Regarding specs and details and so on.... If you attended the conference, you would have seen a lot, and you could also speak with some of the people in the "after conference" area in the restaurant/bar area. In addition to Monty Child's presentation, there was also a presentation from one of their technical leads, and experienced plasma physicist who has worked with multitudes of plasma experiments with different configurations and geometries (I forgot his name). I don't know why it's not public yet, I'm sure there is a valid reason for it. The expectation is that many papers will be written as a result of the Saphire project, I think that is where you might find more scientific details.
antosarai
Re: SAFIRE Project
There's this recently released document regarding SAFIRE:
Way above my head, most of it, but apparently they're still just calibrating the set so to speak...
CharlesChandler
Re: SAFIRE Project
antosarai wrote: There's this recently released document regarding SAFIRE:
He said that the design of the apparatus itself is proprietary????? (See the top of pg. 3 in the PDF.) That's ridiculous. Who is even going to look at this research if they don't publish the specs on how the apparatus was built? For all we know, there IS NO apparatus.
D_Archer
Re: SAFIRE Project
CharlesChandler wrote:
antosarai wrote: There's this recently released document regarding SAFIRE:
He said that the design of the apparatus itself is proprietary????? (See the top of pg. 3 in the PDF.) That's ridiculous. Who is even going to look at this research if they don't publish the specs on how the apparatus was built? For all we know, there IS NO apparatus.
Stop joking Charles.
You also might not want to miss >
Fast forward to the IBEX mission referenced above, in particular the finding of high energy particle fluxes entering our solar system,6 and the potential for an electrical explanation for the sun becomes more plausible
Fast forward to the IBEX mission referenced above, in particular the finding of high energy particle fluxes entering our solar system,6 and the potential for an electrical explanation for the sun becomes more plausible
CharlesChandler wrote: For all we know, there IS NO apparatus.
Stop joking Charles.
I was exaggerating, but I wasn't joking. New scientific research doesn't become a solid building block in the foundation for further studies until it has been duplicated in an independent laboratory. To do this, the specs for the apparatus have to be published. If the researchers don't publish the specs, it begs a strange question: why don't the researchers want their work to be the foundation for further studies? But even before somebody attempts to duplicate the results in another lab, the only way to understand the results from the first experiment is within the context of the physical characteristics of the apparatus. So the general form is that you describe what problem you're investigating, and then what sort of apparatus you used, and then what data you got, and then you discuss your conclusions. I can't even develop a clear & distinct concept of how to interpret the results from a mystery apparatus. Other critical thinkers will say precisely the same thing.
Then, aside from the statistics that couldn't be explained, because they didn't reveal the design of the apparatus and expose the raw data, they did show one image of the (supposed) apparatus, which had anode spots on it. They concluded that these were anode tufts, and that these were like solar granules, establishing to their satisfaction that there was a similarity in kind between their apparatus and the Sun. But that's just ridiculous. Solar granules are Benard cells in plasma. Anode spots are concentrations of current density on a solid electrode, like the footpoints of the discharges on the central electrode within a plasma lamp. But they think that such a superficial similarity in appearance establishes a similarity in kind, and which can be quantified with statistical methods?
Fast forward to the IBEX mission referenced above, in particular the finding of high energy particle fluxes entering our solar system,6 and the potential for an electrical explanation for the sun becomes more plausible
Ummm... how does that enter into the test domain?
Solar
Re: SAFIRE Project
CharlesChandler wrote:
D_Archer wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: For all we know, there IS NO apparatus.
Stop joking Charles.
I was exaggerating, but I wasn't joking. New scientific research doesn't become a solid building block in the foundation for further studies until it has been duplicated in an independent laboratory. To do this, the specs for the apparatus have to be published. If the researchers don't publish the specs, it begs a strange question: why don't the researchers want their work to be the foundation for further studies? But even before somebody attempts to duplicate the results in another lab, the only way to understand the results from the first experiment is within the context of the physical characteristics of the apparatus. So the general form is that you describe what problem you're investigating, and then what sort of apparatus you used, and then what data you got, and then you discuss your conclusions. I can't even develop a clear & distinct concept of how to interpret the results from a mystery apparatus. Other critical thinkers will say precisely the same thing.
"Other critical thinkers" would not want to be bothered wasting time and money with trying to replicate an unfinished project at stage two of its development cycle. Needless to say early exposure can easily usurp experimental efforts at the hands of deeper pockets. I regularly encounter individuals claiming that a larger company "stole" their idea in early development stages and the courts are full of this kind of thing.
Using the faux open door policy of "science" in an attempt to overrule the rights of Intellectual Property at the hands of private investment can turn ugly and legal real fast. There are indeed a multitude of companies and private investment firms with a bevy of lawyers salivating in wait over the chew toy this kind of misapplied ideological contrast induces. Shall both the International Patent Office and Copyright protections be discarded for the sake of the open door policy of "science"? The answer is no: but you already know this. This is once again uselessly attempting to infuse the politics of personal opinion where it doesn't belong.
CharlesChandler wrote: Then, aside from the statistics that couldn't be explained, because they didn't reveal the design of the apparatus and expose the raw data, they did show one image of the (supposed) apparatus, which had anode spots on it. They concluded that these were anode tufts, and that these were like solar granules, establishing to their satisfaction that there was a similarity in kind between their apparatus and the Sun. But that's just ridiculous. Solar granules are Benard cells in plasma. Anode spots are concentrations of current density on a solid electrode, like the footpoints of the discharges on the central electrode within a plasma lamp. But they think that such a superficial similarity in appearance establishes a similarity in kind, and which can be quantified with statistical methods?
Sure, "anode spots" is a fairly common term. There is apparently an approach that thinks "granules" result from the 'merging' of these?? See: "Photospheric Granulation" and/or ARCS AND SPARKS PHOTO GALLERY So, I guess they are wanting to try that. Should be interesting.
CharlesChandler
Re: SAFIRE Project
Solar wrote: Shall both the International Patent Office and Copyright protections be discarded for the sake of the open door policy of "science"?
No, of course not. But first, I wasn't aware that EU theory was such a lucrative market, with investors and lawyers all salivating over the opportunities. That's encouraging, if it's true. Second, this doesn't change the fact that scientists aren't going to scrutinize data obtained from a proprietary apparatus — ever. As a matter of fact, the only reason to publish such data is for marketing purposes. Then, anybody purchasing the technology would make the sale contingent on the apparatus performing as advertised, since the buyer had no way of independently verifying this. Such is well understood by everybody. But what does this have to do with the public debate on solar theory? Nothing. What credibility will SAFIRE gain in the scientific community with a proprietary apparatus? None. Critical reviews require that every piece be inspected before adopting the conclusions, and there just isn't any getting around that fact. So data from the Solellus will only be meaningful to people interested in purchasing one. They cannot be introduced in scientific debates, because they can't be critically reviewed.
D_Archer
Re: SAFIRE Project
It is a DC regulated anode discharge in a bell jar, what more information do you want? They can repeat this experiment in kindergarten it is so simple.
I read the full PDF just now and they do give more details about the setup.
Regards, Daniel
CharlesChandler
Re: SAFIRE Project
D_Archer wrote: It is a DC regulated anode discharge in a bell jar, what more information do you want? They can repeat this experiment in kindergarten it is so simple.
Is it that, or is it a proprietary design? It can't be both.
Solar
Re: SAFIRE Project
CharlesChandler wrote:
D_Archer wrote: It is a DC regulated anode discharge in a bell jar, what more information do you want? They can repeat this experiment in kindergarten it is so simple.
Is it that, or is it a proprietary design? It can't be both.
LOL!
Ya dude. It appears to be a variation of one of these under a vacuum bell jar with fiber optics and a bevy of adjustable perams:
Solar wrote: You didn't read the .pdf and/or watch the video??
I watched the video and skimmed the PDF.
So, do you think that I'm going to put time into reviewing results, where the researchers don't publish the specs of the apparatus, but somebody else thinks that the apparatus is just like something on YouTube? No, I need the full EM schematic, and the physical properties of the electrodes and the gap between them.
phyllotaxis
Re: SAFIRE Project
Patience, good sir. Consider this objectively. It it were your experiment, and your goal were to present a clear and complete presentation of the process you aimed to display, would you hand out all of the details of an evolving process for critics to pick apart and dismiss at their convenience?
Especially factoring that a failure, or an incomplete example, would be painted as junk science by a hostile establishment that would use all manner and method of smears to delegitimize the real science you're trying to present.
You are impatient to see the nuts and bolts, and you are coming from a good place- but remember that your interest isn't the same as others.
I suspect that the world can wait a few years for proof without harm. Besides, what's the rush, and who is harmed by the careful secrecy surrounding these early phases of the work.
Nobody but the impatient, I say.
I look forward to the results, and I'm OK with waiting for these hard working scientists to make sure the table is set properly before releasing the specs.
CharlesChandler
Re: SAFIRE Project
phyllotaxis wrote: It it were your experiment, and your goal were to present a clear and complete presentation of the process you aimed to display, would you hand out all of the details of an evolving process for critics to pick apart and dismiss at their convenience?
Yes. Publishing the specs of an experimental apparatus, even before the apparatus has been built, to expose the design to critical review, is well within the bounds of good scientific practice. That's why I published my proposed design...
I was criticized for designing an apparatus to explicitly test the hypothesis that the Sun is a cathode. That, in fact, is not bad science, to explicitly state what you think something is. At least if that's out in the open, the way that it might have corrupted the initiative can be scrutinized. If the assumptions are kept hidden, their influence is tougher to evaluate. And make no mistake about the fact that there are always assumptions in play. They can be over or covert, but they are never not there. Still, my critics said that they wanted to keep a more open mind, and test all possibilities. Well, OK, as long as your assumptions aren't finding their way past your "open mindedness" and embedding themselves deep into the design. My suspicions were confirmed when I found that people thought that testing the cathode configuration was narrow-minded, but every time they started talking about how they thought the experiment should be conducted, it all revolved around demonstrating the characteristics of an anode. It was no surprise to me when people started posting that tests had been conducted, and "it's definitely an anode". Well of course — that's what they set out to prove in the first place, without honestly declaring their assumptions. It was also no surprise to me when more info was published (i.e., the statistical analysis of the results), confirming that the Sun is an anode, without revealing the design of the apparatus, and without even published the data so that somebody could double-check the statistics. What would surprise me would be if any legitimate scientist actually takes any of that seriously.
phyllotaxis wrote: Especially factoring that a failure, or an incomplete example, would be painted as junk science by a hostile establishment that would use all manner and method of smears to delegitimize the real science you're trying to present.
There isn't any way to legitimize the "real science" with "careful secrecy". One can only ignore anybody who would paint is as junk science, and do good work, for those who know good work when they see it.
phyllotaxis wrote: I suspect that the world can wait a few years for proof without harm.
Sure. But there is no sense in releasing their conclusions, that the Sun is "definitely an anode" prior to publishing the specs. Accepting the conclusion before inspecting the method by which it was formed is bad science — even if you end up agreeing — sooner or later, taking things on faith will result in errors. This is why science has a method. In fact, a conclusion can only be properly stated in the framework of how it was formed. "Here is the design of the apparatus; here are the data we collected; and here are our conclusions." Anything less is pseudo-scientific sleight of hand.
kiwi
Re: SAFIRE Project
CharlesChandler wrote:
So, do you think that I'm going to put time into reviewing results, where the researchers don't publish the specs of the apparatus, but somebody else thinks that the apparatus is just like something on YouTube? No, I need the full EM schematic, and the physical properties of the electrodes and the gap between them.
