| This thoughtful response here is in the spirit of forwardly affording you the benefit of the doubt that you yourself are not a cultist. >> Show even the slightest level of skepticism What is it, exactly, you want me to be skeptical about? That they have a multi-layered self-containing plasma? That the plasma in the Safire type 2 chamber is self-containing and does not require external magnets like a Tokomak reactor? That in their plasma chamber fusion is occurring and heavier elements are forming? The Safire team has been, for close to a decade now, forthcoming and transparent about their guesses, about what they are finding, how often they are finding it, what they think they know, what they are confident they know, so on and so on. To be clear, the Safire type chamber containing this plasma, has ultimately one and only one at-the-crux differentiating feature, external magnets are not required like Tokomak. The Safire team does not claim to have "invented" the concept of a plasma chamber. Hot plasma does cause fusion to occur, this is not special nor novel (and Safire team did not "invent" nor advent this either). In a Safire plasma chamber the plasma is self-containing, that's the one differentiating thing, that's it. About 10 years ago members of the Safire team (as it is now named) shared their findings in writings. In addition to their writings they shared several hours of raw video footage of plasma regimes they had in the lab of a Safire type 1 plasma chamber. I have watched them, albeit remotely, over the years steadily progress from their experimental chambers, to their type 1 plasma chamber, to their type 2 plasma chamber. That plasma in their approach to a plasma chamber is self-containing has never seemed to be in dispute. Hell, I could probably get one of these running in my own industrial garage if I tried to, and I wouldn't be the first one to do this. People I personally know have met these folks face to face at various conferences. What these people I personally told me was that these plasma tinkerers were no less mild-mannered, candid, forthcoming, willing to listen, and willing to answer than they present themselves online. What I and many others have seen out of them is consistency. If you think there is some specific detail that is highly questionable, please point out to me what you think it is. I am more than willing to carefully consider what you have to share and disconfirm what seems to be reasonably true. If you have some new information to bring forth, please do. The saying "old science dies hard" does come to mind here. Please help me embody the skepticism you are asking of me, you can do this successfully by addressing the very specific details you are concerned about and also by not failing to make a sincere attempt to answer the questions that have been presented to you in this response. |