SAFIRE

[Higgsy]

Nope, because after seven years of dicking around, the SAFIRE project has produced just one peer reviewed paper way back in 2015. And now they are claiming over-unity power and transmutation of elements without any attempt at independent validation, and the begging bowl is out. Where have I seen all this before?

LIGO? Dark matter experiments? Please. Talk about pure hypocrisy.

You're shooting the messenger. After seven years, the great hope of EU/PC solar science has produced one paper. Four years ago. Fact. And now they are off to fleece the public with grotesque claims of over-unity energy production and remediation of transuranic nuclear waste. Mills and the hydrinos all over again.

[Higgsy]

And now they are claiming over-unity power and transmutation of elements without any attempt at independent validation, and the begging bowl is out.

And by the way....

SAFIRE is absolutely *not* suggesting anything related to "over-unity". That's a blatantly false assertion.

Of course they are. Have you watched the video? Do you see the bit where they take part of the output from the cell and use it to power the cell with useful output left over to heat homes and produce electricity? Oh, and they re-use the hydrogen too. Is there any other fuel? Not in the video.

[Higgsy]

And don't just poo-poo it. Look into that work closely, and ask yourself why Monty is finding identical results, and reporting the same "impossible" steady-state action. What are the possibilities here?

25+ years of emptying the pockets of the marks just like Mills has done?

[Higgsy]

And now they are claiming over-unity power and transmutation of elements without any attempt at independent validation, and the begging bowl is out.


Underline added

And your evidence for that is what? I must have missed that, could you please produce a source where over unity power was claimed by SAFIRE?

Their video. No external power source, no fuel.

[Higgsy]

When the plasma is very ionized, the resistance gets very low.
So sustaining this plasma may not draw much power, due to the very low resistance.

There is also a current flowing which has a certain impedance.
So if you switch it off the current will still keep on flowing.

What recombination rate would you calculate for 1600 degree plasma of hydrogen at 2 torr?

[glowmode]

And don't just poo-poo it. Look into that work closely, and ask yourself why Monty is finding identical results, and reporting the same "impossible" steady-state action. What are the possibilities here?

25+ years of emptying the pockets of the marks just like Mills has done?

Woah woah, let's not get it twisted: EU, and alternative-science participants are the victims here. You are blaming the victims.

These "alternative" scientists were themselves previous participants in the mainstream scientific process-- a body which IMMEDIATELY cast them out for reporting their anomalous findings. After being cast out and stripped of their in-group status for having the nerve to report their results, unable to further their research, they run eventually run into problems that they can't "just throw money at". Then the mainstream, the very body that pathologically ostracized them for presenting the truth of their results, sits back and laughs, calling them frauds and their investors "dupes" (which further dries funding and amplifies the regressive feedback cycle, allowing exciting new ideas and possibilities to remain suppressed).

It is an access-to-resources problem, another example of which would be wealth-inequality. With wealth-inequality, we have another system that, like mainstream science, suppresses in order to maintain its power. Just like it is messed up for the rich to blame the poor for their situation, it is messed up for science to defund someone and laugh at the lack of progress they themselves cause in the same process.

Now that we've established your position as a victim-blamer, lets tackle the whole concept of "fleecing" people. How many years of fleecing taxpayer dollars on the hunt for "dark matter" should astrophysicists answer for? From my view, it looks like they've been getting some BIG money to find a reasonable explanation for "dark matter", a result which has remained non-existent for awhile, and will probably remain so.

So that's 100+ years that scientists have been "fleecing" the public. In other words: projection. You're participating in complete and utter projection, blissfully ignorant to the pathology that you've become.

Next, lets revisit the definition of poo-poo: To mildly deprecate or dismiss something as unimportant. That's something I asked for you to not do, but there you go doing it!

And don't just poo-poo it. Look into that work closely, and ask yourself why Monty is finding identical results, and reporting the same "impossible" steady-state action. What are the possibilities here?

25+ years of emptying the pockets of the marks just like Mills has done?

I would say that, in this case, you're doing nothing aside from victim-blaming as a means to completely dismiss yourself from being accountable for your close-mindedness. In short, you're using the ad hominem fallacy to advance your own, preferred interpretation of science.

Pretty sad, when you get down to it.

[Michael Mozina]

Nope, because after seven years of dicking around, the SAFIRE project has produced just one peer reviewed paper way back in 2015. And now they are claiming over-unity power and transmutation of elements without any attempt at independent validation, and the begging bowl is out. Where have I seen all this before?

LIGO? Dark matter experiments? Please. Talk about pure hypocrisy.

You're shooting the messenger. After seven years, the great hope of EU/PC solar science has produced one paper. Four years ago. Fact.

Well, keep in mind that I personally prefer a *cathode* solar model, so it's not as though SAFIRE experiments were ever going to represent the be-all-end-all of solar physics research from my perspective, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Empirical physics is always a good thing.

And now they are off to fleece the public with grotesque claims of over-unity energy production and remediation of transuranic nuclear waste. Mills and the hydrinos all over again.

Eh? How can you even talk about "fleecing the public" with a straight face after all the wasted money and efforts spent on "dark matter", and dark energy and inflation nonsense? Give it rest.

What' is even more troubling is your consistent misrepresentation of their statements with respect to your ridiculous "over unity" nonsense. You're as bad as Koberlein and his "no neutrino" nonsense, maybe worse because you're misrepresenting their work and their statements while hiding behind an anonymous handle. You're clearly spending *way* too much time reading ISF crap.

[Michael Mozina]

And now they are claiming over-unity power and transmutation of elements without any attempt at independent validation, and the begging bowl is out.

And by the way....

SAFIRE is absolutely *not* suggesting anything related to "over-unity". That's a blatantly false assertion.

Of course they are.

Now I'm disappointed in you Higgsy. It turns out that you're not only misrepresenting their statements, you're doing it *intentionally*! Please provide us with a quote from SAFIRE describing "over unity" or I will assume you're simply lying and doing so intentionally.

Have you watched the video?

Yep and the term "over unity" was never uttered. You made the up.

Do you see the bit where they take part of the output from the cell and use it to power the cell with useful output left over to heat homes and produce electricity? Oh, and they re-use the hydrogen too. Is there any other fuel? Not in the video.

Did you miss the part about "transmutation of elements" HIggsy? That implies either fusion or fission, but it certainly doesn't describe "over unity". They're talking about nuclear energy releases, not "free energy". It's possible they're releasing free neutrons that decay into protons and electrons as well. What they are not claiming however is to have generated something from nothing, and there's no claims about "over unity". You're doing what every EU/PC hater does, namely *distort their statements* for your own unethical purposes.

Fission power plants produce electricity, but they aren't "over unity" processes either. Give it rest. I'm losing more and more respect for you by the post at this point.

[Michael Mozina]

And don't just poo-poo it. Look into that work closely, and ask yourself why Monty is finding identical results, and reporting the same "impossible" steady-state action. What are the possibilities here?

The possibilities they're describing relate to "nuclear" reactions associated with a "transmutation of elements". The term "transmutation of elements" can be associated with either fusion or fission, but it's simply liberating energy that's currently in the system. If they are fusing elements together, and/or releasing free neutrons, they may indeed generate electricity from the heat, but it's not a 'something from nothing' scenario. It's simply a different way of generating fusion and/of fission. Hopefully it's former rather than the later since fission tends to be more dangerous to humans.

[Higgsy]

And now they are claiming over-unity power and transmutation of elements without any attempt at independent validation, and the begging bowl is out.

And by the way....

SAFIRE is absolutely *not* suggesting anything related to "over-unity". That's a blatantly false assertion.

Of course they are.

Now I'm disappointed in you Higgsy. It turns out that you're not only misrepresenting their statements, you're doing it *intentionally*! Please provide us with a quote from SAFIRE describing "over unity" or I will assume you're simply lying and doing so intentionally.

The reason I used the term over-unity was that the thing is claimed to be self-perpetuating without any claimed "fuel". They say hydrogen is a "catalyst", so what's the fuel for the claimed transmutation? What is being transmuted? If there is no fuel this is simply an over-unity machine.

But since this is causing so much angst, I'll withdraw my characterisation of over-unity and apologise for any distress caused.

However, the rest of my critique stands. The so called "transmutation" up to z=58 from a plasma at 1600 degrees and a few torr, as well as claims for breakeven plus are as incredible as over-unity. As for the claimed remediation of nuclear waste - it's entirely fanciful.

[Higgsy]

You're shooting the messenger. After seven years, the great hope of EU/PC solar science has produced one paper. Four years ago. Fact.

Well, keep in mind that I personally prefer a *cathode* solar model, so it's not as though SAFIRE experiments were ever going to represent the be-all-end-all of solar physics research from my perspective, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Empirical physics is always a good thing.

But it's not done for the EU/PC idea what was claimed for it all those years ago - the revolutionising of solar physics. Not even close. Not in the same ballpark. Not even in the same galaxy. And now that the temptation to reach into the pockets of the naive has become too much all those bare claims of "discoveries" in the video will never see a journal, becaus now they are "commercial secrets". I'd be disappointed if I were you.

[Higgsy]

And don't just poo-poo it. Look into that work closely, and ask yourself why Monty is finding identical results, and reporting the same "impossible" steady-state action. What are the possibilities here?

The possibilities they're describing relate to "nuclear" reactions associated with a "transmutation of elements". The term "transmutation of elements" can be associated with either fusion or fission, but it's simply liberating energy that's currently in the system. If they are fusing elements together, and/or releasing free neutrons, they may indeed generate electricity from the heat, but it's not a 'something from nothing' scenario. It's simply a different way of generating fusion and/of fission. Hopefully it's former rather than the later since fission tends to be more dangerous to humans.

I'll tell you what it is - it's a burn-it-up for a short time chemical reactor - just like Mills's reactors. Mills produces hydrinos, Childs produces cerium from hydrogen; allegedly.

[Higgsy]

25+ years of emptying the pockets of the marks just like Mills has done?

Woah woah, let's not get it twisted: EU, and alternative-science participants are the victims here. You are blaming the victims.

Really? Victims? What nonsense.

These "alternative" scientists were themselves previous participants in the mainstream scientific process-- a body which IMMEDIATELY cast them out for reporting their anomalous findings. After being cast out and stripped of their in-group status for having the nerve to report their results, unable to further their research, they run eventually run into problems that they can't "just throw money at". Then the mainstream, the very body that pathologically ostracized them for presenting the truth of their results, sits back and laughs, calling them frauds and their investors "dupes" (which further dries funding and amplifies the regressive feedback cycle, allowing exciting new ideas and possibilities to remain suppressed).

Nice story, but completely untrue in every respect. Who are these "victims" that suffered this terrible abuse? Mills? Childs? Talbott? Thornhill? Scott? Velikovsky? Whose life story matches the fantasy above?

I would say that, in this case, you're doing nothing aside from victim-blaming as a means to completely dismiss yourself from being accountable for your close-mindedness. In short, you're using the ad hominem fallacy to advance your own, preferred interpretation of science.

May I suggest you look up the ad hominem fallacy? It's not what you think it is. If I was to say that the Aureon project is a bunch of hooey because and only because Childs is involved, then that would be an ad-hominem. But I don't. If I say, as I do, that the Aureon project is a bunch of hooey becuase it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny at the most elementary level, and because it has all the hallmarks of past infamous projects, then that is not an ad hominem.

[Michael Mozina]

And now they are claiming over-unity power and transmutation of elements without any attempt at independent validation, and the begging bowl is out.

And by the way....

SAFIRE is absolutely *not* suggesting anything related to "over-unity". That's a blatantly false assertion.

Of course they are.

Now I'm disappointed in you Higgsy. It turns out that you're not only misrepresenting their statements, you're doing it *intentionally*! Please provide us with a quote from SAFIRE describing "over unity" or I will assume you're simply lying and doing so intentionally.

The reason I used the term over-unity was that the thing is claimed to be self-perpetuating without any claimed "fuel". They say hydrogen is a "catalyst", so what's the fuel for the claimed transmutation?

The "transmutation" process is the "fuel"! Sheesh.

What is being transmuted?

Evidently many different elements because they weren't in the system before the transmutation process created them.

If there is no fuel this is simply an over-unity machine.

They never said that. That is something which you made up. They are specifically describing a "transmutation" process, referring to either fusion (most probable), or fission (unlikely), but neither of those scenarios is an overunity scenario and you know it.

But since this is causing so much angst, I'll withdraw my characterisation of over-unity and apologise for any distress caused.

Well, you'll earn a little credibility back that way at least.

However, the rest of my critique stands. The so called "transmutation" up to z=58 from a plasma at 1600 degrees and a few torr, as well as claims for breakeven plus are as incredible as over-unity. As for the claimed remediation of nuclear waste - it's entirely fanciful.

The fusion power industry has been promising to get past the "break even" point for *decades* in terms of energy in vs. energy out. They've failed miserably, but nobody is claiming that the fusion industry is promising "over unity". Fusion has the potential to be a game changer, and if indeed SAFIRE is showing evidence of a significant amount of "transmutation of elements", it's worth exploring IMO. It may not work out, but it might.

As for the nuclear waste remediation, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. I don't see much evidence from their work thus far which suggests that this is viable method for remediation. It's sounds like "hype" to me.

[Michael Mozina]

You're shooting the messenger. After seven years, the great hope of EU/PC solar science has produced one paper. Four years ago. Fact.

Well, keep in mind that I personally prefer a *cathode* solar model, so it's not as though SAFIRE experiments were ever going to represent the be-all-end-all of solar physics research from my perspective, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Empirical physics is always a good thing.

But it's not done for the EU/PC idea what was claimed for it all those years ago - the revolutionising of solar physics. Not even close. Not in the same ballpark. Not even in the same galaxy. And now that the temptation to reach into the pockets of the naive has become too much all those bare claims of "discoveries" in the video will never see a journal, becaus now they are "commercial secrets". I'd be disappointed if I were you.

If you put yourself in my shoes for a moment with respect to my preference for a *cathode* solar model rather than an anode one, you'll recognize that I didn't personally expect SAFIRE to revolutionize solar physics.

What they did however was thoroughly test the anode model and they found it to be completely congruent with previous expectations, including the "transmutation" processes in the atmosphere which were predicted by both Scott and Thornhill. That's a major finding IMO, and well worth exploring.

The problem with the anode model however is that it's not necessarily congruent with solar wind processes, particularly "solar strahl" and the overall movement of electrons and other particles away from the sun.

That doesn't mean however that the SAFIRE experiments have no value with respect to solar physics. Quite the opposite. They will continue to provide valuable information related to solar wind processes and such which can and should be compared to in situ measurements.

I'm not disappointed with SAFIRE in the least. The "transmutation" aspect in particular is very intriguing to me since I've published a paper describing CNO fusion in the solar atmosphere, and indeed, electrical current (regardless of polarity) may produce some type of fusion process, even if only hydrogen fusion. We will see.

Regardless of which solar model one prefers, it's hard to deny the "success" of SAFIRE when compared to *all billions of dollars of dark matter experiments*. At least they aren't just returning an endless string of "null" results from their experiments. They're finding unexpected new things which warrant further research.