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
Peter Forsberg:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven,
You should not play to much attention to what you have been thaugt to be right. Modern physics has had many successes, but there are also many things it fails to explain. Current physics treats distances between objects as voids of emptiness. But if there is nothing between the objects, then there should also be no distance, don’t you think?
So, there must be something between the objects. We can call it aether, monads or virtual particles. The details of how this space fabric is constructed is what phycisists need to understand.
Regards
Peter Forsberg
Steven,
The early assumption was that because light was a wave, it must be an oscillation in some medium. Aether was the name given to the medium in which the light waves were assumed to propagated. Measurements showed that the speed of the light waves was the same in all directions, implying that the aether was at rest relative to the person doing the measurements. Since this was true no matter where you measured, and the earth’s rotation and movement around the sun should have led to differences when the light was moving towards or away from the aether’s flow, the conclusion was that aether does not exist and that light waves propagate in vacuum.
Wladimir is referring to something totally different, he just repurposed the name Aether for his universal ‘stuff’, which can cause some confusion. So Aether-Classic (light wave medium) still doesn’t exist, while New-Aether (universal ‘stuff’ of QRT) is an unrelated thing which exists in Wladimiar’s QRT.
Wladimir and Joe,
While I am not qualified to join the discussion, can one of you or both address Wladimir’s use of the term aether? I was taught, so long ago now, the this is no aether based on several experiments. Thanks.
Wladimir,
Step 1: A particle has intrinsic spin.
Step 2: The spin induces a spinning primary field Sp.
Step 3: The Sp spin excites the permeabilitons of the aether.
Step 4: The permeabiliton excitation induces a non-spinning secondary field Sn.
The connection between step(1) and step(4) is soft (50%, let us say). This is like the spiral formed by a spinning rod placed perpendicularly within a liquid. The curvature of the spiral is greatest near the rod, and least farthest away. (A hard connection (100%) would freeze the Universe as every particle’s intrinsic spin would have its similarly spinning Sn countering others’. And no connection (0%) would make the Universe absurd since there would be no relationship between particle and field.) A soft connection is the result of aether particles being dragged or replaced continually by new similar ones in order to maintain the structure of the field.
The problem is that you claim that electric charge exists in Sn. Since we know empirically that rotation of charge is responsible for inducing magnetic moment, Sn must be able to move (rotate) in order to induce a magnetic moment. In the case of the H atom, the Sn of the electron rotates about the proton. In the case of the 3Li6 nucleus, the deuteron and its Sp rotate about, and within the Sp of, the 2He4. And since Sp induces Sn, the rotation of the first implies the rotation of the second. This NEAR-FIELD movement is no different from that of the electron about the proton within the H atom. The only visual difference is that the Sn of the electron is orbiting the proton while the Sn of the deuteron is WOBBLING about the 3Li6 nucleus. In both cases, a magnetic moment should be induced.
All the best,
Joe
Joe,
in my previous example, the four elastic threads ( of length 1m ) attached to the sidewall thickness 5cm wheel and separated by angles of 90º play the role of the connection tying the field Sn to the aether filling the universe
regards
wlad
Joe,
in my last post there is an error.
The Bohr radius is R=10^-11m , and the orbit radius of the deuteron about the 2He4 is about r= 10^-15m.
Therefore the difference of radii is 10^4m = 10.000 times
.
Let me explain with an illustration what happens with the deuteron gyrates about the central 2He4 in the nucleus 3Li6.
1 – Imagine a wooden wheel with radius R = 10.000cm = 100m , and a hole in the center of the wheel , with radius r = 1cm .
The thickness of the wheel is 5cm
This wheel will play the Sn field
2 – Put the wheel lying on a horizontal floor of a square room with walls of length 102m .
3 – Put a pin 2mm diameter iron standing in the center of the hole radius r = 1cm .
This center pin will play the 2He4
4 – Attach four elastic threads ( of length 1m ) on the sidewall thickness 5cm wheel and separated by angles of 90º
5 – Tie the four elastic threads in the walls of the room to prevent the wheel from rotating.
6 – The wheel cannot rotate , but it can move a little, because the elastic can stretch .
7 – Because of the freedom that the wheel has to travel a bit , the central hole of radius r = 1cm can be rotated around the center pin
8 – Stick a gum in the side wall of the hole of radius r = 1cm .
This gum will play the deuteron
9 – now begin to move the wheel so that the gum rotate around the central pin.
10 – Note that the wheel does not rotate around the central pin , because the elastic threads do not allow rotation. What revolves around the center pin is the point of the wheel where the gum is stuck.
I hope this illustration can eliminate your doubt
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in April 23rd, 2014 at 1:57 AM
Wladimir,
1. —————————————-
If the macroscopic laws of magnetic induction are applied at the microscopic level, it would seem impossible for a rendering of mu = 0 for 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, etc, except if there were no rotation of the nucleons.
——————————————–
yes, and there is no explanation for the reason why all the nuclei have rotation, except those even-even nuclei with Z=N
Such hypothesis violates the angular momentum conservation. For instance, suppose that a nucleus 8O17, with rotation, captures a neutron and they form the 8O18.
The angular momentum before the capture must be the same after the capture. So, if the 8O18 stops to rotate, then the total angular momentum is not conserved.
2. ————————-
I could understand if Sp and Sn of the deuteron exactly overlapped Sp and Sn of the 2He4, there would be no magnetic induction by the rotation of charge since there would be no orbiting of the 2He4 by the deuteron. But since the deuteron is orbiting the 2He4, even if only within the Sp of the 2He4, the Sn of the deuteron must be moving with the deuteron and hence inducing a magnetic moment.
————————————-
No, Joe,
you did not understand yet.
The Sn does ont have rotation. The Sn is an extension of the infinite aether.
Let me explain by other words:
a) Forget the field Sp
b) Suppose a big field Sn with the Bohr radius R= 10^-14m, and a deuteron in the center of the Sn field, having spin.
c) Consider that the field Sn is induced by the spin of the deuteron
d) Consider that the field Sn has no rotation, because it is an extention of the aether in the space
e) Suppose that the deuteron starts to gyrate with a small orbit radius r= 10-15m j, in the center of Sn.
c) The field Sn will keep its place in the aether. It will not start to move, because a small circular displacement of the deuteron in the center of the field Sn is not able to make the field Sn to change its position in the aether.
The field Sn is not rigidly connected to the deuteron. The deuteron spin induces the field Sn, however a small displacement of the deuteron in the center of Sn does not cause any change in the field Sn.
3. —————————–
To say otherwise is to say that there should be a disconnect between the Sn of the deuteron and its Sp. And that would be illogical since it is Sp that induces Sn. Of course, another possibility is that Sn does not orbit because Sp does not orbit, but then the disconnect would exist between the orbiting deuteron and its non-orbiting Sp – another illogical scenario.
——————————-
They are not rigidly connected.
The spin of Sp excites the permeabilitons of the aether.
The permeabilitons excitation induces the field Sn
So, the excitation of permeabilitons in the nucleus 3Li6 depends on:
a) The spin of the central 2He4
b) The spin of the deuteron
The excitation of permeabilitons in the 3Li6 does not depend on the deuteron motion about the 2He4
regards
wlad
Joseph,
Interesting news release. however I disagree with Chen’s final statement that “For cancer there is no good solution yet”. I think he meant that there is presently no one cure that can be applied to all cancers. In the literature there are many instances where a specific type of cancer has been controlled or eliminated. I think that the final solution will be the development of procedures for each type of malignancies since there are so many variables in the structures of cancer cells. Hopefully his work will lead to the cure of many of these.
Dear Dr. Rossi, thank you.
Robert Curto
Sidebar to Dr. Joseph Fine:
I have read a lot about Photodynamic cancer therapy.
All of it positive.
MD Anderson in injecting patients with gold nanoparticles, which attach
to cancer cells only.
The patient then goes under a Radio Frequency Device, which heats
and kills the cancer cells.
It has been tested on pigs.
They are waiting for FDA approval to begin a Clinical Trail.
They hope to get the approval in less then a year.
Dr Joseph Fine, Robert Curto, Eernie1:
Your discussion is not off topic, because this is the blog of the Journal of Nuclear Physics and, as such, can encompass discussions regarding nuclear physics application to medicine,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Robert Curto, Eernie1:
As we are briefly off-topic, here is a nanoparticle that can be used to treat cancer! Let there be light! (Photodynamic therapy)
https://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2014/04/Cancer-nanoparticle.php
Joseph Fine
Wladimir,
1. If the macroscopic laws of magnetic induction are applied at the microscopic level, it would seem impossible for a rendering of mu = 0 for 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, etc, except if there were no rotation of the nucleons.
2. I could understand if Sp and Sn of the deuteron exactly overlapped Sp and Sn of the 2He4, there would be no magnetic induction by the rotation of charge since there would be no orbiting of the 2He4 by the deuteron. But since the deuteron is orbiting the 2He4, even if only within the Sp of the 2He4, the Sn of the deuteron must be moving with the deuteron and hence inducing a magnetic moment. To say otherwise is to say that there should be a disconnect between the Sn of the deuteron and its Sp. And that would be illogical since it is Sp that induces Sn. Of course, another possibility is that Sn does not orbit because Sp does not orbit, but then the disconnect would exist between the orbiting deuteron and its non-orbiting Sp – another illogical scenario.
All the best,
Joe
Andy Kumar:
I am not able to answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear eernie1, first I agree that this is off topic on the JoNP.
However the readers either:
Have cancer.
Worry about getting it.
Surely have people close to them, who has it or had it.
It is a dreadful disease.
Plus many people know when he gets the money, Dr Rossi will
help with the treatment of children with cancer, big time.
I agree with the research on DNA is very promising.
To explain Dr. Matsumura’s SAFE chemo.
I can only do it as a layman.
Before chemo, the patient receives an injection that puts a ‘shell’ around
the good cells, this protects them from the chemo,
but leaves the cancer cells exposed to the drug.
They can also give a larger dose, because the normal cells are protected.
They also have a blood test to determine the amount the patient is receiving.
The same dose can vary 11 fold, from patient to patient.
For 50 years Doctors have no idea the dose they are giving.
Too little is not effective.
Too much can kill the patient.
The new blood test is $100.
Robert Curto
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Earth’s iron-nickel inner core is very hot. Do you think some LENR reaction may be happening there. Have you thought about setting up your Ecat in a nickel mine at low power density and use it as a giant geothermal energy source, if that can be done safely.
-Andy Kumar
The Successor Theory of the Quantum Mechanics
Dear Joe,
I’m going to tell you a little story.
Little in words… but very long in years… rss
I discovered the need of two concentric fields for elementary particles in the end of 1993, after the discovery of my new nuclear model. Because after the discovery of the nuclear model I tried to calculate the binding energy of the light nuclei, and I discovered that it was impossible to get them by considering the elementary particles as involved by one field. Then I had the idea of considering two concentic fields, and by this way I succeeded to calculate the binding energy getting values near to the experimental results.
But in 1994 I read the book Foundations of Physics, by Lindsay and Margenau, where they explain the philosophy of the scientific method, according to which a scientific theory must be developed from the “criterium of simplicity”. According to the criterium, superfluous conjectures must be avoided.
A theory developed according to the criterium of simplicity is what in Science it is known as a beautiful theory.
Then at once I realized that my concept of double-field does not fit to the criterium of simplicity, because such criterium requires the consideration of particles having one unique field, as it is considered in the current theories of Physics.
And so I understood that the physicists would never accept my double-field concept, since it introduces a conjecture defying the criterium of simplicity.
That’s why, along the years, in my discussions with the physicists I used do not mention my double-field concept, because I was sure that my opposers would claim that my theory was pseudoscientific, since it introduces conjectures not allowed by the criterium of simplicity.
In short, the physicists would claim that my double-field concept is superfluous and ugly, because the Modern Physics was developed by considering the mono-field criterium, a beautiful theory of field because it is according to the criterium of simplicity, and goods results were obtained from it, and therefore there is no need to consider a ugly superfluous conjecture which defies the criterium of simplicity.
And now, dear Joe, after 20 years, thanks to you, we arrived to a very interesting conclusion, as follows:
—————————————————————————————–
The double-field concept is not superfluous. Actually the double-field concept is indispensable, because it is impossible to explain the zero magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N from the consideration of the nono-field concept.
—————————————————————————————–
In another words:
the double-field concept is not superfluous because the mono-field concept violates the monopolar nature of the electric charge, and therefore the mono-field concept is unacceptable, and a new concept concept of field is required.
Therefore, dear Joe, starting from now my double-field concept does not violate the scientific criterium of simplicity, because such criterium must be adopted only when it is viable to consider the most simplest solution. But as the most simplest solution (the mono-field concept) violates the monopolar nature of the electric charge, and therefore the criterium of simplicity cannot be applied as a criterium for the discovery of the structure of the field existing in the Nature for the elementary particles.
I am very thankfull to you, dear Joe. Because thanks to your contribution, I can be more hopeful in my expectation regarding to the acceptation of my Quantum Ring Theory, because the scientific community needs finally to realize that the double-field concept is indispensable, and the mono-field concept must be replaced.
More than 10 years ago, some reputable physicists, among them some Nobel Laureated, wrote the book Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics, promoted by the Center for Frontier Sciences (hosted by the Temple University).
http://books.google.com.br/books?id=mvZ_1rhGCbgC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=successor+of+quantum+mechanics&source=bl&ots=yt5Lq6Koyi&sig=6Z2KUZTkUi7FimZlUEeyOcjSetM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hP9WU6i4F6ngsAT3noAo&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=successor%20of%20quantum%20mechanics&f=false
In the book the physicists made conjectures about what sort of theory must be developed, so that to become the successor of Quantum Mechanics, because the theory live together with several unacceptable puzzles, and those theorists have the hope that the puzzles will be eliminated in a future theory, the successor of Quantum Mechanics.
Then I wrote a letter to Nancy Kolenda, the editor-in-chief of the magazine Frontier Perspectives (published by the Center of Frontier Sciences) telling her that my book Quantum Ring Theory is rival of the book Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics, because the two books speculate about what sort of new principles must be incorporated in Quantum Mechanics, so that to develop a theory successor of the Quantum Mechanics. And I also tell her that my QRT is the Successor of Quantum Mechanics.
Of course Nancy Kolenda did not consider seriously what I said. But the facts occuring in the last 5 years are pointing that I was right. It seems Quantum Ring Theory will indeed to become the Successor of Quantum Mechanics.
Regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I saw this approach to DFT (Density Functional Theory) and thought that this technique might help improve performance in future devices.
Best wishes on Earth Day.
Joseph Fine
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=35280.php
Apr 22, 2014
A novel approach to Density Functional Theory
(Nanowerk Spotlight) In the past decades, the Density Functional Theory (DFT) has been very successful in helping chemists and physicists understand the properties of matter at extremely small scales. Despite this theory being based on some rather strong assumptions – such as, for instance, local density approximations for exchange-correlation effects – it represents an important theoretical tool which is now used on a daily basis.
For example, researchers have demonstrated through DFT calculations:
that piezoelectricity can be engineered into non-piezoelectric graphene by selective surface adsorption of atoms on only one side, which breaks inversion symmetry (“Dynamically controlling graphene’s properties with engineered piezoelectricity”); that graphane and fluorographene can be paired together through the C-H···F-C hydrogen bonds (“Employing weak interactions to engineer band structures in graphene”); the identification of the most energetically stable platinum-ruthenium structure for catalysts in fuel cells (“Nanocrystal catalyst transforms impure hydrogen into electricity”).
The success of DFT relies on the fact that the challenging quantum N-body problem is reduced to a set of N single-body Schrödinger equations which are numerically easier to treat, where the N equations are coupled by a density functional which models the exchange-correlation effects.
Now, even assuming that we have an exact functional for these effects, some problems still remain in the standard implementation of DFT: 1) the theory is based on the Schrödinger formalism, i.e. complex valued wave-functions which have no counterpart in the real world; and 2) it is difficult to scale these deterministic algorithms (usually based on finite difference and/or finite element methods), i.e. complex quantum systems consisting of a relatively big number of atoms is difficult to simulate even on parallel machines.
Very recently, exciting results have been achieved by two scientists, Dr. J.M. Sellier and Prof. I. Dimov, at the Institute of Information and Communication Technologies (IICT) of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Sofia. Reporting their findings in Journal of Computational Physics (“A Wigner Monte Carlo approach to density functional theory”), they have been able to use the Wigner formalism of Quantum Mechanics to simulate chemical systems.
This represents an important result since the researchers’ approach is based on Monte Carlo techniques – a mathematical method which strongly relies on the generation of independent random numbers to solve very complicated integro-differential equations.
“In our work, we propose a variant of the standard DFT, where the set of coupled single-electron Schrödinger equations in the Kohn-Sham system is substituted by an equivalent set of single-electron Wigner equations, which are solved by the Wigner Monte Carlo method,” Sellier tells Nanowerk. “There are two big advantages using this approach: 1) the theory is based on the Wigner formalism, i.e. on intuitive (quasi) distribution functions which are easy to understand when compared to experimental results; 2) it scales incredibly well being based on Monte Carlo techniques, i.e. it paves the way towards the simulation of very complex chemical and physical systems at a quantum level.”
This image shows the probability density in a Hydrogen (H2) molecule. In particular it is possible to see how the method predicts correctly the creation of a chemical bond between the two hydrogen atoms. (Image: Dr. Sellier)
This represents an important result since the researchers’ approach is based on Monte Carlo techniques – a mathematical method which strongly relies on the generation of independent random numbers to solve very complicated integro-differential equations.
Sellier and Dimov validate this new approach by applying it to the study of three different quantum systems: a lithium atom; a Boron atom; and an hydrogenic molecule in two different configurations (close and far apart nuclei). Furthermore, in the last system, a comparison with the standard DFT is performed.
If you are interested in digging deeper into this subject, you can find more details along with a list of publications and animations at http://www.nano-archimedes.com.
Dr. Sellier and Prof. Dimov are very enthusiastic about this new approach, which is being perceived as an important evolution of DFT by the scientific community. It paves the way towards scalable simulations of complex chemical and nanotechnology systems that can now run on relatively small parallel machines.
By Michael Berger. Copyright © Nanowerk
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you, very interesting,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Robert Curto,
A bit off topic but the readers may find this interesting.
When I was at Loyola the direction for finding cures swung towards manipulating the DNA of the cancer cells. As you know the reason that cancer is so destructive is that something(radiation, chemical contact etc) changed the DNA of normal cells that removed the process which kept the cells from reproducing themselves unchecked. In the cancer cell, this then allowed the cancer to reproduce itself continuously crowding out all the normal cells and leading to the destruction of the mother organ. The thought was that if you could alter the DNA of the cancer cells so that they lost the ability to reproduce themselves you could stop their effects. One method that proved to be effective was to use radiation impinging on the site of the cancer. It was well known that this altered the DNA of cells. However in many cases it caused unwanted side effects but it is one of the most widely use curative procedures in use today. In my opinion the research into the use of specific DNA altering chemicals and their transport to specific cancer sites will be the final solution and that is the direction many research centers are pursuing. If this can be done without destructive side effects the problem would be solved. Some researchers are predicting that this will be accomplished within 5 years.
Dear Joe,
yesterday I posted a comment saying the following:
————————————————————
But one thing we can be sure: the model of elementary particles composed by TWO concentric fields is indispensable for the explanation of the reason why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero.
And any theory developed from a concept of mono-field for the elementary particles cannot explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero.
And therefore the unsatisfactory feature of any model developed from the mono-field concept is pointing to us that there is only one way to solve the puzzle: it is by adopting the double-field concept for elementary particles.
So, there is no way to solve the puzzle from the models of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
And any model developed via the concept of mono-field of elementary particles cannot be successful.
———————————————————–
.
Joe,
the Quantum Field Theory, QFT, is a mono-field theory.
Please respond the following questions:
1- Do you think it is possible to explain the magnetic moment zero of the even-even nuclei with Z=N from the foundations of the mono-field QFT ?
2- Does QFT violate the monopolar nature of the electric charge ?
3- In the case your answer will be “YES” for the question 2, do you think QFT can be a correct theory ?
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in April 21st, 2014 at 9:07 PM
Wladimir,
If it is possible for the Sn of a nucleon to not move while its Sp is orbiting the 2He4, why does the Sn move and follow the Sp in the case of an electron traveling in a circle and inducing a magnetic field?
———————————————
Joe,
perhaps you will understand it well by this way:
1- When the deuteron is alone, its flux n(o) excites the permeabilitons, and they form the secondary field Sn(2H) with positive charge +1.
2- While in the 2He4 alone, its flux n(o) excites the permeabilitons, and they form the secondary field Sn(4He) with positive charge +2.
3- When the deuteron perforates the secondary field Sn(4He) of the 2He4 and it is captured by the flux n(o) of the 2He4, the deuteron goes moving about the 2He4, and they form together the secondary field Sn(6Li) of the 3Li as follows:
3.1- The flux n(o) of the deuteron excites the permeabilitons and so its contribution is a charge +1 for the secondary field of the 3Li6.
3.2- The flux n(o) of the 2He4 excites the permeabilitons and so its contribution is a charge +2 for the secondary field of the 3Li6.
Therefore the charge +3 of the 3Li6 is induced by the flux n(o) of the deuteron working together with the flux n(o) of the 2He4, and the motion of the deuteron about the 2He4 has not any contribution.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in April 21st, 2014 at 9:07 PM
Wladimir,
If it is possible for the Sn of a nucleon to not move while its Sp is orbiting the 2He4, why does the Sn move and follow the Sp in the case of an electron traveling in a circle and inducing a magnetic field?
———————————————
Joe,
imagine a deuteron orbiting a 2He4 within the principal field Sp(6Li) of the nucleus 3Li6.
The secondary field Sn(6Li) of the 3Li6 is formed by the overlap between the positive secondary field Sn(4He) of the 2He4 and the positive secondary field Sn(2H) of the deuteron.
The secondary positive field Sn(6Li) of the 3Li6 is very large (it has the radius in order of the Bohr radius 10^-11 meters).
While the deuteron gyrates about the 2he4 with a orbit radius of 10^-15 meters (10.000 times shorter than the Bohr radius).
Therefore the rotation of the deuteron about the central 2He4 makes no difference in the positive charge of the 3Li6, produced by the secondary field Sn(6Li).
In another words: there is only one secondary field Sn(6Li) of the 3Li6, and the deuteron contributes for its positive charge. However the rotation of the deuteron about the central 2He4 does not induce magnetic moment because its secondary field Sn(2H) is diluted in the secondary field of the 3Li6, and therefore the electric positive charge of the deuteron does not gyrate about the 2He4.
.
In order to be captured by flux n(o) the 2He4 (so that to form the 3Li6), the deuteron needs to perforate the secondary field of the 2He4, and the 2He4 needs to perforate the secondary field of the deuteron. And their secondary fields overlap.
But suppose that a deuteron would be moving about a 2He4 without they perforate one the secondary field of the other.
In this case there would not be overlap of their secondary fields. And so the secondary field of the deuteron would be gyrating about the secondary field of the 2He4, with an orbit with the Bohr radius R= 10^-14m, and the positive charge of the deuteron would induce a magnetic moment (of course such sort of motion does not exist, I used it only as a didactic resource so that to ilustrate how the secondary field works).
.
Now consider the electron moving about a proton, in the hydrogen atom. The electron is moving with the Bohr radius R= 10^-14m , and its secondary field Sn(e) goes moving together concentrically with the inner principal field Sp(e).
So, the secondary field Sn(e) of the electron gyrates with the Bohr radius about the secondary field Sn(p) of the proton, and that’s why the electron induces a magnetic field.
When a free electron moves in a rectilinear displacement (the center of its helical trajectory describes a rectilinear line), the flux n(o) of the electron goes causing excitation of the permeabilitons P(-) and p(-). The permeabilitons p(-) induce the secondary field Sn(e) of the electron, and it does not gyrate, as already explained. But the secondary field Sn(e) follows the displacement of the electron, leaving back the permeabilitons, magnetons, electricitons, and gravitons which compose its field, and at the same time it goes capturing ahead the motion other permeabilitons, magnetons, electricitons, and gravitons so that to replace those abandoned along the displacement (the phenomenon of substitution frequence, already explained).
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
If it is possible for the Sn of a nucleon to not move while its Sp is orbiting the 2He4, why does the Sn move and follow the Sp in the case of an electron traveling in a circle and inducing a magnetic field?
All the best,
Joe
Dear eernie1, you were very fortunate to be cured of colon cancer in 1982.
I find it interesting that you were involved with Loyola Medical Center.
It is among the top places in the Country.
There are many places looking for a better treatment for cancer.
Mankind has been looking for 3,000 years.
I am aware of three places:
Dr. Matsumura
MD Anderson
CLOP Children’s Hospital Of Philadelphia
Dr. Matsumura developed SAFE chemo, it is chemo without any side effects
As you are aware chemo harms the immune system.
It is in Clinical Trial at two locations.
IF you want to email me, I may be able to go into more detail.
In any event, I find you a fascinating person and am glad to have met you
here on the JoNP.
Robert Curto
Frank Acland:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
On the puzzle why even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero
Dear Joe,
I think the puzzle of the zero magnetic moment for the even-even nuclei with Z=N must be solved by eliminating the presence of electricitons within the principal field Sp of proton and electron.
The original interaction-laws of the particles of the aether I had proposed in my comment of March 9th, 2014 at 7:50 AM , (press the button number 2 of the Comments to Physics of rotating and expanding black hole universe).
So, we have to change some of the interaction-laws between the particles of the aether, and to change a little the structure of the aether, as follows:
First change: adoption of another kind of magneton:
—————————————————————————————-
There are magnetons m(+) and m(-) , and magnetons M(+) and M(-)
—————————————————————————————-
.
Laws of interaction forming the fields of the proton:
Law 1- The body-ring of proton gyrates and induces the flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) with the speed c of light.
Law 2- The flux n(o) gyrates and induces two fields formed by permeabilitons p(+) and P(+).
.
Second change:it occurs in the interactions due to permeabilitons p(+) and P(-) with other particles:
Law 3- The field formed by P(+) captures magnetons M(+). The magnetons M(+) interact with the gravitons G(+), in order that a field composed by magnetons M(+) and gravitons G(+) is formed about the proton. This is the principal field of the proton, named Sp(p).
The field Sp(p) gyrates together with the rotation of the flux n(o).
Law 3.1- Permeabilitons P(+) actuate in shorter distance than permeabilitons p(+).
For this reason the principal field Sp(p) has a very short radius, while the secondary field Sn(p) has a very large radius.
Law 3.2- The magnetons M(+) have repulsion with the magnetons m(+). In order that the formation of the field composed by magnetons M(+) in the principal field Sp(p) of the proton avoid the prensence of magnetons m(+), and so the permeabilitons p(+) in the principal field Sp(p) of the proton cannot capture magnetons m(+). As the electricitons e(+) interact with magnetons m(+), (see Law 4), but the magnetons m(+) are not allowed in the field Sp(p), then the principal field Sp(p) of the proton is free of electric properties.
Law 3.3- The magnetons “M” do not interact with the electricitons “e”.
Therefore an electric charge, as for instance of a deuteron, gyrating within the principal field Sp(p) of the lithium nucleus 3Li6 will not induce a magnetic moment (due to the monopolar nature of the electric charge), because:
a) There are no electricitons in the principal field Sp(6Li) of the nucleus 3Li6
b) The charge of the deuteron is situated in the secondary field Sn(6Li) of the nucleus 3Li6. As the secondary field does not gyrate, it means that the charge of the deuteron will not induce magnetic moment (due to the monopolar nature of the electric charge). Pay attention that, in spite of the deuteron gyrates about the central 2He4 in the nucleus 3Li6, however the electric charge of the deuteron does not gyrate about the central 2He4, because the secondary field (responsible for the electric charge of the deuteron is outer of the principal field) and it does not gyrate about the central 2He4. Therefore the electric charge of the deuteron cannot induce a magnetic moment due to its rotation about the central 2He4, because its positive charge (produced by the secondary field of the deuteron) do not move about the 2He4.
Then we realize that the monopolar nature of the electric charge does not work when a positive charge as the deuteron is captured by the flux n(o) of the central 2He4 in any nucleus, ( no matter if it is even-even with Z=N, or not ).
Law 4- The field formed by p(+) captures gravitons g(+). The gravitions g(+) capture magnetons m(+). And the magnetons m(+) capture electricitons e(+). Therefore a gravito-magnetic-electric field is formed. This field is the outer secondary field Sn(p) of the proton, and it is concentric with the inner principal field Sp(p). This secondary field Sn(p) does not gyrate, because it is an extension of the aether around the principal field Sp(p) of the proton, meaning that such secondary field is a portion of the aether surrounding the proton, a field composed by p(+) , m(+), e(+), g(+).
Law 5- In the secondary field Sn(p), the interaction g(+)-g(+) decreases slowly with the growth of the radius of the secondary field, while the interaction g(+)-m(+) decreases fast.
That’s why the electromagnetic field actuates in short distances. Unlike, the gravitational field actuates in long distances.
Law 6- There is repulsion between electricitons “e” and gravitons “G”.
Therefore the electron does not falls down within the proton when they interact, because:
a) the electricitons e(+) of the proton’s outer secondary field Sn(p) have repulsion with the gravitons G(-) of the inner principal field Sp(e) of the electron.
b) the electricitons e(-) of the electron’s outer secondary field Sn(e) have repulsion with the gravitons G(+) of the inner principal field Sp(p) of the proton.
Law 7- The magnitude of the interaction between electricitons “e” and gravitons “G” depends on the relative speed between them.
The relative motion between electricitons “e” and gravitons “G” in the hydrogen atom depends on two relative motions:
a) The rotation of the electron about the proton (interaction between their secondary and principal fields).
b) The spin of the electron and the spin of the proton (the rotation of the gravitons G(+) due to spin of the flux n(o) of the proton interacts with the secondary field of the electron, and vice-versa ).
Due to the fast speed of interaction “e-G” , it has the same magnitude of the electromagnetic interactions.
The experiments show that the strong nuclear force in the scattering proton-proton increases with the growth of the relative speed between the two prótons. So, as the electricitons e(+) of one of the prótons interact with the gravitons G(+) of the other proton (and vice-versa), the strong nuclear force can be considered as an interaction “e-G” which depends on the speed of the interaction.
The same happens in the interaction proton-neutron. The experiments showed that when the proton and the neutron have parallel spins, the interaction is 60% stronger than when they have antiparallel spins. This occurs because in the case of parallel spins the velocity of the interaction “e-G” is faster than the spin is antiparallel. The influence of the spin in the interaction proton-neutron is explained in the page 207 of the book Quantum Ring Theory.
Law 8- While the interaction between gravitons “g” is 10^40 times weaker thant the electromagnetic interaction, the interaction “e-G” gets the same magnitude of the electrogmanetic interactions, thanks to the contribution of the relative speed between the electricitons “e” and gravitons “G”.
.
Dear Joe,
as you see, we have to improve the model of the aether structure, in order to eliminate the inconsistences.
But one thing we can be sure: the model of elementary particles composed by TWO concentric fields is indispensable for the explanation of the reason why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero.
And any theory developed from a concept of mono-field for the elementary particles cannot explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero.
And therefore the unsatisfactory feature of any model developed from the mono-field concept is pointing to us that there is only one way to solve the puzzle: it is by adopting the double-field concept for elementary particles.
So, there is no way to solve the puzzle from the models of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
And any model developed via the concept of mono-field of elementary particles cannot be successful.
Regards
Wlad
Dear Andrea,
You may find this story interesting. http://www.gereports.com/post/82402621133/this-jet-engine-cannot-fly-but-it-can-help-save-lives
It discusses ‘aeroderivative’ jet engines produced by GE which has been used in places like the Texas Medical Center to provide electricity, heat and cooling to the Texas Medical Center in Houston.
Is this the kind of application you are conducting R&D on at the moment?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Robert Curto,
I am very interested in cancer research for two reasons. The most important is the fact that I was cured of colon cancer in 1982, and was diagnosed recently as a possible prostate cancer candidate. At my age(84)signs of prostate cancer is found in most males. The second reason is that I was involved with cancer research at the Loyola Medical Center in the seventies which consisted mainly of injecting promising drugs into specially prepared animals(mostly mice which had specific cancers implanted). When the cancers showed signs of remission they were released for clinical testing in human subjects immediately. Since the patients had short life expectancies, side effects were not considered important. Today if you search the literature, you will find a number of companies who claim possible curative drugs(Northwest Bio(NWBO)etc). Dr Matsamura was one individual that I followed. Hopefully one of the sources will succeed and the dreadful disease overcome.
Greg Leonard:
A bit of philosophical answer: maybe you need a dialectic evolution (synthesis) made by the intersubjective confrontation between evolutionists ( thesis) and standards defendants ( antithesis), where the “maybe” is a socratic derivative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear AR,
You should not apologise.
The English language is constantly evolving, and spelling is just such an example: you may find in 100 years that everyone spells it indipendent.
When I pronounce the word, it comes out as an ‘i’ – and there is absolutely no confusion which ever way it is spelled.
A bit of a philosophical question: will spell checkers halt the evolution of language?
Greg
Errata:
in my last post, instead of:
This explains why the electron does falls down within the proton
the correct is:
This explains why the electron does NOT falls down within the proton.
Dear Joe
it seems that to consider that the field Sp and the field Sn have both them electric nature introduce some philosophical inconsistence in the double-concentri-field concept.
So, perhaps the best way is to consider the following:
1- The principal field Sp(p) of the proton is formed by gravitons g(+), which induce the electric secondary positive field Sn(p)
2- The principal field Sp(e) of the electron is formed by gravitons g(-), which induce the electric secondary negative field Sn(e).
3- The field Sp(p) of the proton attracts gravitons G(+), and the field Sp(e) of the electron attracts gravitons G(-).
4- There is repulsion betweeen gravitons G(+) and G(-)
5- Therefore, the secondary fiels Sn(p) of the proton and the secondary field Sn(e) of the electron have electric attraction, which the principal fields Sp(p)and Sp(e) have gravitational repulsion. This explains why the electron does falls down within the proton.
6- However a puzzle appears: we have to consider that the repulsion between the gravitons G(+) and G(-) has the same magnitude of the electromagnetic interaction. So, in spite of the interaction between gravitons g(+) and g(-) is 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetism, the interaction between gravitons G(+) and G(-) has the same magnitude of the electromagnetism.
So, such puzzle needs to be solved
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in April 20th, 2014 at 11:38 PM
Wladimir,
Your idea of “blindage” can not work. The reason for this is that, although we say that a moving electric charge creates a magnetic field, it is really a changing electric FIELD that induces a magnetic field. If the space around a proton were rendered neutral by a neutron orbiting the proton, no electric field about the proton would be possible. And subsequently no magnetic field would be possible either. Although this would give you what you want (an induced magnetic moment of zero by the proton’s charge), the reality is that we DO sense an electric field about the deuteron related to the proton’s charge. (In fact, that is how we know that a deuteron even has an electric charge.) And with an orbiting electric field, we should get an induced magnetic field and hence a NON-null magnetic moment by the deuteron’s charge orbiting the central 2He4.
————————————————————
Dear Joe,
if you were right, then independently of any theoretical nuclear model would be IMPOSSIBLE to explain the magnetic moment zero of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
In another words: if you were right, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to exist even-even nuclei with Z=N having zero magnetic moment in the Nature.
Again, you are thinking classically.
The proton has a negative principal field Sp(p), and a positive secondary field Sn(p)
The electron has a positive principal field Sp(e), and a negative secondary field Sn(e).
In spite of there is attraction proton-electron, the electron does not follow within the proton because when their secondary fields overlap, the secondary fiel Sn(e) of the electron has repulsion with the principal field Sp(p) of the proton.
Let us see what happens with a deuteron is captured by a nucleus 2He4?
1- It has a principal field Sp with charge zero, and a secondary field Sn with charge zero
2- The deuteron has a principal field Sp with negative charge, and a secondary field Sn with positive charge.
3- In order to be captured by the 2he4, the secondary field Sn of the deuteron must be perfurated.
4- So, when the deuteron is captured, its secondary field Sn involves the deuteron and the 2He4. The charge of such secondary field Sn of the deuteron is detected in the experiments. This is what we DO sense an electric field about the deuteron related to the proton’s charge
5- However, the deuteron is situated within the principal field Sp of the 2He4.
6- The spin of the principal field Sp of the deuteron induces its secondary positive secondary field Sn, However the rotation of the proton about the central 2He4 does not induce a magnetic field, because the charge of the proton is actually situated outside in the secondary field.
7- The proton has a residual small charge within the principal field of the 2He4. But its rotation do not induce a magnetic field, because the neutron of the deuteron gyrates about the proton, avoiding the interaction between the proton and the particles of the aether ahead the motion.
Dear Joe,
this idea of two concentric fields Sp and Sn of the elementary particles is the unique mechanism able to explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero.
Without considering it, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to explain why those nuclei have magnetic moment zero.
Therefore, even if there is some philosophical inconsistence in my model of field composed by principal and secondary fields, then we have to eliminate the inconsistence, by adopting new assumptions able to eliminate all the contradictions.
This is the unique way: the idea of double-concentric-fields.
Because it is impossible to explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero by considering the classical concept of mono-field adopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics
Only the concept of double-concentric fields can solve the puzzle.
regards
wlad
eernie1, yes I am referring to Dr. Ken Matsumura
During the past 6 years, we have exchanged 963
emails.
As you may suspect, I am a big Fan.
If you or someone else is interested in his work,
or cancer research you may email me.
bobbycurto@webtv.net
I may be able to update you.
Robert Curto
Wladimir,
Your idea of “blindage” can not work. The reason for this is that, although we say that a moving electric charge creates a magnetic field, it is really a changing electric FIELD that induces a magnetic field. If the space around a proton were rendered neutral by a neutron orbiting the proton, no electric field about the proton would be possible. And subsequently no magnetic field would be possible either. Although this would give you what you want (an induced magnetic moment of zero by the proton’s charge), the reality is that we DO sense an electric field about the deuteron related to the proton’s charge. (In fact, that is how we know that a deuteron even has an electric charge.) And with an orbiting electric field, we should get an induced magnetic field and hence a NON-null magnetic moment by the deuteron’s charge orbiting the central 2He4.
All the best,
Joe
Italo R.:
You are totally right, and I am an ignorant: I always wrote “indipendent”, but your comment made me check the dictionary: the Italian “indipendente”, which I translated always as “indipendent”, has instead to be translated “independent”. I learnt it right now, sorry for this error that I repeated again and again…therefore now I have to repeat, correctly, with the help of Orsobubu, who reminds to me that:” the results of the third independent party test can be positive, but also negative”.
Thank you Timar, God bless you.
A.R.
A nice joke on e-catworld.com:
“…Timar • 17 hours ago
…”
I suggest that when the report has finally come out, and it is positive as to be expected, we shall officially change the spelling of the word “independent” to “indipendent” in honour of Andrea Rossi
Wlad, in the same post it seems his group has something original to publish
>Neanderthal jonnyb • 2 days ago
We are working in one direction in our theoretical proof. You may or may not be aware that this is a multi body problem. I can not speak for rossi in his upcomingTheoretical proof. But it does seem plausibe that he is going in the realms of the Quantum ring theory.Which I support strongly. Yes Chubbs mechanism is only half the story. This is not a small issue but moreso a unification mechanism in our intinsic laws. Our Theory brings a concept of a term/s that lie in in the complex frequency domain it requires a beautiful term that is a modular function already discovered by an indian mathematician. Any Mathematical physicist can verify our publications for its sincerity when it is released .The dragon has a beautiful side.
Dear Joe,
in 1993 I started to read the book Quantum Physics by Eisberg and Resnick.
When I inspected the explanation on how the magnetic moment of the deuteron is calculated theoretically, it seemed to me very strange.
In the book Eisberg and Resnick mention the explanation also mentioned in the Wikipedia: because the deuteron is 96% of the time in the state L= 0, and 4% of the time in the state L= 2, the theoretical calculation shows that the combination of the two states reproduce the magnetic moment +0,857 of the deuteron measured in experiments.
However, this explanation is very strange, because if it was true, then the experiments would have to detect the following:
1- In 96% of the measurements, the experiment would have to get μ = +0,879
2- In 4% of the measurements, the experiments would have to get μ = +0,310
I never understood that method of calculation.
So, we realize that the nuclear theorists, when they cannot get theoretically some value measured in the experiments, they make use of strange methods which make no sense from the physical viewpoint, and they compensate the missing of logic by using sophisticated mathematical assumptions, which mask the nonsense of the method of calculation.
Of course, from some adequate assumptions, it is possible from this method of calculation getting any result they wish.
And when from their calculations they do not succeed to reproduce the experimental values, they use this strategy, which is nothing more than a desperate way for explaining the nuclear phenomena, so that to fit their theories to the experimental findings.
regards
wlad
Dear Joe,
in April 15th, 2014 at 5:37 PM I wrote a reply to you, saying:
———————————–
In the even-even nuclei with Z=N as 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, etc, all they are formed by deuterons captured by the central 2He4.
Suppose that in each one of all those deuterons, the neutron of that deuteron gyrates about the proton.
As the neutron has charge zero, it is possible the neutron creates a neutral blindage (armour) about the proton, and such blindage avoid the interaction of the proton’s charge with the particles of the aether.
By this way, all the positive charges of the deuterons in the nuclei 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, etc do not induce magnetic moment due to the rotation of the nucleus, because the blindage of the neutron do not allow them to interact with the aether.
The same can happens in the case of the nucleus 2He4.
———————————————————-
Joe,
there is evidence corroborating such conjecture that the neutron gyrates about the proton in the structure of the deuteron, as I explain ahead.
1- Magnetic moment of the proton is μ= +2,793
2- Magnetic moment of the neutron is μ= -1,913
3- Difference: . . . . . . . . . . ∆μ= +0,880
Therefore, if the deuteron would have no rotation, and the neutron would not be moving about the proton, the magnetic moment of the deuteron would have to be μ= +0,880.
In Wikipedia the calculation of the deuteron magnetic moment give:
—————————————————
For the s = 1, l = 0 state (j = 1), we obtain
μ = {1\2}({g^{(s)}}_p + {g^{(s)}}_n) = 0.879
For the s = 1, l = 2 state (j = 1), we obtain
μ = -{1\4}({g^{(s)}}_p + {g^{(s)}}_n) + {3\ 4} = 0.310
——————————————-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium
.
As the calculation by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics do not give the experimental result, they consider that the magnetic moment of the deuteron is a combination of the stares.
In Wikipedia they say:
The measured value of the deuterium magnetic dipole moment, is 0.857 µN. This suggests that the state of the deuterium is indeed only approximately s = 1, l = 0 state, and is actually a linear combination of (mostly) this state with s = 1, l = 2 state.
.
Now let us consider that the conjecture supposing that the neutron gyrates about the proton in the sctruture of the deuteron.
As we have seen, if the deuteron would have no rotation, and the neutron would not be gyrating about the proton, the magnetic moment of the deuteron would be:
μ= +0,880
But as the deuteron has rotation, then the positive μ= +0,880 induces an additional positive ∆μ. Suppose that ∆μ = +0,02
Therefore, if the neutron had no rotation about the proton, the magnetic moment of the deuteron, by considering the rotation of the deuteron, would be:
μ = +0,880 +0,02 = +0,900
But as the rotation of μ= +0,880 induces ∆μ = +0,02, then the neutron moving about the proton with magnetic moment μ= -1,913 will induce in the structure of the deuteron:
∆μ = -0,02x(1,913/0,88) = -0,043
And therefore the magnetic moment of the deuteron considering its rotation and the neutron gyrating about the proton is:
μ = +0,88 + 0,02 – 0,043 = +0,857, which is the experimental value of the magnetic moment of the deuteron.
So, we dont need to consider the magnetic moment of the deuteron as a combination of two states, as considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics (which is a very strange hypothesis).
And so we realize that my conjecture of the neutron gyrating about the proton in the deuteron has experimental corroboration.
regards
wlad
orsobubu wrote in April 19th, 2014 at 1:58 PM
Wlad, did you see here
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/17/lenr-a-dragon-with-many-tails/
and here
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/15/e-cat-report-watch-thread/
they are posting about scientists adopting your QRT in their researches on LENR theorization
————————————————
COMMENT
Dear Orsobubu
no, I had not seen it.
Thanks for having pointed it to me.
In the first link Mr. Neanderthal said:
——————————————–
Neanderthal georgehants • a day ago
I appreciate your response. In response to your question. Observables do give us an indication of how we try to make sense of our world. But it depend on who your asks. And how we interpret them. As it stands our Nuclear understanding in the quantum realm is incomplete. However QRT seems to cast a positive light and explains anomalies that can not be answer with our existing tool kits .
——————————————
.
And in the second link the Admyin of the E-CAt World said:
——————————————
Today Neanderthal wrote this comment in another thread:
I work for one of the most prestigious Scientific Institutes in the UK.
We have been keeping a very close eye on this particular development. We know that the Lenr phenomena is real — we have studied literature in their abundance and have concluded this new science is a dragon with many tails. Let’s say that the general attitudes and direction among our colleagues have more weight than mere whispers in the refreshment rooms.
——————————————
So, dear Mr. Orsobubu,
it means that Mr. Neanderthal is a serious scientist, he knows what he is saying, and he is not alone. He has colleagues sharing his opinion.
I’m glad in seeing that scientists are finally realizing that my QRT is able to explain the nuclear puzzles impossible to be explained by the Standard Nuclear Physics.
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
It is absolutely sure that the report will be published, whatever the results, positive or negative as they might be. This is the imposition given to us from the Third Indipendent Party Professors as a condition to accept to make the test. They demanded that they will publish the results inconditionally, even if the results will be negative. What said above is granted.
What follows is an opinion of mine, that could be wrong: the report should be published by the end of June. My opinion is based upon the fact that yesterday I have talked with two of the Commettee members and they said that possibly the publication could be made by the end of June. I did not get any anticipation regarding the calculation of the efficiency, while they repeated to me that to analyse millions of data takes time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Do you have a commitment from the authors and reviewers that the third party report will be published, regardless of the results?
In other words, can we be assured that the report will not be ‘buried’ and never see the light of day?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Wlad, did you see here
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/17/lenr-a-dragon-with-many-tails/
and here
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/15/e-cat-report-watch-thread/
they are posting about scientists adopting your QRT in their researches on LENR theorization
Andreas Moraitis wrote in April 18th, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Dear Wladimir,
I think that Andrea Rossi meant that the “standard” is defined by nature, not by physics. Physicists can try to decode that standard, but in no way they can define it themselves. I agree, however, that this epistemological foundation is sometimes misunderstood.
———————————-
COMMENT
No, it is not what Rossi meant.
There is a nuclear structure existing in the Nature.
From the nuclear properties detected in experiments, the physicists tried along the 20th Century to discover what is the nuclear structure existing in the Nature.
From such procedure, some nuclear laws were stabilished, and this theory is known as the Standard Nuclear Physics.
Recent experiments published between 2009 and 2013 show that light nuclei do not follow many of the nuclear laws addopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
And therefore the nuclear structure existing in the Nature does not work with the nuclear laws addopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
In another words: the nuclear models addopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics are different of the nuclear model existing in the Nature.
regards
wlad
Steven N.Karels:
I cannot give this information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Since the E-Cat operation is insensitive to gravity, can we conclude that during normal operation there are no liquids, such as lithium (melting point 180.5C, boiling point 1,330C), within the reactor?
Dear eernie1, I forgot to add.
Of course it would be great for E-Cat to get the safety certification for the domestic E-Cats.
Robert Curto
Dear Robert Curto,
Are you referring to Dr Ken Matsumura? He claims to be able to deliver side effect free chemo treatment which cured many patients. If you read his statements on his web site,he states that he received approval to begin clinical testing of his method in four days after submission of his proposal. Would you say it was close to immediate? He also claims that main stream medical institutions are trying to disrupt his efforts.
Steven N. Karels:
The E-Cat’s operation is not affected from gravity. Horizontal orientation is just simpler to set up.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Can your eCat units work in any alignment relative to gravity? Specifically, we see photos of a horizontal eCat functioning. Will it work equally as well in the vertical orientation?
Dr.Rossi, this is a copy of an email, I sent to my friends:
Dr. Andrea Rossi invented the E-Cat.
It will provide inexpensive heat and electricity, with zero emissions and zero
waste.
No radioactive rods that take 300,000 years to decay.
Dr. Rossi has a website where readers can post.
Well this one person posted how a drug is released IMMEDIATELY.
Well I could not let that stand, so I sent the enclosed email to Dr. Rossi.
He asked me to post it on his website, JoNP.
Journal of Nuclear Physics.
I don’t which is going to come first:
Dr. Rossi’s success in Physics, or
Dr. Matsumura’s Nobel in Medicine.
And both of them are my email buddies.
Am I lucky or what.
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Dear Robert Curto,
In the past some drugs bypassed much of the standard testing procedure you outlined. Especially in those cases where the drugs were the last resort for a patient. Despite all the precautions that are taken most drugs carry side effects that are known which do not keep them from use. In fact many drugs dealing with cancer were released before complete testing on the premise that the side effects were more acceptable than the death of the patient. The years of testing if the drugs were not released early would have resulted in many lost lives. How many lives can be saved if the Rossi devices can be approved for use as soon as possible. HIV drugs also were released early.
TO THE READERS OF THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS:
TODAY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED THE NEW PAPER ” A BRIEF REPORT ON HUBBLE VOLUME, MOLAR ELECTRON MASS AND THE FOUR COSMOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS”, BY PROF. S. LAKSMINARAYANA (INDIA) AND PROF. U.V.S. SESHAVATHARAM (INDIA).
JoNP’s B.o.A.
Robert Curto:
Thank you for your precisation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frederic Maillard:
I am not involved in commercial issues.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1) Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that only a handful of 1 MW E-Cats have been sold so far. Why so few as they have been certified by SGS for quite some time (Sept 2012) ?
2) Any idea of when anyone of these clients will accept to publicize this acquisition ?
Many thanks for your reply,
Best regards
Frederic
Dr. Rossi, Fernie 1 wrote:
“In Pharmaceutical testing procedures a drug that shows positive results in mitigating physical problems is IMMEDIATELY released for patient use.
It does not work that way.
First the Drug Company experiments with many drugs, for God knows how long.
When they find one that shows promise in the Lab, they try it on animals, then they apply to the FDA to do Clinical Trials.
Clinical trail One is on a few patients for safety.
Then they do Clinical Trail Two on a larger group, maybe a hundred, for safety, side effects, and effectiveness.
Then they do Clinical Trial Three which involves thousands of patients, at maybe 6 Centers.
If it shows some positive results, maybe 30 or 40% they summit the data to the FDA.
The FDA studies for maybe a year or so, then they decide if they will approve it.
This takes more then 5 years, and cost a few hundred million dollars, sometimes more then a half a billion dollars.
This does not mean the drug has no side effects.
Ask someone who has had chemo for cancer.
The side effects effects are devastating.
I am a layman, who happens to be interested in cancer research.
I have exchanged over 5,000 emails with Doctors doing cancer research.
They have become my friends.
One is the Director of the Medicor Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada.
One was on the cover of Time.
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Gary Cleghorn:
Thank you, interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, this article on phys.org might be of great interest to you and your R&D team.
Researchers find tin selenide shows promise for efficiently converting waste heat into electrical energy
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-tin-selenide-efficiently-electrical-energy.html
Regards, Gary.
Hank Mills:
1- I cannot give this kind of data before the publication of the report by the Third Indipendent Party.
2- Very interesting. Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Wladimir,
I think that Andrea Rossi meant that the “standard” is defined by nature, not by physics. Physicists can try to decode that standard, but in no way they can define it themselves. I agree, however, that this epistemological foundation is sometimes misunderstood.
Best regards,
Andreas
Dear Andrea,
A couple questions and thoughts.
1) If you increase the temperature of a hot cat, lets say from 500C to 1000C, to what extent does the input power have to increase? You have told us before that the output increases with temperature. I’m thinking that the extra input should be less than the additional resulting output.
2) Indoor agriculture is a quickly growing industry. In a recent article I read, the biggest challenge and cost associated with indoor agriculture in northern areas of the United States is producing enough heat to keep the facility warm. Also, whay prohibits these companies from designing multiple story farms is the energy cost of moving people, equipment, and product up and down. I think the E-Cat would be capable of providing all the heat and electricity needed for this industry.
Andrea Rossi wrote in April 17th, 2014 at 7:47 AM
Wladimir Guglinski:
1) —————————
My friend Prof. Sergio Focardi used to say: ” They sustain that known Physics are incompatible with LENR just because they do not study enough the so called known Physics”.
The so called Rossi effect has nothing that cannot be explained by means of the well known Physics.
——————————
COMMENT
Dear Andrea
as you know, LENR encompasses a wide range of experiences and each one of them requires a different theory to explain the experimental results.
And some of the experiments cannot be explained by considering the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
For instance, in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment neutrons are emitted with energy of about 10MeV, while from the Standard Nuclear Physics only neutrons with 2MeV could be emitted.
From Standard Nuclear Physics there is no way to explain the 8MeV excess energy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm
Perhaps the Rossi efect can be explained via the known Physics, as claimed by your friend Prof. Focardi.
However, there is need to verify his claim.
Besides, even if Prof. Focari is right and Rossi effect can indeed explained via the known Physics, however it does not means that other LENR experiments can be explained either.
2) —————————
About “Standard Nuclear Physics”: this definition is an oxymoron.
——————————
COMMENT
Absolutely not.
There are some principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics which are perfectly defined, with no any contradictory sense.
For instance, in the Standard Nuclear Physics it is considered that protons and neutrons are bound within the nuclei via the strong nuclear force.
It is a well defined proposal. There is not any contradictory sense in it.
And the experiment which detected the halo neutron in the 4Be11 defy such well stablished principle of the Standard Nuclear Physics, because the strong force actuates in the maximum distance of 3fm, while the neutron halo has a distance of 7fm from the core of the 4Be11.
http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php
regards
wlad
Ok! The time has come…
Happy Easter to Dott.Rossi and all readers.
Gherardo
Gherardo:
Thank you, Happy Easter to you!
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
Fermions can be positive (protons) or negative (electrons) just like the third independent party results.
Joseph Fine
Dr Joseph Fine:
…and both can be turned into energy!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Alessandro Coppi:
I can give you my opinion, since this issue does not depend on me, absolutely. My opinion is that the publication will be made within June, but this is an opinion. I cannot give any information about the timing of the different phases of the Professors’ work ( reactor test phase, calculation phase, report writing phase, reviewing phase, publication).
Happy Easter to you,
A.R.
Hi Andrea, this is the simple question that all of us are waiting for the answer: in your opinion how much time is far the end of the 3P test? in which manner you would define better such time lapse: days, weeks, months? could we find a surprise in the egg?
Happy Easter
Alessandro Coppi
Frank Acland:
You are asking for specific answers to issues that are object of R&D. The results of the R&D process that our team is making can be positive, but also negative, so it would be trivial, from my side, to give now specific answers to your intelligent questions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski:
My friend Prof. Sergio Focardi used to say: ” They sustain that known Physics are incompatible with LENR just because they do not study enough the so called known Physics”.
The so called Rossi effect has nothing that cannot be explained by means of the well known Physics.
About “Standard Nuclear Physics”: this definition is an oxymoron.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
We are working in direction of heat production as well as in direction of electric power production. As for the scale issue, it depends on the evolution, therefore it is impossible right now to give specific answers. Opinions change with the results of tests and R&D. Please do not forget that the results of the test can be positive, but also negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Regardless of the independent testing, do you see the immediate role of eCat technology as one of warming (heat generation) at moderate temperatures or do you foresee eCat becoming the heat source for electric power plant generation with their required higher operating temperatures?
While it may be more technologically difficult going to the electricity generation route, it probably is an easier adaptation into the current energy system(s). Make the technology change at the energy generation point and make use of existing infrastructure to move the energy. Or, another way of looking at it — managing a few hundred GW eCat units might be easier than managing a million 1MW warm eCat units. Opinion?
Steven N. Karels wrote in April 16th, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Wladimir,
While LENR technology looks promising, nuclear is present technology. Its ugly parts are known. I would contend we don’t know yet if LENR has “ugly” parts.
———————————————
COMMENT
Dear Steven
the ugliest part of LENR is overthrowing the Standard Nuclear Physics
haha
regards
wlad
The contents of this article, if accurate, may turn out both to be important and have relevance to the development of the eCat:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10755598/Global-solar-dominance-in-sight-as-science-trumps-fossil-fuels.html
It is surprising ‘news’ to me.
Rodney.
Dear Andrea,
As Steven Karels mentions, the amount of input power required to run an E-Cat is a significant issue when looking at the economic viability of the E-Cat compared to other energy technologies.
I am wondering:
1. Have you been able to achieve satisfactory E-Cat performance with natural gas as an input power source?
2. Have you found any new ways (since discovering the cat and mouse configuration)to maintain optimum E-Cat output performance while reducing the amount of input energy?
3. Is it possible to control the E-Cat using methods other than applying heat?
4. If yes (question 3), are you working on developing those systems?
Thank you very much!
Frank Acland
Wladimir,
While LENR technology looks promising, nuclear is present technology. Its ugly parts are known. I would contend we don’t know yet if LENR has “ugly” parts.
My largest concern for eCat technology is the performance issue, aka COP. Nuclear, like hydro-electric, requires very little input power. If the eCat technology, for whatever reason, is limited to an effective COP of three, then it probably won’t be used for commercial electric power generation. I would guess an effective COP of 12 or higher — then it is a viable candidate.
You are right about a blend of technologies existing in the near-term. I hope for LENR — but I still have my concerns and doubts. We will see.
Mark wrote in April 15th, 2014 at 8:28 AM
I’m not here to advocate Liquid-Fluoride Thorium reactor technology but my points are to compare the operational costs of LENR and LFTR technologies. The real question is: apart from LFTR and LENR, what else do you have on the “table” for humanity? (please don’t mention renewable!). By the way, you should read more about the safety features of a LFTR reactor. I pray that Andrea will make it but he has many battles to win.
——————————-
Dear Mark,
as Andrea Rossi told here several times, the production of various energy technologies can coexist peacefully for decades.
However, if two technologies are competitive, and one of them is perfectly ecologically clean, and it is entirely safe, while the other is potentially threatened by catastrophic disasters caused by tsunamis, earthquakes, terrorism, sabotage, operational errors, etc., then obviously after some decades the potentially dangerous technology will not survive.
In my case, I am not intested in LFTR technology, but because of other reason. My miss of interest is because it is a technology based on the current old paradigm of Physics.
While the Rossi’s eCAt is a new revolutionary technology, which is inaugurating a New Era for the Humanity, openning the door for many other discoveries beyond the search for energy alternative technologies.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in April 15th, 2014 at 7:08 AM
But the problem that remains in QRT is that the spins are VERTICAL at all times, which is perpendicular to the direction of displacement. This means no helical trajectory ever possible and therefore no induced magnetic moments either. Only intrinsic magnetic moments would be allowed. This, of course, would eviscerate QRT.
—————————-
COMMENT
Joe,
the problem remains also for all the other even-even nuclei with Z=N, as 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, etc., where the problem is worst, because their positive charges due to the proton have a larger radius of rotation than it happens in the case of the 2He4.
As they have several protons gyrating in the same direction, due to the monopolar nature of the charge all those nuclei could not have magnetic moment zero.
But consider the following:
The magnetic moment induced by the charge is due to the direct interaction between the charged particle and the particles of the aether where the particle is moving.
In the even-even nuclei with Z=N as 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, etc, all they are formed by deuterons captured by the central 2He4.
Suppose that in each one of all those deuterons, the neutron of that deuteron gyrates about the proton.
As the neutron has charge zero, it is possible the neutron creates a neutral blindage (armour) about the proton, and such blindage avoid the interaction of the proton’s charge with the particles of the aether.
By this way, all the positive charges of the deuterons in the nuclei 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, etc do not induce magnetic moment due to the rotation of the nucleus, because the blindage of the neutron do not allow them to interact with the aether.
The same can happens in the case of the nucleus 2He4.
I cant see any other explanation, Joe.
And as you may realize, by considering such hypothesis we keep the monopolar nature of the charge.
So, the monopolar nature of the charge does not work in any nucleus in which a neutron gyrates about the proton (in the structure of the deuteron).
Such “particular micro-law” (not followed by the monopolar nature of the charge) is valid for any nucleus, and not only the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
But no matter what is the explanation, dear Joe, we realize the following: from the Standard Physics it is impossible to explain why even-even nuyclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
When will we hear more about the electric power generation that you have supposedly managed to achieve?
Best Regards,
Teemu
Teemu:
( second answer)
I have a great number of ideas for how to maximize the E-Cat, we are testing many of them. Every time we have an idea it is a rigorous process to evaluate and test it- which means we must have some flexibility. This process is experimental in nature and reminds me of the value of strong and trustworthy business and scientific Partners.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Wlad,
“and in terms of nuclear fuel leak caused by tsunamis or operational errors, and thousands of people infected getting cancer, the LFTR will be competitive with Fukushima or Chernobyl”
nice sarc..!!How many people died and are dying from pollutions from coal fired power stations? And diseases? And lack of clean water? Much more that Fukushima and Chernobyl combined
I’m not here to advocate Liquid-Fluoride Thorium reactor technology but my points are to compare the operational costs of LENR and LFTR technologies. The real question is: apart from LFTR and LENR, what else do you have on the “table” for humanity? (please don’t mention renewable!). By the way, you should read more about the safety features of a LFTR reactor. I pray that Andrea will make it but he has many battles to win.
Mark
Wladimir,
The following is my explanation for the direct relationship between the direction of the induced magnetic dipole moment and the direction of rotation of electric charge.
Part 1: Monopolar versus Scalar
A neutron has a magnetic moment which manifests itself as dipolar.
An electron has the same type of magnetic moment as the neutron, PLUS another type of magnetic dipole moment which includes electric charge as ONLY ONE of its many variables.
What we see as a monopolar property in the case of electric charge is really just a SCALAR property within the larger context of a dipolar property.
So now it is logical for this “monopolar” property (electric charge) to induce a dipolar property (magnetic moment).
It is not really charge that is moving but rather an electron that is moving and carrying the charge.
Part 2: Intrinsic Spin versus Helicity
Since we now know from Part 1 above that it is not electric charge that is responsible for inducing magnetic moments, we must discover the true cause of directionality of magnetic moments induced by the rotation of charge.
It is obvious that the intrinsic spin of the electron retains the same sign since only the direction of rotation of the electron causes a change in the direction of the induced magnetic moment. Otherwise, directionality would be chaotic. Therefore, the intrinsic spin of the electron can not be the cause since it is constant between opposite rotations.
Logically the only property left is helicity which is directly related to intrinsic spin. The handedness changes between opposite rotations with the sign of the intrinsic spin of the electron remaining constant.
Part 3: Standard Physics versus QRT
For two similar charges rotating in the same direction, a null result for the induced magnetic moment could only be achieved by having the sign of the intrinsic spin of one of the two particles changed.
This means that for a rotating 2He4, standard physics can account for mu = 0.
QRT can also seemingly account for mu = 0 with the presence of gravitational fluxes n(o) penetrating the rings of the nucleons in opposite directions and causing opposite spins. But the problem that remains in QRT is that the spins are VERTICAL at all times, which is perpendicular to the direction of displacement. This means no helical trajectory ever possible and therefore no induced magnetic moments either. Only intrinsic magnetic moments would be allowed. This, of course, would eviscerate QRT.
All the best,
Joe
Mark wrote in April 14th, 2014 at 9:15 PM
Hi Andrea,
My points are, if LENR is going to make to the commercial stage within 5-10 years time, its main technological competitor, in term of CO2 emission and cost, will be LFTR.
——————————————-
Dear Mark
and in terms of nuclear fuel leak caused by tsunamis or operational errors, and thousands of people infected getting cancer, the LFTR will be competitive with Fukushima or Chernobyl?
regards
wlad
This is a negative article about thorium, but remember to read the more balanced comments written by interested supporters.
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=3101
The technology seems promising, above all for positive applications in plutonium wastes recycling. More critical points are possible dangerous thorium leaks (lungs, pancreas, kidneys, liver, blood cancer)and obviously the immense risk connected to transportation of plutonium wastes. But, as always, the real problem is economics. In 1993 nuclear plants produced 17% of world energy, today, 10%. They are at loss and many are closing down. Moreover, uranium extracting price is 70 dollars/pound, while it is currently sold at 35 dollars. So, even the extractive industry is at risk. Remember that nuclear plants are very costly to maintain and securing wastes. This impacts on energy competitivity, and this is also true for thorium, a very complex technology, still not fully addressed. Today, thorium is much more costly to extract and absolutely not competititve with uranium. The price could fall well under uranium with extensive usage, but the problem would probably represent in non-profitable market prices of both the metal and the energy. In capitalism, the tragedy is that we’ll have too much energy, not the contrary.
TO ALL THE READERS OF THE JoNP:
HAPPY EASTER TO YOU ALL AND YOUR FAMILIES FROM THE TEAM I WORK WITH AND MYSELF.
ANDREA ROSSI
Hi Andrea,
First developed by ORNL in the 60s-70s by Dr. Weinberg, we understand LFTR technology well and that its waste components are about 10,000X less than existing light water nuclear reactor (most can be recycled). My points are, if LENR is going to make to the commercial stage within 5-10 years time, its main technological competitor, in term of CO2 emission and cost, will be LFTR.
Mark:
If you say so…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
Will your E-Cat technology be able to compete with LFTR (liquid fluoride Thorium reactor) technology, which could be as low as 2-3cents per KWh (electric)? China has planned to produce 200MW distributed modular units within 10 years time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayIyiVua8cY
Mark
Mark:
LFTR is a nuclear plant, it works with radioactive fuel with high level of radioactivity. Nothing to do with us, we do not use radioactive materials and we do not produce radioactive wastes. About the 2-3 cts/kWe: did you calculate the cost of nuclear wastes disposal ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JR wrote in April 14th, 2014 at 8:40 AM
Wladimir,
1)——————————
The magnetic moment of 4He is zero because the magnetic moment is defined in such a way that it is zero for spin-0 particles; nothing else is needed.
——————————–
COMMENT
Show us here where did you find such definition of the magnetic moment
2) —————————-
If you wish to define some new quantity that is similar to the magnetic moment but different, that’s fine. But you should (1) provide a definition (2) call it something different (3) not confuse it with the already-defined magnetic moment and (4) not assume it’s zero because the magnetic moment is zero.
———————————–
COMMENT:
The definition of magnetic moment is independent of the spin of the nuclei.
Definition by wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment
“The magnetic moment of a magnet is a quantity that determines the torque it will experience in an external magnetic field. A loop of electric current, a bar magnet, an electron, a molecule, and a planet all have magnetic moments“.
And magnetic moment of a nucleus:
“Since the electromagnetic moments of the nucleus depend on the spin of the individual nucleons, one can look at these properties with measurements of nuclear moments, and more specifically the nuclear magnetic dipole moment.”
Therefore, although the magnetic moment of a nucleus depends on the spin of individual nucleons, however it does not means that it depeneds ONLY on the spin of the INDIVIDUAL nucleons.
The nuclei have also rotation:
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.53.778
And therefore the magnetic moment depends also on the rotation of the nucleus.
The total spin due to the individual nucleons in the 2He4 is zero.
However, as the two protons of the 2He4 gyrate in the same direction, then (by considering the monopolar nature of the charge) the two protons have to induce a magnetic field, which will be responsible for a magnetic moment for the 2He4.
But as the experiments detect that 2He4 has no magnetic moment, this means that 2He4 violates the monopolar nature of the charge, by considering the current nuclear models.
There is no need to be a genius to understand it.
And you, Mr. JR, you are actually showing to everybody that your understanding of Physics is very poor.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
When you say that the Professors are conducting their work “in a neutral laboratory”, do you mean they are still in your premises, or instead situated in a laboratory that is not owned by you?
Best Regards,
Teemu
Teemu:
When we will be ready for the market with that.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
I’m not sure how you propose to explain the properties of nuclei if you aren’t willing to define what those properties are and then stick to those definitions. What you asked is how conventional models explain the fact that 4He has a zero magnetic moment. The magnetic moment of 4He is zero because the magnetic moment is defined in such a way that it is zero for spin-0 particles; nothing else is needed.
If you wish to define some new quantity that is similar to the magnetic moment but different, that’s fine. But you should (1) provide a definition (2) call it something different (3) not confuse it with the already-defined magnetic moment and (4) not assume it’s zero because the magnetic moment is zero.
Joe wrote in April 14th, 2014 at 12:20 AM
Wladimir,
It may be that the ultimate test of veracity in QRT is in explaining how 4Be8 is unstable while 6C12 and other nuclei with a symmetrical distribution of only deuterons, are stable.
—————————-
Joe,
the reason why 4Be8 is not stable is shown in the page page 17, item 3.13.5, Fig. 14, of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
As we see in the Fig. 14, the 4Be8 is the unique nucleus in which there are two deuterons occupying opposite perfectly symmetric positions regarding to the central 2He4.
A perfect symmetry occurs when:
1- one deuteron is in the side ANA, and the other in the side DOUGLAS
2- one deuteron is in the inferior part of ANA, and the other in the superior part of DOUGLAS (or vice-versa).
A partial symmetry occurs when one deuteron is in the superior part of ANA and the other deuteron is also in the superior part, but in the side of DOUGLAS.
A partial symmetry between a deuteron and two neutrons can be seen in the superior part of the Fig. 7.
Looking at the Fig. 14 you realize that the spin-interaction Fsi(green arrows) promotes a force of attraction between the two deuterons (the red arrows show only the direction of their spins)
In the Fig. 14 I supposed that the spin-interaction Fsi is stronger than the repulsion force Fr (pink arrow) because the 4Be8 decays in two alpha particles , and so such sort of decay requires to suppose that the two deuterons are captured by the central 2He4, and the 4Be8 decays emitting two nucleons 2He4:
4Be8 -> 2He4 + 2He4
If in the Fig. 14 the repulsion force Fr should be stronger than Fsi, then the two deuterons would be expelled in contrary direction, and the decay of 4Be8 would be:
4Be8 -> 2He4 + D + D
.
The reason why 6C12 is stable is shown in the item 3.13.6, Fig. 15 and 16.
.
With the 8O16 the first hexagonal floor is complete, and so the nuclei with Z > 8 (as 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28, etc) are stable thanks to the spin-interactions between their deuterons.
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
It may be that the ultimate test of veracity in QRT is in explaining how 4Be8 is unstable while 6C12 and other nuclei with a symmetrical distribution of only deuterons, are stable.
All the best,
Joe
Frank Acland:
No role in the measurements, just check that the E-Cat was working properly, checking the control system, looking at the surface, to be sure no cracks emerged, things like these.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You mention attending the testing for about 30 per cent of its duration. What has been your role as you have been there?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland