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
Wladimir,
The fact that you don’t understand the experimental techniques involved in these measurements doesn’t really count as either a mystery or a threat to traditional nuclear theory.
It also sounds like he’s saying that they can extract the g-factor now, based on the data they took at the time (and better knowledge of the TF), and that it agrees with the theoretical predictions (within the 20% uncertainties on the predictions). However, his statement isn’t entirely clear on this point.
… and the mystery of magnetic moment for excited 6C12 has no end…
In his last email sent to me Dr. Speidel tried to justify why excited 6C12 had not its magnetic moment measured yet:
———————————————-
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 19:28:11 +0100
From: speidel@hiskp.uni-bonn.de
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Of course a measurement would be valuable. I do think that the theoretical value is quite reliable. We couldn’t determine the g factor because the TF was not known at that time. From our present knowledge our TF of carbon in iron is quite reliable, hence it confirms within a 20% experimental error the theoretical g value as well.
I hope you agree with that.
With my best regards,
K.-H. Speidel
———————————————–
However he did not succeed in his attempt of giving a satisfactory reason.
And I sent him a reply, where I tell that I cannot see a reasonable justification:
———————————————
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: speidel@hiskp.uni-bonn.de
Subject: RE: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:21:27 -0200
Dear Dr. Speidel
but the excited 24Mg(4+) has half-life 38fs and had its magnetic moment measured in 1983.
So, I dont understand why the excited 12C(2+), with half-life of about 60fs, has not the magnetic moment measured yet, since the excited 12C plays an important role in the nuclear reactions in the sun.
regards
Wlad
——————————————-
Dr. Speidel did not reply to my email. So, it seems he recognizes that there is not a reasonable justification.
And therefore the mystery continues…
And it seems there is no interest of the physicists to get an end for the mystery.
Perhaps they are afraid the current nuclear models are threatened by the end of the mystery.
The BSM-SG (Basic structures of matter – supergravitation unified theory) was first electronically archived in 2001, published as a book in 2005 (612 pages) and the first peer reviewed article in Physics Essays (2003) is available in
http://vixra.org/abs/1104.0051)
The shape of proton, according to BSM-SG is a twisted torus as the figure 8 and it creates a charge as its fine twisted structure modulates the surrounding physical vacuum. The neutron is a double folded torus and this kind of modulation is locked in the near field, but when in motion the locked charge still creates a magnetic field.
In the far field the proton electrical field is detectable as a point charge but in a near field it is distributed over its shape of figure 8. Therefore the near field of the neutron when it is over the central point of the proton (this is the deuteron) is more distant from the spatially distributed near field of the proton. This keeps the neutron in this place, but it has a freedom to vibrate (giant resonance) and rotate in two opposite directions in respect to the proton twisting. When rotating the neutron creates a magnetic field, which is behind the nuclear magnetic spin (that involves also the orbital spin orientation of the electron).
Stoyan Sarg
Missed z-axis in current nuclear models
According to the current nuclear models, the even-even nuclei must have two sort of shapes:
A- Spherical shape – when the quantity of prótons Z is the same of the quantity of neutrons N, Z=N.
B- Elispoidal shape – when Z << N .
But experiments have shown that some even-even nuclei with Z<< N are pear shaped.
Then, how to justify it? After all, they would have to have an ellipsoidal shape.
In 2013 the Professor Peter Butler of the University of Liverpool had proposed that nucleons (prótons and neutrons) are distributed within the nuclei around a z-axis. So, in order to justify why some even-even with Z<<N (as for instance 88Ra224) have pear shape, he proposed the existence of a z-axis within the nuclei.
Look the z-axis proposed by Professor Butler for the 88Ra224 in the link:
http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/
A NEW HYPOTHESIS: THE EXISTENCE OF A 5th FORCE IN NATURE:
In order to explain the pear shape of Ra224, some theorists are now even supposing the existence of a 5th force in nature, which actuation is different for protons and neutrons, and by this way they expect to explain why protons and neutrons have different distribution in even-even nuclei.
——————————————
On the existence of the z-axis by considering physical causes (missing in the current nuclear models):——————————————
In the paper No. 10 of the book Quantum Ring Theory ( entitled CRITIQUE TO THE MODELS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS ) it is shown that the existence of the z-axis within the nuclei is suggested by four different nuclear properties of the nuclei.
They are:
1st nuclear property – Null nuclear spin for even-even nuclei with Z=N.
2nd nuclear property – Null magnetic moment for even-even nuclei with Z=N
3rd nuclear property – Emission of alpha particles by uranium nucleus U238 with null angular moment
4th nuclear property – Incompatibility between current Nuclear Theory and the electric quadrupole moment of some nuclei
In the paper No. 13, entitled BETA-DECAY, it is shown that the existence of the z-axis is also suggested by a fifth nuclear property:
5th nuclear property – the preferential emission of the electron in the Wu’s experiment: the beta-decay of 27Co60 (WRONGLY interpreted by the nuclear theorists as a violation of the parity in the beta-decay).
Therefore, according to Quantum Ring Theory, there are five different nuclear phenomena suggesting the existence of the z-axis within the nuclei.
And now in the beggining of 2013 the experiment published in the journal Nature points out the need to consider a 6th nuclear property suggesting the existence of the z-axis:
6th nuclear property – the pear shaped nucleus Ra224.
CONCLUSIONS:
As we see, the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method had introduced many serious inconsistences in the Nuclear Physics, as the conclusion that the Nature has preference by the left direction (the direction of the electron in the Wu’s experiment), the violation of the parity in the beta-decay, and the time reversion (a wrong interpretation by Christenson in 1964, when he and collaborators analysed the decay of the mesons K).
In the paper entitled A New Model of the Neutron published in Quantum Ring Theory it is shown that a model of nêutron formed by próton+electron does not violate the conservation of parity, as the nuclear physicists believed along the whole 20th Century, because when the electron loses its helical trajectory (due to its partnership with the próton within the structure of the nêutron) the electron loses its spin 1/2. Such mechanism of the spin lost within the nêutron is also responsible for a wrong interpretation by the nuclear theorists, because they believed that the parity is violated in in the beta-decay.
In the page 92 of the book Quantum Ring Theory it is written:
As we realize, because the physicists did not discover that the addition of spins is (seemingly) violated they transferred the problem for the parity. Instead of: “the addition of spins is violated in the beta-decay”, they say: “the parity is not kept in the beta-decay”.
The five nuclear phenomena which suggest the existence of the z-axis are described between the pages 125 and 131 of the paper Critique to the Models of Nuclear Physics, and between the pages 158 and 161 of the paper Beta-Decay, and they are exhibited ahead:
Page 125:
http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-55963400-1386630468.jpg
Page 126:
http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-62323200-1386630497.jpg
Page 127:
http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-16190500-1386630517.jpg
Page 129:
http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-94656200-1386630535.jpg
Page 130:
http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-14648900-1386630563.jpg
Page 131:
http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-01914100-1386630596.jpg
Page 132:
http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-37519700-1386630629.jpg
Page 133:
http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-52178100-1386630652.jpg
CONCLUSIONS in the paper “BETA-DECAY”:
Page 160:
http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-89477100-1386630681.jpg
Page 161:
http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-05384200-1386630698.jpg
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You wrote:
“I am teaching all I can to the persons that in the next future will have to make better than I did.”
This is the best news I have ever read here!
This is what should happen to all innovative and revolutionary ideas: share them with people that can understand them and work on them.
This is the best warranty for mankind’s benefit.
Thanks
Rodney Nicholson:
I am not a financial expert, so I don’t know if what you say is true or not. For sure we are interested only to a real product, off the shelf, with a price competitive with the well consolidated technologies and with a competitive efficiency. We did not receive any offer, so far. When we will receive a real offer, we will buy a model to test it in our labs. All the other considerations are not of our interest. Clearly, the shares of a company that has not yet a product in the market are a high risk investment, as a general rule.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Regarding the comments that Cyclone Power Technologies equipment might possibly find an application generating electric power from LENR devices, it may be worth noting that a few years ago the company’s stock was trading at prices between $100 and $200 per share, but lately has been trading below four cents per share. Either their engine has no hope at all of being a successful project, or the stock is a fantastic bargain at these levels.
I do not have an opinion as to which it is. But it must be one or the other.
Rodney.
Frank Acland:
Yes, I am teaching all I can to the persons that in the next future will have to make better than I did. I am discovering that I like teaching.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski:
Please edit your comment, probably written from an I phone.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Silvio Caggia wrote in December 5th, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Wow! Stoyan Sarg and Vladimir Guglinski, my preferred alternative phisical theories, in the same place!
can both you put in evidence common point of force and differences and say why one should be better than other?
I appreciate your ideas very much… But they are two different ones… Only one at most can be right!
Thanks in advance
=================================
COMMENT:
Silvio,
let the experiments decide what ia rhw better
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
As Chief Scientist, in addition to R&D on the E-Cat, do you have any kind of training program for those who work with you?
Many thanks!
Frank
Giuliano Bettini:
Thanks for the correction od the typo. I passed it on to the editor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Concerning the article published on the JoNP by Stoyan Sarg:
Sienna is not “Sienna” but it’s
Siena.
Thanks
Giuliano Bettini.
Wow! Stoyan Sarg and Vladimir Guglinski, my preferred alternative phisical theories, in the same place!
can both you put in evidence common point of force and differences and say why one should be better than other?
I appreciate your ideas very much… But they are two different ones… Only one at most can be right!
Thanks in advance
Malcom Lear:
We did not receive an offer for an industrialized product, yet. If we will receive an offer for a product ready for the market, which means with acceptable price/kW, we will buy one item and test it. We have received offers for similar issues, but they were prototypes with unacceptable prices, upon which more research and development was necessary. We are not interested to be involved in this R&D, so far, because we are focused on our E-Cats, therefore we will apply to our E-Cats the existing well consolidated technologies. If new technologies will arrive in the market, well tested, certified, consolidated and competitive with the existing $/kW prices, we will be delighted to buy units and test them in our laboratories.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Allan,
I alerted Andrea to the possibility some 2 years back and made Cyclone aware of the research made by Rossi and Focardi, but unfortunately nothing came of it. Hopefully this time we can see some dialog open up. On the face of it, it seems a match made in heaven.
Could be a great solution for E-Cat to electricity.
Nuclear Engineer joins Cyclone to pursue LENR applications – Award-winning, external heat engine company from Florida has added LENR heavyweight, Professor Yeong E. Kim from Purdue University to their technical consulting and advisory team to help them evaluate the viability of LENR technology as an application for their heat-to-electricity engine. (PESN; December 4, 2013)
See also http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cyclone_Power_Technologies_Inc
Concerning the article published today on the JoNP:
1. How is it possible for a neutron with a local positive field to even approach a proton, let alone to form a deuteron with it?
2. Even if the neutron should find itself already stationed at the saddle point of the proton, how could it possibly remain there since the electric field of the proton is denser at its saddle point and would therefore aid the electrical self-repulsive force of the neutron itself in its own unfolding over and against the attempt by the supergravitational force of the neutron to keep the neutron folded?
All the best,
Joe
Joe:
THE AUTHOR OF ” THEORETICAL FEASIBILITY OF COLD FUSION ACCORDING TO THE BSM- SUPERGRAVITATION UNIFIED THEORY” IS KINDLY REQUESTED TO ANSWER.
JoNP
Herb Gillis:
As you know, I never give information, in positive or in negative, to questions regarding the process inside the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
Have you ever tried the Cr + H reaction system (as predicted in this paper)? Have you seen evidence that the prediction may be correct?
Kind Regards; HRG.
Alessandro Coppi:
I will be able to answer to your question at the end of the rigorous validation cycle in course.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea, I read daily the news that, drop by drop, you release on this hystorical blog, but I am a little disturbed because often you underline this phrase for example today: “1- We are trying many different dimensions of the modules, and the final dimensions of the industrial plants will depend on the final choice we will make, based on the results ( that, remember, could be positive, but also negative)”.
Can you explain better this phrase? is it related to some details or you really believe that there is still a probability that the result of the tests could be negative for the demonstration of the Rossi effect?
Thank you
Alessandro Coppi
come on over!
Andrea,
With “revolution” I meant something different than the existing concepts.
Just thinking about an H-loaded nano Ni-grain that moves very fast with a (warm) flow of H2 through a magnetic (oscillating) field, and “ignites” the grains and heats the flow.
I wonder if it could fly fast enough to ignite. An internally heated flow is as good as internal combustion device.
Since you have the lab-stuff and funding you need…. I don’t.
The guys I ever proposed to co-operate(but were not interested), a biomass burning, electricity production companey are today…..virtually bankrupt. The former president of the company is now our minister of economy, is in big trouble for that.
We’re in trouble. Deeeeeeeeeep trouble.
Kind Regards,
Koen
TO THE READERS OF THE JoNP:
Today has been published on the Journal the interesting paper ” Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM – supergravity unified theory”, by Dr Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, York University, Toronto, Canada.
JoNP
Andrea Rossi,
Thank you,
You answered part of my question, even if it is a question I didn’t ask. You said you are trying several design variations to determine which ones work best or perhaps determine which ones do not work as well or may be unstable. I was hoping you were doing both testing and industrial evolution – i.e. comparing several variants. Therefore, it is not only a test, it is a competition which will result in a better product.
As a side benefit, the specific energy (W-hrs/kg) will be higher as the test runs longer.
So time may not be a friend, but it is not an enemy either.
My hat is off to you for trying (and hopefully succeeding) at “herding cats”.
Timely regards,
Joseph Fine
Dr Joseph Fine:
Yes, you got it. Obviously, we aim to increase the power density of the reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
Can you comment on the current dimensions and weight of the 1-MW Hot Cat?
Or of changes to the individual E-Cat (HT) module dimensions?
There has not been any information on this subject recently.
You said earlier that the volume of the plant was about 2 cubic meters. (Or less.)
And that the previous E-Cat module container had a diameter of about 1.2 meters (about 4 feet).
Also, that there were (about) 106 modules of 10 kW each.
Has anything changed with regards to the number of modules and power rating per module?
The independent report only discussed an individual module.
It may be possible there have been changes to the dimensions and numbers of modules since the last report.
Are you testing higher power systems, for example 3 – 5 MW?
Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy E-Cat New Year,
Joseph Fine
Dr Joseph Fine:
I feel guilty to treat you badly…but I hope you understand that our policy is not to talk of a product that is not mature for the market, because subject to a rigorous period of validation, during which we also are refining the technology. We are collecting an enormous amount of data that shapes the technology by the day, generating patent applications by the week. Anyway:
1- We are trying many different dimensions of the modules, and the final dimensions of the industrial plants will depend on the final choice we will make, based on the results ( that, remember, could be positive, but also negative)
2- respect the numbers you cited many things can change: maybe the dimensions will be the same, maybe smaller, but nothing is still defined
3- superior powers may be reached easily just putting modules together
Let’s atart the wishes period later: allow me the illusion to have more time at disposal for my work before the end of the year…time is faster than me, damn!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tom,
The previous link should be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TPKU4azKMs
“Steam Heat”
But why consider only steam? There is plenty of Carbon Dioxide to go around for use in heating and refrigeration (R-744 = CO2).
http://www.r744.com/
http://www.barber-nichols.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/images/supercritical_co2_turbines.pdf
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/csp_sunshotrnd_swri_exchangers.html
Joseph
Dr Joseph Fine:
I am sorry to repeat that in this validation and R&D Stage I cannot answer to these questions.
Warm Regards and Wishes to you
A.R.
Frank Acland:
I am the chief scientist.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
In your new organization, do you hold a position in a decision-making body — such as a board of directors — or are you now simply an employee of the organization?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dr. Rossi,
Have you and your team worked out a better method to control the Rossi effect (quicker to start up, shutdown and step control)?
Many thanks
Mark:
We are working also on this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladinir Guglinski:
As a matter of fact, we at the moment are very conservative when it turns to give information. This justifies the lack of attention regarding our work. This period for us is a validaton and R&D time, and we think the less we talk, the better is, until the work of validation is completed.
When it will be time to talk, either regarding commercial issues or technological and scientific issues, our specialists will talk, whatever the news, positive or negative as such news might be.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
Every day we hear in TV and we read in newspapers many experts speaking about new alternative energy sources with the aim to reduce the use of the combustibles which increase the problem of heating of the planet.
All sort of sources are mentioned, as wind, sea waves, etc.
But they never mention the e-Cat technology.
I find it very intriguing, because the technology is in an advanced stage, but it seems that the experts had never heard about.
I dont understand their intention simply trying to neglect the existence of the e-Cat technology
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
1- yes
2- I do not deal with commercial issues, being the chief scientist, not the commercial director; I suppose our commercial director will make a press conference
3- this does not depend on me, but my supposition is yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I am trying to understand more clearly your comment below in response to Koen Vandewalle:
Do you mean that you will be publishing:
1. The results of your internal testing (positive or negative)
2. A report about the current status of your technology, and the future plans for commercializing the E-Cat
3. When this report is published, will we finally learn the identity of your new partner?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Koen Vandewalle:
We are working on the validation of the existing and on the R&D for the evolution of our technology. If the evolution will become so fast to be a revolution, we’ll see. We are working hard on validation and R&D, and the results, as well as the commercial implications, will be published at the end of this important work, indipendently from the results, positive or negative as they might be.
Warm Regards,
AR.
Dear Andrea,
In the past you gave us a lot of news about revolutionary improvements, more than once a year. In january 2011, the e-cat was presented. Mid 2011, a self-sustained version was invented. A couple of months later, the Hot-cat became the new version.
Are there newer, more revolutionary versions of your technology ? Or does your team work mostly on the improvements of the existing ?
Kind Regards
Koen
Reply by Dr. Speidel
.
======================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: speidel@iskp.uni-bonn.de
Subject: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 07:35:51 -0200
Dear Dr. K. H. Speidel
Dr. Andrew Stuchbery told me that in 1980 you had measured the magnetic moment for the excited 12C with spin 2.
However the value is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
May you tell me why ?
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
======================================================
.
======================================================
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:02:08 +0100
From: speidel@hiskp.uni-bonn.de
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Dear Dr. Guglinski,
we haven’t measured the magnetic moment of the 12C(2+) state. Our interest was in the transient field strength of carbon in iron. For this purpose we assumed the theoretical value g(2+) = 0.6 which is very likely the correct value since all other TF values in neighbouring nuclei at similar kinematic conditions show the same behaviour.
One relevant paper to this is Z. Phys. A302 (1981) 107.
If you have further questions please contact me.
With best regards,
Karl-Heinz Speidel
======================================================
.
======================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: speidel@hiskp.uni-bonn.de
Subject: RE: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:06:10 -0200
Dear Dr. Speidel
I dont understand.
The understanding on the excited state of the carbon-12 is a necessary ingredient so that to explain the fusion of three alpha particles to produce carbonat stellar temperatures:
http://physics.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.192501.pdf
The excited 12Mg24 with spin 4 has half-life 38 fs [a little shorter that that of excited 12C(2+) ] , and its magnetic moment had been measured, giving the value +1,6 .
So, one would have to expected that magnetic moment for excited 6C12 should be already been measured.
However the magnetic moment for excited 12C(2+) is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
You say that you assumed the theoretical value g(2+) = 0.6 for the excited 12C(2+) in your work. However, in the case the value g(2+) = 0,6 is not correct (because it has not experimental confirmation) the results of your work would be invalidated.
Dont you think is very important to measure the magnetic moment for excited 12C(2+) ?
Why it was not measured yet ?
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
======================================================
Dr Rossi:
A curiosity: can you tell us which book are you reading, not regarding your job, in this period ? I mean: your ‘livre de chevet’.
Duke
Duke_Nukem:
In this period, when I have free time, I am reading for the second time “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, Roland Omnès, Princeton Series in Physics. I use to read a book at least three times, if good, while I severe the reading of a book if within the first 50 pages does not get my attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joseph,
Carbon Dioxide looks very promising indeed, I readily admit. Thank you for the links!
Tom
Tom Conover:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea!
Thank you (and Joseph Fine) for referencing the wonderful book “Models of the Atomic Nucleus 2nd Edition by Cook”. It is absorbing and very well laid out, perhaps some day I will understand more of the math. Geometry I can handle though, so I will work on this more.
The link below will help remind you how to warm up your food if it gets cold.
http://www.youtube.com slash watch?v=6TPKU4azKMs
May God bless you and your efforts,
Tom Conover
Frank Acland:
Sincerely: while I write this to you ( at 9.15 p.m.) I am working in the factory, as well as I will Tomorrow…and all my team with me ! We cannot stop the tests.
Thank you for your permanently kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Robert Curto:
Very kind, all my team has appreciated your wishes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi, thanks for the warm Thanksgiving Day wish.
I know what I am thankful for, it is that Dr. Rossi is in this World.
Because of you, billions of people all over the World, are going to
benefit from Clean Electricity and Heat, at a reasonable price !
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Dear Andrea,
Happy Thanksgiving to you too! Maybe a day to have a break from work for you?
Best wishes,
Frank
Herb Gillis:
I would say yes, even if we are still working on the computational modeling.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi:
Although I realize you cannot go into great detail; I am quite curious to know if your understanding of the Rossi Effect is sufficiently advanced to enable effective mathematical/computational modeling of the phenomenon- – and reactors based on the phenomenon? Such computational modeling is very effective for other nuclear processes (ie. fission), and useful for the design of devices (fission reactors). Have you reached the point yet where highly reliable computational modeling of Rossi Effect devices is possible?
Kind Regards; HRG.
WE OF THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS WISH A WONDERFUL THANKSGIVING DAY TO ALL OUR DEAR AMERICAN READERS !
Andrea Rossi and readers,
I purchased the Norman Cook text before I realized that it is available for free online from the author. Perhaps, everyone can read the current edition or wait and purchase the 2014 edition.
Here are the links to the text and software.
http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/09%20NVSIndex.html
http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/42%20MAN.html
Best wishes for the holidays.
Joseph Fine
Dr Joseph Fine:
I did not know that Norman Cook’s book is free online! Thank you for the information, surely useful for our Readers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels wrote in November 26th, 2013 at 2:15 PM
1) =============================================
Wlad,
Please clarify your logic. Are what you saying is:
a. “because a value zero cannot be expected from the current nuclear models.”
and
b. “Dydbal and Spiedel decided do not report the value”
c. Means that the measured value therefore must have been zero?
What if they had different (non-zero) values?
==================================================
COMMENT
Then the nuclear tables would publish the both values, as happens with all other measurements.
Look at the measurements of the quadrupole moment for excited 8O18:
0.036(9) CER, R 1983 Gr28
0.02(3) CER, R 1981 Sp07
0.010(13) or +0.020(13) CER 1977 Vo07
0.07(3) or 0.05(3) CER 1977 Fl10
0.05(2) or 0.02(2) CER 1979 Fe06
2) ===========================================
What is the uncertainty of their measurements is what drove them not to publish results?
=============================================
COMMENT
The uncertainties are published between brackets “( )”.
regards
wlad
A Reader asked which is the Norman D. Cook book I referenced to in my last comment of November 25: it is ” Models of the Atomic Nucleus” ( Springer, ask the last edition printed in 2010), find it by Amazon. Cost: few dollars. Contents: priceless.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The Ministry of Economic Development has presented an informative video on how to deposit trademarks, patents and designs.
The multimedia production, simple and direct, communicates through 3 animated characters all the necessary steps to deposit and registration of instruments for the protection of industrial property (trademarks, patents and design).
Watch the Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvjjvsbbSR0&feature=share&list=UUqXXz40p1IwBnLoIht-u5vA
international patents, European national
Wlad,
Please clarify your logic. Are what you saying is:
a. “because a value zero cannot be expected from the current nuclear models.”
and
b. “Dydbal and Spiedel decided do not report the value”
c. Means that the measured value therefore must have been zero?
What if they had different (non-zero) values?
What is the uncertainty of their measurements is what drove them not to publish results?
New email sent to Dr. Pietralla
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: pietralla@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de
Subject: RE-2: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:14:35 -0200
Dear Dr. Pietralla
Prof. Andrew Stuchbery sent me an email where he told me the following:
===================================================
Subject: Re: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
From: andrew.stuchbery@anu.edu.au
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:33:26 +1100
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Dear Wladmir
The first 2+ state of 12C is very short lived. This makes measurements very difficult. In principle the g factor could be measured relative to 13C by the transient field method. Such measurements were attempted by Dybdal et al around 1980 I think. There was some dispute with Speidel et al about the transient field strength that was never resolved, as I recall. These are tough experiments.
Does this answer your question?
Regards
Andrew
====================================================
Therefore, Dr. Pietralla,
as there was a dispute between Dydbal and Speidel, then of course both them had measured the magnetic moment for the excited 6C12 with spin 2.
So, we have the following situation:
1) The magnetic moment for excited 6C12 with spin 2 is not quoted in the nuclear tables
2) Excited 6C12 with spin 2 has half-life in order of 60 fs.
3) Excited 12Mg24 with spin 4 has half-life 38 fs, and its magnetic moment had been measured to be +1,6
CONCLUSION:
As the magnetic moment for 6C12 with spin 2 had been measured by Dydbal and Spiedel, but it is not quoted in the nuclear table, then we have to conclude that the measurements made by both them had obtained the value zero.
So, Dydbal and Spiedel decided do not report the value zero for the magnetic moment for excited 6C12 with spin 2, because a value zero cannot be expected from the current nuclear models. And that’s why it is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
What do you think about ?
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
James Bowery:
Nice question. Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology concept is based upon the ” epochè “, which , to make it easy ( the texts of Husserl are a very difficult kind of study) induces a human subject to suspend any given knowledge to return to the very roots that produced a known concept, or rule, or intersubjective cristallization. This attitude, that I absorbed as a foundation of my behaviour, makes me aggressive against anything that is given by certain. If anybody says ” LENR are impossible, because of this, and this given rule”, my instinct is to be aggressive against this attitude , make ” epochè”, analyse what the heck is the reason why I have to accept any rule, and, if I discover, as I did, that the sole sure knowledge in Nuclear Physics is that nothing is really well known, at that point my aggressivity against the given rules becomes revolutionary rage. This attitude has been useful in my work in the field of Physics. If you read the book of Norman Cook you can understand better what I am saying. So: obviously my phylosophical studies have nothing to do with Physics, but have to do with my methodology in my experimantalist job in the field of Nuclear Physics. I do not take in consideration any given rule or theory, unless I do not experiment it myself. I like the Galilean methodology ( think to Galileo against the rules imposed by the Inquisition). Everything ( also what I do) must be put in discussion, everything has to be subject to “epochè”, and, if you want, everything has to be attacked also because, paradoxically, if something is true, it has to be possible to falsificate it in some condition ( Popper, Fermat).
Edmund Husserl was a mathematician and a physicist, then became a philosopher. I made the contrary. To understand throughly Husserl, can read “Cartesianiche Meditationen und Pariser Vortrage” ( Den Haag, Nijhoff 1963), or the important book of my Doctorate Adviser, Prof of Theoretical Phylosophy of the Università degli Studi di Milano during my University period , Prof. Enzo Paci, probably the best student of Husserl in the world: ” Funzione della Scienza e Significato dell’Uomo” ( Milan, 1963)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
Would you say Husserl’s philosophy significantly contributed to your approach to your nickel-hydrogen energy work?
Thanks,
– Jim
And the mystery on the magnetic moment for the excited 6C12 continues
=======================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: pietralla@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de
Subject: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:18:55 -0200
Dear Dr. Norbert Pietralla
You had worked in the experiments which had measured the g-factor for several excited even-even nuclei, as 20Ne, 32S, 36Ar…
The magnetic moment for excited 12C of the state 2+ is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
In several papers where the g-factor had been measured for even-even excited nuclei in the state 2+ , the g-factor for 12C is missing
Do you know why there is no information on the magnetic moment and g-gactor for excited 12C ?
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
=======================================================
.
=======================================================
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:32:18 +0100
From: pietralla@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
dear Mr. Guglinski,
the g-factor for 12C is difficult to measure.
This is because the level is with about 60 fs very short lived.
This is not much time for any precession measurement.
best regards
Norbert Pietralla
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Professor Dr. Dr.h.c. Norbert Pietralla
Darmstadt Coordinator of the
Helmholtz International Center for FAIR
Coordinator of the DFG-Collaborative
Research Center SFB634
Director
Institut fuer Kernphysik
Technische Universität Darmstadt
Schlossgartenstrasse 9
64289 Darmstadt
GERMANY
phone: ++49 ([0]6151) 16 7441
fax: ++49 ([0]6151) 16 4321
email: pietralla@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de
http://www.ikp.tu-darmstadt.de/pietralla/
=======================================================
.
=======================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: pietralla@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de
Subject: RE: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:50:24 -0200
Dear Dr. Pietralla,
I dont understand.
Excited 12Mg24 with spin 4 has half-life 38 fs, and its magnetic moment had been measured to be +1,6 , by the method TF, in 1983 (see Stone’s nuclear table).
Therefore, I dont think the half-life about 60 fs can be the reason why the magnetic moment for excited 6C12 with spin 2 had never been measured.
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
=======================================================
Dear Andrea,
Please inform you readers about the latest LENR report from ELFORSK in Sweden.
ELFORSK LENR Report
Best regards,
Magnus
Magnus:
Thank you: the ELFORSK Report is very interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N Karels:
I cannot answer to this kind of questions, either in positive or in negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Have you considered adding or substituting Helium-3 for Hydrogen in eCat experiments? There might be some unexpected effects in the eCat operation.
Dear Andrea
in my last comment here on the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric method I wrote “To the readers of the Rossi-Focardi Journal of Nuclear Physics” because I had the intention to post it also in the Zpenergy.
The readers here know that I am speaking to them.
But there are several Journal of Nuclear Physics worldwide, and so I was telling to the readers of Zpenergy what JNP I was refering.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in November 24th, 2013 at 12:20 PM
Wladimir,
In 3Li7, the ratio between orbiting neutrons and orbiting deuterons is 1:1.
In 4Be12, this ratio is 2:1.
Is there a general upper limit to this type of ratio in QRT?
==============================================
COMMENT
Dear Joe,
I dont know. I did never think about the matter
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
Thank you for your continue attention to our work.
The work of validation by the Third Indipendent Party and the R&D and validation made by ourselves will continue for some months. As I said, we decided to retain any information until the end of this work, and I guarantee that the results will be published, whatever the results, positive or negative as they might be, beyond any reasonable doubt. The Third Indipendent Party will publish the results on a peer reviewed magazine. We are looking for a strong industrialization, not for amateurish sensationalism, and this process needs time, humility, patience and a high level of professionality and dedication that I found in the concern of our US Partner.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I wrote the following editorial on E-Cat World that you may find interesting.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/11/the-promise-and-burden-of-the-e-cat/
Would you be able to provide a response from the perspective of your team?
Many thanks, and best wishes,
Frank Acland
Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method applied to Classical Nuclear Physics
To the readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics
I had already explained why Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method is not satisfactory so that to justify why two neutrons do not form a dineutron. Let’s us remember it in short words:
a) Two neutrons have a force of attraction due to the strong nuclear force
b) There is not any force of repulsion between two neutrons
c) So, two neutrons would have to form the dineutron, because by considering the Classical Nuclear Physics there is not any force of repulsion capable to win the strong nuclear force of attraction between two neutrons.
d) Heisenberg proposed the concept of Isospin, so that to justify why the dineutron does not exist. However only a physical force of repulsion would be able to win the physica force of attraction due to the strong force. The Isospin cannot create a physical force of repulsion, because the Isospin is only an abstract mathematical concept.
And an abstract mathematical concept cannot separate two neutrons bound by the strong force within the dineutron.
The phantasmagoric scientific method inaugurated by Heinsenberg is often used in Physics when a new experiment disproves the current theories, and the theorists cannot find a satisfactory explanation so that to justify why.
So, the theorists use the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric everytime they cannot discover the physical cause responsible for a phenomenon which disproves the current models.
Here we will see how Heinseberg’s phantasmagoric method has been used in Classical Nuclear Physics, after the publication of two experiments, one published in 2011, and the other in 2013.
1) Pear shaped nuclei=============================
According to the current nuclear models, the even-even nuclei have to have two sort of shapes:
A) Spherical shape – when the quantity of prótons Z is the same of the quantity of neutrons N, Z=N.
B) Elispoidal shape – when Z << N .
These two sort of shapes (spherical or ellipsoidal) have to occur for eve-even nuclei in Classical Nuclear Physics because there is not any physical cause which we could find in the current nuclear models, in order to justify any other sort of shape different of the spherical or the ellipsoidal.
But experiments have shown that some even-even nuclei with Z<< N are pear shaped.
Then, how to justify it? After all, they would have to have an ellipsoidal shape.
In 2013 the Professor Peter Butler of the University of Liverpool had proposed that nucleons (prótons and neutrons) are distributed within the nuclei around a z-axis. So, in order to justify why some even-even with Z<<N (as for instance 88Ra224) have pear shape, he proposed the existence of a z-axis within the nuclei.
However there is no way to justify why prótons and neutrons are distributed about a z-axis within the even-even nuclei, by considering the current nuclear models.
And the reason is obvious: there is no way to find a physical cause responsible for putting the prótons and neutrons distributed along a z-axis in the current nuclear models.
Therefore, the Professor Peter Butler had actually used the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method, so that to justify why 88Ra224 is pear shaped, by using a phantasmagoric hypothesis: the existence of a z-axis, which existence is impossible to explain by considering the current nuclear models.
Look the z-axis proposed by Professor Butler for the 88Ra224 in the link:
http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/
The distribution of prótons and neutrons about a z-axis had been predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006 (therefore 7 years before the proposal by Professor Peter Butler).
The existence of the z-axis is perfectly justified in the nuclear model proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory because there is a physical cause which obliges the prótons and neutrons to take a distribution about the z-axis: in the nuclear model proposed in QRT there is a central 2He4 which captures the prótons and neutrons, in order that they take a distribution about the z-axis.
That’s why the existence of the z-axis had been correctly predicted in my Quantum Ring Theory.
See page 198 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, shown in the page 13 of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, where we see the z-axis for the nuclei 46Pd and U228:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
======================================================
.
2) Non-spherical even-even nuclei with Z=N====================
Along more than 60 years the nuclear theorists had believed that even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape, because from the current nuclear models we have to expect that they have to have spherical shape, because there is not any physical cause from which a nuclear theorists could justify a non-spherical shape for those nuclei.
For instance, in 2009 the nuclear theorist Dr. Martin Freer proposed the spherical shape for the oxygen 8O16 shown in the Figure 1 of his paper Clusters in nuclei published in Scholarpedia:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei
But in 2011 new experiments had detected that even-even light nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.
So, Dr. Martin Freer and all the nuclear theorists had to change their mind, after more than 60 years of the nuclear theorists believing that even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape.
That’s why in 2012 the journal Nature published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, where the authors consider several even-even nuclei with Z=N with non-spherical shapes.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html
However, a question appears:
From the current nuclear models we have to expect that even-even nuclei with Z=N have to have spherical shape. Then how does to justify that they have non-spherical shape ??????
In other words: what should be the physical cause, according to the current nuclear models, responsible for the non-spherical shape of those nuclei?
Well, of course there is no way to find such physical cause from the current nuclear models. And the authors of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster cannot give any physical cause capable to explain the non-spherical shape of those nuclei.
Therefore, actually Dr. Martin Freer and the authors of the paper published in the journal Nature are using the phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg, because it is the unique way so that to justify the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
The non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N was predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory (published in 2006, and therefore 6 years before the publication in the journal Nature.
The non-spherical shape of those nuclei had been predicted and proposed in my book because there is a physical cause which oblige the even-even nuclei with Z=N to take that shape: the existence of a central 2He4 in all the nuclei.
It is opportune to remember that the journal Nature published a plagiarism of an argument proposed in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, as I explain again here:
A) Even-even nuclei with Z=N with non-spherical shape cannot have null electric quadrupole moment.
B) But the experiments detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have null electric quadrupole moment.
C) So, how to justify that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, in spite of they have null quadrupole moment ?
D) In the page 137 of my book I had proposed the explanation: as those nuclei have nuclear spin zero and magnetic moment zero, they gyrate chaotically, and there is no way to align them along an external magnetic Field, so that to measure their quadrupole moment. Therefore, in spite of their quadrupole moment is not zero, however it is not possible to measure it.
E) I sent an email to Dr. Martin Freer, telling him that as the journal Nature published a paper where the even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, they would have to exhibit non-null quadrupole moment. And I asked to him to explain why the experiments detect null quadrupole moment.
F) Dr. Martin Freer sent me a reply giving the same explanation proposed by me in the page 137 of the book Quantum Ring Theory.
===================================================
3) CONCLUSION =====================================
When new experiments defy the current theories, the theorists use the phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg because it is impossible to find the physical causes responsible for the phenomenon detected in the experiment.
Of course it is easier to use such phantasmagoric method, so that to adapt the old current models in the results of new experiments which disprove those current models.
By such a phantasmagoric method the theorists simply use some abstract mathematic concepts, neglecting the missing of physical causes which are the actual causes responsible for the phenomenon.
And so obviously the phantasmagoric method hides some physical cause responsible for the phenomenon detected in the new experiment.
In other words: the true cause responsible for the phenomenon is missing in the current models used so that to explain the phenomenon.
And the crucial question is the following:
Is it possible to find a definitive theory by starting up from such phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg ?
Suppose that there is indeed a central 2He4 within the nuclei (as are suggesting the experiments published in 2012 by Nature and in 2013 by Professor Peter Butler).
Then let’s do the question:
Will the nuclear theorists succeed in their enterprise trying to explain all the nuclear properties, by using nuclear models where it is missing the central 2He4 ?
=======================================================
Regards
wlad
Wladimir,
In 3Li7, the ratio between orbiting neutrons and orbiting deuterons is 1:1.
In 4Be12, this ratio is 2:1.
Is there a general upper limit to this type of ratio in QRT?
All the best,
Joe
Joe wrote in November 23rd, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Wladimir,
In 4Be12, are the excess neutrons being held in orbit by the spin interaction that they have with the deuterons?
=================================================
COMMENT
Yes, I had explained it in my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published here in the JoNP
That’s why they have longer orbit radius, pulled out the centripetal force.
The deuterons also are pulled out by the centripetal force, but as the proton of the deuteron has attraction with the central 2He4, that’s why the neutrons take an outter radial position
regards
wlad
JR wrote in November 23rd, 2013 at 9:48 AM
1) =============================================
Detailed first principal calculations, which provide precise calculations of binding and excitation energies for dozens of ground states and excited states up to 12C, show that 8Be is not bound.
================================================
COMMENT
Calculations where ?????????????????
So, according to Mr. JR Dr Hans Bette, a Nobel Laureate, was an idiot, because he was unable to understand it.
2) ==============================================
The paper Wladimir points to shows a direct comparison of the data and the calculations, and they agree, so there is no discrepancy between experiment and conventional theory. The fact that Wladimir doesn’t believe conventional theory can explain the separation is the fact that he doesn’t understand quantum mechanics. It’s a textbook exercise to take an interaction with an arbitrarily short range and show that it yields bound states with finite size.
=================================================
COMMENT
As said Bohr: if a theory is not sufficiently crazy, it is not able to explain some quantum phenomena.
It seems sometimes there is need the author of the theory must be crazy too, as it seems to be the case of Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser
By addopting crazy solutions (disproved by the laws of Physics) it is possible to explain any experiment which disproves the current nuclear models.
3)========================================
While it is generally supposed that N=Z=even nuclei have spin zero. This is not the same as saying that they cannot have internal cluster structure or non-spherical components. Because they have no spin direction to define a preferred orientation, measurements observe and averaged, spherically symmetric structure.
===========================================
COMMENT:
Well,
then why did not the nuclear theorists discover it along 60 years ??????????????????????
As Mr. JR claims that it is so easy to explain it by considering the current nuclear models, then we had to expect that nuclear theorist would have to had predicted it many years ago, taking the current nuclear models in consideration.
But the nuclear theorists had realize it only in 2011, and only because new experiments had shown that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.
That’s why the journal Nature published in 2012 the paper How atomic nuclei cluster
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1244
Unlike, the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N had been predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory and published in 2006, therefore FIVE YEARS earlier the experiments published in 2011 and 6 years earlier the paper published in Nature in 2012.
4) =========================================
While Wladimir argues that an octopole deformation is impossible for N=Z=even nuclei, the quantity the experiment quoted actually measures was compared to predictions from conventional calculations which predicted the approximate size of the transition being measured. While they don’t predict the trend very well, the wouldn’t be compatible with the data if no octopole deformation were possible in conventional theory.
=============================================
COMMENT
No, I am not saying that an octopole deformation is impossible for N=Z=even nuclei.
I am saying that there is not any PHYSICAL CAUSE able to justify the existence of the z-axis proposed by Professor Peter Butler.
Look at the z-axis:
http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/
Why the nuclear theorists did not predict its existence BEFORE the experiment published now in 2013 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The answer is easy: it’s because from the current nuclear models there is no way to justify the existence of such z-axis proposed by Professor Peter Butler.
Unlike, from my new nuclear model the z-axis has a PHYSICAL CAUSE which justifies its existence: the central 2He4 which does not exist in the current nuclear models.
That’s why he existence of the z-axis had been predicted in my Quantum Ring Theory.
See page 198 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, shown in the page 13 of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, where we see the z-axis for the nuclei 46Pd and U228:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
5) ===========================================
12Be ground state has spin zero. Since the magnetic moment is defined relative to the direction of the spin, it is zero, by definition. There can’t possibly be any mystery about the lack of magnetic moment for 12Be in any model whatsoever, it’s simply a matter of understanding the definition of magnetic moment.
===============================================
COMMENT
So, Mr. JR did not understand the question, and so I will resume it again:
1) Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser made an experiment published in 2012, which had suggested that there are outer neutrons in the structure of ground state 4Be12
2) Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser proposed a structure for 4Be12 where two outer neutrons and two inner neutrons have different orbit radius.
3) The structure proposed by Dr. Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser is UNACCEPTABLE, because:
a) the two outer neutrons and the two inner neutrons have different values of the g-factor
b) therefore the structure of 4Be12 proposed by Dr. Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser must have non-null magnetic moment
c) But experiments show that 4Be12 has NULL magnetic moment.
That’s why his solution is UNACCEPTABLE.
6) =============================================
So none of these are actually examples of conventional theory failing to describe data. In addition, none of the QRT explanations appear to be real predictions (quantitative or qualitative). As far as I can tell, they are simply ‘word pictures’ explaining how the observed behavior is possible within QRT, but not actually predicting anything.
===============================================
COMMNENT
Dear Mr. JR
you actually do not understand the fundamental difference between my new nuclear model and the current models of Standar Nuclear Physics.
My new nuclear model has a central 2He4
This is a physical structure, responsible for physical causes missing in the current nuclear models.
That’s why my new nuclear model was able to predict several nuclear properties (published in 2006), which had not been predicted along 60 years by the nuclear theorists, as for intance:
A) The non-spherical shape of even-even nuclei with Z=N, published in 2012.
B) The z-axis proposed by Professor Peter Butler in 2013.
7) ============================================
Wladimir said “I cant see how my theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.” On this, we agree completely.
==============================================
COMMENT:
Of course.
As a central 2He4 is missing in the current nuclear models, many nuclear properties (now discovered by experiments made in the last 5 years) are not compatible with Standard Nuclear Physics, and that’s why along 60 years the nuclear physicists never predicted those nuclear properties, as for instance the non-spherical shape of even-even nuclei with Z=N, and the z-axis in the nuclei
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
In 4Be12, are the excess neutrons being held in orbit by the spin interaction that they have with the deuterons?
All the best,
Joe
Since Wladimir is repeating several of his incorrect attacks on conventional theory, I wanted to summarize some of the earlier discussion on these points:
1) Detailed first principal calculations, which provide precise calculations of binding and excitation energies for dozens of ground states and excited states up to 12C, show that 8Be is not bound. So Wladimir is just blindly asserting that this is impossible to describe in conventional theory, despite the successful description in conventional theory.
Wladimir simply treats the trend that most light N=Z=even nuclei are bound as a rigid prediction for all such nuclei. This is a frivolous argument and applies equally well to QRT, if you believe that it makes sense to ignore the actual physics of the model you’re examining and just assume that observed trends are rigid rules. To distract from the actual physics, he has been obsessing about the fact that I provided a clear definition of binding energy (since his argument appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of this definition). He pretends that providing a clear definition so that we’re talking about the same thing is a circular argument: “it’s bound because it’s bound”. Since then, he has ignored every physics point raised on the topic, simply asserting that it its impossible under conventional theory and attacking me personally for attempting to “invert causality” (which is how he describes my attempt to clarify the definition).
2) The paper Wladimir points to shows a direct comparison of the data and the calculations, and they agree, so there is no discrepancy between experiment and conventional theory. The fact that Wladimir doesn’t believe conventional theory can explain the separation is the fact that he doesn’t understand quantum mechanics. It’s a textbook exercise to take an interaction with an arbitrarily short range and show that it yields bound states with finite size.
3)While it is generally supposed that N=Z=even nuclei have spin zero. This is not the same as saying that they cannot have internal cluster structure or non-spherical components. Because they have no spin direction to define a preferred orientation, measurements observe and averaged, spherically symmetric structure.
4) While Wladimir argues that an octopole deformation is impossible for N=Z=even nuclei, the quantity the experiment quoted actually measures was compared to predictions from conventional calculations which predicted the approximate size of the transition being measured. While they don’t predict the trend very well, the wouldn’t be compatible with the data if no octopole deformation were possible in conventional theory.
5) 12Be ground state has spin zero. Since the magnetic moment is defined relative to the direction of the spin, it is zero, by definition. There can’t possibly be any mystery about the lack of magnetic moment for 12Be in any model whatsoever, it’s simply a matter of understanding the definition of magnetic moment.
So none of these are actually examples of conventional theory failing to describe data. In addition, none of the QRT explanations appear to be real predictions (quantitative or qualitative). As far as I can tell, they are simply ‘word pictures’ explaining how the observed behavior is possible within QRT, but not actually predicting anything. If I’m wrong and these really are fundamental and rigid predictions of QRT, then Wladimir has already demonstrated that QRT is wrong since it says that the magnetic moment of 36Ar must be zero, but a non-zero value has been measured and appears in the most recent nuclear data tables.
Wladimir said “I cant see how my theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.” On this, we agree completely.
Steven N. Karels wrote in November 21st, 2013 at 7:14 PM
====================================================
Wladimir,
Next you must demonstrate that your theory provides a correct answer for the observed experimental data while the classical nuclear theory fails to do so. Otherwise, your theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.
====================================================
COMMENT
5)
I forgot to mention the last experimental finding published by Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser 2012:
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-magic-shell-beryllium-isotopes-invalidated.html
From the structure proposed by Dr. Nörtershäuser is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the magnetic moment zero for the 4Be12, because the two outer neutrons and the two central neutrons have different g-factor.
So, there is no way to explain the structure of 4Be12 detected in the experiment of 2012 by considering the current nuclear models.
The structure of 4Be12 according to QRT is shown in the figure:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=174562786074047&set=pcb.174562806074045&type=1&theater
The neutrons N-1,N-2 have an orbit radius longer than the deuteron D-1 because N-1 and N-2 are not submitted to a magnetic force of atraction with the central 2He4 (but D-1 is attracted with the central 2He4 by a magnetic force, because of the electric charge of the proton). So, due to the centripetal force, the neutrons N-1,N-2 get a longer orbit radius about the central 2He4
The same happens with the neutrons N-3,N-4 and D-2
Therefore, according to QRT it is possible to explain very well the existence of neutrons with longer orbit radius in the 4Be12.
So, dear Steven
I cant see how my theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels wrote in November 21st, 2013 at 7:14 PM
====================================================
Wladimir,
Next you must demonstrate that your theory provides a correct answer for the observed experimental data while the classical nuclear theory fails to do so. Otherwise, your theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.
====================================================
COMMENT
1)
Quantum Ring Theory explains why 4Be8 is not stable:
3.13-5- Two deuterons in the 4Be8, page 17
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
Unlike, from the principles of current nuclear models 4Be8 would have to be stable, like all other even-even nuclei with Z=N.
2)
From current nuclear models is impossible to explain the halo neutron with 7fm in 11Be, because the strong force does not actuate in a distance of 7fm (that’s why Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser had proposed a crazy theory, according to which the body of the neutron can be distributed along a distance of 7fm).
The halo neutron in 11Be is explained according to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory:
C) Interpretation on the 2009 experiment
, page 73, Fig. 55:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
3)
Along 60 years the nuclear theorists suppoed that all even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape, doing such prediction based on the principles that rule the behavior of nuclei according to the standard Nuclear Physics.
However in 2011 new experiments had showed that such prediction is wrong: those nuclei have non-spherical shape.
That’s why in 2012 the journal Nature published a paper, where the authors had addapted the nuclear models for the new experimental finding.
Unlike, in my book published in 2006 it is proposed that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, as confirmed by experiments in 2011 (page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory).
4)
According to current nuclear models, there is no way to explain the shape of the nucleus pearl-shapeed Ra224, measured in an experiment published in 2013.
Professor Peter Butler proposed that there is a z-axis crossing the nuclei.
See the z-axis in the figure:
http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/
However it is impossible to explain the existence of such z-axis by considering the current nuclear models).
The existence of the z-axis is predicted in the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
See page 198 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, shown in the page 13 of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, where we see the z-axis for the nuclei 46Pd and U228:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
So, dear Steven,
I cant see how ny theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels wrote in November 21st, 2013 at 7:14 PM
===================================================
Wladimir,
I failed to make my point clear. There have been many tests with results. You have published them here.
To demonstrate that your theory is superior to the classical nuclear theory, you must first demonstrate your theory predicts the same results as those experiments with published results. As you previously posted, a single experiment result can disprove a theory.
=================================================
Dear Steven
sure you did not understand my discussion with Mr. JR.
Our debate was not concerning my theory (after all, Mr. JR is even not interested in my theory).
Mr. JR defended the viewpoint that there is not any experiment disproving the classical nuclear physics.
And I showed here that there are several new experimental finding disproving the current nuclear models.
And Mr JR tried to convince people here that those new experiments actually do not disprove the current nuclear models (however by using stupid arguments, like claim that the instability of 4Be8 is explained by the calculation of its binding energy, clearly suggesting that the Nobel Laureate Hans Bette was a stupid scientist, because if he had be so smart like Mr. JR of course Dr. Bette would not waste so many years looking for an explanation. If Dr. Bette had be smart like Mr. JR he would simply explain the instability of 4Be8 by using the stupid solution proposed by Mr. JR).
Sorry you did not underestand the discussion, dear Steven
regards
wlad
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I am interested in contacting you for business issues. Which email should I use to reach you?
Regards
J. Lumar
J.Lumar:
Info@leonardocorp1996.com
Duke Nukem:
I am very pleased to see that the tech I patented in 1977 ( obviously the patent is expired) is still used, this fact makes all the enormous problems I got in that period of my life ( see http://www.ingandrearossi.com) have not been useless. I am delighted to see successful epigones.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
I am reading http://www.phgenenergy.com : it appears they are using the technology you patented twenty years ago !
What do you think?
Duke
Steven,
While I very much appreciate your support, I don’t think that there’s much point trying to convince Wladimir that I simply misread what was said. I explained that it was a mistake, and if Wladimir doesn’t want to accept that or feels the need to try and convince people that I was trying to deceive him, that doesn’t bother me.
Hi Andrea, I like to elaborate that you can circulate the molten salt though the hot cat and store the excess heat in the insulated containers. When required, you can pump the salt back to stimulate the hot cat, IN this way, after the initial start up, no external energy is required- self sustaining. A sterling engine can be coupled to provide electrical power. Read John L- Test engineer, Melbourne
Wladimir,
I failed to make my point clear. There have been many tests with results. You have published them here.
To demonstrate that your theory is superior to the classical nuclear theory, you must first demonstrate your theory predicts the same results as those experiments with published results. As you previously posted, a single experiment result can disprove a theory.
Next you must demonstrate that your theory provides a correct answer for the observed experimental data while the classical nuclear theory fails to do so. Otherwise, your theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.
Regarding telling lies, I still contend that a good person who reports what he/she believes, although it is found later to be incorrect, did not lie but only spoke to his/her level of knowledge. Did a person before Columbus who spoke that the Earth was flat lie? No. So there is a difference between lies (deliberate) and one who honestly reports current theory or knowledge that he/she has.
John L:
Thank you for the idea.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea, you should consider molten salt as a thermal storage for the heat generated by the self-sustaining hot cat. Better efficiency can be achieved. 450C melting point Salt has been used in solar thermal farm.
Steven,
I do not understand your calculation. I mean: a 4 kW eCat, coupled with a 30% efficiency Stirling engine, coupled as well to a 90% efficiency electrical generator would yield a net electrical power, ready for an external load P=4*(0,30*0,9-1/6)= 0,41 kW (6=COP), the balance to 4 kW, i.e. 3,59 kW, available as sensible heat. A real astonishing and game changer result!
Apart from this, I share your enthusiasm and AR considerations: testing first, then we see.
Regards,
CM
Frank Acland:
We always did the due diligence.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for your earlier response. Are you already in the process of doing due diligence on customers who want to use the E-Cat?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Hey Mr Rossi,
reflecting Frank Acland’s question concerning reverse engineering, I’m wondering how “difficult” it is to build an e-cat if I would have the blueprints.
Could this be done by hobby-scientists or is this “rocket-science”?
Thanks,
dawg
Dawg:
“Hobby scientist” is an oxymoron.
Warm Regards,
A.
Steven N Karels:
As I said, we are still waiting for an industrialized, reliable and off the shelf unit. First test, then talk.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
nchauvin,
You suggested a Sterling Engine with a 30% thermal-to-electric conversion efficency and an electrical output of 800W.
Suppose a 4kW eCat was powered using this engine with a COP of 6 (a number Andrea Rossi has used). Suppose also the electrical output of the Sterling Engine was fed to a power supply (AC-to-DC converter – 90% efficiency) and then to a battery which in turn drove the eCat.
With these assumptions and scenario, the 4kW output eCat thermal power could be split with 2.67kW going to the Sterling Engine (800W divided by 30%) and the Sterling Engine would produce 800W of electrical power. The sustained power reaching the battery would be 720W. The battery would have a continuous or average load of 667W. With a COP of 6, the eCat would output 4kW. There would be an excess thermal output of 1.33kW. There could also be an electric output of 53W, depending upon actual efficiencies.
This sounds like a self-sustaining eCat.
Steven N. Karels wrote in November 16th, 2013 at 6:13 AM
1) ————————————————
Wladimir – I suggest you take your theory and regressively apply all the known data with actual results and see if it produces equivalent results. Demonstration that current nuclear theory is incorrect or incomplete does not necessarily prove that your theory is correct or better.
—————————————————-
COMMENT:
The journal Nature had published two plagiarisms of ideas proposed in my book in 2006 (because new experiments published in 2011 and 2012 have shown that nuclear models considered as correct along 60 years are wrong, while the results of the experiments corroborate my new nuyclear model).
And the European Physica Journal published a plagiarism on the structure of the aether proposed in my book QRT.
If my theory is correct, new experiments will confirm it, and the theorists will be obliged to publish new plagiarisms.
I dont think I have to worry about to convince persons like Mr. JR.
The up comming experiments will decide what theory is right, and what theory is wrong.
2) ————————————————
I do not believe that JR intentionally tells mis-truths, therefore I do not consider him a lier. A lier, by definition, requires the intent to speak un-truths.
—————————————————-
COMMENT
JR interpreted said:
………………………………..
-Dr. Stuchbery did not tell you that the measurement of mu for the 2+ excited state of 12C had been measured. He told you that he *thought* that they had been *attempted*
…………………………………
But in his email Dr. Stuchbery said:
………………………………..
Such measurements were attempted by Dybdal et al around 1980 I think. There was some dispute with Speidel et al about the transient field strength that was never resolved, as I recall. These are tough experiments.
…………………………………
If JR’s interpretation had be correct, in this case Dybdal and Speider would have not performed the experiments.
And therefore they whoul have NOTHING so that to justify a dispute. Because nobody with good sense would have a dispute for NOTHING.
Do you think, dear Steven,
that it makes sense to have a dispute about NOTHING?
If you respond “YES, it makes sense to have a dispute for NOTHING”, then I agree that Mr. JR did not make his wrong interpretation intentionally.
Unlike, if you respond “NO, it makes no sense to have a dispute for NOTHING”, then you are agree that Mr. JR made his wrong mistake intentionanally
regards
wlad
Hello Mr. Rossi:
Infinia Corporation would probably be the closest you could get to off-the-shelf consolidated technologies.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_cycle_engine
Starting in 1986, Infinia Corporation began developing both highly reliable pulsed free-piston Stirling engines, and thermoacoustic coolers using related technology. The published design uses flexural bearings and hermetically sealed Helium gas cycles, to achieve tested reliabilities exceeding 20 years. As of 2010, the corporation had amassed more than 30 patents, and developed a number of commercial products for both combined heat and power, and solar power.[45]
best regards
Kevin O’Malley
Kevmo:
If we will receive an offer for an industrialized product, we will consider it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.