SAFIRE

[JP Michael]

Would he even be able to that for LIGO or any DM experiment? ... 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?

Point conceded. This is a good example of such.

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.

I think this point is the most disappointing aspect of SAFIRE's scientific venture. They've designed an amazing device and repeatedly replicated a stable spherical plasma regime without the need for a magnetic containment field. They tested and adjusted a myriad of different parameters and collected plenty of raw data for analysis.

But for whatever reason, they don't want to tell us anything of particular substance about their supposed 'confirmation' of the solar anode model. There are so many other tests that could have been done, like reversing anode and cathode to test Birkeland's solar cathode model and what kind of plasma regime that would produce.

But nope. They seem to want money more than knowledge. Sigh.

[JP Michael]

I think the d should be a in 5.25. I suppose it's a typo.

Yes this was a typo. Peratt's equation 5.25 reads a.My wife was very ill yesterday so I was back and forth for some hours while compiling it from the book.

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.

I want to point out that Peratt's double layer equations above are for 1D and 2D double layer formation, ie sheet or planar. Given SAFIRE's spherical double layer regime, each layer 'surface' needs to be calculated as at least a 2D, if not actually 3D, spherical geometry.

I am certain the spherical geometry is a crucial component of not only SAFIRE's self-containing double layer formation, but also acceleration of particles between its expanding layers resulting in the highest energies directed inward (imploding) towards the anode surface, which is where all the non-ionised transmutation products are found.

[Higgsy]

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.

Well "fusors of *current* design" fuse deuterium to helium, not all these heavier elements claimed by Childs. Furthermore the reaction rates are miniscule (just look at the cross-section for the reaction), and is, as I say, orders of magnitude away from breakeven.

If Childs had claimed to fuse deuterium very inefficiently, I would not be skeptical. But the video claims breakeven plus and a whole host of heavier elements as fusion products. It is this breakeven plus claim that forms the rationale for his suggestion that an energy producing product is just a matter of routine engineering. I am skeptical about that because the physics does not support the claim.

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.

How does size and sophistication (however you determine that) get a reaction cross-section orders of magnitude greater than current fusors?

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 make it sound as though they are asking for funding to be continued so they can explore all this scientifically. But that is not what they say they want to be funded for. They are asking for investment to build a commercial electricity and heating device using what they already claim to be excess energy. Marks are being asked to make an investment in a product with, so they claim, huge potential for return, not in science. If they were asking for funds to do science I wouldn't begrudge them that. But they have abandoned science and are in the process of setting up a dodgy business. It's Mills all over again - no-one will make money from this other than Childs and Co.

It is terrible for the credibility of EU/PC solar science. What promised so much in the early days, is becoming a credibility disaster.

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

How does that satisfy my request to 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.?

[Higgsy]

I think the d should be a in 5.25. I suppose it's a typo.

Yes this was a typo. Peratt's equation 5.25 reads a.My wife was very ill yesterday so I was back and forth for some hours while compiling it from the book.

Oh it's absolutely not meant to be a criticism - I'm just grateful for the effort you put in. And I hope your wife is better soon.

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.

I want to point out that Peratt's double layer equations above are for 1D and 2D double layer formation, ie sheet or planar. Given SAFIRE's spherical double layer regime, each layer 'surface' needs to be calculated as at least a 2D, if not actually 3D, spherical geometry.

I am certain the spherical geometry is a crucial component of not only SAFIRE's self-containing double layer formation, but also acceleration of particles between its expanding layers resulting in the highest energies directed inward (imploding) towards the anode surface, which is where all the non-ionised transmutation products are found.

Sure, but the basic principles of spherical or plane capacitors are no different. Just replace the εA/d of the plane capacitor with the ε/(1/R_1 - 1/R_2) of the spherical capacitor - none of the magnitudes of potentials, capacitance or current are going to be radically different. Moreover, aren't the ions going to be accelerated away from the anode - the electrons will be flowing to the anode? So are you suggesting that the transmutation, such as it is, would be as result of electrons bombarding the anode?

[Michael Mozina]

I think this point is the most disappointing aspect of SAFIRE's scientific venture. They've designed an amazing device and repeatedly replicated a stable spherical plasma regime without the need for a magnetic containment field. They tested and adjusted a myriad of different parameters and collected plenty of raw data for analysis.

But for whatever reason, they don't want to tell us anything of particular substance about their supposed 'confirmation' of the solar anode model.

I'll admit that I also find that aspect of their work to be somewhat "irregular". If their purpose was to "test" the anode solar model, then where are the published results of those tests? It seems to me that their entire purpose of those experiments was to verify or falsify the anode model, so I would expect to see the results of those tests. As it stands, I too am mystified as to why those particular results were not published. I can't see how they would have to give away any important "trade secrets" with respect to fusion simply to provide the results of their anode solar model tests.

There are so many other tests that could have been done, like reversing anode and cathode to test Birkeland's solar cathode model and what kind of plasma regime that would produce.

In fairness to SAFIRE, their initial publicized intent was to test *one particular* solar model, and their equipment is pretty much designed and geared toward testing an anode model, not a cathode one. It would cost more money, and potentially require completely different hardware in terms of a chamber and a central sphere apparatus to test a cathode model. I can accept the concept that the cathode model test was beyond the scope of their original test parameters. I'd agree however that I personally would prefer to see them test a cathode model next rather than to experiment with fusion, but if their results are as good as they suggest, I can also appreciate why they might be inclined to explore the fusion energy potential.

But nope. They seem to want money more than knowledge. Sigh.

Ya well, that's the main problem with hiring a "for profit" institution to do the scientific research. They tend to be obligated to 'go for the profit" rather than to simply seek knowledge. It also emphasizes the need to insist that public funding get spent on useful laboratory testing rather than constantly being wasted on more dark matter snipe hunts.

[JP Michael]

Moreover, aren't the ions going to be accelerated away from the anode - the electrons will be flowing to the anode? So are you suggesting that the transmutation, such as it is, would be as result of electrons bombarding the anode?

This is a good objection: there should be a lot of ions accelerating towards the copper cathodes in the reaction chamber. But remember, SAFIRE anode is also surrounded completely by double layers. That's as far as most of the plasma ions will make it from the anode.

The thing is, SAFIRE has said their anode was steel, so we're dealing with iron, carbon and maybe some trace impurities. Apart from copper of the cathode plates, silicon from glass observation windows for cameras, and tungsten/aluminium for the gimbal arm Langmuir probe, how did they record the presence of Lithium, Potassium, Calcium, Cerium, Lanthium, Oxygen, Chlorine, Sulphur, Titanium, etc?

Maybe I can send them another email requesting a list of all the potential elemental compositions within the reactor chamber, although they have already expressed the fact that none of these were present in the chamber prior to the reactor operating for some hours in the 2019 conference:

https://youtu.be/DTaXfbvGf8E?t=903

See also 2018 conference:

https://youtu.be/5IAiMpmGx-M?t=1711

How else can we explain the 'growth' of these new elements on the surface of the anode, something they have accomplished with repetitive accuracy?

I don't know why they're ending up there, but I would sure like to find out. I suspect it may be proton bombardment of the anode because the high energy H+ ions originating from the H2 gas being pumped into the anode core, which is hollow, have nowhere else to go (they cant go out to the cathodes easily because the double layers contain them closer to the anode surface than the cathode surface).

[Michael Mozina]

Well "fusors of *current* design" fuse deuterium to helium, not all these heavier elements claimed by Childs. Furthermore the reaction rates are miniscule (just look at the cross-section for the reaction), and is, as I say, orders of magnitude away from breakeven.

Perhaps that's true of *other* fusor experiments, but according to SAPHIRE's video they were actively experimenting with introducing *various* types of elements into the chamber, so they may have simply stumbled onto some other unique fusion processes that others simply haven't played with yet.

If Childs had claimed to fuse deuterium very inefficiently, I would not be skeptical. But the video claims breakeven plus and a whole host of heavier elements as fusion products. It is this breakeven plus claim that forms the rationale for his suggestion that an energy producing product is just a matter of routine engineering. I am skeptical about that because the physics does not support the claim.

Where exactly in the video does he claim to "break even"? All I heard him say is that they reached 100 percent of the chamber's design temperature limits at a lower energy input than they expected. They also seemed to suggest that a next gen model *could potentially* achieve a better than break even potential. AFAIK they weren't generating any electrical current with their current design, so I cannot imagine how they'd be able to claim to 'break even' yet. Generating fusion has never been the problem, the problems have always been consistently generating more energy than is put into the system and sustaining the process indefinitely. I didn't hear them make either of those claims about their existing equipment.

In terms of what elements they found, I think that makes sense if they were actively experimenting with various gasses and elements and using relatively (compared to smaller fusor experiments) higher levels of current and high voltages. I'd need to see the actual results before I'd be able to say much about it.

FYI, I reaching my daily limit again, and it's about time for bed, so I'll tackle the redshift debate another day.

How does size and sophistication (however you determine that) get a reaction cross-section orders of magnitude greater than current fusors?

Well, it would depend on the amount of current, the voltages, the density of the gasses being used, etc. How sophisticated have other fusor experiments actually been in terms of varying these types of controlled features? I honestly don't know. I cannot however logically rule out the possibility of fusion occurring in their experiments because it does occur inside of other fusor experiments.

You make it sound as though they are asking for funding to be continued so they can explore all this scientifically. But that is not what they say they want to be funded for. They are asking for investment to build a commercial electricity and heating device using what they already claim to be excess energy.

It may very well be the case that SAFIRE "believes" that they are ready to produce a modified device which they believe will produce excess energy beyond what they are putting into it, but again, I didn't hear them explicitly claim that their current device already achieves that result. Where specifically in the video did you hear them make that particular claim?

Marks are being asked to make an investment in a product with, so they claim, huge potential for return, not in science.

Other than the "marks" being private investors rather than unwitting public tax money "marks", how is that any fundamentally different than all the other dubious promises I've heard for 50 years about the next fusion device would be the stepping stone for sustained fusions processes? How does it differ from public "dark matter" marks? Holy Cow. You're certainly holding SAFIRE to much higher standards that you hold folks inside of the astronomy industry or fusion energy industries as a whole.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/scie ... rance.html

Even if they failed miserably to reach a better than break even scenario in their next venture, it wouldn't be any less successful than any other fusion experiment over the past 4 decades, and it would certainly produce better results than any dark matter experiment to date.

If they were asking for funds to do science I wouldn't begrudge them that.

In part, that does seem to be what they are asking for, albeit with the possibility of actually generating profit.

But they have abandoned science and are in the process of setting up a dodgy business.

You're simply slandering them at this point. You know nothing about their actual experiments, and you know nothing about their business either. You're just making it up as you go and hurling insults at them without a shred of evidence to support your bizarre allegations.

It is terrible for the credibility of EU/PC solar science. What promised so much in the early days, is becoming a credibility disaster.

The only "terrible" aspect in terms of solar physics research credibility is SAFIRE's lack of a published paper on that topic. As I've said, I think they own us a paper on an anode solar model comparison to their actual lab results, otherwise nobody got what they paid for out of the last set of experiments, and It makes one wonder if they'll get what they paid for the next time as well. I accept that there's a need for a published paper on the topic of an anode solar model from SAFIRE. That is what they claimed they were intending to 'test' in their first set of experiments and I've yet to see the results of those tests.

How does that satisfy my request to 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.?

It demonstrates that the MRx model has been consistently dissed on since it was first introduced. I've yet to see you produce a paper on real life laboratory experiment that showed how all the energy of the whole circuit was accounted for in a "magnetic reconnection" experiment. In fact, I've never seen a series of actual laboratory experiments which demonstrated a fundamental physical difference between ordinary induction in plasma and unique physical process of "magnetic reconnection". You first.

Alfven spends a lot of time in the early part of his book explaining when and why it's important to use the "particle" approach and circuit theory rather than a "field" approach to explain high energy plasma events. He also *consistently* chose to use circuit theory in Cosmic Plasma, and he specifically referred to MRx theory as 'pseudoscience'. He even claimed that he hoped that his double layer paper would drive the last few nails in the coffin of that nonsense. Unfortunately it didn't.

[Higgsy]

Moreover, aren't the ions going to be accelerated away from the anode - the electrons will be flowing to the anode? So are you suggesting that the transmutation, such as it is, would be as result of electrons bombarding the anode?

This is a good objection: there should be a lot of ions accelerating towards the copper cathodes in the reaction chamber. But remember, SAFIRE anode is also surrounded completely by double layers. That's as far as most of the plasma ions will make it from the anode.

I understand that double layers will develop when current is disrupted to some extent, by some instability - but a current of several amps appears to be flowing throughout. So although there is some charge separation surely the ions have to make it to the cathode? If they don't, and the current is being sustained by electrons, then the plasma will no longer be neutral. The potential drop across the electrodes is no higher than a few hundred volts. What mechanism would cause the double layers to trap ions?

The thing is, SAFIRE has said their anode was steel, so we're dealing with iron, carbon and maybe some trace impurities. Apart from copper of the cathode plates, silicon from glass observation windows for cameras, and tungsten/aluminium for the gimbal arm Langmuir probe, how did they record the presence of Lithium, Potassium, Calcium, Cerium, Lanthium, Oxygen, Chlorine, Sulphur, Titanium, etc?

There is an optical fibre attached to the probe that has an unknown composition, it is easy to see how oxygen contamination can arise, steel of different compositions have a wide range of elemental additives, contamination from oil, lubricants and constituents of roughing and diffusion pumps are possible (as I know to my frustration), the seals of the chamber are of unknown composition, the detection of some elements might be a mischaracterisation and so on.

Maybe I can send them another email requesting a list of all the potential elemental compositions within the reactor chamber, although they have already expressed the fact that none of these were present in the chamber prior to the reactor operating for some hours in the 2019 conference:

https://youtu.be/DTaXfbvGf8E?t=903

See also 2018 conference:

https://youtu.be/5IAiMpmGx-M?t=1711

How do they know these aren't present in the chamber beforehand?

How else can we explain the 'growth' of these new elements on the surface of the anode, something they have accomplished with repetitive accuracy?

Well, one obvious explanation is that there are no "new" elements.

I don't know why they're ending up there, but I would sure like to find out. I suspect it may be proton bombardment of the anode because the high energy H+ ions originating from the H2 gas being pumped into the anode core, which is hollow, have nowhere else to go (they cant go out to the cathodes easily because the double layers contain them closer to the anode surface than the cathode surface).

How does that work? You have 600 volt potential from anode to cathode and even allowing for the double layers, the protons bombard the anode?

The Coulomb barrier for p-p is about 10keV. For these heavier elements it roughly goes as the atomic number (so cerium 58 times more). 10keV is 115MK, so for cerium the Coulomb barrier would be about 580keV or 6.7GK. What's worse is that if the target is some solid quasi-neutral matter, then the electron shielding will make these numbers much higher. And protons are bombarding the anode?

Childs is not addressing any of these problems, and he hasn't presented a Lawson criterion calculation (which, by the way, is generally taken to show that there is no possibility of breakeven in fusor type devices which use much higher voltages than we see here). I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense. They have to do more than just say we found these elements on the anode and SAFIRE magicked them there.

I'm explaining why I'm skeptical and why my prediction is that no product will ever come of this. Others views might, of course, be different, but I do recommend not betting the pension fund.

[Higgsy]

Well "fusors of *current* design" fuse deuterium to helium, not all these heavier elements claimed by Childs. Furthermore the reaction rates are miniscule (just look at the cross-section for the reaction), and is, as I say, orders of magnitude away from breakeven.

Perhaps that's true of *other* fusor experiments, but according to SAPHIRE's video they were actively experimenting with introducing *various* types of elements into the chamber, so they may have simply stumbled onto some other unique fusion processes that others simply haven't played with yet.

They use deuterium because a) overcoming the Coulomb barrier is easier, and b) more energy is released than in the fusing of any other element. Once you get above iron the binding energy per nucleon of the product is greater than the consitiuents so you can never get net energy out.

In terms of what elements they found, I think that makes sense if they were actively experimenting with various gasses and elements and using relatively (compared to smaller fusor experiments) higher levels of current and high voltages. I'd need to see the actual results before I'd be able to say much about it.

It doesn't make sense from the point of view of the energy required to cause the reaction, and SAFIRE is using less driving voltage than most fusors (600V versus several kV). See my other post to JPM on this.

How does size and sophistication (however you determine that) get a reaction cross-section orders of magnitude greater than current fusors?

Well, it would depend on the amount of current, the voltages, the density of the gasses being used, etc. How sophisticated have other fusor experiments actually been in terms of varying these types of controlled features? I honestly don't know. I cannot however logically rule out the possibility of fusion occurring in their experiments because it does occur inside of other fusor experiments.

You make it sound as though they are asking for funding to be continued so they can explore all this scientifically. But that is not what they say they want to be funded for. They are asking for investment to build a commercial electricity and heating device using what they already claim to be excess energy.

It may very well be the case that SAFIRE "believes" that they are ready to produce a modified device which they believe will produce excess energy beyond what they are putting into it, but again, I didn't hear them explicitly claim that their current device already achieves that result. Where specifically in the video did you hear them make that particular claim?

Oh come on - listen to the pitch again. Harvesting the power of the Sun, drawing diagrams that show a self sustaining system, explicitly saying the engineering is easy.

[Higgsy]

How does that satisfy my request to 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.?

It demonstrates that the MRx model has been consistently dissed on since it was first introduced.

That might be so. But how does it satisfy my request to 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?

That paper says nothing about accounting for circuit energy and exploding double layers. It's all about the topology of the magnetosphere and magnetosheath - nothing to do with accounting for circuit energy and exploding double layers. In fact the measured energy by Heos2 is less than the theory predicted, exactly the opposite of your claim. Was it just the word "reconnection" that was your trigger?

[JP Michael]

Childs is not addressing any of these problems, and he hasn't presented a Lawson criterion calculation (which, by the way, is generally taken to show that there is no possibility of breakeven in fusor type devices which use much higher voltages than we see here). I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense. They have to do more than just say we found these elements on the anode and SAFIRE magicked them there.

I'm explaining why I'm skeptical and why my prediction is that no product will ever come of this. Others views might, of course, be different, but I do recommend not betting the pension fund.

And fair enough. Then again, even the SAFIRE team does not seem to know why this is happening, and even if they did know they'd probably just whack a patent on it and bury it in the top-secret Aureon archives never to see the light of day again. Unfortunately, I only know what they release, or what can possibly be deduced from what they have released, both of which are sparse indeed.

Just one paper on spherical double layer formation, oddly enough, which was from their phase 1 baby plasma jar. They're beyond phase 3 now and have not published anything else, not a whit. It is bizarre and disappointing.

I wish them all the best with their energy "Golden Age". Sounds like something a certain Lord Maitreya once said, too.

[Zyxzevn]

... They're beyond phase 3 now and have not published anything else, not a whit. It is bizarre and disappointing.

That is common when patents or unexpected findings are involved.
A lot of this stuff has already been observed by mainstream laboratories, but they
did not publish about it.
Because in the current science dogma climate it is impossible to publish something
that is not in line with the consensus, and still keep your job.

[Michael Mozina]

They use deuterium because a) overcoming the Coulomb barrier is easier, and b) more energy is released than in the fusing of any other element. Once you get above iron the binding energy per nucleon of the product is greater than the consitiuents so you can never get net energy out.

They claim to see a lot of new elements below iron however, so that seems like an irrelevant point.

It doesn't make sense from the point of view of the energy required to cause the reaction, and SAFIRE is using less driving voltage than most fusors (600V versus several kV). See my other post to JPM on this.

Well, I"ll have to do a bit of research on that issue since I'm not sure of the voltages or amperage typically used in most fusors, or the numbers associated with SAFIRE but suffice to say if fusors can accomplish the process of fusion, then there's no real logical reason why SAFIRE cannot achieve this same process. Furthermore, the elemental changes they observe would seem to suggest that they do fuse some elements. Again, it's hard to verify much of anything related to SAFIRE in particular since a lot of the "details" have not been made publicly available. I doesn't makes sense to me however to 'rule it out' since it's based on essentially the same technology used in a typical fusor experiment.

Oh come on - listen to the pitch again. Harvesting the power of the Sun, drawing diagrams that show a self sustaining system, explicitly saying the engineering is easy.

I asked you for specific quotes and instead of providing them you ask me to watch the video again? I've watched it several times now. I didn't get the same impression from the video as you did. I heard them suggesting that they believed that their technology could *eventually* lead to sustained fusion and excess electricity, but I didn't see anything in the video that suggested to me that they had already achieved those feats.

Look at it this way. For 50+ years the fusion energy industry has been claiming that within 20-30 years we'd see sustained fusion and electrical enregy produced by fusion. It's been going on now for nearly a half a century and yet here we are in 2020, no closer to achieving that goal than when the concept was first proposed. Would i run around claiming that everyone involved in fusion energy research was a con artist who was only interested in looking for new marks? No, of course I wouldn't. I"m sure they honestly believed their own "hype", as misguided as it may have been.

Even if SAFIRE is guilty of getting caught up in their own hype, and even if they ultimately fail to produce a profitable product, I fail to see the point of "assuming" they're being intentionally dishonest.

On the other hand, I can see for myself that LIGO engaged in an *active misrepresentation* of the facts related to their veto of that original GW signal. I'm *far* more bothered by that type of behavior than I'm bothered by scientists getting caught up in their own hype.

Every "dark matter" experimenter probably had some amount of honest "hope" that they'd find DM, and I seriously doubt that many if any of them set out to "con" the public intentionally. In retrospect, with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, were they guilty of 'hyping' the potential of their experiment? Sure they were. Did they know for sure that they'd fail to find evidence of DM before they started? I highly doubt it.

I think you're applying a blatant double standard here. Is it possible that SAFIRE is caught up in their own hype. Of course. Is it likely they actually know right now that they're probably going to fail? I doubt it. They may have reservations as all scientists should have reservations, but all scientists still wish to pursue their ideas and beliefs, and I don't see why I wouldn't give SAFIRE the benefit of the doubt, even if I have no personal interest in investing in their endeavor. Do I share some of your skepticism about their ability to deliver on their promises? Sure. I don't however assume that they're intentionally misleading anyone. If anything, I'd assume they're simply caught up in their own hype, just like everyone else who's been associated with fusion energy research for the past 50+ years.

I'd personally prefer to see SAFIRE publish a paper on their experiments with an anode solar model and conduct a similar series of experiments related to a cathode solar model, but alas I don't control SAFIRE, and such experiments are more along the lines of 'pure scientific research'. Such experiments are typically funded by the government since they don't typically have a profit potential so much as they have the potential to produce useful scientific information related to solar physics research.

I can't however blame a 'for profit" institution for following the most likely (as they see it) path to profit. If they were actually successful, it would indeed fundamentally change the nature of how we generate power on planet Earth, and it would indeed produce quite a bit of profit for it's investors. Even if it failed, it would not be any greater of a failure than any other fusion energy research project to date. When you look at it from the perspective of dollars/euros invested, even the next round of SAFIRE funding is mere "pocket change" compared to what's already been spent/blown on fusion energy research to date.

[Michael Mozina]

How does that satisfy my request to 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.?

It demonstrates that the MRx model has been consistently dissed on since it was first introduced.

That might be so. But how does it satisfy my request to 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?

That paper says nothing about accounting for circuit energy and exploding double layers. It's all about the topology of the magnetosphere and magnetosheath - nothing to do with accounting for circuit energy and exploding double layers. In fact the measured energy by Heos2 is less than the theory predicted, exactly the opposite of your claim. Was it just the word "reconnection" that was your trigger?

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.

[Higgsy]

They use deuterium because a) overcoming the Coulomb barrier is easier, and b) more energy is released than in the fusing of any other element. Once you get above iron the binding energy per nucleon of the product is greater than the consitiuents so you can never get net energy out.

They claim to see a lot of new elements below iron however, so that seems like an irrelevant point.

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?

It doesn't make sense from the point of view of the energy required to cause the reaction, and SAFIRE is using less driving voltage than most fusors (600V versus several kV). See my other post to JPM on this.

Well, I"ll have to do a bit of research on that issue since I'm not sure of the voltages or amperage typically used in most fusors, or the numbers associated with SAFIRE but suffice to say if fusors can accomplish the process of fusion, then there's no real logical reason why SAFIRE cannot achieve this same process.

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.

Furthermore, the elemental changes they observe would seem to suggest that they do fuse some elements.

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

Again, it's hard to verify much of anything related to SAFIRE in particular since a lot of the "details" have not been made publicly available. I doesn't makes sense to me however to 'rule it out' since it's based on essentially the same technology used in a typical fusor experiment.

It's not.

Oh come on - listen to the pitch again. Harvesting the power of the Sun, drawing diagrams that show a self sustaining system, explicitly saying the engineering is easy.

I asked you for specific quotes and instead of providing them you ask me to watch the video again? I've watched it several times now. I didn't get the same impression from the video as you did.

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.

Even if SAFIRE is guilty of getting caught up in their own hype, and even if they ultimately fail to produce a profitable product, I fail to see the point of "assuming" they're being intentionally dishonest.

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

I'd personally prefer to see SAFIRE publish a paper on their experiments with an anode solar model and conduct a similar series of experiments related to a cathode solar model, but alas I don't control SAFIRE, and such experiments are more along the lines of 'pure scientific research'.

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?

I can't however blame a 'for profit" institution for following the most likely (as they see it) path to profit.

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

If they were actually successful, it would indeed fundamentally change the nature of how we generate power on planet Earth, and it would indeed produce quite a bit of profit for it's investors.

Where have I heard that before?