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

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.

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


  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)
∫ρ.dτ  =  + 1      (12)
because the ring (Fig. 3)  has 1 proton , and “ρ” is measured by proton’s units of load.
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).
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
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).
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.
  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

  • Oscar Galli

    Anche qui c’è qualcosa sulla fusione fredda sviluppato da ENEA, ma poi nessuno ha fatto nulla.

    Ing. Rossi, si faccia forza che siamo sulla strada giusta.

    Ing. Oscar Galli

  • Gillana Giancarlo

    Egr.Ing.Andrea Rossi
    La sensazione che non sia veramente Lei a rispondermi mi da il coraggio di scrivere, altrimenti non oserei mai disturbarLa con simili quisquiglie.
    Complimenti per il nuovo sito! Nella sezione ECAT Technology si legge: “this is an exthernal
    nuclear reaction…….compared with the burning of hydrogen…” mi permeto di suggerire di sostituire “the burning of Hydrogen” con ” the combusting reaction of hydrogen”, primo perchè mi sembra più elegante, secondo perchè evidenzia come le due reazioni siano di tipo diverso, inoltre “burning” è specificato successivamente nello stesso periodo.
    Vs. Gillana Giancarlo

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Todd Burkett:
    The miniaturization is an issue we will have to deal with, before or later. Now we have 2 prioritie, after the marketing of the 1 Thermal MW plants:
    1- the production of electric power
    2- the authorizations and the production of E-Cats for households able to give heat and energy.
    Then we will think to the other declinations.
    Warm Regards,

  • Todd Burkett

    Respectfully Mr. Rossi, Do you see any obvious difficulties in the future miniaturization of your technology? At this point I assume that you’re treating the nickel in a very particular manner in order to emphasize some geometries. Amongst other parameters. If you know the exact geometries necessary for optimal reaction, then I could foresee see use of some of current computer technology in order to build exactly the geometries that you need. I could envision dime size cells pre-charged with hydrogen, sealed for use in the field. Hold one of these” nano cat’s” over a candle until the process is self-sustaining (which should come with future optimization of the process) having disposable heat sources would be life-changing for a lot of Third World countries for cooking, winterization and so on, and on up through space technologies. The future looks like a lot of fun!

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Doubts on the structure of the neutrino proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory

    I saw yesterday a discussion betwenn two persons in a forum, concerning the neutrino model which I had already mentioned here in Rossi’s blog.
    One of them said that he cannot accept the model proosed in my QRT, because a neutrino composed by positron+electron should have a mass biggest than that of the neutrino.

    Sometimes the people dont understand some new concepts proposed in QRT, because they try to undersdand them by keeping theirs old understanding of the prevailing concepts of the current theories.

    Suppose that two particles have mass m and M. As we know, together they have a total mass m+M.
    However, the mass of a particle is detected by experimetns thanks to the interaction of the particle with the matter (its electromagnetic field interacts with the electromagnetic fields of the atoms of the apparatus used for the mass detection).

    But the neutrino does not interact with the matter, because the neutrino’s total electromagnetic field is null, since the positive electromagnetic charge of the positron is cancelled by the negative electromagnetic charge of the electron.
    So, the neutrino behaves as it should have no mass.

    Of course the neutrino has mass, and its mass is the sum of the electron and postitron masses (discounting the packing loss). But as the neutrino does not interact with matter, there is no way to detect its mass by experiments, and so it looks like the neutrino had no mass.

    The model of neutrino formed by positron+electron cannot be accepted by the scientific community also because such neutrino would have to have a spin zero, while the neutrino’s spin actually is ½. As the spin-fusion concept proposed in QRT is not taking in consideration by the physicists, they cannot accept the model of neutrino composed by postitron+electron.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Paolo:
    We are working also in Italy.
    Warm Regards,

  • Paolo

    Caro Dott. Rossi, ho visto dal suo blog che seguo assiduamente l’interesse da parte di tanti paesi esteri; ma l’Italia dov’è? La sua ricerca è stata ed è molto italiana. Perchè in un momento così difficile per il nostro PAESE, in cui scelte strategiche fondamentali come quelle energetiche che porterebbero benessere e lavoro sono nascoste dai media? A livello di nuovo esecutivo lei ha qualche appoggio e sta lavorando in questa opera di informazione capillare ?
    Perchè altri paesi debbono avere la primogenitura in questa sua scoperta ? Sono orgoglioso del suo lavoro e credo che questo sarebbe il giusto momento perchè tutto ciò sia veramente di dominio pubblico. Io quello che posso fare nel mio piccolo lo farò, ma se tutti come me fossero a conoscenza forse si interesserebbero di più e lotterebbero per mettere con le spalle al muro i poteri che la ostacolano.. Mi dica come possiamo contribuire in questa divulgazione. Saluti

  • Italo A. Albanese

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    My compliments for the new site, with a small complain. In the FAQ section I should find not only the questions, but the answers too… Anyway, very good graphic style, easy to read, you should apply it here too.

    Best regards,
    Italo A.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Francesco F:
    Yes they are our North Europe commercial Branch, and they have been authorized to make their website.
    Anyway, you made a very useful comment: there are around many fake sellers of E-Cat, so, to avoid frauds, please always ask us confirmation of the authenticity of the offer if somebody offers our products. By the way: so far we are selling only 1 Thermal MW plants and we do not accept money foe other products. If anybody asks you money, you bet he is a fake seller. No money collection, for any reason, can be made by our commercial licensees.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Sebastiano Sardo:
    We will try to make a model able to give electric power and heat.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Renato,
    Yes, we are working on engineering, even if we already sell engeneered products (the 1 MW thermal plants). About theory, we have it and will be disclosed when opportune.
    Warm Regards,

  • Found the problem with form: “first name” field doesn’t accept double names, ie: “marco giovanni”

  • By registering on the right side form on, it seems it does not accept email. I tried with both Opera and Firefox. Is it probably a JavaScript failure?
    Best Regards!

  • Renato

    Egregio Dott. Rossi,

    E’ mia impressione che le ricerche di maggiore interesse immediato possano essere quelle di tipo ingegneristico, mentre quelle in relazione alla teoria di base, sono certamente fondamentali, ma a medio/lungo termine.

    In entrambi i casi i risultati degli studi dovrebbero portare ad aumentare il CP e la temperatura di esercizio, ma mentre nel caso della teoria di base e’ probabilmente indispensabile divulgare l’esatta composizione dell’E-cat, nel caso delle ricerche ingegneristiche non sembra necessario sapere perche’ l’ecat funziona, visto che ci si limiterebbe a ottimizzarne dei parametri di processo e apparato, come forma, modalita’ di supporto, alimentazione ecc. ecc..

    Insomma dopo tutta questa tiritera vengo alla domanda: ha preso contatti con qualche istituzione per svolgere ricerca di tipo “ingegneristico”? E se si, sarebbe possibile sapere con quali?

    Un Saluto e In bocca al lupo.

  • Sebastiano Sardo

    Egr. Ing. Rossi, grazie per aver cortesemente risposto alla mia precedente domanda.
    Dalle sue risposte ai lettori del forum evinco che lei prevede di portare l’E-CAT domestico entro 2 anni a disposizione di privati cittadini. Afferma anche di stare lavorando alla versione dell’E-CAT che sarà in grado di fornire elettricità e anche qui la sua previsione se non ricordo male è di poter avere un prodotto commerciale entro 2 anni.
    La mia domanda è la seguente : tra due anni quando potremo avere un E-CAT domestico esso sarà in grado di funzionare come caldaia da riscaldamento e nello stesso tempo fornire energia elettrica indipendente dalla rete ? Si tratterà di due diversi dispositivi o riuscirà a far confluire il tutto in uno solo ?
    Warm regards & good work
    Sebastiano Sardo

  • Francesco R

    Dear Ing. Rossi,
    The site seems to be in strict agreement with you, since in their homepage you can find the sentence ” During 2011/2012, will collect pre-orders and provide answers to inquires from potential customers. Due to the high expected demand for ECAT products, orders will be put on a waiting list and delivery is scheduled for 2012 (depending on product).”
    Did you authorize them to write such a sentence or is it just some sort of fraud ?
    Don’t you think you must decide quickly how to go on officially with marketing and sales activities ?
    If you have such a great product (and I really believe in it) you should think of organizational issues too and not just of R&D… Otherwise your name will be, sooner or later, associated to some fraud, even if you never agreed with the fraudster…
    I know, it’s really harder and harder, but now you are on the market, so you have to go on. Maybe it’s better if you find someone who can help you with all the non technical work you are facing.
    My best wishes for your future.

  • Stefano

    Egregio Ing. Rossi,
    Il sito è molto professionale spero che questa volta sia stato da lei approvato.

    Cordiali saluti

  • arian

    dear andrea rossi

    please check out this website

    this website look professional,
    i suggest you make this website
    your official website.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
    1- no
    2- no
    3- yes
    4- no
    5- no
    6- no
    Sorry, I can’t be fluent in confidential information.
    Warm Regards,

  • Charlie Zimmerman

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Congratulations on a growing contingent of customers! The future is bright indeed.

    I just re-read your paper, “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”. The paper indicates reactions of all isotopes of NI. On this blog you have said that only NI62 and NI64 react. Regarding this paper:

    1) Do all isotopes react?
    2) This paper does not acknowledge depletion of NI58. Did the idea to deplete the NI58 come later?
    3) Table 3 shows NI58 to be much more energetic. This seems inconsistent with the depletion of NI58. Do you agree?
    4) Is the lower COP in the production device relative to the experimental results in the paper a result of depleting NI58?
    5) If so, can it be assumed that NI58 is depleted as a matter of adding control?
    6) Or, is NI58 depleted to reduce long half lived NI59 production?

    I am thinking that your ideas regarding the process have changed dramatically from the original writing of this paper. You mentioned that you will be publishing the theory after the 1 MW reactor demonstration.

    Will you publish your theory soon?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Italo suggested to put a searching engine in each page of each post.

    In Zpenergy there is a “PREVIEW” botton: the reader can see his comment before to submit.

    I would suggest to put such botton here, because it helps us to have an idea on how our comment will be.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo(s):
    I will pass this to our informatic.
    Warm Regards,

  • Italo

    @ Italo A. Albanese:

    I suggested some times ago to Ing. Rossi to put a searching engine in each page of each post, for searching inside all pages of the entire blog JoNP.
    It seems complicated, but really it is easy using Google, that allows this feature using some html statements (as I have already made in my websites).
    In this way everyone could find everything he is searching inside the entire blog.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    I posted my comment herein on the Newton’s words I dont make conjectures in the Zpenergy website, and a reader posted the following reply:

    Thank you for the above article, I am not a scientist, the article helped me understand why so many scientists refuse to accept LENR and especially the work of Mr. Rossi.
    Bernie Koppenhofer

    I’m glad seeing that my articles are helping the people to understand why the acadimic physicists don not accept Rossi’s experiment.

  • jeffsmathers

    @Robert Mockan

    Thanks Robert, I agree that there is also great potential in Dr. Randall Mills work at Blacklight (Hydrino) and I have been following him for about 13 years… however, he has not brought it fully out of the lab. Much like those who work in pure academia and are constantly remanded for peer review before exposure ad infinum, it has been extremely frustrating to see a commercial application of his work come to fruition.

    Eng. Rossi on the other hand has not waited for the green light from ‘The Church’ of skeptisism and has forged his own path before his technology can be squelched by the government on national secrecy grounds or the oil and energy government/corporatists.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Enrico Billi wrote in November 13th, 2011 at 8:52 AM

    “Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    have you ever thought to open a Wiki site in order to collect all the information you have about the proof or the mistakes of QRT and standard QM? You could confirm the subscription in order to moderate the discussions. It could be the right place to exchange ideas and develop step by step the different element of the new physics theory.
    Best Regards,
    Enrico Billi”

    Dear Enrico,
    no, in spite of it’s a good idea, it did not occur to me.

    Besides, to do it would require available time and the talent of a webmaster, two things I dont have to my disposal.

    But I would appreciate if somebody should do it.

  • JS

    Dear Mr. Wladimir Guglinski
    what represents a Quantum Ring Theory at the micro level, has a counterpart in the macro as Coandă effect
    Nassim Haramein fractal theory
    sorry for mistakes-text translated by Google

  • Italo A. Albanese

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I think Gillana Giancarlo is right on one aspect: It is very difficult, for somebody who comes to this site for the first time, to know what you already answered. She not only should have to scavenger the 570 comments on this post, but to read thousands and thousands comments spread on all the previous posts. You should, to save your own time, put on a “faq” section and, if possible, a separate, static post (that is, should ever appear fist in the list of posts) named something like “E-cat: write to Andrea Rossi”.

    Best regards,
    Italo A.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gillana Giancarlo:
    I cannot give information about the operation of the reactor, and the information you are asking for is confidential. About your observations: 62-Ni and 64-Ni are stable; 63-Cu and 65-Cu are stable.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Eric Ashworth:
    I cannot give information regarding the operation of the reactor.
    Warm Regards,

  • Could this explanation help explain how 30% of nickel is transmuted into copper?. Hydrogen could be considered a linking mechanism between the physical dimension of a mass and its non physical field. This could be why it is good at forming molecular bonds. It must have a vibration slow enough to be compatible with atomic mass and another one fast enough to compliment the atomic field. An atom could have three basic components/shells. Proton, neutron and electron plus an added mobile dimension composed of Aether that is neither positive or negative being transitory and thereby binding the three basic components together into a unit of self sustaining energy. Each shell is a helical trajectory. Each helical trajectory is pyramidal. The apex of the electron zone sits in the middle at the base of the neutron zone and the apex of the neutron zone sits in the middle at the base of the proton zone beneath the apex of the proton. The atom could therefore have three zones of negativity and three zones of positivity. Each apex would be a point of fusion from where fission would take place and consequently, identifiable fields would exist relating to the three basic components because each field would be defined by its unique circuitry. The proton field would encapsulate the neutron and the negative field, the neutron would encapsulate the negative field. The proton mobile field would experience three compressions and one expansion upon eventually being sucked into the proton zone. The neutron field would experience two compressions and one expansion and the electron field would experience one compression and one expansion.

    You may ask, where is this going?. This could help explain how 30% of nickel is transmuted into copper if there are three isotopes of nickel involved in the process. By using three isotopes you could in theory construct macro units of neutral potential composed of negative, neutral and positive isotopic potentials. In all, nine pyramids with good positive and negative gravity that would be able to break the hydrogen atom into its two components and assimilate them into the macro neutral potential. The proton charge would end up in the most positive of the nickel isotope within its most positive zone providing the macro neutral potential with a greater degree of positivity so as to become balanced in its new positive environment. Could the generating of heat be instigated by a form of chaos caused by the individual identifiable fields having to readjust in accordance to accomodate the new found mass?. I put this forward hoping it might answer some problem areas with regards atomic physics. and how helical trajectories could be involved in fission/fusion interactions. I also wish you all the best Andrea with regards your future commercial ventures.
    Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • SPE

    Hi Mr Rossi, just wanted to congratulate you, you have made into one of Britain’s major newspapers!

    Also a question about electrical energy generation; what sort of efficiency are you hoping to get with these devices (a solar panel converts ~10% of the radiation hitting it into energy)? So how about the ecat (what % of the nuclear energy do you reckon you may be able to convert into electricity ultimately)?

    (I would rather ask about this the COE as its clearer to me how well the device may perform, but you can to COE if you want)


  • gillana giancarlo

    Egr. Ing. Andrea Rossi: la lettura da me riportata relativamente all’esecuzione delle reazioni di tipo esotermico di nichel 62 si riferisce a quanto affermato nella WO/2009/125444: richiesta di brevetto intenazionale PCT..etc individuata via PATENTSCOPE research.
    I dati in esso riportati non vanno pertanto rimandati al sito della Leonardo Corporation.
    Per quel che riguarda le informazioni sul nichel usato, faccio presente che siamo a quota 563 commenti…, sarebbe meglio avere le informazioni in un sito senza dover scrutinare le più svariate argomentazioni.

  • Robert Mockan


    I agree with your comments. As important as E-Cat is, there is other, related, technology that engineers and scientists could also be focusing on, if so inclined.
    You might be interested in something I posted at
    titled “A Possible Hydrogen Energy Rocket Engine Core?”.

  • Berke Durak

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Here is a hypothetical block diagram of your October 28th e-Cat demonstration.

    We have discussed it a bit on the Vortex mailing list and we’d like to know
    if this diagram is accurate.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jeffsmathers:
    Very interesting, I am open.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Franco Morici,
    Yes, we are working on this issue.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gillana Giancarlo:
    The website Leonardo you talk of has not been approved from us, is full of errors, is not our website, and we asked to put it immediately out of the net. About the nickel we use, please read all the comments already published on this blog.
    Warm Regards,

  • jeffsmathers

    I would like to submit an idea to the potential forum that will grow here. There are many engineers and scientists who have ‘retired’ from the workplace but still have much to give and share. I can think of those from NASA and many from LLL and Sandia,Boeing, Lockheed and many others.

    Personally, I am a bit upset at this administration and those prior who have squelched CF and many other energy platforms that showed great promise. We now have several private companies and investors that want to return to space and need power systems with a greater specific thrust than our current chemical energy and ion or microwave propulsion platforms.

    But wait! There is more! How about throwing off the shackles of government corporatism and the myriad of politics and BS and utilize our long lost American attitudes of ‘Can Do!’ We are being conditioned to accept mediocrity and I am tired of it…..

    Right now for instance, Rossi’s system needs a liquid/gas recirculation engine and condenser that will power a generator.

    I can think of Raphael Morgado’s MYT engine as a pressure pump engine in a closed loop condenser driving a high efficiency generator and a super cell type of capacitor/battery electrical storage…

    Or using the Ecat as a propulsive energizer for a propellant in a spacecraft….

    I really like Rossi’s attitude and respect his moral and ethical motivations to help our country and this world step up to the next level of potential.

    I am presently working in the engineering field here in Oregon and would pick up and move to help this guy succeed…..

    Anyway, let’s hear from all of you on this.

  • gillana giancarlo

    Egr. Ing. Rossi: nel sito della Leonardo, nella descrizione del brevetto mondiale si legge:…. per l’esecuzione della reazione di tipo esotermico è necessario un isotopo di nichel di numero di massa 62, per permettere la trasformazione di quest’ultimo in un isotopo stabile di rame di numero di massa 62.
    Ma l’isotopo (29^62)CU non è instabile?
    E’ possibile che il suo reattore possa guadagnare energia sia per lo sbilancio energetico fra P + Ni -> CU che per decadimento beta per annichilimento positrone + elettrone?
    Perdoni la mia ignoranza ed impudenza!

  • Franco Morici

    Good morning Ing. Rossi,

    I take this opportunity to express to You all my support.

    I would like to ask you (as hypotesis) if you have ever thought of using the steam produced by some E-Cat modules as input to other E-Cat units, instead of water.

    Being reactor core temperature very high, as result we should get a superheated steam, which would allow its use for production of electricity based on a “superheated steam Rankine cycle” that has good performance.

    I suppose that a lot of technical problems will arise but could be a solution to convert thermal energy in electrical energy in efficient way.

    Thank you.
    Kind Regards

    Franco Morici

  • Enrico Billi

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    have you ever thought to open a Wiki site in order to collect all the information you have about the proof or the mistakes of QRT and standard QM? You could confirm the subscription in order to moderate the discussions. It could be the right place to exchange ideas and develop step by step the different element of the new physics theory.
    Best Regards,
    Enrico Billi

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Edmondo,
    I appreciate your insight.
    Warm Regards,

  • Dear Mr. Rossi

    Thank You for your reply.

    Your feelings of embattlement are understandable. You do have a battle on at least three fronts.

    1: Disbelief from the scientific community.
    A lot has been said lately about “pathological criticism” we have seen it before and it is being applied to you. There will be a point of critical mass when they will have to accept reality. I think we can see the cracks already forming in that wall of disbelief. They will try and fit your effect into the current theories and they will call it by different names. You are going commercial with an idea that was supposed to have been dead over 20 years ago. Something on the same level as, the wheel, fire, or electric light was not supposed to be on the market before the scientific community even has a decent theory on it. This going to shake them up and they won’t take too gracefully. Mud will be flung and I must admit some guilty pleasure in looking forward to seeing that spectacle. Perhaps scientific theory will start to move forward with invention and discovery rather than the current method of waiting for funerals before challenging a theory.

    2: Those who wish to steal you work.
    On this we can not discount the power of public opinion. The world needs to know your story and although I believe we do stand on the shoulders of giants there are some people like you who see farther into the future. The thief’s will persist but the sooner you bring you work to the world the better. I would like to see the E-Cat be a household name before they copy you as they surely will.

    3: Those who want suppress your invention.
    On this you face the planets most entrenched and powerful groups. They have vast resources and few if any can oppose them. You do have ways to fight them. They must operate from under rocks and in the shadows while you can work in the bright light. If you and those who support you can get a hold of those scaly tails and drag them into the light they will fail.

    One of the battle fields is the internet and other popular media. I think your foot soldiers are the many people who have been following your work and supporting you and spreading the word. If organized properly they can help bring the world into a new era. History has shown good old grass roots rebelion has defeated some of the worlds nastiest snakes. It can happen again.

    Stay safe and focused Mr. Rossi. We are with you.

    Kind Regards


  • Here is an announcement from Orebro University in Sweden:—blir-den-kall-eller-varm-/

    The announcement is in Swedish. Here is the text translated by Google. I made a few corrections:

    Public lectures: Tomorrow’s nuclear power – will it be cold or hot?

    Date: 2011-11-23

    Time: 18:30 to 20:00

    Location: Lecture Hall T, Tech House

    Sven Kullander, Professor of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, chairman of the Royal Academy of Sciences Energy Committee

    “In the wake of Fukushima accident the future of nuclear power is discussed again. The rush to replace the world’s eighty percent dependent on fossil fuels coal, oil and gas. Severe climate change will probably be difficult to avoid without massive expansion of both renewables and nuclear.

    Very large investments are being made to greatly improve existing nuclear reactors. Within a few decades are expected to see a new type of reactors, breeder reactors, both safer and more efficient than today’s reactors. In an even longer perspective, the hope is that the hot fusion on a large scale to provide humanity with almost infinite amount of energy.

    But maybe all these planned large-scale facilities will compete with small reactors that could be the private property of every man and woman. Cold fusion has been developed recently in Bologna can be housed in an apparatus which is not much bigger than a coffee maker and generating energy only with a few teaspoons of nickel powder.

    An intensive discussion on the net have questioned the experiment in Bologna mainly because it can not be explained by the established nuclear physics theory. It has also been speculated that the derivative produced heat energy must have been greatly overestimated mainly by an overestimation of the buildup of steam. At the lecture, these issues will be treated in order to gain a better understanding of the experiment in Bologna. ”

    Welcome! Free admission!

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    “I dont make conjectures”, said Newton.

    This is the motto of science, and the physicists follow this slogan.

    It was possible for Newton do not make conjectures. Because for the discoveries of the macroscopic world, made by Newton, there was no need to make conjectures. Because he was able to test, with experiments, any conjecture before to propose it in books. In another words, Newton was able to test the conjectures.

    Today the physicists follow Newton slogan, and they developed Quantum Mechanics without conjectures. Such procedure was imposed by Heisenberg. For instance, the helical trajectory (zitterbewegung) should be a conjecture capable to give a different intepretation for the duality wave-particle, proposed by de Broglie (he proposed that matter has the property of duality). If we interpret that duality is caused by the helical trajectory, there is no need to consider that matter is wave-particle, as de Broglie proposed.
    Schrödinger tried to give another interpretation for the duality, by considering the helical trajectory. Heisenberg did not accept that conjecture. And Schrödinger lost the dispute: the conjecture of helical trajectory was not accepted in Physics.
    If Schrödinger should have won the dispute, today we would have a New Physics, different of present Quantum Mechanics.

    The duel Heisenberg vs Schrödinger is described in my book The Missed U-Turn, the duel Heisenberg versus Schrödinger – from Newton to Rossi’s eCat”, to be published in London in 2012.

    The first man to violate the Newton’s slogan was Einstein. He realized that it was impossible to explain the results of Michelson-Morley experiment without conjectures. So, he asked forgiveness to Newton, and did conjectures. That’s why he replaced the Euclidian space considered by Newton, and proposed the space-time adopted in the Relativity.

    So, the question: what would have happened if Einstein had not existed?
    Well, then the Relativity would not exist in the present days. But of course the physicists would have developed an alternative theory, similar to what they did in the case of Quantum Mechanics.
    The alternative theory (which would exist if Einstein should not have made the conjectures addopted in the Relativity) would have to be developed by considering the mathematics only, as was made in the case of Quantum Mechanics.

    Happily, Einstein proposed an experiment so that to test his conjecture. And the experiment showed that his conjecture was right: the space has a curvature about the Sun, the space is not Euclidian.

    But the challenge faced by Einstein was easier than to make conjectures in the micro-world. In the begginning of the development of Quantum Mechanics the physicists tried to make some conjectures, by addopting physical models. But the discovered that it was impossible (with the knowledge available at that time) to discover physical models for the atom. That’s why they gave up, and developed Quantum Mechanics without conjectures. Such procedure is known as the method of simplicity, adopted in science.

    But suppose that the space has dilation/contraction into the electrosphere of the atoms, similar to the contraction/expansion adopted by Einstein in the case of the Relativity, which he named space-time.
    Well, in this case Quantum Mechanics cannot be entirelly correct, because the conjecture of space dilation within the electrosphere was not considered in the development of the theory. In another words, that would mean that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete. In spite of it works well, and it gives good predictions (because it is possible to develop a theory by considering only the mathematics, by neglecting some fundamental laws that do not work in the level in which Quantum Mechanics was developed).
    Sure such theory will work until a certain level only.
    But probably it will fail in a deeper level (that’s why Quantum Mechanics cannot explain cold fusion, because it is a phenomenon which occurs in a deeper level which requires news laws not considered in Quantum Mechanics).

    And suppose that within the atom, within the nucleus (and within the elementary particles in general) there are physical phenomena not considered in Quantum Mechanics.
    Well, then the theory will be further away from the true reality that exists in nature.
    The theory will not be able to explain phenomena that occur in a deeper level than that considered for the development of Quantum Mechanics, as occurs in Rossi’s cold fusion experiment.

    This is the situation today. Rossi’s cold fusion is suggesting that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete. Probably there are mechanisms existing within the atom, within the nucleus, within the elementary particles, and those mechanisms are not considered in Quantum Mechanics.

    There is need to make conjectures, as Einstein did when he faced the crisis opened by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

    The crisis today is opened by two experiments: the LHC experiments, which did not detected the particles predicted by Supersymmetry and neither the boson of Higgs, and the cold fusion Rossi’s experiment.

    Yes, there is a crisis, like there was a crisis when Einstein faced the puzzle of Michelson-Morley experiment. And in that age, like happens today, the community of physicists tried do not accept Einstein’s conjectures. They simply ignored the Michelson-Morley experiment, as they try today to ignore Rossi’s eCat. In the end of the 19th Century they simply believed that a New Physics was not necessary, because conjectures was not accepted.
    Einstein showed the most physicists were wrong. He proposed a New Physics, developed by conjectures, and it was confirmed by experiments.

    Today the experiments in the LHC and the Rossi’s experiments are pointing out that there is need to introduce conjectures in Physics.
    There is need a New Physics, as there was need in the end of the 19th Century.

    The question is: what are the conjectures to be tested by experiments ?

    Quantum Ring Theory proposes many conjectures. They must be tested, as Einstein theory was tested in 1919.

    If the experiments confirm only 10% of the conjectures proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, we will have one of the most greatest revolutions of Theoretical Physics.

  • gillana giancarlo Prof. Wladimir Guglinsky
    I miei migliori ringraziamenti per la sua più che esauriente panoramica!.
    Tanti Auguri a Lei e all’Ing. Andrea Rossi.
    Vs. Gillana Giancarlo.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Rich Rossi:
    Right now between 60 and 100.

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>