Anomalous mass of the neutron

by Wladimir Guglinski Mechanical Engineer graduated in the Escola de Engenharia da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais- UFMG, (Brazil), 1973 author of the book Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion, published in 200

Direct download

Abstract
A new model of the neutron n=p+s is proposed, where s is the selectron, a particle postulated by the Supersymmetry.  The model n=p+s belongs to the author’s “Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion”, which is composed by 26 papers  published in a book form in 2006 by the Bauu Institute Press.
The Nuclear Physics works with two models of the neutron.  The Yukawa’s model has several disadvantages (the most grave is the violation of the mass-energy conservation, although the theorists tried to justify it through the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle), because his model cannot explain some phenomena.  The quark model (d,u,d) also cannot explain other sort of phenomena, and then the theorists use the two models, sometimes they use the Yukawa’s model, and sometimes they use the quark model.  However, they are two incompatible models, and it is difficult to believe that Nature works through the use of two incompatible models for the production of phenomena.
The old Rutherford’s model of neutron has been abandoned by the theorists because it seems that it cannot be reconciled with some principles of Quantum Mechanics.  Nevertheless, herein it is shown that Rutherford’s model can be reconciled with the principles of QM when we introduce the hypothesis of the helical trajectory.

Keywords:  new version n=p+s of Rutherford’s neutron, Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments, Natarajan’s helical trajectory incorporated to n=p+s, Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments suggesting a new Planck’s gravitational constant, deuteron’s quadrupole moment, neutron’s magnetic moment, deuteron’s magnetic moment.

Introduction
This paper was submitted to several peer reviewed journals of Nuclear Physics.  All they rejected it.  In the last journal, the referee rejected it by claiming that a neutron cannot be formed by one proton and one selectron because the energy required to form a selectron is of about 20GeV.  However, 20GeV is the energy required from the current theories, which do not consider the helical trajectory of the electron.  So, a neutron formed by proton and selectron is impossible when it is considered by the current Nuclear Physics, but it is not impossible if we consider a model of electron with helical trajectory.

The model of neutron proposed in the Quantum Ring Theory does not violate the Fermi-Dirac statistics, as it is explained as follows:

  1. In the present theory it is proposed that the elementary particles move through a helical trajectory (HT).
  2. In the author’s paper [1], numbered No. 4 in his book,  it is shown that the HT has a property named Zoom-effect, according which the radius of the HT decreases with the growth of the velocity of the particle.  When the velocity is near to the velocity c of light, the radius of the HT tends to zero (which means that when an electron moves with relativistic speed, its motion approaches to a classical trajectory in the sense of Newton).
  3. In the author’s paper [2], numbered No. 5 in his book, it is proposed that the spin of the particles (in the sense of quantum theory) is a result of the intrinsic spin of the particle combined with the rotation of the particle about the line center of its HT.
  4. So, as due to the Zoom-effect an electron with relativistic speed does not move through the HT, then an electron with relativistic speed becomes a boson, because it loses its quantum spin (which is a property of the HT, which vanished with the relativistic motion).
  5. In the present paper it is calculated the velocity of the electron about a proton, within the structure of the neutron. Its velocity is 92% of the light speed, which means that within the neutron’s structure the electron becomes a boson.
  6. In the Supersymmetry it is postulated the existence of a particle with the same mass and charge of the electron, but with a null spin.  They call it selectron.
  7. So, we can consider that in the present theory the structure of the neutron actually is n=p+s, that is, the neutron is formed by one proton and one selectron.  Therefore the neutron actually is structured by one fermion (the proton) and one boson (the selectron).
  8. Then we realize that it is vanished the most grave restriction against the neutron formed by proton and electron, because now we can consider that the electron becomes a selectron within the neutron’s structure.  Thereby such new structure fits to Fermi-Dirac’s statistics, since in the new model n=p+s the neutron is formed by a fermion combined with a boson.

So, as from the model of neutron n=p+s there is no violation of Fermi-Dirac statistics, and since the other restrictions against n=p+s are eliminated in the present paper, then the theorists have no reason anymore for rejecting a model of neutron formed by one proton and one selectron.
The mechanism according which an electron becomes a selectron within the structure n=p+s has been named “spin-fusion” in the author’s theory.  Any lepton is subjected to be tied to a quark through the spin-fusion mechanism (within a structure with quark-lepton interaction we would rename the lepton by calling it “selepton”, which spin is zero).
A theoretical quark model of neutron n = (u,d,u-s) has been proposed by the author in a paper published by the Journal of New Energy [3], where it was shown that several paradoxes of Physics can be eliminated through the adoption of the new model.  As for example:

  1. From the proposal of the “spin-fusion” phenomenon the cause is found for the violation of the parity in beta-decay. NOTE: The spin-fusion mechanism is proposed in the author’s paper “Stern-Gerlach Experiment and the Helical Trajectory”[2], and it is based on the property of the helical trajectory of the elementary particles, as proposed in the author’s paper “Fundamental Requirements for the Proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom”[1].
  2. From the new comprehension of the cause of violation of the parity, it is possible to propose a new interpretation for the temporal reversion (an interpretation of Christenson’s discovery concerning the decay of some pions), in order that it is possible to eliminate the very strange hypothesis of temporal reversion in physics.

The new model of neutron (u,d,u-s) can also supply theoretical backgrounds for the explanation of several questions arisen from new experimental findings, as we may mention for instance:

  • a) Taleyarkhan[4] experiment cannot be explained from the old concepts of Quantum Mechanics, since the Suslick-Didenko[5] experiment has shown that the greatest portion of the energy of the sonoluminescence phenomenon is wasted in chemical reactions, and therefore the remaining energy is unable to yield hot nuclear reactions.
  • b) New astronomical observations [6], described in the journal Nature, are suggesting that Planck’s constant can have variation.  Such a hypothesis implies the breakdown of Quantum Mechanics, unless we show that for distances shorter than 2fm there are non-Coulombic interactions performed through a new sort of Planck’s constant, which nature is gravitational.

Before the acceptance of the model n=p+s by the scientists, there are several questions to be answered. Obviously the theoretical restrictions against the model n=p+e can also be applied to the model n=p+s (excluding the Fermi-Dirac statistics, as already explained before).  So, let us remember what are the restrictions against the model n=p+e.
One of the solutions proposed herein is concerning the anomalous mass of the neutron.
The repose mass of the proton and electron are:

Proton:  mP = 938.3 MeV/c²
Electron:  me = 0.511MeV/c²
Total mass: mT = 938.811MeV/c²

A structure of the neutron n = p+e would have to have a mass mN < 938.811 MeV/c², since there is a loss of mass.  However, it is known by experiments that neutron’s mass is mN = 939.6MeV/c².  This fact is one of the stronger reasons why the majority of the physicists do not accept the model n=p+e, although several experiments have shown that neutron structure is indeed n=p+e.  So, herein we will show why the neutron with structure n = p+e has such an anomalous mass mN>mp+me.
Another restriction against the model n = p+e comes from the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: such a model requires a force with magnitude 10³ stronger than the strong nuclear force, in order to keep the electron in the nuclei.  Herein we propose a solution able to eliminate such a restriction.
Considering the model n = p+e, the paper also exhibits the theoretical calculation for:

a)  the magnetic moment of the neutron
b)  the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron
c)  the magnetic moment of the deuteron

NOTES:

  1. The helical trajectory of the elementary particles was proposed by Natarajan[7].  According to his proposal, “When we consider a particle at rest in the laboratory frame, it has no external motion (vCX = 0).  The internal velocity, however, is given by vIN= c (Postulate 4).  On the other hand, if the particle is observed to be moving with a uniform velocity v in the laboratory (vCX = v),  then vIN should be vIN = (c² –  v²)½  so that the result of these two velocities is still c (Postulate 3 and 4).”
  2. The helical trajectory appears in the Dirac’s theory of the electron.  In their book[8] Lindsay and Margenau say: “The only possible resolution of this apparent paradox is to assume that the electron performs, in a classical sense, a rapidly periodic movement with the speed of light, while it progresses uniformly along x in conformity with (12).  Schrödinger was the first to point out this peculiar trembling motion;  its actual significance is not clearly understood”.
  3. There is not any similar theory in the world.  The reason is obvious:  all the attempts of other theorists are made by considering the fundamental principles of quantum theory.  Nobody tries a model with a corpuscular electron, because all they consider that a corpuscular electron is incompatible with the Schrödinger’s Equation.

Unlike, within the neutron’s structure proposed here the electron is a corpuscular particle that moves through the helical trajectory, and so there is not any model of neutron similar to this model proposed herein.
OBS:  in the author’s paper [1] it is shown that a corpuscular electron that moves through the helical trajectory is compatible with the Schrödinger Equation.  This is the reason why the author can propose a model of neutron n=p+e where the electron is corpuscular, but other authors cannot do it.
Dr. Rugero Santilli and Dr. Elio Conte have proposed a model of neutron n=p+e, but in their theory the electron is not corpuscular.  Their models are unable to explain fundamental questions that arrive when we try to propose a model n=p+e, as for example the violation of Fermi-Dirac statistics, the anomalous mass of the neutron, the magnitude of the neutron’s magnetic moment (it would have to be in the same order of the electron’s magnetic moment).  These questions are explained from the model  n=p+s.

Anomalous uncertainly principle
According to current Particle Physics, the structure of the pion po is (d,d’), where d is a quark (d)–1/3 and d’ is its antiparticle (d’)+1/3. The pion po can have two sorts of decays:

χº → γ + γ
χº → e+ + e- + proton       (1)

The time decay has the order of 10ˆ-15s.
Let us calculate the binding energy necessary to pack together these two quarks d and d’, considering the following:

a) The quarks have a mass approximately 1/2000 of the proton’s mass
b) The Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle      Δx.Δp ~ h (2)

Consider the two quarks d and d’ into a rectangular well with a radius “a,” where “a” is the distance between the two quarks into the structure of the pion χº, in order that the uncertainty in the value of position is Δx ~ a.  From Eq. (2) the smallest possible value of Δp is given approximately by  Δp~h/a. So, the quarks placed in the potential well of radius a≤1fm would have kinetic energies, at least in the order of magnitude

T ~ Δp²/2µπ ~ h²/mπ.a² ~ 80GeV      (3)

where µπ = mπ/2  is the reduced mass of each quark.

Let us expound the matter in another more precise way, by considering the conditions necessary for the appearance of a standing wave. For the rectangular potential well of the radius a, this condition is:

2a = λ/2     (4)

where λ is the de Broglie wavelength. Substituting  λ = h/p ,  we have

2a = h/2p = h/2(2µπ T)½ = h/2(mπ T)½     (5)

where T is kinetic energy of the quark in the well.  From Eq. (5), with a ≤1fm, we have

T = π²2h²/4mπa² ≥ 180 GeV      (6)

Since the two quarks are into the potential well along a time with the order of 10ˆ–15s, it is necessary a depth of a well Uπ , as follows

Uπ = T =  180 GeV     (7)

Let us compare it with the depth of potential well UN of deuteron nuclei, since we know that into the deuteron the proton and neutron are tied by the strong force.  The depth of the well UN is:

UN = 40 MeV     (8)

Since Up /UN = 4×10³, this means that, for keeping the two quarks along the time 10ˆ–15s, it would be necessary to have a force thousands times stronger than the nuclear force.
Even if we consider the structure of the proton (u,d,u), two quarks ‘u’ cannot be packed by the strong force into the potential well with radius a = 1fm.  It is necessary a force thousands times stronger than the nuclear force.
Undoubtedly, this fact suggests that something is wrong with the uncertainty principle Δx.Δp ~ h into a potential well with radius a≤1fm .
Besides, the decay shown in Eq. (1) shows that the bound state to the two quarks cannot be 180 GeV, and this suggests that something is wrong with the relation  Δx.Δp ~ h when we apply it for a potential well with radius a£1fm.
We will see ahead other fact suggesting that we cannot apply  Δx.Δp ~ h into a potential well with a≤1fm .
.
Gravitational quantum of energy
There are two experiments where the model  n = p+e has been obtained.

In the 1980s, the physicist Don Borghi [2] et al. made an experiment where they obtained neutrons from protons and electrons at low energy.  At the end of the article they say, “Hence we may conclude that this experiment seems to confirm the possibility of observing directly the assumed non-Coulombic interaction between protons and electrons.”
In 1999 the physicist Elio Conte, together with Maria Pieralice [3], made an experiment where they obtained neutrons from the cold fusion between protons and electrons.
So, we have two different experiments where the researchers confirmed the structure n=p+e for the neutron.
The mass of the electron is approximately the same mass of a quark d, both having a mass approximately 1/2000 of the proton’s mass.  This means that, into the structure n=p+e, the electron would have to be confined into a potential well with depth Ue = 180 GeV, that is, if we consider that we must apply the Heisenberg’s relation (2).  And then it would require a kind of force thousands of times stronger than the nuclear force, in order to keep the electron in the structure n=p+e.
So, we have a dilemma:
  1. On one side, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle  Δx.Δp ~ h imply that it is impossible a structure n=p+e.
  2. On the other side, two experiments are showing that n=p+e is the structure used by the Nature.
What have we to keep? We have two alternatives:
  1. We keep the relation Δx.Δp ~ h, and it means that we must reject the experiments. This is a betrayal to the scientific method.
  2. We keep the experiments, and this implies that we must analyze what happens with Heinsenberg’s uncertainty principle into potential wells with a≤1fm, because we must realize that something unknown by the physicists happens into regions with a≤1fm.
It is well to remember that in the beginning of the 20th Century several experiments suggested the structure n = p+e, as for example the neutron’s decay → p+e+ν’.  But Heisenberg rejected these experiments.  Since the Mathematics suggested that the structure n=p+e is impossible, Heisenberg decided to reject those old experiments.
But now new experiments are showing that n=p+e is indeed correct. We cannot neglect the experiments anymore, like Heisenberg did.  This indicates that we must propose a new interpretation for the Heinsenberg’s principle into a potential well with radius a≤1fm.
First of all, let us remember that Planck’s constant h =  6.6×10ˆ–34J-s  has electromagnetic origin, since he made his experiments with photons into a black body.  But into a potential well with radius a≤1fm, we have to consider the strong force. Then it is possible that Planck’s constant must be replaced by a new constant hG , by considering that hG is a smallest quantum of energy due to the interactions by the nuclear force.  In the last item we will show that electron’s bound energy into the neutron must have on the order of 0.1 MeV.  So, by considering that electron’s binding energy has the order of  0.1MeV, then, by introducing a correction, from Eq. (6) we get:
hG ~ [ h²/(180.000/0,1) ]½ = 1,3×10ˆ-37J-s     (9)
One argument against this proposal is to say that the electron has no interaction by the strong force. However, in past papers the author will show that there are evidences suggesting that the strong force has gravitational origin, when we consider a dynamic gravity (different from the static gravity of current Physics).
So, if we consider the quantum vacuum constituted by electromagnetic particles and by gravitons, through such a consideration it means that Planck’s constant h is due to interactions by electromagnetic particles of the quantum vacuum, while the constant hG is due to interactions by gravitons.
Pay attention that we are proposing here the constant hG through the same way as Planck proposed the constant h.  Indeed, Planck has been constrained to adopt the hypothesis of the constant h because that was the unique solution able to solve the paradox of the ultraviolet catastrophe into the black body.  By the same way, today we have two experiments, made by Borghi and by Conte, and these two experiments are showing that the neutron’s structure is n=p+e.  The unique way to explain this structure, obtained by the experiments, is through the adoption of the following hypothesis:
for a potential well with radius a1fm,  Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is   Δx.Δp~h ,  where hG~1.3×10ˆ–37J-s  is the gravitational quantum of energy.
.
How to get the magnetic dipole moment of neutron
Magnetic moment of the electron is by three orders of magnitude larger than that of the neutron.  So, at first glance, it seems that the neutron could not be performed by the structure n= p+e.  However, as is shown in the author’s other paper [7] , the magnetic moment of the electron depends on its helical trajectory into the electrosphere of the atom.  In another paper [8] , the author shows that the radius of the helical trajectory has vanished when the electron’s speed approaches light speed c.  So, in the structure n=p+e the electron’s speed is 0.92c , as we will calculate herein, then into the neutron the electron loses its helical trajectory, and by consequence its magnetic moment into the neutron is very small, justifying the present theoretical calculation for the neutron’s magnetic moment.
Therefore the method of calculation is very simple:
a) The electron turning about the proton can be considered like a small spiral
b) The m of  neutron will be :  mNEUTRON =  mPROTON + mSPIRAL
Proton’s magnetic moment we get from experiments, µ = +2,7896µn
Spiral’s magnetic moment we have to derive from calculation. We need to know two data about the electron’s orbit:
  1. Spiral’s radius – we can get it from electron’s orbit about two protons , starting from the electric quadrupole moment Q(b) of deuteron. From experiments,  Q(b) = + 2.7×10ˆ–31m² , and from here we will get the radius R of the spiral.
  2. Electron’s speed – we can get it from Kurie’s graphic for beta-decay of neutron.
Proton’s radius
We will need proton’s radius with more accuracy than Nuclear Theory can give us. And we will get it from recent interpretations about recent experiments. From Nuclear Theory, we know two important facts about the nucleus:
  • 1st fact – protons and neutrons have the same distribution into the nuclei. This conclusion had been inferred from interpretation about the empirical equation shown in the Fig. 1.
  • 2nd fact – from the empirical equation, the physicists also concluded that all the nuclei have the same shell thickness  “2b” = 2 x 0.55F = 1.1F
From these two facts we can suppose that the protons and neutrons distribution into the nuclei is like shown in the Fig. 2, and thus we can get proton’s radius:
4 x Rp = 1.1F  →   Rp = 0.275F      (10)
The radius Rp = 0.275F is corroborated by the proton’s distribution of load, obtained from experiments, shown in Fig. 10.
We will verify that Rp = 0.275F can lead us to very good conclusions, according to the results of experiments.
.
Well-known calculation used by nuclear theory
Let us remember a theoretical calculation of electric quadrupole moment Q(b) used by Nuclear Theory.

Fig. 3 shows a nucleus composed by a  [ magic number  +  1 proton ].

For example, it can be the 51Sb123 = 50Sn122 + 1 proton. The magic number 50Sn122  has Q(b)= 0, because its distribution is spherically symmetrical.
The 51Sb123 will have
Q(b) =  ∫ρ [ – (r’ )² ].dτ =  -(r’ )². ∫ρ.dτ      (11)
But
∫ρ.dτ  =  + 1      (12)
because the ring (Fig. 3)  has 1 proton , and “ρ” is measured by proton’s units of load.
Consequently
Q(b) =   -(r’)²     (13)
This is a well-known traditional calculation. The nuclear physicists know it very well.
.
Application to the calculation of Q8b)
Let’s apply this sort of considerations to the model of 1H2 shown in the Fig. 4, with one electron turning about two protons.
The two protons have Q(b) = 0 , because theirs distribution of load is spherically symmetrical. The electron can be considered like a proton with negative load, with punctual concentrated configuration, and therefore the electron produces a ring like shown in Fig. 5.
If a proton with positive load yields  ∫ρdτ  = +1 , the electron with negative load yields  ∫ρdτ  = -1. By consequence, the  electric quadrupole moment of  1H2 will be :
Q(b) = -(r’ )²∫ρdτ = -(r’ )².(-1) = +(r’ )²      (14)
But  r’= 2Rp (Fig. 4) , and Rp = 0.275F is the proton’s radius obtained in (10).
Thereby:
Q(b) =  +(r’ )² = +(0,55F)² = +3,0×10ˆ-31m²      (15)
But the radius Rp = 0.275F is not exact, because it is obtained by experiments ( b = 0.55F ).
If we consider  Rp = 0.26F, we will have  r’ = 0.52F, and then:
Q(b) = +(0.52F)Q(b)² = + 2.7 x 10ˆ-31m²      (16)
like inferred from experiments, and therefore we can take R = 0.26F (spiral’s radius).
NOTE:  Of course Yukawa’s model cannot explain Q(b) = +2.7 x 10ˆ-31m² of deuteron, because the two protons have Q(b) = 0, and the meson’s oscillation cannot be responsible by  Q(b) = +2.7 x 10ˆ-31m².  A deuteron performed by (u,d,u).(d,u,d) of current Nuclear Physics also cannot get the result Q(b)= +2.7×10ˆ-31m² of the experiments.

Electron’s speed
We will get electron’s speed from the neutron’s beta-decay (Fig. 9).

Electron’s repose energy ( E = m0.c² )  is  0.511 MeV.
From Kurie’s graphic interpretation, electron’s kinetic energy KeMAX when emitted in the beta-decay, corresponds to the binding energy 0.78 MeV , that is, electron’s kinetic energy turning about the proton.
0.78MeV > 0.511MeV,  by consequence  EKINETIC > m0.c², and therefore we need to apply Einstein’s Relativistic dynamics if we want to know electron’s “v” speed in the spiral.
The relativistic kinetic energy is  :
E = m0.c²[ 1/( 1 – v²/c² )½ -1 ]      (17)
Thus, we have:
0.78MeV = 0.511MeV[ 1/( 1- v²/c² )½ -1 ]      (18)
λ = 1/( 1- v²/c² )½ =  2.5264      (19)
1/( 1- v²/c² )   =  6.383      (20)
6.383 – 6.383.v²/c²  = 1       (21)
6.383 × v²/c²  =  5.383      (22)
v = c (5.383/6.383)½  =  2.746×10ˆ8 m/s   ~   91.83% c     (23)
A spiral with area “A” , a current “i” , and radius R , produces
µ = i.A = q.v.π.R²/ 2µR  =  q.v.R/2
and with relativistic speeds
µ = q.v.R      (24)
The magnetic dipole moment µSPIRAL of one relativistic spiral will suffer a correction proportional to:
λ = 1/( 1- v²/c² )½     (25)
because if  v→c  ,   then    µSPIRAL → ∞.
µSPIRAL = q.v.R/[ ( 1- v²/c² )½ ] ,   when   v → c     (26)
R = spiral’s radius  =  0.26F   (27)
q = -1.6×10ˆ-19C      (28)
v = 2.746×10ˆ8 m/s      (29)
µSPIRAL =  λ.[q.v.R]     ,    λ = 2.5264  in the present problem     (30)
µSPIRAL = 2.5264 x (-1.6 x 10ˆ-19C) x 2.746 x 10ˆ8m/s x 0.26 x 10ˆ-15m     (31)
µSPIRAL = 2.886 x 10ˆ–26 A-m² =  -5.715µn     (32)
.
Calculation of the magnetic dipole moment of neutron
The proton has µ = +2.7896mn , and then the magnetic dipole moment of neutron will be:
µNEUTRON = +2.7896 – 5.715 = -2.9254µn      (33)
and the experiments detected -1.9103mn.
This result is coherent, if we consider:
  1. The radius R= 0.26F has been obtained from the calculation of electric quadrupole moment, and therefore it is necessary to consider an external radius due to the electron’s orbit around the proton,
    Rext = 0.26F      (34)
    because the external radius is responsible by the measurement of  Q(b).
  2. In the spiral’s area responsible by the magnetic dipole moment, it is necessary to consider the internal spiral’s radius,
    Rint = Rext – Φe  (Φe = electron’s diameter)      (35)
    because the “internal area” of the spiral produces the flux of magnetic dipole moment.

The experiments already detected electron’s radius, which magnitude is smaller than 10ˆ-16m , and also proton’s radius, in order of 10ˆ-15m . Therefore, we can conclude that the density of their masses is approximately the same, because the relation between their masses is:

983.3MeV /c² / 0.511MeV /c²   =   1836     (36)
and the relation between theirs radii is:
Rp / Re = (1836 )ˆ1/3  =  12,25  ~ 10ˆ-15 /10ˆ-16m     (37)
Rp ~ 0.26F  →  Re ~  0.26 / 12.25  =  0.0212F     (38)
Thus, electron’s diameter is Φe = 2 x 0.0212F = 0.0424F  ,  and the internal radius of spiral will be:
Rint = 0.26F – 0.0424F  =   0.2176F     (39)
The correct magnetic dipole moment of electron’s spiral will be:
µSPIRAL = -5.715 x 0.2176 / 0.26 = -4.783µn     (40)
and we get
µNEUTRON = -4.783 + 2.7896 = -1.9934µn     (41)
which is a very good result.
Magnetic dipole moment of deuteron
The proton has µρ = +2.7896µn, and the neutron has µN = -1.9103mn.  Then let us see what magnetic moment for the deuteron we would have to expect from the current theories of Physics.
  1. From Yukawa’s model, as the meson has oscillatory motion between the proton and the neutron, it cannot produce any additional magnetic moment.  Therefore from Yukawa’s model the magnetic moment of deuteron would have to be mD = +2.7896µn – 1.9103µn = + 0.8793µn.
  2. From the model of Particle Physics (u,d,u)(d,u,d) there is no reason why an additional magnetic moment can be created.  Then we also would have to expect µD = +0.8793µn.
But the experiments show that the deuteron has magnetic moment µD =  +0.857µn.  So, from the models of neutron used in current Physics is impossible to explain the magnetic moment of deuteron.  Let us see if we can explain it from the present model of neutron n = p+e. In the formation of the deuteron, there are two protons with the same spin, so the spin due to the protons is i=1.  In the First Part of the paper New Model of Neutron [1] we already have seen that electron’s contribution is null for the total spin, as consequence of the spin-fusion phenomenon.  Therefore the deuteron has nuclear spin i=1.
Calculation of µ.
Fig. 6 illustrates the method:
  1. There are two protons each one with mp= +2.7896µn.
  2. We already obtained spiral’s  µS= -4.783µn.  But we will consider µS= -4.7mn , because 0.083 is due to error in the accuracy.
  3. When the electron of the structure n = p+e is situated between the two protons of the structure of the deuteron (see Fig. 6), it is submitted to three forces:
    a) The nuclear force of attraction with the proton into the neutron’s structure (proton at right side).
    b) The centrifugal force expelling the electron in the direction of the proton at the left side.
    c) The nuclear force of attraction with the proton at the right side.
Then there is an increase of area ΔA due to the electron’s deviation in the direction of the proton at the left side, which is responsible for an increase of Δμ .
We can approach the area ΔA of Fig. 6 from a rectangular area, as shown in Fig. 7, and the total magnetic moment will be performed as indicated in the Fig. 8.
We know that electron’s SPIRAL has a radius R = 0.26F.
Let us consider that ΔA is a rectangular area with dimensions 0.52F and 0.002F.  Then the area is:
ΔA = 0.52 x 0.002 = 0.001F²     (42)
The area of electron’s spiral is:
A =  p.0.26² = 0.212 F²     (43)
If the spiral with area A = 0.212 F²  produces m= -4.7µn , then an area  ΔA = 0.001F²  will produce:
Δµ = -4.7 x 0.001/0.212 = -0.022µn     (44)
and  the theoretical µ of  1H2, obtained from the model n = p+e, will be:
2.(+2.7896) – (4.7 + 0.022) = +0.857µn     (45)
Anomalous mass of the neutron
We will show that neutron’s anomalous mass is due to the growth of the electron’s mass, since the electron has a relativistic speed into the neutron, as we will calculate here. So, let us calculate the electron’s increase of mass.
The electron’s mass into the neutron n=p+e  is:
m = mo.γ      (46)
where γ we already obtained in (30):   γ = 2.5264
So
m = mo.γ = 0.511 x 2.5264 =  1.291 MeV/c²      (47)
Considering the electron’s increase of mass, the proton and the electron perform the total mass:
mp + me = 938.3 MeV/c² + 1.291 MeV/c² = 939.591 MeV/c² ~ 939.6 MeV/c²     (48)
Since mp + me ~ 939.6 MeV/c² , and the neutron’s mass is mN = 939.6 MeV/c², we realize that neutron’s binding energy is approximately zero, and this explains why it suffers decay.  However, with more accurate experiments, perhaps it is possible to discover the correct binding energy of the neutron.  So, by more accurate experiments, we can get the correct value of hG obtained in Eq. (9).
.
Conclusions
The first reaction of a physicist against the proposals of the present paper probably would be to claim the following: “It is hard for me to believe those difficulties raised in this manuscript will have escaped the scrutiny of all those prominent particle theorists. For instance, the author proposes a new Planck constant for the uncertainty principle in the femtometer scale.  Had this been true, the string theorists should have encountered the difficulty long time ago and even have proposed their own third different Planck constant.”
We must analyze such an argument from five viewpoints, as follows:
  1. First viewpoint: Up to know the theoretists have neglected the Borghi’s experiment, and this is just the reason why they never tried such a new theoretical alternative. Indeed, the proposal of a new Planck’s constant, proposed herein, is required by the results of two new experiments, made by Conte-Pieralice and Borghi. Even if the present new proposal is not a definitive solution, nevertheless any other different solution must be proposed by considering the results of Conte-Pieralice-Borghi experiments.  By neglecting their experiments is impossible to find a satisfactory solution.
    Moreover, it is well to note that the proposal of a new Planck’s constant is not able to solve the theoretical problems itself.  That’s why such an idea has never been proposed by the string theorists, since such new proposal actually must be proposed together with other new proposals, like the spin-fusion hypothesis, the helical trajectory, its zoom-property[8], etc.  The new Planck’s constant is not proposed here alone, actually it belongs to a collection of new proposals that performs new principles (which are missing in Quantum Mechanics).
  2. Second viewpoint: The recent new experiment made by Taleyarkhan, published by Science, has been explained by the scientific community as follows: “Theoretical explanations for the observation of neutrons in line with conventional theory do exist. Sonoluminescence is an observed and understood phenomenon. It is generally considered to be theoretically possible to generate fusion temperatures in imploding bubbles using sound. As for tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier at low temperatures, so as to achieve fusion at low temperatures, this could have been possible in principle, but experts who did the calculation say that, unfortunately, the rate will be far too slow to be observable, let alone be of any practical importance“. Nevertheless, Suslick and Didenko have repeated the Taleyarkhan experiment, and they have shown that the greatest portion of the sonoluminescence energy is wasted in chemical reactions. Therefore it is not possible to suppose that there are hot nuclear reactions in Taleyarkhan experiment. And since he obtained emission of neutrons (and therefore the existence of nuclear reactions is out of any doubt), we realize that these nuclear reactions cannot be explained by the old concepts of Quantum Mechanics. We must explain Taleyarkhan experiment from the hypothesis of non-Coulombic interactions, detected by Borghi’s experiment.
  3. Third viewpoint: In the present paper a new gravitational Planck’s constant has been proposed, taking in consideration the Borghi’s experiment.  A paper published in the journal Nature in August-2002, by Paul Davies corroborates such a hypothesis, in which he says that a new astronomical observation can lead to the conclusion that the Theory of Relativity may be wrong. The observation considered by Dr. Paul Davies is concerning the interaction between electrons and photons, and the results led him to consider two alternatives, as follows:
    a) FIRST HYPOTHESIS: The light velocity “c” is not constant
    b) SECOND HYPOTHESIS: The Planck’s constant can have some variation
    Well, it is possible that such a variation in the Planck’s constant, mentioned by Paul Davies, can be actually due to the interaction with the  new gravitational Planck’s constant proposed herein.
  4. Fourth viewpoint: It must be taken in consideration that the “spin-fusion” hypothesis is able to open new theoretical perspectives for the Particle Physics, through the establishment of a new Standard Model, as shown in the author’s paper “New Model of Neutron-First Part”,( 1 ) published by JNE, where it is shown that the lepton’s spin is not conserved in the beta-decay. Since the leptons are tied to the quarks through the spin-fusion, as proposed by the author, such a new proposal represents a new fundamental concept to be applied to Nuclear Theory and to Particle Physics.
  5. Fifth viewpoint: The theorists are trying since 1950 to find a satisfactory theory able to conciliate the several branches of Physics. Several genii as Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg, and others, devoted their life to the attempt.  The problem has passed through the hand of several prominent physicists, among them several ones awarded the Nobel Prize and devoted their work to the question of the unification, as Salam, Gell-Mann, Weinberg , Glashow, t’Hooft, and others. All they have supposed that the rule of addition of spins, adopted in current Nuclear Physics, is the correct theoretical way. However, it is hard to believe that a satisfactory solution should have escaped the scrutiny of all those prominent theoretists, if such a solution should be possible by the way that they are trying (up to now there is not a satisfactory Standard Model in Particle Physics, which is incompatible with the Nuclear Physics, a theory itself not able to explain several questions). If a satisfactory solution via the Yukawa model should be possible, of course that it would have to be found several years ago.
A new model can replace an old one only if the new one brings advantages. The Yukawa’s model has several disadvantages, but the author considers that the most serious is the fact that in Modern Physics the description of the phenomena must be made through the consideration of two incompatible models: some phenomena must be described by the quark model of neutron, and others must be described by Yukawa’s model, but they are incompatible. It makes no sense to believe that in the Nature two incompatible models must describe the phenomena.  The author’s model (u,d,u-e) is able to describe all the phenomena and properties of the neutron, and perhaps this is the greatest advantage of the model.
Finally, we have to consider that, when a new experiment has a result that does not fit the current prevailing concepts of an old theory, the scientific criteria prescribes that the theoretists must try to find a new theoretical solution able to explain the result obtained by the new experiment, through the proposal of new concepts. This is just what the author of the model (u,d,u-e) is trying to do.  Nevertheless, nowadays the theoretists are trying to keep the old prevailing concepts of Quantum Mechanics by rejecting the Borghi’s experiment, and such a rejection does not fit the scientific criteria.
References
  1. W. Guglinski, “New Model of Neutron-First Part,”  J. New Energy, vol 4, no 4, 2000.
  2. C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, “Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma,” American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993.
  3. E. Conte, M. Pieralice, “An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron,” Infinite Energy, vol 4, no 23-1999, p 67.
  4. R.P. Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, and R.C. Block, “Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation,” Science, vol 295, pp 1868-1873 (March 8, 2002) (in Research Articles).
  5. Y.T. Didenko, K. S. Suslick, “The energy efficiency of formation of photons, radicals and ions during single-bubble cavitation,” Nature, vol 418, 394 – 397 (25 Jul 2002) Letters to Nature.
  6. P.C.W. Davies, Tamara M. Davis, Charles H. Lineweaver, “Cosmology: Black holes constrain varying constants,” Nature, vol 418, pp 602 – 603 (08 Aug 2002) Brief Communication.
  7. W. Guglinski, “Stern-Gerlach Experiment and the Helical Trajectory” J. New Energy, vol 7, no 2.
  8. W. Guglinski, “Fundamental Requirements for the Proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom,” J. New Energy, vol 7, no 2, 2004.

755 comments to Anomalous mass of the neutron

  • Andrea Rossi

    Goumy:
    It is a draft with many errors, needs many corrections. Please disregard it for at least three days.
    A.R.

  • Rich Rossi

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    I have heard that you have orders for up to seven 1 MW E-Cat plants. You say you are outsourcing your parts, so could make enough parts to make more than one power plant at once. How many power plants will you be able to build with the parts that are currently being produced by your suppliers? Is this an industrial secret?

    I wish you all the best.

    Best regards,

    Rich

  • H. Hansson

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Mr Lewan at Ny Teknik have written much about the problems inventors have to go from the prototype phase to industry production. Basically, different stages require different mindset.

    Judging from your replies and business strategy it seems that you still very much is stuck in the prototype phase mentality. My old father was an active entrepreneur with many patents. But he never really succeeded in taking off as his inventor mentality stopped him from teaming up and/or listen to advice.

    Your comments on above will be read carefully..

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear gillana giancarlo

    My Quantum Ring Theory proposes new foundations for Physics. Some of the new foundations have been corroborated by experiments, as follows:

    The helical trajectory of the light:
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3205

    According to QRT, the duality wave-particle is due to the helical trajectory of the elementary particles. So, according to my theory the Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity is wrong.
    A recent experiment published in June-2011 showed that Bohr principle is wrong:
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3295

    The paper published here in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, with the title Anomalous Mass of the Neutron, was published in 2006 in my book Quantum Ring Theory. In the paper it was predicted that there is need to consider a new Planck’s constant, of gravitational origin, so that to explain how the electron is captured by the neutron.
    An astronomical observation of June-2001 corroborated such prediction:
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3302

    There are many other experiments, published between 2000 and 2011, which have been corroborated the principles proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    However, as I have explained to Mr. Insight herein in Rossi’s blog, Quantum Ring Theory is not ready. I proposed in my theory only the new foundations that must be addopted in the New Physics. I did not develop its mathematical formalism, because it is a task to be undertaking by many physicists. It’s not a work for one man.

    My theory is concerning the micro-world: atoms, photons, nuclei, protons, electrons.
    Concerning the cosmological constant, its calculation requires a theory devoted to the macroscopic world, and developed thorugh the mathematics.

    Dr. Claudio Nassif is working in a new theory named Symmetrical Special Relativity (SSR) for the macroscopic world, developed thorugh the mathematics, and he uses some foundations proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, as the helical trajectory and the aether.

    Nassif was able to develop his theory by starting from the mathematics beecause for the macro-world we already know the most fundamental principles, proposed by Einstein. But Nassif introduces a novelty: the minimum velocity of particles. So, while Einstein defined a maximum velocity for the particles, Nassif proposed the miminum velocity.

    However, in spite of the most principles of the macro-world are already discovered, nevertheless it seems that something is missing yet: because in the case I am right (and the repulsive gravity exists, and gravity has the same magnitude of electromagnetism, as my micro-models are suggesting), then there is need to develop a New Relativity in a more deep level than that developed by Nassif, because he did not consider it in his SSR.

    But suppose that the gravity considered by Einstein and Nassif’s has magnitude 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetism because it is actually a macro-gravity resultant of the combination of repulsive and attractive gravitons which interact with the same magnitude of the electromagnetism.
    Well, from the macroscopic viewpoint we can apply the Einstein-Nassif theory, because they consider the macroscopic aspect of the gravity. They can get good predictions, because from the cosmological viewpoint there is no need to consider the microscopic structure of the gravity.
    Nevertheless, from the microscopic viewpoint it’s impossible to get the unification between gravity and electromagnetism with such macroscopic Einstein-Nassif theory, because there is need to get the unification by considering the microscopic aspect of the gravity.

    Therefore, while for the Einstein-Nassif’s Relativity the true structure of the gravity can be neglected (because in Relativity we can consider the macroscopic aspect of the gravity only), in the micro-world it is not possible to neglect it. Because into the nuclei, the proton, the electron, the photon, etc., the repulsive and the attractive gravity contribute for their behavior. By consequence, if one develops a new theory for elementary particles by neglecting the repulsive and attractive gravity (with the same magnitude of the elctromagnetism), of course such new theory shall be wrong. This is the drama of Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model. And that’s why from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics cold fusion is impossible.

    What is the point of touch between my QRT and Nassif’s SSR ?

    Well, while Nassif has developed his work by starting from the mathematics, in the case of the micro-world there is no way to start to develop it from the mathematics too. The physicists who developed Quantum Mechanics had try to do it, but they have failed: QM is not complete. There is need to discover the structure of the elementary particles, as the neutron, the photon, the proton, the nucleus. But Quantum Mechanics was developed without such sort of models. It has only mathematical models. It has not models formed by physical structures.

    My QRT and Nassif’s SSR are complementary. My theory is proposed for the micro-world, and his theory is proposed for the macro-world.
    In the Barnes& Noble blog, Nassif wrote the following review on my QRT:
    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”
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3207

    Two papers by Nassif were published till now. The first one was published in the journal Pramana, in 2008.
    The second article, entitled DEFORMED SPECIAL RELATIVITY WITH AN ENERGY BARRIER OF A MINIMUM SPEED, was published by the International Journal of Modern Physics D, in July 2010.

    In his theory Nassif calculates the value of the cosmological constant. The theoretical value obtained from his theory is agree to the experimental data.

    I hope to have given you a short idea of the theoretical problems that involve the development of a New Physics.

    Regards
    WG

  • Robert Mockan

    @ Bernie Koppenhofer,

    I am inclined to agree with you. I would go even further and say I would not want to try what Mr. Rossi is attempting (market paradigm changing technology of this magnitude), without having armed personal body guards at all times.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    Thank you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I think Mr. Rossi is vastly underestimating the dollar strength of the snakes, and the political pressure they can bring to the fight. It is my opinion those of us who believe in this new energy source and what it means to the world must be very proactive in supporting it. I have just sent information to my Representatives and aggressively correct misinformation when I see it.

  • Enrico Billi

    @Giuliano Bettini
    Indeed!
    Best Regards
    Enrico Billi

  • Italo

    @ Giuliano Bettini
    “mo socc’mel”.

    It should be necessary translate it in english for english readers:-))

  • Giuliano Bettini

    @ Enrico Billi
    I disagree with you.
    The correct wording is:
    “mo socc’mel”.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Alfonso Troisi:
    Thank you very much, as well as thank you to all our Readers who are sustaining our endeavours.
    A good help is to unmask the lies of the puppett-snakes, corrupted by their puppetteers. When they lie about us, you can answer, if you are able; if you are not, you can ask for technical help to me
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    and I will explain you where is the fraudolent content of the puppett-snakes, then send the answers to the sources of the fraudolent communication and to their competitors. This work would be very important. When a blog or a newspaper will ignore your answer, we will know it is “corrupted by the puppetteers” .
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • RH

    The more I read what the critics are saying, the more I am convinced Rossi is the real deal.

    The puppett-snake’s series of blogs yesterday reek of desperation. How lower can one go than invoking Adolf Hitler in a discourse?

  • gillana giancarlo

    Egregio prof. Wladimir Guglinky:la sua teoria sembra ergersi al rango di una nuova teoria del “tutto” o per lo meno come corollario di una teoria di grande unificazione,dove tutte le forze conosciute diventano omnicomprensive.
    La sua teoria si basa sul’osservazione di nuovi fenomeni che senbrano in contrasto con la teoria standard delle particelle e rimettere in discussione pilastri della meccanica quantistica e anche relativistica (principio di indeterminazione di Heisenberg, costante di Plank, costante di gravitazione universale etc.) con buona pace della comunità scientifica.
    Orbene un Modello Scientifico, può considerarsi valido in base alle predizioni che esso può fare, quali nuove previsioni si possono fare a livello subneacleare o cosmologico? Cosa ci si può aspettare, visto che gli Adrond Colliders non riescono a scoprire l’auspicata particella di Higgs? La prego se la questione non le interessa non mi risponda,non vorrei disturbare!

  • Enrico Billi

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    this/these cracker(s) are just loosing their and your IT staff time. This journal is no more the only way you or your staff can release informations about e-cat. Thanks to internet a lot of other websites and bloggers are always ready to release news about this new technology. If they want to stop or delay your job, i think it is completely unuseful, because you can’t stop a tzunami with a glass.
    I read the news about National Instruments and i will personally share this great news with all my friends, “va mo la’!” as we say in Bologna.
    Best wishes to Leonardo Corp. and partners for this great adventure, more than ever you should continue to “lavolale lavolale”
    Enrico Billi

  • Martin6078

    Dear Andrea Rossi.
    I´ve just red about the hacker´s attack on your page. I think you are now at stage II.
    The first stage is ignoring, the 2nd stage is now the attempt to mobbing, attacking and deriding you.Thats indicate you are on the right way.In metapher to a spaceflight.The booster is now seperated, the 2nd stage has ignited.The last, the 3rd stage will bring you in orbit, means you will be accepted.
    Warm Regards:
    Martin Schwingenheuer

  • Alfonso Troisi

    Hello Mr. Rossi,

    just to let you feel my closeness about this attacks on your company and on your person. Please let us know if things get dangerous and you need help from the mass.

    wiht greatfullness,

    A.T.

  • Joseph Fine

    A.R.

    Sterling D. Allan (on PESN.com) and Rick Meisinger (on Facebook) wrote/(blogged) that National Instruments has been signed up to do the Instrumentation and Control work on the production E-Cats. That’s great news. My question is a simple one. Did you choose National Instruments because they are a great company or because their initials are NI (for Nickel)? Or both!

    Joseph Fine

    By Sterling D. Allan
    Pure Energy Systems News

    Today, Leonardo Corporation, led by Andrea Rossi, inventor and developer of the one-megawatt cold fusion E-Cat plant, signed an agreement with National Instruments (NI), to have them make all the instrumentation for the E-Cat plants, which began commercial sales on October 28, following the successful test in Bologna, Italy of the first 1 MW heat plant to the first customer.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Fusioneafreddo.it:
    Today we have been attacked by a strong hacking action. Our informatic has won the battle in few hours. I heard that we will be attacked again, and also got rumors that I will be personally attacked strongly in the next days: I am very happy of this, first because I will fight back, and this is my natural attitude, second because the more the puppetteers get ballistic and keep frenzy their puppett-snakes, the more i get evidence that my job is well done.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Ing. Andrea Rossi,
    many web magazines said that today the Journal of nuclear physics was offline.
    Can you tell us if there was technical problems, hack attacks or what’s appened?
    Best regards
    Fusioneafreddo.it

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Edmondo: you are right. But at the base of puppett snakes activity there is mainly expionage from puppetteers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
    So far we are manufacturing 1 MW plants, and our next 2 years capacity of production has been already saturated. For the small units we need at least 1-2 years for the approvals. Your suggestion, anyway, are good, among the infinite possibilities of employ, those are surely possible too.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Gillana Giancarlo, Wladimir Guglinski, Andrea Rossi, Paolo Savaris:

    I recently thought of a name for the science or sciences of Nuclear Physics/Solid State Physics and/or Chemistry/Materials Science that may cover the areas of both Piezo-Nuclear and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (PNR & LENR).

    ” Meta – Chemistry” Meta means between two or more states. (Or two or more sciences!)

    Several nuclides forced into an excited or unstable state may:

    1) remain as an isotope of the same element (highest probability), 2) decay to lighter elements, or 3) fuse into heavier (higher Z number) elements.

    The name Meta-Physics would have been a better choice – but that term is already used.

    (And I have a difficult time with the vocabulary of Metaphysics such as Epistemology and Ontology etc.)

    I am forwarding several links to presentations on Piezo-nuclear reactions which are relevant.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/7u3hwpe

    http://newnuclear.splinder.com/

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/6vju59s

    In Piezo-Nuclear reactions or PNRs, a great deal of energy is released in a fracture or collapse of iron-containing granite pillars, earthquakes etc. This energy release may often result in production of neutrons and in transmutations.

    The Piezo reactions are endothermic in that a lot of energy is needed to produce a very small(?) quantity of lighter elements. Over billions of years, of course, a lot of material can be transmuted into new elements.

    And, if and when Piezo-Nuclear (or Meta-Chemical) reactions go in the opposite direction and become exothermic, they are called LENRs. Such as Nickel —> Copper!

    (And LENRs do not seem to produce free neutrons.)

    Possibly, both PNRs and LENRs occur simultaneously. (?)

    This is not a fact, only an opinion. But opinions lead to hunches, hunches lead to experiments, and experiments may lead to facts.

    Best Meta-Chemical Regards,

    Joseph

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Eng Rossi

    I think we can sell individual eCats for small comercial instalations, like hospitals, restaurants, hotels and clubs that have sauna.

    Hospitals need steam for laundry, sterilize medical surgerie equipments, cooking, hot water for shower.

    Hotels need steam for laundry, hot water for shower, and cooking

    Restaurants need hot water for cooking

    The eCats would be placed in an isolated area and so they will not represent any risk (we know that eCat is safe, but putting them to work in an isolated area the customer will feel more safety to buy the eCat).

    Last month there was in Rio de Janeiro a big explosion of an restaurant, due to propane leak

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q4Scw34ByA

    Obviously the eCat is much more safe than propage gas, and can take this advantage to start to sell it.

    What do you think?

    regards
    WG

  • insight

    Dear Silvano Mattioli ,
    I do not understand why you like so much the concept of energy amplification: you can amplify a signal, but you have to provide the missing energy. So energy sources do not amplify energy: hydroelectric just uses gravitational energy of the H2O the sun lifted up into the atmosphere, coal gives back the energy sun put into the vegetables, and so on. If you mean efficiency, then you should care about the efficiency of the processes going on inside the E-Cat, not the output/input ratio. The real “input” of the E-Cat, according to your concerns about energetic efficiency of thermal machines, is not the input heat used to start the processes provided by the electrical resistance. I think this is what tricked you. Best regards.

  • Dear Mr. Rossi

    I have been following your story since January. I think I have read almost everything that has been posted on the net about you and your invention. What you are doing is very exciting and I’m sure my business will be affected by your work.

    As a manufacturing consultant who spends his time flying from board room to board room helping manufactures across North America be more productive. I have been in countless machine, fabrication and engineering shops. I have signed more NDA agreements than I could remember. What I do not think most people get is how important industrial trade secrets are.

    Here is what I have noticed about the way people view you.

    When you act like a good scientist that makes the investor types nervous.
    When you act like a good industrialist that drives the science types crazy.

    You can’t win with everyone.

    You’re not sitting in a cozy university lab with tenure and you’re not the head of a huge corporation.

    It’s truly incredible what some people are demanding you do. The only thing you are responsible for is providing a good product to your customers and if they don’t like your products they will vote with their wallets.

    The people I work with are the ones that will be converting the world over to your technology. We are waiting patiently with CNC machines ready.

    The world is full of snakes and vultures so please stay safe and focused on your goals.

    Our hearts are with you.

    Kind Regards

    Edmondo

  • Rick Meisinger

    Dear M.T.

    In response to your “further note” about finding recent comments, there is a Rossi Blog Reader: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ which finds and sorts all recent comments which you may find useful.

    Warm Regards, R.M.

  • Silvano Mattioli

    >insight

    E-CAT is not like other type of energy source.
    Other source ratio “Energy produced/Energy consumed” is very high (Hydro, Coal, Nuclear, ecc.).
    Nominal e-cat cell ratio is about 6 (Nominal COP).

    To become cmplete energy source this ratio must be Higher because Carnaught efficency is very low at 120°C (declared steam temperature) (about 25% teorical, about 14% pratical in high efficency engine).

    Then electrical COP must be at least 6.6 less then declared COP!

    For this reason cell must be connected in serial manner to increase the COP, but if y increase the COP is like to increase the gain of ratio that I show before, then is like a gain of an amplifier that can grow as y want… !

    Then like an electrical aplifier in feedback cicle, the first e-cat can be used only for startup !
    This is because y can use energy of subsequent cells to heat-up first e-cat cell, like a feedback cicle.
    You need only to control heat-exchanger flow to moderate temperature in autonomous mode !

    E-CAt showed since now are like startup-engine in this view.

    E-CAT is an amplifier in this way because it use very low H-Ni as declared…

    This is my opinion, of course.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear H. Hansson:
    When we will have the E-Cats ready for distribution, yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • H. Hansson

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    2 years to make the eCat ready for household use…OK:

    But will it be possible for technical schools and universities to buy small eCat for training purpose??

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JS wrote in November 8th, 2011 at 2:38 PM :
    “Hi, dear Mr. Wladimir Guglinski
    New physic Nassim Haramein”

    Dear Mr. JS,
    I dont know the New Physics by Nassim Haramein.

    Does he propose a new nuclear model ?

    Perhaps there is similarity with the new nuclear model proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.

    So maybe his New Physics can be applied for the explanation of cold fusion occurrence.

    Regards
    WG

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Caro Gillana Giancarlo
    Io in realtà non sapevo come fenomeno piezonucleari.

    Ho trovato un articolo del ICCF-15. E ‘molto interessante:
    http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S6_O5_Carpinteri_Lacidogna.pdf

    Sembra che sia una nuova forma di reazione di fusione fredda.

    In generale è possibile spiegare i fenomeni della fusione fredda dai principi del mio nuovo modello nucleare.

    PS 1: Questa è una traduzione da google traduttore

    PS 2: Non mi piace chiamare la fusione fredda da LENR. I ricercatori della fusione fredda iniziò a chiamarlo Lern perché credevano che i fisici accademici potrebbe iniziare a prendere sul serio i fenomeni di fusione fredda. La strategia non ha funzionato. Sia per chiamare che la fusione a freddo o chiamare Lern non fa alcuna differenza.
    Quindi, chiamiamolo semplicemente il nome che descrive il fenomeno nel modo più appropriato: FUSIONE FREDDA.

    Dear Gillana Giancarlo
    I actually did not know such piezonuclear phenomenon.

    I found an article of the ICCF-15. It’s very interesting:
    http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S6_O5_Carpinteri_Lacidogna.pdf

    It seems it’s a new form of cold fusion reaction.

    In general it’s possible to explain the cold fusion phenomena from the principles of my new nuclear model.

    PS 1: This is a translation by google translator

    PS 2: I dont like to call cold fusion by LENR. The cold fusion researchers started to call it LERN because they believed that academic physicists could start to take seriously the cold fusion phenomena. The strategy did not work. Either to call it cold fusion or to call it LERN makes no difference.

  • Giorgio Adorni Francia

    Gentilissimo Ing. Rossi, torno a scrivere sul Suo spazio informativo per porre un invito alla riflessione da parte di tutti noi, in relazione alla gravissima situazione economica che sta squotendo il nostro Paese: tutti i dibattiti sui media mettono in evidenza la necessità di promuovere la ricerca e l’innovazione, di individuare specifici settori strategici per gli investimenti tra i quali, ovviamente, l’energia; si vedono servizi di ore sulla tecnica di ricavare petrolio dalle terre bituminose, sulle trivellazioni a livello di migliaia di metri nel mediterraneo e si ripropone perfino (dopo l’esito referendario) di riesumare il nucleare da fissione. Sono convinto che una scoperta epocale come la Sua in un paese “normale” sarebbe trattata con ben altro respiro nelle sedi opportune (pensiamo se Lei fosse francese!). Torno quindi a chiedere ai tantissimi che La stimano e che sono esperti: proponiamo qualcosa a livello di comunicazione, non ci lasciamo guidare solo dalla curiosità (grande e legittima) di saperne di più sulla tecnica; in ogni caso quando le condizioni lo permetteranno potremo esclamare “l’avevo detto io” e questo deve bastare per il popolo che siamo.
    Un caro saluto. G. Adorni

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear P.G.Sharrow:
    Thanks,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Michele Ravanelli:
    Thank you. Anyway the household application will need a period not less than 2 years to overcome the authorizative stakes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Sebastiano Sardo:
    1- I do not know how much our I.P. is worth. It is not easy to calculate, but of course the fact that industrial plants of 1 MW are in production after the 28th october test makes it solid
    2- I will just continue to make my work, developing the industruialization and the R&D. We need to convert in electricity the thermal power and make commercial small units, in the short time.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Sebastiano Sardo

    Nella vita bisogna essere passionali e per passione intendo il vero amore per le cose. Bisogna crederci fermamente per raggiungere un obiettivo.

    Oltre a farle sinceri complimenti per aver tenuto la barra del timone dritta in questi mesi di tempesta sino a raggiungere l’ambizioso ( e per molti, impossibile ) traguardo del 28 Ottobre, gradirei porle le seguenti questioni: se per ipotesi, entro breve tempo le concedessero il brevetto europeo e quello americano, quanto valuterebbe il valore commerciale dello stesso ?

    Nel caso non volesse venderlo a breve, come immagina il suo futuro di qui a 5 anni ? Dirigente di una grossa multinazionale, continuerà a occuparsi di migliorare l’invenzione del millennio ?, si ritirerà a godere i frutti di quello che questa fantastica invenzione le porterà ?

    Good Work and Warm Regards
    Sebastiano

  • michele ravanelli

    Buongiorno Sig. Rossi,
    La seguo da molto tempo e mi auguro veramente di cuore che questo pregetto abbia fortuna. Non parlo per mio personale interesse ma a nome di tutte le persone che vivono su questo pianeta. Troppe volte e troppi interessi hanno portato a compromessi nei quali il nostro pianeta ci ha rimesso e non poco.
    Con questa tecnolgia sara’ possibile avere energia a basso costo per tutti e cosa molto importante ad emissioni zero, quindi anche per le persone meno fortunate dandoci un briciolo di dignita’.
    Per questo e molti altri motivi, prevalentemente etici mi auguro di cuore che Lei venga giustamente premiato dei tanti sforzi che ha fatto e che l’ecat sia presto disponibile sul mercato. Saro’ sicuramente uno dei primi ad acquistare appena sara’ possibile un ecat casalingo per mandare in pensione la mia caldaia a metano.
    Abbiamo tutti fiducia in Lei.
    Grazie

  • P.G.Sharrow

    @Andrea Rossi; congratulations on making the sale. This should be of help in completion of the US patent.

    I have just completed reading the above post and all the comments, very informative all.

    It appears that you are using rf generator to help in startup. I believe you should expand this line of thought to improve control in operation. Every small improvement can be patented and will give tighter control of the technology. pg

  • Gillana Giancarlo

    Egregio prof. Wladimir Guglinsky, pensa che la sua teoria possa spiegare, fra i fenomeni LENR, anche quelli legati a reazioni ultrasoniche come il piezonucleare?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Kim Patterson:
    Thank you, God bless you too.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gabriele:
    Prof. Focardi, Prof. Levi, Prof. Campari, Prof. Ferrari are also INFN.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Magnus Holm

    Congratulations, the E-Cat has now reached mainstream media. This was taken from Bloomberg TV produced by energyNOW.

    Bloomerg Short Clip
    or, full episode with E-Cat discussion starting at 19 minutes into the episode.
    Bloomberg Full Episode

    Best Regards,
    Magnus

  • gabriele

    Buonasera. Per prima cosa volevo farle i complimenti per la tenacia dimostrata e ovviamente per i risultati sorprendenti ottenuti. Le scrivo perché mi piacerebbe sapere se, oltre alla collaborazione con le università di Bologna e di Uppsala, ha previsto qualche forma di collaborazione o di ricerca con l’INFN. Grazie mille e buon lavoro.

  • Kim Patterson

    “warship in stormy weather”

    Prayer for you.

    Kadoish, Kadoish, Kadoish, Adonai ‘Tsebayoth

  • Observer

    Humans are using 60 TWh of electricity every day. At 10c / KWh, this costs about 6 billion Euros / day. So every day when your technology is not yet in widespread use, Human race loses a massive amount of money!

    Please stop spengind our money. We are poor 😉 Would you sell the IPR for 1€/habitant? Total income would be 7 billion?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Annual_electricity_net_generation_in_the_world.svg

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gillana Giancarlo:
    Please read the answer to Jonatan.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jonatan:
    This is one of the reason why we are selling only 1 MW plants, where we can also defend much better the know how.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Matthew Waters:
    As I always said, I want not to play foot-ball with the bones of People. My company at the moment is a warship in stormy weather, during a hard battle. To invest in it is premature. So far we just sell industrial plants of 1 MW and our Customers are financing us.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • JS

    Hi, dear Mr. Wladimir Guglinski
    New physic Nassim Haramein

  • Matthew Waters

    Mr. Rossi,

    I’ve heard rumors that you may start selling shares of your corporation. If this is true could you confirm, and if so, where would this information be announced? Further more, when would you be planning to do this?

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>