LENR is occurring in SAFIRE

  • Thanks go to Max for finding this video from the Bath conference. Surprised no one has said anything about it yet. If you have the time, this is a very good watch. These guys are good to say the least. Anyone know if any of them are attending the ICCF next week?


  • Director,


    Thanks for providing. Very good video. Fills in some missing pieces, such as Safire is not part of, or affiliated with Thunderbolt. They were contracted by the International Science Foundation to test the electric sun theory back in 2011. Took the assignment because the sun does not emit gammas, which means "the physics of the sun is broken". Something that was new to me.


    During that research they discovered the transmutations, which after replicating the results themselves, and then validated independently through a government lab..."who found other things as well", they now confirm is real. Pursuing that now, but of course need money to do so.


    This could be the team that finally attracts serious attention from the mainstream. Certainly hard to ignore.

  • I think is great that they are testing the electric sun and finding stuff that is LENR related. I assume that at some point mainstream physics will be forced to accept the importance of magnetism as a fundamental cosmological and scale invariant force, as Wyttenbach has understood for his SO(4) model.


    That said, as SAFIRE gains notoriety I expect it to be fiercely attacked by mainstream as have been any prior attempt to dig deep in that side of the nature of knowledge.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I think is great that they are testing the electric sun and finding stuff that is LENR related.


    From the video, I get the strong impression Safire does not want to be identified with Thunderbolt's electric sun theory. in other words; when someone talks about the EST, they do not want people to automatically think of Safire. That project is over, and now on to getting the funding to track down where these transmutations are taking place. As of now, they are not sure if it is in the electrode, or the environment surrounding.


    Lots of talk about nuclear waste remediation being the most obvious application when, not if, developed. But according to Monte, that will have to involve partnering up with the government because of the restrictive regulations involved with anything nuclear. IMO, that is the same reason Larry Forsley's GEC is now working with NASA to develop their hybrid fission/LENR reactor. I believe he even mentioned that in one of his presentations?


    Since a government lab has already validated Safire's results, I would think they would be a likely partner. But then there are the AHE events Safire reported at this summers Bathe conference, which can be developed without being under the governments umbrella. If Anthropocene is reading, hopefully they jump on this. Actually, any of the others like IH or CP should be interested. Even Google, since the Berkely Lab component of the team already observed an exciting nuclear effect.

  • Interesting. In reading the comments of the new Safire video, I saw Structured Atom Model (SAM) mentioned as an explanation for the transmutations. Monty Childs wrote in response, that he is in contact with them (Edo is one of the founders). Here is the SAM website:


    https://etherealmatters.org/bo…documentation/our-mission


    At ICCF22, Edwin Kaal gave a presentation on SAM. Here is what Ruby reported on about that:


    "Nuclear Transmutation and Mass Defect explained with the Structured Atom Model (SAM) by Kaal, Etheral Matters LLC https://etherealmatters.org/

    I am just getting in and having a coffee, and this is super heavy theory at 8AM. Woah. He will have these files on his website and you can download the presentation there.


    He is talking about the "cycle of 8". The title of the slide is "SAM linked to the properties of the elements."


    SAM is the next step in the evolution of nuclear model structure. This fellow has a very interesting model on how the elements build from H through the periodic table. It is the 150th anniversary of the periodic table being organized and he is happy to bring this model out during this year.


    I am sorry but I must have another coffee. I'll be back for the next talk."


    So it appears there is some communication between principals of Safire, SAM, and some LENR theoreticians. Small world. Wish we could have the great minds of the "Golden Age of Physics" back again to look at this growing body of evidence supporting low energy transmutations. But then again, one of them (Bohr) warned Langumir away from reporting his own LENR results, so maybe they would have been as disbelieving as today's mainstream.

  • "Golden Age of Physics"

    The internal conflicts and spats around the Copenhagen era

    have been obscured

    by a goldtinted sepia..and dogma.


    Change gonna come rather than QM plus ca change

    I believe that change is imminent

    But the change is not going to be by ethereal SAM

    The magnetic forces in the nucleus cannot be wished away like this

    "There is only one fundamental force: the electrostatic attraction force that is acting between the proton and the electron.

  • Interesting. In reading the comments of the new Safire video, I saw Structured Atom Model (SAM) mentioned as an explanation for the transmutations. Monty Childs wrote in response, that he is in contact with them (Edo is one of the founders). Here is the SAM website:


    There is ample space for new atom models - at least as long as people do not thoroughly understand the physics of the nucleus.


    SO(4) physics is a basic model and gives a mathematical definition of the SO(4) quantum structure of any nuclei. This structures automatically reproduces the basic structure of the periodic system and allows to calculate e.g. magnetic moments or to analyze the gamma spectrum. It also explains why e.g. technetium is not stable.


    But the complexity of the nuclear structure is growing with each added n/p what leads to many possible alternative structures. Latest after 84Kr the main symmetries are gone and higher mass Isotopes start to look like complex aggregates of basic nuclear structures. Thus for practical purposes is is always helpful to have a good heuristic model like SAM (classic potentials only) or Philippe Hatts www.philippehatt.com model that is able to show the possible differences between isotopes.


    Nevertheless there will always be a difference between models that only (seem to) explain structures or are able to calculate nuclear properties. Calculation just started and is exact for the D-D fusion path. Going much further would need added man-power, what has to wait until physicists are able/willing to understand why SM/QED is a fail.

  • SAM makes that claim, to have found the structural rules that make up the nucleus. A simple algorithm does not work, since the nucleus is always looking for balance in the charges. This happens on a small scale up to 12 nucleons (nuclets, or clusters) , between the nuclets and the extra "neutrons" in the whole structure. Structural integrity if you will..
    Applying a linear logic will break every time, since the mentioned structures morph and change while adding nucleons.

    I agree that SM/QED has many fundamental flaws and/or assumptions that prevent us from gaining this understanding.

    The nucleus is much more complex and detailed then we currently think.. Time to open that 'black box".

  • We had a long debate about this. (Not sure the debate is over...)
    Here is a summary of this put together by Jan Emming (SAM):

    Dear AHG members,


    1. Recently, several papers have been circulating in the Ad Hoc Group relating to the nature and structure of the nucleus. Since nucleons have a magnetic moment, it may reasonably be assumed that currents are involved. The recent paper by Paolo Di Sia: The “Renaissance” in Nuclear Physics: Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions and Transmutations, makes this assumption and calculates the magnetic fields of coupled circulating currents. Their results show that in a close-packed nuclear lattice, valid binding energies and magnetic moments can be obtained by considering the magnetic forces between nucleons.

    However, comments by Jean-Luc Paillet, in a December 18, 2018 email to the Ad Hoc group, disputes the validity of the derivation of the magnetic field from electric currents using the Biot-Savart law. Andrew Meulenberg in an email of December 17, 2018 comments that he doesn’t think either that the derivation is correct, even though Di Sia may have the right concept.

    In the paper the nucleons are represented as circulating currents; see their Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, below. There are no assumptions as to the nature of the currents; only that they circulate in the two circuits 1 and 2. The author calculates the magnetic field at P2 caused by the current i1 for the two different “phasings,” implying that the currents vary in time.


    0?ui=2&ik=54c07d7182&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1627223932838519799&th=16950f8ba6daa3f7&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ8QW5qXSn-mbOkNR2Lu1PonMiCeHxjWZhJEFleEAhWXjOkXNbmtjodYvsxIqfyJH40UiNZW_QH-_NWcrdZJ_41G1zuhcWCcV_lRtgzDaO9yFEVTbhGNcEJL1NM&disp=emb                              0?ui=2&ik=54c07d7182&attid=0.2&permmsgid=msg-f:1627223932838519799&th=16950f8ba6daa3f7&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ9dS-m4nevO3zw-n4nuLTOvqRyQBA9A9k2vQScxcbYc_ni50p6ZE0DruVJbZOu1Rh2uPMF8qxHzItUVjakhUWGwPdq0sCn7XXOxB3J2iNYkO3JpAzn8b4HfpNI&disp=emb


    1. Feynman [1] and Griffith [2] both emphasize that Biot-Savart, strictly speaking, only applies to electrostatics. Griffiths states in section 5.2 that Biot Savart applies under the condition of “steady” currents (page 223). This means that the density of the circulating charge at each point must be constant: ∂i/∂t = 0. He also states that the law “represents a suitable approximation as long as the actual fluctuations are remote, or gradual.” However, in this situation, with time-varying fields, that stipulation doesn’t apply: time retardations should be considered. Thus, both Jean-Luc and Andrew are correct in their doubts about using the Biot-Savart law this way. However, there is more to the story.


    1. This Wikipedia article gives the time-dependent generalized equations of the Biot-Savart law by Jefimenko, but stops short of solving the equations. Griffiths uses a Taylor expansion of the Jefimenko integrals in which the higher order derivatives are ignored. He reaches the surprising conclusion that Biot-Savart can be applied after all, due to the cancellation of two errors in the final equation. In his words on page 451: “the Biot-Savart law holds, with the current evaluated at the non-retarded time. This means that the quasi-static approximation is actually much better than we had any right to expect: the two errors involved (neglecting retardation and dropping the second term in Eq. 10.38) cancel one another, to first order.”


    1. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the analysis in the paper by Di Sia, is defensible and that it can be applied to calculate binding energies and magnetic moments to a good approximation. This model of coupled ring currents appears to imply that the nucleus is a resonant system at a specific frequency, continuously exchanging energy between nucleons, manifested as mutual attraction or repulsion. All nucleons in a specific element/isotope accommodate each other, finding a way to resonate together. This also explains that there is a definite limit to adding protons or neutrons to a specific structure: at some point a “dissonant” candidate will not fit in. The analysis by Di Sia is made in the context of the FCC model from Norman Cook. It should also apply to the Structured Atom Model (SAM).


    1. One important issue/question is whether stability of the nucleus can be explained by EM theory. This model appears to provide the mechanism for that stability. Feynman [1] makes the categorical statement: There are no points of stable equilibrium in any electrostatic field – section 5-2. Since the atom is thought to be a collection of static negative electrons and positive protons, quantum mechanics was needed for stability of the atom. Similarly, for a stable nucleus the strong force was postulated. Thus, the electrostatic repulsion between electronic charges appears to be balanced by the dynamic magnetic attraction in a system of synchronized oscillators. If the wavelength of the current is related to the size of the nucleon, on the order of femtometers, then the frequency of the oscillators would be on the order of 1023 Hz. It appears that there is a direct analogy between the atom and the nucleus, in that both resonate at characteristic frequencies dependent on the number of oscillators/nucleons involved. Of course, the atomic (Rabi) oscillations are in the optical domain, with applications in magnetic resonance, solid state physics and quantum computing, for example. At the nucleon level, the resonances will be in the gamma ray region and any practical applications are way beyond current technology.


    1. Finally, regarding Bob Cook’s email of February 7, 2019, where he refers to Mac Wheeler’s upcoming presentation to the APS on the synchronization of (biological) oscillators. http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR19/Session/C56.11 It appears that Mac knows a lot about this subject and his paper should be relevant to the study of the nucleus, in addition to the biological applications mentioned in the thread of that email by Nigel Dyer. Nigel suspects a connection to proton-proton interaction for the synchronization. Could it be that the switching of proteins between two states approximately every 12 minutes, has something to do with the neutron decay time of 14 minutes? I am looking forward to see the text of Mac’s presentation in due time.


    References:

    [1] Feynman: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_toc.html

    Sections 5-2, 5-4, 14-1, 14-2, 14-5, and 14-7 (Biot-Savart)

    [2] Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th Edition (2017), Cambridge University Press, by David J. Griffiths-Kindle edition.

  • One important issue/question is whether stability of the nucleus can be explained by EM theory. This model appears to provide the mechanism for that stability. Feynman [1] makes the categorical statement: There are no points of stable equilibrium in any electrostatic field – section 5-2. Since the atom is thought to be a collection of static negative electrons and positive protons, quantum mechanics was needed for stability of the atom. Similarly, for a stable nucleus the strong force was postulated. Thus, the electrostatic repulsion between electronic charges appears to be balanced by the dynamic magnetic attraction in a system of synchronized oscillators. If the wavelength of the current is related to the size of the nucleon, on the order of femtometers, then the frequency of the oscillators would be on the order of 1023 Hz. It appears that there is a direct analogy between the atom and the nucleus, in that both resonate at characteristic frequencies dependent on the number of oscillators/nucleons involved. Of course, the atomic (Rabi) oscillations are in the optical domain, with applications in magnetic resonance, solid state physics and quantum computing, for example. At the nucleon level, the resonances will be in the gamma ray region and any practical applications are way beyond current technology.


    The perfect (average 9 digits) agreement with nuclear quantities and EM-theory is shown in SO(4) physics.


    The classic QM/QED space SO(3)xSU(2)x(U) completely lacks the symmetry to describe magnetic coupling. Even worse all QM base formalism (based on Dirac EQ) developed over the past 90 years completely ignores internal magnetism. Thus almost all discussions/papers based on old QM/QED reasoning can be thrown in the waste basket.


    It will be a hard wake-up when all these people in the self believe of their fame have to notice that they did act like clowns.


    One of their last actions was to self service in favor of their friends the breakthrough price of 3mio. for (absolute nonsensical ) work about super gravity, albeit one jury member was aware that gravity could be exactly explained as an SO(4) EM-force.


    There is one social rule: If highly paid people notice that they will loose their stake more than 50% of them develop criminal habits. Thus unpleasant times for physics world are ahead.