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
Dear Andrea Rossi:
What do you think of the MFP and the independent particle model?
Thank you,
W.G.
Curiosone:
The MFP ( Main Free Path) is supposed to be the space a nucleon has inside the atomic nucleus to orbit independently along the “independent particle model”. Good sense says that there is not MFP in a nucleus, because strong forces would force the nucleon to react with other nuclea. To defend the independent particle model, it has been pulled out the exclusion principle of Pauli, which forbids any interaction that puts particles into states that are already occupied. Yes, but the Pauli principle cannot eliminate the strong forces, so it seems to me that the MFP is an error.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea:
During this test of the 1 MW plant have you and your Team made modifications to the technology after the experience of the work of the E-Cat?
Warm Regards,
DT
DTravchenko:
Yes, we did, and substantial too. Obviously I cannot release particulars. Inside the container where are the computers, we have also a small electronic laboratory where our electronic engineer can modify the boards of the computers of the reactors to make them follow suite the requested operative modifications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
One container contains the E-Cats, pumps heat exchangers and the satellitar informatic system of every E-Cat. The second container contains the central control system, the general electric panels, general switches etc, plus the computers to read all the data and, obviously, the chairs and the desks. One of the desks is mine, from it I am writing this comment to answer to you, as well as all the comments I sent and will send in 2015. I make the trip from one container to the other not less than 100 times every day, but for the 60% of time I am in the container where are the computers. Together with me are several components of the Team. Both containers are installed inside the factory of the Customer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Yes, I am worried about you more than ever now (hehe)!
You mention 2 containers. In the photos you released on your web site, it seemed that there was one container containing the reactors, etc., and people working inside another container. Is this second container a workshop/factory for you?
Many thanks,
Frank
JC Renoir:
Here is a strong private police security 24 hours per day. The factory is filled by cameras and many signs which say ” Smile: you are on camera”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
To obtain statistics about predictability you need experience. We cannot have experience, since this plant is the first of industrial size ( 1 MW) to be observed in operation 24/7/350. This is also why we prefer not to publish data before at least one year of operation. I sleep 4 hours per day, but very well. This life will go on for all this year and possibly a slice of the next. But it is worth. During the long nights I can hear the voice of the plant ( just speaking of mental health….-he,he,he): the voice of the plant is a blend of huge bubbling of water, pumps tictocs, bips of computers and blinking leds, bzzzzs of electric stuff…all this is not constant, but is dynamic, it’s an integral. I get data also from it. Obviously the gauges of the control system make the job, but the voice raises my instinct. I invented him, not the gauges. ( Whattaya think about my mental health, after this? He,he,he,he…)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
During the nights do you have security in the factory of the customer where the 1 MW plant is in operation ?
JCR
Ecco Liberation:
The whole of the work of Parkomov is very interesting; obviously, I do not know the particulars, beside what I have read and seen in the internet.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
It’s interesting (and a bit painful) to read about your high anxiety levels surrounding you work with the 1 MW plant. I hope it does not affect your mental and physical health!
Is the E-Cat such an unpredictable machine to cause you so much anxiety? Or is your anxiety more about the reliability of the controllers breaking down?
I hope you are able to sleep well!
Frank Acland
Dr.Rossi:
Which aspects of Dr.Parkhomov’s work do you find particularly worth mentioning?
Regards, EL.
Brandon Hurd:
Thank you for your delightful words. I gave all the possible information, with exception of issues that we deem critical to pass from a laboratory replication to an industrial manufacturing. I have been enchanted by the work of Dr Parkhomov: simply genial, as for what I could see in the internet. Also the work of Brian Ahern merits to be observed with great attention.
The persons you cited have helped us with their honest sustain; in particular I have appreciated the intellectual honesty of Peter Gluck: he started hostile, because his opinion regarding our former work was not positive ( but he was sincere and did not have an agenda); eventually, with remarkable honesty, he published his change of opinion; maybe in the future he will again turn into negative his mood toward us, but he gave strong evidence of his intellectual honesty.
About the future: the commercial strategic decisions are totally premature, because all will depend on the results and we need to wait the end of this test period. Every moment here we do not know what will happen the next moment. I am in the plant ( inside the 2 containers wherein is everything) from 5.30 a.m. through midnight and there is no moment without anxiety. I understand it is difficult to imagine how difficult this is.
For now my future is in the next 10 minutes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Thank-you very much for all the answers you provide to readers’ questions on this forum. I believe such openness on your part is greatly appreciated by all the readers. I think your spirit of openness together with the daily sharing of news and opinions regarding LENR by people like Franck Acland, Mats Lewan, Vessela Nikolova, Peter Gluck, the MFMP and many others, is what gives a lot of readers, hope for a better future – one in which LENR will play a very big part.
There are many people who wait patiently for that better future to take a big leap forward. The wait is occasionally rewarded with news, such as, for example with your recent publication of the photo’s of the 1MW plant. Let me say, it looks very impressive – a true “work of magnificence.” Also, may I say congratulations on the release of your official website. I think probably, the release of the photo’s of the 1MW plant over-shadowed the fact that you had just put up a very professional and informative website. Well done – it looks great.
I have a question for you with regard to the 1MW plant. What will happen when the testing phase of your 1MW plant is complete, assuming the results are posisitve?
Will Industrial Heat “announce” the technology to the world? By that stage, it should be well considered to be a “proven” technology, especially if your results are positive and your customer confirms that fact.
I guess the alternative approach would be a more “low profile” next step towards mass manufacture. I think many people would be very dissapointed with a low profile approach since people want this technology to be “announced” to the world. After all, this technology will eventually benefit all mankind and that will be something, which you will be very proud of I am sure.
Warm regards
Brandon Hurd
Cape Town, South Africa
I saw the new book about the E-Cat on http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com : is the writer, Ing. Ventola an employee or a consultant of your Company, to be so well informed?
Thank you for the answer,
Anna
Anna:
No, Eng. Ventola is a skillful engineer, I never knew him personally and he did not work with us. I read in the preface of Vessela Nikolova that he is a professional expert in computer science. I ordered the book, of which I have been informed yesterday ( I never knew before about it), and after reading it I will be able to comment; in the meantime, from the introduction published in the blog you saw, I understand that Eng. Ventola has collected many papers related to the Hot Cat and made personal considerations. The guy is skillful and intelligent, nevertheless what he writes is totally independent from us.
This said, I like to renew my wishes of good luck to the Authors!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you for the interesting link.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
This is the release of a new book related to the E-Cats:
“Hot-Cat 2.0: How last generation E-Cats are made”
http://fusionefredda3.com/novita/un-nuovo-libro-ci-racconta-lultima-generazione-degli-e-cat
Robert Curto:
I knew him, when in Italy I manufactured biomass fueled power generators: they manufactured esterification plants. I was interested to to treat the vegetables to make fuel oil. He was a very decent person.
Depression is a very dangerous enemy and can hit anybody. He was a hard worker. I am very sorry, for him, fir his family, for his employees. But his company is very solid.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
in all the areas, because we now have to maintain in stable operation for ever a 1 MW plant, giving to a Customer all the energy he needs to make his production. Here the anxiety is exponentially higher and all the particulars go to a stress. We are learning, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Very interesting response to Hank Mills. May I ask in what areas has work on the E-Cat progressed by an order of magnitude since 2014?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dr. Rossi, a very sad story.
Google:
THE DEATH OF GUIDO GHISOLFI
Click on:
Beth Renewables CEO Guido Ghisolfi dies in apparent suicide
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
USA
Dr Andrea:
I saw in the blog of ecat-thenewfire.com that there is an interview to Prof. Nagel: do you know if he is a parent of Ernst Nagel ?
Thank you
Vernita:
Curious question: I put the same years ago, in 2010 to be exact, during a meeting in NRL Dr Nagel attended to, because Nagel is a rare name.
It is worth, at this point, to explain who Ernst Nagel was and why he connects with us.
He wrote an important book: ” The structure of science, problems in the logic of the scientific explanation” ( Cambridge, 1961): I studied throughly this book, because it was the basic text to sustain the exam of ” Filosofia della Scienza” with Prof. Ludovico Geymonat at the Università degli Studi of Milan ( Italy), where I got my doctorate in Phylosophy. I sustained this exam, a very difficult one and I loved this book, because it was the positivistic and structural counterpoint of the Husserl’s phenomenology.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pekka Janhunen:
Thank you. When I stay idle not working I feel guilty. I do not know why, but that is it. It has always been so. Probably my mother instilled this in me in my first years of life: everywhen she saw me doing nothing, sitting in an armchair, she used to say: ” Are you a parasite?”. This sank in my brain: in this period I work in the plant from 5.30 a.m. through midnight, but when I return in the motel to sleep I feel guilty to leave the plant. In any case, the work I made has been born also by the books I studied: this is why I am fond in particular of “Models of the Atomic Nucleus” of Norman Cook and its rigorous companion “Nuclear Models” of Greiner-Maruhn ( both published by Springer and available by Amazon). The first, I learnt by heart, the second I study every day and both gave me an enormous help. It has been a process of trial and error, but directed by a theoretical strategy, wrong or right as it may be. This is why I reccommend to everybody, mainly young people, to study with rigor. If it is true what Edison said, that an invention is composed by 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, it is also true that the brain weights less than 0.5% of a human body: this means that quantity is not proportional to importance.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Again, Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity is denied by a new experiment
According to the Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity, the photon cannot manifest its wave and corpuscular nature at the same time.
According to that principle of the Quantum Mechanics, the photon manifest its wave feature in some experiments, and its corpuscular feature in other experiments, but never the two features at the same time.
The first experiment was made by Ephraim Steinberg in 2011:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3295
The new experiment was published in the Journal Nature:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150302/ncomms7407/abs/ncomms7407.html
So, new experiments are proving that some principles of the Quantum Mechanics are wrong.
This new experiment corroborates (again now in 2015) the photon model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
regards
wlad
Koen Vandewalle:
Thank you for your opinion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Now that Hank Mills has slightly prepared the floor I dare to say the following. Warning: may look sentimental to some.
It is probably no accident that especially you, Andrea Rossi, succeeded in developing the E-cat. The work has seemingly required an enormous, almost but not quite superhuman, amount of dedication and commitment, humbleness in front of nature, and relentless willpower to utilize the possibilities it offers.
Typically it is 100 times more laborious to make new R&D, compared to repeating something that has already been done or doing reverse engineering. Other groups are now beginning to slowly succeed with reverse engineering. That gives some small indication of the magnitude of the original effort involved.
I could be wrong, but it is my guess that in general such amount of willpower and dedication can only stem from a most genuine love of humans and of mankind by fundamentally altruistic motives.
End of sentimentality warning.
Best regards, /pekka
Dear Andrea,
While on the road today, in order to go and solve someone’s tech troubles, I just had the same thought as Hank Mills, you just answered to.
Do you have knowlegde if millions (or better: many billions)are being spent in LENR research by hundreds (or better: (ten thousands) of scientists and engineers worldwide to harness the Rossi Effect ? Maybe by competitors of yours ?
My opinion is that there should be such investments. Urgently.
If this does not happen, this has also a reason: they have no idea how and where to search. In that case, Billions and trillions are worth nothing for the world.
My honest and humble opinion.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Andrea,
In the recently published book “Hot Cat 2.0″ the e-cat evaluated in the Lugano report is considered a “Type 4 design”. Based on this designation what number design is the current Hot Cat?
Paul
Paul:
The book “Hot Cat 2.0″ has been a surprise for me: I heard about it this morning, after it has been signaled to me. I didn’t yet read it, I bought a copy this morning, so I am not able to answer, I do not know how the classification has been made.
I take the chance you give me to wish “good luck” to the Authors of the book!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hank Mills:
Thank you for your sympathy. As I said many times, to give away the IP would mean to stop any serious investment. We aleady disclosed a huge amount of information along the Lugano test.
By the way: the work made until 2014 has been less by an order of magnitude respect the work we are making now on the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer of IH.
Fortunately, now I work with a strong team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I’m only now starting to realize the challenges you faced and the almost incalculable number of tests you must have performed to produce stable E-Cats that do not destroy themselves. You, as an individual with minimal assistance, achieved so much due to your huge sacrifice to test these systems continuously and regularly for years. Right now, there are dozens of part-time scientists and others working to replicate, but no individual or team seems willing or able (perhaps do to a lack of money, resources, other commitments, family issues) to perform the type of rigorous testing you did.
You cannot talk about the inside of the reactor. Also, you cannot talk about wave forms, magnetics, pulse width modulators, etc. But one problem is that in the replications you indicate are taking place, the tests seem to be ending quickly due to mechanical failure. Sometimes, reactors only seem to last seconds after excess heat may be showing up. If you cannot talk about basic structural issues, I will understand. But if you have a tip or two about enhancing the durability of these reactors so the nickel-LiAlH4 reaction (Rossi Effect) can be slightly better observed after the anomalous heat starts being produced, any information would be appreciated.
Of course, maybe that information should be earned by trial and error testing. However, I think having the Rossi Effect (which you indicate is already being replicated) made a bit easier to examine and show the world could have some value to you and industrial heat.
Thank you.
Wladimir,
I gave the example of bending light. Photons have no mass but are affected by massive objects. The scientists had to re-define SOMETHING, otherwise their system would look inconsistent. So they concluded that light still travels in a straight line but in a space bent by objects’ mass. And this new definition of gravity affects both massive and non-massive particles. That would be similar to a re-definition of rotation that accounts for both null and non-null nuclear magnetic moments.
All the best,
Joe
Dears Joe and Eernie,
beyond the puzzle of the null magnetic moments for the even-even nuclei with Z=N, there is other puzzle impossible to be solved by the Standard Nuclear Physics.
The nucleus 6C12 has spin 0 and magnetic moment zero. It means that:
a) each proton has a symmetric proton and they cancel each other their magnetic moment and their spins
b) each neutron has a symmetric neutron and they cancel each other their magnetic moment and their spins
But the excited nucleus 6C12 has spin 2 and magnetic moment zero.
This means that one deuteron in the excited 6C12 changes its spin, but the magnetic moment does not change.
It is impossible to explain the spin 2 and magnetic moment zero of the excited 6C12 by considering any nuclear model of the Standard Model.
Such puzzle can be solved only by considering the flux n(o) crossing into the protons and neutrons within the nuclei, as shown in the figures 28 and 29 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
Joe,
how do you think the nuclear theorist can solve this puzzle?
Eernie,
do you think is it possible to solve the puzzle by considering the statistical viewpoint?
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in March 2nd, 2015 at 11:06 AM
Wladimir,
In the distant past, rotation was only classical. We could change the rate of rotation by altering the amount of energy in the system. In the recent past, we discovered a new type of rotation – intrinsic spin – whose rate of rotation does not vary with the energy of the system. Logically, this new type of rotation is considered non-classical. Therefore, the concept of rotation was re-defined and a new theory of intrinsic spin was created.
—————————————————————
Joe,
I know that in quantum theory the concept of spin is non-classical. In my Quantum Ring Theory the non-classical spin of the electron is composed by the intrinsic-spin of the electron plus the spin due to the helical trajectory of the electron.
However the spin of a nucleus considered in Nuclear Physics is classical. The total spin of a nucleus is composed by the addition of the spins of protons and neutrons. For instance, the spin of 3Li6 is 1, resulted from the spin zero due to 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and a deuteron.
As I already said,
in the case the nuclear theorist try to explain the null magnetic moment for the even-even nuclei with Z=N through a non-classical rotation, however the same solution must be applied for the other nuclei.
They cannot propóse a solution only for the even-even nuclei.
The solution must be applied to all the nuclei. And the magnetic moment of the nucleus 3Li6 (for instance) must be explained by considering a classical rotation.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi
I found yesterday a site where it was reported that in Lugano Report scientists were not allowed to check the control tool (control-box?) of the electric current incoming and outgoing.
Then I reread the Lugano Report but I have found no trace of such a statement which reported a direct statement of one of the signatories of the Test .
It ‘possible that physicists were subject to any other restrictions than that of not opening the reactor?
Warm regards.
Gil:
We supplied the apparatus and the Professors of the ITP made the measurements as they wanted. I was not present for most of the test and the instrumentation for the measurements was of their property. I do not know what they inspected and what they did not. Obviously they could not open the reactor’s containment body.
For all the rest, you have to read the report: the set up of the electric measurements has been described in detail and there is nothing I can add because I had nothing to do with their measurements.
On the same subject: the Russian scientist Alexander Parkomov has independently replicated repeatedly the apparatus made by us as descripted in the report of the Professors and the tests made by the ITP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsdewHQxW4
and also see
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/more-details-of-russian-e-cat-replication-available
That’s quite interesting, isn’t it?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wlad,
That shrinkage would really be drastic. Right now they are puzzled by an apparently measured shrinkage of .035fm. A measured shrinkage of .2 to .5fm would indeed send everyone back to the drawing board looking for possible answers.
Regards.
Wladimir,
In the distant past, rotation was only classical. We could change the rate of rotation by altering the amount of energy in the system. In the recent past, we discovered a new type of rotation – intrinsic spin – whose rate of rotation does not vary with the energy of the system. Logically, this new type of rotation is considered non-classical. Therefore, the concept of rotation was re-defined and a new theory of intrinsic spin was created.
Another example is the following. Scientists claim that the trajectory of light bends in the presence of massive objects. But photons have no mass to account for this phenomenon. But due to re-definition, light trajectory is still considered straight but in a space that happens to be bent by the gravitational fields of massive objects.
All the best,
Joe
Andrea Rossi, Frank Acland, JYD, Navdrew,
ARCAM (Sweden) can not yet print an entire airplane, but they can print turbine blades.
Some assembly required.
http://www.arcam.com/wp-content/uploads/Arcam-Q20.pdf
http://www.additive3d.com/
http://www.additive3d.com/news1/inr2969.htm
The Arcam series of additive metal printers are products.
There are also a number of other manufacturers. This area deserves further attention.
Additive Regards,
Joseph Fine
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you for this important updating about the 3D printing of the Swedish company ARCAM.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Very interesting video, thanks.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you: Dr Parkhomov has definitely made a valid job.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi , prof . Parkohomov was the best of all the scientists who are seeking LERN !
Parkohomov has achieved results similar to those that the independent third party has achieved in the test at Lugano, Switzerland published in October, 2014.
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/more-details-of-russian-e-cat-replication-available
Dears Joe and Eernie,
in the case the experiments of the MUSE Project measure in 2016 a value for the proton’s radius between 0,3fm and 0,6fm, as I expect, what do you think the scientists will change in the concepts of Physics so that to save the Standard Model?
Proton’s radius to be measured by MUSE Project (2015-2016)
http://www.zpenergy.com/
They can re-define the concept of radius, by proposing a new non-classical concept of radius.
Or perhaps they can allege that proton’s radius changes due to statistical causes.
What do you think?
regards
wlad
Hello Dr. Rossi to send a report Russian very interesting !
Russian Reportage on Cold Fusion (Alexander Parkhomov)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTsdewHQxW4
eernie1 wrote in March 1st, 2015 at 6:14 PM
Wlad,
That table has already been revised a number of times including a decrease of the reported moment of the proton and other reported moments as other refined adjustments are made.
As a suggestion,your conversations would be more enjoyable if you were not as defensive.
———————————————————————
Eernie,
but the spin never changes by refinments or adjustments.
The magnetic moments have refinments and adjustments because new methods are invented, and the technology advances.
But magnetic moments different of zero had never be detected form the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
regards
wlad
Mr.Rossi:
I agree that 3D printing is now primarily useful for non=metal parts but work is progressing. GE is pursuing R&D in 3D printing for jet engine parts. See: http://www.ge.com/stories/advanced-manufacturing. I believe E-cats will be in production long before we see 3D printed high temperature structural metal parts in GE engines. But never say never. DoD has a major initiative is this area.
Drew
Navdrew:
I totally agree. Thank you for the interesting link.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi, dear Franck Ackland
Concerning 3D printers and industry, I found this :
http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2015/02/26/deux-reacteurs-d-avion-reproduits-par-impression-3d_4583403_1650684.html
Sorry, it’s French paper, and my english is so poor!
Thanks and good luck for your works
JYD:
Thank you for the information. Still it is a prototype, anyway its development will be worth the while of a strong attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
There’s more out there on 3D Metal printing, but here’s an interesting link. If you can print a Jet Engine, you probably can print an E-Cat.
Joseph Fine
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2890313/researchers-make-a-3d-printed-jet-engine.html
Dr Joseph Fine:
Yes, but this is an experimental prototype: they are not ready to sell a production system. It is very interesting and when in the market we will react.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Thank you, very interesting, but still prototipal. Not ready for the market.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
3D printing with metals is becoming more sophisticated.
Here’s an example: “Forget food and guns, the first 3D-printed jet engines have arrived” http://mashable.com/2015/02/25/3d-printed-jet-engine/
Kind regards,
Frank Acland
Wlad,
That table has already been revised a number of times including a decrease of the reported moment of the proton and other reported moments as other refined adjustments are made.
As a suggestion,your conversations would be more enjoyable if you were not as defensive.
Regards.
Dear Eernie,
perhaps you are right, and the nuclear theorists will solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei by proposing nonsenses (as a non-classical rotation suggested by Joe, or by claiming that the influence of the statistics in the results of the measurements is responsible for the null magnetic moment of those nuclei).
Maybe they even prefer to keep silent, in order to avoid to propose nonsenses, as they did up to now.
The physicists are not interested in the discovery of the scientific truth.
I posted a comment here in the JoNP, speaking about he lack of honesty among the scientists, but Andrea Rossi had spammed it because in his viewpoint I was insulting the work of the scientific community.
But I have a different viewpoint.
I think the physicists are insulting themselves, since they are betraying the scientific method by rejecting experiments which deny their theories.
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
That’s an interesting question!
Obviously we have considered carefully the 3D printing technology. It appears to me that it is mature for objects made by paper, cardboard, plastic et similia, but still it is not mature for apparatuses made by steel or by other metals. Please correct me if I am wrong. Without any doubt 3D Printing can be a very interesting system to produce the E-Cats, provided it works with steel.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
eernie1 wrote in March 1st, 2015 at 12:27 PM
Dear Wlad,
What complicates the problem of nuclear magnetic moments is that since the nucleus is relatively massive, the magnetic moments are relatively small(1/1000th)of the moments of an electron. When I did electron spin work I was able to obtain significant effects with a relatively small magnet using a relatively high microwave frequency energy. Nuclear spin requires a much larger magnet along with much lower frequency energy for effect. Since the statistical treatment at the atomic level produced usable results for the SQM scientists, they would look at a statistical solution to your question and consider the question answered.
——————————————————————-
Eernie,
I suggest you to advise Dr. N. J. Stone telling him that his nuclear table is full of errors
http://www.psi.ch/low-energy-muons/DocumentsEN/nuclear-moments.pdf
Tell him there is need to change all the values of the nuclear spins measured by the experiments
regards
wlad
eernie1
March 1st, 2015 at 12:27 PM
Dear Wlad,
I did not say the solution of the null magnetic moments was easy. On the contrary what I am referring to is the difficulty of mathematically solve the problem.
—————————————————————
No, Eernie,
it is not difficult.
If statistically the mangetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N should be different of zero, then statistically the nuclear spin would be different of zero too.
Very simple.
regards
wlad
Dear Wlad,
I did not say the solution of the null magnetic moments was easy. On the contrary what I am referring to is the difficulty of mathematically solve the problem. What we are dealing with is a multi-body interactive situation(rotating nucleons and fields possessing charges)within a rotating nucleus interacting with each other. As you know mathematically solving a multi-body problem is impossible when the number of participating components are numerous. This is what drove the SQM scientists into a statistical treatment to obtain solutions. What complicates the problem of nuclear magnetic moments is that since the nucleus is relatively massive, the magnetic moments are relatively small(1/1000th)of the moments of an electron. When I did electron spin work I was able to obtain significant effects with a relatively small magnet using a relatively high microwave frequency energy. Nuclear spin requires a much larger magnet along with much lower frequency energy for effect. Since the statistical treatment at the atomic level produced usable results for the SQM scientists, they would look at a statistical solution to your question and consider the question answered.
Regards.
Dear Andrea,
What part do you think 3D printing might play in the future development and production of E-Cats?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Wladimir Guglinski:
I have spammed your comment whose title was: ” The standard nuclear model is dead”.
Useless to explain why.
Please moderate your language within acceptable limits. Make your points, but do not insult the work of the scientific community, and, please, take in consideration the possibility that you could be wrong. I always do this. I know my limits.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in February 28th, 2015 at 10:48 PM
3. You state,
“Even if the scientists re-define the concept of rotation to suit to their needs, however a new concept of non-classical rotation cannot solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z =N.”
Of course it can. The whole purpose behind re-defining is to actually solve problems. Otherwise, why bother doing it?
————————————————————————
No, Joe, it cannot solve the puzzle
I already proved it to you.
And I repeat again:
1) Suppose the nuclear theorist re-define the rotation, proposing a non-classical rotation
2) The difference of 10% in the magnetic moment in the 3Li6 must be credited to the non-classical rotation (Hans Bethe said to be due to clasical rotation, but the nuclear theorists will say that it is due to non-classical rotation).
3) Therefore the non-classical rotation is able to induce magnetic moments
4) So, the non-classical rotation must induce a magnetic moment due to the non-classical rotation of the protons in the even-even nuclei with Z=N. And those nuclei cannot have null magnetic moment, even by considering the non-classical rotation.
CONCLUSION:
The non-classical rotation is not able to solve the puzzle
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
1. You state two categories: one of cause and one of effect.
CAUSE:
“Rotation is a phenomenon which you can detect with your eyes: a body having rotation.
“You observe the rotation by the CAUSE of the rotation: a body moving with rotation.”
EFFECT:
“Unlike, you cannot see the gravity. The existence of the gravity we DEDUCE only through the EFFECTS of the gravity.
Therefore, we have to measure the effects of the gravity, in order to define it.”
Question: is intrinsic spin “cause” or “effect”?
2. You state,
“There is not any theory of rotation.”
Question: does standard physics have a theory of intrinsic spin?
3. You state,
“Even if the scientists re-define the concept of rotation to suit to their needs, however a new concept of non-classical rotation cannot solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z =N.”
Of course it can. The whole purpose behind re-defining is to actually solve problems. Otherwise, why bother doing it?
All the best,
Joe
eernie1 wrote in February 28th, 2015 at 7:42 PM
Wlad,
1) —————————————————–
Then there is rotation about an object(moon around the earth),the time rotation of an occurrence(once a day) the statistical rotation of events such as the appearance of an electron within a sphere about the nucleus at any given time.
————————————————————
Eernie,
in a previous comment I already mentioned the other sort of rotation, posting a link of the Wikipedia.
The nucleus has not any sort of rotation like the moon around the earth and rotation like an electron within a sphere etc.
The nucleus has only a rotation about its central axis, and so there is no need to consider other sort of rotations.
2) —————————————————–
Not to forget that fields can intertwine and rotate(Spinors) which produce particle spins which interact with other spin fields energetically. Your nucleons spin creating the magnetic moments which can add or subtract depending on the number of nucleons and their distribution(protons vis neutrons). SQM attempts to explain the observed values by statistical methods. They would say the null values observed in even-even nucli are a result of the large number of created individual moments statistically adding up to the null values overall.
—————————————————————————
Eernie,
obviously you did not understand the puzzle.
The null values observed in even-even nuclei are ( as you said ) a result of the large number of created individual moments statistically adding up to the null values overall.
However,
as the nucleus has rotation, an additional magnetic moment is created due to the electric charge of the protons moving about the center of the nucleus.
In order to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment, the following hypothesis would have to be considered:
a) the large number of created individual moments statistically results in a negative moment with value +X.
b) the rotation of the protons of the nucleus induce a positive moment with value -X.
Such a “coincidence” of having +X and -X equals in absolute values, for all the even-even nuclei with Z=N, is statistically impossible to occur, because:
c) the rotation of the nucleus is responsible for 10% of the magnetic moment of the nucleus. For instance, I already had explained to Joe that 3Li6 has magnetic moment +0,822, while the magnetic moment of the deuteron is +0,857.
d) the even-even nuclei with Z=N have spin zero.
Therefore, statistically, each proton has a symmentric proton and they cancell each other their magnetic moment, while each neutron has a symmetric neutron and they cancell each other their magnetic moment.
If, statistically this would not occur, then statistically the spin of the even-even nuclei with Z=N could not be zero.
e) Therefore in even-even nuclei with Z=N the result of the large number of created individual moments statistically cannot create a positive magnetic moment with value +X, as supposed in the item “a” above.
They have to create statistically a magnetic moment ZERO, since statistically the spin of those nuclei is ZERO.
f) And as the statistical moment due to indivifual protons and neutrons is ZERO, then the even-even nuclei with Z=N must have a non-null magnetic moment -X due to the rotation of the positive charge of the protons.
Besides,
dear Eernie,
if the solution of the puzzle would be so easy to be solved as you think, I am sure that all the nuclear physicist (who I had already invited to come here to solve the puzzle) would feel themselves very glad to come here to explain it.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in February 28th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Wladimir,
Here is another example of re-defining:
Classical (Newton) gravity has been replaced by General Relativity (GR). Force has been re-defined as geometry (of space). Scientists believe that this is an improvement. (See “Tests of General Relativity” in Wikipedia.) But the most emblematic gravitational phenomenon – attraction between objects – can not be explained by GR. (Geometry does not impart impulse to objects.) So how can GR be an improvement in gravitational theory over classical?
——————————————————————–
Joe,
all the re-definitions were proposed with the aim of solving puzzles.
But the re-definition of the classical rotation cannot solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z=N, as I had showed to you yesterday:
—————————————————————-
But let us suppose that those scientists who had re-defined the concept of rotation claim the following:
The non-classical rotation proposed by us is also able to induce magnetic moments.
Then we reply to them:
In this case, the non-classical rotation also induces magnetic moment in the even-even nuclei with Z=N, due to the rotation of the protons.
Therefore,
dear Joe,
even if the scientists re-define the concept of rotation to suit to their needs, however a new concept of non-classical rotation cannot solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z =N.
As you may realize, dear Joe,
it is impossible to solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z=N even by a solution proposed from a pseudoscientific attempt, as you had supposed to be possible
——————————————————————-
Therefore,
it makes no sense to re-define the classical rotation, since any non-classical rotation is not able to solve the puzzle.
regards
wlad
Koen Vandewalle:
You are right: both are true.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wlad,
Your arguments about the meaning of rotation appear to be circular(little joke). When I think of rotation there are a number of scenarios that for me define rotation. There is the one you have discussed with Joe, rotation about an axis. Then there is rotation about an object(moon around the earth),the time rotation of an occurrence(once a day) the statistical rotation of events such as the appearance of an electron within a sphere about the nucleus at any given time. Not to forget that fields can intertwine and rotate(Spinors) which produce particle spins which interact with other spin fields energetically. Your nucleons spin creating the magnetic moments which can add or subtract depending on the number of nucleons and their distribution(protons vis neutrons). SQM attempts to explain the observed values by statistical methods. They would say the null values observed in even-even nucli are a result of the large number of created individual moments statistically adding up to the null values overall.
Regards please do not think I am attacking your theories. I think they are well thought out.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
All that expensive equipment to produce 1MW heat.
I hope that you have an awsome COP on the Rossi Effect.
Do you still have ideas and plans for improvements “orders of magnitude”, or do you have allmost the final product ?
Both can be true, of course.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Peter Forsberg:
Computer science is strongly present in the 1 Meg.
Thank you and, from inside the E-Cat,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in February 28th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Wladimir,
1) ————————————————————
You stated,
“Rotation is NOT DEFINED.
Rotation is a physical phenomenon: a body moving around an axis.”
Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. You actually defined rotation.
—————————————————————–
No, Joe,
I did not define rotation.
Rotation is a phenomenon existing in the Nature.
There is no need to define it.
The Earth has a rotation about the axis which crosses its center.
Such rotation of the Earth exists, and nobody needs to define it.
What the men did was only to give a name to that phenomenon existing in the Nature. They called it ROTATION. Nobody had defined it.
2) —————————————————————
Here is another example of re-defining:
Classical (Newton) gravity has been replaced by General Relativity (GR).
——————————————————————-
Joe,
you cannot compare ROTATION with GRAVITY.
Rotation is a phenomemon which you can detect with your eyes: a body having rotation.
You observe the rotation by the CAUSE of the rotation: a body moving with rotation.
.
Unlike, you cannot see the gravity. The existence of the gravity we DEDUCE only thorugh the EFFECTS of the gravity.
Therefore, we have to measure the effects of the gravity, in order to define it.
The concept of gravity was defined as follows:
1- Newton defined gravity by making experiments, when he measured the universal constant G of the gravity.
2- Einstein re-defined the gravity because he realized that Newton theory of the gravity was not complete.
Unlike,
you cannot re-define rotation by claiming the following:
The phenomenon of the rotation of a body is not complete. We need to re-define rotation in order to get a complete theory of rotation.
There is not any theory of rotation.
Rotation is a phenomenon observed in the Nature.
You cannot re-define a PHENOMENON existing in the Nature.
3) ————————————————————-
Force has been re-defined as geometry (of space). Scientists believe that this is an improvement.
—————————————————————-
You cannot compare FORCE with ROTATION.
Rotation is a PHENOMENON observed in the Nature.
Rotation is a phenomenon existing in itself a priori. Rotation is INDEPENDENT of any theory and any concept.
Force is a CONCEPT defined in the Newton’s theory.
The concept of force was proposed by Newton, according to which F=m.a
You can re-define the concept of force, since force is defined in the equation F=m.a, because the concept of mass was also re-defined by Einstein.
Unlike,
you cannot re-define rotation, because rotation is INDEPENDENT of any concept and any theory.
Rotation is a phenomenon observed: a body moving about its axis. And this phenomenon does not depend on any other concept.
regards
wlad
Well, my main field of expertise is computer science and artificial intelligence; not pandas.
I wish you good luck with the 1 Meg plant.
Regards
Peter
Dear Andrea Rossi,
2016 it will be the revolution from Sunfire http://www.sunfire.de/en/
because they will go in big business to produce fuel and to reduce the CO2 !
maybe it is possible the ecat combination with it.
best regart
Kay
Kay:
Good luck!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernie Morissey:
It is not me who gave names to all the reactors, have been the workers of the Team.
Some name is from their fiancèe, some from the movie stars…Windy and Cindy you already know, then we have Rambo, Angiolina and so on. Officially every reactor is listed by a matrix ( like EC 1, EC 2,…) but they preferred give real names, for fun. One that had given a lot of troubles at the beginning of the operation has been named “Mothersucker”. So it is not rare hear some of the Team say “how’s going Mothersucker?” and the answer ( presently) “not bad”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
With so many Cats in small space it must be hard to keep them all purring. You have given them all names. Can you list them?
Dear Andrea Rossi:
I have seen the photos published on your personal website http://www.andrea-rossi.com and what I saw is impressive. Really impressive. Enlarging the photos I saw a remarkable number of connections , wiring, electronic and informatic components probably by the thousands. All this work has been made internally by your Team, or you had external specialists ? Is this gigantic amount of components reliable when in operation at high temperatures, humidity, etc?
I hope you can answer, thank you for your patience.
W.G.
Curiosone:
All the boards, the informatics, the programmation, the electronics have been made inside our company by our Team. We just buy the elementary components and the microchips. We decided to do this to avoid to give to potential competitors the advantage to know the very complex regulation and control system. As I always said, the E-Cat is a much more complex system than it appears to be from outside.
All the control system is designed to resist to attacks from temperature and humidity, within tolerable limits, and is designed to make not too difficult the maintainance.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JC Renoir:
I am delighted by your very kind attention, but, to make it short, it is easier I get a heart attack if I stay far from the plant. I am taking advantage of the physical resistance I cropped being a marathonete when I was 45 years younger: that is a kind of training that lasts, as everything gained with hard work.
Again thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
Here is the new story of the General Spaziante that in the nineties had started, organized and directed the action that put you in jail for crimes you have cleared of after years and in the meantime destroyed your life and your business: got it today from my informants:
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/02/28/confiscati-4-milioni-spaziante-usava-ufficiali-gdf-come-prestanome/1463319/
He was corrupted. He pleaded guilty for corruption and is in prison.
Comments?
From Russia, with love,
D.T.
DTravchenko:
I have no comments related to the person, but, as an Italian, I want to state this: Italian Guardia Di Finanza (Custom Police) is a glorious military Corp that for more than a century has defended our Country fighting and working with honour and sacrifice. We have 60,000 military of this Corp and at least the 99.9% of them are heroes that for a wage not proportional to their sacrifice risk their life to defend us. It is unavoidable, under a statistic point of view, that among 60,000 persons there is somebody not good, but I can assure you that in my career, when I worked in Italy, I have known many of them, and they were very, very, very decent persons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea:
Take more rest, you cannot resist one year working 16-18 hours per day; sorry to say this, but you are 65 years old… you risk a heart attack. I am a phisician ( not a physicist) and I suggest you not to work more than 10 hours per day, in that situation of stress.
Gog bless you,
JCR
Wladimir,
You stated,
“Rotation is NOT DEFINED.
Rotation is a physical phenomenon: a body moving around an axis.”
Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. You actually defined rotation.
Here is another example of re-defining:
Classical (Newton) gravity has been replaced by General Relativity (GR). Force has been re-defined as geometry (of space). Scientists believe that this is an improvement. (See “Tests of General Relativity” in Wikipedia.) But the most emblematic gravitational phenomenon – attraction between objects – can not be explained by GR. (Geometry does not impart impulse to objects.) So how can GR be an improvement in gravitational theory over classical?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea,
I have two very oddball questions, if you’re willing:
I assume the plant design for a hot E-cat based plant will be different than the one you’re working on today because of things like water/steam temperature and pressure–
1) If a 1MW hot E-cat customer came along next (after this current plant is delivered), is the 1MW hot E-cat plant design something that is ready to go?
In the past I worked with people called “Manufacturability Engineers” (I was in R&D at Bell Labs, they worked for Western Electric). Their job was to make things easier & faster to manufacture and repair– e.g., by reducing part counts, assembly/disassembly steps, increasing mean time to failure, etc.–
2) Does your team have anyone who’s experienced with Manufacturability of hot water/steam systems somewhat like yours?
Thanks,
WaltC
WaltC:
1- I think yes, because we have already the single modules and the control system is practically the same, “mutatis mutandis”
2- Yes
Anyway, I got what you want to say: send a detailed CV and your address, if you want, to
info@leonardocorp1996.com
I am curious.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I have to apologize for extending the discussion on the aether(the devil made me do it). I know that the time you spend replying to our blogs detracts from the time you can spend on your main project. However having spent time on an extended time test(continuous one month duration), I know that when the test is proceeding well, it becomes very boring just monitoring the instruments. My only excuse for doing it is that it may fill some time for you and your readers who religiously follow the JNP at this time when there is little new news published because of your commitments to your customer. These discussions do entertain me greatly while I wait for the good results of your program.
One experiment I forgot to add to the discussion was the double slit results that seem to require a medium for the electrons to display the interference patterns they display as they pass through the slits. some theorists claim that only a mediating space field can explain the results.
Now I will keep silent on this subject and await the positive results I am sure will be forthcoming.
Regards with anticipation.
Eernie1:
First and foremost, I am delighted to receive your comments as well as all the comments sent to this blog, and I learnt many things from all of you, so that many of you are part of our Team, even if they don’t know. I read very carefully the comments I receive, also when I do not answer.
This said: some theorists claim that only a mediating space field can explain the results, some do not. Let me make up a model: Relativity and Quantum Theory are enormous and very massive buildings, wherein live and work thousands of persons since decades, but some nostalgics of the old times, before the construction of these enormous and massive buildings, insist to say that the buldings are not real, that the area is still as it was before. In the quest for evidence of their “theory” they search, search, search until they find a hole in a wall; they take picture across the hole to show evidence of the fact that in that very place, where the building was supposed to be, there is nothing, ” look at the photos!!!”.
The problem is that a hole is not enough to give evidence of the non-existence of the buildings.
About the 1 MW plant: positive results could be forhcoming, as well as bad results. Let’s put down at work: when I got important results it has happened only because I worked at the maximum of my possibilities. Now I am strongly helped by my magnificent Team, which makes things less difficult.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Forsberg:
You are precious: persons who agree with me are as rare as Chinese Pandas. I will propose you for an international protection apparatus organized by environmental experts. Do you mind?
( sorry, but I am on the plant today since 19 hours straight, because we had some problem and I need to joke, obviously not at you, but with you. The plant now is a magnificence, though).
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Patrick Ellul:
Thank you for the interesting link.
I must say that all these replications are totally independent from us and made with materials that have not been supplied by us.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You might have already seen these or similar Electron Microscope photos of fuel for e-cat like reactors.
Here is the link from the Martin Fleischmann Memoria lProject Page: https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/929920440371989
Best regards,
Patrick
Even the pseudoscience cannot save the Standard Nuclear Physics
Joe wrote in February 27th, 2015 at 12:54 AM
——————————————————–
Scientists can define concepts in any way that works for them. Rotation can be re-defined to suit a scientist’s needs.
——————————————————–
Joe,
the nucleus 3Li6 has spin 1. This means that two protons cancel each other their spins and magnetic moments, and two neutros cancel each other their spins and magnetic moments.
So, the unmatched proton and the unmatched neutron have parallel spins, responsible for the spin 1 of the 3Li6.
The proton has magnetic moment +2,793 , and the neutron has -1,913.
The difference is +0,880
But the 3Li6 has magnetic moment +0,822
Therefore, if the 3Li6 had not a classical rotation, would be IMPOSSIBLE to explain the difference between +0,880 and +0,822.
If you consider that the proton and the neutron form a deuteron within the structure of the 3Li6, we have the following magnetic moments:
3Li6 = +0,822
1H2 = +0,857
So, again there is a difference, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the difference if we do not consider a CLASSICAL rotation of the nucleus.
After all,
we know that magnetic moments are induced by CLASSICAL rotations.
This is the reason why the Nobel Laureate in Physics Hans Bethe said that the nuclei have CLASSICAL rotation. He said that about 10% of the magnetic moment is due to the classical rotation of the nucleus.
So the difference between +0,857 and +0,822 in the 3Li6 is due to the CLASSICAL rotation of the nucleus.
But let us suppose that those scientists who had re-defined the concept of rotation claim the following:
The non-classical rotation proposed by us is also able to induce magnetic moments.
Then we reply to them:
In this case, the non-classical rotation also induces magnetic moment in the even-even nuclei with Z=N, due to the rotation of the protons.
Therefore,
dear Joe,
even if the scientists re-define the concept of rotation to suit to their needs, however a new concept of non-classical rotation cannot solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z =N.
As you may realize, dear Joe,
it is impossible to solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z=N even by a solution proposed from a pseudoscientific attempt, as you had supposed to be possible.
Sorry,
even the pseudoscience cannot save the Standard Nuclear Physics.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in February 27th, 2015 at 12:54 AM
1) ———————————————————-
Scientists can define concepts in any way that works for them. Rotation can be re-defined to suit a scientist’s needs.
————————————————————–
Joe,
this is not Science
this is not Physics
By distorting the Laws of Physics a charlatan scientist can prove anything he wishes.
By the re-definition of the rotation we can prove that Galileo and Copernicus were wrong, and Ptolomeu was right.
What the scientists are doing nowadays is pseudoscience.
A scientific theory is that one which can be proved or disproved by scientific experiments.
A theory which cannot be disproved by scientific experiments (because the authors of the theory introduce changes and distortions in the well known Laws of Physics replacing them by ad hoc hypothesis so that to fit the theory to new experimental findings) is not a scientific theory, it is actually pseudoscience.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in February 27th, 2015 at 12:54 AM
1) ————————————————-
Scientists can define concepts in any way that works for them. Rotation can be re-defined to suit a scientist’s needs.
—————————————————-
Joe,
rotation is NOT DEFINED
Rotation is a physical phenomenon: a body moving around an axis.
Only a PHYSICAL rotation is able to produce rotational spectra:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/26/2/10.1119/1.1996107
Phantasmagoric fantasy rotation cannot do it.
2) ————————————————————–
You asked,
“I don’t understand why there is need to name a rotation by the name classical rotation.
After all, what a hell can be a non-classical rotation???”
You answered your own question later.
“[...] of course the scientists will solve the puzzle by proposing a phantasmagoric rotation, like Heisenberg proposed the phantasmagoric concept of Isospin.”
——————————————————————–
No, Joe
I did not answer.
If you did not understand, that is only irony.
I only showed how crazy are the theories of Modern Physics.
The Standard Nuclear Physics is a scientific fraud
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
I agree.
Regards
Peter
Peter Forsberg:
I think that we must make a relevant distinction between Mathematics and Physics. In Physics, after the Relativity and the Quantum Theory, the “infinite”, as you correctly say, is an error. In Mathematics the infinite exists, as well as the infinitesimal, because Mathematics can be based upon pure conceptual theory, while Physics has to confront with reality through experiments and in reality infinite and infinitesimal do not exist. Conceptually you can divide an apple by half infinitely, and Mathematics can help you to sustain this; in Physics you have to give experimental evidence of what you say, and you discover that you cannot divide infinitely an apple by half, so if in an equation from a Physics theory you end up with results that contain the infinite, you are in error.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Giovanni Guerrini:
I suggest to avoid the word “certainly”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Interesting that you bring up infinitesimal calculus. No doubt this has been a useful invention, but I think that it will come a day when it will be regarded as a big mistake. In reality there is nothing infinite or infinitesimally small. It is an approximation that violate reality, and it really is the root cause of the problems physics is in now in my opinion.
Regards
Peter Forsberg
Andrea Rossi
It could be,certainly it is something.
Regards G G