[devaiops9001]

Tokamak is dumb. I'm sick of hearing about Tokamak.

The plasma in the Safire reactor has self-containing magnetic fields and doesn't need the $20billion+ super-magnet infrastructure. A Safire reactor costs under $20-million to build, and probably much less these days.

The Safire reactor can keep the plasma lit and going for hours if not days without interruption. The Safire reactor has been around for over seven years now.

[itishappy]

Has it been verified to actually work? A 7 year old fusion startup focusing energy on a documentary doesn't scream serious scientific research to me...

https://aureon.ca/

https://www.safireproject.com/

[devaiops9001]

The Safire type 2 reactor has been working for over seven years now. The documentary they already made is to document the process of creating the Safire type 3 reactor which can process liquid.

The results of the Safire type 3 reactor rendering radioactive material benign were done by a third party, which means independent, laboratory. They literally spell this out in terms that even a complete idiot can understand in the documentary you just pointed out. Hence why a very small part of their team spent some documenting what the science team did to make Safire type 3.

[itishappy]

Where can I find these results published?

[devaiops9001]

Given you wrote "focusing energy on a documentary doesn't scream serious", you give the impression you are just going to ignore the findings they have published. There's plenty video showing the plasma running for far more than the "world records" of these external-magnet reactors (Tokomak, and that other Helion one), so I don't know what to point you to that can actually help you.

In the documentary they published, they do waste the viewer's time with "look at this lab we built", but if they feel passionate about telling the story of their journey, that's fine. Also in the documentary, they share some of their data and what they did to validate that data with a third party.

[itishappy]

I suspect the current record for sustained plasma is owned by fluorescent lighting, so not sure that's a valuable metric.

My comment that it doesn't seem like "serious science" means that I'm going to ignore anything not peer reviewed and I suggest others do the same.

I honestly still wish them the best, they just have a lot of work to convince anyone they're really dealing with anything new or interesting, and I don't think that video production is the path to that.

[devaiops9001]

Sustained plasma fusion, not simply sustained plasma, which is not what we are talking about here, is held by Safire by far.

>> sustained plasma is owned by fluorescent lighting

This is an NPC "I deliberately misunderstand the argument" tier response.

>> I don't think that video production is the path to that.

If you aren't intelligent enough to see in the raw video footage that you are looking at something new and novel, that's not their problem.

That said, their materials have been published and reviewed. You can find them if you look. I'm not here to spoonfeed you.

[exitheone]

Nobody has ever independently verified any of the claims Safire has made. It's wishful thinking at best and a scam at worst.

[devaiops9001]

The results of the Safire type 3 reactor were verified by a third party lab. It's amazing that you can just post out of your ass like that as if you have any idea what the hell you're talking about.

[exitheone]

Maybe I'm just bad at it but your claim does not show up on Google. Can you please give me a report that shows which lab verified it and the results? And no, a random video from the Safire website does not count because my assumption is that they are scam artists.

[devaiops9001]

>> my assumption is that they are scam artists.

If you sincerely believe they are scam artists, then please explain something for us.

The finding, shared at the EU 2017 conference here https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI , documented on video, is an example of a Langmuir probe (a tungsten rod) evaporating.

After the tungsten rod evaporated, the Safire team tried a much larger tungsten rod which did not immediately evaporate, but rapidly decayed, as was documented.

If the Safire team is a team of scam artists, how were they able to do something new that had not been done* before?

Is there any example of this given before year 2017? Is any other team able to take credit for this finding?

[*] done unclassified, many suspect this knowledge was already attained in classified (as in national security secrets) type environments.

>> your claim does not show up on Google.

I want to make sure I answer your question, can you narrow down which claim you are asking about?

As far as "which laboratory verified the results of the Safire type 3 reactor rendering radioactive material benign?", I will reach out to them and just ask them.

[exitheone]

The EU 2017 conference is not a science conference, it's a pseudo-science conference with little to no evidence or science behind it. Anyone claiming any wild thing can go and present there. There is no actual peer reviewed evidence here.

So as long as no reputable independent team is a able to verify their claims, I'll remain extremely sceptical. So far all we have are wild claims and fancy videos all from a single source and that just won't cut it to convince me.

[devaiops9001]

I appreciate your tacit yet loud acknowledgement that you are UNABLE to provide a single example pre-dating year 2017 where a tungsten rod was demonstrated to rapidly decay when exposed to a plasma fusion reaction.

A scam artist would not be able to originally discover and present such a result.

>> So as long as no reputable independent team is a able to verify their claims

The Safire team has worked directly with LLNL, which is as "reputable" as Science(TM) gets.

>> The EU 2017 conference is not a science conference

Nobody said the EU 2017 is not a Science(TM) conference. The Safire team is just one of many speakers there.

[daveguy]

Let me guess... Rossi's e-cat laboratory verified it for them?

[devaiops9001]

Given the details the Aureon team has shared, very clearly not Rossi's lab. I don't want to hurt your feelings or whatever here, I'm just going to be very very honest with you, if your comment wasn't so obviously in bad faith, that would be a very dumb guess.

[aunty_helen]

There was a front page hn article this week about institutions keeping the reason for their creation going. ITER has always felt this way for me.

[pfdietz]

It's not a coincidence that the ITER project will be about one career long.

[devaiops9001]

Tokamak would fall in this category too.

[pfdietz]

You don't need to believe in "Safire" (or any other fusion technology) to think tokamaks are a bad idea. They're bad all on their own.

[devaiops9001]

Here is video footage of plasma in a Safire reactor causing a tungsten rod to rapidly decay, or at least that's what looks like is happening, not "vaporizing" (in scientific terms)

https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI

[aqme28]

I did my masters in Tokamak simulation so maybe I'm biased (though I am a bit of a stellarator fanboy).

But I've never heard of SAFIRE. I've been on their website, and I can't find anything explaining what SAFIRE is and especially nothing about why it's so much better than a Tokamak. I can't find anything peer-reviewed.

All their marketing materials are leaving a very bad (e.g. pseudoscience) taste in my mouth

[devaiops9001]

Here is an explanation that includes raw video footage of a Safire type 2 chamber. https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=ZBInhPFFVog

Here is what was shared, including some raw video footage, of what happened when a small tungsten rod was exposed to plasma in a Safire type 2 chamber. https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI

[aqme28]

I'm a technical audience. I'd love to see a technical explanation of what their device is. This video is just "an anode" and "electrical power," which basically just sounds like a Farnsworth Fusor. Those are neat toys but not useful for a sustained fusion reaction.

[devaiops9001]

I have seen some examples of Farnsworth Fusor on the web but they are admittedly (stated by those posting the videos) amateur. Can you show me strong examples of something that could be called "industrial class" that is in the category of Farnsworh Fusor?

As far as I am presently aware, a Farnsworth Fusor has not produced multiple plasma layers.

>> but not useful for a sustained fusion reaction.

The plasma in Safire meets the definition of "sustained fusion reaction", but whether this particular sustained fusion reaction is useful or not is a legitimate bigger question.

[devaiops9001]

A Farnsworth Fusor does not create multiple plasma layers each separated by self-containing magnetic fields. This would be the key difference with Safire.

[aqme28]

If neither you nor they can tell me with any technical detail what they are doing differently from a fusor in terms of construction or operation, then I conclude it's just a fusor. Is it multiple anodes? Is there some magnetic field being introduced?

[devaiops9001]

Since yesterday I have put some meaningful effort into looking into what a Farnsworth Fusor is. At this point, I can confidently say that what is in the Safire type 2 plasma chamber is significantly different.

Perhaps I am biased because, most of my experience with plasma chambers has been involved in physical presence in laboratory settings.

>> I did my masters in Tokamak simulation

I think "simulation" is the key difference between what you did and those who are doing real laboratory work. Tesla lamented that too much in theoretical mathematics was being done in place of lab work.

I am honestly very disappointed that the essential characteristics between a Safire type 2 chamber and a Farnsworth Fusor are so clear to me, yet someone who has a "masters" (implies master degree) seems to struggle to spot the differences quickly.

The guys from the LLNL team were keen on immediately recognizing the differences, so no need to lose faith in humanity or anything here, but still, do they just give out masters degrees like candy now..

[aqme28]

> Tesla lamented that too much in theoretical mathematics was being done in place of lab work.

This just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Not only does Tesla predate the whole field of computational physics, but computational physics is distinct from both theoretical mathematics and lab work.

And I asked a simple question-- how is a SAFIRE constructed or operated? Still no answer!

[daveguy]

> raw video footage, of what happened when a small tungsten rod was exposed to plasma

Just FYI. You're not effectively refuting the pseudoscience claim with this.

[devaiops9001]

So you don't dispute that the Safire type 2 plasma chamber has a sustained plasma fusion reaction that causes the tungsten rod to rapidly decay, got it.

Here's a hint if you need it spelled out for you: nobody gives a shit if you think this is "science" or "pseudoscience".

[lostmsu]

Nah, this forum does and you're going to be severely punted for propagating it.

[devaiops9001]

The Safire plasma team presented their findings. They did an experiment involving plasma, they found that a tungsten rod evaporated in front of their eyes. This is the most literal embodiment of the scientific method there possibly could be.

The Safire plasma team doesn't even announce "weRe doinG ScIeNCe", all they are doing is presenting "here's what we did, here's what we found".

If you believe what they did "isn't science", then what you believe is not "they didn't follow the scientific method", what you believe is they did not do Science™ which amounts to orthodoxy ie religion.

As far as I have seen from the Safire plasma team, they run experiments and share their findings, then make hypothesis and run more experiments and share more findings. I have watched them do this consistently over several years.

If you want to argue that they aren't doing the "scientific method" when you aren't even familiar with their years of work, you are very stupid and may God have mercy on your soul.

[daveguy]

Bullshit video is bullshit video. But you do you.

[devaiops9001]

You are unable to refute the sustained plasma fusion reaction. You are unable to refute the rapid decay of the tungsten rod. You don't even comprehend what it is you think you are trying to argue against. I am astonished that someone could be so pathetic.

>> itS buLlSHiT

amounts to autistic reee'ing

[dralley]

ITER has the same problem as the NIF, had they been designed a few years later it could be a fraction of the size and cost due to improvements in technology

But since ITER was designed decades ago, we're stuck with a massive, expensive, outdated beast that's taken so long to build it will likely end up being lapped by other projects.

At least NIF has something to show for it. ITER feels like building the Vasa.

[pfdietz]

ITER never made sense at all, even without improvements in fusion technology.

And the improvements have not made tokamaks sensible. Even higher field magnets don't rescue the tokamak concept from practical irrelevancy.

[tsimionescu]

And yet ITER is the only serious attempt at fusion research for power generation.

NIF is a nuclear weapons research program, as are all other (non-scam) ICF designs. Other MCF designs are either more-or-less legal scams (such as the MIT-derived startup claiming to build a working fusion power plant by the end of next or year or so), or woefully under funded.

[pfdietz]

> And yet ITER is the only serious attempt at fusion research for power generation.

I disagree, in two ways.

First, ITER is itself not a serious attempt at a fusion research program, although there is great pretense that it is. There is no plausible route from ITER to a practical reactor, even if it achieves every one of its goals.

Second, there are other attempts that are, IMO, much more promising. Helion and Zap are the two that come to mind.

[tsimionescu]

There is a plausible route from a successful ITER to a practical reactor, the DEMO project. In principle, if ITER achieves its goals with its current technology, simply replacing the magnets with more modern ones would probably be enough to produce enough energy for a fusion plant.

The designs for actually capturing that energy, and for replenishing tritium, are a bigger hurdle, but there are plausible technical solutions.

Helion in contrast seems entirely a scam, promising and failing to deliver results year after year. Zap energy seems to at least not make false timeline promises, but it is trying out a much less proven concept in a direct commercial venture - not a promising way to do novel research.

Note that I am very skeptical that fusion power is a plausible economic approach to power generation, and do personally believe that all known approaches will fail to deliver a power plant that is economically viable. The amount of power that is plausible with all current approaches seems far too low to justify the immense engineering costs, and the benefit of abundant fuel is just not that impressive when you have solar and wind as alternatives.

[pfdietz]

DEMO has no chance of leading to anything practical; the power densities of the concepts are far too low and their sizes/costs far too large.

You yourself admit the economic problem, which is not separate from the notion of practicality.

[XorNot]

Yeah, it's somewhat falling for the public relations spin to think NIF's fusion research is meant for power generation. NIF's fusion research is meant to simulate hydrogen bomb detonation physics.

The fact that they take a closer look at interesting power generation possibilities is a fringe-benefit: that's just scientists being thorough, but it's not why it was built. It's a bonus.