SAFIRE

[Higgsy]

So you'll be able to prove that none of those elements were present in the chamber beforehand?

Me personally? Of course not. I'm not part of the SAFIRE team. I have however paid attention to the arguments they've made with respect to their efforts to spectroscopically measure the elemental compositions throughout their experiments, and I have no particular reason to doubt them.

I have. I think it is simply incredible to believe that fusion up to z=58 could occur in the relatively low energy environment of that little plasma. If that were the case, we'd be seeing transmutation left, right and centre. In any case, whether you agree with that or not, the claim is so extraordinary that the burden of proof is extremely heavy and it falls squarely on the shoulders of Childs, a burden that so far he has simply left lying on the ground. Why should anyone believe in the fantastical, bare and unsupported explanation of transmutation when more mundane and far more likely explanations are available.

no argument.,

Sure there is. The argument is quite well articulated. They're measuring the elemental composition of the chamber and the various things they've put into the chamber, and noticing the production of different elements that shouldn't be there. It's a pretty simple argument to understand regardless of whether or not one chooses to "believe" the argument. I can't personally speak to their efforts at eliminating every other potential source of elemental contamination, but their basic argument is pretty simple to understand.

My comment regarding argument was about the complete lack of scientific justification for the bare claim.

hell, there is no data, no science to support the proposition that fusion is occurring in that little plasma up to z=58. It's simply incredible.

Well, I'd grant you that there's nothing *published* yet, but they certainly have "data" from their experiments. Whether you find it credible or not is another issue entirely.

And until there is data, the extraordinary nature of the claim and the lack of rationale and controls justifies my skepticism.

And so when I see a burst of energy in the laughably uncontrolled data,.....

Laughably uncontrolled data? Huh? How would you even know that?

They certainly seem to have all the necessary probes and equipment to measure the spectroscopic output of the experiments they are preforming, as well as the temperatures, voltages, current flow, etc. It seems to be pretty "controlled" with respect to the claims they are making. I don't personally have a lot insight into all the steps they've taken to eliminate the possibility of contamination from the chamber itself, and/or items introduced into the chamber, but I'd have to assume they've checked for possible sources of contamination. It's not as though they're seeing only *one* or *two* new elements in the chamber either, rather they're seeing several of them.

Did you see the data presented for the run where excess energy was supposed to be produced? You call that controlled? You think the fact that they see a dozen elements in the chamber that they claim were created by fusion is an argument in their favour? Seriously?

I think you're a bit ahead of yourself in the sense that SAFIRE Is a *for profit* institution, not a government owned research facility. They have somewhat different responsibilities as it relates to investors and shareholders. Some of their findings would fall into the "proprietary" category at this point in time, particularly as it relates to any potential for fusion. I think you're overlooking some of the political and financial implications of doing such research as a for profit institution. As a businessman myself, I can appreciate the complications.

Safire was meant to be a scientific experiment to provide evidence for the electric sun model. That was its purpose. It has failed. Miserably.

[JP Michael]

So in other words SAFIRE's financials being beyond accountability, let alone their science, is a respectable and acceptable position for promoting the EU paradigm? How is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

I do not find anything commendable or praiseworthy about such a position. Comparing this with LCDM funding abuses as a "lesser of two evils" does not cut it for me either.

Monty set out SAFIRE as a project of integrity. Reality finds it quite bankrupt, if I may be so harsh. We have been fed tidbits of integrity to maintain the illusion of trustworthiness whilst underneath is very, very sick. I am quite disappointed.

As I was editing my earlier post, for pure trivia, Aureon is " the lord of all knowledge, and the scriber of laws without which civilisation could not exist... the god of magic as a tool for mortals" in the Eberron multiverse of Dungeons and Dragons.[1] I am uncertain of any original mythological derivation for this name, but the esoteric underbelly of the SAFIRE Project is very apparent to me now. Aureon translates out of Latin as "The Golden Age."

[1] "Aureon", World Anvil Wiki

[Higgsy]

However, addressing some of the points raised here previously, I do think that under certain conditions this apparatus might produce GeV particles (though I cannot confirm it for obvious reasons - the data is completely closed). Namely, through the process of double layer explosion. If a plasma instability develops that would disrupt the current, this might lead to a runaway increase in double layer potential difference, accelerating charged particles to high energies as a side effect.

I understand that the process you describe could occur, but I don't see how it could result 1 GeV particles unless the breakdown of the double layer was supplemented by energy stored other than by charge separation. Is there a reference that would help me understand how the sort of processes that we could envisage in what we know of SAFIRE would actually result in 1GeV particles. (The closest I have found for generating that energy in a short distance in a plasma is a petawatt laser pulse.).

[nick c]

Note the disclaimer on the Thunderbolts website:

PLEASE NOTE: Prior to becoming a commercial venture of Aureon Energy, Ltd., THE SAFIRE PROJECT was under Aurtas International Inc., contracted by The International Science Foundation Inc. to empirically test the Electric Sun Model. Aureon Energy, Ltd. is an independent body which has no affiliation with The Electric Universe, The Electric Sun, or The Thunderbolts Project.

SAFIRE is now a commercial venture, and I must say that I am somewhat disappointed, and I can no longer consider it to be a scientific experiment.

I have no problem with commercial applications of research, if that is indeed what has happened. Last I checked, the United States was still predominantly a free market economy. As with any commercial venture, is going to come corporate secrecy and presumably patents. The "proof will be in the pudding" and somewhere down the line there is going to have to be a marketable product that can be profitable.

Time will tell.

[JP Michael]

Is there a reference that would help me understand how the sort of processes that we could envisage in what we know of SAFIRE would actually result in 1GeV particles. (The closest I have found for generating that energy in a short distance in a plasma is a petawatt laser pulse.).

Check out Anthony Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe (Springer 2015) pp 187-188 (section 5.4 "Double Layers in Current Filaments"):

The ions and electrons accelerated in the double layer form beams when leaving the layer... These beams exert pressure upon the plasma surrounding the layer. As a result of this, the double layer may expand (or explode). The expansions leads to a growing potential drop across the layer and even larger beam pressures.

As long as the double layer has a thickness d that is small compared with its radial extension a, the one-dimensional theory is approximately applicable. However, if the thickness grows larger, a two-dimensional treatment becomes necessary.

In order to get an idea of what the potential drop of the double layer may be in this latter case we consider a capacitor consisting of two circular plates of radius a separated by distance d. The two plates are charged with the constant surface charge densities +σc and -σc. When d << a the potential drop between the plates is:

((Note: due to forum formatting deficiencies I am unable to format the following equations according to standard convention))

(5.24) φc = σcd/ε0

(ie. the same as in a purely one-dimensional geometry). The potential drop φc is the proportional to the separation d. For larger separation, φc grows more slowly with d. Finally, when d>>a the potential drop tends to the constant and maximum value

(5.25) φcm = σca/ε0

Notice that Eq. 5.25 may be formally obtained from the potential drop in the one-dimensional case by putting d=a

The charge distribution in the relativistic double layer is in several respects similar to the charge distribution in the capacitor considered above. In both cases there is a pronounced charge separation while the total charge is equal to zero. Furthermore, the positive "surface" charge density at the anode boundary of the relativistic double layer appears to be independent of the separation between the plates. Hence, when the thickness of the double layer d is much larger than the radius a we should expect the potential drop of the layer to approach the maximum value

(5.26) φDLm = (φij0a^2/4ε0c)^1/2

corresponding to the one-dimensional potential drop given by Eq. (5.12) with d=a and j=j0. In filamentary current I0, Eq. (5.26) may be rewritten as

(5.27) φDLm = (φiI0/4πε0c)^1/2

Thus, the maximum potential drop of the relativistic double layer is a function of the total current rather than of the current density...

The potential φDLm as described by Eq. (5.27) constitutes the maximum potential drop that can be sustained by the double layer. One condition for (sic) to be approached is, as we have seen above, that the double layer expands so that its thickness becomes larger than its radius. There is, however, another condition whichdepends on the circuit that also has to be fulfilled if φDL is to approach φDLm. Due to the fact that the magnetic energy stored in the current filament cannot be released faster than the Alfven travel time Eq. (2.22) along the filament, there is an upper limit to the power that can be supplied by the circuit. For φDLm to be reached, this power has to be at least equal to the maximum power of the double layer I0φDLm. This condition seems to be well met in cosmic circuits.

Peratt does not factor SAFIRE's spherical plasma regime so I do not know what effect that has on the equations.

Double layers can exhibit particle acceleration.

[Michael Mozina]

So in other words SAFIRE's financials being beyond accountability,....

How do you figure that? The fact that JP can, and apparently has traced the funding and followed the money flow would suggest that SAFIRE's financials are *not* beyond accountability. Would he even be able to that for LIGO or any DM experiment?

...let alone their science, is a respectable and acceptable position for promoting the EU paradigm?

SAFIRE's "science" with respect to fusion will be accountable to their shareholders. Their "science" with respect to supporting their claims that their experiments are consistent with the anode solar model are the only thing I'm still worried about. I think they still owe Scott and Thornhill a published paper on that particular topic.

How is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Well, I'm inclined to believe that SAFIRE should publish a paper on the topic of an anode solar model. I'm also inclined to believe that SAFIRE still owes their investors in their current project that much. As far as their fusion claims are concerned, I assume that their shareholders in that round of funding will hold them accountable for those claims and that money. The fact a for profit institution is doing the research doesn't relieve them of accountability, in fact usually it requires a lot *more* accountability because shareholders tend to be more "hands on" than governmental funding projects, and they tend to expect a positive return on their investment.

I do not find anything commendable or praiseworthy about such a position. Comparing this with LCDM funding abuses as a "lesser of two evils" does not cut it for me either.

That isn't actually my argument however. I'm simply noting that *everyone* working on a research project is typically pretty well compensated for their time and their efforts, particularly in the realm of astronomy. The difference however is quite tangible and quite obvious when it comes to lab results. SAFIRE has produced a working solar corona in a lab. I've seen it with my own eyes. Magnetic reconnection proponents have *never* produced even that much and they never will! How much money gets completely wasted on MRX every year? Dark matter money has also been a complete waste of time and money. Why isn't JP from ISF complaining about any of that nonsense? Double standard perhaps?

Monty set out SAFIRE as a project of integrity. Reality finds it quite bankrupt, if I may be so harsh. We have been fed tidbits of integrity to maintain the illusion of trustworthiness whilst underneath is very, very sick. I am quite disappointed.

I actually believe that SAFIRE owes it's funders a real published paper on the topic of how their laboratory experiments compared to the anode solar model. Keep in mind that I don't even think that our sun's surface is an anode with respect to space, I think it's actually a cathode with respect to space (cosmic rays). I still think that if SAFIRE is going to remain in scientific and financial integrity, they will have to deliver at least one paper on the topic of an anode solar model and it's similarity to their laboratory experiments. In no way would such a paper give away any "trade secrets" with respect to fusion. They can avoid that topic completely if they like, although if demonstrated, it would be yet another bit of evidence supporting the anode model.

[paladin17]

However, addressing some of the points raised here previously, I do think that under certain conditions this apparatus might produce GeV particles (though I cannot confirm it for obvious reasons - the data is completely closed). Namely, through the process of double layer explosion. If a plasma instability develops that would disrupt the current, this might lead to a runaway increase in double layer potential difference, accelerating charged particles to high energies as a side effect.

I understand that the process you describe could occur, but I don't see how it could result 1 GeV particles unless the breakdown of the double layer was supplemented by energy stored other than by charge separation. Is there a reference that would help me understand how the sort of processes that we could envisage in what we know of SAFIRE would actually result in 1GeV particles. (The closest I have found for generating that energy in a short distance in a plasma is a petawatt laser pulse.).

I don't have any references other than Alfven's. He frequently mentions such process and its astrophysical applications - e.g. he talks about particle acceleration in magnetospheres (during magnetic substorms) as caused exactly by that.
So the idea is that we have a current circuit which for some reason breaks at a certain point (I proposed plasma instability as a reason earlier, though double layers themselves may disrupt the current), which, according to Alfven, causes all the inductive energy of the circuit to be released at the point of disruption. This might produce high energy output in a very localized area. So here the inductive part of the circuit is supposed to be the source of energy, not the capacitive.
In "Cosmic Plasma" Alfven also gives examples of circuits that would periodically "explode" in this fashion (see p. 34-35).

[Michael Mozina]

So you'll be able to prove that none of those elements were present in the chamber beforehand?

Me personally? Of course not. I'm not part of the SAFIRE team. I have however paid attention to the arguments they've made with respect to their efforts to spectroscopically measure the elemental compositions throughout their experiments, and I have no particular reason to doubt them.

I have. I think it is simply incredible to believe that fusion up to z=58 could occur in the relatively low energy environment of that little plasma.

So essentially your entire argument is based on an argument from incredulity fallacy?

If that were the case, we'd be seeing transmutation left, right and centre. In any case, whether you agree with that or not, the claim is so extraordinary that the burden of proof is extremely heavy and it falls squarely on the shoulders of Childs, a burden that so far he has simply left lying on the ground. Why should anyone believe in the fantastical, bare and unsupported explanation of transmutation when more mundane and far more likely explanations are available.

Like what? Thus far you've handwaved about the excess energy production and elemental changes being associated with some undefined "chemical" processes but that doesn't result in the production of new elements, even if it could explain the increased energy production. I also find it a tad amusing that you buy all the fantastical,unsupported explanations of metaphysical forms of matter and energy, and gross violations of the laws of physics, but you somehow find the concept of fusion to be "hard to believe"? Hmmm. It's not like you apply that same level of "skepticism" to mainstream claims related to cosmology.

My comment regarding argument was about the complete lack of scientific justification for the bare claim.

You must be complaining about a lack of a *published* justification because SAFIRE does offer "justification" in the form of excess energy production and the appearance of additional elements in the chamber. The claim itself is not without scientific justification, just without *peer reviewed* justification.

Then again, the whole concept of "space expansion" as a cause of redshift is without any *empirical* (in the lab) justification, as well as 'dark energy', dark matter, inflation, yada, yada, yada, but apparently you bought all that nonsense, sight unseen, hook, line and sinker. What's up with that?

And until there is data, the extraordinary nature of the claim and the lack of rationale and controls justifies my skepticism.

Well, considering the mainstream's pathetic track with respect to generating sustained fusion, and over hyping their prospects, I too remain "skeptical", but that doesn't mean that I begrudge anyone funding for further research into the possibility of sustained fusion.

Again, I'm less concerned about your "skepticism" with respect to fusion, and more concerned about your lack of skepticism when it comes to claims that violate conservation of energy laws and which are based on purely ad hoc forms of matter and energy. Your "skepticism" seems to be rather subjective.

Did you see the data presented for the run where excess energy was supposed to be produced?

All they showed in the video were the temperature changes during process, and a few graphs about energy input levels during that process, and new elements they found. The energy was presumably produced in the plasma, near the surface of the anode via a 'transmutation of elements'.

You call that controlled?

Not exactly, but I wouldn't even call LIGO's data or methodology "controlled". They don't actually "control" any terrestrial sources, and they have no reliable way to filter them out either. They don't even know what causes 'blip transients". I still wouldn't even begrudge LIGO additional funding and additional time to replicate multimessenger astronomy. Until they do however, I'll remain quite "skeptical" about their data too.

You think the fact that they see a dozen elements in the chamber that they claim were created by fusion is an argument in their favour? Seriously?

Yes, actually I would consider the production of new elements and excess energy to be arguments in their favor, but only if I could be certain it isn't the result of contamination, and unfortunately I'm not privy to any of their "tightly held" information with respect to the chemical composition of the chamber and various things inside the chamber. Likewise I'm not real impressed with LIGO claiming there were no vetoes present within an hour of the signal, when in fact the exact signal was vetoed within 18 seconds, and then they covered up all the details of that veto. Again, your "skepticism" isn't universally applied. You seem to arbitrarily pick and choose when to apply skepticism and when turn a blind eye to problems in the methodology.

Safire was meant to be a scientific experiment to provide evidence for the electric sun model. That was its purpose. It has failed. Miserably.

Actually, since they were able to produce and sustain a full sphere hot solar corona, and film it, they physically accomplished something with circuit theory which the mainstream has *never* and will *never* produce with MRx theory. MRx fails miserably in the lab. The only thing SAFIRE has failed to do is publish a paper on the topic. Fortunately however, Birkeland published a whole volume on the topic,and he even conducted a broader range of experiments, so even in terms of published results, EU/PC models are far more successful at replicating solar phenomenon in the lab than the mainstream models.

FYI, it's not you 'skepticism" that bothers me, in act I think it's rather warranted considering the track record of the fusion power industry. What bothers me is the fact that you don't apply that same level of skepticism to claims that *grossly violate conservation of energy laws*, and LIGO's claims, etc.

If your application of skepticism was consistent, I'd be fine with your skepticism. It's the willy-nilly nature of how you apply that skepticism that I find to be quite fascinating and rather hypocritical.

Are you *ever* going to discuss the problems with your own belief systems, or do you intend to deflect forever?

[Higgsy]

I understand that the process you describe could occur, but I don't see how it could result 1 GeV particles unless the breakdown of the double layer was supplemented by energy stored other than by charge separation. Is there a reference that would help me understand how the sort of processes that we could envisage in what we know of SAFIRE would actually result in 1GeV particles. (The closest I have found for generating that energy in a short distance in a plasma is a petawatt laser pulse.).

I don't have any references other than Alfven's. He frequently mentions such process and its astrophysical applications - e.g. he talks about particle acceleration in magnetospheres (during magnetic substorms) as caused exactly by that.
So the idea is that we have a current circuit which for some reason breaks at a certain point (I proposed plasma instability as a reason earlier, though double layers themselves may disrupt the current), which, according to Alfven, causes all the inductive energy of the circuit to be released at the point of disruption. This might produce high energy output in a very localized area. So here the inductive part of the circuit is supposed to be the source of energy, not the capacitive.
In "Cosmic Plasma" Alfven also gives examples of circuits that would periodically "explode" in this fashion (see p. 34-35).

Thank you and thanks to JP Micheal for providing the extract from Peratt's book. I must say I struggled to follow the latter - I think the formatting defeated me. The Alfven book is however clear. I understand the principle of the mechanism, and I can see how the release of inductive energy stored in the circuit could accelerate particles to energies above what you might expect from considering the capacitive voltage alone, but I was hoping for some insight that would allow an order of magnitude calculation given a spherically symmetrical plasma driven by relatively low voltage. I suppose we don't know enough about the details of the SAFIRE arrangement to do that. Nevertheless from my perspective, although high energies are possible in principle, I don't see anything that would justify supposing that there are many orders of magnitude more energy stored inductively than in the charge separation which would result in 1GeV particles.

Note: I edited this to change my brain fart reference to magnetic, to inductive.

[Michael Mozina]

However, addressing some of the points raised here previously, I do think that under certain conditions this apparatus might produce GeV particles (though I cannot confirm it for obvious reasons - the data is completely closed). Namely, through the process of double layer explosion. If a plasma instability develops that would disrupt the current, this might lead to a runaway increase in double layer potential difference, accelerating charged particles to high energies as a side effect.

I understand that the process you describe could occur, but I don't see how it could result 1 GeV particles unless the breakdown of the double layer was supplemented by energy stored other than by charge separation. Is there a reference that would help me understand how the sort of processes that we could envisage in what we know of SAFIRE would actually result in 1GeV particles. (The closest I have found for generating that energy in a short distance in a plasma is a petawatt laser pulse.).

I don't have any references other than Alfven's. He frequently mentions such process and its astrophysical applications - e.g. he talks about particle acceleration in magnetospheres (during magnetic substorms) as caused exactly by that.
So the idea is that we have a current circuit which for some reason breaks at a certain point (I proposed plasma instability as a reason earlier, though double layers themselves may disrupt the current), which, according to Alfven, causes all the inductive energy of the circuit to be released at the point of disruption. This might produce high energy output in a very localized area. So here the inductive part of the circuit is supposed to be the source of energy, not the capacitive.
In "Cosmic Plasma" Alfven also gives examples of circuits that would periodically "explode" in this fashion (see p. 34-35).

The two major problems with mainstreams MRx models is that they do not account for *all of the circuit energy*, so they underestimate the full energy release potential in plasma, and since they ignore the movement of the current itself, they underestimate the speed at which the energy release process can occur. It wasn't until fairly recently that the mainstream even produced an MRx mathematical model that was 'fast" enough to explain a solar flare event, but even still it ignores the full circuit energy and the ability of the whole circuit to simply 'explode" instantly.

I don't think the mainstream will ever generate sustained fusion based on MRx models and their overly simplified plasma physics models. I do think however that sustained fusion is possible in current carrying plasma if the current is sustained and the conditions in the plasma can be stabilized by plasma pinch processes. Sustained current based models have some hope of producing sustained fusion, but the current "laser" technology is going nowhere fast.

[Michael Mozina]

I understand that the process you describe could occur, but I don't see how it could result 1 GeV particles unless the breakdown of the double layer was supplemented by energy stored other than by charge separation. Is there a reference that would help me understand how the sort of processes that we could envisage in what we know of SAFIRE would actually result in 1GeV particles. (The closest I have found for generating that energy in a short distance in a plasma is a petawatt laser pulse.).

I don't have any references other than Alfven's. He frequently mentions such process and its astrophysical applications - e.g. he talks about particle acceleration in magnetospheres (during magnetic substorms) as caused exactly by that.
So the idea is that we have a current circuit which for some reason breaks at a certain point (I proposed plasma instability as a reason earlier, though double layers themselves may disrupt the current), which, according to Alfven, causes all the inductive energy of the circuit to be released at the point of disruption. This might produce high energy output in a very localized area. So here the inductive part of the circuit is supposed to be the source of energy, not the capacitive.
In "Cosmic Plasma" Alfven also gives examples of circuits that would periodically "explode" in this fashion (see p. 34-35).

Thank you and thanks to JP Micheal for providing the extract from Peratt's book. I must say I struggled to follow the latter - I think the formatting defeated me. The Alfven book is however clear. I understand the principle of the mechanism, and I can see how the release of inductive energy stored in the circuit could accelerate particles to energies above what you might expect from considering the capacitive voltage alone, but I was hoping for some insight that would allow an order of magnitude calculation given a spherically symmetrical plasma driven by relatively low voltage. I suppose we don't know enough about the details of the SAFIRE arrangement to do that. Nevertheless from my perspective, although high energies are possible in principle, I don't see anything that would justify supposing that there are many orders of magnitude more energy stored inductively than in the charge separation which would result in 1GeV particles.

Note: I edited this to change my brain fart reference to magnetic, to inductive.

The basic problem with mainstream mathematical models is that they consistently fail to account for *all of the circuit energy* in the whole circuit, and instead tend to fixate *only* on the so called 'stored" magnetic energy present in the plasma at any given moment of time. They consistently underestimate the full energy release potential of an exploding double layer, as well as the potential speed of that release of energy.

[Higgsy]

I have. I think it is simply incredible to believe that fusion up to z=58 could occur in the relatively low energy environment of that little plasma.

So essentially your entire argument is based on an argument from incredulity fallacy?

No essentially my whole argument is based on nuclear physics where the energy and pressure domain required to fuse various elemental species is well known. In order to exceed break-even according to the Lawson criterion, the temperature, pressure and time of fusing even hydrogen to helium far exceeds the conditions that would be present in a plasma at 1600K at a few torr. For heavier elements up to x=58 the task requires even greater temperatures and pressures. Don't forget that known low temperature fusors operate orders of magnitude below break-even. My skepticism is based on known physics , not on some personal and irrational incredulity.

If that were the case, we'd be seeing transmutation left, right and centre. In any case, whether you agree with that or not, the claim is so extraordinary that the burden of proof is extremely heavy and it falls squarely on the shoulders of Childs, a burden that so far he has simply left lying on the ground. Why should anyone believe in the fantastical, bare and unsupported explanation of transmutation when more mundane and far more likely explanations are available.

Like what? Thus far you've handwaved about the excess energy production and elemental changes being associated with some undefined "chemical" processes but that doesn't result in the production of new elements, even if it could explain the increased energy production.

Of course it doesn't explain the production of "new elements" because it is incredible that such elements were produced in the first place. It is far more likely that all species identified in the chamber were either there in the first place or have been misidentified. Any burst of energy is overwhelmingly more likely to be caused by exothermic chemical reactions in the chamber.

My mind could be changed of course, if the nuclear fusion pathways for all of these claimed fusion products were to be identified, the conditions required by the pathways within the plasma were to be confirmed theoretically and by measurement, the energy budget calculated and confirmed, and fusion by-products such as thermal and high energy neutrons, alpha particles, electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos measured in appropriate quantities. That is the burden of proof that the team has so far shunned. It is my prediction that they will continue to shun it because, in fact, the whole thing is smoke and mirrors looking for naive funding sources.

The basic problem with mainstream mathematical models is that they consistently fail to account for *all of the circuit energy* in the whole circuit, and instead tend to fixate *only* on the so called 'stored" magnetic energy present in the plasma at any given moment of time. They consistently underestimate the full energy release potential of an exploding double layer, as well as the potential speed of that release of energy.

Could you choose 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. I suppose that since you are making this claim, you'll be able to demonstrate your assertion mathematically and quantitatively.

[JP Michael]

@Higgsy
I reformatted the quotation equations in a PDF document and included more context. You can view it here

[Michael Mozina]

I have. I think it is simply incredible to believe that fusion up to z=58 could occur in the relatively low energy environment of that little plasma.

So essentially your entire argument is based on an argument from incredulity fallacy?

No essentially my whole argument is based on nuclear physics where the energy and pressure domain required to fuse various elemental species is well known. In order to exceed break-even according to the Lawson criterion, the temperature, pressure and time of fusing even hydrogen to helium far exceeds the conditions that would be present in a plasma at 1600K at a few torr.

But that's not necessarily the condition in all area of the plasma. Current carrying plasma forms double layers and generates discharge processes which tend to 'pinch' plasma into dense and high temperature regions even within an overall plasma of lower temperature and density. You can't "assume" that all regions of the experiment are one temperature or one density.

For heavier elements up to x=58 the task requires even greater temperatures and pressures. Don't forget that known low temperature fusors operate orders of magnitude below break-even.

I think you just shot your own argument in the foot. Even if fusors of *current* design are below the break even point, they generate fusion at low temperatures. Whether or not SAFIRE ever gets to a break even point remains to be seen, but the fact remains that they could still be generating fusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo

You'll note the even the design of an ordinary fusor is not all that radically different than a SAFIRE design. Suffice to say, if fusion can be done on such a "small" scale as the one seen in the video (or any small experiment), than it can certainly happen in something the size and sophistication of a SAFIRE experiment. You certainly cannot rule it out entirely. In fact the "key" to sustained fusion in a furor may very much depend on the size and sophisistication of the fusor.

My skepticism is based on known physics , not on some personal and irrational incredulity.

I doesn't sound that way to me. You acknowledged that fusion is possible at lower temperatures/pressures, so essentially the only argument you left yourself with is the fact that LENR systems aren't 'break even' yet. So what? If fusion is still possible at all, your "break even" argument is effectively irrelevant. Maybe a different design *will* generate surplus energy, which is all the more reason for SAFIRE to keep some of the details of their experiment to themselves for now.

Of course it doesn't explain the production of "new elements" because it is incredible that such elements were produced in the first place.

Another argument from incredulity.

It is far more likely that all species identified in the chamber were either there in the first place or have been misidentified.

I'd be inclined to agree that it's *possible* this could be the case, but I have no direct evidence that it is the case. Do you?

Any burst of energy is overwhelmingly more likely to be caused by exothermic chemical reactions in the chamber.

Such as? Be specific.

My mind could be changed of course, if the nuclear fusion pathways for all of these claimed fusion products were to be identified, the conditions required by the pathways within the plasma were to be confirmed theoretically and by measurement, the energy budget calculated and confirmed, and fusion by-products such as thermal and high energy neutrons, alpha particles, electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos measured in appropriate quantities. That is the burden of proof that the team has so far shunned. It is my prediction that they will continue to shun it because, in fact, the whole thing is smoke and mirrors looking for naive funding sources.

The fact that deriving such information requires additional funding and additional experimentation doesn't mean they've "shunned" anything. It simply indicates that a shoestring budget won't cut it in terms of generating all that information. They've made *some* energy calculations which simply do not explain what they're observing in the lab in terms of ordinary processes in plasma. Something else is happening that is generating excess energy beyond their original "calculations" and that's what they wish to explore with additional funding and resources. You're expecting a whole lot for a such a small budget, and a budget that wasn't even originally focused on fusion to begin with.

You're welcome to "not invest" if you think it's unlikely they'll ever "break even", but by your own statements, it's not inconceivable that they've generating fusion processes in their chamber.

The basic problem with mainstream mathematical models is that they consistently fail to account for *all of the circuit energy* in the whole circuit, and instead tend to fixate *only* on the so called 'stored" magnetic energy present in the plasma at any given moment of time. They consistently underestimate the full energy release potential of an exploding double layer, as well as the potential speed of that release of energy.

Could you choose 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. I suppose that since you are making this claim, you'll be able to demonstrate your assertion mathematically and quantitatively.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... iA03p01071

[Higgsy]

@Higgsy
I reformatted the quotation equations in a PDF document and included more context. You can view it here

Thanks for taking the time to do that, especially if you created that PDF document manually rather than cut and paste from the book. I can follow it all now. I think eqn 5.25 is wrong - it's the same as 5.24. I think the d should be a in 5.25. I suppose it's a typo. Other than that, I find the form of 5.26 and 5.27 rather curious and the step bewteen 5.25 and 5.26 rather opaque. After extracting the dimensioned constant from the denominator (which is about 5.5 (s/F)^0.5), we are left with the maximum potential drop proportional to the square root of the driving voltage (I assume that is what φ_i is) and the square root of the total current. So for many values of I_0, φ_DLm would be less than φ_i. Anyway we don't have the information we need in this case (φ_i and I_0) to calculate the maximum potential drop. For the order of magnitude of voltages and currents in that type of apparatus, I'm still not seeing how we can get to a billion volts even with the energy stored in the inductance.