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
Frank Acland:
It is absolutely sure that the report will be published, whatever the results, positive or negative as they might be. This is the imposition given to us from the Third Indipendent Party Professors as a condition to accept to make the test. They demanded that they will publish the results inconditionally, even if the results will be negative. What said above is granted.
What follows is an opinion of mine, that could be wrong: the report should be published by the end of June. My opinion is based upon the fact that yesterday I have talked with two of the Commettee members and they said that possibly the publication could be made by the end of June. I did not get any anticipation regarding the calculation of the efficiency, while they repeated to me that to analyse millions of data takes time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Do you have a commitment from the authors and reviewers that the third party report will be published, regardless of the results?
In other words, can we be assured that the report will not be ‘buried’ and never see the light of day?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Wlad, did you see here
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/17/lenr-a-dragon-with-many-tails/
and here
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/15/e-cat-report-watch-thread/
they are posting about scientists adopting your QRT in their researches on LENR theorization
Andreas Moraitis wrote in April 18th, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Dear Wladimir,
I think that Andrea Rossi meant that the “standard” is defined by nature, not by physics. Physicists can try to decode that standard, but in no way they can define it themselves. I agree, however, that this epistemological foundation is sometimes misunderstood.
———————————-
COMMENT
No, it is not what Rossi meant.
There is a nuclear structure existing in the Nature.
From the nuclear properties detected in experiments, the physicists tried along the 20th Century to discover what is the nuclear structure existing in the Nature.
From such procedure, some nuclear laws were stabilished, and this theory is known as the Standard Nuclear Physics.
Recent experiments published between 2009 and 2013 show that light nuclei do not follow many of the nuclear laws addopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
And therefore the nuclear structure existing in the Nature does not work with the nuclear laws addopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
In another words: the nuclear models addopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics are different of the nuclear model existing in the Nature.
regards
wlad
Steven N.Karels:
I cannot give this information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Since the E-Cat operation is insensitive to gravity, can we conclude that during normal operation there are no liquids, such as lithium (melting point 180.5C, boiling point 1,330C), within the reactor?
Dear eernie1, I forgot to add.
Of course it would be great for E-Cat to get the safety certification for the domestic E-Cats.
Robert Curto
Dear Robert Curto,
Are you referring to Dr Ken Matsumura? He claims to be able to deliver side effect free chemo treatment which cured many patients. If you read his statements on his web site,he states that he received approval to begin clinical testing of his method in four days after submission of his proposal. Would you say it was close to immediate? He also claims that main stream medical institutions are trying to disrupt his efforts.
Steven N. Karels:
The E-Cat’s operation is not affected from gravity. Horizontal orientation is just simpler to set up.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Can your eCat units work in any alignment relative to gravity? Specifically, we see photos of a horizontal eCat functioning. Will it work equally as well in the vertical orientation?
Dr.Rossi, this is a copy of an email, I sent to my friends:
Dr. Andrea Rossi invented the E-Cat.
It will provide inexpensive heat and electricity, with zero emissions and zero
waste.
No radioactive rods that take 300,000 years to decay.
Dr. Rossi has a website where readers can post.
Well this one person posted how a drug is released IMMEDIATELY.
Well I could not let that stand, so I sent the enclosed email to Dr. Rossi.
He asked me to post it on his website, JoNP.
Journal of Nuclear Physics.
I don’t which is going to come first:
Dr. Rossi’s success in Physics, or
Dr. Matsumura’s Nobel in Medicine.
And both of them are my email buddies.
Am I lucky or what.
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Dear Robert Curto,
In the past some drugs bypassed much of the standard testing procedure you outlined. Especially in those cases where the drugs were the last resort for a patient. Despite all the precautions that are taken most drugs carry side effects that are known which do not keep them from use. In fact many drugs dealing with cancer were released before complete testing on the premise that the side effects were more acceptable than the death of the patient. The years of testing if the drugs were not released early would have resulted in many lost lives. How many lives can be saved if the Rossi devices can be approved for use as soon as possible. HIV drugs also were released early.
TO THE READERS OF THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS:
TODAY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED THE NEW PAPER ” A BRIEF REPORT ON HUBBLE VOLUME, MOLAR ELECTRON MASS AND THE FOUR COSMOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS”, BY PROF. S. LAKSMINARAYANA (INDIA) AND PROF. U.V.S. SESHAVATHARAM (INDIA).
JoNP’s B.o.A.
Robert Curto:
Thank you for your precisation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frederic Maillard:
I am not involved in commercial issues.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1) Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that only a handful of 1 MW E-Cats have been sold so far. Why so few as they have been certified by SGS for quite some time (Sept 2012) ?
2) Any idea of when anyone of these clients will accept to publicize this acquisition ?
Many thanks for your reply,
Best regards
Frederic
Dr. Rossi, Fernie 1 wrote:
“In Pharmaceutical testing procedures a drug that shows positive results in mitigating physical problems is IMMEDIATELY released for patient use.
It does not work that way.
First the Drug Company experiments with many drugs, for God knows how long.
When they find one that shows promise in the Lab, they try it on animals, then they apply to the FDA to do Clinical Trials.
Clinical trail One is on a few patients for safety.
Then they do Clinical Trail Two on a larger group, maybe a hundred, for safety, side effects, and effectiveness.
Then they do Clinical Trial Three which involves thousands of patients, at maybe 6 Centers.
If it shows some positive results, maybe 30 or 40% they summit the data to the FDA.
The FDA studies for maybe a year or so, then they decide if they will approve it.
This takes more then 5 years, and cost a few hundred million dollars, sometimes more then a half a billion dollars.
This does not mean the drug has no side effects.
Ask someone who has had chemo for cancer.
The side effects effects are devastating.
I am a layman, who happens to be interested in cancer research.
I have exchanged over 5,000 emails with Doctors doing cancer research.
They have become my friends.
One is the Director of the Medicor Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada.
One was on the cover of Time.
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Gary Cleghorn:
Thank you, interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, this article on phys.org might be of great interest to you and your R&D team.
Researchers find tin selenide shows promise for efficiently converting waste heat into electrical energy
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-tin-selenide-efficiently-electrical-energy.html
Regards, Gary.
Hank Mills:
1- I cannot give this kind of data before the publication of the report by the Third Indipendent Party.
2- Very interesting. Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Wladimir,
I think that Andrea Rossi meant that the “standard” is defined by nature, not by physics. Physicists can try to decode that standard, but in no way they can define it themselves. I agree, however, that this epistemological foundation is sometimes misunderstood.
Best regards,
Andreas
Dear Andrea,
A couple questions and thoughts.
1) If you increase the temperature of a hot cat, lets say from 500C to 1000C, to what extent does the input power have to increase? You have told us before that the output increases with temperature. I’m thinking that the extra input should be less than the additional resulting output.
2) Indoor agriculture is a quickly growing industry. In a recent article I read, the biggest challenge and cost associated with indoor agriculture in northern areas of the United States is producing enough heat to keep the facility warm. Also, whay prohibits these companies from designing multiple story farms is the energy cost of moving people, equipment, and product up and down. I think the E-Cat would be capable of providing all the heat and electricity needed for this industry.
Andrea Rossi wrote in April 17th, 2014 at 7:47 AM
Wladimir Guglinski:
1) —————————
My friend Prof. Sergio Focardi used to say: ” They sustain that known Physics are incompatible with LENR just because they do not study enough the so called known Physics”.
The so called Rossi effect has nothing that cannot be explained by means of the well known Physics.
——————————
COMMENT
Dear Andrea
as you know, LENR encompasses a wide range of experiences and each one of them requires a different theory to explain the experimental results.
And some of the experiments cannot be explained by considering the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
For instance, in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment neutrons are emitted with energy of about 10MeV, while from the Standard Nuclear Physics only neutrons with 2MeV could be emitted.
From Standard Nuclear Physics there is no way to explain the 8MeV excess energy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm
Perhaps the Rossi efect can be explained via the known Physics, as claimed by your friend Prof. Focardi.
However, there is need to verify his claim.
Besides, even if Prof. Focari is right and Rossi effect can indeed explained via the known Physics, however it does not means that other LENR experiments can be explained either.
2) —————————
About “Standard Nuclear Physics”: this definition is an oxymoron.
——————————
COMMENT
Absolutely not.
There are some principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics which are perfectly defined, with no any contradictory sense.
For instance, in the Standard Nuclear Physics it is considered that protons and neutrons are bound within the nuclei via the strong nuclear force.
It is a well defined proposal. There is not any contradictory sense in it.
And the experiment which detected the halo neutron in the 4Be11 defy such well stablished principle of the Standard Nuclear Physics, because the strong force actuates in the maximum distance of 3fm, while the neutron halo has a distance of 7fm from the core of the 4Be11.
http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php
regards
wlad
Ok! The time has come…
Happy Easter to Dott.Rossi and all readers.
Gherardo
Gherardo:
Thank you, Happy Easter to you!
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
Fermions can be positive (protons) or negative (electrons) just like the third independent party results.
Joseph Fine
Dr Joseph Fine:
…and both can be turned into energy!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Alessandro Coppi:
I can give you my opinion, since this issue does not depend on me, absolutely. My opinion is that the publication will be made within June, but this is an opinion. I cannot give any information about the timing of the different phases of the Professors’ work ( reactor test phase, calculation phase, report writing phase, reviewing phase, publication).
Happy Easter to you,
A.R.
Hi Andrea, this is the simple question that all of us are waiting for the answer: in your opinion how much time is far the end of the 3P test? in which manner you would define better such time lapse: days, weeks, months? could we find a surprise in the egg?
Happy Easter
Alessandro Coppi
Frank Acland:
You are asking for specific answers to issues that are object of R&D. The results of the R&D process that our team is making can be positive, but also negative, so it would be trivial, from my side, to give now specific answers to your intelligent questions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski:
My friend Prof. Sergio Focardi used to say: ” They sustain that known Physics are incompatible with LENR just because they do not study enough the so called known Physics”.
The so called Rossi effect has nothing that cannot be explained by means of the well known Physics.
About “Standard Nuclear Physics”: this definition is an oxymoron.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
We are working in direction of heat production as well as in direction of electric power production. As for the scale issue, it depends on the evolution, therefore it is impossible right now to give specific answers. Opinions change with the results of tests and R&D. Please do not forget that the results of the test can be positive, but also negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Regardless of the independent testing, do you see the immediate role of eCat technology as one of warming (heat generation) at moderate temperatures or do you foresee eCat becoming the heat source for electric power plant generation with their required higher operating temperatures?
While it may be more technologically difficult going to the electricity generation route, it probably is an easier adaptation into the current energy system(s). Make the technology change at the energy generation point and make use of existing infrastructure to move the energy. Or, another way of looking at it — managing a few hundred GW eCat units might be easier than managing a million 1MW warm eCat units. Opinion?
Steven N. Karels wrote in April 16th, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Wladimir,
While LENR technology looks promising, nuclear is present technology. Its ugly parts are known. I would contend we don’t know yet if LENR has “ugly” parts.
———————————————
COMMENT
Dear Steven
the ugliest part of LENR is overthrowing the Standard Nuclear Physics
haha
regards
wlad
The contents of this article, if accurate, may turn out both to be important and have relevance to the development of the eCat:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10755598/Global-solar-dominance-in-sight-as-science-trumps-fossil-fuels.html
It is surprising ‘news’ to me.
Rodney.
Dear Andrea,
As Steven Karels mentions, the amount of input power required to run an E-Cat is a significant issue when looking at the economic viability of the E-Cat compared to other energy technologies.
I am wondering:
1. Have you been able to achieve satisfactory E-Cat performance with natural gas as an input power source?
2. Have you found any new ways (since discovering the cat and mouse configuration)to maintain optimum E-Cat output performance while reducing the amount of input energy?
3. Is it possible to control the E-Cat using methods other than applying heat?
4. If yes (question 3), are you working on developing those systems?
Thank you very much!
Frank Acland
Wladimir,
While LENR technology looks promising, nuclear is present technology. Its ugly parts are known. I would contend we don’t know yet if LENR has “ugly” parts.
My largest concern for eCat technology is the performance issue, aka COP. Nuclear, like hydro-electric, requires very little input power. If the eCat technology, for whatever reason, is limited to an effective COP of three, then it probably won’t be used for commercial electric power generation. I would guess an effective COP of 12 or higher — then it is a viable candidate.
You are right about a blend of technologies existing in the near-term. I hope for LENR — but I still have my concerns and doubts. We will see.
Mark wrote in April 15th, 2014 at 8:28 AM
I’m not here to advocate Liquid-Fluoride Thorium reactor technology but my points are to compare the operational costs of LENR and LFTR technologies. The real question is: apart from LFTR and LENR, what else do you have on the “table” for humanity? (please don’t mention renewable!). By the way, you should read more about the safety features of a LFTR reactor. I pray that Andrea will make it but he has many battles to win.
——————————-
Dear Mark,
as Andrea Rossi told here several times, the production of various energy technologies can coexist peacefully for decades.
However, if two technologies are competitive, and one of them is perfectly ecologically clean, and it is entirely safe, while the other is potentially threatened by catastrophic disasters caused by tsunamis, earthquakes, terrorism, sabotage, operational errors, etc., then obviously after some decades the potentially dangerous technology will not survive.
In my case, I am not intested in LFTR technology, but because of other reason. My miss of interest is because it is a technology based on the current old paradigm of Physics.
While the Rossi’s eCAt is a new revolutionary technology, which is inaugurating a New Era for the Humanity, openning the door for many other discoveries beyond the search for energy alternative technologies.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in April 15th, 2014 at 7:08 AM
But the problem that remains in QRT is that the spins are VERTICAL at all times, which is perpendicular to the direction of displacement. This means no helical trajectory ever possible and therefore no induced magnetic moments either. Only intrinsic magnetic moments would be allowed. This, of course, would eviscerate QRT.
—————————-
COMMENT
Joe,
the problem remains also for all the other even-even nuclei with Z=N, as 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, etc., where the problem is worst, because their positive charges due to the proton have a larger radius of rotation than it happens in the case of the 2He4.
As they have several protons gyrating in the same direction, due to the monopolar nature of the charge all those nuclei could not have magnetic moment zero.
But consider the following:
The magnetic moment induced by the charge is due to the direct interaction between the charged particle and the particles of the aether where the particle is moving.
In the even-even nuclei with Z=N as 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, etc, all they are formed by deuterons captured by the central 2He4.
Suppose that in each one of all those deuterons, the neutron of that deuteron gyrates about the proton.
As the neutron has charge zero, it is possible the neutron creates a neutral blindage (armour) about the proton, and such blindage avoid the interaction of the proton’s charge with the particles of the aether.
By this way, all the positive charges of the deuterons in the nuclei 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, etc do not induce magnetic moment due to the rotation of the nucleus, because the blindage of the neutron do not allow them to interact with the aether.
The same can happens in the case of the nucleus 2He4.
I cant see any other explanation, Joe.
And as you may realize, by considering such hypothesis we keep the monopolar nature of the charge.
So, the monopolar nature of the charge does not work in any nucleus in which a neutron gyrates about the proton (in the structure of the deuteron).
Such “particular micro-law” (not followed by the monopolar nature of the charge) is valid for any nucleus, and not only the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
But no matter what is the explanation, dear Joe, we realize the following: from the Standard Physics it is impossible to explain why even-even nuyclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
When will we hear more about the electric power generation that you have supposedly managed to achieve?
Best Regards,
Teemu
Teemu:
( second answer)
I have a great number of ideas for how to maximize the E-Cat, we are testing many of them. Every time we have an idea it is a rigorous process to evaluate and test it- which means we must have some flexibility. This process is experimental in nature and reminds me of the value of strong and trustworthy business and scientific Partners.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Wlad,
“and in terms of nuclear fuel leak caused by tsunamis or operational errors, and thousands of people infected getting cancer, the LFTR will be competitive with Fukushima or Chernobyl”
nice sarc..!!How many people died and are dying from pollutions from coal fired power stations? And diseases? And lack of clean water? Much more that Fukushima and Chernobyl combined
I’m not here to advocate Liquid-Fluoride Thorium reactor technology but my points are to compare the operational costs of LENR and LFTR technologies. The real question is: apart from LFTR and LENR, what else do you have on the “table” for humanity? (please don’t mention renewable!). By the way, you should read more about the safety features of a LFTR reactor. I pray that Andrea will make it but he has many battles to win.
Mark
Wladimir,
The following is my explanation for the direct relationship between the direction of the induced magnetic dipole moment and the direction of rotation of electric charge.
Part 1: Monopolar versus Scalar
A neutron has a magnetic moment which manifests itself as dipolar.
An electron has the same type of magnetic moment as the neutron, PLUS another type of magnetic dipole moment which includes electric charge as ONLY ONE of its many variables.
What we see as a monopolar property in the case of electric charge is really just a SCALAR property within the larger context of a dipolar property.
So now it is logical for this “monopolar” property (electric charge) to induce a dipolar property (magnetic moment).
It is not really charge that is moving but rather an electron that is moving and carrying the charge.
Part 2: Intrinsic Spin versus Helicity
Since we now know from Part 1 above that it is not electric charge that is responsible for inducing magnetic moments, we must discover the true cause of directionality of magnetic moments induced by the rotation of charge.
It is obvious that the intrinsic spin of the electron retains the same sign since only the direction of rotation of the electron causes a change in the direction of the induced magnetic moment. Otherwise, directionality would be chaotic. Therefore, the intrinsic spin of the electron can not be the cause since it is constant between opposite rotations.
Logically the only property left is helicity which is directly related to intrinsic spin. The handedness changes between opposite rotations with the sign of the intrinsic spin of the electron remaining constant.
Part 3: Standard Physics versus QRT
For two similar charges rotating in the same direction, a null result for the induced magnetic moment could only be achieved by having the sign of the intrinsic spin of one of the two particles changed.
This means that for a rotating 2He4, standard physics can account for mu = 0.
QRT can also seemingly account for mu = 0 with the presence of gravitational fluxes n(o) penetrating the rings of the nucleons in opposite directions and causing opposite spins. But the problem that remains in QRT is that the spins are VERTICAL at all times, which is perpendicular to the direction of displacement. This means no helical trajectory ever possible and therefore no induced magnetic moments either. Only intrinsic magnetic moments would be allowed. This, of course, would eviscerate QRT.
All the best,
Joe
Mark wrote in April 14th, 2014 at 9:15 PM
Hi Andrea,
My points are, if LENR is going to make to the commercial stage within 5-10 years time, its main technological competitor, in term of CO2 emission and cost, will be LFTR.
——————————————-
Dear Mark
and in terms of nuclear fuel leak caused by tsunamis or operational errors, and thousands of people infected getting cancer, the LFTR will be competitive with Fukushima or Chernobyl?
regards
wlad
This is a negative article about thorium, but remember to read the more balanced comments written by interested supporters.
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=3101
The technology seems promising, above all for positive applications in plutonium wastes recycling. More critical points are possible dangerous thorium leaks (lungs, pancreas, kidneys, liver, blood cancer)and obviously the immense risk connected to transportation of plutonium wastes. But, as always, the real problem is economics. In 1993 nuclear plants produced 17% of world energy, today, 10%. They are at loss and many are closing down. Moreover, uranium extracting price is 70 dollars/pound, while it is currently sold at 35 dollars. So, even the extractive industry is at risk. Remember that nuclear plants are very costly to maintain and securing wastes. This impacts on energy competitivity, and this is also true for thorium, a very complex technology, still not fully addressed. Today, thorium is much more costly to extract and absolutely not competititve with uranium. The price could fall well under uranium with extensive usage, but the problem would probably represent in non-profitable market prices of both the metal and the energy. In capitalism, the tragedy is that we’ll have too much energy, not the contrary.
TO ALL THE READERS OF THE JoNP:
HAPPY EASTER TO YOU ALL AND YOUR FAMILIES FROM THE TEAM I WORK WITH AND MYSELF.
ANDREA ROSSI
Hi Andrea,
First developed by ORNL in the 60s-70s by Dr. Weinberg, we understand LFTR technology well and that its waste components are about 10,000X less than existing light water nuclear reactor (most can be recycled). My points are, if LENR is going to make to the commercial stage within 5-10 years time, its main technological competitor, in term of CO2 emission and cost, will be LFTR.
Mark:
If you say so…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
Will your E-Cat technology be able to compete with LFTR (liquid fluoride Thorium reactor) technology, which could be as low as 2-3cents per KWh (electric)? China has planned to produce 200MW distributed modular units within 10 years time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayIyiVua8cY
Mark
Mark:
LFTR is a nuclear plant, it works with radioactive fuel with high level of radioactivity. Nothing to do with us, we do not use radioactive materials and we do not produce radioactive wastes. About the 2-3 cts/kWe: did you calculate the cost of nuclear wastes disposal ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JR wrote in April 14th, 2014 at 8:40 AM
Wladimir,
1)——————————
The magnetic moment of 4He is zero because the magnetic moment is defined in such a way that it is zero for spin-0 particles; nothing else is needed.
——————————–
COMMENT
Show us here where did you find such definition of the magnetic moment
2) —————————-
If you wish to define some new quantity that is similar to the magnetic moment but different, that’s fine. But you should (1) provide a definition (2) call it something different (3) not confuse it with the already-defined magnetic moment and (4) not assume it’s zero because the magnetic moment is zero.
———————————–
COMMENT:
The definition of magnetic moment is independent of the spin of the nuclei.
Definition by wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment
“The magnetic moment of a magnet is a quantity that determines the torque it will experience in an external magnetic field. A loop of electric current, a bar magnet, an electron, a molecule, and a planet all have magnetic moments“.
And magnetic moment of a nucleus:
“Since the electromagnetic moments of the nucleus depend on the spin of the individual nucleons, one can look at these properties with measurements of nuclear moments, and more specifically the nuclear magnetic dipole moment.”
Therefore, although the magnetic moment of a nucleus depends on the spin of individual nucleons, however it does not means that it depeneds ONLY on the spin of the INDIVIDUAL nucleons.
The nuclei have also rotation:
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.53.778
And therefore the magnetic moment depends also on the rotation of the nucleus.
The total spin due to the individual nucleons in the 2He4 is zero.
However, as the two protons of the 2He4 gyrate in the same direction, then (by considering the monopolar nature of the charge) the two protons have to induce a magnetic field, which will be responsible for a magnetic moment for the 2He4.
But as the experiments detect that 2He4 has no magnetic moment, this means that 2He4 violates the monopolar nature of the charge, by considering the current nuclear models.
There is no need to be a genius to understand it.
And you, Mr. JR, you are actually showing to everybody that your understanding of Physics is very poor.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
When you say that the Professors are conducting their work “in a neutral laboratory”, do you mean they are still in your premises, or instead situated in a laboratory that is not owned by you?
Best Regards,
Teemu
Teemu:
When we will be ready for the market with that.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
I’m not sure how you propose to explain the properties of nuclei if you aren’t willing to define what those properties are and then stick to those definitions. What you asked is how conventional models explain the fact that 4He has a zero magnetic moment. The magnetic moment of 4He is zero because the magnetic moment is defined in such a way that it is zero for spin-0 particles; nothing else is needed.
If you wish to define some new quantity that is similar to the magnetic moment but different, that’s fine. But you should (1) provide a definition (2) call it something different (3) not confuse it with the already-defined magnetic moment and (4) not assume it’s zero because the magnetic moment is zero.
Joe wrote in April 14th, 2014 at 12:20 AM
Wladimir,
It may be that the ultimate test of veracity in QRT is in explaining how 4Be8 is unstable while 6C12 and other nuclei with a symmetrical distribution of only deuterons, are stable.
—————————-
Joe,
the reason why 4Be8 is not stable is shown in the page page 17, item 3.13.5, Fig. 14, of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
As we see in the Fig. 14, the 4Be8 is the unique nucleus in which there are two deuterons occupying opposite perfectly symmetric positions regarding to the central 2He4.
A perfect symmetry occurs when:
1- one deuteron is in the side ANA, and the other in the side DOUGLAS
2- one deuteron is in the inferior part of ANA, and the other in the superior part of DOUGLAS (or vice-versa).
A partial symmetry occurs when one deuteron is in the superior part of ANA and the other deuteron is also in the superior part, but in the side of DOUGLAS.
A partial symmetry between a deuteron and two neutrons can be seen in the superior part of the Fig. 7.
Looking at the Fig. 14 you realize that the spin-interaction Fsi(green arrows) promotes a force of attraction between the two deuterons (the red arrows show only the direction of their spins)
In the Fig. 14 I supposed that the spin-interaction Fsi is stronger than the repulsion force Fr (pink arrow) because the 4Be8 decays in two alpha particles , and so such sort of decay requires to suppose that the two deuterons are captured by the central 2He4, and the 4Be8 decays emitting two nucleons 2He4:
4Be8 -> 2He4 + 2He4
If in the Fig. 14 the repulsion force Fr should be stronger than Fsi, then the two deuterons would be expelled in contrary direction, and the decay of 4Be8 would be:
4Be8 -> 2He4 + D + D
.
The reason why 6C12 is stable is shown in the item 3.13.6, Fig. 15 and 16.
.
With the 8O16 the first hexagonal floor is complete, and so the nuclei with Z > 8 (as 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28, etc) are stable thanks to the spin-interactions between their deuterons.
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
It may be that the ultimate test of veracity in QRT is in explaining how 4Be8 is unstable while 6C12 and other nuclei with a symmetrical distribution of only deuterons, are stable.
All the best,
Joe
Frank Acland:
No role in the measurements, just check that the E-Cat was working properly, checking the control system, looking at the surface, to be sure no cracks emerged, things like these.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You mention attending the testing for about 30 per cent of its duration. What has been your role as you have been there?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea,
In pharmaceutical testing procedures, a drug that shows positive results in mitigating physical problems is immediately released for patient use. Do you think that very positive results from the TPI tests will result in quick approval of your devices for commercial and public use in the USA?
Eernie1:
For the industrial plants we already have obtained the safety certification. For the domestic the situation is totally different, as I have explained many times.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ecco Liberation:
I do not know, if yes we will see in the report. I have attended now and again, maybe 30% of the time od the test.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Andrea Rossi,
Did the team of professors involved with the third party testing compare the E-Cat’s thermal output with an equivalent blank/inert/dummy load? E.L.
Eric Ashworth wrote in April 13th, 2014 at 11:35 AM
Dear Wladimir,
Wladimir do you wonder why your QR theory is rejected so strongly by certain individuals or have you a good idea why? because there is one.
———————————–
COMMENT
DEar Eric,
by looking at the explanation given by Mr. JR we realize why.
Look at his “brilliant” solution:
“4He is a spin-0 nucleus and so, by definition, has no magnetic moment”
The reason is because the theorists have not respect to the fundamental questions in Physics.
When the experimental data prove that current nuclear models violate some fundamental law and they cannot give a satisfactory explanation (satisfactory for a honest scientist), they give explanations which disagree to what we expect from a honest scientist:
they give orders to the nucleus, telling him the rules he has to follow, in order do not defy their nuclear models.
regards
wlad
Dears Joe and Mr. JR
there is a 4th sort of solution which you may propose, for the violation of the monopolar nature of the electric charges by the nuclei.
The 4th solution you can propose I explain ahead.
As we know, when Bohr discovered his hydrogen model, he realized that his model violates some fundamental known Laws of Physics.
Then Bohr proposed a solution based on postulates, by claiming that the atom is able to violate some fundamental laws.
So, dears Joe and Mr. JR, you can propose the following postulate:
The light even-even nuclei with Z=N=pair can violate the monopolar nature of the electric charges.
.
Therefore, my dears friends, you have now 4 alternatives for chosing what is the best solution.
regards
wlad
JR wrote in April 13th, 2014 at 11:11 AM
4He is a spin-0 nucleus and so, by definition, has no magnetic moment.
———————————–
COMMENT
Dear JR
nuclear properties of nuclei cannot be established by definition
The nuclei have nuclear properties, which have to be explained by any nuclear theory taking in consideration the known Laws of Physics
If a nuclear model violates a known Law of Physics, as the current nuclear models are violating the monopolar nature of the electric charges, the theorists have two alternatives:
1- To reject the nuclear model, and to look for another model able to be suit to the law (in the present case the monopolar nature of the electric charges).
2- To discover the reason why the Law is being seemingly violated
.
Dear JR
such a solution of yours (claiming that “4He is a spin-0 nucleus and so, by definition, has no magnetic moment”) is actually proposed according to the phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s method.
The physicists who do not have interest to solve the questions regarding the Fundamental Physics, as happens to you, may be satisfied with your solution.
But any sincere physicists who has respect to his own honesty cannot accept such sort of explanation.
Because your explanation is actually a way of running away of the theoretical puzzles which defy the foundations of Modern Physics.
regards
wlad
Andreas Moraitis:
The generated heat is withdrawn by means of heat exchangers, based on well known technologies. The reliability doesn’t depend on the heat exchangers. Obviously, the temperature of the secondary depends on the heat exchanger, while the primary temperature depends only by the E-Cat. The lower the flow of the secondary, the higher the secondary temperature, and vice versa.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Herb Gillis:
Sugars and cellulose can yield 20% of oil, 40% of charcoal, 40% of gas.
From 2003 through 2007 I manufactured power plants working with oil made by means of not utilized cascaded substances derivated from the production of food vegetable oil. That’s how I made the money to work on the LENR.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
I never wrote that power generation eludes me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: In one of your answers you said power generation still eludes you. Could you give us the reasons in general terms? Maybe this group could give some ideas and maybe “serendipity” will occur. (:
Dear Wladimir,
I do not profess to know nuclear physics as you do and I do not think many other people do also, other than to days modern day physicists. What you wrote April 13 at 5.58 am are, I beleive, some of the clearest statements you have made so far, as far as I am concerned, with regards an explanation of this anomaly. From what I gather it is to do with a monopolar nature and a zero reading. From my own understanding of nature and investigations of natural phenomena you cannat have a mono situation, it has to be binary i.e. a duality to create,exist and destroy at its most primary principle. Having spent many years developing a technology based upon this binary understanding of nature and considerable outside pressure in specific areas against its development I have discovered that some mysteries must remain mysteries for a specific reason. Wladimir do you wonder why your QR theory is rejected so strongly by certain individuals or have you a good idea why? because there is one. The reason is well worth finding out. All the best Eric Ashworth.
Wladimir said:
The readers of the JoNP will feel themselves very happy if you come here to explain us how the nucleus 2He4 can have magnetic moment zero, according to the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
All of us will be very thankfull to your explanation
I doubt that you will be thankful, since you didn’t like the explanation very much the last time I answered this question (for 12Be), but here it goes:
4He is a spin-0 nucleus and so, by definition, has no magnetic moment.
In conclusion, I don’t believe that your misunderstanding of how magnetic moments are defined is enough to throw out all of classical electromagnetism or quantum electrodynamics. But keep trying.
-John
Joe wrote in April 12th, 2014 at 11:46 PM
Wladimir,
1- I do not know of any experiment that has switched the intrinsic spin to observe if the same electric charge with the same direction of rotation would produce a magnetic moment in the opposite direction.
Logically there should be no difference since electric charge and intrinsic spin are independent of one another. For example, a neutrino has no electric charge but does have an intrinsic spin.
———————————
COMMENT
Consequence:
Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE the existence of the nucleus 2He4, because the experiments measured that it has magnetic moment zero, however due to fact that charge is monopolar, it is IMPOSSIBLE to exist the nucleus 2He4 with magnetic moment zero.
——————————————
To have the behavior that you want, a switched intrinsic spin would have to effect a corresponding switch in the electric charge. But the electric charge is monopolar: it can not be flipped to an alternate state that does not exist.
——————————————
COMMENT
I dont want nothing.
As the electric charge is monopolar, therefore the 2He4 nucleus cannot exist, since it has magnetic moment zero as measured by experiments, but due to its rotation and the fact that electric charge is monopolar the 2He4 cannot have magnetic moment zero.
The same we can say about all the other light even-even nuclei with Z=N pairs: 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, etc.
Therefore we have to eliminate all those nuclei from the Periodic Table of Elements, because from the known principles of Physics they cannot exist.
So, I propose a New Periodic Table, where the elements with nuclei 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne30, 12Mg24, etc. will be eliminated, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain their magnetic moment zero from any nuclear model based on the monopolar nature of the electric charge.
And the sequence of the elements will become the following:
1H
2He2, 2He3, ….(eliminated 2He4)… , 2He5, 2He6 , etc
3Li
4Be5, 4Be6, 4Be7, …(eliminated 4Be8)… , 4Be9 , 4Be10, 4Be11, etc
5B
6C8, 6C9, 6C10, 6C11, ….(eliminated 6C12)…. , 6C13, 6C14 , etc
7N
8O13, 8O14, 8O15, …. (eliminated 8O16)… , 8O17, 8O18, etc
9F
etc, etc.
Unless you propose, dear Joe, that the rotation of the nuclei does not exist.
But unfortunatelly, by this sort of solution is impossible to explain the magnetic moments of the other nuclei.
Or perhaps you will claim that only the light even-even nuclei with Z=N pairs do not have rotation.
Dear Joe,
please ask the help of Mr. JR so that to decide what is the best solution:
1- To eliminate the nuclei 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, etc. from the Periodic Table
2- To reject the hipothesis of rotation of the nuclei
3- To propose that only the nuclei 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, etc. do not have rotation
I will be waiting the decision of yours and Mr. JR, telling me what is the best solution.
regards
wlad
Andrea Rossi:
I just read Mats Lewan’s book ["An Impossible Invention"] about you and your work. It was an inspiring story of rugged individualism. I think everyone should read it.
In regard to your earlier work on the Petroldragon technology: Can you tell me if the technology can convert certain clean organic substances (not waste) into a useful liquid fuel. Specifically I am interested in:
a) sugars, such as sucrose?; and
b) cellulose?
Your comments are much appreciated.
Regards; HRG.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
It’s good news that there were no malfunctions of the Hot-Cat during the test. Obviously, you have reached by now a high level of reliability – which is everything else but natural for a completely new invention. Congratulations for that!
My question is if you are already at a point where the process works as reliable if significant amounts of the generated heat are withdrawn systematically from the system. Evidently, that would be a precondition for the practical utilization of the generated energy.
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Andrea,
I’m delighted with the idea that testers could limit or push the experimental set at their free choice without external conditions. When you say that the e-cat tested by the independent third party for the last 6 months is still “state of the art”, does it mean:
1- the core of the tested hot cat completely satisfies you and currently no other work is necessary to improve its performance and stabilty, so the research is directed on equipment around the beast
2- the core tested is the best stable version you can provide but you are currently working both on the equipment around the cat and on new ideas about the beast itself
orsobubu:
1- yes, but evolution is permanent ( an adjective you should like)
2- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe,
you and me have proven here, together, the following:
1- It is impossible to explain the magnetic moment zero of the 2He4 by keeping the current dogma of the monopolar nature of the electric charge.
And as consequence:
2- Therefore it is impossible to explain the magnetic moment zero of the 2He4 by taking as starting point any nuclear model which do not work by considering a structure of the aether formed by particles and antiparticles as gravitons, magnetons, electricitons, etc.
3- Any nuclear model developed by no considering the participation of the aether within its structure is according to the monopolar nature of the electric charge, and therefore cannot be correct.
4- All the current nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics are wrong, because they do not consider the aether within their structure, and so they cannot explain the magnetic moment zero of the 2He4.
5- Nowadays all the nuclear theories of the authors trying to explain the cold fusion cannot be entirely successful, because they are developed by considering wrong nuclear models, since all they are based on the monopolar nature of the electric charge.
.
I and the readers of the JoNP hope you have the honesty to admit it.
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
I do not know of any experiment that has switched the intrinsic spin to observe if the same electric charge with the same direction of rotation would produce a magnetic moment in the opposite direction. Logically there should be no difference since electric charge and intrinsic spin are independent of one another. For example, a neutrino has no electric charge but does have an intrinsic spin.
To have the behavior that you want, a switched intrinsic spin would have to effect a corresponding switch in the electric charge. But the electric charge is monopolar: it can not be flipped to an alternate state that does not exist. And flipping the spin is not going to change the sign of the charge (which would give you the behavior that you want). For example, there is no relationship such as, electron implies negative spin, and positron implies positive spin. Proof of this is in the fact that a maximum of two electrons (same sign) can occupy one orbital, and each electron must have a spin that is the opposite of the other. This is the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Mr JR
The readers of the JoNP will feel themselves very happy if you come here to explain us how the nucleus 2He4 can have magnetic moment zero, according to the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
All of us will be very thankfull to your explanation
regards
wlad
Wladimir Guglinski
April 11th, 2014 at 6:01 PM
Joe wrote in April 10th, 2014 at 1:59 AM
Wladimir,
I repeat what I answered in (1). Electric charge has a monopolar nature. And the direction of the magnetic moment that is induced by its rotation is dependent only on the direction of that rotation.
———————————-
Joe,
we had a good discussion here.
And we arrived to a very interesting conclusion:
It’s IMPOSSIBLE to explain the magnetic moment zero of the 2He4 by considering the current nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics
Indeed, let us see why:
1- All the nuclei have rotation. The Nobel Laureate Hans Bette estimated that 10% of the magnetic moment of the nuclei is due to their rotation.
For instance, consider the 3Li6. Suppose that 2 protons and 2 neutrons cancell each other their magnetic moment. The third proton has magnetic moment +2,793, while the third neutron has magnetic moment -1,913.
If the 3Li6 had no rotation, its magnetic moment would have to be +2,793-1,913 = +0,880. But the magnetic moment of 3Li6 is +0,835 , and the difference +0,045 is due to the rotation of the 3Li6.
2- Consider the 2He4. Consider that, if the 2He4 had no rotation, its magnetic moment would be zero, since the two protons cancell each other their magnetic moment, and the two neutrons also cancell each other.
3- However the 2He4 has rotation. And therefore the two protons move in the same direction.
4- But “Electric charge has a monopolar nature. And the direction of the magnetic moment that is induced by its rotation is dependent only on the direction of that rotation”.
And so by considering the current nuclear models the two protons of the 2He4 have to induce a magnetic moment.
5- Therefore the 2He4 cannot have magnetic moment zero, according to the current nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
.
I wonder if Mr. JR would come here to show us how such puzzle is solved in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
regards
wlad
Tom Conover:
Good question: no, we sent 3 spare parts just to have safety boats in case of problems. Since if this test has a paramount importance for us, as everybody can understand, we have left nothing to chance, within the measure of possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea,
I was wondering if the reason that you sent 3 spare e-cats for the test might be that the test was being performed on an assembly of (more than one) e-cat units?
CONGRATULATIONS on the stability of the units!
Warm regards,
Tom Conover
Hank Mills:
Interesting question. We must wait fot the report of the Professors to know the answers.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Rossi,
You state that the professors are doing a very conservative work. If that means they are being conservative in their measurements and calculations that is a good thing. However, I hope they are not being overly conservative when it comes to pushing the E-Cat to obtain high performance. For example, in the previous report they only increased the temperature of the hot cat to around 500C. From what I have calculated, by increasing the temperature to 1000C the blackbody of the reactor would radiate much more power – actually, several times as much. Do you know if they are attempting to find the maximum safe performance of the module in addition to simply determing the reality of the technology? With six month or longer to test and spare parts (just in case pushing the reactor caused any leaks or damage) I would like to think they are trying to determine both. Thank you.
Gunnar Lindberg:
You make your son well educated, well trained, and test him many times. Then he goes to the war: aren’t you afraid he can die?
Beyond the metaphor: the test in course is a very long test, with a system of calculation very conservative, prepared after the test made by the same third indipendent party one year ago ( March 2013); during that test and the afterward discussions the third indipendent party has learnt all the possible further controls to make ; all the possible shortcomings have been experienced one year ago and now they are making a very conservative work. If you go to read the report of the March test published on Arxiv Physics, you will see that they had written that a long run test would have been necessary to make better measurements. Now you can understand the metaphor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe
April 12th, 2014 at 12:21 AM
Wladimir,
You state the following:
“In the case of a free 2He4 the two charges of the deuterons do not induce magnetic field, since the two charges rotate in a space with no magnetic field.”
This idea is false since rotating electric charges create their own magnetic field independent of any pre-existent magnetic field. Magnetic fields from various sources are simply summed. A null magnetic field from a combination of sources does not prevent another source from exhibiting its own magnetic field within that same space, and yielding a non-null net magnetic field for that space.
—————————————–
COMMENT
Joe,
consider the following:
1- suppose the body of the electron gyrates in the clockwise direction (spin-up)
2- consider one electron moving in an orbit with radius R about a vertical axis in the clockwise direction
3- suppose a particle X with negative charge (equal to the charge of the electron) which body gyrates in the anti clockwise direction (spin-down, so contrary of the spin of the electron).
4- consider the particle X moving in an orbit with radius R about a vertical axis in the clockwise direction, as happens with the electron.
.
Then I ask you:
1- Will the electron and the particle X create the same magnetic field ?
.
You said:
“I repeat what I answered in (1). Electric charge has a monopolar nature. And the direction of the magnetic moment that is induced by its rotation is dependent only on the direction of that rotation. That is what we know empirically.”
However, all the experiments with a body electrically charged are made with a body which has its electric charge thanks to the electrons in its electrosphere. And the spin of the electron has always the same direction.
But suppose we are be able to create a particle X with the same charge of the electron, but its spin being contrary of the spin of the electron.
And suppose we create a body, which electrosphere is composed by the particle X.
Then I ask you:
2- Would electric charge to have a monopolar nature?
3- Or, in another words:
would a body formed by electrons in its electrosphere induce the same magnetic field of a body formed by particles X in its electrosphere?
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I understand the ongoing test is an important step in the development of the e-cat. However, what make me curious is you repeated statements tha the outcome may be negative. You already know from previous tests that the e-cat produce energy. Otherwise you would not Thus, what is outcome you suspect may be negative?
Good luck and Best Regards
Gunnar
Joe,
there is an error in the calculation:
——————————
7-a) The mass of 3Li7 is 7,0160
7-b) The mass of He4+deuteron in 3Li7 is 6,0167 – 0,01 = 6,0067
7-c) The mass of the neutron is 1,0087
7-d) The mass of He4+deuteron+neutron in 3Li7 is 6,0067 + 1,0087 =7,0154
——————————-
Because actually the mass of 2He4+deuteron+neutron in the item 7-d must be greater than 7,0160
This means that the mass defect of the 2He4-deuteron in 3Li7 must be actually a little smaller than 0,01.
.
Let’s consider the mass defect of the 2He4-deuteron in 3Li7 is 0,007.
So we have:
7-b.1) The mass of He4+deuteron in 3Li7 is 6,0167 – 0,007 = 6,0097
7-c.1) The mass of the neutron is 1,0087
7-d.1) The mass of He4+deuteron+neutron in 3Li7 is 6,0097 + 1,0087 = 7,0184
7-e.1) The difference 7,0184 – 7,0160 = 0,0024 is the mass defect due to the binding energy of the spin-interaction between the neutron and the deuteron.
7-f.1) Therefore, in 3Li7 we have:
Mass defect due to magnetic force 2He4+deuteron = 0,007
Mass defect due to spin-interaction deuteron+neutron = 0,0024
From the considerations above, in the 3Li7 the binding energy due to the magnetic force is 2,9 times stronger.
But if we consider the mass defect due to magnetic force of the 2He4+deuteron smaller than 0,007 as considered here, the tendency is to have an equalization of the two binding energies.
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
You state the following:
“In the case of a free 2He4 the two charges of the deuterons do not induce magnetic field, since the two charges rotate in a space with no magnetic field.”
This idea is false since rotating electric charges create their own magnetic field independent of any pre-existent magnetic field. Magnetic fields from various sources are simply summed. A null magnetic field from a combination of sources does not prevent another source from exhibiting its own magnetic field within that same space, and yielding a non-null net magnetic field for that space.
All the best,
Joe
Brian Ho:
I have been in the Hawaii Islands four years ago: what a wonderful place to visit!
Thank you for your kind words. I am honoured from the attention of people interested in what we are doing.
I do not expect any triumph, I just hope to continue the work. There is an enormous work to do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
It must be gratifying to know that many people from around the world are watching closely the independent testing of your E-Cat. We all await in anticipation for the final report and we all hope that this will finally be the dawn of a new age for humanity. And, for you, a major triumph after all your hard work and the many battles you had to fight.
Wishing you the very best!
Kind Regards,
Brian Ho
Honolulu, Hawaii
Frankk Acland:
1- yes
2- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Is the e-cat tested by the independent third party for the last months still “state of the art”?
Or has it become obsolete due to further development?
Paul
Paul:
It is state of the art, so far; as for the future…”panta rei”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe,
I calculated the relation between the binding energy due to the magnetic force deuteron-2He4 and due to the spin-interaction between the deuteron-neutron, for the nucleus 3Li7, as I show ahead.
1) We start by calculating the binding energy due to the magnetic force attraction between the deuteron and the central 2He4 in the nucleus 3Li6, as follows:
1-a) The mass of 3Li6 is 6,0151
1-b) The mass of the deuteron is 2,0141
1-c) The mass of 2He4 4,0026
1-d) The mass of 3Li6 formed by He4+deuteron is 6,0167
1-g) Therefore the difference 6,0167 – 6,0151 = 0,0016 is the mass defect due to the binding enrgy between the deuteron and the 2He4, in the nucleus 3Li6
.
2) The magnetic moment of 3Li6 is 0,822
3) According to my nuclear model, the distance between the deuteron and the 2He4 in the nucleus 3Li6 is 0,355fm (see Fig. 18 in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei).
4) The magnetic moment of 3Li7 is 3,256
5) According to Fig. 19 the distance between the deuteron and the 2He4 in the nucleus 3Li7 is 0,405
6) Considering that the binding energy is directly proportional to the magnetic moment of the nucleus and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, then we calculate the mass defect due to the binding energy between the deuteron and the 2He4 in the 3Li7, as follows:
0,0016 x (3,256/0,822) x (0,355/0,405)² = 0,01
.
7-a) The mass of 3Li7 is 7,0160
7-b) The mass of He4+deuteron in 3Li7 is 6,0167 – 0,01 = 6,0067
7-c) The mass of the neutron is 1,0087
7-d) The mass of He4+deuteron+neutron in 3Li7 is 6,0067 + 1,0087 =7,0154
7-e) The difference 7,0160 – 7,0154 = 0,006 is the mass defect due to the binding energy of the spin-interaction between the neutron and the deuteron.
7-f) Therefore, in 3Li7 we have:
Mass defect due to magnetic force 2He4+deuteron = 0,01
Mass defect due to spin-interaction deuteron+neutron = 0,006
As we realize, in the 3Li7 the binding energy due to the magnetic force is 1,7 times stronger.
But obviously such relation changes in other nuclei, because of the changing in the magnetic moment of the nucleus and the distance deuteron-2He4.
Regards
wlad
Joe wrote in April 10th, 2014 at 1:59 AM
Wladimir,
I repeat what I answered in (1). Electric charge has a monopolar nature. And the direction of the magnetic moment that is induced by its rotation is dependent only on the direction of that rotation. That is what we know empirically. The other variables (a, c, d) that you mention in your list have a dipolar nature that can not possibly logically have an effect to change a property of a monopolar nature. Switching spins, or reversing fluxes n(o), will not affect the electric charge of a particle. It could possibly logically only affect the dipolar properties of that particle. The way that you would have it, the deuteron would be treated no different from the neutron, even though the deuteron has something extra: an electric charge. What you are actually doing is ignoring the electric charge when considering induced magnetic moments from rotation of nucleons.
——————————————–
COMMENT
Joe,
I dont see any problem, and let me tell you why, as follows.
1) Consider a nucleus 2He4.
As its two deuterons have contrary spins, the 2He4 has a total magnetic moment zero. And therefore the two charges of the two deuterons cannot induce a magnetic field, since the two charges are gyrating within a space without any magnetic field.
2) Now let us consider the 3Li6 as example for explaining how occurs the magnetic force Fm between the deuteron and the central 2He4, as follows.
3) The deuteron of the 3Li6 is captured by the flux n(o) of the 2He4, and it is dragged by the rotation of the flux n(o), in order that the rotation of the deuteron induces a magnetic moment in the 3Li6.
4) The magnetic moment of the 3Li6 is +0,822, measured in experiments.
5) Suppose that the rotation of the deuteron induces a magnetic moment +0,820
6) The two deuterons of the 2He4 have a very short orbit radius of rotation about the center of the 3Li6 nucleus. As the two deuterons are gyrating wihin a magnetic moment +0,820 induced by the deuteron captured by the flux n(o), then the two positives charges of the 2He4 (gyrating within a magnetic moment +0,820)_ induce an additional very weak magnetic moment (because the radius of their orbits is very short).
7) Suppose that the additional magnetic moment induced by the two deuterons of the central 2He4 is +0,002.
Note that the two charges of the deuterons of the central 2He4 induce a weak magnetic moment only when a particle with charge is captured by the flux n(o) of the 2He4, as occurs with a proton or a deuteron.
In the case of a free 2He4 the two charges of the deuterons do not induce magnetic field, since the two charges rotate in a space with no magnetic field.
As the neutron is not captured by the flux n(o), the phenomenon does not occur with the neutron.
A neutron influences the magnetic moment of a nucleus (for instance the 3Li7) only when the neutron is captured by a deuteron via spin-interaction, and then the neutron also contributes for the magnetic moment of the 3Li7.
I hope to have responded your question
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
Are the professors doing the testing at liberty to make adjustments to the E-Cat setup? In other words are they allowed to change performance parameters during the testing period?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Michael Schneider:
I share the effort of cross fingers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
“The reliability has been reached”. This sentence sounds to me a little like “The Eagle has landed” by Neil Armstrong, or another historical one…
… After twenty minutes Fermi did reinsert the bars and everyone felt more relieved because the counters stopped ticking. Then there were handshakes and was told that the experiment was over. Professor Eugene Wigner, who came from Princeton, took out a bottle of Chianti wine and some paper cups: all drank an inch of wine and signed the fiasco. Soon after Arthur Compton, director of the Chicago laboratories, phoned Conant at Harvard University. He said: “The Italian navigator has landed in the New World”. Although the code was improvised offhand by Compton, Conant understood perfectly and anxiously asked: “How were the natives?” Compton: “Very friendly”.
Orsobubu:
Whom to you believe to: me or her?
A.R.