Rossi Blog Reader

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

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

  1. Wladimir Guglinski

    Steven N. Karels wrote in November 26th, 2014 at 10:07 PM

    A DC current would generate a magnetic field while a high frequency signal might be used to move or excite the fuel?
    ———————————–

    Probably yes

    regards
    wlad

  2. Wladimir Guglinski

    Steven N. Karels wrote in November 26th, 2014 at 10:07 PM

    Wladimir,

    I also suggest that the ash samples were small because not very much ash was actually produced. Recall the operation was only for 32 days and the majority of the nickel within the reactor was not consumed. So the isotopic analysis was on a very small sample and therefore the lesser occurring elements were not many. At some point, the measurements must become noisy due to a lack of material. So we maybe trying to analyze noise.
    —————————————

    Steven,
    I dont think so.
    32 days is enough for all the reactions to occur.
    Besides, as C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn exist in the fuel, why they do not appear in the ash??

    Let me tell you what I am thinking.

    I think several reactions can occur in the E-Cat.

    For instance, he have:

    9F has 1 complete hexagonal floor + 1 deuteron

    26Fe has 4 complete hexagonal floors

    So, 9F can lose one deuteron. Therefore, instead of 6Li7, actually the best element to react with 26Fe is the 9F:

    9F + 26Fe -> 27Co (the 26Fe captures one deuteron from the 9F)

    On the other hand:

    7N has one complete hexagonal floor minus a deuteron

    Therefore 7N can capture a proton:

    7N + H -> 8.0

    However,
    actually there is a lot of reactions to be considered, and there is no way to discover what are the real reactions occuring in the E-Cat.

    Even Andrea Rossi cannot tell us what is going within his E-Cat, in spite of he is promissing to prove that it is possible to explain its working from the Standard Model.

    There is only one way:

    1) After Andrea Rossi gets the patent of the E-Cat (and therefore his invention will be protected against plagiarists, and he will show everything within his reactor), several experiments will be made, as follows:

    2) Within the E-Cat will be put only 26Fe and 7F

    3) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed

    3) Within the E-Cat will be put only 26Fe and 17 Cl

    4) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed

    5) Within the E-Cat will be put only 26Fe and 6Li7

    6) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed

    7) Within the E-Cat will be put only 20Ca and 7F

    8) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed

    9) and so on, with all the combinations between two elements

    Any combination of two elements is able to react by cold fusion.
    The only difference is: some combinations of two elements have an easier reaction than other two elements.

    The paper Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM by Dr. Stoyan Sarg was published one year ago.
    Now the paper was published again, because the results of the E-Cat were confirmed by the Lugano Report.

    However, the paper was published again not because it gives a good prediction.
    In the Abstract Dr. Sarg says:
    “The analysis also predicts the possibility of another cold fusion reaction based on similarities between the nuclear structures of Ni and Cr.”

    But this is not true.
    Actually cold fusion occurs with any combination of two elements. The difference is because some combinations of two elements, together with some suitable improvements, give a higher COP.

    It seems to me Andrea Rossi used the paper of Dr. Sarg as a strategy to deviate the competitors from the secrets of his E-Cat, puting then in the wrong way.
    As he also told that the fuel of he E-Cat is Ni.
    Andrea Rossi wants to protect his invention, and sometimes he gives wrong informations, so that to deceive his competitors.
    He is playing a cat-mouse game with the competitors.

    So, it’s a waste of time to try to discover what are the reactions within the E-Cat.
    We have to wait Andrea Rossi to get the Patent.

    regards
    wlad

  3. Steven N. Karels

    Wladimir,

    I also suggest that the ash samples were small because not very much ash was actually produced. Recall the operation was only for 32 days and the majority of the nickel within the reactor was not consumed. So the isotopic analysis was on a very small sample and therefore the lesser occurring elements were not many. At some point, the measurements must become noisy due to a lack of material. So we maybe trying to analyze noise.

    The question for Andrea Rossi would be — does the isotopic composition of the eCat reactor change for a much longer run (e.g., a 6 month run)? I would still content that some helium was produced but not captured in their measurements. IMHO.

    I do think their is significance in the three helical wires, nominally for heating the reactor. A DC current would generate a magnetic field while a high frequency signal might be used to move or excite the fuel?

  4. Steven N. Karels

    Wladimir,

    I understand C, carbon, is sometimes added to remove oxides and oxygen (from the initial air in the enclosure) from a heated sample. So perhaps C is added to capture oxygen in the form of CO2. Naturally, I would assume, a more than sufficient amount of carbon would be present to make certain that oxygen and oxides were captured in the operation. So this might explain the presence of carbon. Opinions?

  5. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Joe and Calaon,

    I found very interesting the information about the high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn (not found in the ash), and also the elements C, H, O, N, He, Ar and F which cannot be measured quantitatively by the technique used.

    As you know, my new nuclear model is composed by hexagonal floors formed by deuterons, with a central 2He4.
    So, we have:

    8O has 1 complete hexagonal floor

    12Mg has 2 complete hexagonal floors minus 2 deuterons

    18Ar has 3 complete hexagonal floors minus 2 deuterons

    20Ca has 3 complete hexagonal floors

    26Fe has 4 complete hexagonal floors

    28Ni has 4 complete hexagonal floors plus 2 deuterons

    A nucleus with a complete hexagonal floor as 20Ca and 26Fe may have an Accordion-Effect without distortions (while the Accordion-Effect of Ni is distorted).

    So, we have to suppose that 26Fe and 20Ca can get a better alignment of their z-axes with 7Li than 28Ni.

    As the authors of the Lugano Report were seeking only for Ni and Li isotopes, perhaps in the ash it can be found (if they look for):

    26Fe + Li7 -> 27Co + 2He4 + n

    20Ca + Li7 -> 21Sc + 2He4 + n

    As the authors were not looking for Co and Sc, perhaps they are in the ash.

    Dear Calaon,
    what do you think about?

    regards
    wlad

  6. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Calaon and Steven Karels,

    probably the nuclear reaction between 7Li and 58Ni occurs easily when the two nuclei are aligned by a magnetic field in the E-Cat, without any additional improvement.

    But probably in the beginning the E-Cat had a very low COP.
    There was need to shake the nuclei within the reactor, in order to get the most high quantity of reactions 7Li+58Ni (and also 7Li+ 60Ni and 7Li+61Ni) by second.

    That’s why along the years Andrea Rossi had improved his reactor, so that to increase the velocity of the quantity of the reactions by second, in order to increase the COP.

    For instance, perhaps the first E-Cat had only one coil in the alumina cylinder.
    By putting 3 coils, if the electric current is AC, inside the reactor occurs an oscilatory magnetic field by the overlap of 3 oscillatory magnetic fields. By this way the nuclei are shaken, and is increases the speed of their interaction.
    With an additional magnetic field induced by a DC current (or a permanent magnet) the nuclei 7Li and 58Ni have their z-axis aligned.

    In order to increase the COP, perhaps Rossi had used a catalyst.

    But in the last page 53 of the Lugano Report there is an intriguing information:

    ————————————————–
    The measured analytes were Ni, Li, and Al. The elements Ni and Al are measured with two independent emission lines to minimize risk for systematic errors. The elements C, H, O, N, He, Ar and F cannot be measured quantitatively by this technique.

    Sample 1 was ash coming from the reactor in Lugano. Only a few granules of grey sample were possible to obtain from the ash and they didn’t look exactly the same. One large and two very small granules were observed.

    Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.
    ————————————————–

    Let us analyse it:

    1- The catalyst could be C, O, N, Ar and F, because perhaps they appear in the ash, but they cannot be measured quantitatively by the technique used.

    2- Aluminium also can be the catalyst

    3- C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn cannot be the catalyst, since they do not appear in the ash, and therefore they are consumed within the reactor

    4- However, as C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn do not appear in the ash, then where did they go ???

    5- As they do not appear in the ash, it means that they had transmuted.

    6- Then why the authors of the Report did not speculate about a possible reactions between them ? (for instance, with hydrogen)

    8- And why did not they try to discover what would be the elements resulted from their transmutation?

    9- Besides, as Rossi claims that his E-Cat consumes Ni, why a hell there is a high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg and Mn in the fuel ?? (and they are not found in the ash) ???

    regards
    wlad

  7. Wladimir Guglinski

    Bernie Koppenhofer wrote in November 26th, 2014 at 11:53 AM

    Dr. Rossi: Have all the reactors used in the third party testing been returned to you? Thanks again for this site and sharing, and Happy
    ————————————

    Bernie,
    I suppose that, based on the protocol, before the test Andrea Rossi had already agreed that the reactor would be returned, and the test was done with the Professors’ promise to return the reactor. By the way, probably was made a contract-return of the reactor, signed by IH, Leonardo and the Professors of the ITP.

    regards
    wlad

  8. Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    The Hot-Cat that I gave to the Professors of the ITP has been given back to me the day after the day in which the reactor has been turned off. The Professors had only one reactor, because the other 2 that I brought to Lugano as spare parts, just in case of breakages, have not been delivered to the Professors, since no breakages happened to the one we gave them to be tested.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  9. Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: Have all the reactors used in the third party testing been returned to you? Thanks again for this site and sharing, and Happy Thanksgiving!

  10. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi & Readers of the JONP:

    When he was at Hughes Aircraft on a Masters’ Degree Work-Study program, John T. Neer took written Notes of Lectures given by (Physicist) Richard Feynman.

    The 5-Volume set of Lecture Notes are partially similar to the contents of the 3 Volume FLP (Feynman Lectures in Physics) series, but cover different topics as well.

    Volume 5 contains a set of Mathematical Techniques which should be useful to anyone interested in Physics or to those who want to brush up on their skills.

    http://www.thehugheslectures.info/about/

    http://www.thehugheslectures.info/the-lectures/

    As far as I know, there were no references to phenomena similar to the “Rossi Effect”, which should not be surprising if everything falls into ‘Standard Physics’.

    Unfortunately, Richard can not be here to ponder the current mysteries for a few months, or even a few days, and then snap his fingers and say ” Ah-ha! So that’s what’s happening! ”

    Best wishes to everyone for a Happy Thanksgiving. Perhaps someone will use these Lecture Notes and have an “Ah-ha” moment.

    Thankful Regards,

    – Joseph Fine

    ////////////////////////////////

    The Hughes Lectures

    Feynman Lecture Notes by John T. Neer

    The Lectures

    These lectures notes run from the fall of 1966 to 1971. Feynman lectured prior to this period and continued on after 1971. With a few exceptions, the actual 2 hours lectures were not dated. However, the volumes in chronological order.

    I want to stress, again, that these are my personal notes and are only a representation of the lectures I attended. They are to the best of my ability my recreation from memory and my original real time notes. No AV recording system was used in the transcription of my raw notes.

    25 MB Download

    Volume 1
    Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology
    (224 pages)

    Feynman solicited topic input from the scientists and engineers at the Labs for the coming year. New discoveries were being made in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology at the time. This 1966-1967 lecture series focused on these subjects. This volume is unique since, as far as I can tell, Feynman did not lecture on this subject matter at CalTech. While much of the material is now dated, what remains is a look into the mind of Feynman as he worked to explain such topics as stellar evolution, nuclear synthesis, cosmology, “black stars” (aka black holes), and general relativity.

    I inserted more current content from the web which relates to the 1966-67 lectures with recent experimental observations and discoveries. While this lecture series has been “eclipsed” by the tremendous theoretical and experimental advancements over the past 45 years, I am sure the reader(s) will find in these lectures the power of Feynman’s insight and ability to have fun with a new subject not touched on by him at CalTech in his “normal” class and research work. I trust others, more specialized in the topics of volume 1, can and will contribute to the additional information to further enrich the notes in the future. This editing will best be done when the notes are moved and dropped in a dynamic and editable platform, yet to be identified.

    The Volume I subject matter was not part of his prior lecture activity, Feynman would talk with some of his CalTech colleagues who worked in the field of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology about their work and theories. He would then come to the lecture literally with a (maybe 2 or 3) 3×5 cards and proceed to pour out 2 hours of theory and complex mathematical representations of the topic of the day. This was his genius and almost mystical in his ability to focus his thinking and presentation ability on the most important aspects of a given topic.

    36 MB Download

    Volumes 2
    Relativity, Electrostatics, Electrodynamics, Matter-Wave Interaction
    (209 pages)

    Feynman reflected on how he could teach his original FLP’s volume 2 & 3 differently and better than in his first pass through the subjects five years earlier. The attendees wanted him to lecture a couple years on the subject matter in the original FLP and essentially let him give his revised, enhanced, and expanded lectures. This then led more naturally into QED with a good foundation layer established. Feynman also tailored his lectures more to the level of his audience understanding they were not freshman and sophomore undergraduates but post graduate, doctorate level scientists, employed doing advanced research.

    49 MB Download

    Volume 3
    More on Matter-Wave Interaction, Intro to Quantum Mechanics, Scattering Theory, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum, Intro to Lie Group, SU 2 & 3 “stuff”, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), Pair Production
    (314 pages)

    Feynman went on in greater detail to complete his lectures on wave-matter interaction. From there he started into quantum mechanics and his path history formulation. He extended his lectures to include Lie Group theory and the SU 2&3 “Stuff”.

    Feynman diagrams are discussed in Volume 3 at some length as he went deep into QED theory including such topics as quantum scattering. As better understood today, his diagrams represent a visual language of the complex physical processes at the particle interaction level. I have noted recently that with the power of new computers and new concepts the Feynman diagrams have, arguably, run their course. While this is possibly the case, I would assert that bypassing a fundamental understanding of the Feynman diagram concept makes it hard to understand what replaces them. This is like hand held calculators replacing the need to know the fundamental multiplication tables and being able to check what the calculator is telling you. I personally observed in a number of lectures where Feynman would self-check himself as he was working out the math because he could sense that if he kept going he would not get the right physics. This was his true genius at work. That was truly amazing to both watch and try to absorb in real time.

    13 MB Download

    Volume 4
    Molecular Biology
    (65 pages)

    The Molecular Biology lectures started out and then eventually died out as the year progressed. Feynman found the material challenging to get his head around before the lecture and, therefore, very time consuming. He apparently found a CalTech colleague, Seymour Benzer, who changed from physics to biophysics as a person who stimulated Feynman’s interest in this topic.

    By consensus the lecture series ended early. Feynman was deep into his own parton theory which was his version of quark theory. He and Gell-Mann were collegial competitors in those days.

    In preparing these notes for release I decided to include what notes I had of those lectures only to give evidence of Feynman’s interest to explore all the dimensions of science and nature. For those involved in the field these notes will not provide much informational value particularly with all the advancements on research and understanding of molecular biology. The value, I believe, for the reader is how Feynman thought through the subject matter and mentally organized it so he could lecture on it. That might aid teachers in this field to sharpen up their own presentation material. At the end of the volume are my un-transcribed real-time notes that I never got to but I decided to include for those who are into this field.

    6 MB Download

    Volume 5
    Mathematical Methods/Techniques in Physics and Engineering
    (163 pages)

    By some who have seen samples of my notes Volume 5 has been referred to as the “missing lectures” to the FLP “Red Books”. Feynman himself felt that he should have taught the mathematical methods first and then the physics since math is the “language” of physics. Feynman was apparently talked out of starting with a course in math-physics. The attendees at the lab talked him into a year-long lecture on his approach to mathematics as the language of physics.

    I note here also that the math lectures have been referred on the Reddit by someone as “sophomoric” since all physic students must take similar course work and presumably “master” math while learning the physics. In my own case I wanted to learn the physics and minimize the math, or better said, not confused by the physics because the math was too difficult to grasp.

    This is how Feynman approached physics and how he taught himself, at an early age, by developing many shortcuts through the math; “Feynman diagrams” were one clear by product of his self learning process. He did not want to get bogged down and distracted from understanding the physics. This is why and how he got involved in the Manhattan Project; he was their math wizard.

    One story he told of those days: Someone came running into him needing a quick answer to a nuclear decay process that was described by some expansion series like the Sum from 1 to infinity of 1/(1+n^2)[probably not the real one]. Feynman asked how accurately he wanted the answer and the person said 10% would do for now. Feynman said he took a few seconds and said the answer was 1.3 (or something like that); the person was amazed how fast he could give him that and asked how he did it. He said since you told me you only wanted the answer to 10%, it was only necessary to go to the second term in the series expansion and that was good enough for better than 10% accuracy. This story is emblematic of Feynman’s mathematical thinking which is not sophomoric. This is why he made such a contribution to the Manhattan project and ultimately QED. He did indeed “think different”.

    In my own experience I found in my graduate studies that the some of the professors tended to focus more on the math rigor than in teaching the real physics. In Feynman’s world he “felt” the physics and used the math to express that “feeling” and understanding. Language does not necessarily express the essence of the content contained in the idea being described. One must understand both the power and limitations of the language used when discussing a subject. Words don’t always express what one wants to say; so it is for math and physics.

    Lecture Sidebars: Another “feature”, or aspect, of the notes is my attempt to capture “side bar” topics. These special topics or thoughts (including some philosophical ones) added color and currency to the lectures as only Feynman could deliver. He was unconstrained in the lecture environment to take off on a sidebar and the attendees both enjoyed and encouraged him to do so.

    © Copyright 1966 – 2014 John T. Neer.
    ///////////////////////////////////////

  11. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you for this contribution.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  12. Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in November 25th, 2014 at 10:44 PM

    Wladimir, Your reply to Joe Nov 24th 2014. “As I said in my comment of Nov 21st. 2014. “Due to the inertia, the neutron continues moving and it enters within the Ni58 through the “hole’ in the electrosphere of the Ni58″.

    This reply of yours I believe to be correct but you use the word inertia which I do not think is fully understood as a cause of an effect. For me inertia is a cause of movement but what causes the object to continue to move when the propelling force is removed?.
    ————————————————–

    in absence of force there is conservation of momentum P= m.V . The inertia does not depend on actuation of a propelling force.

    However, in the case of the neutron, when the neutrons is moving toward the Ni nucleus, it can happen the following:

    1) Before to arrive to the cross-section of the electron’s orbit, the magnetic field induced by the electron’s motion applies a force of ATTRACTION on the neutron (the two magnetic vectors point to the the same direction).
    The neutron is PULLED by the electron’s orbit toward the Ni nucleus.

    2) After crossing the cross-section, the magnetic field of the electron starts to apply a force of REPULSION on the neutron (because the two magnetic vectors continue with the same direction).
    And so the neutron is PUSHED toward the Ni nucleus.

    However, I did not mention it because I am not sure if the neutron changes its magnetic field regarding the electron’s orbit after crossing the cross-section of the electron’s orbit (in this case, if the neutron changes the magnetic field vector in the contrary direction, then the electron begins to apply a force of ATTRACTION on the neutron, after it crosses the cross-section, and therefore decreasing the speed of the neutron going by inertia toward the Ni nucleus).

    regards
    wlad

  13. georgehants

    Dear Mr. Rossi, after all your years of hard work, at this time what is the thing that you are most looking to achieve and will give you the most satisfaction in your work?
    Could it be the successful completion of the 1MW plant for your customer?

  14. Andrea Rossi

    Georgehants:
    Absolutely yes: when the contract signed by IH with their Customer for the 1 MW plant will have been totally satisfied, fullfilled and totally paid for, that will be the first plant in history making real energy in an industrial process. That will be the real game changer in the history of the production of energy, like the “New Fire”. This is why I have no time at all for any other issue, in this period. I need maximum focus, because failure is not an option and all the problems that pop up on daily basis have to be resolved properly to consolidate the technology. I want this masterpiece made by our Team to be perfect.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  15. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Herb Gillis

    After the announcement by Fleischmann and Pons of their results in cold fusion experiment, along a decade the replicability of the results was a serious problem.

    As nobody knew how cold fusion occurs (because it is impossible by considering the Standard Model, and there was not any new nuclear model compatible with cold fusion) the cold fusion researchers faced the challenge of to replicate the results they claimed to have obtained earlier.

    I had analysed the problem of replicability by considering my new nuclear model, and I had discovered why in some days the researchers did succeed to replicate the results, and in other days they had failed.

    In those experiments the nuclei were aligned by the magnetic field of the Earth. But in some days there are magnetic storms in the Sun, and so the alignment of the nuclei by the Earth’s magnetic field is disturbed by the influence of the Sun’s magnetic field, and that’s why in some days the researchers did not succeed to replicate the results.
    Also, any apparatus inducing magnetic field in some laboratory could have influence in the results. Therefore, a researcher could succeed to replicate the experiment in his laboratory, but when other researcher tried to replicate the experiment in his laboratory he did not succeed to replicate it.

    Then I had submitted to Infinite Energy my paper What is missing in Les Case’s catalytic fusion, and in 2002 the magazine had published it. In the paper I had suggested to use an external source of magnetic field, in order to eliminate the disturbance of the magnetic field of the Sun (and also to replace the magnetic field of the Earth).

    In 2003 Dennys Lets and Dennys Cravens had exhibited in the cold fusion ICCF-10 their experiment where they had used an external source of magnetic field, and by this way they had solved the problem of the missing of replicability in cold fusion experiments.

    Probably Andrea Rossi took knowledge on the experiment made by Lets and Cravens, and then Rossi started to use an external magnetic field in his experiments.

    So,
    it is possible cold fusion can occur in the intestines of some animals, because the alignment of the nuclei of the food is produced by the magnetic field of the Earth.
    Of course the cold fusion occurence requires the animal to be at rest, in order to promote the alignment of the magnetic fields along a long period of time. This is the case, for instance, of the bears when they hibernate.
    As the white bears live in the north pole of the Earth, the alignment is easier to occur, because in the poles there is convergence of a big quantity of magnetic lines of the Earth’s magnetic field.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

    Regarding the birds, they do not change the position of their body when they sleep, cold fusion can occur in their intestines during the night (preferably in countries near to the poles of the Earth).

    regards
    wlad

  16. Wladimir Guglinski

    Herb Gillis wrote in November 25th, 2014 at 6:24 PM

    Wladimir Guglinsky:
    The situation you are describing reminds me of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), where nuclear spins may be aligned in a strong magnetic field. NMR is an analysis technique widely used in chemistry and medicine. Do you think that an existing NMR machine might be able to tell us something about LENR? For example; by inserting a mixture of Li7, Ni, and H.
    NMR is usually performed in liquid state, but not always. If your theory is correct then do you think LENR devices could be constructed from liquid mixtures in a sufficiently strong external magnetic field? In this way we could do away with the constraints of a solid matrix?
    ———————————————

    Dear Herb
    probably yes.
    But we have to remember that the E-Cat has some special conditions. For instance, Andrea Rossi uses three parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor, and so three magnetic fields are produced.
    In the case the current is AC, then of course he uses another source of a magnetic field, so that to produce a resultant vector magnetic field for those three fields induced by the three coils.

    We have also to remember that cold fusion probably occurs in some animals, because 200 years ago it was observed that in the feces of certain birds appear some elements that do not exist in the food they ate.
    Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that when bears hibernate they can also produce cold fusion in their intestine.

    regards
    wlad

  17. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in November 24th, 2014 at 11:26 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    There is a line of articles and we publish them, after peer reviewing, in the order we receive them. Every Author has his reasons to consider urgent his own paper’s publication and we do not grant privileges to anybody.o the JoNP’s blog.
    ——————————————-

    Dear Andrea

    In 3rd Dec 2013 the JoNP had published the paper Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM-Supergravitation unified theory, by Dr. Stoyan Sarg.

    Now in 2nd Nov 2014 the JoNP is publishing again the same paper by Dr. Sarg, Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM.

    This paper has been published again in the JoNP because in October 2014 the Lugano Report had confirmed the results of the E-Cat.

    This seems to be a privilege.

    regards
    wlad

  18. Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, Your reply to Joe Nov 24th 2014. “As I said in my comment of Nov 21st. 2014. “Due to the inertia, the neutron continues moving and it enters within the Ni58 through the “hole’ in the electrosphere of the Ni58″.

    This reply of yours I believe to be correct but you use the word inertia which I do not think is fully understood as a cause of an effect. For me inertia is a cause of movement but what causes the object to continue to move when the propelling force is removed?. There can also be an attractive force. What I believe is that there is a displacement of the magnetic fields contained within the object and which then displaces the objects centre of gravity. When these centres of gravity are distorted by their magnetic fields there is an imballance directly related to the energy input required to move the object at a specific velocity. At N.T.P. an object set in motion will regain its original field but it requires a duration of time which can be measured as a distance. At a higher temperature under normal pressure but with an induced force an object can regain its N.T. within normal pressure to reveal an imballance in its centre of gravity and a distorted magnetic field that will respond to its exterior environment because it contains properties of inertia. The neutron, I believe, has a centre of gravity and a field composed of quarks. When distortion sets in because of inertia there is a period of readjustment that can be interpreted as a distance. If the readjustment occurs over a vector then its a mobile inertia. If it occurs over an oscillation then it is a static inertia. This is how I understand inertia. There seems to be an enigma with regards what is referred to as the coulomb barrier and an inability of being able to cross it. Perhaps and this is what I believe, the referrence coulomb barrier should be coulomb barriers. Structure I believe is made up of densities with regards a geometric structure. This I shall put together and try to explain as best I can. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  19. Andrea Rossi

    TO ALL OUR AMERICAN READERS:
    THE TEAM OF THE JoNP WISHES YOU ALL A PEACEFUL THANKSGIVING DAY. MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL!

  20. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    he,he,he…
    Not yet.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  21. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. Stoyan Sarg,

    In the page 2 of your paper Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM it is written:

    From Fig. 3 we see that the nuclear overall shape for elements with 18<Z<86 have not spherical but elongated shape.

    In the Fig. 3 we also se that 10Ne20, with Z=10, has spherical shape.

    However,
    in 2012 by the journal Nature published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, where it is shown the shape of the 10Ne20 detected by experiments.

    The Fig. 1 of that paper shows that 10Ne20 has non-spherical shape, and so the structure proposed in your paper is in disagreement with the experimental results, since according to your nuclear model the 10Ne20 must have spherical shape.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    I think the readers of the JoNP would like you come to explain why your nuclear model predicted wrongly the shape of the 10Ne20.

    I also would like to remember you that in November 3rd, 2014 at 10:33 AM I had posted as comment herein in the JoNP four questions about your models of proton and neutron (to be responded by you) but you did not respond any of them yet.

    regards
    wlad

  22. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Any Black Friday specials on eCat reactors?

  23. Herb Gillis

    Wladimir Guglinsky:
    The situation you are describing reminds me of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), where nuclear spins may be aligned in a strong magnetic field. NMR is an analysis technique widely used in chemistry and medicine. Do you think that an existing NMR machine might be able to tell us something about LENR? For example; by inserting a mixture of Li7, Ni, and H.
    NMR is usually performed in liquid state, but not always. If your theory is correct then do you think LENR devices could be constructed from liquid mixtures in a sufficiently strong external magnetic field? In this way we could do away with the constraints of a solid matrix?
    Regards; HRG.

  24. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    Yes: the reactors combined make a volume of half cubic meter to yield 1 MWh/h of Thermal energy. All the rest of the plant is constituted by heat exchangers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  25. Curiosone

    Dr Rossi:
    Your critics have found a resistance that has no linear resistivity with the temperature, exactly as you said many times. So this drops the accusations made from someone. Comments?
    Godspeed,
    WG

  26. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    I cannot comment this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  27. JCRenoir

    I have been impressed by the last data you gave of the 1 MW plant: you confirm half cubic meter of reactor to give 1 MW?
    JCR

  28. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Joe, Calaon, Orsobubu, Karrels, Eric…
    … and anybody interested in the subject.

    Dr. Stoyan Sarg is going to pronounce a speech where he says that Coulomb barrier was wrongly interpreted in scattering experiments:
    “At the beginning it discuses the major methodological error in scattering experiments that leads to a tremendously wrong vision about the Coulomb barrier.”
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/21/dr-stoyan-sarg-to-address-nanotek-expo-2014-on-lenr/

    But Dr. Sarg is wrong.
    There is nothing wrong with the scattering experiments, and the vision about the Coulomb barrier is correct.

    In normal condictions (different of those occurring in cold fusion experiments) the electric field of nuclei (Coulomb barrier) is spherical, as correctly interpreted by the nuclear theorists, because of the following:

    1- The nuclei have non-spherical Coulomb barrier.
    For instance, the figure shows the Coulomb barrier for the 2Her, shown as yellow in the figure.
    FIG. 1:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

    2- But the nuclei have chaotic rotation (due to repulsions between protons) and the z-axis of the Figure 1 is changing its direction every time.

    3- As consequence of the chaotic rotation, the electric field takes in average the spherical shape, as shown in the Figure 2 ahead for the 2He4.
    FIG 2:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE2.png

    4- The spherical Coulomb barrier of the Figure 2 was detected in the scattering experiments, and so the vision of the Coulomb barrier by the physicists was correct

    5- However, in cold fusion phenomena occurs the alignment of the two z-axes of two nuclei (as for instance 7Li and 58Ni in the Rossi’s Effect).
    We see it in the Figure 5 ahead.
    FIG 5:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE5.png

    6- The two Coulomb barriers of 7Li and 58Ni take their original non-spherical shape in the Figure 5 because the z-axes of the two nuclei stop to gyrate chaotically. This happens only in the cold fusion experiments (for instance, in the Rossi’s E-Cat the z-axes of 7Li and 58Ni are aligned along the axis of the alumina cylinder, because of the magnetic field created by the electric current in the coils).

    7- As we realize from Figure 1, there is a “hole” in the Coubomb barrier of the nuclei, along the z-axis:
    FIG 1:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

    8- When the two z-axes of two nuclei are aligned (as 7Li and 58Ni in the Figure 5), the two “holes” of the two nuclei are aligned, and so it is easier for a particle as a proton or a neutron to exit one of them and to enter within the other.

    regards
    wlad

  29. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    That is a possible application, but not in a short time. Certifications in that area can take ten to twenty years, as I learnt in a meeting with the CEO of an important truck- maker several years ago.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  30. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    I have already explained and there is nothing to add. The JoNP works that way, and will not change. Again, if you think it is very important that your paper is read in short time, you can send it linked to a comment to the JoNP’s blog. This will not compromise its eventual publication in the Journal.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  31. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in November 24th, 2014 at 11:26 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    There is a line of articles and we publish them, after peer reviewing, in the order we receive them. Every Author has his reasons to consider urgent his own paper’s publication and we do not grant privileges to anybody.
    —————————————-

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    it is not a question of privileges.

    It seems the shape of the positive electric field (Coulomb barrier) of the nuclei may be the principal cause which makes possible the cold fusion occurrence.

    There are other authors thinking about, as Dr. Stoyan Sarg, who is going to pronounce a speech where he defends the same hypothesis:
    “At the beginning it discuses the major methodological error in scattering experiments that leads to a tremendously wrong vision about the Coulomb barrier.”.
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/21/dr-stoyan-sarg-to-address-nanotek-expo-2014-on-lenr/

    But…
    the question is to discover what is the correct model for the shape of the Coulomb barrier, and how it allows the cold fusion occurrence, and such subjetct merits a discussion.
    Why do not do it here?

    Here we have some persons interested in the subject, as Joe, Calaon, Eernie, Steven Karels, Eric, Orsobubu, etc.

    My paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism just proposes how is composed the structure of the electric field of the elementary particles and the nuclei, and therefore it is of interest to discuss it here, since it can give us a better understanding on how the Coulomb barrier is formed around the nuclei.

    So, the publication is of the interest of many readers here, instead of to be a question of previlege.

    After all, you have to think about the privilege of the readers herein, i.e., their privilege of reading papers concerning what is of their interest: to understand the mechanisms which make cold fusion possible to occur.

    regards
    wlad

  32. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Have you considered the application of eCat technology to long distance transportation? Assuming you can solve the issue of the eCat startup time, perhaps an eCat system to generate electricity to charge a large battery bank that drives trains?

    According to Wikipedia, each drive wheel requires up to 3000 hp with around 8 drive wheel per locomotive. In total this would be around 20 MW of electrical power or about 50MW of thermal power as a rough estimate.

    The cost economy for long distance hauling would be significant and there is no exhaust when operating in tunnels or inside buildings.

    A similar larger system might apply for marine cargo transportation.

  33. Bob

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    1. Do you know whether the so-called rossi effect occur:

    a. in a cylinder that is not straight, as those shown in the Lugano report, but in a curved or spiraled shape?

    b. in a cylinder with an angular bend?

    c. in a vessel where the walls are not round like a cylinder, but in any other non-round shape?

    2. Can you tell your readers the size of the largest and smallest e-cats you have constructed which have operated successfully.

    Thanks

    Bob

  34. Andrea Rossi

    Bob:
    1- I cannot give this information
    2- I can say this: the total volume of the reactors of the 1 MW plant is half cubic meter ( 500 liters of volume). All the rest is heat exchangers.
    Is much bigger the control system, entirely designed by our engineers ( 111 computers integrated). I think our team ( electronic engineers, physicists, blue collars, white collars has made a masterpiece.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  35. Steven N. Karels

    eernie1 and Andrea Rossi,

    I think you both are arguing the same point. Energy sources will be integrated. If LENR energy is cheaper than other energy sources, it will slowly displace them. But there is significant financial inertia to change, so the change will be slow to occur.

  36. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1, Steven N. Karels:
    I expressed myself wrongly: just wanted to say that I totally disagree with the mantras of the fuels doomed by the E-Cat. I agree with you. Sorry for the concision, that produced misunderstanding.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  37. Bob

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    Can the so-called rossi effect occur

    in a cylinder that is not straight, as those shown in the Lugano report, but curved?

    2. Can the so-called rossi effect occur in a cylinder that is bent?

    3. Can the so-called rossi effect occur in a vessel where the walls are not curved like a cylinder, but straight?

  38. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    I do not understand your disagreement. The necessary time required to integrate LENR with other sources will only increase the time that fossil fuels will be required. Can you elaborate?
    Fond regards.

  39. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie 1:
    I totally disagree.
    All the existing energy sources have to be integrated.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  40. eernie1

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I have read many blogs that predict that a successful and non-refutable showing of your device would immediately make the fossil fuel industry disappear or at least non-profitable. However there are many markets where the fuels will be required for many years after introduction of LENR devices.
    One market which is obvious is the gasoline driven devices now in use. There are hundreds of millions of autos, diesel engines, aircraft, power stations and other devices that depend on fossil fuels. These devices have cost their owners Trillions of dollars and have usage lifetimes of decades. Especially in the case of autos, the majority of owners would not be able to discard their present models and purchase LENR driven devices. So at least in this case there would be a market for fuels for many years, especially in less advanced societies. The same case can be made for the other markets(think of the cost of new passenger aircraft).
    LENR will eventually replace the older devices but perhaps not before the cheap sources of fossil fuels will be depleted. The first positive effect of your device will be the decrease in cost of these fuels to people who can least afford them.
    Fond regards.

  41. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    There is a line of articles and we publish them, after peer reviewing, in the order we receive them. Every Author has his reasons to consider urgent his own paper’s publication and we do not grant privileges to anybody. If you want to speed up, you can just link your paper to a comment to the JoNP. In this case you get it immedialetly published here, where rules are totally different.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  42. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    I had submitted my article Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism 6 months ago to the JoNP.

    I think would be of interest to publish it, so that I could talk about the formation of the electric fields with Joe, Eernie, and Andrea Calaon, and others.

    In the case the electric field indeed has non-spherical shape as proposed in my theory, this property of the electric field can be connected with the cold fusion occurrence.
    Therefore I think it is of interest to discuss it.

    May you ask the reviewers to speed up the revision of the article?

    regards
    wlad

  43. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 24th, 2014 at 3:32 AM

    Wladimir,

    If the induced magnetic dipole of the rotating 1p1 electron of 3Li7 can attract the valence neutron of 3Li7, why would that neutron not stop and settle at the centre point of the rotation rather than proceed further and into the 28NiXX nucleus?
    ———————————————–

    As I said in my comment of November 21st, 2014 at 7:07 PM:

    “Due to the inertia, the neutron continues moving, and it enters within the Ni58 through the “hole” in the electrosphere of the Ni58.”

    regards
    wlad

  44. tommaso

    Dear Andrea,
    Do you know the studies of Ruggero Santilli?
    If so,what do you think about it?

  45. Andrea Rossi

    Tommaso:
    I prefer not to comment on the work of our competitors; I know that Ruggero Santilli has to be respected, though. His work is interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  46. Joe

    Wladimir,

    If the induced magnetic dipole of the rotating 1p1 electron of 3Li7 can attract the valence neutron of 3Li7, why would that neutron not stop and settle at the centre point of the rotation rather than proceed further and into the 28NiXX nucleus?

    All the best,
    Joe

  47. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in November 23rd, 2014 at 5:49 PM

    ————————————–
    You say: “When the neutron is crossed by a flux-n(o) down being in the outer side of DOUGLAS, its magnetic moment becomes positive: +1,913.” I don’t understand what you are saying. Sorry.
    ======================================

    With figures is easier to understand.
    The flux-n(o) of the 2He4 is shown in the figure:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Fig._3.JPG

    In the inner side of DOUGLAS the neutron has magnetic moment -1,913 , because it is crossed by a flux-n(o)-up.
    The neutron in the outer side of DOUGLAS has magnetic moment +1,913, because it is crossed by a fluz-n(o)-down.

    All the other nuclei are formed by the capture of deuterons and neutrons by the flux-n(o) of the 2He4.
    In the figure ahead the 3Li7 is formed by the central 2He4 and the deuteron-neutron captured by the flux-n(o)
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE3.png

    The positive field of the proton is similar to the positive field of the 2He4:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

    The field is non-spherical
    But as the proton is made by quarks, and there is repulsion between the quarks up, then the body of the proton has chaotic spin, then in average the field of the proton becomes spherical.

    regards
    wlad

  48. Eric Ashworth

    Andrea Calon, With regards your reply to Wladimir 23rd November 2014. As you are no doubt aware I do not know the academic teachings of nuclear physics. However, I think nuclear physics has some basic simple law to it that escapes many people who are at a complex level before grasping an introductory ABC level (proton, neutron, electron). You stated in your reply to Wladimir, ‘I cannot agree because the electric field symetry is a basic feature of electromagnetism. As a consequence the so called coulomb barrier is identical in all directions. Andrea, think about structure. Are you within a structure or are you outside of a structure?. From what I am aware nobody is outside of a structure and structure has a point (central position) and a periphery being the outer limit. Therefore your reply regards spherical symetry cannot be unless it’s at the centre of a system. This is why the Earth rotates and also nutates. If it was at at a centrifugal position it would not but it is at a centripetal position and it does what it does because it is not symetrical within its field. I believe that nothing can be absolutely spherical in our position within the solar system. Have I missed something?. Regards Eric Ashworth

  49. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in November 23rd, 2014 at 5:49 PM

    1) ———————————————-
    You seem to say that the shape of the “electrostatic” field (intensity in different directions) is influenced by the kinetics of the particles. Let me say that, if I understood correctly, I can not agree, because the electric field symmetry is a basic feature of electromagnetism. As a consequence the so called Coulomb barrier is identical in all directions.
    ==================================================

    No, you did not understand.

    The field of particles and the field of the nuclei is composed by two spherical fields. Look for instance the two fields of the 2He4:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

    But due to the chaotic rotation the fields takes in average the spherical shape:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE2.png

    This explains why the Coulomb barrier is identical in all directions

    .

    2) ————————————–
    You say: “When the neutron is crossed by a flux-n(o) down being in the outer side of DOUGLAS, its magnetic moment becomes positive: +1,913.” I don’t understand what you are saying. Sorry.
    =========================================

    My theory is developed from the concept of non-empty space (aether), composed by elementary particles of the aether as electricitons, magnetons, gravitons, permeabilitons.

    The concept of field in my theory emeges from the formation of physical fields composed by electricitons, magnetons, gravitons, and permeabilitons.

    All the nuclei are composed by a central 2He4, which produces a gravity flux named flux-n(o). Each particle as proton and neutron is captured by such flux.
    Due to the laws of interactions between the gravitons of the flux-n(o) and the spin of particles (protons and neutrons), the magnetic moment of those particles can change their sign depending on the direction of the flux-n(o).
    If a flux-n(o)-up crosses the neutron, its magnetic moment is positive.
    If a flux-n(o)-down crosses the neutron, its magnetic moment becomes negative.

    3) ——————————
    Wladimir, let me insist that what I proposed is not going against any consolidated law of physics, not to mention the so called Standard Model.
    =================================

    According to the Standar Model nuclear reactions cannot occur via electromagnetism, and the resaon is easy to be understood: nuclear reactions need to be promoted by particles bound via strong nuclear force.
    Your theory requires a model in which protons and neutrons are bound via electromagnetism.
    Therefore your theory is going against the Standard Model.

    As I already said , the Coulomb barrier in the distances of 2fm within the nuclei is 100 times stronger than the electromagnetism interaction.
    There is need a new nuclear model so that to explain how protons and neutrons can be bound via electromagnetism.

    The Lugano Report is showing that the results obtained from Rossi’s E-Cat are incompatible with nuclear reactions occuring via strong force, as you did point out.

    Therefore Rossi’s Effect is incompatible with the Standard Model, based on the hypothesis of protons and neutrons bound via strong force within the nuclei.

    regards
    wlad

  50. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Wladimir Guglinsky,
    thank you for the appreciation: “Calaon is an expert in nuclear and chemical reactions, a field in which he is working along years”. Wladimir, I have to admit that I am not an expert of nuclear reactions, nor a chemist. I only studied the subjects during University and keep doing it whenever I have time. I have but friends working in the fields of nuclear chemistry, chemistry and physics. However my proven involvement in Physics is only VERY marginal. I participated in the numerical simulation of details of ITER and Wendelstein 7-X, inclusive cracks, but never in the Plasma part. I am only a humble thermo-mechanical numerical simulations specialist, just very fond of Physics.
    What I think helps me is that in my work as a Researcher I am used to strive for discerning between opinion and proven and “reproducible” fact. In the years I managed to debunk a series of misconceptions that had encrusted for long times.

    Back to the LENR.
    As you probably noticed, I have already “withdrawn” the idea of an actual coupling between Li nucleus and an electron, because it seems to me impossible that the coupling can cross the two 1s electrons protecting the Li+ ion.
    I have to premise that I haven’t analysed your theory in detail. But there are some features I don’t understand or probably just do not agree with.
    You seem to say that the shape of the “electrostatic” field (intensity in different directions) is influenced by the kinetics of the particles. Let me say that, if I understood correctly, I can not agree, because the electric field symmetry is a basic feature of electromagnetism. As a consequence the so called Coulomb barrier is identical in all directions.
    My “theory”, which is Dallacasa’s in this respect, explains the “non-sphericity” of the nuclear attractive force among nucleons with the strong dependence of the attractive potential with the reciprocal orientation of the magnetic moments (i.e. spins) (and their phasing). Nothing exotic, just basic electromagnetism.
    You say: “When the neutron is crossed by a flux-n(o) down being in the outer side of DOUGLAS, its magnetic moment becomes positive: +1,913.” I don’t understand what you are saying. Sorry.
    I am trying to follow the suggestion of our Italian “bon-ton Guru” orsobubu putting a bit more “pepper” in the discussion.
    But you know that actually I would never criticize someone’s work without a reason, and would never offend (consciously) anyone for having a different opinion.

    Wladimir, let me insist that what I proposed is not going against any consolidated law of physics, not to mention the so called Standard Model. I am sure that there is no need to contradict any main evidence of physics to explain LENR. So far I just took the possible validity of the nuclear potential of Dallacasa to its extreme consequences.

    Dear eerinie1,
    it is possible that part of the phenomenology of the electron capture is actually due to the potential of Dallacasa, through what I proposed.

    I would like to say something I think should guide anyone trying to understand the LENR and the device of Andrea Rossi.
    The plethora of all LENR experiments, starting from the inception of F&P, depends on some unusual “mechanism” that is necessarily the same at work in the Hot-Cat. The probability of two different mechanisms at work is nil.
    There must be a single explanation for all manifestations of excess energy. The variations must reside only in “common physics” details. It seems Andrea Rossi has found a way to make that mechanism much more efficient than any other known experiment.
    As a consequence it makes no sense to think about any special mechanism that has the chance to work only with the conditions that the report of the 8th of October seem to have revealed.
    The mechanism should depend critically on the presence of deuterium or hydrogen in a metal matrix.

    It would be extremely interesting to work with all data of the How-Cat: frequencies, polarizations, correct stoichiometry, effects of missing elements or composition shortenings, … but it is impossible. So I am now trying to get suggestions from the works of Iwamura and Tadahiko Mizuno, who publish most of the data.

    Regards to all
    Andrea Calaon

  51. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in November 23rd, 2014 at 12:47 PM

    1) ————————————
    However using the p electron of the Li, although very volatile, to create a neutron bridge between the 3Li7 and the 28Ni58 etc. seems to be more difficult and the energy balance more complex than just pulling out the loosely bound neutron in the nucleus of the 3Li7 which may be easily done with an external field. Since the neutron is a low energy(thermal)neutron it has a large cross section for reacting with the 28Ni58 and a reasonable life time to accomplish this.
    =======================================

    Dear Eernie,
    cold fusion is not an easy process, because if it was we were seeing cold fusion occurring every time in the nature.
    So, discarding a harder process in favour of another easier one does not seems to be a strong reason.

    Besides, even in the case of the Calaon theory, perhaps it is yet missing the resonance contribution, which I did not mention in my interpretation of his theory via my nuclear model, in order to give the most simplest explanation of the fundamental mechanism due to the electron’s contribution.

    Also, note that Calaon needs to change a litle his initial version.

    2) ————————————-
    I was inspired to think of this approach by your theory of the distortions occurring in even perfect spherical nuclei by the geometry of internal energy fields and spin considerations.
    ========================================

    Dear Eernie,
    actually I dont know what is the correct process.

    But as I said, I think cold fusion does not occur via the most easy way, in spite of I can be wrong and perhaps the Nature uses the mechanism proposed by you instead of the mechanism proposed by Calaon.

    regards
    wlad

  52. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Steven N. Karels,
    You asked:
    “I see that silicon is present in the ash. Could the following reaction be possible?
    27Al + 7Li + e -> 28Si + 6Li
    …”
    Let me say. Hehehe. You noticed those lines at 28 on Figure 9 (lone) and 11 (with Al as well) of the ITPR.
    Let me first say that the reaction you wrote is impossible, because 28Si is equal to 27Al plus a proton, not a neutron.
    In the light of what I said in my last post, I think that direct exchanges of neutrons between nuclei with more than one proton are impossible (He4 is excluded, so from Li upwards).
    The possible sequence that would lead to Si28 is:
    1 : p + e -> pe
    2 : Al27 + pe -> Si28 + e
    The impression, also looking at other LENR experiments is that, once Hydronion (pe) is formed, it can reach any nucleus present, especially those with high magnetic moments:
    Li7: +3.26 [muN]
    Al28 : +3.64 [muN]
    So I would not be surprised to see that Si28 is formed in the Hot-Cat.
    One curiosity is the strong line at 43, because without ions, 43 is only Ca43, a relatively rare isotope.

    Regards
    Andrea Calaon

  53. Andrea Rossi

    Franco Sarbia:
    In the future all is possible, just associated to a probability percentage that I am not able to evaluate now on the specific issue you are asking for.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  54. Franco Sarbia

    Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi, the fuel of the gas fueled Hot Cat could be hydrogen in the future?
    Warm regards.
    Franco Sarbia.

  55. eernie1

    Dear Wlad,
    I have been an advocate of chemo-nuclear reactions causing the Rossi effect ever since he first revealed his device, since the electrons are more easily manipulated and can cause disruptions in the nucleus of atoms as shown by Fermi etal. I understand the process you and Andrea C. are proposing. However using the p electron of the Li, although very volatile, to create a neutron bridge between the 3Li7 and the 28Ni58 etc. seems to be more difficult and the energy balance more complex than just pulling out the loosely bound neutron in the nucleus of the 3Li7 which may be easily done with an external field. Since the neutron is a low energy(thermal)neutron it has a large cross section for reacting with the 28Ni58 and a reasonable life time to accomplish this. I was inspired to think of this approach by your theory of the distortions occurring in even perfect spherical nuclei by the geometry of internal energy fields and spin considerations.
    Fond regards.

  56. Wladimir Guglinski

    orsobubu wrote in November 23rd, 2014 at 9:04 AM

    >Then Calaon needs to decide what he prefers to do

    Yes, he can decide, but think twice about it, sounds like a low-profile compromise to me, I really don’t like where this is going

    What have we become, a Boy Scouts blog? all those battles, the threats, the abuses, the taunts, and now all friends ending up singing kumbaya? and then, what will we do here alone? Please please Sarg, JR, Joe, what the hack are you waiting, it’s just two people after all, this thing can not be heading this way, add a bit of fuel to the fire, come on! For example, what’s this story about Calaon-Guglinsky, who tells me that Guglinsky-Calaon wouldn’t be much better?
    ——————————————

    Dear Orsobubu
    Calaon is an expert in nuclear and chemical reactions, a field in which he is working along years.

    His theory trying to explain Rossi’s Effect is compatible with my nuclear model, since Calaon starts from the hyphotesis that the interactions occuring in the phenomenon are not promoted by strong force.

    I have a nuclear model which can help him to understand the mechanisms involved in the phenomenon.

    Therefore, I think it is of interest to help one each other, since he is collecting data about nuclear and chemical reactions, and he showing evidences that Rossi’s Effect must be due to electromagnetic reactions (compatible with my nuclear model).

    This is not a dispute.
    It is actually an attempt so that to try to understand and to explain the mechanisms involved in cold fusion and Rossi’s Effect.

    I cannot propose to work together neither with an author with a theory incompatible with my nuclear model neither with the author of a new nuclear model (competitor to my nuclear model, as Dr. Sarg).

    If a good work results from a Calaon-Guglinski theory, the benefit is for the science’s advancement.

    regards
    wlad

  57. orsobubu

    >Then Calaon needs to decide what he prefers to do

    Yes, he can decide, but think twice about it, sounds like a low-profile compromise to me, I really don’t like where this is going

    What have we become, a Boy Scouts blog? all those battles, the threats, the abuses, the taunts, and now all friends ending up singing kumbaya? and then, what will we do here alone? Please please Sarg, JR, Joe, what the hack are you waiting, it’s just two people after all, this thing can not be heading this way, add a bit of fuel to the fire, come on! For example, what’s this story about Calaon-Guglinsky, who tells me that Guglinsky-Calaon wouldn’t be much better?

  58. Curiosone

    The report of the ITP is very hard to read. Can you explain in simple words, as you are always able to do, how has been measured toe electric power consumed?

  59. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    The electric power consumed has been measured with two wattmeters PCE 830, installed one between the control system and the reactor, one between the control system and the plug of the electric power of the laboratory. This set up has been made to check if the control system was able to modify someway the measurement of the wattmeter. The values of the two Wattmeters coincided perfectly, and this gave evidence of the fact that the control system was not able to influence someway the measurement made by the Wattmeter.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  60. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Sorry, I can’t answer regarding our internal R&D.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  61. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    In the eCat reactor used in the Lugano Report, the interior chamber of the reactor has three helixes of heating wire. The result of applying a current through these wires was both generation of thermal energy to heat the reactor and generation of a magnetic field due to the current.

    Have you preformed measurements with an applied magnetic field independent of the heating wires (e.g., a permanent magnet or a second electromagnet with either a continuous current or a variable current as part of your control system)?

    You will probably decline to directly answer the question but it is an experiment your team needs to perform if it has not already done so.

  62. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 22nd, 2014 at 11:37 PM

    1. ) ———————————–
    Why do you have only the outer electron of 3Li7 involved in the process of neutron transfer? Why are the outer (3d, 4s) electrons of the 28NiXX not involved at all in the Calaon-Guglinski neutron transfer process?
    =========================================

    Joe,
    perhaps they are also involved, since the Ni also changed the shape of its positive field due to the nucleus, and so the electrons in the electrosphere change their orbits, and the outer electrons of the Ni have interaction with the positive field of the 7Li.

    However, in order to simplify the explanation, I had explained only what happens with the outer electron of the 7Li.

    .

    2. ) ——————————–
    Why would the valence neutron at 7fm prefer exiting along the z-axis in which direction it has no momentum than along the xy-plane in which it has angular momentum?
    =====================================

    First of all, the neutron is not at 7fm, actually it is at a distance of 2,391fm.

    The neutron exits along the z-axis because the orbit of the electron p1 in the Figure 6 induces a magnetic dipole moment vector along the z-axis:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment

    FIG. 6:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE6.png

    As the magnetic moment vector of the neutron is also along the z-axis, then the neutron is pulled by the magnetic moment of the electron p1 toward the z-axis.

    .

    3. ) ———————————–
    (Remember that Andrea Calaon has the two nuclei with their z-axes parallel rather than collinear as per your view.)
    =========================================

    Calaon has not a new nuclear model so that to allow him to understand the physical mechanism involved in the Rossi’s Effect.

    Note that he even did not respond to my question, when I asked to him how to solve that puzzle regarding the nuclear models which do not consider the strong force as the cause of the agglutination of the nuclei: as the electromagentism is 100 times weaker than the Coulomb repulsions in the distances of 2fm within the nuclei, how can the electromagnetis to be responsible for the nuclei aggregation?

    So, he is trying to understand what happens (as everybody) by considering what he knows from the known models (in which the electrosphere of the nuclei is spherical and unalterable).

    Then Calaon needs to decide what he prefers to do.
    He can either keep his initial version or to adopt the new way I am suggesting to him.

    regards
    wlad

  63. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Joe,
    You asked: “Are you saying that an electron can orbit beneath the ground state of an atom?”.
    In a sense yes. It does sound VERY unplausible …, but …
    Probably the p/d/t-e bound state can be interpreted as something beneath the 1s ground state of an hydrogen atom. A bare hydrogen nucleus (any isotope) has no electron orbitals that could interfere with an incoming electron and I proposed that under special conditions the electron couples with the naked nucleus. The bound electron should not have a wave function with the the classical electron orbital, but it would be a bound.
    This bound state is most probably not stable, in the sense that as soon as a photon with the right energy interacts with it, the coupling is destroyed and the electron can either remain bound to the nucleus in a standard orbital or become completely unbound.
    As I already mentioned I suspect that the spectra measured by Randell Mills at al. (if real) are the emissions at the formation of this probably unstable bound state in a plasma.
    For a Lithium ion (+1), which is surrounded by the fully occupied spherical 1s(2) orbital, for me it is still difficult to imagine a mechanism that arrives to the Li-e coupling.

    Think now to the experiments of Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mithsubishi Heavy Industries, where deuterium seems to be able to “enter” into very different nuclei: Ca, W, Ba, Sr, Cs, … plus all intermediate nuclei involved in the large isotopic shifts measured. The only way a positive charge (the deuteron) can reach another nucleus, which is protected by both a negative “sticky” barrier (the inner electron orbitals) and a positive “repelling” barrier (the positive charge of the nucleus), is becoming “picometrically neutral”, at least for a while. If the p/d/t-e pseudo particle is stable enough it can travel through the two barriers and “grab itself” to other nuclei, through Dallacasa’s potential. What follows has been described by me a number of times.

    Another problem with the reaction
    Li7 + e + Nixx -> Li6 + e + Nixx+1
    is that, even if it can form, the Li7-e would need to reach the nucleus of Ni. And this nucleus is protected by its electron shells: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d8. It seems to me extremely implausible that something of the size of a 1s orbital (the Li+ ion electronic inner shell) can penetrate all those Ni shells. Resuming: a direct neutron exchange between Li7 and Nixx is impossible.
    Something more plausible is that a pe (let us call it “Hydronion”) forms first, then Li7 abandons a neutron, …:
    1 : p + e -> pe
    2 : Li7 + pe -> Li6 + pen
    3 : pen -> de (“Deuteronion”)
    4s: Nixx + de -> Nixx+2 + neutrino
    4c: Nixx +de -> Nixx+1 + pe

    The pen pseudo-particle reacts immediately becoming Deuteronion (de). Deuteronion would be what actually penetrates the Ni electron shells.
    There are two possibilities for reaction 4: 4s (stopping) and 4c (catalytic). If the main reaction chain that realizes the neutron exchange is (1,2,3,4c), the Hydronion (pe) would act as a catalyst, re-entering the chain at reaction 2.
    Deuterium could have not been detected because at 1,400 [C] it would immediately find a way to escape in the gas during the LENR.

    Reagards

    Andrea Calaon

  64. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Joe,
    You asked: “Are you saying that an electron can orbit beneath the ground state of an atom?”.
    In a sense yes. It does sound VERY unplausible …, but …
    Probably the p/d/t-e bound state can be interpreted as something beneath the 1s ground state of an hydrogen atom. A bare hydrogen nucleus (any isotope) has no electron orbitals that could interfere with an incoming electron and I proposed that under special conditions the electron couples with the naked nucleus. The bound electron should not have a wave function with the the classical electron orbital, but it would be a bound.
    This bound state is most probably not stable, in the sense that as soon as a photon with the right energy interacts with it, the coupling is destroyed and the electron can either remain bound to the nucleus in a standard orbital or become completely unbound.
    As I already mentioned I suspect that the spectra measured by Randell Mills at al. (if real) are the emissions at the formation of this probably unstable bound state in a plasma.
    For a Lithium ion (+1), which is surrounded by the fully occupied spherical 1s(2) orbital, for me it is still difficult to imagine a mechanism that arrives to the Li-e coupling.

    Think now to the experiments of Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mithsubishi Heavy Industries, where deuterium seems to be able to “enter” into very different nuclei: Ca, W, Ba, Sr, Cs, … plus all intermediate nuclei involved in the large isotopic shifts measured. The only way a positive charge (the deuteron) can reach another nucleus, which is protected by both a negative “sticky” barrier (the inner electron orbitals) and a positive “repelling” barrier (the positive charge of the nucleus), is becoming “picometrically neutral”, at least for a while. If the p/d/t-e pseudo particle is stable enough it can travel through the two barriers and “grab itself” to other nuclei, through Dallacasa’s potential. What follows has been described by me a number of times.

    Another problem with the reaction
    Li7 + e + Nixx -> Li6 + e + Nixx+1
    is that, even if it can form, the Li7-e would need to reach the nucleus of Ni. And this nucleus is protected by its electron shells: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d8. It seems to me extremely implausible that something of the size of a 1s orbital (the Li+ ion electronic inner shell) can penetrate all those Ni shells. Resuming: a direct neutron exchange between Li7 and Nixx is impossible.
    Something more plausible is that a pe (let us call it “Hydronion”) forms first, then Li7 abandons a neutron, …:
    1 : p + e -> pe
    2 : Li7 + pe -> Li6 + pen
    3 : pen -> de (“Deuteronion”)
    4s: Nixx + de -> Nixx+2 + neutrino
    4c: Nixx +de -> Nixx+1 + pe

    The pen pseudo-particle reacts immediately becoming Deuteronion (de). Deuteronion would be what actually penetrates the Ni electron shells.
    There are two possibilities for reaction 4: 4s (stopping) and 4c (catalytic). If the main reaction chain that realizes the neutron exchange is (1,2,3,4c), the Hydronion (pe) would act as a catalyst, re-entering the chain at reaction 2.
    Deuterium could have not been detected because at 1,400 [C] it would immediately find a way to escape in the gas during the LENR.

    Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  65. Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. Why do you have only the outer electron of 3Li7 involved in the process of neutron transfer? Why are the outer (3d, 4s) electrons of the 28NiXX not involved at all in the Calaon-Guglinski neutron transfer process?

    2. Why would the valence neutron at 7fm prefer exiting along the z-axis in which direction it has no momentum than along the xy-plane in which it has angular momentum? (Remember that Andrea Calaon has the two nuclei with their z-axes parallel rather than collinear as per your view.)

    All the best,
    Joe

  66. Eric Ashworth

    Regards Calaon – Guglinski material. Yes you are correct. For me what you are showing is a chain system. The sun sits within an interregnum where the north of one system connects with the south of another system. The atomic interaction which you show is a simple state of a more complex solar interaction. Whether energy interacts on a micro or macro scale the outcome is an energy interaction. The reason for an interregnum is because I believe there is a law connected to gravity that pulls energy back with regards a state of loss at the centre of a system.
    Well done, Eric Ashworth

  67. Wladimir Guglinski

    Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 22nd, 2014 at 7:23 PM

    @Wladimir Guglinski,
    @Andrea Calaon,

    Wow, I’m impressed! Calaon-Guglinski very convincing to me!
    ——————————-

    Daniel,
    it seems I have now two Andreas in my life

    regards
    wlad

  68. DTravchenko

    Dr Rossi:
    How is going the R&D of the gas fueled E-Cats? News?
    Warm Regards,
    DTravchenko

  69. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    We are making important progress on this issue. Soon will start to test the first prototypes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  70. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote i November 22nd, 2014 at 12:09 PM

    Dear Andrea C and Wlad.
    Fermi, Alvarez and Wick have shown both theoretically and experimentally that the injection of an electron into the nucleus occurs naturally in some of the heavier atoms, causing them to be radioactive, emitting Beta particles. These electrons(usually s or p level) are considered present in the nucleus either field wise or particle wise dependent upon whether the investigator treats them as particles or an EM field.
    ———————————————

    Dear Eernie,
    it is not the case.

    Fermi, Alvarez, and Wick were speaking about absorption of electrons of the inner levels s and p of some heavy nuclei by those own nuclei.

    In the case of the Rossi’s Effect, Calaon and I are not speaking about the electrons of the inners levels s and p of the heavier nucleus Ni being absorbed by the own Ni.

    We are speaking about the contribution of the inner levels s and p of the lighter 7Li in the transmutation of the heavier Ni.

    As you know, dear Eernie, in 2006 was published my Quantum Ring Theory where I had predicted that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape. People used to call me mad, because I had the audacity of defy a dogma considered untouchable along 80 years by the nuclear theorists, according to which those nuclei have spherical shape.
    But in 2012 the journal Nature published a paper showing that my prediction was correct: even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    More recently, since 1989 the nuclear theorists have considered along more than 25 years that cold fusion is impossible.
    They supposed cold fusion to be impossible because according to the Standard Nuclear Physics the positive electrosphere of the nuclei has spherical shape.
    So, they believed that, if a particle positively charged will enter within a nuclei, it must win the Coloumb barrier under conditions of high conditions of pressure and temperature (hot fusion), because the Coulomb barrier involves spherically the whole nucleus.

    But they are wrong.
    The shape of the positive electric field of the nuclei is non-spherical, as the nuclear theorists believed along 80 years.

    However, due to the chaotic rotation of the nuclei, in average the positive electric field of the nuclei takes the spherical shape. And this is the reason why hot fusion occurs needs to occur in the Sun.

    Soon or later, the nuclear theorists will realize that Rossi’s Effect must be explained via the consideration that the positive electrosphere of the nuclei is non-spherical, and this nuclear property is responsible for the occurrence of cold fusion.

    And soon or later, the nuclear theorists will realize that, again, I am right.

    Eernie,
    perhaps we are witnessing the birth of a new theory, to be known in the future as Calaon-Guglinski theory.

    regards
    wlad

  71. Daniel De Caluwé

    @Wladimir Guglinski,
    @Andrea Calaon,

    Wow, I’m impressed! Calaon-Guglinski very convincing to me!

    Kind Regards,
    Daniel.

  72. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    The only thing that can help our work are well working products. Mass media go with the wind: masses of matter make the wind.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  73. Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    The fact that we moved the mountains with our hard work is positive.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  74. Bernie Koppenhofer

    I am sure you have read the articles about Bill Gates being briefed on LENR. Do you agree, with more money for research, there could be for example, 10 or more pilot installations and research projects which would speed the introduction of the Rossi effect?

  75. eernie1

    Dear Andrea C and Wlad.
    Fermi, Alvarez and Wick have shown both theoretically and experimentally that the injection of an electron into the nucleus occurs naturally in some of the heavier atoms, causing them to be radioactive, emitting Beta particles. These electrons(usually s or p level) are considered present in the nucleus either field wise or particle wise dependent upon whether the investigator treats them as particles or an EM field. The process is called Reverse Beta, conversion electrons, or just Beta decay since the electron presence is subsequently ejected form the nucleus along with a Beta+ or Beta- particle, a Neutrino and a photon whose energy depends on the angle of entrance of the electron. Once the influence of the electron is felt in the nucleus, its spin and its field energy can play havoc with the equilibrium of the resting nucleus resulting in perhaps some strange outcomes. The inner electrons can also be induced to enter the nucleus by imposing an outer negative field on the electron sphere(perhaps a negative Hydrogen ion?).
    Energetic regards.

  76. Gio51

    Dear Dott. Rossi
    Underdeveloped countries need DESPERATELY your devices…!!!!! Pleaase, please, hurry up..!!!
    Gio

  77. Andrea Rossi

    gio51:
    Our Team is working as hard as possible and resolving problems.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  78. JCRenoir

    The main stream media of the world are beginning to take seriously your work. Does this help your work?
    JCR

  79. Andrea Rossi

    Robert Curto:
    This is one of the possible applications.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  80. Joe

    Andrea Calaon,

    Are you saying that an electron can orbit beneath the ground state of an atom?

    All the best,
    Joe

  81. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in November 20th, 2014 at 7:33 AM :

    Let me spend a few words to advertise my theory .
    In the reactions above I explicitly added (+e) because I believe that the “secret” of the LENR is a coupling with the electron. Li7 in a uncommon “physical-chemistry” event in the metal matrix, couples with one electron becoming a sort of “new particle”: Li7e. Then this pseudo-particle, which is neutral already at picometric scales, can easily couple (through the same mechanism) with a Ni isotope: Li7eNixx. Li7 and Nixx become forced to travel inside the “circular” electron potential well. Soon they reach “nuclear contact” (at 2-3 [fm]) with very low excess kinetic energy, and can exchange the neutron because it is energetically convenient and probably Li7 offers it on the plane orthogonal to its magnetic moment, right where Nixx can easily “grab it”.

    —————————————————————————

    Dear Calaon,
    I have analysed your idea on the “new particle” Li7e, taking in consideration my nuclear model, and I have arrived to some interesting conclusions.
    Let me explain it.

    Figure 1 ahead shows the nucleus 2He4 with its positive electric field, produced by the two protons.

    FIG. 1:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

    The nucleus 2He4 has spin about the z-axis shown in the Figure 1.
    However, the two protons have residual repulsion (not in that magnitude of the repulsion considered in the Standard Model, because the electric fields of the protons are immersed within the electric field of the 2He4), and due to the repulsion the two protons have oscillations (zig-zag motion), and since the neutrons are bound to the protons via the spin-interaction, the neutrons also oscillate.

    Due to the oscillation of the two protons and two neutrons, the z-axis is changing its direction all the time. By this reason in average the positive field of the 2He4 is spherical, as shown in the Figure 2, and the two electrons in the electrosphere take the levels s1 and s2.

    FIG. 2:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE2.png

    Now consider the 3Li7 nucleus, shown in the Figure 3.

    FIG. 3:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE3.png

    The magnetic field of the 3Li7 is shown by North-South (blue-pink).
    The magnetic force which links the deuteron to the central 2He4 is induced by the rotation of the proton. The neutron has no charge, and therefore it does not induce magnetic force. The centrifugal force tries to expel the neutron, but it is bound to the deuteron due to spin-interaction.

    The radius of the orbit of the deuterion is 0,405fm, while the radius of the orbit of the neutron is 2,391fm. The two values are calculated in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei published in JoNP, based on the equilibrium between magnetic force on the proton and the centrifugal force on the deuteron-neutron, and I had used the magnetic moment of the 3Li7 measured in the experiment so that to calculate the values 0,405 and 2,391.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    As the neutron in the 3Li7 is bound to the deuteron via the spin-interaction, but the radius orbit of the neutron is very big (2,391fm), it means that the neutron is weakly bound to the deuteron (and it is the deuteron that avoids the neutron to be expeled by the action of the centrifugal force).

    As happened in the case of the 2He4, the three protons of the 3Li7 are submitted to oscillations due to repulsions, and as the neutron is bound to the deuteron, also the neutron has oscillation.
    So, in spite of the deuteron-neutron move about the z-axis, however the z-axis has a chaotic motion, changing its direction all the time.
    Therefore, in average the positive electric field of the 3Li7 due to the three protons is spherical, and the distribution of the electrons in the positive electrosphere of the Li7 takes the levels shown in the Figure 4.

    FIG. 4:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE4.png

    In the page 3 of the Lugano Report it is said:
    ”Three braided high-temperature grade Inconel cables exit from each of the two caps: these are the resistors wound in parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor.”

    Therefore the electric current in the coils induces an internal magnetic field inside the alumina cylinder of the reactor, and when a nucleus 3Li7 approaches to a nucleus 28Ni58 and they couple chemically, both the Li7 and the Ni58 align their nuclear z-axis toward the axis of the alumina cylinder of the E-Cat.

    Being the two z-axis of both Li7 and 58Ni aligned toward the same direction, the two nuclei couple their nuclear magnetic moment, and by this way both the nuclei of 3Li7 and 58Ni stop to gyrate chaotically, and so the nuclear z-axis of the 3Li7 and 58Ni stops of changing their direction: their nuclear z-axis keep the same direction of the axis of the alumina cylinder.

    As the two nuclei stopped to gyrate chaotically, then the two positive electrospheres of 7Li and 58Ni lose the spherical shape they had when they were gyrating chaotically. In other words, both nuclei of 7Li and 58Ni get back the shape of electrosphere shown in the Figure 1 for He4 and Figure 3 for Li7.
    This changing in the electrosphere of the 7Li is shown in the Figure 5, where we see that the electrons s1, s2, and p1 change their orbits.

    FIG. 5:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE5.png

    But note that the electron of the level p1 occupies an unstable level, because its negative charge is attracted not only by the positive electrosphere of the Li7, but it is also attracted by the positive electrosphere of the Ni58.
    So, the electron of the level p1 is attracted by the electrosphere of the Ni58, and then the electron p´1 changes its orbit, taking the place shown in the Figure 6, between the nuclei Li7 and Ni58.

    FIG. 6:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE6.png

    The orbit of the electron of the level p1 works now like a coil inducing a strong magnetic moment toward the direction of the two nuclear z-axis of the two nuclei 7Li and 58Ni.

    As the neutron in the 7Li is weakly bound, and it has a big magnetic moment (-1,913), it will be pulled by the magnetic field of the electron p1 toward the direction of the nucleus Ni58.
    Due to the inertia, the neutron continues moving, and it enters within the Ni58 through the “hole” in the electrosphere of the Ni58.

    NOTE: look at the Figure 3 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei the magnetic moment of the neutron within the nuclei depends on the position of the neutron. When the neutron is crossed by a flux-n(o) down being in the outer side of DOUGLAS, its magnetic moment becomes positive: +1,913.
    FIG. 4 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Fig._3.JPG

    Therefore, the 7Li transmutes to 6Li, and 58Ni transmutes to 59Ni.
    The same happens with the isotopes 60Ni, 61Ni, 62Ni.

    I think your theory has chance to be correct, dear Calaon. But it seems there is no way to conciliate your theory with the Standard Model.
    I think your theory requires my nuclear model so that to explain the Rossi’s Effect.

    Regards
    Wlad

  82. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, they have a Machine that will melt snow. They have 4 Machines.
    The smaller one, number two, consumes 40 to 60 gallons of diesel per hour. The fuel tank holds 550 gallons.
    Could an E-Cat supply heat at a lower cost ?
    Google:
    Snow Dragon
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  83. Steven N. Karels

    Andrea Calaon,

    I see that silicon is present in the ash. Could the following reaction be possible?

    27Al + 7Li + e -> 28Si + 6Li

    This would effectively remove the aluminum from the fuel and leave the silicon in the ash. Note the 28Si is major isotope in naturally occurring silicon.

    If the above reaction is possible, then the reaction within the eCat could be explained as well as the total energy output for one gram of fuel estimated and the percentage of fuel expended computed.

  84. Herb Gillis

    Andrea Calaon:
    In your response to my last question you said:

    “The LENR do not take place between ANY of the nuclei present in a reacting powder/surface/whatever. The access to the reaction is controlled by chemical properties, not nuclear properties. So even admitting that any neutron rich isotope (apart from Li7) could work as a donor, then you would face the problem of having it react in the LENR.”

    1) Do you have any ideas on what the relevant chemical properties are (for accessing LENR)?

    2) If it turns out that only Nickel [or Ni/Li] has these chemical properties; then do you think it might be possible to use Ni [or Ni/Li] as a matrix alloy (ie. solid state “solvent”) for promoting neutron transfer reactions between other combinations of nuclei?

    Thank you for your insightful remarks.
    Regards; HRG.

  85. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Joe,
    electron, proton and neutron are not points, they have intrinsic sizes.
    The wave function of all s orbitals overlaps significantly with the nucleus. But electrons do not fall into the nuclei of atoms. Fortunately :)
    If you would like to visualize an electron (I am not offering you the perfectly canonical description of the electron … ) imagine a point charge that runs along a helical trajectory at the speed of light. The diameter of the trajectory is fixed: 386 [fm]. And the frequency of the circular component of the motion is fixed as well: about 2.47E20 turns per second. Very quick indeed! The nature of the particle has to do with these fixed parameters. So that you can not have an electron without them. Now the radius of the hydrogen atom (as the most probable distance between the proton and electron in a hydrogen atom in its ground state) is 52.9 [pm]. Therefore the size of the electron is about 0.36% that size. Not a point that would fall onto the nucleus, nor something as big as the orbital.
    The best equations we have for the electron describe how the plane of the intrinsic rotation evolves (for dynamical conditions) or how is distributed on average in stationary conditions (like an atomic orbital).
    The problem of the precise size of the proton arose for an experiment where the size of the proton is estimated thanks to the interaction between an orbital and the nucleus. The experiment uses muons instead of electrons only because they, having a mass 207 times that of the electron, form orbitals that are 207 times more tight around the nucleus than an electron does. And the ratio between the size of the orbital and that of the nucleus is smaller.
    See for example: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-physicists-surprisingly-small-proton-radius.html

    Best Regards
    Andrea Calaon

  86. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, GENeco is a company in the UK that has a Plant that can convert food waste, and human waste, to provide fuel to power 8,500 homes, as well as to provide fuel for a Bio-Bus.
    With one tank of fuel the Bio-Bus can travel 200 miles, and emit 30% fewer emissions then a Diesel Bus.
    Google:
    GENeco
    Click on:
    GENeco
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  87. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Herb Gillis,
    The only energetically possible neutron swap reaction with Ni64 acting as a donor is this:
    Ni64 (+ e) + Ni61 -> Ni63 (+ e) + Ni62 + 0.94 [MeV].
    I think however that Li7 acts as a donor in the LENR because it has very special nuclear properties, not found elsewhere.

    Ni64 is only 0.9% of all natural Nickel atoms. So in any case its role can only be minor both energetically and isotopically.

    The LENR do not take place between ANY of the nuclei present in a reacting powder/surface/whatever. The access to the reaction is controlled by chemical properties, not nuclear properties. So even admitting that any neutron rich isotope (apart from Li7) could work as a donor, then you would face the problem of having it react in the LENR.
    As far as I know the Hot Cat is the first device that seem to be based on a neutron swap mechanism activated by the LENR.
    Regards,
    Andrea Calaon

  88. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Steven N. Karels,
    I agree with you, probably some grains or some other parts of the powder reacted fully, some others, not measured, much less.
    If 6Li can be turned into 7Li:
    Li6 + e + p -> Li7 + neutrino + (max) 6.47 [MeV]
    then hydrogen has a role, and turns into a neutron (together with one electron) first in this reaction. Then the neutron is transferred to xxNi.
    Therefore possibly it is not necessary to have all 7Li in the fuel powder at the beginning.
    Best Regards
    Andrea Calaon

  89. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    As you know, in our laboratory we have analysed all the claims of the competitors and reproduced their apparatuses. We found one that works. I already spoke of it, but it is not correct that I speak on his behalf.
    I suppose publications will follow. For now, I just have to say, honestly, that this competitor of us has made a good job.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  90. JYD

    Dear Andrea

    It could be the best friend for a Spatial HOT-Cat
    http://www.techno-science.net/?onglet=news&news=13372

    Futuristic regards
    JYD

  91. Andrea Rossi

    JYD:
    Thank you for this interesting information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  92. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    extremely interesting the news that some lab was able to replicate the Rossi Effect (even in a minimal part) .
    A question, if I may:
    1. which lab?;
    2. is it “excess heat” (generally speaking)? or
    3. specifically what you call “Rossi Effect”?
    Thanks, kind regards,
    Giuliano Bettini

  93. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Of course I know also this paper that I received last week from Oscar Gullstroem (I write Gullstroem because I have not the dieresis to put on the “o”). I am studying it since I received it. It is worthwhile the time to be studied carefully.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  94. Steven N. Karels

    Andrea Calaon,

    I have not had a chance to go over your numbers in detail. Given the problem of producing too much energy than the measured test energy is a better scenario than the situation of not being able to produce the measured amount of energy with the measured or estimated components in the fuel.

    Perhaps Dr. Storms concept of a Nuclear Active Environment (NAE) is applicable and the ash was from such an environment and all the nickel at that site was converted.

    My original posting that you responded to asked whether the produced and naturally occurring 6Li could be transformed into 7Li. I understand you said you think it could be so transformed. If this is correct, then the supply of 7Li is only limited by the amount of hydrogen present.

    The Laguno report did not say all the fuel was consumed nor give any indication that the reactor was nearing fuel exhaustion. So the measurement that the ash was fully transformed to Ni62 only tells us what happened at the local site where the ash was produced.

  95. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    In case you are not aware, there is a new paper published by Carl-Oscar Gullstrom titled “Collective Neutron Reduction Model for Neutron Transfer Reaction”.

    He writes by way of introduction:

    “So I have improved the neutron transfer theory. In my first attempt the radiation was still a bit high but it is solved now. The trick is to not have high energy protons to drag out the neutrons but instead neutrons that are so low in energy that they can’t enter the nucleon but at the same time they could drag out more neutrons. If it is of interest I attached a document with some simple calculations.”

    Link:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/247067779/Collective-Neutron-Reduction-Model-for-Neutron-Transfer-Reaction

    Kind regards,

    Frank Acland

  96. Joe

    Andrea Calaon,

    How can an electron get so close to a nucleus, in order to form a pseudo-particle, without the electron being forced to enter the nucleus due to electrostatic attraction?

    All the best,
    Joe

  97. Wladimir Guglinski

    orsobubu wrote in November 20th, 2014 at 8:59 AM

    Wladimir, is this interesting, about strong force?

    http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2014/11/lhcb-experiment-observes-two-new-baryon-particles-never-seen
    ——————————————–

    Dear orsobubu
    many new unstable particles can be created.

    However, they represent NOTHING for the working of the universe.
    By using the properties of the particles (baryon number, lepton number, parity, strangeness, etc), it is possible to predict new particles, because those properties of the particles is decurrent from the laws of intereaction for the formation of new particles, composed by the agglutination of the elementary particles of the aether (electricitons and magnetons).

    Strong force must be actually a kind of dynamic gravity (the magnitude of the strong force interactions depends on the velocity of the particles which are interacting).

    In spite of the strong force (dynamic gravity) can be responsible for the agglutination of the quarks in order to form the proton and the electron, it does not means that the nuclei are bound via the strong force.

    regards
    wlad

  98. Herb Gillis

    Andrea Calaon:
    Thanks for responding to my question in such detail.
    As a possible alternative explanation: Do you think it possible that the Ni64 may be acting instead as a neutron donor to one of the lighter Ni isotopes (ie. 58, 60, 61) via the same mechanism as Li7? If this is true then perhaps LENR reactions can be achieved between any pairing of a relatively neutron poor nucleous and a relatively neutron rich nucleous?
    Regards; HRG.

  99. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Steven N. Karels,
    the reaction
    6Li + e + p -> 7Li
    is possible, for what I know. And, given that Lithium7 is able to couple with the electron in the stimulated Hot-Cat powder, because we know it most probably reacts with Nixx, I would guess that Li6 should react as well. The magnetic dipole moment of Li6 is +0.8220.. [muN] whereas that of Li7 is 3.2564… [muN], therefore my theory would suggest that in the same conditions, Li6 should react significantly slower than Li7. And Li7 should do something like:
    7Li (+ e) + p -> 2He4 (+ e) + 16.84 [MeV]
    Another point is the abundance of protons in the Nickel metal structure. Is their number high enough to make this reaction “visible” among the neutron swap?
    The experimental results seem to suggest that Li can play the role of an interstitial like the proton. A LiH substructure in the Nickel? I really do not know.

    Checking today the data of my “energy analysis” of yesterday, I noticed a mistake in summing the number of atoms of Ni in the isotopic shift chain.
    I will not repeat the whole thing, but just give the (hopefully) right and important numbers:
    As a reference one gram of natural Nickel contains:
    6.985E21 nuclei of Ni58
    2.691E21 nuclei of Ni60
    1.170E20 nuclei of Ni61
    The total number of single one neutron shifts for a complete forward shift to Ni62 in one gram of Ni is 6.1377E22.
    The experimental average energy of a unitary Nickel forward shift reaction, would be around 1 [MeV]. Far too low.
    These data, together with the energies of the Ni isotopic shifts obtained via neutron swap with Li7 given yesterday, say that:
    A complete isotopic forward shift of Ni58, 60 and 61 to Ni62 of 0.55 [g] of Nickel would liberate 3.757 [MWh]. It is 2.5 times the energy measured during the test.
    For a 1.5 [MWh] are enough 0.22 [g] of natural Nickel, plus 0.17 [g] of natural Lithium.
    The minimum ratio between the weight of Lithium and the weight of Nickel in the powder for guarantying a complete isotopic shift of Ni is 77.4%.
    These corrected data say that the discrepancy between the energy measured and the isotopic and weight analysis is even wider than guessed yesterday. Possibilities:
    The shifts are due to a different reactions with an even lower energy. Does it exists?
    The estimated quantity of Ni in the charge was wrong. Ni was slightly more that 0.22 [g] and it underwent an almost complete isotopic shift.
    The sample showed a complete isotopic shift, but the value was not representative for the whole ash. In reality only 40% of the Nickel particles shifted completely while the others did not react. The non-reacted part was not present in the analyzed grains.
    What do you think?

    Best Regards

    Andrea Calaon