[meems]

Don’t be so closed minded.
They are laying out what they doing, how they are doing it, and the results the are getting for all to see.
You are supposed to be plasma scientists and as such u have a moral duty to try replicate results of others where possible. Their initial experiment was little more than a standard plasma ball in a bell jar powered up a little to get concentric spherical doubles layers. Its hardly beyound the capacity of the plasma science community to replicate such results.
The only thing holding them back wrt credibility is you are your ilk who dismiss out of hand anything and everything they do, breaking science procedure specifically to deny them the credibility of replication of results by an independent group.
The least you can do is be cordial and help spread word of their work, but no, inline with your mindless denigration you have to dismiss them as ‘pseudo’ religious. So what if they haven’t got mass manufactured stars in jars available to the public via ebay for $49.99, neither has Lawrenceville. You are merely further ahead in your research after 60 years work since the 1st DPF devices. Lucky for DPF research that you weren’t around in the 1950s, looking as you are to stamp out any new lines of plasma research.

You continue to confirm my initial thoughts on you lot : you are butthurt that Monty has fundamentally improved the ‘star in a jar’ hypothesis in that he’s got a natural capacitor bank in the spherical shell doubles layers around the anode. In doing so he’s made his experiments and ultimately the end product far simpler than Lawrenceville with its capacitor banks.
That SAFIRE is now swimming in funding must be another nail in the heart of Lawrenceville.

Well, congrats. Your out of hand dismissals of SAFIRE has achieved something : You’ve one got one less science graduate writer singing your praises on the internet now. I’ve followed Lawrenceville avidly for years. But its been a disappointment to see Eric attack SAFIRE. It’s been ongoing for years now. I can’t be endlessly paternally forgiving of his zealous war against scientists who improve on his ideas. I’ve allowed him to have his knee jerk tantrum response, and given him more than enough time to calm down and sensibly consider Coronal fusion.
History will record his petty disdain. Don’t feel too bad. Newton was just as guilty of attacking his peers because they threatened his glory. I still hope Lawrenceville does well, and reconciles with Monty and his hard working SAFIRE team. But I hope SAFIRE does better. By this I mean that yesterday I would have shared out funding between my 2 favourite plasma research groups Lawrenceville and SAFIRE, but starting from today I’d take Lawrencville’s funding and given it all to SAFIRE. :p
That’s what I’ll be suggesting in my online writings from now on!
:p

You’ll be glad to know I’ve saved this thread and the other one, so I can share it on sites much more popular than this quiet forum and we don’t have to worry about the mod deleting them.

[meems]

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.

[meems]

the first link barely mentions the fifth power scaling, the 2nd is inaccessible nightmare level maths. No insight can be gained from either of them. I think this is why I’m asking the question after all these years. Is there any way to explain the 5th power scaling at some intermediate level, like somewhere between college and 3rd year undergrad level?

Btw that maths model is such a mashup i think u’d be miles better with a numerical model + computer simulation.

[meems]

Hi Francisl,
You referred to the start conditions of low pressure gas getting transformed to high pressure inside a micro plasmoid.
This avoids the point I made. I’m talking about higher pressure start conditions. Not the conditions late in the process inside micro plasmoids.
Can plasmoids form in higher pressure start conditions, such as in liquid or solid?

[meems]

So I’ve conducted this experiment

the ‘ask an expert’ experiment

– ask a fusion expert if they know about a p + p -> d
– get a response
– point out to them if they can’t answer in the positive about p + p -> d then that’s evidence against there being evidence for p + p -> d

and the result was :

– got no answer on p + p -> d

so the conclusion is :

– this evidence suggests there is no lab evidence for p + p -> d

sorry to all those in my situation looking for evidence on p + p -> d if that’s too indirect for you.
Its like trying to detect neutrinos. Doing it directly is impossible, you have to be content with indirect methods.

[meems]

Hi Francisl,
I am curious. I am not thinking of benefits atm. I will perhaps consider benefits once I know more about how it can happen, plus see some write ups on evidence.

from you prior posts I consider u to be a heavyweight pro-fusioneer. I only chat about it occasionally as a hobby. If you yourself aren’t aware of p + p -> d evidence or some theory that makes it more common than standard theory, then that itself is evidence against a replicable p + p -> d experiment!

[meems]

btw, from my understanding of nuclear physics, fusion and protons, it is my guess that there is no direct evidence for p + p -> d, even in plasmoid fusion.

He2 has negative binding energy, i.e. even when the protons have got past the coluomb barrier, and their interaction dominated by the strong force, they still repulse. A miracle has to happen at the exact time the protons coincide, the miracle of positron emission, then, if the protons collision energy was within a narrow band, then they can stay together as deuterium.

Its just a little bit too magic. Hence formal education says a proton in the sun has to wait an average of 5 billions year to become a deuterium. Hence they’ll never replicate it its so rare.

If theory is correct then engineering p+p->d will involve getting temperature of the fusion environment optimal so that the mean energy of protons is in the narrow band.

The forum is so quiet atm, I might try emailing lawrencville staff to get a response if no response here.

[meems]

I’ve been so exicited by the prospect of weaponised plasmoids.
For the last 2 years I’ve chased my dog – Ben – round the house with a tennis racket, pretending its a handheld dense plasma focus weapon. I line up Ben in the cross hair and fire an electron beam at him. The electrons get inside Ben and form plasmoids, which then crush his oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen ions and fuse them into heavier elements such as iron. Ben turns into a lump of fused dense metal. Bit like the gun off ‘Another World’ ( ‘Out of This World’ in the US ).

Mum tells me off, but I tell her that every day Eric and his team are one step closer to making this a reality.

[meems]

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.

[meems]

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 )

[meems]

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.

[meems]

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

[meems]

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

[meems]

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?

[meems]

[Author]

Posts