[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.

[exitheone]

Can you please give me evidence for anything you have written in this thread that did not originate from Safire or aureon?

Let me state this again, I do not trust them as a source. I can't find any information regarding any Safire and llnl collaboration as well. Especially nothing from the llnl side.

[devaiops9001]

>> I do not trust them as a source.

I respect your skepticism.

>> any information regarding any Safire and llnl collaboration

What I know about this information is from about six years ago, which is what I can tell you today. I probably have it saved somewhere.

>> Can you please give me evidence for anything you have written in this thread that did not originate from Safire or aureon?

The short answer is yes. Separate from that, I also have access to two of their laboratories later this year. This is contingent not on their willingness to allow me access but my own itinerary for the year.