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
Joe wrote in March 9th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Wladimir,
4. How does QRT explain the preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe?
—————————————–
COMMENT:
Joe,
actually the assymetry must be the following:
a) either there is a little different between the interaction of the permeabilitons p(+) and p(-) with the flux n(0)
or
b) there is a little different between the interaction of the permeabilitons P(+) and P(-) with the flux n(0).
or
c) both at the same time
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in March 9th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Wladimir,
1.
How does QRT explain the constancy of electric charge? Is the answer that, by Law 5, the angular velocity of the flux n(o) of the particle must be constant?
——————————————
COMMENT:
Yes
2.
How do gravitons g and G interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?
———————————————
COMMENT:
Gravitons g do not interact with gravitons G
3.
Likewise, how do two g gravitons interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?
——————————————-
COMMENT
They do not interact in the aether away from the particle.
This is known as Mach Principle.
The space (aether) has its properties thanks to the presence of matter in the universe.
The interaction of any two particles is via the permeabilitons p(+), p(-), P(+), P(-).
4.
How does QRT explain the preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe?
——————————————-
COMMENT
I think that there is a little different between the interaction of the permeabilitons p(+) and P(+) with the flux n(0).
Such assymetry is responsible for the matter preference over antimatter
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
1. How does QRT explain the constancy of electric charge? Is the answer that, by Law 5, the angular velocity of the flux n(o) of the particle must be constant?
2. How do gravitons g and G interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?
3. Likewise, how do two g gravitons interact with each other in the aether away from the particle?
4. How does QRT explain the preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe?
All the best,
Joe
Joe wrote in March 7th, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Wladimir,
In QRT, repulsive gravitons G surround the fluxes n(o) of attractive gravitons g. This has the effect of keeping the fluxes n(o) from attracting each other and uniting, which means that G is neutralizing g (in the short distance). Since neutralization implies that G = g, how is it possible that g still has an influence beyond the short distance?
=============================================
COMMENT
Dear Joe,
after the analysis of several questions (as the mass and charge of proton and electron, and the similarity between the structures of the neutron, neutrino, and photon), my conclusion is that there are the following particles of the aether:
gravitons g(+) and g(-), G(+) and G(-)
magnetons m(+) and m(-)
electricitons e(+) and e(-)
permeabilitons p(+) and p(-) , P(+) and P(-)
.
Laws of interaction forming the fields of the proton:
Law 1- The body-ring of proton gyrates and induces the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) with the speed c of light. It is the Principal field Sp(p) of proton.
Law 2- The flux n(o) gyrates and induces a second field formed by permeabilitons p(+) and P(+). Such field formed by p(+) and P(+) is spread in the aether around the field Sp(p). This is the secondary field Sn(p) of the proton. This field Sn(p) does not gyrate, because it is an extension of the aether around the body-ring of proton, meaning that such secondary field is a portion of the aether around the proton, formed by with p(+) and P(+) excited by the rotation of the flux n(o).
Law 3- The permeabilitons p(+) excited by the flux n(o) of the proton capture magnetons m(+), and so a magnetic field is formed by magnetons m(+) in the proton.
Law 4- The permeabilitons P(+) excited by the flux n(o) of the proton capture electricitons e(+), and so an electric field is formed by electricitons e(+).
Law 5-The intensity of excitation of the permeabilitons P(+) depends on the velocity of the rotation of the flux n(o).
Law 6- The intensity of excitation of the permeabilitons p(+) does not change with the changing of the velocity of rotation of the flux n(o).
Law 7- The magnetons m(+) of the proton’s magnetic field capture gravitons G(+), and so a gravity field of gravitons G(+) is formed in the aether surrounding the proton.
Law 8- The interaction between two gravitons G(+) is 10^40 times weaker than the interaction between two electricitons e(+)
Law 9- Two gravitons G(+) and G(-) moving in two parallel circular motion with radius R in contrary direction cancel each other their interaction with the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of the aether
.
A) Inertia-mass of the proton
Suppose a proton is at rest in the aether. The gravitons G(+) of the proton’s field interact with the gravitons G(+) of the ether, and so the there is need a force F in order to put the proton moving with velocity v, because the force of interaction between the gravitons G(+) of the proton and the gravitons G(+) of the aether must be won.
Imagine that a force F is applied on the proton. Then those gravitons G(+) of the aether are left behind the displacement of the proton, and other grávitons G(+) of the aether (in front of the motion) have interaction with the gravitons G(+) of the proton’s field.
I call such phenomenon “substitution frequency” (when a graviton G(+) is abandoned and other gráviton G(+) is captured ahead the motion), and it is responsible for the Newton’s inertia Law. For the proton moving with velocity “v” there is a specific substitution frequency. If another force is applied, and the proton’s velocity increases from v to V , then the substitution frequency increases, and so the motion gets a new specific substitution frequency. For each velocity of the proton corresponds a specific subsitution frequency.
The substitution frequency is responsible for the Newton’s inertia Law. But it is also responsible for the Einstein’s Law of inertia growth with the velocity, because the growth of the substitution frequency grows according to Einstein’s equation of the inertia growth. When the proton approaches the velocity of light, the substitution frequency approaches to a maximum value and the inertia of the proton tends to infinitum.
.
B) Electric interaction between two protons
When there is overlap between the fields of two protons, there is a force of repulsion between their electricitons e(+), and so there is a Coulomb repulsion between them.
.
C) Gravity interaction between two protons
When there is overlap between the fields of two protons, the grvitons G(+) of the two prótons have Interaction, and so there is a gravity attraction between them. As the magnitude of the attraction between two gravitons G(+) is 10^40 times weaker than the repulsion between two electricitons e(+), therefore the gravity interaction is 10^40 times weaker than the electrical interaction.
.
D) Why electron is less massive than the proton
The electric and gravity fields of the electron are similar to the two fields of the proton, replacing the particles by their antiparticles g(-), G(-), m(-), e(-), p(-), P(-).
However the body-ring of the electron is formed by quarks k and q which are less massive than the quarks up and down of the proton.
Therefore the flux n(o) of the electron, formed by gravitons g(-), is weaker than the flux n(o) of gravitons g(+) in the proton (i.e., the quantity of gravitons g(-) in the flux n(o) of the electron is lower). But in another hand, the rotation of the electron’s body-ring is faster, and it gyrates with angular velocity “W” faster than the angular velocity “w” in the proton.
And then we have:
.
D.1) Electric charge of the electron:
The permeabilitons P(-) in the field of the electron are susceptible to the faster angular velocity W of the flux n(o) of gravitons g(-) which cross the body-ring of the electron (see Law 5). As consequence, in spite of the flux of gravitons g(-) is weaker in the electron, however (due to the faster angular velocity W) the field of permeabilitons P(-) induced in the electron has the same intensity as occurs in the field of permeabiltons P(+) induced in the proton. As the intensity of the field formed by P(-) in the electron is the same intensity of the field formed by P(+) in the proton, then the quantity of electricitons e(-) in the electron captured by P(-) is the same quantity of electricitons e(+) in the proton captured by P(+). That’s why the electron and the proton have the same electric charge 1,6×10^-19C, negative in the electron and positive in the proton.
.
D.2) Mass of the electron
The permeabilitons p(-) in the field of the electron are not suscetible to the faster angular velocity W of the flux n(o) , (see Law 6). As consequence the field of permeabilitons p(-) in the electron is weaker than the field of permeabilitons p(+) in the proton (because for the proton its flux of gravitons g(+) within the flux n(o) is stronger). Thereby, as the field of permeabilitons p(-) in the electron is weaker, the field captures a lower quantity of magnetons m(-) compared with the quantity of magnetons m(+) captured in the proton. As the quantity of magnetons m(-) in the electron is lower, then it captures a lower quantity of gravitons G(-). And since the gravitons G(-) are responsible for the mass of the electron, then its mass is lower than the mass of the proton.
.
D.3) Gravity interaction between proton and electron
When there is overlap between the fields of one proton and one electron, there is a force of atraction between the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of their fields, and it is 10^40 times weaker than the electric force of attraction due to interaction between e(+) and e(-).
.
The photon
The photon is composed by two particles f(+) and its antiparticle f(-). The particle f(+) is formed by the agglutination of electricitons e(+), and the particle f(-) is formed by the agglutination of electricitons e(-).
Gravitons G(+) are captured by magnetons m(+) of the magnetic field of the particle f(+), while gravitons G(-) are captured by the magnetons m(-) of the magnetic field of the antiparticle f(-).
The particle f(+) and the antiparticle f(-) move in circular motion in contrary direction, transverse to the their displacement around the straight line center of their helical trajectory. The interactions of the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of the photon with the gravitons G(+) and G(-) of the aether are canceled due to the Law 9, and so the photon is massless, because it has no gravity interaction with the aether.
.
Dear Joe,
it seems that now the puzzles of the elementary particles is finally solved with perfect philosophical coherence
regards
wlad
Greg Leonard:
I totally agree,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Really good Frank.
You have found a good singer for those words and music.
An excellent production.
Greg
Frank Acland:
Melissa Hollick is fantastic, but you too are very good as a song writer!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andreas Moraitis:
Not necessarily and anyway not limited to.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels,
maybe he can describe details of the controversial topics without explicitely referring to the journals?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Would you say that the letter “N” in “LENR” should not be interpreted solely with respect to fusion and transmutation?
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Wladimir,
In QRT, repulsive gravitons G surround the fluxes n(o) of attractive gravitons g. This has the effect of keeping the fluxes n(o) from attracting each other and uniting, which means that G is neutralizing g (in the short distance). Since neutralization implies that G = g, how is it possible that g still has an influence beyond the short distance?
All the best,
Joe
Steven N. Karels wrote in March 7th, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Wladimir Guglinski,
I suggest you NOT put that into your book. First, it weakens the strengths of your arguments by making you seem vindictive.
===========================================
Dear Steve,
let me tell you other reasons I have.
When a publishing house publishes a book in the field of Physics, the first and principal care of the editors is write on the back cover of the book the academic titles of the author (always an academic physicist), as for instance:
Dr. John Melford, PhD
Physicist of the Michigan Institute of Physics
Author of several scientific papers published in Nature, Science, International Journal of Modern Physics
Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences
President of the Institute for Advanced Physics
etc. etc. etc.
The more is the quantity of titles of the author, more credibility is attributed to his book.
I have no academic titles, dear Steve
The merit of Quantum Ring Theory does not relies on academic titles.
The merit of my theory relies on the confirmation by experiments of the models proposed in my QRT and its predictions.
Therefore, I cannot supress the “titles” given to me by the confirmation by scientific experiments
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels wrote in March 7th, 2014 at 10:26 AM:
Wladimir Guglinski,
Reference your statement “However now I’m glad with the breach of Agreement, because I am introducing many news in the book, as for instance:
a) the plagiarism by the journals Nature
b) the plagiarism by the European Physical Journal”
I suggest you NOT put that into your book. First, it weakens the strengths of your arguments by making you seem vindictive.
==========================================
Dear Steve,
let me also show that you are wrong in your conclusion.
It is not a question of revenge.
Two ideas of my book Quantum Ring Theory had been plagiarized by the two most important journals of Physics of the world.
This means that those two ideas of mine have scientific merit, otherwise they would not be plagiarized by two of the most important journals of Physics worldwide.
Along 80 years the nuclear theorists believed that light even-even nuclei with Z=N have to be spherical.
My Quantum Ring Theory predicted correctly that such scientific dogma of 80 years was wrong, as shown in the page 137 of my book, where it is shown that oxygen nucleus 8O16 has non-spherical shape.
So, beyond the plagiarism by the journal Nature, my QRT also predicted correctly the non-sphererical shape of those light nuclei, confirmed by the publication in 2012 in the Nature’s paper How atomic nuclei cluster.
Therefore, the readers of my upcoming book THE MISSED U-TURN have the right to know those facts, because those facts testify in favor of the scientific merit of my Quantum Ring Theory.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
The singer is named Melissa Hollick — she’s an English singer. You will be glad it was her and not me singing!
Best wishes,
Frank
Steven N. Karels wrote in March 7th, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Wladimir Guglinski,
Reference your statement “However now I’m glad with the breach of Agreement, because I am introducing many news in the book, as for instance:
a) the plagiarism by the journals Nature
b) the plagiarism by the European Physical Journal”
I suggest you NOT put that into your book. First, it weakens the strengths of your arguments by making you seem vindictive. Regardless of the truth of your assertion, such as statement does not belong in a theoretical physics book. Second, it would make a publisher less likely to produce your book because of legal issues. My thoughts, hope they help. Steve
==============================================
Dear Steve
thank to your suggestion.
However, I cannot see what is the problem.
The journal Nature and the European Physical Journal published a plagiarims of my ideas, and I have to be afraid of legal issues ???????
It seems to me to be just the contrary: as the two journals published plagiarisms of my ideas, then the editors of Nature and EPJ have to be afraid of legal issues
Besides, it is not a theoretical physics book.
It is atually a book on the Hystory of Physics, describing the Evolution of Physics.
And today the plagiarisms of my ideas by the Nature and the European Physical Journal constitute a page of the History of Physics.
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
Thank you for your enthusiasm. Very nice song! Is a poetry and the music is really good. You gave us a reason to smile. Who is the delighting singer?
Warm Regards,
Andrea
Dear Andrea, this is the final version of the song I mentioned to you — dedicated to the work that you and others are doing in bringing a new and better fire to the world to help us all.
A Reason to Smile — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZowDa5Hl-E
Wladimir Guglinski,
Reference your statement “However now I’m glad with the breach of Agreement, because I am introducing many news in the book, as for instance:
a) the plagiarism by the journals Nature
b) the plagiarism by the European Physical Journal”
I suggest you NOT put that into your book. First, it weakens the strengths of your arguments by making you seem vindictive. Regardless of the truth of your assertion, such as statement does not belong in a theoretical physics book. Second, it would make a publisher less likely to produce your book because of legal issues. My thoughts, hope they help. Steve
Dear Orsobubu,
there is something I would like to explain you.
The phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method is NOT pernicious for the develpoment of Theoretical Physics.
Actually Heinsenberg’s method was indispensable for the development of Physics.
Without the discoveries made thanks to the Heisenberg’s method would be impossible for me to make the discoveries proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.
In my book THE MISSED U-TURN I show that Theoretical Physics was developed along the centuries thanks to the alternation of two methods: the method of Newton and the method of Descartes.
For instance, for the explanation of the Michelson experiment Fitzgeral proposed a solution based on the Descartes method, and Einstein proposed a solution based on the Newton method.
However, for the discovery of the Theory of Relativity, Einstein used the Descartes method, and after that he used the Newton method, in order to get mathematical confirmations for the discoveries made via Descartes method.
The physicist Voigt used the Newton method so that to explain the Balmer scale. While Bohr used the Descartes method. And this is the reason why Bohr discovered the hydrogen model of atom, and Voigt did not.
Later Schroedinger used the Newton method and applied it to the hidrogen atom discovered by Bohr (thanks to the Descartes method).
Today we are in a stage along which the theorists are using the Heisenberg method, which is new mode of the Newton method.
The next step is to use again the Descartes method (thanks to the discoveries conquested by the Heisenberg method), in order to discover what is missing in the current Theoretical Physics.
This is just the step made by me: I used the Descartes method.
And the last step in the future will be to apply again the Newton method, so that to verify if my discoveries (made via Descartes method) are correct.
If my discoveries are not correct, other attempts via Descartes method need to be made, and later submitted to the Newton method.
regards
wlad
orsobubu wrote in March 5th, 2014 at 5:28 PM
1)
Wlad, will your next “The missed U-turn” be an informative book,
===================================
COMMENT
Dear Orsobubu,
in my new book I explain for the laymen the evolution of Physics since Newton up to Rossi’s e-Cat, and at the same time I explain the fundamental principles and models proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.
.
2)
or contain new developments/insights for your Quantum Ring Theory?
======================================
COMMENT
There are also some new discoveries.
For instance, in 2014 I have finally discovered that the mass of particles is not due to the flux n(o) formed by grávitons g(+) in the proton and g(-) in the electron, as I believed. It is actually caused by the interaction between theaether and the field of repulsive gravitons G(+) in the electron and repulsive G(-) in the proton.
By this way I finally understood the following:
1) why the photon is massless
2) why the neutrino (composed by pósitron-electron) is not massless, but having a mass near to zero.
3) why and the neutron (composed by proton-electron) is not massless
4) in spite of all them have gravitons G(+) and G(-) in their fields.
It was impossible to explain it by considering that the mass is due to the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) and g(-)
Then finally I also discovered the mechanism which causes the “mass defect” (I did not succeed to discover it earlier of understanding that the mass of particles is due to the gravitons G(+) and G(-) ).
.
3)
Will you wait for the 3rd party report (and supposed Rossi’s explanations of the “effect”) be published, first?
======================================
COMMENT
No, the publication is independent of the 3rd party report.
I am looking for a publisher.
In 2012 the Cambridge International Science Publishing signed an Aggreement for the publication of the book.
But they did not fulfill the Aggreement (signed by the Editor Victor Riecansky).
However now I’m glad with the breach of Aggreement, because I am introducing many news in the book, as for instance:
a) the plagiarism by the journals Nature
b) the plagiarism by the European Physical Journal
c) the suggestion on the existence of the z-axis in the nuclei, by Prof. Butler of the Liverpool University in 2013, because the existence of the z-axis was proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory published in 2006.
d) some puzzles explained by my new nuclear model, as for instance the exotic neutron halo in Be11 in a distance of 7fm from the rest of the nucleus, which defies the prevailing dogma that nuclei are bound via strong force.
.
4)
Will you enclose a summary of arguments debated with your “adversaries” here in JNP?
===============================================
COMMENT
No.
But I will mention the paper Stability of Light Nuclei published here in the JoNP, where it is explained why the halo neutron can be at the distance of 7fm in the exotic Be11 (which is impossible to explain by considering the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physcis).
.
5)
Will it enclose a part specifically targeted to LENR technologies, taking into account that such a linkage could be a good opportunity, in terms of scientific visibility?
==================================
COMMENT
First of all, I would like to say that I dont agree to the name LENR. Such name was proposed because the nuclear theorists hate the correct name “cold fusion”. So, LENR was proposed as a strategy, so that to try to eliminate the resistance against the researches.
But the book do not cover LENR technologies, because there are other books published (written by authors who are researchers in the LENR field, and so they are experts in the subject).
My book speaks about the foundations of Physics. If the current foundations of current Nuclear Physics are wrong, there is NO WAY to explain cold fusion without to discover what fundamental principles are missing in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
The puzzle of the proton radius (reinforced now in February 2014) is pointing out that Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and the Standard Model are in serious troubles, and a New Physics is need.
.
6)
I’m referring to the fact that, if different LENRS technologies go mainstream, there also will be a competion among various alternative theories developed by respective researchers.
============================================
COMMENT
Yes, I agree.
However, it makes no sense to propose a theory for explaining LENR if the theory is not able to explain other unsolved puzzles, as for instance the strange behavior of several exotic light nuclei, the puzzle of the proton radius, what causes the existence of the z-axis in the nuclei (predicted in my QRT), why the light even-even nuclei with Z=N are non-spherical (as predicted in my QRT), and etc, etc, etc…
The theorists today are trying to solve those puzzles which defy the current theories via the phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method.
However, the crisis in Theoretical Physics nowadays has its origin just in the fact that current theories of Modern Physics had been developed by the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric method.
And as Einstein already had taught us:
we cannot eliminate a crisis by the same method which generated the crisis.
—————————————————
I suppose that the theorists will finally understand Einstein’s advice.
—————————————————
Otherwise they will never eliminate the crisis created by the phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method.
regards
wlad
Dear sirs,
After confirming the cosmic black hole rotation I will try to concentrate on particle’s rotation and galaxy rotation.
Please see the following web sites.
http://www.sciencepubco.com/index.php/IJAA/article/view/1061
http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/607
They may give some idea on Black holes. I strongly feel that, Black hole geometry plays a key role. Black hole mass, size and density all are secondary. Why because, as the black hole mass increases to billion solar masses its mass density falls down to 1kg/m3. Now the questions are, 1) Such a small density, how it will be stable? 2)With such a small density, how it will be able to maintain a galaxy stable? … hence I strongly feel that, Black hole geometry can be given a top priority rather than its other physical properties. If the black hole rotates at light speed, then it may get maximum possible support. Please see the above links.
thanking you sir,
yours obediently,
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
To whom it may interest:
The website http://www.ingandrearossi.com has been updated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wlad, will your next “The missed U-turn” be an informative book, or contain new developments/insights for your Quantum Ring Theory? Will you wait for the 3rd party report (and supposed Rossi’s explanations of the “effect”) be published, first? Will you enclose a summary of arguments debated with your “adversaries” here in JNP? Will it enclose a part specifically targeted to LENR technologies, taking into account that such a linkage could be a good opportunity, in terms of scientific visibility? I’m referring to the fact that, if different LENRS technologies go mainstream, there also will be a competion among various alternative theories developed by respective researchers.
Dear Andrea,
Let us hope your company has a well constructed contingency plan.
All the best.
eernie1:
We are a strong team with a strong trust in our work and we are going through the path we had decided from the beginning: first a throughly work of validation and R&D, then industrialization, when the results of the validation and R&D phase will be positive.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi and readers, if you want to read about a $2.2 Billion Dollar Solar Plant.
Google:
WORLD’S LARGEST SOLAR PLANT
Eryl
Ft. Lauderdale
Dear Andrea,
Let us suppose that the 3P report is very favorable and confirms a significant COP with control. What is your next step? Does your company then provide modules of 10Kw or larger to end users? Do you provide a device with a boiler or sterling engine? Do you license to manufacturers? You have promised to reveal your theory of operation. Will you still do this?
Looking forward to the report which may be one of the most important of the last 100 years.
eernie1:
Let the work of the third indipendent party ( what you call 3P) arrive to a conclusion. Let the results, positive or negative as they might be, are published. Then we will see which will be the proper scheduling for our work. One way or the other, we will continue to work: our life is dedicated to this.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Giovanni Guerrini:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
1- I cannot disclose, so far, what happens inside the reactor
2- not witin the term of 6 months
3- same as in 1
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You replied “The so called Rossi Effect works on the base of totally different principles.”
1. Can you tell us if the eCat works using Nuclear Fusion principles?
2. Do you notice a decrease in Hydrogen pressure after long eCat operations (days or months)?
3. Are there any provisions within the eCat design to make the eCat reactor gas-tight?
About the Hot Fusion,
we should not forget that ITER and the others are laboratories and speak about COP is a nonsense.
I think that with more political will and money,today humanity would have already the technology available.
Hot fusion and LENR are differnt things and world needs both.
My opinion is that when something can give energy with a ridicolous consumption of “fuel”,is something that can get humanity more free,because a technology is reproducible,hidrocarbons and uranium are not.
Regards G G
Dear Mr. Curiosone ( Walter Gentili)
In my last comment of March 5th, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Andrea Rossi suppressed the end of my comment. So, my comment as it was published sounds as if I was an idiot… hahaha… with a superficial understanding of the subject.
In spite of I think that you are right, however in my opinion Andrea Rossi is also right, because the best is do not talk about some embarrassing subjects. That’s why Rossi suppressed the end of my comment.
So, Andrea Rossi is right, and let us avoid to discuss about embarrassing questions, which can affect some people.
The most important is to work hard, as Rossi is doing, and avoid discussions which potentially can disrupt the progress of his work
regards
wlad
Wladimir Guglinski:
I do not agree with you and I explained why in my answer to Curiosone ( Walter Gentili).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Curiosone wrote in March 4th, 2014 at 11:35 AM
Dr Rossi:
Let’s talk of hot fusion: the two plants in “operation”, after 50 years, are the ITER ( Europe) and the NIF ( USA). They reached the impressive result of a COP 1/ 100 000 : this means that they use 100 000 kWh to produce 1 kWh. They costed, so far, more than 100 billion dollars ( billions, with the “b” as in Bob). You made the E-Cat, with a COP higher than 3, using your own money. Why don’t you send them an E-Cat, so they put it inside their monsters and get a COP 3, with a stunning money saving for the taxpayers?
=============================
COMMENT:
Dear Andrea,
I agree to what said Mr. Curiosone, because not only extremely good scientists (as you say) are involved in such project which obtained the impressive (rsss) COP of 1/100.000.
There are other people involved, as for instance the government leaders who aprove the billion dollars for the hot fusion research.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
During the current long duration tests, at full power, what average operating temperature and/or temperature ranges are being maintained? (Either inside the reactor or the output temperature.) While this depends on coolant flow, there may be preferred or standard operating parameters.
I can wait to find out, but hope my curiosity is not bad for the cat!
Best regards,
Joseph Fine
Dr Joseph Fine:
I thank you for your curiosity, but I am not allowed to give any information about the measurements of the professors of the third indipendent party and I myself do not know exactly what they are doing.
We have to wait the report that will be published after the end of the experiment, with all the results, positive or negative as they might be.
This answer is valid also for the many questions I am receiving, regarding information of any kind about the work of the indipendent examiners.
Thank you for your permanent attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The puzzle of the proton radius
Helen Margolis, an optics physicist at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, remarked in a column for Science magazine last year: “If the results of [further] experiments turn out to reinforce the proton size puzzle, then it could become necessary to question the foundations of the world’s most precise and best-tested fundamental physical theory, QED itself.”
Another possible implication—yet to be investigated—is that the proton radius could differ depending on whether it is orbited by an electron or a muon. If this were the case, it would violate a fundamental precept of what is known as the Standard model, which is also derived from QED. The Standard model has been highly successful in explaining and predicting the existence of sub-atomic particles.
As Pohl and Bernauer write: “The most exciting possibility is that these measurements might be a sign of new physics that go beyond the so-called Standard model of particle physics.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/21/prot-f21.html
The shrinkage of the proton radius is explained in Quantum Ring Theory
In my book THE MISSED U-TURN (to be published yet), it is written in the item entitled The puzzle of the proton radius:
————————————————–
Concerning the puzzle of the proton radius, there is a hope to eliminate it making measurements via proton-electron scattering. Physicists are launching a new set of experiments across multiple laboratories. Another goal is to repeat the scattering experiments, but instead of shooting electrons at protons they’ll shoot muons at protons. This project, the Muon Scattering Experiment, or MUSE, is set to take place at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland. The facilities there will allow researchers to simultaneously measure electron- and muon-scattering in one experiment. The plan is to start collecting data in that experiment in 2015 or 2016.
According to Quantum Ring Theory, the proton-muon scattering experiments in 2015/2016 have to measure the proton radius very shorter than 0,8fm and a little larger than 0,27fm.
The reason why the radius of the proton suffers shrinkage is easy to be understood, according to QRT. It is because the body of the proton has the shape of a ring, which is crossed by a flux n(o) of gravitons g(+). Such flux n(o) captures repulsive gravitons G(-), which form a gravity field about the proton.
The mass of the proton is caused by the interaction between this field of repulsive gravitons G(-) and the aether. When the radius of the proton diminishes, the flux n(o) is reduced, and so it is reduced the field of gravitons G(-), in order that the mass of the proton has a reduction.
The reduction of the mass of the particles (due to their binding energy with other particles) is known in Nuclear Physics as “mass defect”, and it follows Einstein’s equation E=mc². However it is not known in the Standard Nuclear Physics the mechanism that causes the mass defect. The phenomenon is explained merely as transformation of mass in energy by following the Einstein’s equation, but the theorists do not know how the phenomenon happens.
If the experiments in 2015/2016 will measure the proton radius very shorter than 0,8fm and a little larger than 0,27fm, it will be a confirmation for the mechanism of mass defect according to Quantum Ring Theory.
————————————————
Dear Andrea,
I think you are too generous when it comes to hot fusion research. The truth is that many billions of dollars have been spent over decades with nothing practical being produced. In fact, even in the best case scenario hot fusion researchers hope for, the technology is nearly worthless. For example, it is predicted that in thirty years we may have a couple large, expensive hot fusion plants. But they will have required a huge investment, will produce nuclear waste due to neutron radiation impacting the material of the reactor, require a large staff, and will not be capable of being used in homes or vehicles. On the other hand, the E-Cat will be mas marketed in only a few years, will produce zero nuclear waste, be small enough to power homes and vehicles, and will quickly end the energy crisis.
I agree that hot fusion scientists are highly qualified, and it is good for them to have jobs. However, hot fusion is a dead end. Just imagine if hot fusion researchers had embraced cold fusion and LENR when it was first discovered instead of working to suppress it. They could have had work studying LENR and the energy crisis could have ended 15 years ago. Those scientists could have jobs building nickel hydrogen reactors for spaceships.
Also, I realize other discoveries have been made sure to hot fusion research. But if all the hot fusion researchers had been studying cold fusion, I think even more discoveries would have been made. This is because every single researcher could have had their own cold fusion reactor. Now, I doubt there is one hot fusion reactor for every thousand hot fusion scientists. Who knows, if LENR had not been suppressed we might have antigravity by now.
Steven N Karels:
Thank you for your educated comment. The so called Rossi Effect works on the base of totally different principles.
In due time we will publish our theory. Your proposal, anyway, can be useful for other researchers in the field of LENR.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Curiosone ( Walter Gentili):
I do not agree with your superficial comment for the following reasons:
1- the scientists who have dedicated their life to the hot fusion endevour are extremely good, for sure among the best nuclear physicists around
2- the ITER and the NIF have generated the development of technological applications in other fields, thanks to the research: paradigmatic example is the development in the field of the superconductors
3- the money invested has not been wasted, because it is gone in work made by workers, which means wages
4- the hot fusion is more difficult to obtain than the LENR.
5- I know a very high level scientist who has worked hardly for the ITER, and still is strongly interested to the LENR and has worked in experiments with the E-Cat. I have learnt much from him. We have much to learn from the hot fusion and I have a great respect for all the great scientists working for it
6- the hot fusion plants are also battlefields in which new generations of nuclear physics maintain their readiness for other applications; for example, NIF physicists are working on the decommissioning of nuclear weapons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The following proposed experiment could determine the possible source of the energy generated using the eCat reaction. I submit it with a suggestion that it be conducted and the results publically posted.
Proposed Experiment
Purpose – to detect the nuclear ash from extended eCat operation
An eCat reactor operating continuously for 6 months will produce 10kW * 4,382.91 hours or 43.8291 MW-hrs or 2.247E+22 Mev of energy.
Premise: A nuclear reaction occurs within the eCat reactor but the output ash is an isotope of helium which readily escapes the eCat reactor. Andrea Rossi has publically stated that no helium or tritium were observed in an eCat reactor after extended operations.
Possible reactions:
Case A: H + D -> 3He + 5.19Mev
Case B: H + 3He -> 4He + 18.8Mev
Case C: D + D -> 4He + 24Mev
Case D: D + D -> T + p+ (3.02 Mev) (50%)
-> 3He (0.82 Mev) + n (2.45 Mev) (eliminated because no tritium found in eCat reactor)
Note: Case A followed immediately by Case B is identical to Case C in terms of energy and by-products.
So, under the above cases, the nuclear ash should be either by 3He or 4He. Can an experiment be designed to detect this possible nuclear ash?
4He is present in our atmosphere at about 5ppm.
Assumption: The eCat reactor is sealed tight for hydrogen gas but it is “leaky” for helium. Therefore, after extended periods of operation, any nuclear ash helium has leaked away.
Proposed Experiment: Take a standard eCat reactor, enclose it in a helium-tight box, run it for 6 months and see if 3He or 4He is trapped within the enclosure. To do this, enclose the eCat in a thermally conductive jacket that will transfer the eCat generated heat to a water pipe running through the enclosure. The enclosure will be evacuated so that the only transfer of thermal energy will be to the water pipe using conduction. The air inside the enclosure will be gone so no convection. The water jacket will cover the eCat, except its ends, so radiation transfer is minimized. Any helium generated by the eCat will be contained within the enclosure.
Amount of Helium Generated:
The amount of energy generated = 2.247E+22 Mev
The amount of energy generated per helium atom created = 5.19 Mev to 24 Mev.
Therefore, the range of the number of helium atom created is between 9.4E+20 and 4.3E+21. We convert to number of moles by dividing each by the Avogado constant (6.022E+23). The number of moles is between 1.56E-03 for 4He and 7.14E-03 for 3He. The amount of helium created in terms of mass is about 4 milligrams for 4He and 21 milligrams for 3He.
Enclosure Size and Volume
The eCat is approximately 33cm in length and 9cm in diameter. So the rough size of the enclosure should be around 50cm in width, 60cm in height and 30cm in depth. Assume a water pipe with a diameter of 2cm going through the width dimension. The interior volume would be approximately the 90,000 cc minus the volume of the eCat (about 3,000cc) and the enclosed water pipe (about 200cc) or about 86,800cc = 0.0868 cubic meters.
Pressure Estimate
The molar gas volumes can be calculated with an accuracy that is usually sufficient by using the universal gas low for ideal gases. The usual expression is:
…which can be rearranged thus:
where (in SI metric units):
P = the absolute pressure of the gas, in Pa (Pascal)
n = the amount of gas, in moles
V = the volume of the gas, in m3
T = the absolute temperature of the gas, in Kelvin
R = the universal gas law constant of 8.3145 m3•Pa/(mol•K)
Assuming the after experiment temperature is 20C (293K)
P = nRT / V or
For 3He: P = 7.14E-03 moles * 8.3145 m3 * Pa / (mol * K) * 293K / 0.0868m3) = 200 Pa = 0.002 atmospheres
For 4He: P = 1.56E-03 * 8.3145 * 293 / 0.0868 Pa = 43.8 Pa = 0.000438 atmospheres
Water Flow Rate to Cool the eCat
To cool the eCat will require the following water flow rates, assuming no phase change, an input water temperature of 20C and a 50C temperature rise.
Power = 10kW = 10,000 J / sec
Water (25C) – Volumetric Heat Capacity = 4.1796 J / (cm3 * K)
T = 50C = 50K
Volume / sec = 10000 J / sec / (50K * 4.1796 J / (cm3 K)) = 47.851 cm3 / sec = 0.047851 liters / sec = 0.01264 gal / sec = 0.7584 gpm.
Implementation: 10 eCta units would be needed. Five eCat reactors with the “standard” fuel + hydrogen charge and five eCat reactors with the hydrogen replaced with an inert element such as argon. Control units for each eCat would also be required.
All eCat reactors would be uniquely marked and then each one enclosed in its own helium tight enclosure. Each of the units would be identically run for six months. At the end of the six months, they would be allowed to cool to room temperature and then sample of the gases would be taken, along with the pressure within each enclosure measured. The samples would then be brought to a local mass spectrometer (quickly before contamination could occur) and the presence of elements detected and quantified.
Analysis: Hopefully, the results of the five active eCats will be consistent and the five control eCats will be consistent. Those units that showed loss of sealing will be ignored. The premise of helium production will be tested with careful note to the ratio of 3He to 4He.
Dr Rossi,
At least I agree that the press conference of Fleischmann & Pons in 1989 where premature. They should of course have investigated further and involved phycisists “quietly” to resolve the theory of the heat bursts in their eleoctrolytic cells.
It seems the University of Utah has been instrumental in putting pressure on them for a press conference.
But does a scientific discovery really require a reliable replication, before the remaining scientific community wake up ?
In my opinon science should be open to misteries. Why did Fleishmann & Pons see heat bursts in their cells? Phycists showed no interest in that question. Conclusion was it was most likely measurement errors….
By 1990 F&P had some replication success… Say for 31 cells they had may be 26 cells that produced excess heat. That should be enough for Science to embrace a new mistery to be resolved…..
Since Fleischmann and Pons did not really know the cause they could neither control the parameters which caused the heat bursts to occur.
In their press release they stated “unkown nuclear reactions”. Mainstream physics could only see one possibility: Deuterium-Deuterium fusion, wich should release a lot of radiation products ( which actually should have killed the scientists at the energy levels they where indicating measured from the cells)
And after the press conference the physics community thought it would be an easy task to replicate this themselves, after all it was just an easy electrolytic cell, right? Wrong. Fleischmann had worked on this since 1983, so it only looked easy, but in reality was rather complicated.
Anyhow, read the online book. A lot of interesting stories are told….
Regards
Lande
Lande:
I do not agree with you for the reason I already said, but I respect your opinion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
Let’s talk of hot fusion: the two plants in “operation”, after 50 years, are the ITER ( Europe) and the NIF ( USA). They reached the impressive result of a COP 1/ 100 000 : this means that they use 100 000 kWh to produce 1 kWh. They costed, so far, more than 100 billion dollars ( billions, with the “b” as in Bob). You made the E-Cat, with a COP higher than 3, using your own money. Why don’t you send them an E-Cat, so they put it inside their monsters and get a COP 3, with a stunning money saving for the taxpayers?
Dear readers of JoNP;
I found an online book which you may find interesting.
It was written back in 2002, but it tells the cold fusion story as it happened in 1989 and onwards.
Very interesting, and in my opinion a rather shameful story for the Physics community.
Fleischmann has been ridiculed for his discovery, since physics community would not hear of any possible unknown nuclear reactions. Fleischmann & Pons where Chemists and for them –the outsiders – to claim a discovery within nuclear physics of a nuclear energy source- was a pure blasphemy for the Nuclear Physics community.
Everything in nature was well known, and with no proof of radiation in Pons & Fleischmann cell it was purely junk science. Physics community where not intersted in heat measurements, only in “nuclear ash proof ” if this where to be a nuclear effect.
We can only hope the Nuclear Physics community rethinks their behaviour towards “outsiders” when the LENR finally becomes mainstream science – which may happen soon with the help from commercial LENR based products……
Beaudette, C.G., Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. 2002, Concord, NH: Oak
Grove Press.
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
Lande:
My opinion is different. The scientific community underlined the fact that the experiment has not been repeated reliably. This is a fact. Victimism is the syndrome of impotence. If you make indipendent measurements and they give good results, you can fight successfully. Otherwise, you have to go back to work and make corrections. In this case, while working to get reliable results from indipendent measurements, the less you talk, the better.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi
When You state “the results could be positive, but also negative” – do you mean excess heat could be found to be too small for commercial purposes? or what is your worries for the third party test ?
regards
Lande
Lande:
I do not know: the measurements, their interpretation and the report do not depend on me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mark Saker:
1- new generation
2- no. The data will be published in the report
3- this does not depend on me
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I’m not sure if this has been answered before or not but:
1) Is the hotcat under extended test the same device used in the previous third party test or is it a newer generation?
2) Can you give any indication of the intended improvements of the current device under test compared to the previous hotcat such as:
a)size,
b)temperature,
c)amount of electricity required for the reaction
3) Will Industrial Heat keep the name e-cat or do you think it will change?
Thanks for your time, I am getting very excited that we are hopefully only months away from undeniable proof!
Mark
TO THE READERS OF THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS:
IMPORTANT
The Board of Advisers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics has decided to improve the peer reviewing of the articles presented for publication.
From now on the publication of an article will take up to 1 year of peer reviewing, depending on the nature of the article. The peer reviewing will be always done by a Professor of the main Physics institutes of the world. Therefore, the Authors of all the papers waiting for publication will have probably to expect a substantial delay for the publication, whose timing will not depend on the JoNP, but exclusively on the decision of the peer reviewers.
The Board of Advisers of the Journal of Nucllear Physics
John L.:
As you can imagine, we received thousands of requests of this kind, all coming from honourable persons. To avoid torts, the third indipendent party has decided to forbid visitors. The whole experiment has been recorded and all the data will be published, so that all the persons interested to the issue will be able to go through them and through the results, positive or negative as they might be.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea
Apart from the professors, are there any other honourable guests witnessing the Hotcat test?
Prof. Seshavatharam:
Please send the links to the papers in a comment to this blog, so all our Readers can see them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear sirs,
I would like to bring to your kind notice that, unless we couple the ‘tiny atom’ and the ‘gigantic universe’, developing a unified model seems to be hard. Hubble volume and ‘Hubble mass’ can be considered as key tools in this connection. Fortunately both are related to Black hole physics. In this regard I am attaching two published papers for your kind consideration. I request you to kindly go through. I request Dr. Andrea Rossi sir to forward the same to you.
thanking you sir,
yours obediently,
U.V.S.Seshavatharam.
James Bowery:
Let’s hope that a peaceful solution will be found in Ukraine. As for the E-Cat, we are completing our R&D work, while the third indipendent party is making the long run test, whose results could be positive, but also negative. Before the end of this cycle of tasks we cannot give any specific answer. The domestic E-Cat has still to obtain the safety certification.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
An associate who has worked in for the US military in its negotiations with the USSR during the cold war over eastern European troop deployments has indicated to me that while he believes Putin will stop with Crimea, there will be repercussions in Kiev starting with natural gas shortages next fall and a potential heating crisis during the winter.
It would be most interesting if a commercial E-Cat were to show up on the market before next fall.
Dear prof. U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Thank you for your impressive and comprehensive response . I will need very much time to absorbe all this and think about it . With a number of concepts I am not familiar , but by searching , reading and thinking we all get further.
May I assume from your Point-B ( I mean the first Point C ) that there is probably in every electron – and by extension in other elementary particles – a miniature black hole that acts as the drive for rotary motion (spin) ?
That would mean that the matter-particles that we observe, are in fact all kinds of rapidly rotating ( speed of light ) vacuum baloons in the “dust ” that resists to disappear in that black hole.
Then our part of the universe would really only consist of “dust” and “holes”.
Because you call the electron similar to the galaxy a nearly-flat system, I thought in addition of a 3D structure , with 4 “vacuum baloons” who take a tetrahaedron position with in the center of it a black hole. The sense of rotation of the baloons could also vary, making each other to attract or non-attract the baloons of different particles. (E.g: 2 “left” and 2″right” compared to 4 “right”. It could be understood that twisting balloons, that turn in the same direction can attract each other so that the particles could therefore be clustered together. The result of all this clustering, could then affect the electrons of galaxy-like systems to be attracted because they have the same direction of twisting as the non-linked “baloons” in the cluster.
This could be an indication that many more “dust” is sucked into the systems or particles with the 3D structure than the black holes that spin as an electron.
What we know as “mass” would actually be a measure of the flow of “dust” in the corresponding black hole.
This helps me a little bit to understand why mass is also energy.
Can you tell me how crazy this idea is ?
Sincerely,
Koen
Frank Acland:
Extremely interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You might be interested to know that a presentation was recently given at NASA about the possibility of LENR use in aviation. The Levi study was cited in this presentation, as well as a picture of your hot cat.
The presentation can be viewed here: https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Marco Serra:
A shut down date has not been scheduled in this case and the scheduling of the third indipendent party does not depend on me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear AR
“When you see the light out of tunnel….” I hope that this isnt a train!!
This just a joke!!!
Congratulation for your result….and….. I dont forget Sergio Focardi.
Gian Luca:
I understood perfectly your feeling. What I said is just that I can answer to the stimulations of the Readers, while I cannot add anything specific regarding our activity before the report of the third indipendent party is published. Again, let me repeat that until the test is not finished I must say that the results could be positive, but also negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Carissimo Andrea,
la mia precedente non era un rimprovero ma uno stimolo, per una volta, affinché lo spunto di riflessione e conversazione arrivi da Te. Con un commento a cosa sta succedendo, dentro e fuori, alla Vs azienda e nel settore LENR. O forse meglio, qualche news sul vostro lavoro e impegno, senza che noi si debba insistere con domande che, alcune volte, sono ripetitive e banali.
Grazie
(Google Translation)
Dear A.,
my previous was not a reproach but maybe, for once, the starting point of
reflection could come from Thee. How to comment on what is happening inside and outside the company and Vs in LENR. Or perhaps better, some news on ECAT and periphery, without the need to insist with questions that, sometimes, are repetitive and trivial
Woooowwww.
It’s March, finally. Soon the long term test will be terminated, right ?
When a scientific approach is applied to an industrial test like this, the starting and the ending date should be decided and fixed “a priori”.
If this is the case, when will the running test be shutdown ?
Sorry for my impatience. Warm regards.
Marco
Carissimo A.R.
from what I managed to read so far about hydrino and Blacklight Power, there seems to be scientific evidence of what Mills & C. they say.
we all believe in something that would be better (god, shiba, budha ……) but maybe in the composition of scientific theories is better not to mention it.
He said Margherita Hack: The idea of an impersonal God will be more acceptable to the reason, but it’s still a loophole to explain what science can not yet explain. ”
This applies to both LENR for hydrino.
Do not you think?
(Google transaltion)
Gian Luca:
Dear friend: I am here and I answer to the questions I receive.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
DEAR A.
I’m noticing that the interventions on JONP, in recent weeks, are decreasing. Or better. They are becoming very technical.
I wonder if the “belivers” do not need your encouragement with some point of reflection not caused by strange or innappropriate questions.
Thank you if you want to answer
Dear Andrea,
If I may be allowed a bit of speculation, I would like to comment on the length of time that the investigators of your latest devices are spending on the testing and verification of its operation. It seems to me that a negative finding would have terminated their work by now and allowed them to move on to more important efforts. What I am saying is that the longer it takes to report their findings the more sure there are positive results since they would be much more important than negative, requiring a more definite proof.
Whatever, You are to be commended for at least creating an atmosphere of scientific curiosity which in my case has created a wealth of enjoyable moments in exploring possibilities to explain your effect.
Looking forward to your disclosure of the mechanisms as you see them.
Hank Mills, Feb 24th comment. I agree with everything you say and I know a lot of other readers must also. All I can say is, if you had a technology that could challenge and eventually wipe out current industries what problems do you think you would come up against. There are two types of technolgy that I am aware of, constructive that maintains the current status quo and destructive, those capable of creating a paradigm shift. All the best, Regards Eric Ashworth
I’m not an expert in the field of process control.
however I communicate my opinion in the hope that real experts would
partecipate on this issue contributing with their ideas,
their knowledge, their experience.
It seems clear that the control of the E-Cat is essential for
A) the continuity of its operations (possible ssm) and
B)its performance as a heat engine (high values of the COP).
I believe that supply the resistance with a PWM modulated current
could be a viable solution, acting on the duty cycle and changing it
in function of a signal proportional to the temperature of the heart of the E-Cat
(the cylinder containing Ni and its catalyst).
Ing Rossi what do you think? Someone among the frequenters of these pages
wants to speak about it?
———————————————————————-
Confesso umilmente di non essere un esperto in materia di controlli
Comunico comunque la mia opinione nella speranza che i veri esperti
intervengano sul tema contribuendo con le loro idee, la loro conoscenza, le loro idee.
Appare chiaro che il controllo dell’E-Cat è fondamentale alla
continuità del suo funzionamento (possibile ssm) e al suo rendimento
come macchina termica (alti valori del COP).
Io ritengo che l’alimentazione della resistenza con una corrente modulata
PWM possa essere una valida soluzione, intervenendo sul duty cycle variandolo
in funzione con un segnale proporzionale alla temperatura del cuore dell’E-Cat
(il cilindretto contenente il Ni e il suo catalizzatore).
(forse una termocopia a contatto del cilindretto?)
Ing. Rossi che cosa ne pensa? Qualcuno fra i frequentatori di queste pagine
vuol esprimersi in proposito?
Gian:
Your comment has been erroneously spammed: can you resend it?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi, you have always been concerned that your E-cats will serve the World and help the poor.
Do you feel sure that your new company will respect that promise in the future.
Many thanks
Jackie
Jackie:
Yes, I am sure.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
We are working very hard and very well. The mood is the one of people that believe in the work they do.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I understand you are not able to provide details of your R&D work, but how would you describe the mood and morale of the Industrial Heat team that you work with these days?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Pekka Janhunen:
As you well know, I never comment the work of our respected competitors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Some time ago, as you may have heard, Japanese researcher Iwamura claimed (and Mitsubishi’s team afterwards reported replication) that in Pd-D system they observed transmutations where multiple deuterons entered the nucleus, for example they observed that caesium goes to praseodymium but jumped over the interleaving elements barium, lanthanum and cerium. It looks to me that it either must be a measurement error or a powerful hint about how LENR works.
Another point about transmutation: If and when LENR emits ionising radiation (X-rays), it creates free radicals from the medium which are chemically reactive and might then be misinterpreted as “transmutation” because they get enriched at the LENR-active microscopic site of the metal. I am now mainly talking about experiments where LENR occurs sporadically and reportedly creates micron-sized craters on the metal surface.
best regards, pekka
Thank you for this article Prof. Seshavatharam!
When I was a little kid my father brought me to see the Famous Riace Statues (Bronzi di Riace).
While looking at this statues I thought about space and time, our linear timeline broke apart in my young brain, and something strange appeared in my mind, something similar to a black hole. At least this is what I thought later when I jumped into black holes and relativity. When I was a teenager I got the convinction that there had to be a black hole at the center of each galaxy, and that the universe was a huge anti-black hole.
If I think at emptiness as if it is fullness and vice versa, black holes as empty bubbles inside a blobby elastic stuff (what we call emptiness), everything gets more logically comprehensible to me.
Thank you again and keep working!
Jacopo
Dear Proff Seshavatharam, I would like to take this opportunity to put forward a few thoughts of my own and appreciate your comments if you are able. I say if able because I am not an academic with regards this subject. Just a person who is intrigued with the subject and investigated certain phenomena.
Black hole first to lead to galaxy growth. I believe this to be correct.
Black hole started growing first. I believe this to be correct.
My thought. Black hole started from exterior compressions.
Galactic black hole evolved with galactic plasma bulge dynamics and the galactic arms. I believe this to be correct.
My thoughts, the galactic plasma bulge dynamics I see as plumes of plasma that represent the initial reaction that results in the formation of structures in spiral format of four arms. Structure being a condensate.
N Harameis theory I believe to be correct but I believe the geometric position of the black hole can be either or with regards its position depending upon the specific structure involved.
If black hole is the result of a collapsing star how and why a stable galaxy contains a black hole at its centre?. I do not believe that a black hole is the result of a collapsing star. A black hole, I believe, is the result of exterior compressions.
How does the galaxy centre grow like a black hole?. The centre of a galaxy/black hole I believe, is created by the compression of six outer structures. When these six create a critical mass by expansion, the mass of fused energy between the structures explodes creating a fission field with plumes of plasma.
How does its event horizon exist with growing?. The term event horizon is new to me but I guess you are referring to an outer boundary layer. If so, I believe, that the interactions of the mobile curvature spiral plumes and subsequent interactions of the mobile curvature spiral arms of structure create the outer static barrier layer which is probably what is termed the event horizon.
My observations. When oscillating curvature forces interact they form linear forces that are surrounded by a barrier layer that is static. This science I refer to as ‘the static and mobile mechanics of energy interaction’. However, I have found this science to be deemed unacceptable as a subject worthy of study when presented.
Several issues have been bugging me lately. One issue is how some scientists continue to see significance in hot fusion research. When compared to the E-Cat, hot fusion is truly a worthless technology.
- An E-Cat can be built that can fit on a table top. An ordinary hot fusion reactor would not fit in a Walmart Super Center.
- An E-Cat can probably be built for the cost of a thousand dollars or less. A hot fusion reactor can cost billions.
- An E-Cat can produce a high COP for months. The few hot fusion reactors that have produced a COP of over 1 did so for seconds.
- An E-Cat research project can be performed with a small staff. Hot fusion projects need hundreds of people.
- An E-Cat can produce power that can be used for practical purposes right now. For example, hot can cylinders can glow white hot and be used to make high temp steam. On the other hand, there is no way to harvest the miniscule amount of power produced in hot fusion reactors.
In terms of size, cost, power, COP, and safety the E-Cat wins. I hope the leaders of Industrial Heat and Cherokee recognize this. They don’t just have a breakthrough energy technology: the E-Cat is THE technology that puts solar, wind, hydroelectric, biofuels, and geothermal to shame. It wins in every way when compared to any other technology that exists today.
The E-Cat technokogy works. There is zero doubt about that. The only question is if the latest version of the hot cat can function for many months at a time without a mechanical malfunction such as a leak or corrosion. In my opinion, this is almost an irrelevant issue. Even if the reactor cores of a large hot cat plant had to be refurbished once a month, the technology would still be far superior to any other on the planet. Also, it does not take 6 months to determine if a vast source of nuclear energy is being utilized. Any form of conventional power or fuel source can be ruled out in several hours. This means that even a test of one week would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the technology is producing power with nuclear interactions.
I recognize why such long term tests are being done. They are important for getting the technology certified. However, I am glad that Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla did not perform such extended testing of direct current and alternating current before wiring up cities with it. They didnt feel the need and were not required to power a thousand light bulbs with DC or AC for six months before utilizing it for the benefit of mankind. If they were restricted by certification agencies and governmental bodies like we are today, it could have been 20 more years before the world started using electricity.
Since Industrial Heat already knows the technology works, I hope they will not only seek certification (which can be a long grueling process) in the USA but will also seek out areas of the world where:
1) There is a great need for power.
2) Regulations are relaxed.
3) Governments want the technology.
4) They can start selling the reactors, plants, or the power immediately.
This technology is more significant than what hot fusion scientists claim to be able to acheive 50 years from now. In addition, it is safer, cheaper, smaller, and better in every way. It needs to be commercialized wherever it can be as soon as possible. I realize there are many practical considerations such as protecting intellectual property. But I believe there must be a way to get the technology out there.
Dear sir,
I thank you very much for your valuable comments. I humbly request you to please go through below mentioned 3 key points and 28 major shortcomings of standard cosmology.
Point-A.In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach’s principle is the name given by Einstein to an interesting hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. The idea is that the local motion of a rotating reference frame is determined by the large scale distribution of matter. With reference to the Mach’s principle and the Hubble volume, at any cosmic time, if ‘Hubble mass’ is the product of cosmic ‘critical density’ and the ‘Hubble volume’, then it can be suggested that, i) Each and every point in the free space is influenced by the Hubble mass, ii) Hubble volume and Hubble mass play a vital role in understanding the properties of electromagnetic and nuclear interactions and iii) Hubble volume and Hubble mass play a key role in understanding the geometry of the universe.
Point-C:Starting from an electron to any gigantic galaxy, rotation is a common phenomenon in atomic experiments and astronomical observations. From Newton’s laws of motion and based on the Mach’s principle, sitting inside a closed universe, one cannot comment whether the universe is rotating or not. We have to search for alternative means for confirming the cosmic rotation. Recent findings from the University of Michigan suggest that the shape of the Big Bang might be more complicated than previously thought, and that the early universe spun on an axis. A left-handed and right-handed imprint on the sky as reportedly revealed by galaxy rotation would imply the universe was rotating from the very beginning and retained an overwhelmingly strong angular momentum. An anonymous referee who reviewed the paper for Physics Letters said, “In the paper the author claims that there is a preferred handedness of spiral galaxies indicating a preferred direction in the universe. Such a claim, if proven true, would have a profound impact on cosmology and would very likely result in a “Nobel prize”. The consequences of a spinning universe seem to be profound and natural. Not only that, with ‘constant rotation speed’ ‘cosmic collapse’ can be prevented and can be considered as an alternative to the famous ‘repulsive gravity’ concept. If so, at any time to have maximum possible stability from collapsing ‘constant light speed rotation’ can be considered as a constructive and workable concept.
Point-C.Recent observations confirm black hole’s light speed rotation. In 2013 February, using NASA’s newly launched NuStar telescope and the European Space Agency’s workhorse XMM-Newton, an international team observed high-energy X-rays released by a super massive black hole in the middle of a nearby galaxy. They calculated its spin at close to the speed of light: 670 million mph.Please note that, for any black hole even though its mass is too high and density is too low, light speed rotation certainly helps in maintaining its stability from collapsing with maximum possible outward radial force of magnitude. At the beginning of comic evolution if rotation speed was zero and there was no big bang – definitely it will cast a doubt on the stability, existence and angular velocity of the assumed initial primordial cosmic baby black hole. Hence at the beginning also, to guess or define the angular velocity and to have maximum possible stability it is better to assume light speed rotation for the cosmic baby black hole. At present if rate of cosmic expansion is very slow, then rate of decrease in angular velocity will be very small and practically can be considered as zero. Along with (practically) constant angular velocity, at present if constant light speed rotation is assumed to be maintained then cosmic stability will be maximum and rate of change in cosmic size will be practically zero and hence this idea helps us to believe in present Hubble length along with the observed ordered galactic structures and uniform thermal energy density.
Major shortcomings of Modern big bang cosmology
1)It may be noted that, increased redshifts and increased distances forced Edwin Hubble to propose the Hubble’s law. In fact there is no chance or scope or place for ‘galaxy receding’. It is only our belief in its ‘given’ (Doppler shift based) interpretation. Even then, merely by estimating galaxy distance and without measuring galaxy receding speed, one cannot verify its acceleration. Clearly speaking: two mistakes are possible here. i) Assumed galaxy receding speed is not being measured and not being confirmed. ii) Without measuring and confirming the galaxy receding speed, how can one say and confirm that it (galaxy) is accelerating. It is really speculative.
2)If light is coming from the atoms of the gigantic galaxy, then redshift can also be interpreted as an index of the galactic cosmological atomic ‘light emission mechanism’. In no way it seems to be connected with ‘galaxy receding’.
3)According to the modern cosmological approach, bound systems like ‘atoms’ which are found to be the major constituents of galactic matter – will not change with cosmic expansion/acceleration. As per the present observational data this may be true. But it might be the result of ending stage of cosmic expansion. As the issue is directly related with unification it requires lot of research in basic physics to confirm. In this regard, without considering and without analysing the past data, one can not come to a conclusion. If one is willing to think in this direction observed galactic redshift data can be considered for this type of new analysis.
4)Without a proper confirmation procedure for the absolute cosmic expansion and guessing that current universe is expanding – cosmologists proposed and confirmed the existence of dark energy indirectly. It may not be reasonable. Quantitatively or at least qualitatively standard model of cosmology does not throw light on the generation and (normal) physical properties of ‘dark energy’.
5)The standard Big Bang model tells us that the Universe exploded out of an infinitely dense point, or singularity. But nobody knows what would have triggered this outburst: the known laws of physics cannot tell us what happened at that moment.
6)Really if there was a ‘big bang’ in the past, with reference to formation of the big bang as predicted by GTR and with reference to the cosmic expansion that takes place simultaneously in all directions at a uniform rate at that time about the point of big bang – ‘point’ of big bang can be considered as the centre or characteristic reference point of cosmic expansion in all directions. In this case, saying that there is no preferred direction in the expanding universe – may not be correct.
7)Either in the big bang or in the inflation, quantification of the initial assumed conditions seem to be poor, unclear and not linked with fundamental constants. The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation and inflation requires ‘fine tuning’.
8)Standard cosmology does not give information on the origin of ‘inflation’. Inflation is often called a period of accelerated expansion. With respect to ‘no hair theorem’ some similarities are there for cosmic inflation and black holes. Conceptually ‘inflation’ can be accommodated in any model of cosmology like open model or closed model.
9)A key requirement is that inflation must continue ‘long enough’ to produce the present observable universe from a single, small inflationary Hubble volume. Assuming a rapid rate of cosmic expansion and steady rate of time may not be reasonable. If space-time are interrelated then ‘space’ and ‘time’ both should simultaneously follow the momentary rapid exponential expansion. For example if space expands by a factor 1026 in size within a very ‘short span’, cosmic time should also increase in the same proportion. ‘Time’ seems to be a silent observer in the presently believed ‘cosmic inflation’. It may not be reasonable.
10)There is no scientific evidence for the Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on the grounds of modesty.
11)Dimensionally it is perfectly possible to show that, the dimensions of Hubble’s constant and angular velocity are same. If so considering Hubble’s constant merely as an expansion parameter may not be correct. Please see the section-5.
12)Even though it was having strong footing, Mach’s principle was not implemented successfully in standard cosmology. Clearly speaking the term “distance cosmic back ground” is not being defined and not being quantified in a physical approach .
13) At any given cosmic time, the product of ‘critical density’ and ‘Hubble volume’ gives a characteristic cosmic mass and it can be called as the ‘Hubble mass’. Interesting thing is that, Schwarzschild radius of the ‘Hubble mass’ again matches with the ‘Hubble length’. Most of the cosmologists believe that this is merely a coincidence. Here the authors emphasize the fact that this coincidence is having deep connection with cosmic geometry and the cosmological physical phenomena.
14)Somehow and by any reason, magnitude of the current Hubble mass being the same, if volume density approaches the current matter density, then Hubble length increases by a factor ~5. Similarly if volume density approaches the current thermal energy density, then Hubble length increases by a factor ~27. These two numbers can be compared with the presently believed first two of the three cosmological numbers 4.9%, 26.8% and 68.3%. Based on this coincidence and as the currently believed third number ~68% is obtained from the relation (100-(4.9+26.8))%, its proposed existence seems to be ad-hoc.
15)If ‘Planck mass’ is the characteristic beginning ‘mass scale’ of the universe, then by substituting the geometric mean mass of the present Hubble mass and the Planck mass in the famous Hawking’s black hole temperature formula automatically the observed 2.725 degree Kelvin can be fitted very accurately [1,2]. Standard cosmology is not throwing any light on this surprising coincidence.
16)If cosmic expansion is continuous and accelerating and redshift is a measure of cosmic expansion, then ‘rate of increase in redshift’ can be considered as a measure of cosmic ‘rate of expansion’. Then there is no possibility to observe a ‘constant’ red shift. More over the current definition of red shift seems to be ad-hoc and not absolute. Please see section 6. Hence one may not be able to understand or confirm the actual cosmic rate of expansion.
17)Even though the whole physics strictly follows the ‘constancy of speed of light’, cosmic acceleration seems to violate it. This is really doubtful.
18)Drop in ‘cosmic temperature’ can be considered as a measure of cosmic expansion and ‘rate of decrease in cosmic temperature’ can be considered as a measure of cosmic ‘rate of expansion’. But if rate of decrease in temperature is very small and is beyond the scope of current experimental verification, then the two possible states are: a) cosmic temperature is decreasing at a very slow rate and universe is expanding at a very slow rate and b) there is no ‘observable’ thermal expansion and there is no ‘observable’ cosmic expansion.
19)If observed CMBR temperature is 2.725 degree Kelvin and is very low in magnitude and is very close to absolute zero, then thinking about and confirming the ‘cosmic acceleration’ may not be reasonable.
20)In the standard model of cosmology, there is no clear cut information about the ‘uniqueness’ of the assumed ‘dark energy’. If its identification is not unique in nature, then different cosmology models can be developed with different forms of ‘dark energy’. If so understanding the absolute cosmic expansion rate with dark energy seems to be doubtful.
21)So far no ground based experiment confirmed the existence of dark energy. There is no single clue or evidence to any of the natural physical properties of (the assumed) dark energy.
22)If ‘Dark energy’ is the major outcome of the ‘accelerating universe’, it is very important to note that – in understanding the basic concepts of unification or other fundamental areas of physics, role of dark energy is very insignificant.
23)If existence of dark energy is true and dark energy is supposed to have a key role in the past and current cosmic expansion, then it must have also played a key role in the beginning of cosmic evolution. In this regard no information is available in standard cosmology.
24)Standard model of cosmology does not throw light on the generation and existence of atomic physical constants like Planck’s constant, reduced Planck’s constant, inverse of fine structure ratio and nuclear charge radius etc. Clearly speaking synthesis of elementary physical constants seem to be more important than the cosmological nucleosynthesis.
25)General theory of relativity does not throw any light on the ‘mass generation’ of charged particles. It only suggests that space-time is curved near the massive celestial objects. More over it couples the cosmic (dust) matter with geometry. But how matter/dust is created? Why and how elementary particle possesses both charge and mass? Such types of questions are not being discussed in the frame work of general relativity.
26)Standard model of cosmology does not throw light on the charge-mass unification scheme of atomic particles. The main object of unification is to understand the origin of elementary particles rest mass, magnetic moments and their forces. Right now and till today ‘string theory’ with 4 + 6 extra dimensions is not in a position to explain the unification of gravitational and non-gravitational forces. More clearly speaking it is not in a position to merge the Planck scale and cosmic scale with the characteristic nuclear scale.
27)Either general theory of relativity or standard cosmology does not give any information on the applications of the classical force limit $c^4/G$ and the classical power limit $c^5/G$Compared to the hypothetical ‘dark energy’, with a coefficient of unity, $c^4/G$ can be considered as the cosmic vacuum force and $c^5/G$ can be considered as the cosmic vacuum power.
28)In Big bang model, confirmation of all the observations directly depend on the large scale galactic distances that are beyond human reach and raises ambiguity in all respects. The subject of modern black hole physics is absolutely theoretical. Advantage of Black hole cosmology lies in confirming its validity through the ground based atomic and nuclear experimental results.
thanking U sir,
U.V.S.Seshavatharam.
Dear Andrea,
There is no doubt you do not use radioactive elements in your charge or if there is any residual radioactive ash after a time of shut down of your device. Any activity would have been detected by all the investigators taking part in your demonstrations and the 3P professors. However, can you tell us if there are radioactive elements created by the Rossi Effect during the activated process? They would be in my thinking the source of the free energy you are creating. Also, if there are radioactive elements during the operating period, how long would they exist after shutdown of your activating process? Has anyone measured the presence 0f Beta electrons or positrons or Auger electrons(x ray emissions)?
I understand you cannot comment on many of these questions, but I would appreciate any information no matter how little you can give.
Best wishes for sucess.
Prof. Seshavatharam:
We’ll be delighted to read your answer to Koen Vandewalle.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Professor U.V.S.Seshavatharam,
Do you consider a relationship between the rotation speed of the stuff around a black hole, and the shapes that are caused by this (e.g. 3D-vortices-like structures) at the boundaries of black holes and the strong force ? Rotating around a hole at a circumference speed near the speed of light seems a good way to avoid falling into the hole. Is there a link with the fact that the total mass of the universe is not consistent with the observations according to the current laws of physics, and the fact that nuclear active (unstable) material (e.g., star) have a greater mass, or at least do appear to have more gravity than non-nuclear active material (e.g., planets)? Someday someone will have to solve this puzzle. A good tap into the energy source could then exist of making matter “unstable” without keeping it unstable.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Eric,
thank you for the answer.
Regards G G
To the Readers of the JoNP: today has been published ” Physics of rotating and expanding black hole universe” by Proff Seshavatharam ( India).
JoNP
Steven N Karels:
Excess of energy is measured indipendently from theory.
As you know I cannot give information regarding reactions inside the reactor.
Warm regards
A.R.
Giovanni, Regards magnetic engine. I do not think it can provide more energy than that required to produce its distorted field. Inertia, I believe, is due to this same effect only the mass and field distortion is not permanent as with a treated rod. My own feelings are that more mass produces more kinetic energy but more mass requires more initial input energy. Also it is interesting to observe that the north pole region displays a dark indigo whereas the south pole region displays a yellow/gold colour. I believe the atom has an internal field of binding force energy and an external field that maintains contact with the outer environment. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I am concerned about the lack of a eCat reaction “ash”. I believe your critics (there are so many) will point to this as proof that eCat results are problemmatic. I know you have worked with certain independent scientists with their own funding sources.
I suggest that the “ash” includes Helium (Helium-3 or Helium-4). You need not respond to me on how the eCat reactor works as I know this is proprietary.
Suppose you build a helium-tight enclosure(not a trivial task I undertstand) around a full charged and operational eCat reactor. You include the necessary plumbing to handle cooling and later access to a mass spectrometer. You evacuate the helium-tight chamber containing the eCat reactor. The independent scientists run the eCat for 6 months.
Any helium “ash” leaks into and is contained by the helium-tight enclosure. A mass spectrometer is used to determine the presense and type of Helium. I assume a pressure gauge would show the amount of gas within the enclosure.
If your theory of operation includes a H + H -> D or H + D -> 3He or D + D -> 4He reaction(s), then this might provide the experimental results to
validate your theory. A negative result might occur if the helium-tight seals failed but this could be tested by the independent scientists after the test period was completed.
Andrea,
Even the world has growing pains. The e-cat earthquake is coming. The only piece of the puzzle that is missing (for me) is the operational power in vs power out. That number will determine the power weight ratio of any totally self powered system, and thus make or break many applications. The after shock will be direct electricity conversion.
Unstable structures will fall followed by a period of vast rebuilding.
This cycle is nothing new, and pre-dates man kind itself.
Paul
Mr Ashworth
I mean to see if the system is able to give more energy than it has when it starts,because it seems to me another version of magnetic engine(that cannot give more energy than the energy gave to start it).
Regards G G
Steven N Karels:
As you know, I do not give information about what happens inside the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
If there is no long term radioactivity within the eCat reactor after a run, does this therefore preclude the reaction using 58Ni + H -> Cu59 (half-life = 81.5 sec) which decays to 59Ni which is radioactive and has a very long half-life?
But you have said that the Ni + H -> Cu is a secondary reaction. Therefore, can we not conclude that some of the Ni isotopes, but not 58Ni, can change to copper? Comments?
Giovanni Guerrini, Regards your question did I try to get the machine to produce work. I presume you mean drive a generator. No I did not. I believe that for it to be able do that you would need a greater mass than a small rod. What I believe could be done is float a large treated rod on a bed of murcury inside a covered plastic dome in a desert where there is plenty of sunlight. This type of machine requires light. It also responds to the energy of a person when a person comes into close proximity or a source of heat. Regards Eric Ashworth
Dear Andrea Rossi
1. Can you tell us whether the size of the ecat has remained the same or whether it increasing or decreasing in size for the same measured output?
2. Has the weight of the ecat remained the same or whether it is increasing or decreasing for the same measured output?
3. Have you found improved materials for components of the ecat which affect size or weight?
Thank you
Bob:
1- we are trying to increase the power density
2- same as in 1
3- maybe
Warm regards,
A.R.
Andreas Moraitis:
Too soon to answer. We are making studies on this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thanks, Steven — good point.
Carbon sequestration seems to be a very onerous way to cut emissions — much easier to do away with the carbon producing fuel source, and move over to the E-Cat.
So maybe government regulations will hasten E-Cat adoption.