Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am


Unread post by BecomingTesla » Mon May 13, 2019 1:48 pm

Mjolnir wrote:From




Montgomery Childs and Michael Clarage of the SAFIRE PROJECT will be presenting at the 2nd Electric Universe UK conference, the University of Bath, July 6th, 2019.

Recent experiments suggest every element resonates to specific voltage ranges, creating organized stable structures of dark mode plasma in an electric field - the precursor to self-organizing visible double layers.

The spherical visible plasma double layers work as a transforming capacitor trapping ions, electrons and molecules, generating energy densities analogous to the Sun. They appear to be the means by which nature produces extremely high energies. The implication? High energy production.

Warm plasma nucleosynthesis is a primary component of Electric Sun models in which heavier elements are formed within the photosphere of stars, and not deep within their cores. In 2018 Montgomery and Michael reported intriguing elemental changes on the surface of the anode. This year they will present new anode chemistry data, further supporting this line of exploration.

They will also be able to discuss in more detail the role that electric double layers play in creating a stable solar atmosphere.

Based on recent evidence from the SAFIRE lab Montgomery and Michael are able to draw remarkable new connections between plasma physics, astrophysics and heliophysics.

The new key developments will be described in detail, along with the specific technologies used to obtain the data, and how the data is being analyzed and interpreted.
Oh #%?$ yes! I gotta say, a very, very big part of why I came back to this forum was to continue monitoring the SAFIRE project. Here's to waiting for them to upload that discussion to YouTube!

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


Unread post by Mjolnir » Sun May 19, 2019 3:45 am

Some updates to Michael Claridge's blog this month:

One long piece that appears to be from a talk at a suspicious observers conference that mentions SAFIRE, a travel report from Spain, some strange experiment, and a book review.


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


Unread post by Mjolnir » Sun May 26, 2019 5:12 pm

A "Safire Lab Walkthrough" at

It doesn't say when it was published, but I think it is pretty new. At least I had not seen it before.


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


Unread post by jacmac » Tue May 28, 2019 6:25 pm

From Michael Claridge's blog:

From this topic:
Why is it Difficult to Observe Electric Currents in Space
This statement near the end:
The forces that govern the initial formation of a solar system could well be different from the forces that govern its growth.
I would add ...and different from the forces that sustain its continual operation.

Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am


Unread post by BecomingTesla » Wed May 29, 2019 10:55 am

Wanted to share this list of previous and new experimental results from the latest video walkthrough of the lab up on the website:
  • Stable self-organizing plasma double layer shells
    Stable plasma tufts analogous to stellar plasma tufting in the photosphere
    Trapping of ions, electrons and molecules within the double layers
    Energy densities analogous to the Sun
    Electromagnetic inertial confinement of matter (not sure what this means exactly, or how it's different than the third point in this list)
    Steep voltage drop just off the surface of the anode
    Acceleration of ions from the SAFIRE core
    Spectral line broadening showing higher energies in plasma corona
    Gravity shielding of matter within the double layers
    Uniform thermal radiation emission - low thermal buoyancy
    Creation of concurrent collisional and non-collisional plasma
    High energy discharges with low power input (may be analogous to solar CMEs)
    Chemistry as a catalyst to double layer formation
    Slowing the speed of light by 5x (as a response to dense plasma)
    Analogous transformer/capacitor behavior
    Dark mode plasma electromagnetic structures
    Sequestering of heavy elements to the SAFIRE core
    New elements confirmed by mass/optical spectra, SEM and EDAX
    Extreme atmospheric pressure changes as a response to high energy plasma discharges (may be analogous to the changes in the velocity of the solar wind due to CMEs)
That's one hell of a list of observable phenomena in the chamber! When are we going to start seeing papers about this, either published in journals or from the SAFIRE team themselves? The video summaries over the last few years have been really great, but it'd be fantastic to have something meatier to sink the teeth into.

In particular, I'm really interested in the fact that we're getting "slow/tired" light in the chamber at a factor of x5 based on plasma density. That kind of demonstration of plasma red-shifting could really be a game changer, in particular at this point in time when the divergence in figures regarding the rate of space expansion is causing a huge controversy in the astrophysical/cosmological community.

Also super interested in the fact that the plasma is able to trap matter within the double layers. I'm curious what the relating factors are in terms of where different kinds of matter get trapped within the double layers. That, factored together with the fact that each double layer is independently rotating, could be really exciting in terms of planetary orbits.

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


Unread post by Zyxzevn » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:35 am

WLM wrote: i use my real name.

I have been too long on the internet to do that.
It can be dangerous for your career, if you make a little mistake.
I got a masters background in EM and electronics, did commercial work.

But thank you for contributing your expertise.
I agree with many of them.
A lot of the points are based on speculation and wild theories.

There are some alternative theories about the sun that you don't know about.
NASA claims that the sun is magnetic, which can not exist without some electric currents being present.
In the electric sun model, it is assumed that there are electric currents on the surface on the sun.
This also solves some major problems that NASA's magnetic sun model introduces.

To understand the currents in the plasma on the sun, the Safire project explores
different models, starting with some older models from Birkeland and others.

1. Stable self organizing plasma double layer shells
I think that this is due to a continuous electric current being applied through the plasma.

4. Energy densities analogous to the Sun.
the anode temperature is, at best, 10% that of the lowest temperature region of the sun, so, other than the electrons that have high temperatures in a gas discharge, the overall energy density is only a fraction of that in the Sun
Which temperature on the Sun are you talking about?
The NASA's temperature model is out of limits.

Here is the temperature based on CO lines (with link to related paper):
This shows a gradual temperature change, as you would expect from a radiating object.

In a electrodynamic system, the color related temperature can be very different from what it really is.
A diode and plasma can give off blue light, even in a cold temperature.
NASA often uses the color related temperature, which can give different answers for the same object.

6 Steep voltage drop just off the surface of the anode
6 yes, it's know as the "anode fall" and has been known for 2 centuries and has nothing to do with the ES or EU
This is actually very important for the sun.
On the sun we observe a very strong zeeman effect near the start and end of plasma currents.
This is used as proof of the magnetic sun, as the zeeman effect relates to magnetic fields.
This occurs mostly in sunspots.
If these voltage drops are so strong, it means that the electrical fields are very strong in the same areas.
And this means that instead of the Zeeman effect, we are also measuring the Stark effect.
And this means that the plasma currents on the sun are actually driven by electric fields and electric charges.

This means that foundation of the NASA magnetic model could be completely wrong.

This shows that at local level there are indeed electrical currents, as the electric sun model predicts.
It does not show any large scale currents, which some electric models theorize about.

7. Acceleration of ions from the SAFIRE core.
While obvious, this is used in the electric sun models to explain the solar wind,
and accelerations in the solar wind.
This is not explained by the NASA magnetic sun models.

8 Spectral line broadening showing higher energies in plasma corona
8 any SAFIRE spectral broadening is collisional,
Can broadening be enhanced by stark effect and zeeman effect?

13 Chemistry as a catalyst to double layer formation
13 this is not what the term catalyst means. it know what whomever is try to say but not knowing the correct terminology merely implies that the speaker knows not what of he speaks.
I think it refers to the chemical reactions on the sun.
See Sky Scholar , the periodic Table and the Chromosphere

14 Slowing the speed of light..
14 this is not what it seems. it's a well known phenomenon in optically thick plasmas where radiation is transported by the process of emission, absorption, re-emission, re-absorption, and so on millions of times until the photon leaves the plasma. it's entirely a quantum mechanical effect. so, it takes a while for the photons to be transported across the plasma.
Since we are in this area, do you know some more about redshift of light in plasma?
Laboratory experiment: redshift caused by fee electrons in plasma
With your expertise you may know of some more papers or information related to this phenomenon.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am


Unread post by BecomingTesla » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:47 am

WLM wrote: Moderator comment: Removed content.
See Notice message further down.
Ooooooh, escandalo! This is quite a bit of controversy indeed! Ex-member of the SAFIRE team is challenging the claimed findings of the experiment. I appreciate you taking the time to hop into the forum and share your input with folks. Right now what I'm wondering is whether Monty or Michael will hop into the thread as well to address any of this, because you're laying down some pretty big challenges to the claims that they're making.

I have a few questions about your experience working on the project first, and then a few about the comments you made regarding each bullet point, if that's okay:
1) You said you worked on the project from '13 to March of '19; why'd you leave? Was it by choice, or were you pushed out of the project?
2) What were these two papers you're referring, because I know that there were papers put out some time ago but they've become pretty hard to track down and read. Do you have a DOI for them that I can look up?
3) Do you imagine that more papers will come out of this project at this point (i.e. without you on the team) or have we seen all of the scientific literature that will come out of SAFIRE already?
4) "...but claiming that it has anything to do with the Sun is worse than fallacious, it's a lie..." harsh words, are you saying that literally none of the phenomena demonstrated in the lab can be used to better understand/model anything happening in Sun? If that's the case, I think folks here (including myself) would appreciate a much more in-depth explanation as to why, if you're willing to provide one.
5) After your time working on the project, how do you feel about the hypothesis of the Sun's atmosphere an electric discharge phenomena? Do you think the hypothesis still has merit in terms of investigation, or have you thrown it out as a possibility?

Now, on to the comments you made regarding my previous list:
1) So you're saying that this is really the only real content to come out of the experiment. What are the possible implications in regards to solar physics? Why do you find this aspect of the phenomena worth further independent investigation, and when will folks be able to read that paper?
2) Can you provide DOI's to the papers that explain these phenomena, I'd definitely like to read them. Likewise, can you give a brief explanation from your point of view about why the two phenomena (in the chamber and in the Sun) aren't connected, despite being similar to one another?
3) You're basically saying "this isn't surprising, or unexpected," correct? And you're also saying that it's false that molecules have been trapped within the double layers, that it's only electrons and ions?
4) Could you explain this more please? My understanding was that with plasmas like one in SAFIRE, we're dealing with scalable phenomena, so while the temperature of the anode surface and its "corona" atmosphere aren't literally burning at the same temperature as the Sun, the proportions between the two maintain the same relationship as in the actual Sun. Is this not the case?
5) You chose not to explain this point, so, nothing really to question or critique here. Care to explain more?
6) So again, this is just fluff? Nothing new or unexpected, this is just typical plasma discharge behavior?
7) Same here as above with #6, nothing new? I mean that's to be expected I guess, because a lot of these phenomena were demonstrated a long time ago with Birkeland's own experimental setups, so I can understand that it's not something surprising. I guess what's more important to as is, "is it relevant to solar physics?" Can the accelerations of the positive ions inside of the chamber away from the anode help us understand what's happening in the Sun's atmosphere, or in are they unrelated in your opinion? If so, can you explain why?
8. You mention this in another point, that all of the regions in SAFIRE are collisional. Why?
9. Could you provide materials/papers about this effect so that folks can educate themselves? Likewise, you said that it could be a diagnostic. In what way?
10. Is there anything important that folks should know regarding the LA VUV radiation from the experiment? Anything you can share with us?
11. Again, see #8. Why are you saying this? You didn't provide an explanation, or say why this is important to know.
13. What are they trying to say here, if the terminology isn't being applied correctly?
14. So this has no relation to red-shifted light?
15. Again, can you provide any literature/resources for people to learn from?
17. Oh damn, so this isn't happening then? Straight up incorrect? One of the biggest "draws" of the SAFIRE project for me was how well-designed the experiment appeared in terms of data acquisition, diagnostics, and analysis. You're saying that the team is knowingly using less-precise equipment to manipulate the results? That's deeply unfortunate if that's the case...
18. Damn, so this is just completely false then? Because it's easily the biggest claim that they've made so far, it implies some kind of fusion happening in the reactor.

Definitely hoping to see a response from you, thanks for sharing your perspective.
Last edited by Siggy_G on Tue Jun 18, 2019 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: See Notice post

Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am


Unread post by BecomingTesla » Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:28 pm

It's always unfortunate to have to leave projects when the cash-flow dries up, sorry about that. But happy to hear that it was for something like that as opposed to something like being shoved out of the project, in particular because you didn't agree with Monty or Michael, for example.

I understand completely about wage-work having to dominate most of the time you have to do this research as well. But I'm looking forward to your response to my questions/notes, and definitely looking forward to that paper you're working on. Please do post the arxiv paper once it's ready and online!

For folks who may want to read them, here's the links to the paper they're referencing that was already published in IoP: ... 055022/pdf

Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm


Unread post by JHL » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:55 am

WLMorgan wrote:i don't understand the format of this forum
Try shorter paragraphs and capitals.

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


Unread post by Mjolnir » Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:41 pm

Very odd ...

The Safire lab walkthrough video seems to have vanished from Youtube and
But a new poster at more than hints that SAFIRE is producing energy. It says:
Most critical issue today: Climate change
The SAFIRE PROJECT has reverse engineered the sun's atmosphere in a lab on Earth.

Most critical need today: Clean energy
The SAFIRE REACTOR is now producing energy densities comparable to the sun's.
The poster invites industrial, business and research partners to meet SAFIRE at EU UK 2019. Before the video was taken down, Monty said in the comments section that some rather big announcements would be coming there.

So SAFIRE seems to be making some bold statements at the same time as a former member of the team posts strong criticism on this forum.

Last year it took quite some time before the SAFIRE presentations from EU UK were released, so I guess we have to be patient ...


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


Unread post by Zyxzevn » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:45 am

Mjolnir wrote: So SAFIRE seems to be making some bold statements at the same time as a former member of the team posts strong criticism on this forum.
New science is always an area with a lot of speculation and criticism.

I think that there is some kind of connection between electric currents and some nuclear reactions.
We can see some nuclear reactions due to lightning strikes.

Nuclear reactions can vary due to temperature.
link (pdf)
Which again is disputed
A similar variation was found between nuclear reactions and the season of earth.
Which was also disputed.

Theoretically both are possible, even within our current understanding.
The temperature might cause different energy states of particles inside the nucleus.
And both may also be caused by the amount of neutrinos that are captured.

And I have not even touched the wide range of claims on low energy nuclear reactions.

This all gives an indication that there is likely something
that can influence nuclear reactions, but we have not found
a good experiment to determine what it is.

And there is a huge opposition by scientists against such ideas.
And I am against the current scientists that claim that we know everything
there is about nuclear reactions. QED and Quantum Field theories are hacks,
not science. And they know it.

As we have found nuclear reactions in lightning strikes,
I think that it is entirely possible that Safire has indeed found some
kind signs of nuclear reactions.
As long we have no idea of what is causing it exactly,
we will not be able to use it at all.
And they will also meet a huge opposition from many scientists.

For anyone interested, I found a wealth of links on neutrinos and electromagnetism:
Impact of neutrino flavor oscillations on the neutrino-driven wind nucleosynthesis of an electron-capture supernova
Weak magnetism correction to allowed β decay for reactor antineutrino spectra
Solar neutrinos with electric charge?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:42 am


Unread post by webtrekker » Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 am

JHL wrote:
WLMorgan wrote:i don't understand the format of this forum
Try shorter paragraphs and capitals.
Can I suggest that the poster tries 'Grammarly.' ... =grammarly

There's nothing worse than overly-long, grammatically incorrect, badly-formatted posts that most of us just can't be bothered to read.

It's not that the posts aren't important, it's just that people haven't the time or inclination to read them. It takes very little effort to at least break things up into smaller paragraphs.

User avatar
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway


Unread post by Siggy_G » Tue Jun 18, 2019 6:24 am

Notice: The posts from user WLM have been removed due to its questionable, gossip-like and potentially damaging nature. It is unclear if the user in fact is the person claimed. Some of the quoted content in following replies have been kept due to its technical nature.

If anyone wants more details / explanations for this decision, feel free to PM me.

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


Unread post by Mjolnir » Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:33 am

I just watched the Gaia EU series promoted on the thunderbolts main page.
They (Gaia) will give you two weeks of watching for free, so you can watch the whole thing, and if you don't really feel at home there (it is a bit new-agey), you can unsubscribe and avoid paying anything. That's what they say, anyway.

Some comments from Wal regarding new forms of energy that ES theory makes possible/plausible. He mentions that there is energy output from stars greater than the electrical input, and that it has to do with something going on in the sun's atmosphere. "Not fusion," he says, "but the transmutation of elements" (quoted from memory).

So apparently there is a difference.

The Gaia series appears to have been made fairly recently, so it may reflect what has been learned through SAFIRE.


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


Unread post by Mjolnir » Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:40 pm

Safire project 2019 update on the TB YouTube channel.

(I know, it's right there on the front page, but I would like to track all the SAFIRE news in this thread.)



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests