Rossi Blog Reader

This website tracks recent postings to Andrea Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics, sorting the entries with priority to Rossi's answers, which appear under each question.

• Need more context? We also have Rossi's entire blog on a single page.
• You can also keep an eye on Defkalion's latest postings to their forums.
• Website comments to the Webmaster (who has no contact or connection with Rossi).
• Email to Andrea Rossi - Journal Of Nuclear Physics

  1. Wladimir Guglinski

    A POSSIBLE PHYSICAL MECHANISM FOR THE ENTANGLEMENT

    Joe wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:05 PM

    Wladimir,

    But since the particles remain entangled for an indefinite amount of time, the idea that fields are responsible for QE can be safely eliminated.
    ==========================================

    Dear Joe,
    I discovered that it is possible to have entanglement via interaction of fields for an indefinite amount of time, by considering my model of the photon.
    Let me explain it to you.

    In my paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism it is proposed the structure of field of the elementary particles, including the photon.
    The figure 2.5 ahead shows one gravity string of the gravity field of the particles. The body of the gravitons in those strings is crossed by a flux of magnetons with speed c of light:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png

    The magnetons are captured in the perimeter of the universe, and it means that the lenght of the gravity field of an elementary particle goes from its body until the limit of the universe. So, two photons in two opposite points of the extreme of the universe can interact via their gravity fields.

    The mechanism of the photon collapse due to entanglement
    Now let us see how one photon collapses when its twin photon is collapsed due to an collision with matter.

    According to the photon model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, a photon is formed by particle and antiparticle moving in circular contrary direction about the line center of their helical trajectory.

    As the particle and the antiparticle have contrary electric charge, they would have to meet together, and the photon would have to collapse.

    However the photon does not collapse because repulsive gravitons avoid the particle and the antiparticle to meet together. So, the repulsive gravitons avoid the collapse of the photon.

    When two twin photons are formed (as for instance in the Gabriela Lemos experiment), they interact very easy via their gravity field, because as they are twin brother they resonate very easily.

    So, two twin photons brothers move in the aether having entanglement between their gravity field, which means that the stability of each of them depends on that entanglement.

    When one of the twin brothers collapses hitting some surface of matter, the entanglement is broken. So, because the resonance with his brother was broken, a disturbance occurs in the field of the repulsive gravitons responsible for the stability of the photon. Due to the disturbance, the particle an the antiparticle succeed to meet together, and the photon collapses.

    Joe,
    as we may realize, from such mechanism for the entanglement, the Quantum Ring Theory becomes compatible with Quantum Mechanics, from the consideration that the entanglement occurs via interaction of fields.

    regards
    wlad

  2. Eric Ashworth

    Regards ideas pertaining to space and time. My understanding is that space represents a distance and time is a duration. Therefore, to bring both into a concept of actuality, surely a physical body is required to travel a distance over a duration of time. However, I do not believe in empty space because of the aether and its activity. Therefore, technically there may exist two contradictory states or two types of nature. One whereby space and time exist and one whereby space and time do not exist. Just a thought. Regards, Eric Ashworth.

  3. JCRenoir

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    another question: are quarks stable or virtual particles?
    JCR

  4. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    1- gravitational field: the symmetries responsible for the force are changes of positions and changes in orientation in four dimensional spacetime
    2- strong interactions field: the symmetry relates to the colors ( red, green, or blue) of the quarks, wherein colors are different quantic status of the same parton: it does not matter if we describe a quark as red, blue or green or any combination of these colors, therefore it is a simmetry
    3- electromagnetic field: particles with electric charges come in matched pairs, one with a positive charge, one with a negative charge, because to get a charged particle is necessary to have two fields that can rotate into each other under the gauge symmetry of electromagnetism. A single field can’t be charged , since there’s nothing for the symmetry to act on ( This reminds me the dialectic between slave and lord in the Phenomenology of the Spirit of Hegel).
    4- weak interactions field: we are talking of the W and Z bosons; they are connection fields born out of an underlying symmetry of nature masked by the Higgs field. The Higgs breaks the symmetry on which W and Z bosons are based and once that symmetry is broken these bosons lose their ” masslessness”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  5. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:05 PM

    Wladimir,

    But since the particles remain entangled for an indefinite amount of time, the idea that fields are responsible for QE can be safely eliminated.
    All the best,
    Joe
    ===================================================

    Joe,
    such assumption is what the quantum theorists claim.

    But never any experiment had confirmed it.

    Now, if Gabriela decides to perform the experiments suggested by me, from the results we will be able to know if the entanglement is caused either by the interaction of fields or not.

    So, I prefer to wait the results of the experiments.

    In my last comment, I said to you:

    ====================================================
    Joe,
    concerning the experiment made by Gabriela,
    I suspect the following:

    when the two beams of photons go along the SAME LINE, and moving in CONTRARY direction, NO image due to the entanglement will be formed in the detector.

    I suppose it because when the interaction between the fields of the two photons is broken (because the first photon is annihilated when it hits the cat), the second photon will not deviate its trajectory (because the two photons were moving along the same line).
    As there is no deviation in the trajectory of the second photon, it will continue its motion and it hits the detector. And therefore the black image is not formed in the detector
    ==============================================

    regards
    wlad

  6. Wladimir Guglinski

    silvio caggia wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:39 PM

    @Wladimir Gusglinski

    What happens if “output” arm is much shorter than “input” arm?
    Some think that entanglement vanish, but others, like John Cramer, think that something very conuterintuitive happens: retrocausality, you see the cat before you put it!
    ============================================

    COMMENT
    Let’s call C the photon which hits the cat, and D the photon which hits the detector.

    The photon D hits the detector before the photon C hits the cat.
    Due to the collision with the detector, the photon D vanishes. As the entanglement is broken, the photon C deviates its trajectory (or is vanished), and so the photon C does not hit the cat.

    Therefore is not formed the real image of the cat, and it is not formed the image due to entanglemnt in the detector.

    regards
    wlad

  7. Wladimir Guglinski

    silvio caggia wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:39 PM

    @Wladimir Gusglinski

    What happens if “output” arm is much shorter than “input” arm?
    Some think that entanglement vanish, but others, like John Cramer, think that something very conuterintuitive happens: retrocausality, you see the cat before you put it!
    ============================================

    COMMENT
    Let’s call C the photon which hits the cat, and D the photon which hits the detector.

    The photon D hits the detector before the photon C hits the cat.
    Due to the collision with the detector, the photon D vanishes. As the entanglement is broken, the photon C deviates its trajectory (or is vanished), and so the photon C does not hit the cat.

    Therefore is not formed the real image of the cat, and it is not formed the image due to entanglemnt in the detector.

    regards
    wlad

  8. JCRenoir

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    I read with great interest your explication about Symmetry. Can you explain which are the Symmetries responsible for the 4 foundamental forces?
    JCRenoir

  9. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    Quarks can be stable, but there are also virtual quarks. Valence quarks in protons and neutrons are stable, but in protons and neutrons there are also virtual particles like gluons and quark-antiquark pairs: in this case quarks are virtual. Note that in a proton we have always 2 up quarks more than the antiup and one down quark more than the antidown, while in the neutron we have always two down more than the antidown and one up more than the antiup.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  10. Steven N. Karels

    dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted “No, the efficiency remains the same during the 6 months of scheduled operation”. You also stated that the eCat under test for the TIR ran continuously for thousands of hours. So I must conclude that the operational performance was long-term stable and was nominally outputting a constant power level. I know that you mentioned the input and output were monitored every second and millions of data points were collected. So a six month continuous run would produce over 15 million data points with sampling at a one Hertz rate. Given these facts and derived knowledge, what should we look for in the TIR report.

    1. Energy Density: Given the net output (output minus the input) energy and the size or weight of the eCat, we should expect a bound on the energy density. A bound because the TIR team may not know the fuel size and volume, so they would have to use the eCat reactor size and volume.
    2. Likewise for power density.
    3. Operating conditions (room temperature? Type and amount of input power). Experiment description and rules.
    4. Detected radiation (or lack thereof).
    5. Output stability — a Fourier Transform of the recorded data , input and output would be interesting.
    6. Any change in weight/mass hopefully would be presented.
    7. Change in physical appearance or dis-coloration.
    8. Pre and post experiment fuel composition (if allowed under the experiment rules)

  11. Joe

    Claudio,

    Albert Einstein once gave the example of the new versus the old paradigm of time and space. In the old paradigm, when you removed matter and energy from the Universe, time and space would be left behind. In the new paradigm, when you remove matter and energy from the Universe, time and space follow. The reason for this is that time and space are now considered an integral part of the physical Universe. The problem with this example is that it is illogical. And since logic undergirds science, this example is also unscientific. Therefore, the new paradigm can not be true.

    So how is it illogical?
    When all four species (matter, energy, time, space) are removed from the Universe, there must necessarily be left behind a Universe that acts as a receptacle from which these four species were removed. But this Universe must exist in time and space for it to exist at all in order to extricate the four species. But then we are left with two sets of time and space: one that can be removed, and one that can not be removed. This is contradictory. But Nature is not contradictory, else Nature would not exist.
    So one set of time and space must necessarily be false.

    So which is the false set of time and space?
    If the set that was removed is false, then the new paradigm is obviously false, and time and space are determined to be the mental objects that they have always been considered throughout most of human history.
    If the set that was removed is true, then no Universe could be left behind, which would render this example given by Einstein as logically impossible. And being so, the new paradigm that this example purports to illumine is likewise logically impossible. Consequently, time and space can not be physical objects. Therefore, they are mental ones.
    As we can see in either case, time and space are mental objects, not physical.

    All the best,
    Joe

  12. Hank Mills

    http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2007Sept/ConductingComposites.asp

    This article reminds me of the tubercules on the surface of the nickel powder in the E-Cat.

    “Lussey, working in collaboration with Bloor, discovered that the nanoscale spikes on the surface of the nickel particles in his composite are key to its unique conducting properties. By gently mixing the materials by hand, he had limited shear forces during mixing and so maintained the particles spiky shape. Although packed close together, the nickel particles always remain separated by the silicone polymer even when the material is deformed. Electronic charge on the particles is concentrated onto the tips of the spikes on the surface, which generates high charge densities. When the composite is deformed the particles are brought close enough together for electrons from these areas of high charge density to ‘jump’ from one particle to another other. This process is known as quantum tunnelling.”

    It makes me wonder what is more important in the E-Cat, the tips of the spikes where high levels of charge can accumilate and create conditions favorable for quantum tunneling, or the cracks between the spikes.

    Just letting my mind wander for a bit. I’m hoping the upcoming E-Cat report will be posted soon.

  13. silvio caggia

    @Wladimir Gusglinski
    Sorry but I don’t understand your warning about istantaneous/simultaneous.
    If the two arms of the esperimental setup have the same lenght you have simultaneity, if the “output” arm is much longer than “input” arm, photons that make the picture arrive to detectors later than photons that hit the cat.
    What happens if “output” arm is much shorter than “input” arm?
    Some think that entanglement vanish, but others, like John Cramer, think that something very conuterintuitive happens: retrocausality, you see the cat before you put it!
    Now we can check if the results of Transactional Interpretation predictions are positive or negative :-)

  14. Joe

    Wladimir,

    In my last post, I gave you the temporal reason why fields can never explain QE. Now, let me give you the spatial reason. Two particles separated by space will always have various media between them in real world situations. Whatever field connections these two particles had initially with each other could never be maintained since they would be interacting with their local environments as well as with each other. And remember how QE is destroyed: by particles interacting with their environment (which includes acts of measurement). But since the particles remain entangled for an indefinite amount of time, the idea that fields are responsible for QE can be safely eliminated.

    All the best,
    Joe

  15. Joe

    Silvio,

    Although I do not fully understand the technical aspects of the experiment, I agree with Wladimir that you are probably confusing the concept of instantaneity with that of simultaneity. The former seems magical. But the latter is mundane, which is why I doubt that we will get something as extraordinary as a time machine from it.

    All the best,
    Joe

  16. Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers:
    Today has been published on the JoNP the paper “Black hole cosmos and micro cosmos” by the Indian nuclear Physicists Prof. U.V.S Seshavatharam and Prof. S. Lakshminarayana.
    JoNP

  17. Joseph Fine

    AR,

    Happy Labor Day,

    After you and your teams’ many hours, days, weeks, months and years of hard work, in the near future, I hope the Third Party Independent Report will arise and shine on a bright new day.

    Joseph Fine

  18. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you and a great Labor Day to you
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  19. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    I am celebrating just working.
    I wish a wonderful Labor Day to all our US Readers
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  20. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe,
    concerning the experiment made by Gabriela,
    I suspect the following:

    when the two beams of photons go along the SAME LINE, and moving in CONTRARY direction, NO image due to the entanglement will be formed in the detector.

    I suppose it because when the interaction between the fields of the two photons is broken (because the first photon is annihilated when it hits the cat), the second photon will not deviate its trajectory (because the two photons were moving along the same line).
    As there is no deviation in the trajectory of the second photon, it will continue its motion and it hits the detector. And therefore the black image is not formed in the detector

    regards
    wlad

  21. claudio

    Joe – Referring to space & time what does it mean “mental object”? How can you distinguish mental from NON mental? And which are the means (or evidences) you rely on to state this? Thanks. Claudio

  22. Wladimir Guglinski

    A second suggestion sent to DR. Gabriela Barreto Lemos:

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
    Subject: RE: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
    Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:08:15 -0300

    Dear Dr. Grabriela

    I think it is of interest to compare the image produced by the entanglement in the following conditions:

    1) The two beams of photons go along two parallel lines

    2) The two beams of photons go along two orthogonal lines

    3) The two beams of photons go along two lines having 130º

    Other very much interesting experiment is the following:

    == The two beams of photons go along the SAME LINE, but moving in CONTRARY DIRECTION.

    In the case the experiments get to detect a difference in the sharpness of the image produced by the entanglement in those different conditions of the direction of the two beams, this imply that the entanglement must be due to the interaction of some sort of field of the photons.

    When the photons are moving, their fields have interaction. But when the first photon hits the real image of the cat and therefore it is annihilated, the interaction between their fields is broken, and the second photon suffers a deviation in the direction of its trajectory (because the interaction was broken), and so the second photon does not arrive to the detector, because its trajectory changed its direction. As consequence, as the photon does not hit the detector, then a black image is formed in the detector.

    regards
    wlad

  23. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    I hope you are spending your Labor Day holiday doing something you enjoy. Let’s hope the exponential anxiety levels at Industrial Heat do not spoil the holiday!

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  24. Wladimir Guglinski

    silvio caggia wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 1:20 AM
    @Joe
    @Wladimir Guglinski
    I have not well understood the experimental setup of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, can you correct me?
    She has a laser beam L that is splitted in two beams L1 and L2, L1 is then splitted by a non linear cristal NLC1 in two entangled beams L1a and L1b, while L2 is splitted by a non linear cristal NLC2 in two entangled beams L2a and L2b. L1b and L2b show an “output” (interference or not) according to the “input” that L1a and L2a interfere or are blocked by something put between them. Is this resume correct?
    You say that “output” at Lxb occurs istantaneously with “input” at Lxa, but this is due to the fact that the two arms of the experimental setup have the same lenght. What happens if Lxb arm is shorter than Lxa arm? The “output” will precede temporally the “input” realizing a sort of time-machine! :-)
    John Cramer tried this for many years without success, If Gabriela succeded the most interesting thing to inspect with this experiment is the real nature of Time.
    Regards
    ===============================

    Dear Silvio
    you are making confusion between INSTANTANEOUS and SIMULTANEOUS

    According to Quantum Mechanics, the entanglement is INSTANTANEOUS

    According to QM, you can put one detector here in the Earth, and the other in the Moon, but the image of the entanglement in the Moon will be produced simulteneously with the image produced in the Earth, because the entanglement is INSTANTENOUS (according to QM).

    regards
    wlad

  25. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 31st, 2014 at 9:24 PM

    Wladimir,

    But quantum entanglement (QE)occurs INSTANTANEOUSLY. The reason why neither standard physics nor QRT can explain QE is because they depend on the concept of field which implies a lapse of time rather than instantaneity.

    All the best,
    Joe
    ===========================================

    COMMENT
    Dear Joe,
    this is the INTERPRETATION of the quantum theorists for the entanglement, according to the principles of the Quantum Mechanics.
    To consider it as instantaneous is consequence of the Interpretation of Copenhagen.

    Actually we dont know if it really is instantaneous, because in the experiments the distance between the detectors is very short, and there is no way to verify if it occurs instanteneously, or not.

    A new experiment published by Nature in 31 July 2014 already had shown that it is wrong the Interpretation of Copenhagen:
    “To Bohr and others, the process was instantaneous – when you opened the box, the entangled system collapsed into a definite, classical state. This postulate stirred debate in quantum mechanics, But real-time tracking of a quantum system shows that it’s a continuous process, and that we can constantly extract information from the system as it goes from quantum to classical. This level of detail was never considered accessible by the original founders of quantum theory.”
    http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/07/30/watching-schrodingers-cat-die/

    .

    I dont believe entanglement is intantaneous.

    I think the entanglement occurs via interaction between the gravity fields of the twins photons.

    As any theoretical controversy must be decided via experiments, this is the reason why in my oppinion more experiments must be performed, in order to help us to discover how entanglement occurs.

    regards
    wlad

  26. Wladimir Guglinski

    SECOND REPLY BY DR. GABRIELA BARRETO LEMOS

    From: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
    Subject: Re: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
    Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:49:03 +0200
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

    Hello Mr Guglinski

    Thank you for your suggestion. I will discuss it with my co-workers when they all return from their holidays

    Best regards.
    Gabriela

    .

    On Aug 30, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Wladimir wrote:

    Dear Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos

    I think it would be of interest to repeat your experiment by changing the angles of incidence of the two twins photons when they hit the two detectors (by putting the two detectors with several different angles one regarding the other, in order to verify how the relative different angles between the two detectors can influence in the formation of the image produced by the entanglement).

    I hope by this way we may try to understand the physical laws that rule the entanglement.

    The reason why I suppose it is explained in the comment of mine published in the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853#comments

  27. silvio caggia

    @Joe
    @Wladimir Guglinski
    I have not well understood the experimental setup of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, can you correct me?
    She has a laser beam L that is splitted in two beams L1 and L2, L1 is then splitted by a non linear cristal NLC1 in two entangled beams L1a and L1b, while L2 is splitted by a non linear cristal NLC2 in two entangled beams L2a and L2b. L1b and L2b show an “output” (interference or not) according to the “input” that L1a and L2a interfere or are blocked by something put between them. Is this resume correct?
    You say that “output” at Lxb occurs istantaneously with “input” at Lxa, but this is due to the fact that the two arms of the experimental setup have the same lenght. What happens if Lxb arm is shorter than Lxa arm? The “output” will precede temporally the “input” realizing a sort of time-machine! :-)
    John Cramer tried this for many years without success, If Gabriela succeded the most interesting thing to inspect with this experiment is the real nature of Time.
    Regards

  28. Joe

    Wladimir,

    Communication of information occurs by way of waves traveling in a field. And the concept of travel implies the concept of speed. And the concept of speed implies a lapse of time between two points in space. But quantum entanglement (QE)occurs INSTANTANEOUSLY. The reason why neither standard physics nor QRT can explain QE is because they depend on the concept of field which implies a lapse of time rather than instantaneity.

    All the best,
    Joe

  29. Andrea Rossi

    Rafal Krych:
    All I can do is to perform honestly my work together with my great Team in our limited field of application. World can be saved only by Mankind ( which means persons like you) with the help of God.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  30. Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    I spent today working all the day.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  31. Rafal Krych

    Dear Andrea,

    This is Appeal of Polish intellectuals to the citizens and governments of Europe. We need your E-Cat ever more then before in order to cease dependence on Russian gas.

    Good luck then and please keep saving this world.

  32. Wladimir Guglinski

    From: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
    Subject: Re: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
    Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:44:11 +0200
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

    Thank you for your email. I will look into this proposal. Best Regards

    .

    On Aug 30, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Wladimir wrote:

    Dear Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos

    I think it would be of interest to repeat your experiment by changing the angles of incidence of the two twins photons when they hit the two detectors (by putting the two detectors with several different angles one regarding the other, in order to verify how the relative different angles between the two detectors can influence in the formation of the image produced by the entanglement).

    I hope by this way we may try to understand the physical laws that rule the entanglement.

    The reason why I suppose it is explained in the comment of mine published in the blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853#comments

  33. Italo R.

    Dear Dr. Rossi, today it is Sunday and in this day people generally rest from own work.
    How are you passing the time today?
    Kind Regards,
    Italo R.

  34. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 30th, 2014 at 9:53 PM

    Wladimir,

    1- =========================================
    There is no mystery to quantum entanglement when you remember what I mentioned a while back about the nature of space and time. Space and time are not physical objects but mental ones.
    =============================================

    COMMENT:
    I am not agree.

    Joe,
    I also believe in the power of the mind, because several experiments in the field of Biology already had proved it.

    However, the power of the mind has no influence in the results of experiments where the Laws of Physics prevail.

    You are assuming that Gabriela and her team were accompanying the experience all the time, and so the their minds were influencing the occurrence of the entanglement.

    But suppose that Gabriele repeats the experiment as follows:

    1- The team puts a video camera filming what happens in the detectors

    2- They go away, leaving the experiment to run without any mental influence

    Do you think that, in this case, will the entanglement do not occur?

    2- ===================================
    a change in one entangled particle will produce an inverse change in its partner.
    ======================================

    COMMENT

    I want just to discover how the entanglement occurs, and I think it is caused by the interaction between the two gravity fields of the twins photons A and B.

    That’s why I suppose that the relative angle between the detectors has influence in the formation of the image caused by the entanglement, because the angle between the detectors changes the angle between the paths of two photons.

    Suppose Gabriele makes two experiments:

    a) the photon A and B have perpendicular paths.
    b) the photon A and B have parallel paths

    The interaction between the two gravity fields will be different in the situation a) and b). And we have to discover if such difference has influence in the formation of the image caused by the entanglement

    regards
    wlad

  35. RicT

    Dear. Dr. Rossi

    What’s Your “feeling” about TPRII?

    1) positive
    2) negative
    3) prosecco For the Team
    4) Champagne free For anyone!!!

    As human beings, after all, we have feeling – that may be wrong or right….

    Thank you

  36. Andrea Rossi

    RicT:
    By nature I am an optimist guy, but, as a professional, I must maintain a neutral equilibrium.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  37. Andrea Rossi

    H-G Branzell:
    Good question.
    Under a scientific point of view, based on the First Principle of Thermodynamic, the COP of an apparatus that generates heat with chemical reactions MUST be <1. Therefore, under a scientific point of view, any COP>1 should be considered a positive result.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  38. M.B.

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    Let me share one thing that has always puzzled me. In your references about the third independent party report you’ve never failed to stress that a negative result in it cannot be ruled out. A negative result, as far as I understand, will mean that the E-CAT reactor does not work the way it is supposed to. On the other hand, you are getting ready to open a 1MW plant which will use E-CAT reactors.

    Isn’t there a logical inconsistency here? How can E-CAT’s be used in industrial applications if the 3rd party report, which is supposed to be the final word about the functionality of these devices, eventually comes out negative?

    Kindest regards,
    M.B.

  39. Andrea Rossi

    M.B.:
    There is no inconsistency: also the results of the 1 MW plant operating in the factory of the Customer of IH could be, after a long operation time, positive, but also negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  40. Mark

    Hi Andrea, 1 or 2?

    1,The test report will be available freely to the general public

    2, The test report will be available at a cost through some commercial means to the general public

  41. Andrea Rossi

    Mark:
    1, of course !!!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  42. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    I agree that if the TPR2 is positive it would give the entire field of LENR a huge boost. However isn’t that going to work against you somewhat since then your rivals would be able to attract much more support for their projects. Even I would be tempted to write a proposal for development of a system on the basis of this report that shows the feasibility of extracting energy from the nucleus. The number of possible approaches are large(I can thing of at least a dozen), and there is abundant venture monies available in the financial world(almost all internet startups can get some funding). If you are allowing the inspectors to generate this information for altruistic reasons, I commend you, but that is the only reason I see for your generosity.
    Regards from your friend

  43. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    This was necessary.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  44. Joe

    Wladimir,

    There is no mystery to quantum entanglement when you remember what I mentioned a while back about the nature of space and time. Space and time are not physical objects but mental ones. True physical reality is beyond space and time, therefore it is not constrained by space and time. And since by logic, conservation must always be upheld, a change in one entangled particle will produce an inverse change in its partner. And this happens immediately and independently of the distance between them because time and space are of no consequence as I mentioned.

    All the best,
    Joe

  45. H-G Branzell

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    For the commercial E-Cats you have promised a COP of around 6. If if turns out that the independent third party has found that the COP is less than 5, will you then call the result negative?
    Best regards, H-G Branzell

  46. Andrea Rossi

    Jouni Toumela:
    Thank you for your information regarding heat exchangers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  47. Jouni Tuomela

    Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi,

    Now thinking again, I am quite sure you already knew all this, but still the makings of the heat-exchanger is facinating. Perhaps relaxing also, you surely need that also.

    Br Jouni

  48. Jouni Tuomela

    Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi,

    Mr. Steven N. Karels brought silver nanoparticles to my attention, thank you, they are facinating.

    Also the thermal properties of nanoparticle fluids are interesting. Please use 10 minutes of your studying-time to watch this highly interesting video about the theory of nano-fluids aswell as the makings of a micron-sized(?) heat exchanger.

    Youtube-videos are highly valuable in learning.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y04W53ihLXk

    Warmer Regards, and all the best,
    Jouni Tuomela

  49. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    I cannot give information about this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  50. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    I still don’t understand why the TPR2 report is so important to you. You have already established the basis of the industrial complex necessary to introduce and manufacture your devices. There is field testing established which will confirm the quality of the devices and their usefulness. These results are what will allow your work to be continued and distributed, not the results of the report. Also, you claim that the theory of the Rossi effect is well known to your group so any speculation by the investigators can only be conformation which has no real value to you. Having this report as a backup is useful only to allow you to say “I told you so”, and you don’t need that in my opinion. Perhaps the institutions that are funding the report work need their own confirmation to convince their owners to further fund their own efforts in this area of technology, but your establishment does not. The only other value I can imagine is the possibility that they may uncover some technology which may be useful to you. A long shot in my opinion since you have much more device experience than them.
    I am saving my anxiety for the results of the plant installation, which I thing will, after a few bumps, prove your system is a genuine advancement.
    Regards and good luck!

  51. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    The work of the Third Independent Party is the first long term test made upon a LENR device in the last 25 years. The results will be the results that for the first time in the history of the LENR will be released by a third independent party after a test not of hours, but of thousands of hours, without interruptions and without intervention of the inventor or the owner. The results could be positive or negative, as I always said.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  52. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I know you cannot discuss the inner workings of your eCat reactor. But more than likely you have an adhesive that holds the nickel powder to the inside of the external cylinder so that energy may be transferred when the eCat is reacting. That assumed, it is important to keep a high thermal conductivity of whatever material secures the nickel to the heat transfer elements, i.e., the external cylinder. Increasing the thermal conductivity of the material that secures the nickel is important in a couple of ways.

    1. It keeps the nickel from melting and therefore loosing what ever surface preparation has been done to make it work.
    2. It will allow a higher external cylinder surface temperature at the heat transfer area to occur which could affect Carnot efficiency.

    My estimates based on some assumptions and some simple calculations indicate that the difference between a moderate thermal conductivity and a good thermal conductivity might result in a temperature difference of 100 Celsius. Perhaps you may wish to consider this? Adding a conductive material like silver nanoparticles might significantly increase the thermal conductivity.

  53. Giuliano Bettini

    “just say”: I mean: please stop to say…

  54. Andrea Rossi

    Angel Blume:
    I cannot supply further information about the mechanism of the E-Cat. We now know it well, and it is strictly bound to the issues covered, as you correctly say, by the NDA and the defense of the IP.
    We do not have safety concerns, since safety certification has been obtained for our industrial E-Cat after the reactors have been properly designed and all the measurements made OUTSIDE the E-Cat have confirmed its safety also in terms of ionizing radiations. We have experts of the matter working with us, who are physicists from laboratories specialized in measurements of ionizing radiations.
    About the domestic E-Cat, any commercial information is impossible until a safety certification is obtained for it: as I explained many times, there is a paramount difference between the certification of industrial plants, operated by certified technicians, and domestic appliances, operated by persons that are not even supposed to read the manuals. The price of the domestic E-Cat will be computed after we will know exactly the requirements estabilished during the certification process, besides other issues.
    Pre-orders are just a waiting list, with no engagement at all, with no money deposited. We cannot accept money until the product is really for sale.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  55. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Steven,
    you are right, I agree (obviously).
    However, IMO the matter is too important, it’s time to give an answer. The Americans went to the moon, so just say “yes, oh well, who knows, may be, perhaps, boh, it is too difficult …..”.
    I repeat: I hope that the professors give a definitive answer.
    My best Regards,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  56. Andrea Rossi

    Pietro F.:
    I will answer to your questions after:
    1- the publication of the TIPR
    2- our publication of the performance data of the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  57. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    We have to wait and be patient. Obviously the anxiety is getting exponential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  58. Wladimir Guglinski

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: vcq@quantum.at
    Subject: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
    Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:13:07 -0300

    Dear Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos

    I think it would be of interest to repeat your experiment by changing the angles of incidence of the two twins photons when they hit the two detectors (by putting the two detectors with several different angles one regarding the other, in order to verify how the relative different angles between the two detectors can influence in the formation of the image produced by the entanglement).

    I hope by this way we may try to understand the physical laws that rule the entanglement.

    The reason why I suppose it is explained in the comment of mine published in the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853#comments

    ============================================
    Wladimir Guglinski
    August 29th, 2014 at 7:32 PM
    How does the quantum entanglement works?
    I used do not believe in the existence of the quantum entanglement. In my book Quantum Ring Theory, by considering my model of the photon, I had proposed a new interpretation for the Alain Aspect experiment, without the need of considering the entanglement.

    But a new experiment published in the journal Nature does not allow any doubt on its existence:
    Quantum imaging with undetected photons
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13586.html
    The experiment was made under the lead of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, a Brazilian physicist.

    So, the entanglement exists, and we have to try to understand what is physical mechanism underlying its occurrence.

    It is obvious that, for the understanding of such physical mechanism, we need to try to understand the entanglement by considering a physical structure of the aether.

    Another experiment which is dealing with the structure of the aether is being made in the Fermilab:
    http://astro.fnal.gov/projects/OtherInitiatives/holometer_project.html

    The structure of the aether is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
    But the best aspect of the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is the fact that such structure is connected to the structures of the electron, the proton, the neutrino, the photon, and the nucleus.
    Therefore, the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is not a lonely theory, actually it is a theory connected to structures of the elementary stable particles of the universe, and this is the best aspect of the theory.

    According to the photon model of QRT, the photon is composed by a particle and its antiparticle moving in helical trajectory.

    In the experiment made by Gabriela, when the photon is broken in two parts, the particle takes a direction, and the antiparticle takes another direction.
    However, in the instant when the photon is broken, the lonely particle captures a new antiparticle from the aether, and the antiparticle captures a new particle either, in orther that two twins photons A and B are formed.

    The question is: how does occur the entanglement between the twins photons A and B?

    In the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, it is proposed a string of gravitons (of the elementary particles as the electron and the proton) captures magnetons in the perimeter of the universe (the most far away limit of the universe), as we see in the Figure 2.5 of the paper, ahead:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png

    The question now is to discover how the gravity strings of the photon A gets entanglement with the gravity strings of the photon B in the experiment made by Gabriela.

    In another words:
    What are the laws of Physics underlying the entanglement via the structure of the aether?
    It’s an exciting chalenge.

    .

    Dear Joe
    when my paper will be published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, I would like to talk about the question with you, here in the Comments of the JoNP.
    regards
    wlad
    ============================================

    .

    Thanks to your attention
    Wladimir Guglinski

  59. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Just like in an American jury trial, the fast verdict is usually guilty when the evidence is overwhelming. If the TIR scientists saw results where the amount of output energy was less than or equal to the input energy, the report would be negative and it could be quickly released. So the seemingly long release time for the TIR to me says the results will most likely be very positive. But as in any trial, we must wait for the verdict before congratulations are in order.

  60. Steven N. Karels

    Giuliano Bettini,

    You posted — I’m quite amazed by the statement “..the transmutation of Ni (…) has still to be confirmed.” In other LENR experiments transmutation have been reported at the atomic level. But for AR to report transmutation of a secondary (not primary) reaction would be very difficult. The amount of copper that might be produced could be much less than one milligram of mass, depending on how secondary the reaction was. So distinguishing it from contamination could be difficult.

    Nuclear reactions produce so much energy compared to chemical reactions that not a lot of byproducts are produced. To prove a nickel-to-copper relationship, one way might be to determine the fuel contents before initial operation, then examine the same fuel distributed in different eCat reactors run at one month, two months, … to six months and measure the copper in each fuel sample. And to be able to show a relationship with energy produced versus copper produced. But measuring milligram or microgram levels of any material can be very challenging.

  61. Pietro F.

    Buongiorno ing. Rossi,
    1) su cento attivazioni dell’ecat quante riescono?
    2) riguardo alla prima domanda c’é stata una progressione significativa negli ultimi tre anni?
    3) su cento ecat attivati quanti mantengono una stabilità ragionevolmente utilizzabile ai fini commerciali?

    Se puo’…!

    comunque la ringrazio e buon lavoro

    (by google translate):
    Hello ing. Rossi,
    1) on one hundred of ecat activations ecat how they do it?
    2) With regard to the first question there was a significant progression in the last three years?
    3) on one hundred of those ECAT activated how maintain a stable reasonably usable for commercial purposes?

    If you can …!

    anyway thank you and good job

    Pietro F.

  62. Angel Blume

    Dear Mr. Rossi

    I am getting confused with your last replies.
    I entirely agree with Mr. Janhunen to the possible reaction scenario. Being all isotopes from Cu59 to Cu62 long lived enough (minutes / hours), it is factible to detect the positronic radiation. Moreover the ratio Ni60/Ni62 before and after gives a clue of what is happening inside the reactor.
    Without revealing your catalyst, not breaking your NDagreements, I think you could be more explicit. As I see, some posters are well qualified to help you on foreseeing the effects regarding radiation from reactor, because I understand that your mayor concern now is safety.

    From last posters I learned that we can preorder domestic E-Cats. How much do they cost? How can I preorder a single unit?

    Thanks in advance and good luck.

    Angel

  63. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    When I say that the results of the Third independent Party could be positive, but also negative, I do not joke. That is the reality. Our work is under examination and under R&D and we honestly have the duty to say that the results of the examination could be negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  64. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    If the High Temperature E-Cat produced its design power (nearly) continuously for an entire year, or about 8,765.76 hours, then its Energy Density (Wh/kg) should be about (8765.76/116) = 75 times the Energy Density reported in the May 2013 Arxiv paper.

    I don’t remember the May 2013 Energy Density, but a factor of 75 is significant. Of course, if it ran for only six months per charge, the Energy Density multiplying factor is ‘only’ about 38 times as large.

    Still good.

    Energetic regards,

    Joseph Fine

  65. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    I think the data from the next TIPR will give information about the energy density issue after a long operation period.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  66. Wladimir Guglinski

    How does the quantum entanglement works?

    I used do not believe in the existence of the quantum entanglement. In my book Quantum Ring Theory, by considering my model of the photon, I had proposed a new interpretation for the Alain Aspect experiment, without the need of considering the entanglement.

    But a new experiment published in the journal Nature does not allow any doubt on its existence:
    Quantum imaging with undetected photons
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13586.html

    The experiment was made under the lead of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, a Brazilian physicist.

    So, the entanglement exists, and we have to try to understand what is physical mechanism underlying its occurrence.

    It is obvious that, for the understanding of such physical mechanism, we need to try to understand the entanglement by considering a physical structure of the aether.

    Another experiment which is dealing with the structure of the aether is being made in the Fermilab:
    http://astro.fnal.gov/projects/OtherInitiatives/holometer_project.html

    The structure of the aether is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
    But the best aspect of the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is the fact that such structure is connected to the structures of the electron, the proton, the neutrino, the photon, and the nucleus.

    Therefore, the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is not a lonely theory, actually it is a theory connected to structures of the elementary stable particles of the universe, and this is the best aspect of the theory.

    According to the photon model of QRT, the photon is composed by a particle and its antiparticle moving in helical trajectory.

    In the experiment made by Gabriela, when the photon is broken in two parts, the particle takes a direction, and the antiparticle takes another direction.
    However, in the instant when the photon is broken, the lonely particle captures a new antiparticle from the aether, and the antiparticle captures a new particle either, in orther that two twins photons A and B are formed.

    The question is: how does occur the entanglement between the twins photons A and B?

    In the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, it is proposed a string of gravitons (of the elementary particles as the electron and the proton) captures magnetons in the perimeter of the universe (the most far away limit of the universe), as we see in the Figure 2.5 of the paper, ahead:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png

    The question now is to discover how the gravity strings of the photon A gets entanglement with the gravity strings of the photon B in the experiment made by Gabriela.
    In another words:
    What are the laws of Physics underlying the entanglement via the structure of the aether?

    It’s an exciting chalenge.

    .

    Dear Joe

    when my paper will be published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, I would like to talk about the question with you, here in the Comments of the JoNP.

    regards
    wlad

  67. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear A.R.
    I’m quite amazed by the statement “..the transmutation of Ni (…) has still to be confirmed.”
    You must admit: after 25 years, the transmutation which “has still to be confirmed” feeds the skepticism, at least with regard to the cold fusion. In my naivety, I would say: “If there is Copper, there is Copper. However, if there is no Copper, it means that there is no Copper. Full stop.”
    Where is the problem? Extremely sophisticated measurements? Unexpected difficulties?
    Where am I wrong? I hope that at least the Professors give a definitive answer.
    Giuliano Bettini.

  68. Andrea Rossi

    Martyn Aubrey:
    2.
    It will be either electrically or gas powered, we think.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  69. Martyn Aubrey

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    Whilst I understand that the domestic E-Cat will not be available until it is certified (which may take some time), what form would the construction take?

    1. A single reactor.

    2. A smaller version of the Cat & Mouse two reactor configuration.

    3. Something else.

    4. Not decided yet.

    Also, would the domestic E-Cat be purely electrically powered, purely gas powered, either, or both?

    Kind Regards,

    Martyn Aubrey.

  70. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    1- There is not a conflict, the transmutation of Ni remains a secondary effect that, by the way, has still to be confirmed.
    2- Efficiency is not just COP, is a more wide concept encompassing many other characteristics, like stability, reliability, duration etc. All these issues are in evolution.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  71. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You had mentioned previously, I think, that the conversion of hydrogen plus nickel into copper was a secondary reaction regarding thermal energy generation. Now, apparently, you are suggesting that 62Ni production occurs and can possibly enhance the eCat efficiency. Are these statements in conflict?

    1. Can you clarify?
    2, Can you define what you mean by eCat efficiency? Improved effective COP? Something else?

  72. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Your pre-order is in our records, as well as all the pre-orders we received, but I must say that we cannot foresee when the domestic E-Cats will be put in the market.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  73. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Curiosone

    the nonsenses of Mr. JR make us to remember those said by Simplicius in Galileo’s Dialogue:

    http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Galileo_Dialogue.html

    So,
    we realize that people never change.
    Simplicius tried to save the wrong Aristotle’s concepts. And Mr. JR is trying to save the flawed concepts of current Nuclear Physics.

    Changes the scenery of human theatrical comedy, but the characters are always the same.

    regards
    wlad

  74. Alan DeAngelis

    Dear Pekka Janhunen,

    I think the chemistry sets things up for the sort of reactions you’re proposing.
    If there are no gamma rays or neutrons, I think that the chemistry would set it up for the following nuclear reactions. Nickel hydride absorbs a proton to become cuprous hydride in an excited state. Cuprous hydride absorbs its proton to become zinc in an excited state. Zinc in an excited state, fissions into nickel (with two fewer neutrons) and helium.

    NiH2 >CuH*>Zn*> Ni + He

    For example:
    H(1) + Ni(62) > Cu(63)* Step1
    H(1) + Cu(63)* > Ni(60) + He(4) Step 2
    ________________________
    Over all
    2 H(1) + Ni(62) > Ni(60) + He(4) 9.87 MeV

    For example:
    H(1) + Ni(64) > Cu(65)* Step1
    H(1) + Cu(65)* > Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2
    ________________________
    Over all
    2 H(1) + Ni(64) > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV

    And other isotopes:
    2 H(1) + Ni(N) > Ni(N-2) + He(4)

  75. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 28th, 2014 at 4:55 PM

    Argon:
    Your pre-order, as all the pre-orders for domestic E-Cats, will be satisfied as soon as we will obtain the safety certification for the domestic E-Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ======================================

    Dear Andrea,
    please dont forget my pre-order of 1.000 domestic E-Cats.

    regards
    wlad

  76. Argon

    Dear Andrea! Many months ago, i deliver to pre-order yours small domestics LENR heater . Wanted to show students. Many papers descriptions of experiments can never replace training laboratory work. It is clear that the students can not afford commercially megawatt LENR system for 2 million dollars. Please suggest a simple version of the demonstration non-chemical power in the NI-H systems for students range tens-hundred watt power. Or do you think it premature and inappropriate to inform young people about the actual running LENR?

  77. Andrea Rossi

    Argon:
    Your pre-order, as all the pre-orders for domestic E-Cats, will be satisfied as soon as we will obtain the safety certification for the domestic E-Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  78. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in August 28th, 2014 at 8:40 AM

    Why on earth would Curiosone want to thank Wladimir for totally ignoring the question that was asked and then using it as an excuse to post yet another error-riddled comment? Wlad’s comment is almost entirely incorrect and even if it had any meaningful content, it wouldn’t address the question of symmetries in any useful way.
    ===========================================================

    Daar Curiosone,
    Mr. JR is the person who claims that in the Figure 1 of the link bellow the shape is spherical:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    So, Mr. JR is a theorist able to avoid the breakdown of the current Nuclear PHysics by changing the fundamental principles of the Geometry.
    According to Mr. JR, a sphere has ellipsoidal shape.

    regards
    wlad

  79. DTravchenko

    JR:
    I do not agree with you. I too think that Wladimir Guglinski’s theories are very audacious, but Curiosone has to thank him because he has answered to his question based on his ideas, as well as he could.
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  80. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    To catch the essence of Parity, you can imagine to look at a mirror : the image you see of yourself when you look at you in a mirror has your left side and right side swapped: your right ear seems the left ear and vice versa. 3 of the 4 foundamental forces – strong, gravitational and electromagnetic- respect the parity in this sense, not so the weak forces: let me start a little bit from a deeper level.
    Massless particles can spin left handed, or right handed; in the weak interactions there is a symmetry only for the left handed elementary particles and the associated force, therefore the weak interactions violate Parity, because they discriminate between left and right.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  81. Dear Andrea,

    For your reaction, some speculation, for whatever it’s worth:

    1) List of exothermic p reactions of stable Ni and Cu isotopes
    (radioactive isotopes are marked with *):

    p + Ni58 –> Cu59* + 3.41861 MeV
    p + Ni60 –> Cu61* + 4.80002 MeV
    p + Ni61 –> Cu62* + 5.86565 MeV
    p + Ni62 –> Cu63 + 6.12181 MeV
    p + Ni64 –> Cu65 + 7.45291 MeV
    p + Cu63 –> Zn64 + 7.71373 MeV
    –> Ni60 + He4 + 3.75744 MeV
    p + Cu65 –> Zn66 + 8.92561 MeV
    –> Ni62 + He4 + 4.34708 MeV

    2) Postulate that reactions producing radioactive isotopes are
    suppressed (maybe because they produce less excess energy):

    p + Ni62 –> Cu63 + 6.12181 MeV
    p + Ni64 –> Cu65 + 7.45291 MeV
    p + Cu63 –> Zn64 + 7.71373 MeV
    –> Ni60 + He4 + 3.75744 MeV
    p + Cu65 –> Zn66 + 8.92561 MeV
    –> Ni62 + He4 + 4.34708 MeV

    3) Postulate that when there is a choice, reactions producing two
    output particles are strongly favoured (perhaps natural from reaction kinematics):

    p + Ni62 –> Cu63 + 6.12181 MeV
    p + Ni64 –> Cu65 + 7.45291 MeV
    p + Cu63 –> Ni60 + He4 + 3.75744 MeV
    p + Cu65 –> Ni62 + He4 + 4.34708 MeV

    4) Then the net reactions would be:

    2p + Ni62 –> Ni60 + He4 + 9.87925 MeV
    4p + Ni64 –> Ni60 + 2He4 + 21.6792 MeV
    p + Cu63 –> Ni60 + He4 + 3.75744 MeV
    3p + Cu65 –> Ni60 + 2He4 + 14.2263 MeV

    in other words, this kind of reasoning would predict formation of Ni-60. Since you say that Ni-62 is produced, instead, then the above reasoning cannot be entirely correct.

    regards, /pekka

  82. DTravchenko

    Dr Rossi:
    Is there any relation between symmetry and parity?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  83. Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    Yes, we have a pretty precise idea, but I have to remind you that the results of the tests could be positive or negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  84. silvio caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    It’s time to ask you the simplest and the more difficult question: do you have any idea about “from where” e-cat excess energy comes from?
    Which are the particles that are “consumed” in the so called Rossi effect producing heat?

  85. JR

    Why on earth would Curiosone want to thank Wladimir for totally ignoring the question that was asked and then using it as an excuse to post yet another error-riddled comment? Wlad’s comment is almost entirely incorrect and even if it had any meaningful content, it wouldn’t address the question of symmetries in any useful way.

  86. Curiosone

    Thank you for your “Simmetry” analogy, as usually you gave a model to understand for dummies.
    W.G.

  87. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Not for dummies, just for not professionals. I am sure you also want to thank Wladimir Guglinski.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  88. Heath

    Thank you. I knew it was a very basic question when I asked and one that is much discussed. A few have wondered (ecatworld) if now you understood it to be something unrelated to LENR in theory and something different from Pons and Fleischmann so many years ago. I’m just hoping to clear up the small things. Good luck on the things to come!

  89. Andrea Rossi

    Heath:
    The Rossi Effect is something different from the F.P. effect, as you can easily understand studying both. The F.P. system is an electrolysis based concept, the R.E. is a H-Metal reaction.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  90. Curiosone

    Do you use different isotopes of Ni in your reactions?

  91. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    We think that our process, the so called “Rossi Effect”, is , as a serendipity, also a system to produce 62Ni, because only this fact can explain the formation of atoms of stable Cu, even if in very small amounts; we also noticed that using eventually powders of Ni enriched this way, the efficiency of the E-Cats increases. But we are not sure of this fact, because there may have been errors in the analysis, so we are studying , as a side effect , this phenomenon. Obviously, I cannot add information regarding this issue, pending the patents relative to it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  92. Heath

    Dear Andrea.
    I am new to commenting on this site but greatly appreciate your work in the invention, design and understanding of the e-cat. And I am certainly excited for the report soon to come and the reactor for Industrial Heat’s customer. Do you still believe that the Rossi Effect involves low energy nuclear reactions?

  93. Andrea Rossi

    Heath:
    Whatever definition you want to give them, obviously yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  94. Wladimir Guglinski

    Curiosone wrote in August 24th, 2014 at 6:06 PM

    When you have time: in your answers regarding Physics, you said that Higgs boson breaks the “symmetry”. What is exactly the simmetry?
    Thank you for your patience,
    W.G.
    ——————————————————————

    .

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 25th, 2014 at 10:18 PM

    Curiosone:

    As we saw, from symmetry arise the 4 forces: strong force, electromagnetic force, weak force and gravitational force arise all from symmetry: let’s try to see how.
    ========================================================

    COMMENT:

    Dear Curiosone,
    actually all the Modern Physics was developed on the concept of symmetry. So, the current Nuclear Theory is also based on the concept of symmetry.

    That’s why, according to current Nuclear Physics, even-even nuclei with the same quantity Z of protons and N neutrons, Z=N, as 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, etc., would have to have spherical shape.

    However experiments have detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape:

    How atomic nuclei cluster
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    Look at the Figure 1 of the paper the elipsoidal shape of the nucleus 10Ne20.

    .

    According to the current Nuclear Physics, there is only one way to explain such eliposoidal shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N:
    There is need to consider a fifth fundamental force existing in the Nature

    .

    Other experiment detected that the nucleus 224Ra has a pear shape IMPOSSIBLE to occur, according to the current Nuclear Physics:

    Pear-Shaped Nucleus Boosts Search for Alternatives to “Standard Model” Physics
    The strange shape of radium 224 could lead to new physics:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pear-shaped-nucleus-boost-search-for-alternatives-to-standard-model-physics/

    That’s why some theorists are thinking that it is unavoidable to consider a fifth force beyond the four fundamental forces proposed in the Standard Model, otherwise it is impossible to explain such anomalous shape of the Ra224.

    In the link posted above, Stephen Batters says:
    “Even more enticingly, the experiments could probe basic physics. The standard model of particle physics, which describes the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force, leaves several basic questions unanswered.”

    And nuclear physicist Gavin Smith of the University of Manchester, UK, says:
    I believe that this will eventually lead to results of much broader impact than this experiment alone, with the possibility of placing constraints on the standard model,”

    regards
    wlad

  95. orsobubu

    In the answer to Italo R., who says that wars are due to oil, Andrea Rossi writes that “the roots of wars are deeper: during the stone age men killed each other not for lack of stones. Cain did not kill Abel for lack of apples.”

    This is absolutely correct. Most of the wars today are placed in the new framework of global relations that began to take shape in the 90s, with the federation of the Euro and the rise of Asia and China in particular. In the relations between powers, what matters is not the specific event but the historical process leading to the event and that is intrinsic to the structure of the system itself, the capitalistic production system and the imperialistic political order (Kissinger). It is from the womb of politics that the wars take their origin (Klausewitz), being the result of objective causal chains, from a society in which the human species is not consciously master of its own destiny. The states and the wars between the states are irreconcilable expressions of the conflict between classes: the uneven economic and political development changes the relationship between the powers, calls for a strength showdown and leads to the breakdown of the international order. (Guido La Barbera, La nuova fase strategica, 2014)

  96. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    4
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  97. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    do you hear some other rumors, other than Brumm Brumm? :)
    I mean:
    I know you cannot “give informations either in positive or in negative”, but what are, at this moment, your feelings about the Report?
    1. None?
    2. Positive?
    3. Negative?
    4. Too many Harley Davidson all around?
    (Of course, answer “1″ is not allowed. It’s not credible ….).
    Regards,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  98. Andrea Rossi

    Alessandro Coppi:
    I cannot comment on this in positive or negative and will publish nothing before TIP’ s Report publication.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  99. Alessandro Coppi

    In add to the last post of Steven we could imagine that we have in front of us a nickel plated iron surface, and I observed that the nickel plated surfaces if printed by laser beam becomes like sponge, could be this one a good way to go?
    When you will own the report of trp2, will you publish something here before the TRP2 public release?

    Best regards
    Alessandro Coppi

  100. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Obviously, I cannot comment in positive or in negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.