* of dollars of public funds on a fusion design that isn't even capable of delivering on sustained net energy and sustained electricity. What's the point of that?

In terms of your unfounded accusations, you're simply barking up the wrong tree. What is a few *million* dollars of *private* funds compared to all the billions of dollars that our government flushes down the drain on a regular basis?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... taxpayers/

Honestly, at this point you sound like a guy on a pointless crusade to tarnish Child's professional reputation only because he dared to "test" the anode solar model for a few years. That's exactly the childish vindictive type of behavior that I'd expect from a typical EU/PC hater. I don't even care much for an anode solar model myself, but I'm grateful for the work that Child's has done to test it out in a lab. I simply wish (hope) he'd (he'll) publish a paper which lists the results and compares the anode model to his experimental results. Even if he never does that much, I still wish him well on his next project.

I can logically understand why an EU/PC proponent might be a bit "upset" or disappointed about the fact that SAFIRE has yet to publish a paper which compares the anode solar model to the SAFIRE experiments, but your attitude just seems like it's driven by pure irrational spite. What has Childs ever done to you to personally to deserve your wrath? You are just spewing ignorant vindictive nonsense that is typical of EU/PC haters.

[Zyxzevn]

..
Fusion is not magic. Dark energy and "space expansion" are "magic" because they violate the conservation of energy laws.

Even better:
You can make your own fusion reactor at home:
Putting Plasma to Work (DIY Fusion Reactors, Magnetrons and More!)

Even simpler (and more dangerous)
how to make your own dirt cheap fusion reactor (demo)

There is a whole website with homebuild fusors.

(Blue) Cold Fire You Can Touch
This just shows that you should never believe that temperature is related to colour in active plasma.

It is clear that bad mainstream astronomy has pushed back huge progress in science.

[Michael Mozina]

..
Fusion is not magic. Dark energy and "space expansion" are "magic" because they violate the conservation of energy laws.

Even better:
You can make your own fusion reactor at home:
Putting Plasma to Work (DIY Fusion Reactors, Magnetrons and More!)

Even simpler (and more dangerous)
how to make your own dirt cheap fusion reactor (demo)

There is a whole website with homebuild fusors.

(Blue) Cold Fire You Can Touch
This just shows that you should never believe that temperature is related to colour in active plasma.

It is clear that bad mainstream astronomy has pushed back huge progress in science.

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

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

Higgsy is worried about and vehemently complaining about private investors risking and potentially losing a few tens of *millions* of dollars on Aureon experiments, yet HIggsy doesn't bat an eye, or complain at all about the fact that ITER was originally predicted to cost around 5 billion in 2001, then it was projected to cost less than 25 billion a bit later as construction began, but now that the project has started, and money is being spent on it, it's currently projected to cost close to 80 billion by the time it's finally fired up and running for awhile in 2035. It's success is also predicated upon the successful development of an entirely new type of superconductor.

What's even worse and more astounding is the fact that ITER is not even designed to actually produce excess electrical energy even when it's fully up and running, At best it hopes to produce more overall energy (mostly in the form of heat) than it's consuming, but doesn't even expect to try to generate electricity with that excess heat. In essence ITER is simply an 80+ billion dollar "test of concept" device that only hopes to demonstrate the "feasibility" of sustained fusion energy and net electrical energy production. Talk about pure hypocrisy on HIggsy's part. He's essentially penny wise and pound foolish in terms of his criticism of the fusion energy industry as a whole. He'd be a lot less hypocritical if he was complaining about the cost of ITER.

The other interesting thing about the FUSOR videos that you suggested is that they tend to be based upon a *negative* cathode at the core, and a positive anode around the outside edges, whereas SAFIRE works the other way around. In a SAFIRE design, the flow of electrons is being concentrated into double layers around the central anode and hydrogen is introduced through the anode in the core.

One can imagine a SAFIRE design where water is run around the outer chamber walls to cool off the reactor, and to "heat up" the water to produce steam, which is then run through a turbine to generate electricity. It wouldn't take all that elaborate of a design upgrade to generate steam in a SAFIRE anode core design, certainly nothing as difficult as trying to do that with an ITER tokamak design. The ability to "miniaturize and reduce the production costs of " a SAFIRE design seems pretty doable compared to what would be required of a tokamak type of a reactor.

If as SAFIRE claimed in their video they were already heating the chamber walls to 113C at 7 percent of power, they're already capable of producing steam with their current design with only minimal modifications to the system. They could probably just add some additional parts to their existing design to surround the chamber with water and move the water and steam to the appropriate hardware to generate electricity.

[antosarai]

If as SAFIRE claimed in their video they were already heating the chamber walls to 113C at 7 percent of power, they're already capable of producing steam with their current design with only minimal modifications to the system. They could probably just add some additional parts to their existing design to surround the chamber with water and move the water and steam to the appropriate hardware to generate electricity.

Why use an electrically powered apparatus to generate electricity?

[Michael Mozina]

If as SAFIRE claimed in their video they were already heating the chamber walls to 113C at 7 percent of power, they're already capable of producing steam with their current design with only minimal modifications to the system. They could probably just add some additional parts to their existing design to surround the chamber with water and move the water and steam to the appropriate hardware to generate electricity.

Why use an electrically powered apparatus to generate electricity?

If a fusion generator device uses 10,000 watts to generate 500,000 watts, it's a worthwhile trade-off. Once it's running, and fusing atoms together, one can simply redirect a part of the electrical energy that it generates to sustain the fusion process, and it no longer requires an external energy source. Again, it's not 'free energy' if it's using fusion as a power source.

FYI, there isn't any fusion generator design which would not require an initial investment of electricity/energy to get to start up. All of them assume that once it starts up, and begins fusing atoms together, they'll generate a net surplus of electricity.

[antosarai]

If a fusion generator device uses 10,000 watts to generate 500,000 watts, it's a worthwhile trade-off. Once it's running, and fusing atoms together, one can simply redirect a part of the electrical energy that it generates to sustain the fusion process, and it no longer requires an external energy source. Again, it's not 'free energy' if it's using fusion as a power source.

Are you assuming SAFIRE is, or has the capabilities for in a near future be, a self-sustainable fusion generator?

[Michael Mozina]

If a fusion generator device uses 10,000 watts to generate 500,000 watts, it's a worthwhile trade-off. Once it's running, and fusing atoms together, one can simply redirect a part of the electrical energy that it generates to sustain the fusion process, and it no longer requires an external energy source. Again, it's not 'free energy' if it's using fusion as a power source.

Are you assuming SAFIRE is, or has the capabilities for in a near future be, a self-sustainable fusion generator?

Me personally? I don't really know if it has that capability based on the limited amount of information I have at the moment, and frankly I'm a little jaded about fusion energy claims in general based on it's nearly 60 year track record of hype and hoopla. It's pretty clear however that the folks at SAFIRE seem to think it's possible. Their design seems like it "could" theoretically generate fusion and the limited information that they've provided to date would tend to support that possibility.

If you ask me whether I'd rather that various governments fund SAFIRE's research to the tune of a few tens of millions of dollars or fund ITER to the tune of 80+ billion dollars, I'd have to go with SAFIRE. The SAFIRE design actually looks like a more sound 'design" to begin with, and it doesn't seem to require a whole new type of superconductor to be invented in order for it to be fully tested for viability. If we're going to throw 80+ billion dollars at fusion energy research, why not spend another 50 million and test SAFIRE's design too?

I honestly have a bit a of a problem with the whole fusion energy concept as it relates to "hype". Throughout my whole life I've been hearing how fusion energy is just a few decades away, and yet 60 years later, I'm still hearing the very same thing. Quite honestly I'm personally pretty skeptical of the viability of sustained fusion energy in general. I will say however that SAFIRE's claims and their design seem a lot less "problematic" from my perspective compared to most of the designs I've seen.

I think it all comes down to how accurate and trustworthy SAFIRE's claims are. If they're correct, I'd say they're on the right track. If they missed something important however (like elemental contamination from some unidentified source), then maybe it won't fly. I'd have to say however that their design is not so unlike other fusor designs that I can simply write it off, and yet it's different enough in terms of having an anode core vs. a cathode core that it's possible they've stumbled onto a key feature that others have missed. I do think it's worth continued testing and continued funding, if only to see if it pans out.

The cost of their design is minimal compared to most designs, and the potential is pretty significant IMO.

[Higgsy]

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.

(But, the conditions are not appropriate for producing these elements so I don't believe for a second that they are produced by fusion in the chamber).

You keep asserting this as fact based strictly on input voltage and amperage, but you ignored their overall findings:
https://www.safireproject.com/ewExterna ... Report.pdf

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.

Also measured were sudden, short-lived releases of high energy. Even though the power supply could only input 1,800 watts, the oscilloscope showed transient discharges of 2,000,000 to 10,000,000 watts.

Yes - 1800 watts is 1800 joules per second. 10MW for 12ns is 0.12 joule or 0.000067 of the energy produced in one second. It's really not impressive.Now if they could sustain 10MW for a second...

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)

What I want them to do is to do the science properly before they set up a company to engineer a fantastical and unbelievable energy producing magic machine.

Fusion is not magic.

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

What exactly do you expect the SAFIRE team to do on a shoestring budget related to a totally unrelated effort to test the anode solar model? What exactly do you think 'research' money and research funding is about anyway? It's not reasonable IMO to expect the moon from them *before* going on to further experiments.

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. Instead of which they are setting up a dodgy business.

Current means a lot of ions and electrons are flowing, but each individual ion won't have enough energy to fuse. Fusors work at about 10keV which is about the energy needed for fusing hydrogen. If you haven't got the driving voltage you won't have the energy.

Again, energy isn't just about "voltage" it's about overall energy, including amperage,

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).

The only thing that SAFIRE and fusors have in common is that they are both in a vacuum chamber.

And high energy electrical discharges in plasma.

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

My reasons are based on physics. It doesn't matter what they introduced, the energy required to fuse up Z=58 is just not there.

The problem is that you don't *know* that, you just 'assume' that, and you flat out ignore the fact that the discharge wattage is *nothing* like the input wattage.

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.

And instead of properly excluding much more likely explanations like chemical reactions,...

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.

You're just handwaving about "chemical reactions".

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.

Wow, you really have a bee in your bonnet with respect to SAFIRE, whereas I haven't heard a peep out of you about all the *other* failed magic attempts at fusion over the past 50 years. Do you really believe that ITER is going to live up to it's hype?

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

They are so desperate to represent what they have done as real that they actually suggest it could be caused by Mills's hydrinos. Really.

Quote please.

https://aureon.ca/theory