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
Andrea,
Congratulations on the new results with 600 C operation! Can you give a hint at what the input electrical power that is required and what is the COP with this new setup? Has the size in reactor changed (can it still be made very compact).
Curious for new details!
kind regards,
Per
Dear Per:
The COP and the input electrical power are not changed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
any news from the tests conducted by the universities?
Good luck for the future.
Dear Saverio Costa:
All the tests conducted have been published. No further tests have been conducted since October 28th.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Will your home eCat be powered by household 110v or 220v or either.
Thanks
Larry Jameson
Dear Larry Jameson:
Either, or at any voltage used in any Country.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Rossi,
You spoke about large improvement of steam temperature that now E-Cat system is able to produce, therefore the steam can be used, with very good efficiency, to produce electric energy by means of a classic turbine or Stirling turbine.
Please could You specify which is this new operating temperature value and the steam pressure now available?
Thank You.
Kind Regards
Franco
Dear Franco:
We are working with good stability at 600 Celsius degrees. This, if confirmed by the next tests, clearly opens all the possible doors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
p.s. Today, Saturday May 19th,right now, 6.10 p.m. in Miami, I am working at 600 Celsius with the new E-Cat
Hi Joe,
I would not like to disclose it myself but to let be discovered by the readers of my work. Since you make this question, I will say it and the answer is very simple and straight as I have also mentioned this information was hidden (Science probably was blind or influenced by the great Academic or social Powers of that time) inside the interpretation of the reduced Fine Structure Constant which participates in the equation of the elementary charge or Planck Charge (The know Planck Charge is wrong according to my theory).
Since the Planck Charge is equal to the elementary Charge as I write in my work, this rules out the existence of fractional charge which points to nonexistence of Quarks (Page 21 of my work).
Now: α/2π=VA/c (meaning the Reduced Fine Structure Constant is the ratio of the Tangential Aether Velocity to the Light Speed). See page 39 of my work.
Qe2/(4π*εo*)=h*VA
Or go to the link of the fine structure constant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
And on the Definition equation of the fine str.constant, replace h_ (reduced Planck constant)=h/2π. Then after that replace α/2π=VA/c which is an undeniable mathematical fact. This gives the eq.(94.1) on page 39 of my paper. You see it was exactly under our feet!!!!
This discovery points that the Charge is directly associated with mass (due to h) and the spinning Aether (VA). Exactly what Nikola Tesla mentions on some of his lectures: http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb16.html
In his 1891 A.I.E.E. lecture at Columbia College, Tesla said in pertinent part (emphasis mine): “What is electricity, and what is magnetism? “…We are now confident that electric and magnetic phenomena are attributable to the ether, and we are perhaps justified in saying that the effects of static electricity are effects of ether in motion”.
In his statements, Tesla was balancing the various arguments in preparation for his decision: “…Electricity, therefore, cannot be called ether in the broad sense of the term; but nothing would seem to stand in the way of calling electricity ether associated with matter, or bound ether; or, in other words, that the so-called static charge of the molecule is ether associated in some way with the molecule.”
I believe now you have enough indications of what is probably going on.
Comments and suggestions are always welcome!
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Switzerland
Koen Vandewalle wrote in May 18th, 2012 at 9:24 AM
“Dear Wladimir,
Maybe not such a clever question, but how about inertia ? Gravity without a mass-particle, OK, but inertia ?”
Dear Roen
in any theory where it is considered the existence of the aether, inertia is resultant of the interaction of matter with the aether.
In current Modern Physics, as the space is considered empty, there is need to look for an explanation for the inertia. That’s why Higgs proposed his theory.
It’s me once again.
If you are currently building factories for e-cats there is something else where both the e-cat and the industrial facility would be useful.
Cars might be 20 years away and airtravel 50, but boats aren’t.
Licencing (or better yet a joint venture) with these guys
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3321-steam-fires-underwater-jet-engine.html
For a long course refuel-free drive…. think of sailboats with an added e-cat+steamjet, hot water for showers, heating and/or propulsion.
Or merchant ships on slow cheap jets crossing the globe.
On the other hand maybe the e-cat is strictly a beta decay – issue for the nickel copper conversion , but the 20.000 hz might be causing the iron by alpha decay (cardone et al thorium decay 20 khz). So my previous fear about cobalt might be completly unfunded. Would it be rude to ask if you find any helium on spent charges?
best regards
Dear M.B.:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Looking around in the many internet-sites about the E-cat, it seems to me that only a minor part of your world-wide audience has fully realized yet what the test at 600 C will mean if successful (even if a few slow neutron would escape the reactor at that energy density …). There would be no technical limit for LENR energy production. The civilization would immediately understand to have “almost free” energy. Electric energy production will be just a matter of buying a turbine and paying for its maintenance (and the new large molten salts batteries could absorb the peaks). Oil price will drop, many will be hit by this. Oil producers will have time for adapting, but many others no. Only cheap gas and coal will stand for a while, but then … and all renewable will be hit as well.
This civilization in on the brink of change.
When energy will be abundant and its price will be very low (40 years ahead?), then the rare-nuclei equilibrium will gradually establish and China will reign even more than now, at least for a while.
Beware of military and large companies. A turbine is still not something your can get anywhere for low prices.
Good luck to you and to mankind!
Dear Andrea Calaon:
Thank you for your insight,
W@arm Regards,
A.R.
Ioannis,
Before we have a full comprehension of electricity, we will need to know the nature of electric charge. Can you tell us how Tesla defined electric charge? How does your model describe electric charge?
All the best,
Joe
Francesco, Pekka, Joseph, and Andrea,
I am very encouraged by your exchange of ideas and technical data concerning aviation. Remember, a Piper Cub requires less than 50hp to carry two passengers and a load of fuel at 80-90mph. Given the unlimited range provided by a properly designed e-cat system, NYC to Orly Field in less than 40hours is not out of the question for an ordinary pilot and a buddy. How about somebody offering a prize?
I’m game….
Charlie
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
I want to repeat that the aerospace issue is for the future.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
I would be happy just to fly like a balloon…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Hank Mills,
thank you for your post.
Dear Andrea,
thank you for your response.
Dear Antonella,
Thanks to you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A.R., Pekka,
More on airships:
http://www.dynalifter.com/page59.html
Maybe, you can use a few “Air-Cats” to propel a heavier-than-air Dynalifter to compete very favorably with cargo shipping via truck/rail/ship.
Maybe someday there will be airship corridors for cargo transport. Why waste gasoline on transport? And perhaps, newer structural designs/materials will permit safe travel at 150-160 knots instead of 80 knots.
(If you don’t mind going slower than an airplane.)
J.F.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oODisCdWnf8
-HEI! who are you,what are you doing..what are you carring ?-
-one e cat!-
-ONE FIORINO!-
Now,we can only cry.
Saluti G G
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
He,he,he,he…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I would like to congratulate you for the rapid progress that has been made towards achieving stable high temperatures with the new industrial E-Cat module. Your progress is remarkable and is certain to continue.
In 2011 you gained many supporters who became fascinated with your technology, and the potential it holds to be utilized for the betterment of human civilization. Many of these supporters, including myself, became emotionally invested in your progress and the success of the E-Cat. In a world of almost constant warfare, human suffering, and economic turmoil a technology like the E-Cat represents a ray of hope in a dark, gloomy world.
The frequent tests you allowed in 2011 were extremely meaningful. To anyone without an agenda or pseudo-skeptic bias, they clearly demonstrated beyond any doubt the E-Cat technology works as claimed. In addition, the tests gave your supporters something to study, share with others, and discuss amongst themselves while they waited for the “world” as a whole to take notice.
In contrast to last year, 2012 has been quite different. For reasons that no one can refute, you have chosen to stop allowing tests of the E-Cat, and focus totally on pushing the technology to the market place. Obviously, this is the goal we all want to see met, so the E-Cat technology can go from an amazing discovery, to being utilized in a widespread manner.
I recognize that you are not going to allow any additional tests. However, I would like to ask you to consider posting some test data — from a test you have already performed — as a “pick-me-up” for your supporters. For example, it would be a very significant morale booster to see a sheet of test data and some graphs from one of the new modules producing high temperature steam.
Obviously, this will do nothing to change the minds of diehard skeptics and cynics. However, it would be appreciated by those who have been following your work and progress on developing the E-Cat. We have went for a while now with little hard data (which was plentiful last year) and having a “bone” to chew on would do us a lot of good.
Unlike conducting a new test, posting such already acquired data would not take you a lot of time, would require little preparation, and you could control exactly what information is released. Although the same skeptics will howl like they always have, I think you would get a lot of appreciation from those of us who have been trying our best to support your efforts in whatever way we can.
Sincerely,
Hank Mills
Dear Hank Mills:
We will do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Interesting,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for keeping your focus. You take care of getting your E-Cat right; there are a whole bunch of us who will take care of the rest! There is a relatively new book out titled “Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think” by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler. Its premise is that providing abundance is humanity’s grandest challenge and it discusses how we’re going to meet the challenge. Though your invention doesn’t appear in the book, it would certainly fit nicely into several parts of the Section on energy. One nice solution I can see right away, particularly since you’ve solved the high temperature stability problem, is as a heat source for Liquid Metal Batteries, (LMB), where the heat must be kept high enough to keep 2 different metals and a molten salt between them liquid. Antimony and Magnesium both melt below 650 deg. C. LMB’s will provide current densities 10 times higher than current high end batteries at 1/10th the cost. My personal opinion is that the E-Cat stands to make the largest impact in the short term in the area of water purification. The solution to this problem alone is likely to tip the first of many dominoes, leading to an abundant future for mankind.
Best Regards,
T.H.
Dear Tim Harrell:
Interesting projection, I think the applicatins of this technologies will go along new paths, indipendently from us. Probably new businesses , today unforeseeable, will spread out of this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe,
As I am not an expert or not having at all knowledge (very-very few) of the Standard Model, but I allow me to use the reference of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons#cite_note-SW1993-3
So according to Wikipedia the Z Boson has spin (most probably imaginary but in weak interaction is concluded to have perhaps real spin. Meaning what results on the products after the interaction.), no charge and it is consider as theoretical force mediator. A direct answer is yes, you are right if we see it under the prism of my theory (having imaginary mass). It is also written that the Z boson is electrically neutral as also it is its own anti-particle. This looks like to have similar properties to the Higgs Boson (Massless Anti-Vortex Aether and Massless Vortex Aether glued together having no rotation as also no charge). The Neutron inside a nucleus can be consider as the simulation of the Higgs or Z Boson of two glued opposing Vortices which makes it to not appear charge as also no rotation (See decay of free Neutrons: n0 → p+ + e− + _νe (Anti-neutrino)).
The fact that Z Boson has spin, I believe again is concluded after the result of the interaction which the Z Boson takes place. For this explanation is responsible the Standard model itself, since they will conclude according to the already built theory, even if it does not sound so logical. This is also the reason that the Standard Model became so complex to explain all of these interactions where I doubt if someone really understands (hundreds of parameters) how all of these create a clear understanding and physical sense.
The Aether in free space has two opposing rotations. The initial topology of the Aether in free space is one Anti-Vortex at the center and six Vortices in periphery, creating a Rhombus. But the final topology could be Stellated Octahedral. I wrote something about it in the first and second version, but I removed it on the third since I need to reconsider it. The initial Rhombus topology is logically consistent since the Aether must be sustainable and should not be able to collapse (Vortex and Anti-Vortex at critical distance creates a repulsive force. Similar to the repulsive force which appears between an Electron and Positron at critical distance. With other words it is proven in my theory that is related with the Casimir Force).
Conclusively a force mediator cannot be a particle, in the sense of massive particle (real mass) but can be consider as virtual or imaginary particle which involves the Aether which is the mediator and actuator in every particle process. The detection of the Z Boson as I understood is again indirectly concluded of what comes out from an interaction. Finally it means that it is an unstable glued (if it is also its own antiparticle) Condensed Massless Aether Vortex/Anti-Vortex (Imaginary Mass) where due to the Weak interaction with other particles is concluded to appear and having real spin (which actually does not have).
All of these strange particles sound like the official Science avoids to say the word “Aether” due to their own reasons.
As Nikola Tesla said “I am even grateful to Einstein and others because through their erroneous theories they lead Mankind away from that dangerous path I followed. Let the future tell the truth and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine.”.
It is known that Tesla was supporting the idea of Aether and personally I understand very well his technological breakthroughs (Superluminal transmission of information and not only) with High Voltage Transformers which are wrongly interpreted today (since they use the common knowledge of Electromagnetism).
There is another quote of Tesla that I would not like to present but it is very important/revealing of what we discuss on this blog and is related to “The day when we shall know exactly what electricity is……”. The rest you can find it on the Internet. If you find the rest of this quote I suggest just to think clearly why he said that and why is it so important? (Think in terms of Physics only.).
Best Wishes
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Switzerland
Andrea, Pekka:
With a T-Hot temperature of 260 degrees C (533 degrees K) and T-Cold temperature of 60 degrees C (333 degrees K), you can get 25 % efficiency with only 70% of Carnot efficiency.
Eff. = 0.7*[(533) - (333)/(533)] = 0.26 (or 26%)
Using super-critical CO2 instead of steam would save a lot of weight.
If you want flying E-Cats, a helium filled ‘E-Blimp” or Airship may be practical.
Joseph
Dear Wladimir,
Maybe not such a clever question, but how about inertia ? Gravity without a mass-particle, OK, but inertia ?
Kind regards,
Koen
E’notizia di oggi che il governo italiano sta pensando ad una proposta di legge che conceda ai comuni la possibilità di tassare cani e gatti.Strano,visto che il sottosegretario ha dichiarato che l’e CAT in Italia difficilmente potrà aver larga diffusione…o forse non è convinto di ciò che ha detto e sta mettendo le mani avanti?
Saluti (: G G
Dear Dr Rossi,
I have a slightly different suggestion:
Please consider writing a detailed journal in either English or Italian that goes over everything that is happening with you, your invention, and your crew. Also, do not throw anything away from your lab. All of those things should be preserved for future generations. 500 years from now historians will study Mr Rossi the same way we study Master Leonardo. It seems that your interaction with us through the journal is also helping…
P.S. Whoever controls the supply of energy controls the universe and I for one am looking forward to our new ECat overlords
http://youtu.be/QH2-TGUlwu4
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Thanks for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea:
Concerning reply to Enzo De Angelis, my opinion: Perfect countries do not exist, and we are all more familiar with problems of our home countries. Relying on one country or region, whatever it is, is risky, it is better to have more than one. When considering countries, one metric that one can look at is the so-called perceived corruption index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index).
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
About the utilizations in aerospace technology, I leave the issue to experts of the field. I think in future ( not in a short or middle term) maybe it will be possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi, Francesco, Charlie Sutherland:
Concerning possible aircraft applications: If a future high temperature E-cat system has 1 kW/kg (or 10 kW/10 kg) thermal power/mass ratio and if it produces electricity at some reasonable efficiency (25%, say), then it produces more energy than the same mass of kerosene after 12.5 hours (45 MJ/kg/1 kW=12.5 hours). From this it follows, I think, that once such devices come into existence, it will be possible to use them in at least such long-distance airplanes whose flighttime exceeds 12 hours, roughly speaking. Besides saving the fuel, one would also get an unlimited range as a bonus.
As an intermediate solution, one might use ordinary engines for takeoff and E-cat energy only during cruise. Then the E-cat controllability timescale becomes unimportant: it works even if they are run at constant power.
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
You are perfectly right, I totally agree with your comment regarding Countries’ perfection,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe,
The boson of Higgs cannot exist. Its existence is absurd, because it violates a fundamental law that rules the stability of the elementary particles: they cannot exist without motion
Motion is the fundamental law that rules the existence of the universe.
An elementary particle with no spin cannot exist.
Particles without spin like the bosons (mesons, pions, etc.) have no spin because they are formed by other particles with spin.
But the boson of Higgs is a fundamental particle (it is not formed by other particles).
So, it is actually an absurd particle.
Supersymmetry and the boson of Higgs are among the most stupid theories of the whole time
God is laughing at these existing theories of Physics as superstrings, Susy, and Higgs.
Ioannis,
How do you explain that the Z boson has mass and spin but no charge? Would you claim that the Z boson has imaginary charge that creates imaginary spin which only APPEARS to be real spin due to its Weak interaction with the field of a charged particle? If so, by your model, the mass of the Z boson would consequently be imaginary as well, wouldn’t it, since those other 2 properties are imaginary?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Ing Rossi
I agree with Francesco
Your rather pessimistic comment that we should forget using the ecat for air travel for 50 years is way off the mark. In his book “The Singularity is Near”, Ray Kurzweil discusses how just about everybody tends to underestimate short term targets and badly overestimate long term targets, especially when talking about technology which improves exponentially. This comes about because everyone instinctively extrapolates in a linear fashion. In your case your history tells you it took you 25 years to get where you are now so in another 25 years you should have advanced twice as far. What you forget is the tendency of information based technologies to follow Moore’s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law) which generally states that integrated circuits halve in size and double in power every 18 to 24 months.
The ecat is not an integrated circuit but its advancement is directly related to scientific research which makes it an exponentially improving information technology. If the ecat were to roughly follow Moore’s law as other science based technologies do then it could reasonably be expected to halve in size and double in power approximately every two years. In 10 years that would be 5 halvings in size and 5 doublings in power. The current inefficiency in thermoelectric conversion, which is about 70% waste heat could also halve every two years. If these figures are anywhere close to true then your 10 KW home ecat in 10 years will be 3% of its current size, generate 300 KW of power which will be converted to electricity at about 97% efficiency. The ecat would effectively evolve into a nuclear battery about the size of a “D” flashlight battery, generate about 300 KW of electricity and produce waste heat at about 10 KW. Now we be flying.
It may sound like science fiction but imagine the resources that this invention will free up and the scale of the financial and human resources that will be brought to bear on this technology once it’s proven and accepted. It could well create a renaissance in science.
It’s going to be a long summer.
Larry Jameson
Check out this video. Finally, the secret to Rossi’s eCat revealed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8yW5cyXXRc&feature=player_embedded
Dear Larry,
I am devastated: the video you gave the link of really discloses my secret!
No Regards,
A.R.
Joe,
I am the most unsuitable person to develop arguments about the Standard model as also I never spend time to understand (do not have the studies and interest to do it) how all of these particles (intermediate particles) could give the solution for the ultimate theory that explains everything after the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Instead of this, my work is based on the properties of the pair Electron-Positron (stable particles) which led to the discovery of the Aether and the Unified Field Force.
So, if the so called Higgs Boson is the particle which does not have charge and spin, but is the cause of mass to all other known particles, then who gives mass to the Higgs Boson? It sounds like a paradox. My answer about the existence of the probable Higgs Boson according to my theory is the following:
In my work the new expression of the Planck constant (h=re*m*c2/VA) and Charge constant, includes the Tangential Velocity of the Aether (VA=348 Km/sec). These two constants together with the reduced fine structure constant (α/2π=VA/c which is the ration between the Aether’s Tangential Velocity and the speed of light) are the fundamentals ingredients for the creation of any kind of mass in the Universe. These tools could give the following picture in case of a Higgs Boson:
a)No real spin and no real charge, points to a massless Higgs particle (similar to Neutrinos).
b)If we suppose Neutrinos are massless but have measurable real spin (which I doubt), then Neutrinos have mass which results also to existence of charge. Since Neutrinos was proved that do not possess charge, they must be massless and the measured spin (as the Physicists claim) is the interaction between the imaginary spin (due to imaginary charge) with the Field (Weak Interaction. See proposed formula on the Unified Field Force Chapter) of a charged particle. This is an indirect detection of the Neutrino spin (because it is imaginary).
The above can give two different final scenarios for the Higgs Boson:
i)Higgs Boson is forced to have imaginary spin, charge and mass. Actually the Higgs Boson would seem as an invisible particle. It is exactly the massless Aether in a condensed unstable phase. It does not make sense to me (I am not aware) why it is expected to have mass (but massless particle) between 115GeV to 140GeV.
b)Higgs Boson could be an extremely unstable phase of the Aether (Condensed Aether) where it will possess imaginary zero spin (Vortex And Anti-Vortex similar to the moment of creation of matter/Antimatter), imaginary zero charge (at critical distance as it is proved in my work the Electric Field vanishes and there is no rotation) and imaginary mass. It is expected to be initially an invisible particle (Condensed Aether but similar to a glued picture of a Neutrino and Anti-neutrino) and due to extreme instability (repulsive force) to disintegrate quickly which will result to the creation of Matter and Antimatter probably followed with the creation of Neutrinos and Anti-Neutrinos.
I believe the hunt of today Science to trap all possible existing particles in the laboratory (CERN Accelerators) is futile and it does not lead anywhere. The Higgs Boson has a possibility to be found as an unstable Condensed massless Aether phase (Vortex and Anti-Vortex glued together) in case the energy of 115GeV to 140GeV is calculated as one of the next temporary (1E-24sec or less) stable mass level, but it will not help to develop the so called ultimate theory (especially if it is consider a particle that is responsible for the mass of every existing particle).
Conclusively, If the Standard model expects the Higgs Boson to have no charge and no spin and is the creator of mass, then simply they are trying to create a Condensed Massless Aether which will be transformed after some 1E-25sec to matter and Antimatter as also Neutrinos and Anti-neutrinos.
Regards
Ioannis Xydous
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Electronic Engineer
Switzerland
The claimed ‘conflicting statements’ about nuclear/non-nuclear in the De Vincenti text possibly has its origin in an Internet misquotation of a Florida radiation official’s written statement which I here assume is authentic (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/20120309BRC-Report.pdf, page 31):
“He acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energy range of 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida. Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction.”
Almost nothing could be clearer than this. Still, some people managed to mix it up, because “he acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process” was echoed on some websites as a ‘proof’ that Rossi had been double-tongued about radiation. They dropped the continuation of the sentence which makes it purposeful.
It seems that in the radiation authority’s language, the word “nuclear” has a specific meaning which covers fissionable and radioactive isotopes, but does not include photon sources such as x-ray machines or E-cats.
One can claim on the Net anything. In this case it seems that a Net misquotation found its way to the undersecretary’s statement.
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
You are right, but the persons that misrepresented the statement are experts who made it on purpose, to damage us.
The USA Authority has been absolutely perfect and right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joannis:
I prefer not to get the robot nervous…let it be!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear ing. Rossi
Despite its response “It will take at least 20 years for cars and trucks, as an expert told me with evidence, you can imagine the application in an aeroplane…”
in the question of Charlie Sutherland , I remain very optimistic that once made known to the physical dynamic of the phenomenon and the related control, you will trigger a exponential thrust of research that will reduce this time gap. She has taught me that today the technological evolution travels at a speed that some times is greater than the human imagination.
Warm greetings
F.T.
Dear Francesco:
OK, I hope you are right, but I stick on heat and power production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ioannis,
If the hypothetical Higgs boson is finally confirmed to exist, how does such a discovery affect your theory? You claim that measurable mass is always associated with spin and charge – that a particle which lacks spin has no measurable charge or mass necessarily. Yet, a Higgs boson with its supposed lack of spin and charge but bountiful mass would obviously upset your model.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea, I really appreciate it!
Thank you!
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
P.S. I sent two times the previous comment because I thought that it was not sent. If it is technically possible you can remove the comment with the text which is not correct formatted (my comment exactly below your comment “Dear Joannis: Attention, I got recovered from the spam your comment:”. Otherwise never mind!
Dear Joannis:
Attention, I got recovered from the spam your comment: for some reason the robot has put it in the spam. The fact that I recovered it from a random control of the spam is totally casual. Probably there is something in your address that compels the robot to spam your comment. If in future you will not find your comments published within 48 hours, please resend your comments from another address.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Joe!
I hope not to hijack the discussion space of Wladimir Guglinski and I suggest to discuss this subject or other related to my work, in the discussion space where the “The secret of the Electron-Positron pair” is published.
Shortly: As you have probably read on my Web Site ( http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ )or SEPPv3.pdf, I present that Space and Time is quantized with space quantization down to 6.74E-58 m and time quantization down to 2.24E-66 secs. Indirectly this results to velocity quantization too, but this is not the explanation of the flavor change. Today Physics almost suggest that neutrinos have mass, which I find it wrong and I prove it mathematically.
If you read my work, you will see that is proved through the new expression of Planck constant as that of the Charge, the creation of particles (real mass, visible and measurable in our world) is associated always with mass rotation and charge. A non rotating just created mass (impossible) does not appear charge and real mass. With other words measurable charge on created particles is always associated with a spinning real mass like that of the electron or positron.
From the moment Neutrinos are proved to not have charge, then this points that they do not possess real mass (like electron) but they have rotation (Neutrinos rotate clockwise and Anti-Neutrinos rotate counter clockwise). They possess imaginary mass and imaginary charge. They behave similarly to photons but as half waves (the reason that they could surpass the light speed inside a field only) since in case of Electron Neutrino their origin is the Electron. On my Web Site, I present a new model for the Electron.
The way that the flavor change as presented in the literature is not also very clear to me. The understanding (this does not mean that is 100% correct, but for me it gives a clearer picture about neutrinos as also it is a new proposal) that I acquired by writing about neutrinos is: For example a gamma photon with 1.022MeV travels with the speed of light and it is capable to create a pair of Electron-Positron under specific conditions. The 1.022MeV photon energy is the sum of 511KeV (Electron)+ 511KeV (Positron), where the 511KeV represents the Electron/Positron mass eigenstates. Now a photon with larger energy than 1.022MeV for example 1.222MeV is the sum of 511KeV (Electron)+ 511KeV (Positron) + 200KeV (additional energy). This additional energy corresponds to a higher oscillation frequency (like Electron/Positron flavor eigenstates). This 1.222MeV photon will give also a pair of Electron-Positron under specific conditions where the additionally energy will be shared as Kinetic Energy to the pair.
If it would be possible (actually is impossible since photons are full waves) a photon of 1.022MeV to increase its Energy to 1.876GeV then this photon it could be capable to create Proton and Anti-protons (similar change of flavor) under specific conditions.
Below is presented the calculation of the eigenstate mass for all Neutrinos according to my paper:
1)Electron Neutrino: 0.1380442eV (today it is believed that Electron Neutrino must have mass below 0.2eV)
2)Tau Neutrino: 0.4793407eV
3)Muon Neutrino: 28.50393eV
Similarly with the photons a half wave Neutrino (imaginary mass) with 0.1380442eV eigenstate mass could be accelerated inside a Field (or Vortex or Anti-Vortex depends on the distance) and acquires half wave Energy equal to 0.4793407eV or 28.50393eV then it could be transformed (change of flavor) to Tau or Muon Neutrino. Oppositely as it is was also proved recently that a Muon or Tau Neutrino (if I remember correctly) could be transformed (change of flavor) to Electron Neutrino which points to a deceleration inside a field. In free space absence of Field or near Vortices or Anti-Vortices Neutrinos travel with the speed of light.
This brought the need to introduce the imaginary Planck constant for Neutrinos which has the value of 1.788E-40 Joule X secs.
The difference with the photons is that photons inside Electric Fields can only be decelerated which results after their exit to a reduced momentum or oscillation frequency.
This is how I understand the change of flavor in Neutrinos.
Best Wishes
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Hi Joe!
I hope not to hijack the discussion space of Wladimir Guglinski and I suggest to discuss this subject or other related to my work, in the discussion space where the “The
secret of the Electron-Positron pair” is published.
Shortly: As you have probably read on my Web Site ( http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ )or SEPPv3.pdf, I present that Space and Time is quantized with space quantization down to
6.74E-58 m and time quantization down to 2.24E-66 secs. Indirectly this results to velocity quantization too, but this is not the explanation of the flavor change. Today
Physics almost suggest that neutrinos have mass, which I find it wrong and I prove it mathematically.
If you read my work, you will see that is proved through the new expression of Planck constant as that of the Charge, the creation of particles (real mass, visible and
measurable in our world) is associated always with mass rotation and charge. A non rotating just created mass (impossible) does not appear charge and real mass. With other
words measurable charge on created particles is always associated with a spinning real mass like that of the electron or positron.
From the moment Neutrinos are proved to not have charge, then this points that they do not possess real mass (like electron) but they have rotation (Neutrinos rotate clockwise
and Anti-Neutrinos rotate counter clockwise). They possess imaginary mass and imaginary charge. They behave similarly to photons but as half waves (the reason that they could
surpass the light speed inside a field only) since in case of Electron Neutrino their origin is the Electron. On my Web Site, I present a new model for the Electron.
The way that the flavor change as presented in the literature is not also very clear to me. The understanding (this does not mean that is 100% correct, but for me it gives a
clearer picture about neutrinos as also it is a new proposal) that I acquired by writing about neutrinos is: For example a gamma photon with 1.022MeV travels with the speed of
light and it is capable to create a pair of Electron-Positron under specific conditions. The 1.022MeV photon energy is the sum of 511KeV (Electron)+ 511KeV (Positron), where
the 511KeV represents the Electron/Positron mass eigenstates. Now a photon with larger energy than 1.022MeV for example 1.222MeV is the sum of 511KeV (Electron)+ 511KeV
(Positron) + 200KeV (additional energy). This additional energy corresponds to a higher oscillation frequency (like Electron/Positron flavor eigenstates). This 1.222MeV photon
will give also a pair of Electron-Positron under specific conditions where the additionally energy will be shared as Kinetic Energy to the pair.
If it would be possible (actually is impossible since photons are full waves) a photon of 1.022MeV to increase its Energy to 1.876GeV then this photon it could be capable to
create Proton and Anti-protons (similar change of flavor) under specific conditions.
Below is presented the calculation of the eigenstate mass for all Neutrinos according to my paper:
1)Electron Neutrino: 0.1380442eV (today it is believed that Electron Neutrino must have mass below 0.2eV
2)Tau Neutrino: 0.4793407eV
3)Muon Neutrino: 28.50393eV
Similarly with the photons a half wave Neutrino (imaginary mass) with 0.1380442eV eigenstate mass could be accelerate inside a Field (or Vortex or Anti-Vortex depends on the
distance) and acquires half wave Energy equal to 0.4793407eV or 28.50393eV then it could be transformed (change of flavor) to Tau or Muon Neutrino. Oppositely as it is was
also proved recently that a Muon or Tau Neutrino (if I remember correctly) could be transformed (change of flavor) to Electron Neutrino which points to a deceleration inside a
field. In free space absence of Field or near Vortices or Anti-Vortices Neutrinos travel with the speed of light.
This brought the need to introduce the imaginary Planck constant for Neutrinos which has the value of 1.788E-40 Joule X secs.
The difference with the photons is that photons inside Electric Fields can only be decelerated which results after their exit to a reduced momentum or oscillation frequency.
This is how I understand the change of flavor in Neutrinos.
Best Wishes
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Dear Mr. Rossi and Pekka Janhunan,
My question was not about aerodynamics, but about e-cat applications.
I am interested in aviation, so I asked the question framed around my own interest. Given that it takes e-cats about an hour to get from cold up to working temperatures, they might be more suitable for powering aircraft engines where flights are nearly always measured in hours rather than the stop/start use of the family car.
A four seat Cessna 172 requires about 150hp of usable energy for normal operations. A number of e-cat elevated temperature generators arranged in parallel might be able to supply enough energy to generate 150hp in a Sterling engine. To work, the Sterling engine and the parallel e-cat generator system need to weigh close to or less than the 300lb of fuel that needed to fill the tanks and the 275lb of a standard Continental o-300-d 145hp aircraft engine.
There might be other engines more suitable than the Sterling.
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
Just forget aviation applications of this technology for at least half century. It will take at least 20 years for cars and trucks, as an expert told me with evidence, you can imagine the application in an aeroplane…
I prefer to stay with the feet solidly seat on the ground.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Caro Ing. Rossi,
il sottosegretario De Vincenti prima di dare quella risposta all’interrogazione parlamentare avrebbe dovuto alzare il suo didietro dalla sedia e venire prima a parlare con lei, ammesso che lei lo avesse ricevuto, per rendersi personalmente conto di come stanno le cose. Non lo ha fatto evidentemente per interessi contrari o perché non gliene frega nulla.
Al suo posto anch’io sarei tentato di mandare a quel paese l’Italia che in fatto di presa a calci delle sue migliori menti non è seconda a nessuno a livello mondiale.
Però la prego di non dimenticare che se ai potenti italiani non può fregare nulla di energia diffusa, economica e non inquinante non per questo ne devono pagare le conseguenze i cittadini che da loro vengono fuorviati e ingannati.
Il lavoro non deve mica offrirlo ai governanti ma ai cittadini italiani onesti che meritano di vivere dignitosamente.
E’ a queste persone che lei e la sua azienda dovrebbe pensare quando pensa di fabbricare l’E-Cat solo in USA e Svezia.
Spero con tutto il cuore che saprà farlo.
Dear Enzo De Angelis:
What we risk in Italy is to get stuck as it already happened to me in past. To start in Italy, before a solid reference abroad, is risky: this is the clear signal coming from the politic guy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dir Mr.Rossi.
I’m wondering if ecat is protected against too high temperature on water inlet and what is the maximum acceptable water inlet temperature.
Dear Sebastian Trzaska:
The E-Cat are designed to sustain the temperature they have to work at. The limit depends on what are they designed for. The engineering changes depending on the utilizations for the high temperature E-Cats we are testing now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
one of your supporters, co-author in 22passi, has written a nice article:
giovedì 17 maggio 2012
Importanza del lavoro fatto fin qui
dall’Ing. Andrea Rossi.
Desidero ribadire, ove non fosse chiaro, quanto consideri determinante il lavoro svolto fin qui dall’Ing. Andrea Rossi; senza la Sua personalissima iniziativa e l’ottima scelta di “fare armi e bagagli” ed andarsene in America, non saremmo qui a parlarne e a credere che qualcosa di positivo possa accadere.
Infatti è soltanto grazie alle due iniziative sopra accennate, se oggi possiamo parlare di LENR o Cold Fusion, se assistiamo nel web ad un fiorire continuo di siti, blog, forum che parlano di questo argomento; esiste:
un dialogo ad alto livello come quello da me evidenziato nel post “Tanto che aspettiamo news from Pisa” tra quattro ricercatori internazionali o quello che si è appena svolto a Pisa o …
… lo scambio di opinioni tra semplici sostenitori, persone che nella vita fanno tutt’altro ma che per merito di Rossi si sono appassionate, persino, alla Fisica
esiste la contrapposizione tra chi come noi è a favore e chi è contrario, ma ne discute o …
… le conferenze – dibattiti – seminari – del tipo CERN – SAPIENZA etc. etc.
la sperimentazione del genere “artigianale” tipo ATHANOR – con tutta la stima ed il plauso per i protagonisti di quella ricerca ed esiste quella …
… americana – giapponese – greca, nota e meno nota, ufficiale od ufficiosa tipo NASA – Defkalion – Mitsubishi – altro…
Tutto questo per merito di Rossi, perché ha rivitalizzato una sperimentazione che non è mai terminata, ma che si trascinava quasi in maniera clandestina, sottoscala e nell’indifferenza generale.
Quando il mondo ha realizzato che questo industriale italiano avrebbe potuto immettere sul mercato un dispositivo rivoluzionario – E-Cat – che dovrebbe produrre acqua calda a costi irrisori, quindi produrre una macchina da soldi, improvvisamente, hanno realizzato che, forse, avevano perso il treno e, con un certo affanno, sono corsi a riaccendere il “sacro fuoco della ricerca”!!!!!!!!!!
Quindi, in conclusione, il suo dovere Rossi lo ha fatto ed anche molto bene; ora, starebbe agli altri RICERCATORI sedersi attorno ad tavolo, sviluppare un progetto comune, presentarlo alla UE, ottenere i finanziamenti e partendo da quanto è già stato fatto proseguire fino alla possibile soluzione della formula magica.
Il nostro compito dovrebbe essere quello di fare in modo che la “fiamma” non si spenga.
paolo
Dear Antonella,
Good article.
A.R.
one wishes Mr. Rossi
Keep the course he has set
and do not enchanted by the sirens that will surely increase
quo fata ferunt
E.Laureti
Dear Emidio Laureti:
Thanks, I will,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gent.mo ing.Rossi
Mi scusi ma il link citato nel precedente post non sembra più funzionare. Per il ritrovamento della Legge citata occorre digitare il seguente link:
http://www.normattiva.it/atto/caricaDettaglioAtto?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=1995-06-13&atto.codiceRedazionale=095G0234¤tPage=1
Cordiali saluti
F.T.
Dear Francesco:
Thank you for the correction,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gent.mo ing. Rossi
Mi perdoni se scrivo in italiano ma la complessità dell’argomento va oltre le mie capacità espressive inglesi.
Volevo fare presente che l’articolo di legge citato dal Sottosegretario De Vincenzi tratta di “impianti nucleari” da dismettere o costruire (art.1 comma a) <>
E qui si intende chiaramente che la Legge intende regolamentare le centrali nucleari in essere utilizzanti i famigerati materiali “fissili” dei quali ben conosciamo gli effetti deleteri.
Quindi nulla accomuna lo E-Cat dove NON vengono utilizzati materiali “radioattivi” propriamente detti.
Nel successivo comma b), con il chiaro intento di proteggere la comunità, tratta dei materiali radioattivi ovviamente del tipo sopra indicato e dalle sorgenti naturali di radiazioni. Ancora una volta, dicendola in “Di Pietrese”, “che c’azzecca?”
C’è da dire che parla anche di “radiazioni ionizzanti” dovute a non meglio identificate “apparecchiature ivi comprese quelle ad uso radiologico”, allegando delle tabelle dove vengono indicati i valori massimi di emissione tollerati. Anche qui il Disposto non sembra interfacciabile con le condizioni esistenti durante il funzionamento del E-Cat, in quanto si arguisce che dette apparecchiature utilizzino materiali radioattivi naturali e non.
Detto ciò, la citazione del decreto.legislativo:1995;230 http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato , fatta dal sottosegretario appare pretestuosa e fuorviante se non in malafede ovvero suggerita da qualcun altro altrettanto in malafade.
Cara Pekka e altri: come vedi le nostre polemiche sono discretamente giustificate. Se poi riesci a considerare il resto del contesto (violenta campagna mediatica di debunking contro il n.s. ing Rossi, inimicizia delle grosse multinazionali petrolifere, gelosie di altri ricercatori) ti accorgerai che la situazione è abbastanza critica. Quanto appena esposto mette ovviamente l’ing. Rossi e sostenitori perennemente sulla difensiva. Sebbene dispiaccia…ebbene sì, siamo un poco prevenuti.
Il sottosegretario, data la portata epocale della notizia, avrebbe potuto mostrare maggiore interesse per il caso “Rossi” ponendo in essere tutte quelle iniziative per un approfondimento di quanto realizzato e (perché no?) contattandolo direttamente al fine di facilitargli la ricerca, l’ingegnerizzazione e l’espansione del prodotto sul mercato nazionale ed estero.
Il “made in italy”, di cui molti di noi sono orgogliosi, potrebbe tornare ad alti livelli commerciali migliorando il bilancio della nazione, bilancio che oggi arranca in recessione.
Cordiali saluti
F.T.
Dear Pekka Janhunen,
do you know what struck me the most in the letter’s tone? How little political it is.
Anyway, in the content, the clear message I read is in that “(presumibilmente negativo)” referred to the exit of certifications: with these two words the intention is made known.
This is my humble opinion as an italian reader. I may be wrong.
Ioannis,
You claim that a change in the flavor of a neutrino is caused by a change in velocity of that neutrino. Since flavors are discrete properties, are the velocities that are undergone by neutrinos within fields also discrete (not continuous)?
All the best,
Joe
Mr Salvi,don’t worry.I think that when a man dedicates his life to a search like this makes it not only for money,but for a grate sense of love towards the world.
Regards G G
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
Thanks,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Wladimir!
First of all I would like to say that I do not like to monopolize the conversations by trying to disturbing everyone with the goal to pass my point of view. What I did so far was to send my work to hundreds of Physicists worldwide who work in Research or Education, but until today never received a comment which I found this very discouraging. I believe that I discovered something of great importance (as everyone on this blog) which seems that was hidden under our feet (This information was hidden in the interpretation of the fine structure constant where as you can see there is another velocity of “something” (Aether’s Tangential Velocity) except of the speed of light).
I suppose that you read the SEPPv3.pdf ( http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ ) since the SEPP.pdf (1st version) which was published in the Journal had some errors and misconceptions that are corrected on the SEPPv3.pdf.
About your questions:
i)I believe as also I propose through my work that the Aether’s detection is relative easy. There are three experiments on this work and the first one does not need a set up. I gave the results of this experiment by analyzing arbitrary Earth’s Magnetic Field data with the EXCEL application (The link is also provided to download data and to analyze them by yourself). The setup exist already in nature, where Earth is the rotating frame with its Magnetic Field. An observer on the surface (Magnetic Field Sensor in Honolulu for example) can record Earth’s self rotation as also if the Aether exists will be coupled on the signal of Earth’s Magnetic Field as I show it on my paper. The Aether’s main period is around 111 secs and due to Coriolis effect the second period is around 56 secs. I hope some day soon, someone will do the same. It just needs the EXCEL and to download data from: http://geomag.usgs.gov/data/
ii)I have some indications (will be given below) that I believe some things in my work are correct. I understand how the establishment likes to ignore even if you are right on something. Today’s Science (even in the past) is mostly manipulated due to human arrogance and profit (Science Business), which a small percentage has to do with pure Science (not influenced from the people who give the money to direct Research). A very clear example is Cold Fusion and what is trying to achieve Mr. Rossi by creating a New kind of Industry (it is not easy (needs guts, but the Internet is a great Enemy as also a huge Ally. The ingenious discovery of Mr.Rossi would not be taken off 20 years ago. From this point of view, Tesla was unlucky although was a genius. If he had the Internet at his time, today we would have flying cars and already starting exploring our Solar System. The influence of some people in strong social or academic positions in the past, had created an alternative future, the today’s, which is not what it should be.
I am not going to play the game that the establishment likes (tend to ignore). As Thales said “..The TIME is the wisest of all because it discovers everything..” 600 B.C. Do you know what does this mean? It means, even if we do not do anything, in the coming years or ages if a change is time to occur, will occur, want it we or not. In a way more or less we are guided by the TIME itself (It is inappropriate to open such kind of discussion on this blog.).
Some indications:
i)Some past experiments that indicate a probable Aether’s Tangential speed of 348 Km/sec:
http://www.helical-structures.org/new_evidences/modern-ether-drift-exp/ether-drift-exp.pdf
ii)The Integral Project claims through an experiment with Gamma Rays change of polarization, that the Quantization of Space is below the 1.616E-35m (Planck Length). They support that is even below the value of 1E-48m. I propose after calculations that the Quantum Length is 6.74E-58m. This result makes all Planck Units invalid (It is proved mathematically as also there are given the new values). The below Link is also integrated on the SEPPv3.pdf:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630111540.htm
iii)I measured the speed of the E/M Wave inside special materials with values even down to 800 m/sec. It is not directly related to my work.
iv)I proved the acceleration formula of Yuri.N.Ivanov (Rhythmodynamics) through my work, as also by creating motion on a table top experiment of a body without moving parts (I mention this somewhere on my Web Site). This result makes both theories compatible.
v)Recently I found on the Internet a paper of Wilhelm Weber written back in 1847 (Anti-matter was not even in the vocabulary at that time) where after his experiments with currents, he concludes the discovery of the General Electric Force, which is exactly what I found in my work (Complete Coulomb Force). Very Strange!!
I search to find reliable Graphic Diagrams for the Nuclear Force/Energy between two protons. You can see my proposal on the Nuclear Force on my Web Site where there are put two different diagrams. One of them is with constant speed of light (what we accept today and simultaneously we discard the existence of Aether. It is like the fine structure constant is equal to 1. This is a mistake of today’s Physics). And the other one is with variable speed of light (varies with distance) which presupposes the existence of Aether (The form of the Fine Structure Constant proves exactly this).
Thank you for your attention and I apologize for the interference to yours discussion space (because of your paper).
Best Wishes
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Switzerland
Dear Antonella, Andrea and others:
In my opinion (perhaps naive), one can also see the De Vincenti text in partly positive light:
1) He effectively recognises the reality of LENR. It is an achievement, I don’t remember other governments having done it yet.
2) In the final paragraph he says that (only) through more reliable scientific and technical findings can the practical applications of the (E-cat) device be assessed. This is true: for example airplane applications haven’t yet been much investigated, as we heard today (in response to Charlie Sutherland’s question).
3) He expresses some worries about radiation, but that can only be his personal opinion, because the question belongs to certificators and radiation safety officials (while his background is Professor in Economics).
Maybe the tone of the text was negative; this I cannot judge because I do not speak Italian. But in official matters the contents is more important than the tone. One could use what is good in the text and request to correct what is factually wrong.
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
Good, well equilibrated comment. Typical of a Finnish mind.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi: The question and answer website is great, http://faq.ecat.com/latest-page2/ I have been directing friends to the site for them to get an understanding of the E-Cat, with good results. I hope others from this site will do the same. Please keep adding to the site.
Dear bernie Koppenhofer:
Thank you very much, I appreciate,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gentili signori, purtroppo non servira’ a nulla fare polemica con questo o quel personaggio inerente alla politica italiana. L’ Italia è un paese di azzeccagarbugli, per cui è chiaro che chi vuole ostacolare la diffusione dell’ e-cat troverà ogni scusa per tentare di sabotarlo in favore del buon vecchio petrolio. Sicuramente il discorso riguardante i raggi gamma servirà ai “serpenti” per ostacolare la vendita di questo apparecchio. E la cosa ridicola è che ogni forma di energia che noi usiamo quotidianamente è potenzialmente letale, dal gas metano delle nostre cucine, al gpl , alla benzina, alla corrente elettrica. Chiunque puo’ farsi del male utilizzando impropriamente le fonti di energia. Ma loro cercheranno di ostacolarla Signor Rossi, dicendo che i raggi gamma potrebbero fuoriuscire e creare danni alla salute. La prego di prendere le dovute precauzioni, perchè temo che le varie lobbies acquisteranno LORO gli e-cat piu’ potenti per distribuire col massimo guadagno energia elettrica senza permetterci di generarcela da soli con gli e-cat da 10kw. Lei che è una persona intelligente Signor Rossi, non permetta che questo accada.
La saluto con stima e continuero’ a seguire con attenzione l’evoluzione della vicenda…
Dear Carlo Salvi:
We will fight to make possible the wider diffusion of this technology.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dir Mr.Rossi
Those, who follow all you responses to the questions on this forum, know what you talk about.
But as Koen Vandewalle say
> May 15th, 2012 at 2:29 PM
> Dear Andrea,
> 1.5 grams ? Makes me think of a cigarette.
> It is a shame that they don’t understand it in Italy.
Any one who see this side first time don’t know what it is about. And then make confusing statements on other website
If is the 1.5 grams for 1MW or 10kW and for how long.
Of course any one can find the information on ECAT.com if they they about it existence.
Other thing. The site can be read by any one, all over the world. But only by English speaking.
So not everyone can know about E-Cats.
What I want to suggest is. As you said, you have representation in most countries of the world. But they will be reveled when the E-Cats will be ready for sale.
But meantime they can organise the E-Cat websites, where will be copy in theirs languages of the information given on your official website ECAT.com
The more peoples know about your discovery, the more influence they might have on theirs representatives in governments.
The other things is. You could receive more informations about how many peoples might be interested in each country, which can be helpful in setup future distribution.
Dear K.D.:
We did it:
please see http://www.ecat.com
The sales of the 1 MW plants are in course and their certification will be completed very soon. About the domestic ones, we have to wait for the certifications and we are not able to feresee, now, the timing to go through.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ioannis wrote in May 16th, 2012 at 1:09 AM
“Dear Wladimir,
I am very glad that there are other people like you who support the existence of Aether. Unfortunately as far as I searched on the Internet there is no theory which shows the presence of Aether in equations.”
Dear Ioannis,
first of all, let me say that I had read your article when it was published here in Rossi’s blog, and I found it very interesting.
But let me remember you that the science advances very slowly.
The aether is coming back to Physics, but only a new generation of physicists will accept its existence.
As said Planck, the science advances over the corpses of the old scientists. The present generation will never accept the aether’s existence, in spite of the own Einstein tried to bring it back to Physics, after 1916.
In the case of your theory, you should have to try to find experiments which confirm the predictions of your theory. Or perhaps you could propose a new experiment, so that to test your theory.
However, there are two points to be noted:
1- Is not easy to make experiments with the aether.
2- Even if one experiment corroborates the predictions of your theory, you dont have to expect an immediate acceptation of your theory by the academics.
In March-2012 a new experiment made by John Arrington has corroborated the new nuclear model of my theory. Besides, such new experiment shows that the current models of prevailing Nuclear Physics are wrong.
Nevertheless, the nuclear physicists feign that nothing has changed in the field of Nuclear Physics.
As I said, science advances slowly.
And we have to wait the growth of the present new generation of physicists, because they will grow in touch with new experiments which discredit the prevailing theories, and so they will feel the need to consider seriously new revolutionary theories, because they will not accept to betray the scientific method, as the present generation is doing.
Regards
WLAD
Dear Andrea,
I have given the following answer to a question on Franck Acland’s E-CatWorld.
“What I think of italian scientists…well,
I feel very… disappointed. Engineer Massa, who would be going to test Abundo’s Athanor, has not found other interested people yet, he still has no real team.
It seems that none of the scientists are going to act, all of them stay in their universities doing their business.
Scientists are just asking to test the E-Cat, they are not interested in testing a primitive LENR device, first because cold fusion scientists do not need any evidence, they already know that it exists; second, IMO, because almost all of them have their own patent, given or pending.
They will not stand for Rossi, they are all one against the others, they will not fight together against the lobbies.”
Dear Antonella:
We must put a clear distinction between competitors, acting as “neutral validators” and true scientists: we are working very well with many of the best scientists who are helping us very much. I am referring, among the others, to the military scientists working on our plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I understand the new reactors can reach the higher temperatures sufficient for a useful Carnot cycle engine. Could several of these new reactors be configured in parallel to produce sufficient energy and within weight restraints to supply a Carnot cycle propeller drive aircraft engine?
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
I am not able to answer, because I have no backgroung at all on aeronautics. But it seems to me a very long term issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Balint Morvai wrote in May 14th, 2012 at 3:21 PM
Dear Dr Rossi,
“Dear Wladimir Gulinski,
I am curious: can you explain in a nutshell how you try to reconcile your approach (which I have only very roughly read sorry if the question is meaningless) with relativistic phenomena such as spacetime dilation? the origin of my question it’s that I assume your theory to be an (absolute) ether model.”
Dear Balint
My theory is concerning the micro-world. The approach concerning the questions of the macro-world is made by a theory developed by Dr. Cláudio Nassif.
In his review on my book Quantum Ring Theory in Barnes&Noble, he wrote:
“I am the author of Symmetrical Special Relativity, which first paper was published by the journal Pramanas in July 2008 under the title: ‘Deformed special relativity with an invariant minimum speed and its cosmological implications’. We, theoretical physicists, develop theories by using the mathematics, some theorems, many axioms, supporting fundamental principles, but there is not a physical reality underlying our theories. Actually one of achivements of the 20th Century is that a physical reality is unatainable in Modern Physics. But Guglinski’s theory just supplies physical models to Theoretical Physics. In his theory are proposed physical models for the photon, the fermions, the neutron, the hydrogen atom, the nucleus, and the aether, and his QRT proposes the fundamental principles from which those physical models work. My SSR and Guglinski’s QRT are complementary. A future consistent agglutination of SSR and QRT will perform a New Grand Unified Theory which, if confirmed by experiments, will constitute the New Physics of the 21th Century.”
Nassif already published 2 papers in peer review journals:
- Pramana (2008)
- International Journal of Modern Physics B (2010), where a third paper is under review.
Dear Wladimir,
I am very glad that there are other people like you who support the existence of Aether. Unfortunately as far as I searched on the Internet there is no theory which shows the presence of Aether in equations.
I encourage you to check my Web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Massless Aether Tangential Velocity: 348 Km/sec or 3.48E5 m/sec. The Translation velocity of the Aether is zero (Stationary Aether, but spinning)
There you will see that almost in every formulation, the Aether is present. A new expression of the Planck constant has the Aether inside it, which means the created matter has always charge (charge equation has also the Aether included) and spins with the Tangential Velocity of the Aether (3.48E5 m/sec).
Matter is the manifestation of condensed Aether.
Neutrinos have imaginary charge but not real mass. I agree with the idea that Neutrinos are massless and have similar properties with the photons.
Actually in my work you will read that Neutrinos are Massless Longitudinal Waves (Half Waves) which they have a minimum velocity the speed of light. Inside a field they may exceed the speed of light, but again when they exit they travel with c. This is the cause of the change of flavor in Neutrinos (which point to a frequency shift due to increase or decrease of velocity).
I agree that exists a fourth Neutrino and in my theory is called Proton Neutrino.
All four Neutrinos imaginary masses are calculated precisely as also their allowed minimum and maximum theoretical limits.
In my work everything is calculated and nothing is left into the “air”.
I will look forward for your comments!
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Switzerland
Dear Dr.Rossi,
I am extremely interested in the use of the Home E-cat. Could you compare the radiation danger of his e-cat to a few commonly used home devices, such as Microwave Ovens, Cell Phones, TV’s, etc… It could put us potential customers at ease, and make safety concerns seem trivial. Yes we won’t be making calls from the e-cat, or watching it for 8 hours a day, but it almost seems like it would be safer than many things in our daily lives. I build, potentially dangerous linear accelerators, and I know that I am safe doing so. Please, if your team can help to compare these, in the form of milliroentgen per hour (mR/hr), and yearly, it may seal the deal on more views than my own.
Sincerely,
Alexander Tuohy
Amherst, MA.
Dear Alex 2E:
In this moment your question is very important, even if I have already answered to it many times in the past, but it is opportune to remember that:
1- We made thousands of hours of measurements with specialists from the University of Bologna (Prof. Sergio Focardi, Dr David Bianchini, Prof. Pierluigi Rossi et al.) to detect the radiations out of the E-Cats and around: never have been found values significantly above the background
2- microwaves ovens, cell phones, television sets have values not inferior than the E-Cats, and the laws regarding such appliances are the same valid for the E-Cats
3- I spend not less than an average of 10 hours per day in proximity of operating E-Cats from the year 2008.
Thank you very much for your important question.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ho meditato un po’ sulla risposta del sottosegretario De Vincenti
La risposta è stata certamente scritta da un esperto del settore fusione fredda, come vuole la logica ministeriale.
Non può essere diversamente visto che De Vincenti è professore di economia e di fusione fredda non può capire nulla. Chi sta al vertice di un ministero si deve per forza avvalere di esperti per rispondere alle interrogazioni ministeriale di varia natura.
L’esperto in questione ha colto la palla al balzo per denigrare l’opera di Rossi e ciò si desume dal fatto che ne ha parlato negativamente, nel corpo centrale della risposta, senza convocarlo per accertare la verità dei fatti.
Se fosse stato in buona fede e lo avesse convocato, avrebbe scoperto che il Rossi ha già da tempo accettato di sottoporre il proprio prodotto ad una verifica indipendente da parte dei dei clienti.
Ma qui non c’è buona fede. C’è solo la risposta di un concorrente di Rossi che lo vede come un nemico temibile per i propri interessi, finanziari o scientifici che siano.
Le stupidaggini sulla commerciabilità del modulo Ecat destinato ad uso casalingo, causa radiazioni, sono servite a ignorare le enormi conseguenze di una tecnologia che consente di allestire centrali termoelettriche a emissioni zero in grado di sostituire tutte quelle attuali, convenzionali o nucleari che siano, rendendo il nostro Paese indipendente per sempre da combustibili di qualsiasi genere di fonte estera.
Cosa non si fa per il proprio tornaconto: si è disposti ad affossare il futuro del proprio Paese in cambio di trenta denari.
Cures
Dear Cures:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1.5 grams ? Makes me think of a cigarette.
It is a shame that they don’t understand it in Italy. If you decide to release the secret, which only takes ten minutes of your time, I suppose, all Italians and other European citizens will buy Asian E-cats by the hundreds of millions. Just like we already buy all the I-stuff.
At this moment, I am building an M-Cat. It will never produce energy, but it is capable of turning on the lights on a different way. Very comprehensive. If it performs as I expect, I will send you some image.
It can, if necessary, be used to create some critical mass (among students, politicians and entrepreneurs) when the certificators are planning their timing past your lifetime (because they are also threatened), or the customers of E-Cats receive too much opposition.
Kindest and most respectfull regards,
Koen
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Thank you,
Warm Regasrds,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I think it is not a matter of this Deputy or this Government, it’s just what Italy is. We let Marconi go to England, Fermi to USA, Colombo to Spain…Feel safe, you are in good company.
I wish you all the best.
Dear Antonella:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Vorrei scusarmi con tutti se scrivo in italiano,ma il mio arruginito inglese mi richiederebbe troppo tempo per scrivere correttamente messaggi così lunghi.Abbiate pazienza,grazie.
Caro dott Rossi,ho fatto due conti e se mi sono perso nel mare di zeri mi corregga.
Rimanendo in Italia il consumo elettrico annuale è di 350.000 GWh,di cui 70.000 da rinnovabili per la maggior parte idroelettrico e solo il 2% da fotovoltaico.Volendo andare ad emissioni zero per coprire il restante 280.000 GWh/anno con rinnovabili dovremmo tapezzare il territorio di pannelli e pale eoliche ed allagare vallate con costosissime e “Damoclesche” dighe,devastando il territorio.Per non parlare poi del costo degli incentivi.
Volendo ivece utilizzare il nucleare a fissione,occorrerebbero 35 centrali da 1 GW che ad un costo stimato(difficile da definire)finale ottimistico di circa 5 miliardi/euro l’una verrebbe la bellezza di 175 miliardi.Senza considerare i costi di smaltimento scorie e dello smantellamento impianti a fine carriera.Per non parlare poi dei rischi.
Considerando la Sua stima di poter produrre impianti con cop 6 e turbine Siemens da 7.5MWh netti al prezzo di circa 23 milioni di euro,per ricoprire quel fabbisogno occorrerebbero 4.400 centrali ad un costo complessivo di 101 miliardi e 200 milioni eu.Poi,chi mette i soldi per il fissile?Con i suoi impianti potrebbero essere i privati ad intraprendere,senza bisogno di incentivi ma con finanziamenti a tassi agevolati magari dallo stato e banche.
Questo con la “Ford T”.
Attendo con trepidazione il prototipo della macchina elettrifera con reattori ad alta temperatura…a quel punto con la dovuta diffusione delle informazioni mi aspetto che in tutto il mondo la gente scenda in piazza armata di cartelli con scritto”vogliamo l’e cat!!”
Rivoluzione nella rivoluzione nella rivoluzione.
Cari e caldi saluti G G
Dear Giovanni Guerrini,
We work hard on it, not less than 16 hours per day. The work is going well, without money from any taxpayer…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear ing. Rossi
Si, infatti qui in Italia i politici si riempiono la bocca della cosiddetta “crescita” ma non si capisce di quale crescita si parli… forse del loro portafoglio?
Io non vedo altro che aziende industriali che “delocalizzano” e politici italiani che se ne fregano. Intanto qui vengono a mancare stipendi e pensioni che dovrebbero essere contribuiti dal LAVORO CHE NON C’E’. Come ho già accennato in questo blog i politici sono per la maggior parte lobbisti che tutelano interessi personali, fregandosene della collettività ovvero incompetenti che si associano per pappagallismo ai primi.
L’E-Cat, ormai ne ho l’assoluta certezza per i segnali che provengono dalla comunità degli scientisti (e non scienziati… sic), FA PAURA A MOLTI, prime tra tutti le multinazionali petrolifere. Stanno cercando di metterla sul piano della sicurezza facendo terrorismo mediatico per giustificare un successivo provvedimento restrittivo della nostra libertà di utilizzarlo.
Tenga duro ingegnere… noi siamo tutti con Lei.
Sincere cordialità
F.T.
Dear Francesco:
I agree,
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear dott Rossi,I agree.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I read your interview and your comments on COP. It seems to me the COP of the range 5 to 10 is about right. As with most engineered things, too high an amplification can lead to oscillations or instability. Given a possible electrical energy efficiency of 25 to 30%, a COP of 4 is needed for self-sufficiency. I assume this would result in a system COP of near infinity because the eCat could produce sufficent electrical power to sustain its operation. A COP higher than 10 means to me a lack of control on the main reaction — very little energy is used to control a large energy output.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.