Abstract: MW1.00084 : Study of striations in a spherically symmetric hydrogen discharge
Authors: Lowell Morgan (Kinema Research \& Software, LLC) Monty Childs (Aurtas International, Inc.) Michael Clarage (Aurtas International, Inc.) Paul Anderson (Aurtas International, Inc.)
We have observed, in experiments similar to those of [1, 2], multiple spherically symmetric striations or double-layers in a hydrogen discharge, sometimes containing a small amount of helium having a total gas pressure in the range 0.7 - 5 Torr. The discharge is a positive corona around a 6mm diameter steel anode driven by a 600V, max 3 Amp DC power supply. Using mass spectrometry we have found that sometimes as much as 10{\%} of the H2 is dissociated into atomic hydrogen. The dominant positive ion is H+3. We have performed UV, visible, and near-IR spectroscopy of the plasma looking at line ratios and Stark broadening in order to obtain an estimate of electron temperature and density. We have also performed Abel transforms on images of the striations in order to find the true relative broad band emissivity from the optically thin plasma as a function of radius out from the anode finding that, typically, it peaks several anode radii out into the plasma striations. Some modeling and simulation of the plasma chemistry and transport will also be presented. Research supported by the International Science Foundation. \[4pt] [1] Nerushev, \textit{et al}., Phys. Rev. E \textbf{58}, 4897 (1998).\[0pt] [2] Belikov {\&} Sakhapov, J. Phys D \textbf{44}, 045202 (2011).
If anybody knows where the full paper can be found, please let me know.
Yes, we discussed that briefly, starting on page 2 of this thread. My comment was that nobody is going to even look at research if it uses a "proprietary design" for the apparatus. There is no way to interpret the results if you don't even know how they got them. It's like saying, "We measured a temperature of 86 degrees, and we conclude such-and-such." Well, OK, where did you take this measurement? And what kind of thermometer was it? Without that information, "86 degrees" is meaningless. For anybody with any scientific aptitude whatsoever, Anderson's presentation of statistics without revealing the specifications of the apparatus, and without even revealing the raw data that were collected, was just as meaningless.
We're not going to fight bad science WITH bad science, are we?
phyllotaxis
Re: SAFIRE Project
I still submit that all of their research will be released in time - and besides, what can we do but wait bud?
CharlesChandler
Re: SAFIRE Project
phyllotaxis wrote: what can we do but wait bud?
We can continue with our investigations.
upriver
Re: SAFIRE Project
It seems as though if you use a bigger electrode you would be able to see double layer features much better as well as put an electromagnet inside...
Thats what I thought SAFFIRE was....
upriver
Re: SAFIRE Project
And so they are going to do the exact same paper as cathode measurements, right?
Its possible that at the right current and pressure the sun does a Abnormal Glow Discharge causing a CME...
upriver wrote: And so they are going to do the exact same paper as cathode measurements, right?
Exactly the same as what? All that they did so far was to set the voltage on a spherical anode low enough that they didn't get any arc discharges, but they did get a couple of anode spots in glow mode. (They could have gotten the same effect by putting a rheostat on a plasma lamp.) Then they found a strong statistical correlation between their anode spots and solar granules. I challenge them to run the exact same code to test for a correlation between sunspots and the freckles in the following image, and I predict that they'll find a much stronger relationship than between the anode spots in a plasma lamp versus granules. Look at the spacing, the latitudinal grouping, and the umbral/penumbral differentiation. If she ever pops a zit, I'll be tempted to call it a CME.
To make a meaningful correlation between two things, you have to do more than just show that they look alike, at least to the satisfaction of whatever extremely loose-fit statistical methods you're using. Rather, you have to show that they look the same, and for all of the same reasons. But what SAFIRE is doing is what I call pseudo-scientific statistical sleight-of-hand. So why would they bother?
IMO, they're preparing for a Discovery Channel program to be aired sometime in the not-too-distant future. They're going through all of the motions to make it look like they're doing science. And they have high-power backing. But what they're doing isn't going to pass critical review. Thus they're not going to convince any serious scientists. So why bother? I "think" that there is only one possibility — they want to smear some sci-fi all over the Discovery Channel, this time in the name of the EU, to further polarize the mainstream against the EU. Then, anybody who talks about any sort of EM theory will get labeled as one of those people, and won't be taken seriously. This is why I can't get any traction with my EM theory of tornadoes — people have already heard of electric tornadoes in sci-fi shows, and they associate electric tornadoes with UFOs, ESP, etc. The stunt that Richard Heene (father of the Balloon Boy) pulled was carefully choreographed. He believed in electric tornadoes, and UFOs, and he built a UFO-shaped balloon to launch into tornadoes to study them. Then he staged a media event that surprisingly (?) went sour on him, and totally discredited him and everything about him, including electric tornado theory. I'm not making this up — I had more serious discussions with theorists before the Balloon Boy stunt — now nobody wants to touch EM tornado theory with a 10-foot pole. The mainstream meteorological community was quite pleased. So, I'll be a little bit surprised if I see the Discovery Channel cover SAFIRE in conjunction with UFO and ESP theories, but not overwhelmingly surprised, considering the apparent agenda. They're not trying to do solid science — they trying to stereotype the EU as sloppy pseudo-science.
I challenge them to run the exact same code to test for a correlation between sunspots and the freckles in the following image, and I predict that they'll find a much stronger relationship than between the anode spots in a plasma lamp versus granules. Look at the spacing, the latitudinal grouping, and the umbral/penumbral differentiation. If she ever pops a zit, I'll be tempted to call it a CME.
