LENR is occurring in SAFIRE

  • The SAFIRE project got kicked in the teeth with LENR. These professional scientists really don't know what is going on. Just like in the SunCell, tungsten vaporizes in nanoseconds. Like the Hutchison effect, tungsten turns into powder. This video is long but if you are interested in LENR, it is worth the time. The LENR stuff starts at 33:00, but if you don't know what SAFIRE is, watch it from the beginning. If you are interested in the weird stuff that MFMP is finding, you will find more of it in this video. At 1:03:18, there is a large power discharge that the presenter did not want to talk about, but in past presentations, the output form these energy bursts was up to 20,000,000 watts and He3 was found, I have a felling that the SAFIRE project is in the process of patenting the fusion effects. The researchers may be going dark on this process. SAFIRE has opened the door to a new way to do plasma fusion without radiation and neutrons.

  • Very nice find Axil! I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that this gives a big boost to LENR research. Look from minute 52:52. Dr. Paul Anderson (SEM/EDS expert), after methodically listing the unexpected, unaccounted for, elements found in concentrations near the center of the melted, and fractured Tungsten Languir probe, mentions that some of the same results are being seen by the LENR community.

    As usual, for the skeptics in the audience, he had to say: "take it at face value", but went on to say that those like Mitsubishi are seeing transmutations, and while small..."they are real". Is this what it will take to crack the door open to academia? Soften them up a little bit to the idea that LENR was, and is still on to something?

    Very interesting video. Still have the Q&A to go.

  • This is captivating. If you have read from "minute 52.52" as I recommended, let me suggest you now start from the 35 minute mark, where the lead up to LENR begins. Before that point, it is equally informative, but more so for those of THH's interests.

  • Ha, what a bummer..."Physics cranks", is how "rational"wiki describes SAFIRE. Where have I read that before? Oh yeah, that is how they describe the LENR community.

    Point is that SAFIRE set out to prove "electricity plays a role in the suns processes", and got side tracked by some very unexpected observations. They did not plan it that way. It just so happened that they found transmutations, and architectural changes in the Languir Tungsten probe, which they associate, "possibly", to what the LENR community has been reporting now for 29 years.

    They were very scientific about it. Downplayed it actually. Guess they learned from FP's?

  • Any explanation to why plasma oragnizes into layers? Can it be due to the same machanism electrons surround ( not orbiting ) nucleus like in Mills model? What would happen of anode ball in the middle gets his magnetic field. Would layers take a form of Saturn rings alinigning on intertial plane? Guys are doing great reasearch for the tiny fraction of cern,iter etc.

  • Even better Eric, is to stick to the empirical data presented. SAFIRE, to their credit, gave plenty of that. Little of which, as I said, involved LENR, or anything exotic. When they mentioned LENR, it was with some hesitation, but with a sense it had to be said.

    Their overall message was simple, and non-controversial: "we set out to prove one thing, and instead discovered some effects we never expected...help us to understand". Or that is how I read it.

  • Any explanation to why plasma oragnizes into layers?


    I do not think the plasma "organized into layers" as you say. It was the Tungsten in the Langmuir temp probe, that was inserted into the plasma, that first vaporized. Then, after the probe was thickened, and ceramic coated (reinforced), to prevent vaporization, it (probe) melted, and fractured "into layers". This was from only 184 Ws input. Tungsten melts at 3600C, and boils at 6600C?

    It at first vaporized though, so whatever it was that happened, took it well over 6600C, as was said at the conference.

  • Shane, your point is well taken. But let me pursue this a little further: there's a danger in implicitly drawing an equivalence between various outcast systems of thought and treating them all as equals. For example, we might observe that LENR was treated unfairly, and the electric universe stuff is frowned upon, so LENR and the electric universe stuff must somehow belong in the same category.

    A very different view is likely to be found among many LENR researchers: they believe that what they're doing is bona fide science. They identify as members of the scientific community, they like empiricism, they like the community and culture of scientists, and they stick with their interest in LENR despite, not because of, its rogue status. They would not want to be associated with obviously fringe topics, even if the topic of their own interest is somewhat fringe. It's a subtle but important point to be made. To observe that LENR research may have been treated unfairly is not a carte blanche to say to oneself that anything that scientists frown upon is probably being treated unfairly.

    In this case, we have a flashy presentation following a somewhat ambling and unusual script with few definite conclusions, and we have a large conference, and a number of people interested in a topic I've only vaguely registered in the past, and the researchers up on the stage appear to have come upon some benefactors who perhaps have given them plenty of funds and a charge to look into the empirical basis of electric universe theory. That's interesting information. It doesn't tell us a whole lot, but all of this provides useful context for getting a sense of how rigorous and independent they've been and what they're looking for. And it gives us a vague sense of whether their findings, whatever they are, are going to make an impact on the larger scientific scene: we can conclude that they probably will not.

    With that context established, one's attention is freed up to focus in on the specifics of their observations as they relate to LENR so that they can be considered on their merits.

  • Well said also, but when you start off saying "outcast system of thought" when referring to SAFIRE, are you not admitting some bias before even delving into the data? Or maybe you are just playing devils advocate?

    By that measure (outcast thought), some of the greatest (not all) scientists were outcasts. Without their contributions, and fortitude in the face of their colleagues ostracisms, we would not be nearly so advanced as we are today. Hopefully, one day we can add the likes of FPs to that list.

    And may I ask if a "flashy presentation" has any bearing on the underlying points being made? Would it be more believable if the presentation were not flashy? By means of comparison, FPs were very crude, and decidedly boring, nothing fancy about them at all, yet they were clobbered anyways.

    And I agree, maybe it is time to focus on the specifics of the conference.

    Take care

  • I freely admit to bias. It is important to recognize it up front. I do not think one can rid oneself of bias. One acknowledges it and then seeks to move beyond it if one can.

    As far as I know, most of the great scientists in history, even if many have been independent and sometimes maverick thinkers, were fully embedded in the mainstream scientific discussions going on, including Fleischmann and Pons, They were part of the larger scientific community.

    The point about flashiness of presentation is a good indirect detail to take note of. It tells the observer that what is being witnessed is not in the mold of and following the conventions of scientific presentations, which tend to be dry and targeted to a specialized audience. This presentation is to a general audience, perhaps to give a status report to laypeople on what they've done with the all of benefactors' money over the preceding few years. The question that comes up that one does not have enough information to answer is whether they would be able to give a convincing presentation with solid conclusions to be defended in the more specialized mode before a room of other scientists. Perhaps they could.

  • Well, getting back to presentation; the thing that struck me the most were the unexplained transmutations, which just so happen to bear some similarities to what LENR researchers have found.

    As my dad used to say: a SEM is a SEM, is a SEM. It is what it is, and no flashy presentation can change what the analysis concludes. And Dr. Anderson...a SEM expert, said the probe has some elements on it that can not be explained away by way of contamination, and that the LENR community has found the same type transmutations.

    Another is the vaporizing of the Tungsten Probe, from only a 184 W fed plasma.

    I will let you scientists take it from here, and get back to what I am paid the big bucks for...trashing Rossi. :)

  • I have my suspicions about tungsten fissioning and undergoing accelerated alpha decay under electric discharge, going back to the 1922 Wendt and Irion experiment where they exploded tungsten wires and reported seeing helium (a report they later retracted), and another related experiment that might have predated them. (Tungsten has an isotope that is an alpha emitter.)

  • From an engineering point of view, guys like Bob Higgins or Biberian alerted me that active tube from my own reactor would be leaking hydrogen at high temperatures because it's made of steel therefore Rossi are made of steel too..

    You can see in Axil's article he found, (thanks for him) that Saphire uses this property of leakage through a metal lattice to produce high concentrations of H +.

    Finally, background from retirees can't fight against imagination from youngest .. humor.

    To add, Dewey Weaver couln't understand this because he sponsors only old staffs..

  • Did their SEM guy joke saying if you look long enough in SEM you will find everything.

    Yb spectrum was doubted as overlap. BTW Bob saw Yb too. Software bug?

    Isotopic change analisys is flawed and easy to debunk. Before there is a widely accepted method measure compete in and out change endless debadw will continue.

    Few month ago biological transmutations were reported by Russian dude from Kazan.

    He showed x Ray spectorgraphy test results with virually entire periodic table.

  • Did their SEM guy joke saying if you look long enough in SEM you will find everything.

    Yb spectrum was doubted as overlap. BTW Bob saw Yb too. Software bug?

    Isotopic change analisys is flawed and easy to debunk. Before there is a widely accepted method measure compete in and out change endless debadw will continue.

    Few month ago biological transmutations were reported by Russian dude from Kazan.

    He showed x Ray spectorgraphy test results with virually entire periodic table.


    Yes, Paul Anderson did joke that if you look long enough in SEM, you will find anything. I do not know what to make of that. Maybe what he saw was so "out there" from what he expected to see, he had doubts about it himself. Can not blame him if so. It is a natural human tendency when seeing something extraordinary, and unexpected, as many LENR researchers can attest to. But then he went right into how the LENR community has found the same thing in their SEM analysis.

    And maybe I am wrong, but have not the Russians been reporting both biological, and LENR transmutations for years?

  • a question, If we now see similar phenomena. How do we communicate this to them? (SAFIRE team)


    That is an interesting proposition. Will opening up communications with LENR help, or hurt them? Kind of like a catch 22 IMO; open communications/collaborations, and that may help them understand what they are seeing, but hurt them because their colleagues may then shun them for being associated with CF.

  • axil yes Russians did report transmutations for years. But the method used to determine isotopic composition is an easy target for sceptics. Unless you can use 100% pure material inside of your reactor there will be people saying that what you see on SEM it is 0.04% impurities concentrated where you point your probe to. And new elements are simply impurities that were trapped inside of your reactor parts and you did not see them on your initial analysis.

    I do believe in transmutations taking place though.

  • a question, If we now see similar phenomena. How do we communicate this to them? (SAFIRE team)

    I have been previously in contact with them and wrote them again yesterday re: material alterations/transmutation and hinted at what MFMP has been doing with Hutchison samples.

    I'll report back if I hear anything