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
Abstract
A new model of the neutron n=p+s is proposed, where s is the selectron, a particle postulated by the Supersymmetry. The model n=p+s belongs to the author’s “Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion”, which is composed by 26 papers published in a book form in 2006 by the Bauu Institute Press.
The Nuclear Physics works with two models of the neutron. The Yukawa’s model has several disadvantages (the most grave is the violation of the mass-energy conservation, although the theorists tried to justify it through the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle), because his model cannot explain some phenomena. The quark model (d,u,d) also cannot explain other sort of phenomena, and then the theorists use the two models, sometimes they use the Yukawa’s model, and sometimes they use the quark model. However, they are two incompatible models, and it is difficult to believe that Nature works through the use of two incompatible models for the production of phenomena.
The old Rutherford’s model of neutron has been abandoned by the theorists because it seems that it cannot be reconciled with some principles of Quantum Mechanics. Nevertheless, herein it is shown that Rutherford’s model can be reconciled with the principles of QM when we introduce the hypothesis of the helical trajectory.
Keywords: new version n=p+s of Rutherford’s neutron, Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments, Natarajan’s helical trajectory incorporated to n=p+s, Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments suggesting a new Planck’s gravitational constant, deuteron’s quadrupole moment, neutron’s magnetic moment, deuteron’s magnetic moment.
Introduction
This paper was submitted to several peer reviewed journals of Nuclear Physics. All they rejected it. In the last journal, the referee rejected it by claiming that a neutron cannot be formed by one proton and one selectron because the energy required to form a selectron is of about 20GeV. However, 20GeV is the energy required from the current theories, which do not consider the helical trajectory of the electron. So, a neutron formed by proton and selectron is impossible when it is considered by the current Nuclear Physics, but it is not impossible if we consider a model of electron with helical trajectory.
The model of neutron proposed in the Quantum Ring Theory does not violate the Fermi-Dirac statistics, as it is explained as follows:
- In the present theory it is proposed that the elementary particles move through a helical trajectory (HT).
- 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).
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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:
- 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].
- From the new comprehension of the cause of violation of the parity, it is possible to propose a new interpretation for the temporal reversion (an interpretation of Christenson’s discovery concerning the decay of some pions), in order that it is possible to eliminate the very strange hypothesis of temporal reversion in physics.
The new model of neutron (u,d,u-s) can also supply theoretical backgrounds for the explanation of several questions arisen from new experimental findings, as we may mention for instance:
- a) Taleyarkhan[4] experiment cannot be explained from the old concepts of Quantum Mechanics, since the Suslick-Didenko[5] experiment has shown that the greatest portion of the energy of the sonoluminescence phenomenon is wasted in chemical reactions, and therefore the remaining energy is unable to yield hot nuclear reactions.
- b) New astronomical observations [6], described in the journal Nature, are suggesting that Planck’s constant can have variation. Such a hypothesis implies the breakdown of Quantum Mechanics, unless we show that for distances shorter than 2fm there are non-Coulombic interactions performed through a new sort of Planck’s constant, which nature is gravitational.
Before the acceptance of the model n=p+s by the scientists, there are several questions to be answered. Obviously the theoretical restrictions against the model n=p+e can also be applied to the model n=p+s (excluding the Fermi-Dirac statistics, as already explained before). So, let us remember what are the restrictions against the model n=p+e.
One of the solutions proposed herein is concerning the anomalous mass of the neutron.
The repose mass of the proton and electron are:
Proton: mP = 938.3 MeV/c²
Electron: me = 0.511MeV/c²
Total mass: mT = 938.811MeV/c²
A structure of the neutron n = p+e would have to have a mass mN < 938.811 MeV/c², since there is a loss of mass. However, it is known by experiments that neutron’s mass is mN = 939.6MeV/c². This fact is one of the stronger reasons why the majority of the physicists do not accept the model n=p+e, although several experiments have shown that neutron structure is indeed n=p+e. So, herein we will show why the neutron with structure n = p+e has such an anomalous mass mN>mp+me.
Another restriction against the model n = p+e comes from the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: such a model requires a force with magnitude 10³ stronger than the strong nuclear force, in order to keep the electron in the nuclei. Herein we propose a solution able to eliminate such a restriction.
Considering the model n = p+e, the paper also exhibits the theoretical calculation for:
a) the magnetic moment of the neutron
b) the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron
c) the magnetic moment of the deuteron
NOTES:
- 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).”
- 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”.
- 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)
There are two experiments where the model n = p+e has been obtained.
- On one side, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle Δx.Δp ~ h imply that it is impossible a structure n=p+e.
- On the other side, two experiments are showing that n=p+e is the structure used by the Nature.
- We keep the relation Δx.Δp ~ h, and it means that we must reject the experiments. This is a betrayal to the scientific method.
- 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.
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.
b) The m of neutron will be : mNEUTRON = mPROTON + mSPIRAL
- 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.
- Electron’s speed – we can get it from Kurie’s graphic for beta-decay of neutron.
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
Let us remember a theoretical calculation of electric quadrupole moment Q(b) used by Nuclear Theory.
Let’s apply this sort of considerations to the model of 1H2 shown in the Fig. 4, with one electron turning about two protons.
Electron’s speed
We will get electron’s speed from the neutron’s beta-decay (Fig. 9).
The proton has µ = +2.7896mn , and then the magnetic dipole moment of neutron will be:
- 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). - 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:
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- There are two protons each one with mp= +2.7896µn.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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). - 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- W. Guglinski, “New Model of Neutron-First Part,” J. New Energy, vol 4, no 4, 2000.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- W. Guglinski, “Stern-Gerlach Experiment and the Helical Trajectory” J. New Energy, vol 7, no 2.
- W. Guglinski, “Fundamental Requirements for the Proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom,” J. New Energy, vol 7, no 2, 2004.
Dear Eric Ashworth:
Thank you: these puppetteers and their puppett snakes (and the corollary of thieves moving around them like moskitos around a pork) have no idea of the battlefields I come from: they for me are just paper tigers, or plumbers trying to stop the Niagara Falls. The more they hit, the more we get hard.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ermanno Peciarolo,
Thank you for the suggestions we will think about.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Hank Mills:
The persons like you confirm that my choice to prioritize USA in this business has been the right choice.
Warmest Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Dear Repi Exec:
1- I prioritize nobody
2- which dates? Reports have already been published with all the information we can give before a contract.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Two questions:
1) Are you planning to prioritize sovereign clients over industrials?
2) What is your prediction for availability date(s) to the wider audience?
Motive for asking is that many of us are in sourcing mode and our clients are contemplating putting their original plans (fuel cell based) on hold until this becomes available. Somewhat disruptive as it were.
For those opposed to the eCat, the first stage is denial, second is anger, third is…(?)
For those applauding the eCat and eagerly awaiting availability, the first stage is overwhelming joy, second is simmering enthusiasm, third is growing impatience…(!)
Cheers, AB
>fab70
Correction: I meant to say 1/160 of total mass of 16 grams of nickel. That would be 1/10 gram active nickel, and thus would give the 500 watts per gram that I stated.
When Rossi uses nano-particles to increase the surface area of the nickel, and does whatever else he does to stabilize it and enhance the output, that is good progress since Focardi and Piantelli were using solid rods 17 years ago.
>fab70
You said:”You are the only one who achieved a very elevated COP with a LENR reaction.”
That is not exactly correct. 20 years ago the research team of Liaw, Tao, and Liebert, operated a palladium and heavy hydrogen system at 460 C, with 1500% power gain. Their output was 52 watts per gram of palladium and heavy hydrogen fuel. That was published in the Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry, “Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd & D system”, JEC 319 (1991) 161-175. It was the first documented high power LENR system. Now it is true that Rossi is using nickel and hydrogen, not palladium and heavy hydrogen, but again, if we look at the original research of Focardi, Habel, and Piantelli published 1994 in IL NUOVO CIMENTO NOTE BREVI, Vol. 107, 163-167, we find they measured up to 50 watts of thermal power from a nickel rod weighing about 16 grams. Given that the reaction is very near the surface of the nickel, the mass of the active area of the nickel rod used would have been the surface and near surface, thus the actual power out would not have 50 watts divided by 16 grams, but 50 watts divided by a fraction of 16 grams. If we take the fraction as 1/10 of the total mass of 16 grams (not an unreasonable assumption), then the power output per unit mass of nickel in the original work published 17 years ago was already in the 500 watts per gram of nickel, and at greater than 400 C. So they were getting high power 17 years ago, also. A study of the literature reveals other systems operating at high power out per unit of fuel mass. This does not distract from what Rossi has accomplished. And if anything, he should be getting much more praise than he is receiving for fighting and winning against pathological skepticism from the scientific community and the news media at all levels about this technology that has kept it undeveloped for so many years. I will feel a lot more confident that he will succeed against the powers working against him after he sells a few more systems. Conceivably he might still be stopped. Unlikely as it seems, worse things have happened in the world.
Hello Andrea Rossi,
I agree with you that the snakes (extreme cynics and your competitors) are getting desperate, due to the recent successful sale and test of the one megawatt plant. In my opinion, they are truly pathetic. The fact is they have not achieved a power output anywhere even remotely close to what your technology can produce. I cannot forget how Dr. Levi reported that during one of the E-Cat tests he conducted, he was producing 130 kilowatts of output — from a single reactor core with only one liter of internal volume! If I remember correctly, this was with less than a hundred watts of constant input (would have to look for his exact statement). Also, you have stated that the reactor cores with an internal volume of 50 centimeters have a maximum safe output of 10 kilowatts. Such a power density is incredible!
What have the competitors produced? From what I hear their best result may have been fifty or a hundred watts of output power, maximum. In every way your technology is superior to theirs! They know this, and because they cannot control their emotions, are lashing out by making up lies and false statements.
I think every test you perform and allow to be made public, is secretly like throwing hot coals on their heads. They may lie and say the tests prove nothing, but in reality the results make them furious.
I think some of them also know they are in “too deep” with their bashing of your technology, and when the world does wake up to it’s reality, their careers will be over. Their words are plastered all over the internet, and no one can erase them!
Dear Eenie1, I do not need an example of mathematics in physics, there has been too many used throughout history. The E-Cat is not about maths, its about physical interactions. Andrea is tied up with a none disclosure so until he is able to disclose the knowledge he knows, we are all in a guessing game. The supporters using their postulates ( if they have any) prove nothing. it’s realy about whether you believe Andrae Rossi understands LENR and whether the E-Cat has proven a principle. As Andrae states, according to you, the proof lies in the taste of the pudding by the customer. However, if the customer determines the pudding to be sour although it may be excesively sweet. Maybe they will still pay Andrea a good price for producing a unique pudding and I hope they do. Although as you must be aware we the public will still not know how the E-Cat works but we have got a good idea. Regards E.A.
Gentile signor Rossi
Mi scusi per l’arroganza, non essendo io titolato a darle dei consigli, ma personalmente sono dell’opinione che che la sua e-cat da 1 MWatt non dovrebbe essere ceduta solo ad aziende private ma anche al mondo intero.
Purtroppo in assenza di contributi dell’Europa, dello Stato Italiano e del ministero di Mariastella Neutrini per reperire altri fondi con cui finanziare l’industrializzazione e le ulteriori ricerche, io penso che noi comuni cittadini potremmo sostenerla con il lancio di una sorta di “azionariato popolare” che abbia un obiettivo di sottoscrivere 10 milioni di euro coinvolgendo almeno 200.000 persone disposte ad investire 50 euro sullo sviluppo di questa nuova tecnologia; dovrebbe anche considerare che, in aggiunta o in alternativa a ciò e finalizzata alla prenotazione di una e-cat per la versione “residenziale” tipo Defkalion, potrebbero essere trovati altri fondi per il supporto al suo progetto, in quanto considero che se io personalmente sono disposto ad investire quale anticipo di fornitura 1000 euro, allo stesso tempo come me potrebbero esserlo tante altre persone.
La raccolta pubblica di fondi potrebbe essere utilizzata per far confluire nel suo “Team” le università di Bologna e Uppsala, più altri ingegneri e specialisti dei processi industriali e dei materiali; in tal modo lei potrebbe attingere know-how da professionisti di ciascun settore specifico, che, anche a partire dalle linee di produzione di attuali macchine termiche (per la parte elettronica di gestione non penso abbia problemi), selezioni e testi i singoli componenti adatti a sopportare pressione, temperatura e durata inalterata negli anni.
Nel complimentarmi per la “grinta” e la determinazione che sta mettendo nel perseguire i suoi obiettivi, le porgo ancora le mie scuse e la saluto
Ermanno Peciarolo
Dear Andrea, Thanks for the update with regards the imbecile. I agree with you he has to be a puppetteer. Although I have no knowledge of him, it comes as no surprise. What you have is intelligence and these people are frightend of it. Stay calm and keep everybody informed. I believe you are challenging the future and its not an easy road. I am amazed that you have got to where you are. You obviously have an amazing degree of determination both you and Focardi. Keep up the pressure. Best Regards E.A.
Dear Dr Rossi,
I know you are currently occupied with manufacturing heat producing machines but when you get ready to mate your device to a steam turbine, you might consider the Cyclone Engine from Cyclone Power Technologies. Cyclone is located in Florida near you. http://www.cyclonepower.com/works.html
Sincerely,
Iggy Dalrymple
INFORMATION:
An imbecile is going around sending “confidential” letters saying that our plant tested on the 28th did not have safety valves. Of course everybody with a minimum of knowledge of the matter knows that it is not possible not to put safety valves in a steam generator , but let me confirm the obvious: the plant has 104 safety valves, one per every vessel, regulated to open at 3 bars. The imbecile who is expanding this and other falsities is not a puppett, he is a puppetteer. Before or later I will publish the story of our relationship with this guy, as well as tapes in which he and his fellows have been videotaped while trying to steal samples of powder in my factory during a visit, as well as a draft of a contract which was a fraud. Desperate of the fact that we started the manufacturing of our 1 MW plants the puppetteers are scratching the bottom of their bullshit barrells, and teaming up with other gangs of thieves too.
Andrea Rossi
Violation of thermodinamics law, Maxwell’s theory, and cold fusion
The operation of the eCat in self sustained model during 5,5 hours has stimullated the reaction of the physicists, as we may see in some mainstream journals, as Discovery News:
“Scientists say the method — cold fusion — is patently impossible. They say it defies the laws of physics.”
Of course cold fusion does NOT violate the fundamental law of thermodinamics: the energy comes from some “place”. The problem with the current prevailling theories is because from their foundations there is no way to explain what sort of “place” it can be.
However, there is another mystery that current theories cannot explain. Because beyond the quantum spin of elementary particles, they also have an intrinsic spin: they gyrate about their axis (as the Earth gyrates about its axis in 24 hours). Such rotation of the particles create their magnetic fields. For instance, within a nucleus the protons gyrate, and their rotation is responsible for the nuclear magnetic field of the nucleus (the nucleus also has a rotation, which increases the magnetic field created by the protons).
But from Maxwell’s theory an electric charge with rotation must irradiate eleoctromagnetic energy (photons). And so, a proton gyrating would have to emit electromagnetic energy, and it would have to stop to gyrate after its kinetic energy of rotation is over.
Therefore the current theories cannot explain why the elementary particles like the proton and electron violate the Maxwell’s law.
In Quantum Ring Theory the proton has two fields: one inner principal field (composed by a flux of gravitons), and its rotation induces an external secondary electromagnetic field (composed by electric massless particles of the aether).
The electromagnetic field does not gyrate (and therefore it does not violate the Maxwell’s law).
But the inner gravitational field of the proton gyrates, and so it must emit gravitational energy.
But the proton’s gravitational fields does not stop to gyrate.
And therefore we have to conclude that, in spite of its field of gravitions emits gravitational energy, obviously it must receive gravitational energy from “somewhere”, in order to replace the energy emited.
The question is: “where” the energy which replaces the energy emitted by the proton’s gravitational field comes from ?
It is known that Tesla supposed that the energy of the radiactive nuclei comes from the Sun. And he has reason to be intrigued with the phenomenon. After all, the radiactive nuclei emit energy along billion years. It’s hard to believe that such energy was stored into a nucleus, which continues emitting it along billions years.
I think Tesla was right. I suspect that the gravitational energy which replaces the energey emitted by the proton’s field comes from the Sun.
I also think such gravitational energy coming from the Sun is responsible for the excess energy in cold fusion occurrence.
As it’s impossible to have violation of the fundamental law of thermodinamics, then (when Rossi’s eCat will be definitivelly accepted by the scientific oomunnity) the physicists will be obliged to realize that the energy supplied by the eCat working in the self sustained mode comes from somewhere.
Dear Robert Tanhaus:
I am not expert of hydrogen production, but maybe a good idea.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
You said:
Dear Rita Ekholm:
up to 2 years, mainly for authorizations for heating systems; 20 years for cars.
But: What do you think of producing hydrogen with a MW e-cat and use it as fuel for hydrogen powered cars? That should be possible right now! What do you think?
Best regards,
Robert Tanhaus
Dear Fab70:
Thank you for your suggestions, of course we made deep meditations on this issue. We prefer to remain the manufacturers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi
An important element in evaluating an investment is the consistency of the different elements that are part of the big picture. In this case data are extremely promising but the operating mode is, at least, not the most effective. Few thoughts:
– You are the only one who achieved a very elevated COP with a LENR reaction
– The patent application at the international level is, if I understand correctly, blocked because of incomplete description. Resubmit the application making public the exact functioning of the E-Cat would most likely secure you the patent and also the economic benefits of this discovery.
– The disclosure of how the E-Cat works would allow a quick confirmation by scientists around the world and then an extremely rapid adoption of this technology at a worldwide level
– The rapid spread of E-Cat would mean for you a very rapid increase of patent-related rights, far superior to the gains that you could realize with the direct production strategy that you have chosen (we are talking about millions and not thousands of units).
– In any case, even if patent process would not end positively (unlikely given its importance), fame and glory would make you both economically and morally one of the richest person in the world.
So way following this difficult road (direct production) instead of following the easiest, more remunerative and quickest way (patent + licensing)?
Grazie e in bocca al lupo!
Dear Al Potenza:
The answer is yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi,
I have no doubt your reactors will make it someday! Since when is the U.S. a land of conservatism and underachievers and not Godly visionaries full of hail mary’s (american football term, not the catholic term)? Oh, that’s right, the space shuttle was our last hail mary! As an American, I’m disappointed.
I would enjoy meeting you face to face someday. I work as an engineer for a major US based airline, so if you have time to give some wisdom to a young engineer over some lunch, let me know where you are in the world and I’ll see if I can make a flight. I also worked at a PWR nuclear plant and wouldn’t mind some advice about switching back to a nuclear career.
Also, I saw from a previous post that you are a Godly man. If that’s the case, everything will work out in your life, independent of your reactors. As a young man, I’ve at least discovered that much!
Gods blessings,
Seth Witte
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Thank you for your response. I understand that you can not reveal R&D results that would compromise your trade secrets. But that’s not what I was requesting.
When you deliver an ecat to a university, could you simply authorize the university to say publicly that they have received it and have started their work — as in a brief press release? That alone would help those of us who believe in you when we have to deal with skeptics. And it would not jeopardize any secrets.
Best wishes,
Al
Aussie Guy, thanks for the detailed calculation.
So if you’re getting 40% efficiency, and since you’re limited to 110C (383.15 kelvin) by E-Cat safe operation range, you must be dumping into a cold medium which is at (1-0.40)*383.15 kelvin = 230 kelvin = -43.15 degrees Celsius. This heat sink must be your secret since that would require dumping into the antarctic in winter. Summer temperatures aren’t that low at the south pole.
Either that or you’ve figured out a way around Carnot efficiency.
In Fox news today http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/
Regards
raul
Dear lenr4you:
No, not possible,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Al Potenza:
As I said already many times, puppett snakes are not an issue for us. Our Customers are an issue for us. R&D results are confidential, and will remain confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Brad:
Not so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Rita Ekholm:
up to 2 years, mainly for authorizations for heating systems; 20 years for cars.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Best Dr. Rossi
First, I congratulate you for your wonderful work
Have followed your work with great interest and hope that E-cat may soon be in sales.
How long do you think it will take before we here in the cold north to warm our houses with E-cat
What if E-cat could also be used in cars
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Do you currently have relationships with any US universities?
Will you be looking for physicists in the Manchester, NH location?
Best regards,
Brad
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I understand why your work with the universities needs to be secret to protect your invention. But could you authorize the universities to tell the public when they have received an ecat? And can they also announce when they have completed preliminary tests of the ecat and confirmed that it works well? That would not compromise any secrets but it would immediately demolish the pathological skeptics, including the snakes and clowns! Could you do that? And if so, how soon?
Best wishes for your success,
Al
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I have one simple questions:
Is it possible to cool the NiH Reactor with his own hydrogen gas inside?
You could split the Reactor core from the cooling system.
Temperatures can be higher and the cooling power and density will be much greater.
Thank a lot to you and your team
Warm Regards
LENR4you
Mr. Rossi,
I understand completely. You can’t fault a guy for trying:) Again, congratulations on your work and best of luck in the future.
Best Regards,
Charlie Zimmerman
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
You are entering in the mined field of industrial secrets.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
These are very exciting times indeed! Thank you for your attention to my previous questions.
Regarding the remaining NI58, am I correct in assuming that NI58 does not react at all? I ask because if it reacts similarly to the NI62 and NI64 I see no way to avoid the radioactive byproduct of NI59 decayed from CU59.
Is the reason for the reduction in NI58 simply to have a higher ratio of the reactive isotopes NI62 and NI64 or does reducing it somehow reduce it’s reactivity?
Warmest Regards,
Charlie Zimmerman
Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
1- just reduced
2- not eliminated
3- no
4- no
5- yes
6- yes
7- I cannot answer to this question, until I will disclose the theory of the effect we get.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Congratulations on the demonstration and sale of the 1MW plant. I am sure many great things are to come for you and the world. I am also super excited to hear more about the theory that you have developed regarding this process. I think you mentioned that you would be revealing this after the 1MW demonstration.
I has a few isotopic questions.
1) You said that NI58 is depleted. Does this mean that it is eliminated or just that the ratio is reduced?
2) If NI58 is eliminated, why is it eliminated? Does it react and you are eliminating it to avoid long half life byproducts (NI59 decayed from CU59)?
3) Is (2) inconsistent with your statements that only NI62 and NI64 react?
4) Significant enrichment of the Nickel for NI62 and NI64 is necessary to produce 30% transmuted copper. Do you agree?
5) I have argued that you are not claiming cheap isotopic enrichment but rather that you are saying that the isotopic enrichment is not expensive relative to the overall costs of the production of the powder. Is this correct?
6) Is Leonardo Corp doing the enrichment?
7) Finally, Prof. Focardi in a recent interview talked about all nickel reacting and a series of decays which seems inconsistent with your statements of only NI62 and NI64 reacting to produce stable copper. Are you guys in agreement about the process?
Thanks,
Charlie Zimmerman
Dear Gabriele B.:
USA and Europe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Marco:
Not so far. We need a couple of years to complete the authorizations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear ing. Rossi,
in addition to 1MW plant, are you selling single modules (e.g. with total power from 5 – 20 KW)?
Best ragards
Marco
Dear John James:
As I already said , we so far are ready only to sell 1 MW plants to make heat (steam, hot water, hot air, cool air): for electric power production and for household applications we are not ready yet, respectively for technological and for certification problems. We need from 1 to 2 years to resolve these problems.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Rossi,
You told further customers are buying your 1MW E-cat. Can You tell us what nations they are from? Are they Americans too or what else?
Thank you.
Dear Propagare:
The scientist who made the radiations control in our plants is Dr David Bianchini, from the University of Bologna.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
Please tell us/me :
Who is the radiation scientist from Univ. Bologna. He has glasses, grey hair?
Here he is in an important video about the E-Cat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Kl6FOVnnIro#t=376s
Thank you in advance
propagare
Andrea Rossi,
If about a billion E-cats, at x billion dollars, are needed to supply electricity to planet,
how soon can orders be delivered along with retrofits to convert current electricity generation systems over to E-cats?
Also, are there any plans for updates to designs of E-cats, like perhaps larger scale E-cats??
Thanks, Yours,
John James
Dear Eng. Rossi,
Any experienced individual familiar with heated hydrogen pressurized reaction chambers uses the finest powdered reactants in most pure form available with carbon powder as an oxygen scavenger to clean up and sensitize surfaces of contents and powdered iron to promote reactive species of hydrogen. Work is always done within dry boxes with inert atmospheres. Ball milling is also accomplished with special care. Your success builds upon previous state of the art. Congradulations Sir. Lou Tengzelius
The following article has been posted to PESN.
Rossi’s E-Cat Victory on Cold Fusion’s Emergence Day — E-Day
The date October 28, 2011 will be recorded in history as the day when Andrea Rossi’s cold fusion E-Cat technology emerged victoriously into the commercial marketplace, after an important test by a yet-undisclosed customer. Test parameters discussed. Move over oil, coal, and uranium… Ni-H cold fusion technology is coming to town!
Click the following link to read the article.
http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501943_Rossis_E-Cat_Victory_on_Cold_Fusion_Emergence_Day–E-Day/
Dear Paul Calvo:
The price can drop to 500 $/kW if we will have to produce millions of pieces.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear John James:
Thank you, same to you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Neil Ferguson:
The names of Customers unavoidably will pop up, before or later.
I agree with you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
To James Bowery —
The first hand built Mega-cats are priced at 2,400 Euro per KW.
By comparison, new coal power plants cost about $3,500 per kW including the generator.
If Rossi is able to reduce the cost of his E-Cat plants by an order of magnitude (and this is very likely given the simplicity of the E-Cat cores) then the capital cost of mass produced E-Cat power plants, even with your generators, will likely be just a fraction the cost of coal power plants.
But its the E-Cat’s very low fuel costs and absence of externalized costs that makes it shine.
Coal to generate 1 megawatt of power for a year currently costs $145,858.90 (3.41200 Btu/W x $2.44 per MMBtu of coal x 2x for best case 50% efficiency x 24 x 365 = $145,858.90)
By comparison a year’s supply of nickle and hydrogen fuel for a 2 megawatt heat E-Cat would cost a tiny fraction of that $145,858.9o price for coal.
Coal also inflicts externalized costs of mining, air pollution, climate disruption, and toxic ash disposal. All of these externalized costs severely damage human health and planetary sustainability.
According to a recent Harvard study the real cost of using coal is several time higher than market prices would indicate.
Stable climate, clean air, and abundant energy really have value beyond calculation.