A discussion on a "Thunderbolts Project" video
with "Ian w"
I appreciated the video made in a collaboration between Michael Clarage and the Thunderbolts Project and made a simple comment to reflect my feeling.
“Very nice Michael”
This is what happened next
ian w - 3 Jan 2023, 22:55
Nope, it was unscientific b0ll0cks. However, you are well acquainted with unscientific b0ll0cks, aren't you? He hasn't got a bloody clue. Learn physics. Take this prat along with you.
The claimed commenter “ian w” is a classic sock puppet account on Youtube, set up 22nd March 2021 that has no videos, no playlists etc. He does however have a single subscriber and whilst he implies he is a separate person from one “Prof. Dave”, rumours are that this account is closely ‘linked’ to him.
His modus operandi is very similar to the notorious FUD spreader and US NAVY attack dog “Fred Zoepfl”. Fred was nominated to be a member of the US Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee in 1990. Perhaps he is getting too old and Prof. Dave is taking up the role.
This and other sock puppets comments have a habit of disappearing shortly after being dropped or replied to. This may be done by their controller or by the channel owner due to the offensive nature of the posts. Therefore, for readability, I have also included the comments that have now been deleted from The Thunderbolts Project Youtube channel.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
it must hurt to be you, unless you get paid for this.
ian w - 4 Jan 2023, 14:28
Bob Greenyer Why would I need paying to debunk scientifically impossible gibberish, proposed by unqualified mythologists, that only exists on youtube? Get a clue. Better still, learn physics.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
Perhaps you'll understand what our research has physically shown if you go and read these papers -
“Vortex Nucleation in Bose-Einstein Condensates in an Oblate, Purely Magnetic Potential”, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 7 JANUARY 2002
“Quantum turbulence in a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate”, PHYSICAL REVIEW A 76, 045603 2007
“Emergence of Turbulence in an Oscillating Bose-Einstein Condensate”, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 24 JULY 2009
In context with my Russian Conference paper and specifically the Ball Lightning boundary layer interaction with Cu pipe physical evidence…
…and then read the PDF “Quantized Vortices and Quantum Turbulence” by Makoto TSUBOTA, Department of Physics, Osaka City University, Japan
susmarcon @ Bob Greenyer - 5 Jan 2023, 11:54
Let me have a go at his response Bob. I'm looking into the crystal ball ian w thinks we all use, and this is what it tells me about his comeback. "Nope, it's unscientific b0ll0cks....... The clowns presenting these papers have zero clue about astrophysics.......this stuff is not peer reviewed....Sounds like creationist crap from the lightning bolt cult......These blokes are hilariously stupid! And ignorant........Mate, that is just word salad of the worst kind! Try some science."... Can't wait to see if he comes up with some new withering retort. He's a one man sideshow really.
ian w - 5 Jan 2023, 13:15
Bob Greenyer None of which have anything to do with the crap you believe. Cold fusion woo, in other words. You promote the idiocy of scam artists like Rossi and the safire clowns. You're a con artist, just like them.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
I have challenged Rossi and been a part of detailed experiments where we proved credentialed scientists at Universities made mistakes in their evaluations of his claims, with our work showing a potential null. Can you show where I have 'promoted Rossi'
ian w - 5 Jan 2023, 15:10
Bob Greenyer Apologies about Rossi. I assumed you were part of the 'lenr forum' people, who most definitely do promote the convicted criminal Rossi's ludicrous claims. However, you did defend the SAFIRE scam. As transparent an attempted cash grab as there could be. They had zero evidence, and their own plasma physicist called their claims 'fraudulent'. And he was the only one on the team with a scooby about any of the relevant science.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
I have indeed never posted on LF or have a membership. The self organising plasma is a real phenomenon. Double layers and "balls of fire" are even in main-stream peer-reviewed research going back decades before SAFIRE.
We have replicated with simple ($500-1000) equipment these phenomena and far more and made it all public including how to build the apparatus, the basic power supply parameters and how we added hydrogen and other gasses and provided vacuum. In this research, we have shared videos of Fireballs very quickly making copper, Tungsten, Nickel disappear and have shown that on the boundary layer there are interactions which are non-thermal and in line with cutting edge ball-lightning and Russian superfluid, superconducting magnetic vortex string predictions. The same things are seen in what I call "Fractal Toroidal Moments" (Toroidal Moments discovered by Dubovik in 1965 at Dubna, but only recognised in west from 1997) which main-stream refers to as Hyper-Toroidal Moments, these are being currently explored in mainstream peer-reviewed top-tier journals for use in next generation memory storage technology.
When our ball lightning explodes, they produce iron-rich hollow crenelated microspheres surrounded by SiO2 CaO and C predominantly. In the only spectrum of Ball Lighting caught on video (see wikipedia) with a spectrometer and published in a peer-reviewed top-tier journal, saw Fe, Si and Ca lines. We can produce these things at will and on demand. The same crenelated iron-rich type microsphere has been recovered from Ball Lightning impact on soil in Hessdalen, Norway and claimed from micro-meteors from air-bust events from places like Australia and Japan. We produced the exact same Iron rich crenelated microspheres in an experiment we accidentally developed that a 5 year old can learn and conduct inside 20 minutes - the total experiment apparatus costs $35 and has a likely re-sale value of $25. Consumables are about 0.25cents per run. Any one can try it.
It is called ULTR. It produces exact Yin-Yang ratio Vortex pairs and has been widely replicated, even by the energy department of Taipei University, US Army and others are replicating now. Happy experimenting
susmarcon @ Bob Greenyer - 6 Jan 2023, 08:24
Thanks Bob for the scholarly rebuttal of nearly everything Mr w has railed about in these fora for years. But I can guarantee he is not any kind of experimentalist, and he in fact regards the fundamental nature of experimental physics as subornment to theory, and constantly belittles engineers by asserting they have nothing to contribute. Perhaps your authoritative summation of the legitimacy of this research will give him pause. We live in hope.
Bob Greenyer @ susmarcon
He could start to learn the science if he read the peer reviewed top tier journal articles I have referenced for his benefit. His attacks are nothing compared to the in my face threats and inquisitions I have received from CIA and military persons at conferences and personal communications, sometimes at the highest level possible. Even old colleagues that are now on the take from the system due in part to work the MFMP has done previously want me to stop. Just last week, a researcher I have worked with since 2017 rejected funding on the basis that the prospective funder stipulated that he stop working with me. Papers have been published spreading FUD from former US NAVY researchers within 2 weeks of me being warned I was inviting attacks. Thankfully there are significant others in other countries that see the same effects and are willing to explore what is going on rather than be convinced by know-nothings or know-everythings to stop researching.
ian w - 6 Jan 2023, 09:37
Bob Greenyer "I have indeed never posted on LF or have a membership." However, you sought to get your conversation with Professor Dave posted on that forum. Strange. "The self organising plasma is a real phenomenon. Double layers and "balls of fire" are even in main-stream peer-reviewed research going back decades before SAFIRE." I know. hat is why they had a plasma physicist! Who called them 'bozos', called Childs 'a fraud', and their claims 'fraudulent'. Not wrong, you'll notice, but fraudulent. "We have replicated with simple ($500-1000) equipment these phenomena and far more and made it all public including how to build the apparatus,...." Completely irrelevant to the fake claims of Childs et al. "It is called ULTR. It produces exact Yin-Yang ratio Vortex pairs and has been widely replicated, even by the energy department of Taipei University, US Army and others are replicating now." And has nothing to do with the fake claims of transmutation made by Childs et al. They have zero evidence for any such transmutation. Just noise. As you well know.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
I cannot speak for the actions of others, but you called me a scam artist, I am a volunteer researcher in a challenged area of emerging science.
I saw Monty Childs once, 2019 BEM conference in Netherlands. In the presentation I saw, they claimed they were seeing certain transmutations from interactions on their hydrogen permeated spherical anode, but they covered up the fuel. I used our freely available and published on-line LENR reaction calculator (nanosoft on a co New Zealand domain, programmed by a nuclear scientist based on irrefutable data calculated by a Russian Academy of Science awarded fellow), that they had no knowledge of, to infer their 'fuel' was Ni + W based on output products. I wrote to them and warned them of the breakdown products they should shield for on the assumption that this was in their Anode. Later, their patent application was published that showed this was in their anode, the patent was applied for before they gave their presentation which I witnessed.
Transmutation, even 'disappearance' of W has been observed from Langmuir in 1910s onwards (Langmuir asked for a 5 year leave from teaching to work on it as I understand). Many independent researchers have seen it, we can do it at will in OHMA/HHO and VEGA systems. We have replicated the transmutation observed in 2019 in Japan with Ohmasa Gas and W with a Canadian volunteer's HHO generator, We can do the W disappearance at will and on demand. The SAFIRE group witnessed it in a Langmuir probe in 2017 when it disappeared and this may have encouraged them to add it to the Anode. It is most likely that the fuel in Parkhomov's 225 day reactor was part of the W heater coil, in our HHO replication of transmutations in Ohmasa Gas vs W, Ca was found in 100% of transmuted materials. Ca is the most likely reaction product for a wide number of reasons and predicted by the LENR reaction calculator as top output. This was found in our HHO replication. In Parkhomov's 225 day reactor the calcium content went from 1% to 20%, In our VEGA experiments we have CaO synthesised in specific fractal toroidal structures in multiple instances where there is no Calcium in the reactor or the reactants and there is no evidence of Fractal Toroidal Calcium Oxide structures in the literature that we or the 1000s of people that check our research have found. Ca is synthesised in many LENR experiments and it is for many nuclear reasons, not least of which are 40Ca is the largest pure alpha conjugate nuclei, it is doubly magic and has no spin.
When you understand the above, we can have a discussion that doesn't start with your premise that transmutation is not possible.
ian w @ Bob Greenyer- 6 Jan 2023, 14:03
"When you understand the above, we can have a discussion that doesn't start with your premise that transmutation is not possible." I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said that the SAFIRE claims of transmutation were fraudulent. And would also add that their claims of being able to remediate nuclear waste are also fantasy. I also said Rossi was a scammer. He is. It seemed to me that you were defending SAFIRE in comments made on Prof. Dave's channel and, iirc, on the channel of AB Science, who showed that their claims of transmutation were not supported by the EDAX results that they themselves proffered as 'proof' of transmutation. That is why I accused you of being a scam artist - because you appeared to be supporting a very transparent scam. If not, I apologise. I have done a lot of research on the SAFIRE project, which included contacting Lowell Morgan, which is how Prof. Dave got in touch with him. I had seen him reply to a question on Quora (iirc) about the project, where he called it 'fringe baloney'. I still have the correspondence somewhere. I also looked at the manner in which the project was funded. That resulted in my making a formal complaint to the US IRS. Very dodgy indeed. I was also well aware of the so-called 'electric sun' 'model' they were allegedly testing, when they fortuitously stumbled upon this (non) transmutation. It is scientifically impossible. A fact that any 1st year astrophysics/ plasma physics student could have told them. And yet Childs claimed that the 'experiment' showed nothing to contradict the 'model'! Which shows his total lack of expertise in physics. You can't have electrons drifting in to power a star, when you have a magnetic field heading out in the opposite direction at ~ 350 km/s! You can't have an anode Sun. It would kind of break the solar wind! Which is ~ equal parts electrons and ions, all heading out in the same direction, at the same velocity. Now, why would a Velikovskian charity owner, who already funds some of the principals of EU, want to chuck ~ $5m at something as trivially wrong as that, unless they were hoping for some sort of return? Hell, they didn't even get a peer-reviewed paper on the impossible electric sun woo that they were allegedly testing! They had one peer-reviewed paper, basically written by Dr. Morgan (Childs name was on it, but he doesn't know any plasma physics). That was on the early bell jar experiment, and said nothing about electric stars or transmutation. There was to be a second paper, but Dr. Morgan had left by then, and left the revisions to Clarage. Who also didn't know enough about plasma physics to be able to do that. So, the paper timed-out. Again, it contained nothing about electric stars or transmutation. When Dr. Morgan tried to explain the fake claims on the EU forum, they removed his comment and banned him, on the basis that they couldn't confirm that it was Dr. Morgan! I had no trouble finding a contact email for him! Childs also threatened to sue him if he went public with the claims. Which Dr. Morgan did. And Childs did nothing. Not surprisingly. In short, I have no reason not to believe that SAFIRE was a con. At the very least, it was the erroneous claims of people who didn't have a clue what they were doing.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
Right now there is around 11 million Euros of EU funding for multiple universities across the continent to study LENR in part because of the work the MFMP did, and me personally, funded mostly by the volunteer directors and researchers, replicating the claims of Francesco Celani. Neither I nor the MFMP has received a penny of that funding. Unfortunately, the selection was based I understand, on the guidance of people involved with NASA thats pushed it in a direction likely to fail, but still scientifically interesting. The larger of the two groups is studying electron screening in metals as a path to explain LENR. In our VEGA experiments, we have direct evidence in the structure of the materials left of self-organised super-conducting, super-fluid material, likely as Ken Shoulders stated, fluidised electrons, and predicted in the 1860s by Maxwell. The structures are the result of a self-organised magnetic super-fluid and are exactly the negative of that formed in simple ferro-fluid experiments and predicted by super-computer research in mainstream journals. We have repeated the production of these structures a number of times and we can do it on demand. Carbon, the first predominantly non-spin stable non-gaseous, alpha-conjugate element produced in abundance and this has been observed by independent researchers in difference systems over decades such as Brown, Solin, Matsumoto - we have replicated almost all of these findings and publicly shared the work. Solin was awarded a 1992 patent and Matsumoto widely published in the American Nucear Societies, Fusion Technology.
I am well aware of your research into SAFIRE and your association with Dave. It is unfortunate that difficult research sometimes leads people to compromise on their sources of funding and make claims that do not appear to be the whole truth or that maybe stretching the conclusion. Where I stand is that, contrary to your position, we tested a Birkland or Chernetsky type setup in our VEGA experiments and we have shown that, indeed, transmutation does occur, W does disappear, Ball Lightning is made and the outcomes are shown in observations of the real natural phenomenon.
To understand more, perhaps you should read the 1993 Electricity journal paper "Electromagnetic fields of current structures" of Nevessky, the 1994 paper "A model for ball lighting" of the SLAC researcher Fryberger, the 1995 Electricity journal paper "The Bagel Game" of Zhvirblis or the 2009 paper "A Ball Lightning Model as a Possible Explanation of Recently Reported Cavity Lights" of Fryberger - then you may start to understand why it is a little harder for me to dismiss the SAFIRE's groups claims based on one persons lack of understanding of Ball Lightning physics, modern research in the field or their funding sources. I further recommend you read the paper "Theory of filamentous dark matter” by B.U. Rodionov - summary by D.V. Kolokolov of SSPME. In addition to the previous Japanese reseach I pointed you to, this research agrees with our physical observations we can produce at will and on demand by two independent volunteer researchers using different systems but following a rough guideline of how to produce the observations.
On a different track:
Are you aware that ITER had to admit recently they had been knowingly lying or misrepresenting their potential since inception due to the relentless pursuit over 12 years of the science journalist Steven Krivit?
Are you aware that the NIF Laser Confined Fusion was a huge nothing burger which was highly misrepresented by the US Secretary of energy? They put in over 300MJ of grid electrical energy to produce a little over 2MJ laser that, by the proxy of neutron flux estimations assumed over the whole volume, they determined produced a thermal pulse of a little over 3 MJ - that is NOT EXCESS ENERGY, that IS just around 1% of the input electrical Joules in thermal Joules out, now try converting that few femtosecond thermal pulse into useable electricity - what an utter embarrassment.
Self-organised structures come out of critical impacts on materials, Hydrogen isotopes have been determined to be 2000-4000 times easier to achieve this when compared to any other element from Li onwards with as the required energy is >5eV. This is attainable in a number of ways. The self organised structure are NOT ordinary matter, they have a binding energy way higher and the fluidised electrons and intense localised magnetic and fractal toroidal moments induce novel nuclear reactions and according to the likes of Brown, Solin, Matsumoto, Shoulders, Fryberger etc. even nucleon decay as far as to light and leptons. In this respect, electron clustering and unidirectional impact can lead to synthesis, transmutation and de-synthesis of ordinary condensed matter and the latter is why you probably have the belief structure you do.
I suggest you read Matsumoto's 2000 book, "Steps to the Discovery of Electro-Nuclear Collapse". We have easily replicated his findings often showing the result in gorgeous 8k/8k images. He notes that Carbon is produced regardless of starting element or its stability, this is what Brown claimed in 1980s, in our replication of Celani's work, we saw synthesis of diamond, in other experiments to as have others in independent work.
ian w - 6 Jan 2023, 15:09
Bob Greenyer "I am well aware of your research into SAFIRE and your association with Dave. It is unfortunate that difficult research sometimes leads people to compromise on their sources of funding and make claims that do not appear to be the whole truth or that maybe stretching the conclusion." There was no compromise on funding. This was not an LENR experiment! It was supposedly to test an impossible model of the Sun. For which they had no trouble getting $5m from a Velikovskian already well-known to EU. Childs approached them because he claimed, in his ignorance of basic physics, that the electric sun model was worth looking into. It isn't. It is trivially shown to be complete gibberish, and scientifically impossible. And their claims were not even close to the truth, as Lowell Morgan said. They were fraudulent. And the claims are easily dismissed by taking one look at their EDX maps.
ian w - 6 Jan 2023, 15:13
Bob Greenyer "then you may start to understand why it is a little harder for me to dismiss the SAFIRE's groups claims based on one persons lack of understanding of Ball Lightning physics, modern research in the field or their funding sources." Who doesn't understand ball lightning physics? And where is the evidence for the fake claims of transmutation? They had one physicist who could understand plasma physics. He called them out as 'bozos'. That really should be all you need to know. As well as taking a gander at the EDX maps which show precisely nothing.
susmarcon @ Bob Greenyer - 7 Jan 2023, 12:29
See, I warned you Bob. You are dealing with the unscientific preconceptions of a partially informed dweeb with an unbridled superiority complex. He is trying to pad out his replies with dogma, and ad hominems, as he and Dave have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Further, if you've never witnessed his work before, take it from me, that his primary interest is not science, or the advancement of our understanding. He just wants to deride anyone who dares incorporate unusual knowledge into his dusty textbook comprehension of physics as it is currently defined. Underpinning, and perhaps in an attempt to disguise his true agenda, is a compulsion to frame any metaphysical reference as religion. His reply to you is laughable, and a salutary reminder to anyone reading this, that in an age of "alternative facts" we must be on our guard for what appears to be deliberately malicious contributions by self- seeking adventurers and their lust for 15 mins of fame. Take care.
ian w - Sat, 7 Jan, 14:01
Bob Greenyer Typical conspiracist, crackpot word salad. I called SAFIRE out as a scam. It is. I called Clarage out as a clueless poser. He is. Deal with it.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
sorry, are you talking about what you said?
I have letters/papers from named individuals - I shared real papers in top tier peer reviewed journals. I am focused on if the science is right, not on your opinion on characters or their sources of funding. Right or wrong, the SAFIRE project inspired one of our volunteer researchers and due to exhaustive experiments and analysis we found, repeated and shared openly some ground breaking findings that pretty much any competent team with plumbing and electrical skills could replicate on a nominal budget. We have gone far beyond the claimed observations of SAFIRE project and continue to research this at multiple sites with our VEGA experiments. Unpublished unconnected private replication in Germany by a group incorporating Lutz Jaitner based off our published open procedures has said that they have replicated both the VEGA and ULTR findings.
So complain all you want that someone somewhere says something can't happen because of a textbook or something, we'll keep following the evidence.
At this point, sock-puppet Nº2 is invoked called, hilariously, John Doe! This attack avatar also has only one subscriber (no prizes for guessing who) and set up the account just about a month before “ian w” on 20 Feb 2021, again, no videos, playlists etc.
john doe @ Bob Greenyer - 7 Jan 2023, 14:58
You can say whatever you want to try and justify the so called "SAFIRE RPOJECT". But that doesn't change the fact they haven't published a single peer-reviewed paper in any scientific journal. Because they don't have the expertise in math in physics to publish anything. Even their own plasma physicist left the team. Because he realized how bs it is as it was revealed.
ian w @ Bob Greenyer - Sat, 7 Jan 2023, 15:14
Bob Greenyer "we'll keep following the evidence." SAFIRE have no evidence. Nor can you point to any. They made fraudulent claims. They only had one person on the team who had the foggiest clue about the relevant science.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
You’re sounding a bit like a broken record now. Read the articles I have shared with you, send them to the plasma guy your position relys on and come back for an informed discussion. Hopefully you can move forward as I don't see any new information from you in a long while now.
ian w @ Bob Greenyer - 7 Jan 2023, 15:36
Bob Greenyer Avoidance at its best! Show me the evidence from SAFIRE for their fraudulent claims of transmutation. I am dealing with the SFIRE scam here. Nothing else. Where is the evidence? How bloody hard can it be to understand those four words? They made it up. They have nothing to show that they didn't make it up. These were people (with the exception of Dr. Morgan) who were stupid enough to believe in a scientifically impossible model of the Sun! A model that could be trivially debunked by a first year plasma? astrophysics student. They were too dumb to figure out why it is impossible. Like Morgan said, they are 'bozos'. Why would anyone sane invest in such a scam? There is zero evidence. There is zero science. There is nothing. Just bozos making fraudulent claims, backed up by nothing whatsoever. Only an idiot would fall for such rubbish.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
Your record skipped back to a re-hash of a previous comment. Let me know whe you either understand the science or have something new to say
ian w @ Bob Greenyer - 7 Jan 2023, 18:42
Bob Greenyer And more avoidance! Answer a very simple question - here it is again; where is the evidence for the fraudulent claims made by Childs et al? Shall I answer it for you? There is none. Which you cannot bring yourself to admit. You fell for a hoax. There is zero evidence for transmutation. So, you get back to me when you understand the science that shows that they did not transmute anything. Would you invest in this hoax, for a minimum of US$10 000, with nothing more than grandiose claims from people who don't have a clue about the relevant science, and zero evidence? If so, you are just the type of person that scammers like Mills, Rossi and SAFIRE prey upon.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
You have a story about their story based on an opinion from someone that clearly knows little of the field. You have been pointed to a set of starting documents to help you and your source get up to speed (at least a start) and yet you keep pounding sand based on an opinion gleaned from a person that clearly does not understand the science. Why not at least attempt to see what is going on outside your head - your diatribe has not changed in years.
ITER has recently openly admitted they have been misinforming the global community and the politicians that spend our taxes since inception. The recent farce of a presentation heralded by the National Ignition Facility is way behind tokomak research like ITER, but that is no excuse for their misrepresentation being more than an order of magnitude higher but sold as a fantastic win. Having said that, both fields are making progress and that is what doers do.
It is irrelevant to the MFMP or to myself the things you talk about as, due to the work of SAFIRE, our collaborating volunteers did experiments that both confirmed peer-reviewed mainstream science pre-dating SAFIRE and went further. We have made Tungsten 'disappear' multiple times and in specific ways (cut on the boundary of a 'ball of fire') and verified that Ball Lightning appears to produce Ca, C and other elements that have been observed by many researchers pre-dating the work of SAFIRE in some cases for more than 100 years. Now that work has been replicated due to the MFMP sharing all data and methods for free.
So it does not matter if the whole SAFIRE project was a fantasy and completely computer generated, because it played a role in producing really groundbreaking repeatable phenomena which has a theoretical basis previously postulated by people at the top of their fields working for the US DOE, The Russian Academy of Sciences and The Japanese Nuclear Research community.
It's like, when I was growing up, Dick Tracy had a wrist watch video phone. Completely made up, of course, they can be bought for as little as $50 now.
All the shade you can spill on this work will not stop it progressing.
ian w @ Bob Greenyer - 7 Jan 2023, 23:31
Bob Greenyer "You have a story about their story based on an opinion from someone that clearly knows little of the field." A plasma physicist on a plasma physics experiment? Get a grip! Who the hell else on that project had a clue about any relevant physics? Childs? Clarage? Nope. Utterly clueless. What physics degrees do you hold? None? I'm right, aren't I? Stick to what you know, and stop supporting scammers. I repeat, for the hard of reading; where is the evidence for the fraudulent claims of Childs and his motley crew? What convinced you that it wasn't a scam? What did you look at? EDAX maps? They show nothing other than noise. You are a coward. They are scammers. They have no evidence, and you run away from even pointing to anything. You fell for it because you want to believe. It's pathetic. You're a grown man! WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Can you read? Answer the question. Link me to anything from those scammers that provides evidence. You can't. You won't. Grow up, and stop providing solace to rip-off artists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They have ZERO evidence. They were so clueless they couldn't even deal with the revisions for their second paper! And you think they have somehow stumbled on something that is literally world changing! Seriously, how bloody naive are you? Go away and learn physics. At least Pons and the other bloke published their crap. Giving people the opportunity to replicate it. Which. of course, nobody could. These clowns won't even do that! They can't even write a scientific paper! You are supporting a scam. Therefore I retract my previous apology. You are a con artist.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
I have an engineering degree that included physics. What do you have?
Have you read any of the papers I reference to help your personal journey?
The fact that you don't know of the vast numbers of replications of Martin and Stanley's work, shows you are not even close to being qualified to have an opinion.
If you had read just one of the references I pointed to, you would see that in Dr. Takaaki Matsumoto's 1989-1991 period, in papers published in the ANS peer reviewed journal "Fusion Technology" he saw transmutation in Deuterated Pd rods. Dr. Matsumoto, who is still alive, is a lifelong nuclear scientist, eminently more qualified than a generic plasma physicist to determine fact from fiction.
You have not provided one shred of evidence that the person who you base your statements on has relevant qualifications. Please do so otherwise your increasingly repetitive tirades literally have no basis.
It may surprise you to know, that throughout history, major discoveries have been made by people that didn't have the right letters after their name, or indeed any. Are you aware that Ken Shoulders, who never got a degree, invented the Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer on which scientists the world over rely on to determine element isotopes in their experiments? That same guy, is credited as the father of micro-electronics, in that he developed the screening technologies that started the industry that today enables you to repeat yourself over and over here...
You are equating credentials with ability to do something meaningful.
What have you done in this field that qualifies you to have an opinion?
ian w @ Bob Greenyer - 7 Jan 2023, 23:52
Bob Greenyer "It is irrelevant to the MFMP or to myself the things you talk about as, due to the work of SAFIRE, our collaborating volunteers did experiments that both confirmed peer-reviewed mainstream science pre-dating SAFIRE and went further. " Right. Show me the peer-reviewed paper that replicates SAFIRE, and has EDAX maps showing transmutation, rather than noise. It would be good if at least one of the authors had clue one about physics, yes? Not going to happen, is it? Would you invest in this scam? If you were thinking about it, would you want some decent evidence? Let's say you have elderly parents who are considering sinking their life savings into Childs' scam, rather than leaving it to you? What would you advise them? By the way, Fleischman and Pons were trivially wrong, and naming your whatsit after those jokers is not going to help you with engaging real scientists. Quite the opposite. Cold fusion is essentially woo. There are some NASA people looking at lattice fusion. That is valid, peer-reviewed research. It is not claiming the sort of idiocy claimed by Childs and his merry band of scammers. That would literally change the world. And a bunch of unqualified bozos simply stumbled across it whilst conducting 'experiments' on a scientifically impossible model of the Sun? Buddy, do you still believe in Santa Claus? The tooth fairy? Flat earth? That is the level that Childs et al are at. It is a scam from a neo-Velikovskian cult, well known as being scientifically illiterate, and for lying to their clueless acolytes. They are not the least bit trustworthy. A plasma physicist whom they like to invoke to add weight to their impossible woo, calls them 'anti-science' and a 'cult'. That is what you have fallen for. Shame on you. It is so obviously a scam.
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
Mostly your knowledge-less rant, but you did raise the NASA "LCF" "Fusion" work. They may indeed have got published but they are likely wrong. Why? Well they don't use a neutron activation method to detect neutrons, this means they are likely misinterpreting the interaction of charge clusters with their electronics, 3He / 10B etc detectors. Dr Takaaki Matsumoto established that fake signals are seen innscintillators and neutron detectors and published this in 1995, problem is, researchers often don’t bother to read their peers work.
The way the Global Energy Corporation team under Lawrence Forsely claim to do it is by passing a beam through a conversion target into a highly paramagnetic "Rare" earth metal loaded with Deuterium. This is the exact same method the Moscow Nuclear Physics Institute uses to produce charge clustes of two magnetic charges that blow up on a radiographic emulsion leading to classic "birdie" marks. This was published in a peer reviewed journal. Even if the GEC team at NASA really, really did not want this to happen, it would. These charge clusters interact with the electrons and deterons in the metal to effect transmutation. They also cause fake neutron and scintillation signals.
A separate team under Fralick at NASA reported at ICCF24 last year that using cycling on a Johnson Matthey hydrogen purifier, they saw the classic ring and spot transmutation patterns we Identified years ago in multiple experiments. They did not recognise our prior art, nor did they recognise that others, such as Matsumoto in the early 1990s saw the same thing. This is the classic mark of a self-organised fractal toroidal cluster interacting at the surface which is where this process occurs in addition to grain boundaries. The researchers at NASA should read the 1954 "GEONs" paper of John Archibald Wheeler as well as the Plasmoids research of Bostick and Nardi between 1956 and 1980. I recommend you do the same.
ian w @ Bob Greenyer - 8 Jan 2023, 11:37
Bob Greenyer "I have an engineering degree that included physics. What do you have?" An MSc in plasma physics. And I recognise a scam when I see one, because I am not a gullible oaf. "Have you read any of the papers I reference to help your personal journey?" I am not on a personal journey. I am not interested in cold fusion woo. I am interested in evidence-based science. And SAFIRE have zero evidence for their impossible claims. It's a scam, and you can't show any differently. Despite that, you continue to impugn the name of an actual plasma physicist, because he happened to call them out as fraudsters, purely because he understands the relevant science, and they don't. When asked to back up your claims, by providing evidence for the fraudulent claims of Childs et al, you change the subject. There is zero evidence. Morgan was correct. You cannot show otherwise. Correct? Just admit that and move on. "The fact that you don't know of the vast numbers of replications of Martin and Stanley's work, shows you are not even close to being qualified to have an opinion." You might want to advise the editors of UC Berkeley of that (made up) fact; "In 1989, chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made headlines with claims that they had produced fusion at room temperature — “cold” fusion compared to the high temperatures the process was thought to require. It was the kind of discovery that scientists dream of: a simple experiment with results that could reshape our understanding of physics and change lives the world over. However, this “discovery” was missing one key ingredient: good scientific behavior." They don't seem to think anyone has replicated their experiment. Nor do Wikipedia. It is described as a 'pathological' science, rarely published in peer-reviewed journals. "You have not provided one shred of evidence that the person who you base your statements on has relevant qualifications. Please do so otherwise your increasingly repetitive tirades literally have no basis." And you have not provided one shred of evidence that the scammers making these claims have any relevant qualifications. They haven't. I checked. Nor have you provided one shred of evidence that their claims are not fraudulent. Nor have they. When were you thinking of doing that? Rhetorical. It's a scam. You cannot show otherwise. So, stop impugning a real physicist for claims that these people were making fraudulent claims, when you chicken out of addressing their complete lack of evidence. As it stands, Childs et al have no response to claims of fraudulent behaviour. Zero evidence. Do you know why evidence is important in real science? Do I need to remind you? They have none. "What have you done in this field that qualifies you to have an opinion?" I understand basic physics. As does Dr. Morgan. If you want to show us wrong, then it is simple, isn't it? Grow a pair and point to the EVIDENCE that shows SAFIRE not to be a scam. You can't. Game over.
ian w @ Bob Greenyer - 8 Jan 2023, 11:40
Bob Greenyer "as well as the Plasmoids research of Bostick and Nardi between 1956 and 1980. I recommend you do the same." Nothing to do with the SAFIRE scam. Still waiting for their evidence for their fraudulent claims. And didn't Bostick lose the plot, and come up with some dumb galaxy formation model?
Bob Greenyer @ ian w
For someone not interested in a subject, you spend an awful lot of effort projecting your lack of knowledge of it.
I have not mentioned any plasma physicist by name, I am just asking if the person has any relevant knowledge of the field. If he is like you and starts from the premise that he already ‘knows something is not possible’ and therefore will not look at peer reviewed papers relevant to the subject, then that doesn’t make his or your argument stronger. Science is not done by qualification, it is the result of hypothesis, experiment, evaluation. When a hypothesis leads to repeatable output from experiment with consistent robust data, as we have achieved, it starts to become science fact and all the opinions in the world will not change it as nature cannot lie - it matters not what qualifications the detractors have.
You can review 1000s of papers on LENR - CANR which is an ORG domain and appraise yourself of the replications, but I don’t expect you will because you already know your truth. That being said, most of what is thought to be “Fusion” in the field, is likely actually transmutation, that is the interaction between nuclei producing other nuclei, such ad D + Pd105 > 37Cl + 70Zn, and with neutrinos involved, 8 reactions between Pd and D produce 4He, none of which are fusion, they are nucleon exchange. Matsumoto established this in Pd D reactions, published in the ANS peer reviewed journal “Fusion Technology”, in early 1990s, you could read that for free, but you would have to re-evaluate your life choices to do so. Are you aware that it was not Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons that coined the phrase “Cold Fusion”? Martin believed that it was not the right description. It was the part DOE supported researcher from Bringham-Young University called Steven E. Jones that coined the phrase, and the press ran with it - so to get fixated on that as part of your diatribes is a little disingenuous and further shows your lack of understanding of the field. It was the same Mr. Jones that raised his hand to psycho influence the committee of reviewers to throw out the competing research to his own ‘muon catalysed fusion’ and the DOEs heavily funded (but as I have noted before, admittedly misinformation driven) hot fusion research. If the SAFIRE team do refer to aspects as “Cold Fusion” they would only be doing so because of name recognition. They would be better to refer to it as Low [input] Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) which is the field recognised name that some are trying to now re-brand again as LCF, which is unfortunate, because it mostly takes place on the surface or crystal boundaries, which was established by Matsumoto and observed most recently in Fralick et. al. NASA research presented last year.
I refer to it as “Fractal Toroidal Moment Induced Transformation Reactions - A Coherent Matter Driven Process” - Being precise in description may be a mouthful, but it gets away from the Jones-derived nonsense. In Russia, there is a fully qualified group, of which Dubovik (discoverer of the Toroidal moment) is a living member who say that Magneto-Toro-Electrical Clusters (MTER, same as EVOs, same as Micro ball lightning) are the cause, I agree. Ask your learned plasma physicist friend how many peer reviewed Hyper-Toroidal moment papers he has read.
Wikipedia is the curated in some respects permitted or paid for view of agreed things. Science is never settled, it is always in flux. That being said, you can look up toroidal moment (and you will see that there is discussion on it being the only thing that can interact with dark matter) there as you can the spectra of ball lightning as I already mentioned.
Regardless of what you think about Bostick and Nardi and the whole program started in 1948 to convert the H-bomb into domestic fusion that he lead, we have replicated and extended/clarified his publicly published findings.
Perhaps you might find a few hours to run an ULTR experiment or two - I am assuming however you have a few hours left and around $40. If you have a bigger budget ($500 to $1000) and a smart phone from about 2017, you can do a VEGA experiment. I expect you will not bother, because you know all of science that will ever be known so you don’t need to waste your precious time or dinner money.
In the meantime, we will get on with the hard work of establishing fact from fiction based on repeatable evidence from simple to execute openly published experiments.
ian w @ Bob Greenyer - 8 Jan 2023, 13:23
Bob Greenyer "If he is like you and starts from the premise that he already ‘knows something is not possible’ and therefore will not look at peer reviewed papers relevant to the subject" SAFIRE have no peer-reviewed papers on the subject! They have no evidence of anything they claim. It's a scam. How many times do I need to ask? Where is the evidence? Grow up and admit that they have none, and you are supporting them because it fits with your world view, and are therefore supporting a scam that is trying to defraud the gullible. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE. They have nobody with a clue about the relevant science.
After the above comment, almost all of the sock-puppets entries were deleted. This happened when I comments on Prof. Dave’s channel some time ago - but they are kept here for reference so that future people can see how this guy operates.
susmarcon @ Bob Greenyer
Your forbearance is that of the bodhisattva my friend. I suppose being so well informed helps someone keep their cool, but this ian w aka "Prof Dave" is enough to drive any rational person to distraction. It's actually frightening to discover that this kind of mind lives amongst us. The guy will not, or can not accept that "science" is a Venn diagram, where overlapping disciplines inform one another, and can lead to new and unexpected results in many fields at once. There are two possibilities. Either you have enraged a less than adequately prepared individual, who is so embraced that his cortisol levels are playing havoc with is mental processes, or the guy simply can not understand most of the basic tenets that govern the very meaning of scientific pursuit. Whichever be the case, it is now clear that I never need to engage directly with someone who has proven to represent and embody the antithesis of the scientific method.
I think he may actually be close to a breakdown. Good luck Bob.
Susmarcon is a genuine account, with uploaded videos, play lists, subscriptions and has been around since 6 Aug 2008.
Thankyou for reading this exchange. Happy new year!