4 ms·

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

devaiops9001 3y ago
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.
- daveguy 3y ago
  Let me guess... Rossi's e-cat laboratory verified it for them?
  - devaiops9001 3y ago
    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.
    - daveguy 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - devaiops9001 3y ago
        The very real fact that the radioactive material was rendered benign was proven by the third party laboratory. You presented a guess about which laboratory it was. Your guess was both stupid and wrong. You have not successfully trolled. You did not "strike a nerve", but you did provoke a disgust response. You are not even midwit tier intelligence.
        daveguy 3y ago
        Ohhhh I guess not everyone can be the mental giant you are lapping up goofy internet videos. Oh well.
      - dang 3y ago
        I understand the provocations and have warned the other commenter elsewhere in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584466). But you also broke the site guidelines badly—not just here, but also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39581939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39581939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39578386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39578386 Moreover, we've had to warn you about this kind of thing before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37492784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37492784. Please don't respond to bad comments by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- exitheone 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    >> 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 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 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        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.

devaiops9001 3y ago

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.

daveguy 3y ago
Let me guess... Rossi's e-cat laboratory verified it for them?
- devaiops9001 3y ago
  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.
  - daveguy 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - devaiops9001 3y ago
      The very real fact that the radioactive material was rendered benign was proven by the third party laboratory. You presented a guess about which laboratory it was. Your guess was both stupid and wrong. You have not successfully trolled. You did not "strike a nerve", but you did provoke a disgust response. You are not even midwit tier intelligence.
      - daveguy 3y ago
        Ohhhh I guess not everyone can be the mental giant you are lapping up goofy internet videos. Oh well.
    - dang 3y ago
      I understand the provocations and have warned the other commenter elsewhere in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584466). But you also broke the site guidelines badly—not just here, but also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39581939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39581939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39578386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39578386 Moreover, we've had to warn you about this kind of thing before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37492784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37492784. Please don't respond to bad comments by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
exitheone 3y ago
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 3y ago
  >> 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 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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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.