Homepage Forums Noise, ZPE, AGW (capped*) etc. safire project and coronal fusion

This topic contains 29 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by Avatar meems 1 year, 5 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #13769
    Avatar
    meemoe_uk
    Member

    Well here’s the link to get Monty’s 1st results paper on SAFIRE. Its free but you have to give them your name and address, and then click on a small text download link. takes 3 minutes.
    I have a copy so I could upload it and make a direct link under fair use if you want.
    The paper doesn’t describe coronal fusion, but it does quantitatively describe corona structure, behaviour, and plasma hydrogen chemistry. Monty said they had evidence for fusion and that’s what he’s working on now.

    http://www.thunder-stuff.com/product/safire-paper-1/
    ( click add to cart button, click checkout button, fill in ID, click place order, click download text link )

    You’re right, the coronal fusion model is not yet quantitative. Its currently only empirical and qualitative. But gotta start somewhere.

    >There are certainly things in EU that seem to contradict much of what we know of electromagnetism. If the Sun and other stars are positively charged, why don’t they get neutralized? … EU seems to hypothesize a flow of current indefinitely outward from a point

    Leif Svalgaard seemed fixated on this same impression of EU and he could never get over it when I tried to discuss EU with him years ago. I don’t know where this idea originates, but its absurd. It may have originated within the gravity-centric cosmology community as a straw-man way of dismissing EU theory. Also EU is a popular front for plasma cosmology so it has a problem with circulating weak ideas that are appealing but not scientifically plausible.

    The sun sun’s corona has electrical capacitance in the form of plasma double layers, so it can be charged with an input voltage. No need to violate laws of charge conservation, just need to ask where the input voltage comes from. Broadly the proposed answer is energy comes from coronal nuclear fusion, the electric field comes from plasmoid decay en-mass in the corona, but I’m not clear on the mechanism. I’m looking forward to Monty’s next batch of safire results in June this year.

    #13882
    Avatar
    JSchraufnagel
    Participant

    Meemoe_UK, I want to reply to one thing about EU from your April 3rd comment.

    “EU has a problem with circulating weak ideas that are appealing but not scientifically plausible.”

    This is certainly not true when it comes to anthropogenic global warming. The EU has taken an wildly anti-scientific stance on this issue. Posting articles that claim among other things that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and global warming stopped in 1998. Right wing climate change deniers are given prominent placement. A world that welcomes the Koch Brothers and their Big Oil cronies is not a place we want to hang out in.

    #13883
    Avatar
    bcreighton7
    Participant

    meemoe_uk wrote: ok, but it was reasonable to expect there’d be more interest on this forum for safire. We’re supposed to like plasma cosmology and plasmoid fusion right? I didn’t expect us just to silently commend the progress of safire, I expected us to discuss the ramifications of safire on theory of fusion power.

    For instances, I’m consider myself a noob, but this thought came to me quickly :

    The sun, x-ray binaries, and quasars have axial beams of ions. In the lab, the artificial induction and harnessing of such beams is the goal of FF1. It space, its reasonable to assert these beams are created in the corona ( the alternative is any beam that was created inside the star would have to punch thru the outer surface of the star )

    Now we have safire producing ultra high power events with its corona. Is there a way they could be made to all fire along an axis? I think applying an external magnetic field or electric field would allign these events. And there ya go. A quasar in a bottle, and a lot easier than FF1. No need for expensive capacitor banks and switches. The corona creates its own capacitance with natural electric double layers and fires itself when its ready. The ion & X-ray absorption chamber designed for FF1 should work for a corona fusion power device just as well.

    While you are promoting CF as a more “natural” and easier solution to fusion, isn’t your proposal a lot like the horribly expensive tokamaks in the need to apply an exterior magnetic field? It may may be simpler tho in that the magnetic field would not need to contain the reaction, but simply channel the e- stream. The research has a way to go. FF is proven. It creates fusion. The main issues are related to engineering. CF has a lot of work to get where FF is now. I believe it may prove quite difficult to outwardly apply the type of natural magnetic field that occurs naturally in quasars.
    How do you propose to do it?

    #26035
    Avatar
    meems
    Participant

    >isn’t your proposal a lot like the horribly expensive tokamaks in the need to apply an exterior magnetic field?

    it has the common requirement of an external electric or magnetic field, yes, but so does FF1.

    >FF is proven. It creates fusion.

    So does safire. But Monty wasn’t expecting it so soon, give him chance to write it up. His schedule was already set : results released summer 2017.

    > CF has a lot of work to get where FF is now.

    By what measure is FF so far ahead of CF? Both are reporting nuclear reactions of the lightest nuclei. FF research has more accumulated hours, but CF research has a shorter path to fusion power than FF. The energy capture for a CF device can be the same as used for FF.

    > I believe it may prove quite difficult to outwardly apply the type of natural magnetic field that occurs naturally in quasars.

    If that is the case then it affects FF and CF equally. Both are called a’ quasar in a bottle ‘ or ‘ star in a jar ‘.

    You seem to think creating magnetic and electric fields is hard or expensive for modern engineers. It isn’t either.

    And ( I may regret bringing this up ) CF has better establishment backing and better funding prospects than FF. CF can hide under the cloak of ‘solar modelling research’, while FF is a straight up attempt to create practically free energy for all. Energy companies want to monetize energy, not make it free, so FF is always going to be on a shoestring budget.

    For more info, SAFIRE now has its own website
    http://www.safireproject.com/

    Note one of aspects of the corona they are researching is how the corona stores and discharges energy. In line with what I was saying months ago, this is a crucial part of how the corona creates fusion.
    – they didn’t initially set out to research this, they just found it among the most fascinating aspects of corona physics.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Avatar meems.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Avatar meems.
    #26041

    Moved out of Focus Fusion Cafe as not related to FF.
    Future Safire related topics will be moved to Noise forum as there is no evidence of potential for net energy such as evidence production of sub-atomic particles.

    #26053
    Avatar
    meems
    Participant

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Avatar meems.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Avatar meems.
    #26056
    Avatar
    meems
    Participant

    The cafe forum states explicitly for “random things related to fusion”.
    Discussion doesn’t have to be strictly related to FF.

    ” there is no evidence of potential for net energy such as evidence production of sub-atomic particles. ”

    Nice to have on this forum who knows about SAFIRE enough to give a definite answer.

    Then why in 2015 did Monty Childs give a presentation on results from safire announcing detection atomic mass 3, from starting gas of hydrogen?
    Was he lying or did he his team make a major mistake?

    #26057
    Avatar
    meems
    Participant

    In the presentation the atomic mass 3 reading was interpreted as evidence for 3 possibilities
    tritium and helium3 were interpretations for nuclear reactions
    triatomic hydrogen was for a electro-chemical reaction

    #26058
    Avatar
    meems
    Participant

    however since tri-atomic hydrogen is unstable, a reading of 18% atomic weight 3 is decent evidence for synthesized tritium or helium3

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Avatar meems.
    #26060
    Avatar
    meems
    Participant

    To suggest its tri-hydrogen means that Monty is intentionally presenting misleading data – he could have switched off the power source, and tri-hydrogen production would stop and readings for atomic mass 3 would drop to zero in a millisecond as tri-hydrogen decays with a half life of 1 micro second.

    The most logical interpretation of Monty’s lecture was that he’d found strong evidence for fusion in his preliminary test, but was embarrassed to announce such a revolutionary result without very rigorous testing, so was being reserved.

    Will this forum accept Coronal Fusion in Summer 2017 when SAFIRE release its main results?

    I’ll save these forum pages, and link to them later. I’ve got a feeling the mods here don’t like discussion of Coronal Fusion, it would be a shame if information was deleted.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Avatar meems.
    #26062
    Avatar
    meems
    Participant

    plz excuse, I had to chop up my reply because the forum doesn’t allow the colon character, which was in my initial post.
    I didn’t know this, so i submitted bits that the forum accepted, until by deduction I found it refused the part with the colon in. ( 2 dots stacked vertically )

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Avatar meems.
    #26066

    Hi Meems,
    Thank you for your reply. Please note that even reporting something is not considered evidence. Every single discredited approach has reported significant results: Cold-fusion (and later LENR), Sono-fusion, Blacklight, ZPE, magnetic power generators or hydrogen cars, etc. As such while some of us want to remain hopeful, other people do not appreciate seeing that discussion in the main section of forums and it makes them disbelieve in what we are doing as well. As such this is the reason why this part of the forum exists to capture any discussion without demands for evidence. The best evidence would be a reproducible experiment of Safire project (where reproduction is performed by a neutral party) which certainly would raise its credibility as potential route to fusion.

    #26069
    Avatar
    meems
    Participant

    Ok. I appreciate for some needs, there is a conservative definition of evidence as you stated. But its a little sad this is the one required before discussion is allowed in the fusion cafe forum. Speculation and brainstorming on topics on the edge the knowledge is a necessary part of human progress. Many new ideas and inventions were maverick, and not recognised till much later. Internet forums would be a nice place to discuss maverick idea & experiments, as well as more developed ones. But the internet in general in the last few years has become distinctly less tolerant of discussion of new ideas compared to 10 , 15 year ago.

    Anyway. I hope we can continue to follow and discuss the exciting SAFIRE project in this noise forum. Given the large amount of interest in it, and the simplicity of the experimental setup, I think its reasonable to expect other groups to replicate SAFIRE within 4 years.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Avatar meems.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Avatar meems.
    #26121
    Avatar
    Engineer
    Participant

    I was wondering how the suns corona stays hotter than the photosphere. I’m guessing that solar magnetic fields keep “stirring” coronal charged particles to make up for radiational cooling. Certainly magnetic fields are moving to create flares that pump more particles into the corona. Mini flares certainly contain plasmoids. Both gravitational fusion and dpf are happening but Mostly gravity.

    #30815
    Avatar
    meems
    Participant

    SAFIRE have released their 2017 Summer conference lecture to the public on youtube.
    I was a little disapointed, seems they haven’t made much progress in terms of science since 2 years ago. However they now have an expensive high-tech laboratory.
    – Accidentally melted 2 expensive tungsten langmuir probes.
    – chemically analysed one of the melted probes and found it to contain unexpected elements
    – recreated the results they got with their preliminary lab and experiment of 2 years ago.

    – Melted the surface of their anode

    – inadvertently chemically eroded \ veneered the inner wall of their test chamber due to plasma experiments

    It all seems a bit amateurish compared to Lawrenceville. But their efforts are sincere and their funding is copious, so I’m hopeful they will make progress after what I’d like to assume are teething errors. Plasma physics ain’t easy, and they are proceeding without much advise from veterans in plasma research , e.g. u lot. They have Donald Scott, an experienced and capable electrical engineer as an advisor, but he’s not a plasma scientist.

    It’s sad for me to see that my 2 favourite plasma research groups are not associating with each other.
    One of them has copious funding but lacks expertise, the other has experts but lacks funding. I wish Eric would lay his battleaxe to one side and phone Monty and advise him on plasma. If Eric refuses to stop the war, then maybe someone more pacifist within this group can contact the SAFIRE group. There’s a good chance it’d be mutually beneficial. The private backers of safire would likely be willing to fund Lawrenceville.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.