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

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Mr. Robert Mockan and Mr. Eernie1

    According to the current theories, the force of gravity is 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetic force.
    But according to Quantum Ring Theory, the force of gravity and the force of electromagnetism have the same magnitude.

    However, we know that gravity works with an attraction force 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetic force, as Newton measured it 400 years ago by experiments.

    Then how to explain that gravity can be as strong as electromagnetism?

    There is only one possible hypothesis: the space is filled with attractive and repulsive gravitons, and they interact with the same force of the electromagnetism.
    But such “soup” of attractive and repulsive gravitons works with a resultant atrraction force 10^40 times weaker than electromagnetism.

    Such hypothesis is corroborated by an experiment made in 2006 at the European Space Agancy, by Martin Tajmar and Clovis de Matos:
    The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong
    The experiments detected a gravity force no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts.

    Why are not the physicists interested to repeat the experiment made by Martin Tajmar and Clovis de Matos ? (in order to verify if gravity indeed can be very stronger than the physicists believe).

    I wonder if it’s because the physicists are not interested in experiments that contradict their beloved theories they believe.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Iaia Toti:
    Warm Regards,

  • Karla Luna

    Caro Mr. Rossi,

    I believe in you and admire all your dedication and strenght. Waiting to see the results of October 28th.

    Warm Regards,

    Karla Luna from Quito-Ecuador

  • adriana toti

    buonasera Ing. Rossi. Ho necessità di contattarLa per conto di un Paese estero
    le lascio la mia mail:

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Correction in my reply to Mr. Eernie1:

    1- Electric particles e(+) and e(-): they compose the electric fields

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Robert Mockan wrote in October 26th, 2011 at 10:30 AM :

    “In your hypothesis I’m still trying to understand how the field generates force vectors that cause the helical trajectory.”

    Dear Mr. Robert,
    I think the interaction that cause the helical trajectory is gravitational.

    There is an assymmetry in the internal gravity field of the proton (see my explanation to Mr. Eernie1 on the structure of the proton).
    The proton’s gravity field is produced by the spin of the three quarks, and there is an assymetry in the direction of the gravity fluxes of the two quarks up (regarding the central quark down). As the gravity field gyrates, its interaction with the aether has a resultant force that causes the helical trajectory, because of the assymmetry, when the proton moves.

    In my theory the electron is also composed by three quarks, and so the same happens to the electron.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. Eernie1
    There are no gluons in my theory.

    In Quantum Ring Theory the aether is composed by the following elementary massless particles:

    1- Electric particles e(+) and e(+): they compose the electric fields
    2- Magnetic particles m(+) and m(-): they compose the magnetic fields
    3- Permeability particles p(+) and p(-): they interact with magnetic and electric particles
    4- Attractive gravity particles g(+) and g(-)
    5- Repulsive gravity particles G(+) and G(-)

    There are laws of interaction between the particles. For instance:
    – A flux of particles e(+) may induce a flux of particles g(+) , and vice-versa.
    – There is attraction between two particles G(+)
    – There is attraction between two particles g(+)
    – There is repulsion between a particle g(+) and a particle G(+).

    I expose these laws in my paper Contribution of Repulsive Gravity for Cold Fusion in Rossi-Focardi Experiment, submitted to Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics.

    The body of the proton is a ring, and as it is spinning it induces a Principal field Sp(p)composed by particles g(+). The rotation of the Principal field induces a Secondary field Sn(p) composed by particles e(+), responsible for the proton’s Coulombic field. The two fiels of the proton are concentric.
    As you may realize, a flux of gravitions within the body of the proton induces a flux of electric particles.
    So, the proton has an internal gravitational field, and an external electric field (which formation is induced by the rotation of the gravitational field).

    The structure of the electron is similar, but its gravitational Principal field Sp(e) is formed by gravitions g(-), and its Secondary field Sn(e) is formed by electric particles e(-).

    The electric field of the proton is formed by strings [flux of particles e(+), similar to Dirac strings], and around each of those strings it is agglutinated a field of repulsive gravity particles G(+).
    I think such repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion occurrence.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Caro Andrea Ran.
    C’è sempre bisogno di Architetti..per esempio, ad averci inviato il miglior disegno per l’E-Cat è un architetto, per ora.
    Cordiali saluti,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Caro Giuseppe Vimercati,
    purtroppo non è possibile, in quanto il nostro Cliente non ce lo autorizza.
    Cordiali saluti,

  • eernie1

    Dear Eng.Guglinski,
    Your theory of graviton interactions within the nucleus becomes more interesting to me.Are you substituting these interactions for the presently accepted theory of gluons maintaining the close proximity of the protons within the nucleus?The distribution and interaction of the gluons by the pions existing in the nuclei environment has been a mainstay of the particle physicists to explain the coherence of the system.If gravitational effects play this role then the need of a unified field theory becomes a much more important part of the overall scheme of particle and energy structures and their behavior.My interpretation of the universal form is that it operates as a huge waveguide with nodal points determined by spacial dimensions. At these points the existing EM fields are additive concentrating the energy and producing what we percieve as particles and at anti nodal points the fields are subtractive producing empty space. Each nodal point contains not only the primary frequency of the energy field(hf)but also all of its harmonics(1hf,2hf,3hf etc).This is primarily why quantum numbers are generally whole numbers when exhibited as energy levels in atomic structures.These nodes can move from point to point depending upon their assumed mass and interaction with adjacent nodes.I am attempting to apply Fourier analysis methods to this model since all the parameters in my scheme can be represented by fourier transforms and compiled by fourier synthesis.The majority of QM equations can also be representated by a form of these equations.

  • Jonatan

    I am a young entrepreneur, and i’m looking for opportunity to sell the e cat in my country (Israel).
    Is it possible? and what the procedure for that?

    Best regards.

  • Robert Mockan

    Dear Mr. Guglinski,

    I should have qualified my statement better. Both Gray and Widom-Larsen describe increasing the electron mass-energy by acceleration.

    In your hypothesis I’m still trying to understand how the field generates force vectors that cause the helical trajectory.

    I admit to also trying to reconcile Randall Mills orbit shell vectors with the field generated vectors in your hypothesis to perceive the commonality. Probably juggling too many balls at once. I’ll get back with you about this.

  • Lou Tengzelius

    Dear Robert Mockan.
    Your comment (October 26th, 2011 at 12:24 AM):
    “Can any body suggest methods that Rossi might be using to accomplish this?”
    We assume H + N => Heat We assume Rossi Reaction commences at about 200 C. We assume the Rossi Reaction triggers harmonic oscillation with application of Frequency Generator applying alternating fields to reaction chamber From experimental graphs of application time frames we assume an initial steady application to trigger reaction and short time applications to prevent the thermal output from falling into a negative energy mode. We assume the species of harmonic be that of a Hydride Ion. It is symmetrical. We assume the Hydride Ion normally takes the form of semi chaotic physical shape which when tuned with a RFG generator aligns with one another as simple harmonic oscillators. We assume the Guglinski New Physics describes the oscillating e p e as donut proton donut symmetrical about a central axis whereby the elections trace the surface of the donuts helically in opposite direction to satisfy the spin theories. As this oscillator worms its way through the Nickel electronic cloud at distance d we envision separation of the Hydride Ion into e and p e where the p e portion enters the Nickel nucleus using the Guglinski New Physics to balance energy concerns.
    May I suggest that powdered Magnesium (Whose Hydride formation equilibrium occurs at approximately 200 C.) and ferromagnetic Iron powder is placed within an enclosure containing Nickel powder where Hydrogen under pressure, heat and an alternating magnetic field created from outside via an RFG or within via a plasma arc produced by an alternating voltage play a probable scenario to explain not only the Rossi Reactor but many other experimental results.
    The mathematics and geometry are a daunting work in progress for me especially attempting to include d empirically. Lou Tengzelius

  • giuseppe vimercati

    Buongiorno ing Rossi,
    sono un commercialista senza particolari conoscenze nel campo della fisica, ma sono enormemente interessato al Suo lavoro che, a mio parere, potrebbe essere la più importante invenzione, dopo il fuoco e la ruota. Esagero?
    mi piacerebbe essere presente al test del 28 ottobre.
    e’ possibile?
    cordiali saluti

  • Andrea Ran. sig. Rossi,
    faccio a lei (e al mondo) il mio più caro e sincero in bocca al lupo per il 28!
    P.S.: (tra il serio e il faceto) …poi ci sarà mica bisogno di un architetto?! (-;

  • Robert Mockan

    Mr. Rossi commented recently about a radio frequency generator in the E-Cat design.
    This is interesting because as far back as 1992 a “cold fusion” researcher named Dennis Letts was using RF to trigger the heat effect in palladium and heavy hydrogen cells. Typically it has been one of the “triggers” for the heat effect in a variety of cold fusion cell designs. It has been a hypothesis that the reaction sometimes requires an additional activation energy to start, but once triggered the internal energy generation maintains the reaction. Thus there is a history to using RF as a trigger. Letts reported up to 30 times power generation using RF compared to not using it in a self sustaining mode. If I understand what Rossi says correctly he is using it as a trigger, but the reactor in normal use will operate without the additional input after being activated. The Letts RF frequency experiments were at the hydrogen (heavy hydrogen)1420 MHz precession line, and also at the phonon quantized elastic wavelength in palladium. I suppose phonon frequencies of nickel might be used by Rossi to trigger the reaction in nickel. This would seem to indicate that once triggered, if we are talking about ultra low momentum neutron formation, then the oscillations resulting from electric field movement with the lattice maintains the interaction of the hydrogen proton and the conduction band electrons of nickel. Clearly maximizing the interaction should be the goal to maximizing the energy output. Can any body suggest methods that Rossi might be using to accomplish this?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Mr. Eernie1 wrote in October 25th, 2011 at 4:39 PM:

    “If I read you right,you are proposing that along with the gravitons there exists anti gravitons within the nucleus!”

    Yes, Mr. Eerniel.
    According to my idea, the attractive gravity is a little stronger than the repulsive gravity, and that’s the resultant gravity is attractive, and it actuates with magnitude 10^40 times weaker than electromagnetism.

    In my new nuclear model there is a flux of gravitons produced by a central nucleon 2He4 existing in all the nuclei. Such flux of gravitons produce a field which keeps protons and neutrons forming the structure of the nucleus.

    Where the gravity is born:

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Robert Mockan wrote in October 25th, 2011 at 11:39 AM

    1- “Given there is a negative energy balance for neutron synthesis from hydrogen,in free space conditions. Both the Gray and the Widom-Larsen theory increase mass-energy of the electron for balance, enabling neutron formation”

    Dear Robert,
    this is unaceptable. If the theory is not agree to the experimental data, the author cannot simple to state: “oh, let’s ignore the mass-energy of the electron, and suppose that it is greater than actually it is”.

    In my Quantum Ring Theory, the increase of the electron mass-energy is consequence of the energy due to electron’s zitterbewegung (helical trajectory).

    What solution do you think is the most reasonable?

    2- “To point, nickel hydride thin films upon passing through the curie temperature (when anharmonic oscillations of the hydrogen proton can occur) ALWAYS manifest localized melting of the thin film. ALWAYS! Without external magnetic fields”.

    Dear Robert, actually there is an external field.
    As you know, when the researchers started to make cold fusion experiments, there was a big problem: often they did not succeed to reproduce the results. In spite they used to repeat all the same condictions used in a previous experiment, however often they did not succeed to get the results again.

    In my paper WHAT IS MISSING IN LES CASE’S CATALYTIC FUSION, published in 2002 by Infinite Energy, I suggested that the magnetic field of the Earth helps to align the magnetic fields of the deuteriuns, so that the field of the planet helps the cold fusion occurrence.
    In some days when the Sun has magnetic storms, the magnetic field of the star confuses the alignment due to the magnetic field of the Earth, in order that cold fusion does not occur.

    In my paper I suggested that there was need to eliminate the influence of the magnetic field of the Earth and the Sun. So, when Letts and Cravens made their experiment, by using an external loadstone, they solved the problem of the cold fusion reproduction.

  • eernie1

    (sorry, hit the wrong button.)
    (To continue,) magnet,we started a conversation about future energy sources.He was convinced that the most promising direction would involve the transition elements because of the mobility of the electrons and the ease of interaction with external forces.He also stated that some form of hydrogen would be involved since it was the simplest form of atomic configuration.At the time he was involved with creating organic molecules found in life forces by means of electrical discharges in gaseous mixtures and had no time to devote to energy sources.One of his students received the Nobel prize for this work.
    To answer your question which is a good one,I must think about the various interactions that can be assumed and how they can influence the outcome you propose.There is a lot more complexity involved than at first glance.I will give you an answer after my thinking.

  • eernie1

    Dear Mr Mockan,
    You may be interested in an anecdote of mine about my thesis.When I started my graduate studies,The field of NMR was in its infancy which was a reason I was interested in it.My advisor who was a graduate of the U of Chicago took me there to consult with a group that was performing research in this field.To my surprise one of the participants was Harold Urey the nobel prise winner for his work with heavy water(deuterated oxygen).He was on the staff of the university and consulted with the group working on NMR.After convincing me to work with electron spin resonance because of the expense of obtaining the necessary precise homogenius

  • eernie1

    Dear Eng.Guglinski,
    If I read you right,you are proposing that along with the gravitons there exists anti gravitons within the nucleus!That to me presents an interesting direction for assembling a theory of nuclear decay.Just as electrons and positrons interact with force,the interaction of gravitons and anti gravitons should present a situation where enough EM is generated to upset the natural equilibrium of the stable atomic nucleus.Let me think about this.

  • Robert Mockan

    Dear Mr. Guglinski,

    I agree that unless accepted absolutes in the existing knowledge base of nuclear physics are not explained in new theory, the new theory will lack support. In light of the many controversial issues surrounding “cold fusion” or LENR experiments, I began to qualify the acceptance criterion for new ideas a bit. First everything remains on the table as a “hypothesis”, (a guess), as long as there is experimental evidence the hypothesis attempts to explain, even if established principles of physics prevent it from becoming a theory. How does this apply to the Gray research? Will, they have attempted to address (some) of the issues you raise. They did so in this reply they sent to the DOE, where the DOE held objections based on the same kind, if not the exact same, criteria you are applying to determine if the hypothesis is worth considering.
    The second item that applies here is that the Gray experiments HAVE (allegedly) melted targets using their accelerator neutron synthesis procedure. Without their lab journals I have no way to pursue the matter in greater detail, but if I accept they have done the experiments they have stated, my criterion for still considering their hypothesis as valid is still in effect. Like I say though, not yet an accepted theory.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Francesco Pasquarelli,
    In November I will be back in the USA. Please contact me then.
    Warm Regards,

  • Francesco Pasquarelli

    Looking for an opportunity in the distribution of your e-cat product .
    I’m based in Florida, USA. I’m a business owner with offices and warehousing capability.
    Currently a distributer of electronic components with atechnical background.

    I Speak: English, Italian, Africans,Some spanish.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear G. Westreicher:
    Yes, it is possible.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Fausro Iannotta:
    It is not possible to operate without cooling.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Amedeo:
    1- dipende da cosa si intende per reazione nucleare
    2- Non lo so
    Cordiali saluti,

  • Robert Mockan

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,

    As usual much material to consider.
    On a side issue, when I read through the experimental procedure followed by Dr. Santilli, he commented that when air was released into the reaction chamber the neutron detector went off scale, and as a safety measure the building was evacuated. But there was a puzzle because the neutron detector continued to indicate neutrons, even long after the reaction chamber had been turned off. Mention was made of the possibility the detector might be activated by a particle other than a neutron. Yet it would have to pass through the chamber walls, be able to activate the detector (like a neutron), and not dissipate from the volume of space around the chamber too rapidly otherwise it would not have been detected hours later. I mention this because the details of Dr. Santilli’s replication of the Borghi experiment seem to raise the question about what they actually found.

  • Christos Stremmenos

    Caro Andrea
    In una mia analisi dei dati della prova del 6-10-11 a Bologna,…/e-cat-test-6102011-la-relazione-di-christos-stremmen, Risulta dai diagrammi che l’acqua di ritorno dallo scambiatore al circuito primario del reattore, si mantiene ad una temperatura costante di 24 °C.
    Ciò significa che l’energia termica prodotta o immessa nel primario (funzione entalpica di deltaT), viene trasferita sicuramente nel secondario. Quindi il metodo sulle misure condotte per stabilire l’ energia termica prodotta dal apparato E-cat, scientificamente più corretto, rende fuori discussione il rapporto DI MATS LEWAN (NY TEKNIK).
    Cordialissimi saluti
    Ch. E. Stremmenos

  • Robert Mockan

    Dear “eernie1”,

    Masters thesis in 1955?
    Norman Ramsey did not publish “Nuclear Moments” until 1953. You must have been deep into it to be able to complete a thesis in 55. I read Nuclear Moments in 1992, at the time it was discovered palladium in the P&F cell was showing transmutation effects.
    I was trying to determine what nuclear parameters might explain nucleus orientation enhancing nuclear reactions by affecting the strong force potential. Magnetic quantum seemed logical, and hyperfine splitting measurement experiments seemed reasonable at the time to pursue the matter. But you probably know the story when amateurs hit funding problems, every thing stops. So I had to wait. Am waiting. For somebody like Rossi to spill the beans.
    On a side note, you may have read the article by Gray that I posted a few days ago.
    It describes the reasoning behind W.T. Grays neutron synthesis procedure. Incidentally, not mentioned in the article, is that Gray (father and son) have done the experiments to confirm the neutron synthesis, and have melted targets using the neutron “fusion” reaction. I would not be surprised if there were a “national security” letter somewhere in their possession that might explain why the process has not been commercialized.

    But here is a question:
    Given there is a negative energy balance for neutron synthesis from hydrogen,in free space conditions. Both the Gray and the Widom-Larsen theory increase mass-energy of the electron for balance, enabling neutron formation. What do you think is the possibility that in the conduction band of certain transition elements like nickel the increased mass-energy can be provided as an intrinsic condition of a greater-than-zero probability of increased electron mass-energy in the conduction band, combined with an increased proton cross section? The hypothesis sounds a bit like what has been discussed elsewhere, but is based on experimental evidence with nickel hydride thin films. To point, nickel hydride thin films upon passing through the curie temperature (when anharmonic oscillations of the hydrogen proton can occur) ALWAYS manifest localized melting of the thin film. ALWAYS! Without external magnetic fields, without current flow, just the thin film filled with interstitial hydrogen, the energy release melts the nickel. If the proton and conduction band electrons can form neutrons under those conditions, then this pathway to alternate nuclear reactions might be much more common than we previously thought. I think what Rossi has discovered is a way to increase the anharmonic oscillation, using something more than just lattice defect formation by inserting impurities into the nickel. Once the ultra low energy neutron is formed, then it might interact with the nucleus vie one or more of the many fascinating theories that have been discussed in this journal.

    As one who, at least once upon a time, was deep into the kind of reasoning experience needed to understand these subjects, what is your opinion about this hypothesis?

  • Amedeo

    Buongiorno, e anzitutto un grande in bocca al lupo.

    Le mie domande sono queste:

    1. E’ possibile che la reazione che avviene dentro la sua macchina, pur maggiormente esoergonica di quelle chimiche note, non sia di natura nucleare?

    2. Secondo lei tra dieci anni, a seguito della prevedibile diffusione di questa scoperta/invenzione, il panorama energetico mondiale sarà cambiato o sarà
    sostanzialmente come quello attuale, ancorchè peggiorato?


  • Fausto Iannotta

    Ho ancora qualche curiosità sulla sua straordinaria scoperta. Spero che lei sia ancora cosi gentile da rispondere
    1) ha mai provato a far continuare la reazione senza raffreddarla? Se si che temperature ha raggiunto?

    grazie ancora.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. Robert Mockan
    Let me comment your words.

    1- The Don Borghi experiment results can be explained by the research of W.T. Gray.
    Although, as Gray informs, the results of experiments are denied, and the theory is not accepted by the DOE, a look at the web site visitor logs tells a different story.

    It’s not a surprise why the academic physicists do not accept his theory.
    A neutron formed by proton+electron violates the Fermi-Dirac statistic.
    So, in order to get his theory accepted, Gray must show that his theory does not violate it.

    Also, there are two hard restrictions against a neutron formed by proton+electron:
    A- The electron has an magnetic field with magnitude 3 times of order stronger than that of the neutron. According to current theories, a neutron formed by proton+electron should have a magnetic moment 3 times of order stronger than that observed in experiments.
    B- A neutron formed by proton+electron could not have a mass greater than the sum of the masses of proton and electron (because of the packing loss).

    In general the authors of new theories use to neglect those fundamental questions, but inexplicably they wish their theory be accepted by the quantum physicists.

    If W.T. Gray and Widom-Larsen (or any other author) do not explain such fundamental questions, of course their theory cannot be taken seriously by the scientific community.

    2- The procedure for neutron synthesis is not rocket science.
    I know it.
    However, as the neutron synthesis was already obtained by Don Borghi experiment (and other experiments), such synthesis must be explained. And any theory unable to explain it satisfactorily cannot be taken seriously in consideration.

    3-The procedure for neutron synthesis is not rocket science. Can it explain ALL the LENR and CMNR experiments? No. But then there is ample evidence to presume there is more than one process at work making alternate nuclear reactions happen.
    I know it.
    Sure there is more than one process. For instance, it seems there is difference between Rossi’s H-Ni process and those others that use deuterium, instead of hydrogen.

    Take the experiment made by Pamela Mosier-Boss, published in 2009. She used Pd and deuterium.
    Her experiment detected emission of neutrons with 9,5MeV.

    It seems nobody was successful yet to explain how neutrons can be emitted with 9,5MeV, because by considering that they are emitted when a tritium is formed from the fusion of two deuteriuns, the neutrons would have to be emitted with 2,5MeV only (the binding energy of deuterium).
    From where comes the excess energy: 9,5-2,5 = 7MeV ?

    How does W.T. Gray and Widom-Larsen explain it ?

    I proposed an explanation in my paper How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment
    , where I suppose that such excess energy comes from the helical trajectory of the electron and the acceleration of the proton into the Pd electrosphere, before the proton to become a neutron (see Figure 9):

  • G. Westreicher

    Dear Mr. Rossi
    If this question has already been asked, I would ask You nevertheless to make a short statement.

    Do You see the potential to replace existing nuclear reactors with ECATS
    while the existing infrastructure, such as generators, power distribution, buildings, etc. could be still used?

    Good luck, perseverance and I wish you continued health
    G. Westreicher

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. Eernie1

    I have the same opinion of yours. I think that cold fusion occurs due to resonance of fields. The fusion of proton and electron in Don Borghi’s experiment also occurs due to resonance of fields.

    In 2002 the magazine Infinite Energy published my paper “What is Missing in Les Case’s Catalytic Fusion”, where I suggested that there was need to align the direction of the deuterons fields along the some direction so that to help the resonance, and in addition to improve the cold fusion reactions with the help of an oscillatory external field.
    In 2003 Letts and Cravens exhibited their experiment in the ICCF, where they applied my idea by using an external loadstone close to the vessel and used laser as the oscillatory external field.

    However, along the years, I felt that resonance itself cannot be responsible for cold fusion occurrence, and there was missing some mysterous “thing”.
    I supposed that such mysterious thing that helps the resonance should be the gravity. However, as gravity has magnitude 10^40 times weaker than electromagnetism, along the years I did not understand how gravity cold help the cold fusion occurrence.

    In the begginning of 2011, when I got knowledge on the Rossi-Focardi experiment, and I started to analyse it by considering my new nuclear model (and also my model of the structure of the Aether, and my model of photon, and my model of field of elementary particles), I finally understood what is gravity, and I realized that gravity has the same magnitude of electromagnetism.
    Acording to my theory, gravity is a mixture of repulsive and attractive gravity (they both witht the magnitude of electromagnetism), but the resultant of such mixture is a soup with the magnitude 10^40 times weaker than electromagnetism).

    Then I wrote a paper entitled “How Repulsive Gravity Contributes for Cold Fusion in Rossi-Focardi Experiment”, and submitted it to Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics.
    My paper was not published yet, because other papers were submitted earlier than the mine, and so my paper is waiting in a long line.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Raul Heining:
    Warm Regards,

  • raul heining

    Dear Rossi, are you still planning to soon release your theory about what happens?

  • eernie1

    Dear Eng.Guglinski,
    Experimenters have been manipulating the configuration of nuclear particles with external fields for many years.A prime example of this is nuclear magnetic resonance,where an external strong magnetic field enters the nucleus and alligns the spins of protons in various atoms.A subsequent external EM field oriented perpendicular to the magnetic field then is absorbed by the protons changing the energy configuration so that saturated protons emit a subsequent EM field consistant with the spin frequency of the protons.This phenomenom of course is used in MRI equipment for medical purposes.I achieved this successfully using the spins of electrons in free radicals in 1955 for my Masters thesis.It was a joy to observe the absorption of the imposed EM fields by the hyperfine splitting of the electron spectrum caused by the magnetic field at the exact frequency predicted by theory.My point is that external field effects should be investigated by more researchers and theorists when trying to explain LENR or cold fusion.In my case,I was lured away by monitary considerations(great job offer).I was delighted to see your treatment of the relationship between the neutron and proton.Do you think there may be a few neutrinos in your s factor?Your treatment along with the results of Don Borghi make me more sure that external fields have a bigger influence than is realized by cold fusion researchers.

  • Robert Mockan

    Dear Mr. Guglinski,

    The Don Borghi experiment results can be explained by the research of W.T. Gray.
    Neutron synthesis theory from protons and electrons has been confirmed in experiments using the Gray method.

    Although, as Gray informs, the results of experiments are denied, and the theory is not accepted by the DOE, a look at the web site visitor logs tells a different story.

    The procedure for neutron synthesis is not rocket science. Can it explain ALL the LENR and CMNR experiments? No. But then there is ample evidence to presume there is more than one process at work making alternate nuclear reactions happen.

    Undoubtedly you are also aware of another hypothesis for making neutrons, called the Widom-Larsen theory, that has much support.

    Both methods of making neutrons from protons and electrons, or hydrogen, have support precisely because they can explain many of the LENR and CMNR experiment results, and without violating QM.

  • Lou Tengzelius

    Dear Mr. “eernie1”,We assume a Hydrogen atom as a spherical space with radius of r. The Proton charge is +1 and the Electron charge is -1. The Hydride Ion, e p e has negative charges totaling 2. Therefore the effective radius of the Hydride (r=1/2^2), having twice the charge is 1/4 that of atomic Hydrogen. Even in so called empty space there exists a turbulent mix of Gravitational, Magnetic and Electromagnetic forces often labeled background. For the very small footprint hydride ion entering a sea of the Nickel electron cloud, the experience is not simple. I liken it to a stone caught in a waterspout during a violent storm moving through turbulent layers of swift currents sinking to a bottom consisting of soft mud. That tiny Hydride Ion is strongly attracted by the Nickel nucleus. Now to complicate matters, a tuned alternating magnetic field is applied to the situation. Of course ordinarily neutrons and hydride ions are naturally unstable. The premise of my mathematical and geometric efforts, a work in progress, is that the Hydride Ion, ordinarily existing in a number of alternating shapes, reverts to the double donut previously hypothesized. Oscillations of the proton along the central axis along with the distance between the donuts runs out of control as the Hydride Ion closes in on the Nickel nucleus and disintegrates, resulting in fusion. Indeed, the application of the alternating magnetic B-fields may facilitate passage through the Nickel electron cloud as well. Lou Tengzelius

  • Todd Burkett

    Dear Mr. Rossi, I wanted to congratulate you on your October 6 demonstration, I’ve been following your technology since I 1st heard about it in January. The implications are enormous. The technology that that would not otherwise be possible is astounding. Everything from permanent hot-air balloons to shipping, replacing nuclear energy, and so forth, course this will take time, I’m especially excited about its applications for space technologies in particular colonization efforts” eventually” of Mars. This could be the fulcrum that moves humanity from Earth to Mars. And by far the brightest individual in that field, is Elon musk chief engineer and owner of space X. He is also very interested in changing the world for the better. When the world realizes that this technology is for real they will be lining up to try to get their piece of the pie, if Elon musk knocks on your door put him 1st in line. Again I would like to congratulate you on your perseverance, And I especially look forward to the physics community getting a real kick in the pants for just how narrow-minded And bigoted they have been against true Explorative science!

  • Dear Engineer Rossi:

    I found this webpage with a link to a recent presentation by Dr. George Miley.

    Miley is NO LIGHT WEIGHT! What dear old George doesn’t know is that I and a friend (Leron S. from Portland) were at Patterson’s grandson’s apartment in the fall of ’92, and set up a data gathering system (PC Based, 16 bit, flow, temperatures, voltage, current, and thus input power and output) for Patterson’s coated beads. It was primarily a 1 to 3 watts input, 10 to 12 watt thermal output device at that time.

    From what I can gather (I haven’t had time to write George yet), it seem George may have been in on the KW device that Patterson claimed. I think George feels at liberty to talk about things, as (sadly) Patterson AND his grandson have both passed on. (I also believe patents may be running out.

    The important point is to note that George has been “working on your side” and sounding the alarm: “DON’T IGNORE ROSSI! DON’T THINK HE ISN’T SERIOUS! DON’T THINK HE DOESN’T HAVE SOMETHING!”

    Just for your info – George and his graduate student “ressurected” the Farnsworth Fusor in 1997-1998. One of his graduate students (Dr. Brian Dejurik..going by memory on this) finished his Phd, nuclear engineering on the characterization of the IEC (Inertial Electro Static Confinement) device.

    I think, as the saying goes, “The rest is HISTORY..” As you can find DOZENS of IEC devices being built by colleges, universities, private individuals.

    Oh, Dr. M. and Dr. DeJ were TURNED DOWN on a paper in “Science” (Un-Science) on the basis of a 1972 Oak Ridge paper that “Proved” that the Farnsworth Fusor “could not produce fusion reactions”. (Part of this paper, as I have it…complained that Farnsworth mistook electrical noise on his BF6 neutron detectors as actual neutron flux signals. Miley, simply used things as Cd sheets and did ACTIVATION ANALYSIS to back their “on line” instruments…NO DOUBT about 10^10 neutrons per second, peak reaction rates.)

    In conclusion: Welcome to the world of radicals and upstarts.


    Mark Hugo, Excelsior, MN

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Chris Colaco:
    Thank you and best wishes to the Country of the magnificent Taj Mahal, the most beutiful architecture masterpiece of the World.
    Warm Regards,

  • Chris Colaco

    Dear Andrea,
    Best wishes for the 28th. Look forward to a positive result.
    Chris Colaco Mumbai India

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Mr. eernie1 wrote in October 22nd, 2011 at 3:45 PM :

    “Dear Mr Tengzelius,
    As I have stated before,it may not be necessary to penetrate the nucleus with a particle to achieve nuclear decay.We know that the EM fields of the atomic electrons and the nuclear protons influence each other and maintain a one to one ratio in the stable atom”

    Dear Mr. eernie1,
    in Don Borghi experiment neutrons are formed by proton+electron at low energy.

    There is need new foundations in Physics to explain how it occurs, since it is impossible to occur from the current foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

    An acceptable theory in the field of cold fusion must be able to explain all the phenomena occurred in the field of cold fusion, and not only the experiment made by Andrea Rossi.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Francesco Toro, David Roberson:
    Thank you !
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear A. Goumy:
    1- yes
    2- We will work together. They have been trained
    3- yes
    Warm Regards,

  • A. Goumy

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    It is now the run-up to the moment of truth. I wish you and your team, as you deserve it for your tenacity and your hard work, to carry out this very important test with flying colors.

    1) You told us yesterday that you were testing the 1 MW plant, and it was working well. Did you test it at full power?

    2) Have the customer’s agents who will perform the tests already been trained to control the plant operations, and will they do it by themselves, or will you have the entire control as in the previous tests?

    3) Does the maintenance contract with the customer include updates to the new versions of E-Cats currently under development?

    Best regards,


  • David Roberson

    Dr. Mr. Rossi,

    Today you must be having a marvelous time testing your 1 Megawatt system. I sincerely hope that it performs up to your expectations. One day the technology that you are pioneering will become more important than the laser and we will all benefit greatly.

    Warm Regards,


  • Bhagirath Joshi, I eagerly await your paper and agree with your comments with regards a need for the study of ‘solid state physics’. My own understanding of this subject is the importance of the make-up of the atom with regards helical trajectories and their formations with regards shells and shape. The shells and shape could be responsible for density. As an example: A solid atom, I believe, has a minimum of 16 shells (each shell a helical trajectory) i.e. 4 sets of 4. Liquid has 3 sets of 4. Gas has 2 sets of 4 and Aether 1 set of 4.(this could occur momentary) Basically you have 4 states of solidity and 4 gravity values from solid strong to zero Eather. The Eather zero provides for the EM fields. Liquid no 4 sets of solid. Gas no 4 sets of solid or liquid. Eather no 4 sets of solid, liquid or gas and could be said to have no positive gravity value and thereby is able to be easily manipulated when in the density make-up of a mass with a weak gravity value. The atom, I also believe, is not spherical but more of an egg shape because of the helical trajectories being always within/between fields displaying positive and negative poles. Atomic mass, part of a planet, planet within a structure. Being egg shaped the proton field is off centre. Thereby, when a change in polarity is sensed by the helical trajectories they flex over the circumference of the mass and the proton would in effect move in the opposite direction to a degree. This activity would produce a degree of negative gravity on the atom and thereby aid in overcoming clumping caused by the internal positive gravity of the atoms and would also aid in the disintegration of the mass when in contact with a strong positive gravity force. Disintegration, as is well known, can also occur rapidly when a particle gains entry into the central nucleus by lowering the positive gravity value of the mass. The speed of the velocity of the particles being emitted is dependent upon the solidity of the mass, a soft mass gives a slow speed. You could say that if you remove the fourth dimension/aether disintegration of the mass will occur because it becomes unstable.

    Also: Lou Tengzelius thanks for your information and insight. I know we all find this subject fascinating and I also thank Andrea Rossi for providing an opportunity to share thoughts and wish you the best on the 28th with regards the 1MW.

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>