The secret of the Electron-Positron pair

by Ioannis Xydous
Elecronic Engineer, Greece

Read the whole article

Download the ZIP file

Abstract
It is a fact that a great number of scientific papers and patents have been published related to Quantum Gravity, Unified Field, Space-Time Engineering, Gravity Control, Propulsion without the need of a propellant, Instantaneous Telecommunications, Warp Drives, Over Unity devices est. Most of them have a complicated theory or unclear results which makes the scientific community to have doubts if they are feasible. The Author starting from the known Electron-Positron pair creation phenomenon, will reveal the entire matter creation process which will lead to the discovery of the Aether and ultimately to the topology and the properties of our universe. A simple experiment which was carried out successfully by the Author agrees with the findings of the proposed theory. A part of this work is inspired by Rhythmodynamics of Dr. Y.N.Ivanov.

Read the whole article

Download the ZIP file

80 comments to The secret of the Electron-Positron pair

  • Andrea Rossi

    Duke:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    3- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Duke

    Dear Dr Rossi:
    1 Did the Customer use all the heat produced by the 1 MW plant during the one year test ?
    2 Did he have sometime the necessity to dump excess of heat ?
    3 If yes, was there a heat dissipation system ?
    Thank you,
    A

  • Andrea Rossi

    Adrienne:
    We know that there are competitors looming, as you say. This is positive for the LENR market under a general point of view. This said, we have to think to put our products in the market. We will have real competitors when a competitor will be able to sell a plant and put it in operation . My sensation is that Brian Ahern is close to that, I have not the same sensation about others, but I am also aware of the fact that possibly there is somebody working in silence, without talking, as I did until 2009, that will present a valid product unexpectedly.
    We have to ignore all this, anyway, and think only to work hard, as hard as possible, to complete the test of our 1MW plant and our small E-Cat to be manufactured massively. We must do our race at the maximum speed possible, independently from the work of the competitors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Many companies in the world are trying to compete against you after the report made by the independent third party. Are you worried of this looming competition?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Vivian:
    When the 1 MW E-Cat in operation in the factory of the Customer of Industrial Heat is in self sustained mode we have to spend an energy of about 20- 40 kWh/h necessary for the reactors. But it is soon to give numbers, because we have to experience the endurance and the reliability at the ssm status. We are collecting data systems every 10 seconds, so we have not lacks of matter to study…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dr Rossi:
    What is the COP of the 1 MW plant when it is in self sustained mode?

  • Anonymous

    Dear Ioannis,

    as you are heavily spamming people with unwanted emails, I tried to go though your pages…
    I must say that your paper is quite messed up and your figures are sometimes simply wrong,
    e.g. in Fig. 7 the units of the spectrum can’t be [nT].
    (There are more such things, but I won’t comment further – I just want to prove my above claim with one example.)

    Now I read in your comments, here:

    > The discovered Hubble constant comes from Astrophysical observations which are not 100% objective,
    > limited due to technological limitations of the measuring equipment.

    It is a quite ignorant position to say that you simply close your eyes before the facts and continue to believe what you want to believe.
    If you have *any* reliable and independently checkable facts about the “technological limitations of the measuring equipment” that was used to produce those observations that you simply claim wrong here (without giving any indication on what you base this claim), you should actually name them!

    In total, I must say that your work has not the quality to have high chances of being accepted by any peer-reviewed scientific physical journal.
    Maybe you should try to get a PhD in physics (like me) or learn about the basics of scientific writing, to be able to tell others about your theories in a way that they can actually follow your thinking and independently check your claims.

    PS: maybe you have missed the fact that Neutrinos actually *have* a mass and are not mass-less.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

    Thanks and best regards,
    an anonymous commentator that you spammed without asking.

  • Dear All,

    I thought that it would be easy to find a way to make my theory clear, but it is not since it is very challenging for the today accepted Physics. We are going to do it step by step with also some visual information found on the Internet. Let us start!

    Eq. (7) is the heart (very straight and simple) of the entire work “The secret of the Electron-Positron pair” http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
    This equation is valid only for the γ-photon of the pair production. If this equation is wrong, then all the rest of my work is for the garbage. If this equation is correct then at least it proves directly the existence of Aether, since the assumption was based on a stationary not rotating electron. Why? (Will be revealed on a later response to the blog)

    My assumption is that in case of a γ-photon (with the necessary Energy) where approaches a heavy nucleus, the velocity of the photon decreases (results to a frequency shift similar to a red shift) and ultimately the photon’s velocity goes to zero. A zero velocity of a photon points to dissappearance of the wave like property.

    Now go to to the following link which simulates a pair production with a heavy nuclei:
    http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Nuclear/XRayInteract/XRayInteract.html
    Choose pair production and start the simulation.

    Today Physics supports that the speed of light is always constant from whatever inertia frame is measured (Special Relativity). The heavy nuclei is considered as a stationary inertial frame and the only thing that moves on this setup is the γ-photon (forget about the orbiting electrons).

    Why the γ-photon dissappears and creates in its position a pair of matter and anti-matter?

    How a photon could dissappear? If we describe the photon with simple Quantum Mechanics we know that E=hxf. A non existence of a photon means f=0. A photon having an f frequency to go to a zero frequency with constant speed of light does not point to a direct frequency reduction but that the wavelength of the photon increases till it becomes almost infinite.

    What from both is true? Someone could say that we know from the Compton Scattering that the scattered photon has less momentum than its initial by claiming that some momentum was transfered to the electron.

    Does anyone knows for sure that in case of the Compton Scattering that the photon falled upon the electron like the balls of billiard? Was someone there to see it happening? The answer is 100% NO, since we measure mostly what results from this interaction and the result is an exiting photon with decreased momentum which travels with the speed of light (in a large distance from the electron),is correct.

    Is it wrong to claim that when a photon approaches an electron (Compton Scattering process) that reduces its velocity due to the interaction of the Photon’s Electric Field components (Consider it as Electromagnetic Wave) with the Electric Field of the electron? I suppose the answer is not since it does not seem to violate any kind of phenomenon consistency or law of physics. An experiment could prove this claim (I hope) and the challenge is to measure with a way the velocity of a photon inside a strong Electric Field.

    A very logical interpretation of the above is since a photon is a complete wave which has a positive and a negative part, which points to an Electric Field polarity, then these polarities can interact with the mono-polarity of an electron or a nuclei due to their charge. The mechanism is simple and logical in case of a nuclei (pair production): The nuclei has always positive charge which creates an Electric Field. Now the positive part of the photon is repelled due to the nuclei positive charge and the negative part of the photon is attracted. At every moment the photon will experience an expansion, which from the first logical conclusion it looks like as an expansion of the wavelength. If we claim that the speed of the photon is reduced during its travel through the Electric Field, would not give the same result?

    For constant speed of light:
    f=c/λ (with variable wavelength)
    For variable (can be only reduced) speed of light:
    f=V/λ (with variable photon’s velocity)

    Would not both cases give the same frequency shift (reduced momentum) after a photon exits from the field of the Electron in case of the Compton Scattering? Of course they would and in both cases the exiting photon will travel with the speed of light c in large distance from the Field but with reduced momentum which points according to E=hXf to a frequency reduction.

    With other words Einstein’s second postulation (during the writing of my work, I had never considered it)is valid for distances beyond the Compton wavelength for a present particle. Below the distance equals to the Compton wavelength for a present particle, the velocity of light is always reduced. See page 4 diagram of the SEPPv3.pdf, which shows the velocity of photon coming from the theoretical infinity with initial velocity the speed of light c.

    Note: For a later explanation about Neutrinos, I could say the following from now: If Neutrinos are considered without charge as also massless particles and they could change from Electron-Neutrinos to Muon or Tau Neutrinos which are more energetic, then the conclusion is and according to the findings above with the photons: Neutrinos are half-waves which travel longitudinal like the sound which means that they could surpass the light speed but only inside a field. When they will exit from it they will have an increasing momentum in case they changed from Electron-Neutrinos to Muon or Tau Neutrinos, but their velocity will be again the speed of light (but with increased frequency). See corresponding chapter.

    The next subject will be the Complete Coulomb Force and the Nuclear Force and how they were deduced. Please feel free to comment all the above. I will look with patience forward for your comments!

    Regards

    Ioannis Xydous

    Electronic Engineer

    Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

  • Christian Bistriceanu

    Dear Andrea,

    Robert Curto has asked me to post the links bellow so the italian docuements can be read in plain English.

    Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 5:40 PM
    Subject: Re: Fw: Google Translate

    On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:24:29 GMT, Robert Curto wrote:
    Dr. Rossi, when I find a post in Italian, I click
    on the enclosed link.
    Robert Curto has sent you the following web link:
    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com%2F%3F%2Fp%3D516%23comments

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com%2F%3F%2Fp%3D516%23comments

  • Hi Koen and Robert!

    You have both right. Unfortunately I am not able to make 3D Graphs and present my work in a graphical way fashion, but you just gave me an idea. I will create a brief Manual which will have external links (finding also Physics Applets) that will guide you through the process of understanding of my work. This manually will be published on this blog like a normal text with the links. I hope I will finish today.

    Although at the Technological Institute we learnt Fourier Transformations, Solving Differential equations and multiple integral and Vector Calculus back in 1994 to 1998, I do not remember anything since I was involved with much more practical things like electronics since. I never liked mathematics and I do not have such kind of inclination. Mathematics could be real fun, if you ever had inspired teachers, otherwise is a loss of time. Mathematics is only the encoding of what we observe or measure. If someone did not think through all of possibilities of what he observed, he will encode the picture that he sees partially (loss of information). The Software Engineers or the hobby programmers of this blog can understand better of what I mean.

    Until to create my first and basic equation (Eq. 7) which is the heart of the entire work, it took me three months as also before this the work had some other formulation which was completely wrong spent more than four months on it.

    Do not worry, I assure you this work can be understood by even High Schools Students who must have interest in Physics and know the basics. I will prove it on my next reply to the Blog.

    Stay tuned!

    Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

    Ioannis Xydous

    Electronic Engineer

  • Robert Curto

    Dear Ioannis, thanks for your response, and explanation.
    But as a High School Gradute, I
    can tell you most of your work is over my head.

    I am very excited about the
    E-Cat.
    I think it is the biggest thing since Fire !
    I agree with you that Dr. Rossi’s audience is great, and most of them have a high level of education.

    Keep up your great work, I think you keep site at a high level.
    I see some sites, they are disgusting, every second word is a foul word.
    When these people look at this site, and read posts like yours, and many others that do not use one bad word, they move
    on.

    Robert
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Ioannis,
    Honestly, I too have a problem with understanding as Robert Curto explains.
    It is only the very very high level, like ir. Daniel De Caluwe that “survive” Calculus. Here in Belgium there is nothing higher than ir. But they are very few.
    Others, that may also have very good intuition and understanding of physics, may have a handicap with Calculus, because it is teached (introduced in secundary schools) besides foreign languages, history, geography, religion,.. and there is not enough time to make it as a part of your own language. One can fall in love with it later, but then the professional and family needs may exceed the available time.

    This can be solved with good graphical (and why not 3D) support of the theory.

    My profession as a consultant is to explain to non-technicians about investments they have to make. I have to make pictures, drawings, explanations, etc… But once they understand the ideas behind the technical jargon, you can create enough momentum and positive and negative criticism so that the right investment with the right expectations is made in no time.

    I am pretty sure that e-cat can also be explained to every 14-yr old person with correct graphical support. That may be one of the reasons why the secrecy is so important for the moment. There will be thousands of variations, once the box is open.

    The succes of modern computers like tablets, also depends on a more graphical and intuitive way of using them. For most people, the days of the command-prompt are long gone.

    When I see an acrobat in a circus, of even a wave-surfer, I am pretty sure they do not make theoretical calculations nor approximations on their movements. So the human brain is capable of understanding and managing multiple levels of complexity on an intuitive basis.

    So with a more graphical approach, you probably will find more response.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Hi Robert!

    You are right the speed of Universe’s expansion has nothing to do with the ECat. I just replied to a question of Daniel. Well I do not find a better audience than Mr.Rossi’s ingenieus blog since here you can find more Engineers and Phycisists than the amateur Physics forums and Yahoo Groups across the Internet where are full of wonderers and less with Engineers or Phycisists.

    If you think that my work is unrelated with the ECat, then you probably have not read it. This does not mean anything and this is the reason that I ask from the audience of this blog to comment my work, to see what is wrong what is right. Many books and web sites claim that the Nuclear Force is about 137 times stronger than the Electromagnetic Force:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

    Well if you go and read the Nuclear Force Chapter in my work, I calculated the ratio between the maximum value of the Nuclear Force (between two protons which is attractive) and the maximum value of Electrostatic Force (between two protons which is repulsive) which is about 87.8 (see also on my Web Page: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/). I ask myself, is this of what they speak about (Nuclear Force is about 137 times stronger that the Electromagnetic Force)?

    Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

    Best Wishes

    Ioannis Xydous

    Switzerland

  • Robert Curto

    Dear Ioannis Xydous, first I hope nothing I say will offend you.
    You are disappointed that no one comments on your work.
    You would have to have a few Ph.D’s under your Belt to understand what you are talking about.
    This website is for people who are interested in the E-Cat.
    I fail to see what the speed of the expansion of the Universe has to do with the
    E-Cat.
    Please forgive me for my comment on your great work, I just think you have the wrong
    audience

    Robert
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

  • Dear Daniel,

    Thank you very much for commenting my work. Additionally I congratulate you for this since nobody until today has ever commented my work. Although I sent my work to hundreds of Universities and Research Institutes through individual e-mailing, never have a feedback (maybe is a little bit early) and I thought that my work will be unnoticed and disintenteresting for many reasons.

    I am an Electronic Engineer and I am also not very aware for most of Quantum Mechanics in mathematical perspective due to my profession. This work is based on an original idea as also it is the result of reading hundreds of patents and Scientific Papers, combined with much intuition, knowledge on different fields, comparing and partially experimenting where it was possible, the last 12 years.

    Now about your comments:

    a)You are right that the acceleration of the Universe must be time depended but as you may notice in my work, I calculated the current acceleration using the todays value of Gravitational constant. Even after 100 or 1000 years the acceleration will be practically almost the same, if you calculate the Gravitational constant for a future radius using the Graphic and formula of page 50. The result of deceleration and not acceleration (opposing to what is today believed) comes from the Universe Force on page 49 which becomes negative and indicates a deceleration. As you will see on page 50 this value of deceleration is equal to the calculated acceleration on page 17. Again the Universe Force (which is another form of the Unified Field Force) is the indication that the Universe decelerates. The discovered Hubble constant comes from Astrophysical observations which are not 100% objective, limited due to technological limitations of the measuring equipment.

    b)This probably needs to be discussed since it is not clear in my work. The problem that arises is how we measure the distance. Since the entire work is based on the findings of the Electron-Positron pair, then about the distance we must prove (it is not very clear for me too) that Anti-matter was captured by the Aether which means it is blocked at the center of the Universe and not at his border (which does not make sense). As the todays radius of the Universe is calculated in my work, it points to the capture of Anti-matter at the momemt of Big Bang by the Aether. Now the initial Universe diameter like it is considered is probably not correct. I cannot say for sure since most theories todays claim that the diameter of the Universe is on the same value.

    c)Yes you are right about it. It must be 1. I am sorry about it.

    Probably there are some other minor mistakes in my work and this is due to the pressure to finish in time as also the volume of information is huge which makes most probable to make someone mistakes. Just keep in mind that on this work most of todays Quantum Physics and Cosmology is questioned. But this does not mean that I am 100% right. The reason for the challenge is to receive some feedback where it will help me to see where I stand. Again the simplest test is the Casimir Force. If it is correct then many things of my work are probable on the right way.

    Another interesting semi-indication of my calculations is the Quantum Length (6.7438E-58m)where the link on my paper gives some clues about it:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630111540.htm

    The Integral Project claims as you may read on the above link that the Quantization of space is below the 1E-48m which makes almost all Quantum Gravity theories invalid since they use the known Planck Length (1.616E-35m). You can find on my work how the Planck Units are disproved mathematically.

    Some other indication is the Temperature of the Universe calculated at 2.768 Kelvin, which is very near to the 2.715 Kelvin as it is today measured.

    You mention something about the assumption of Universe expansion with the speed of light, which I find your sceptisism correct. Well if you ever read the 1st version I used another expansion velocity that of matter. The correct conclusion is although I had planned to write about it, I did not (no time): Universe expands with the speed of light due to the photons of the big bang. Secondly expands with a speed 0.79c (if I remember correctly) if we accept that Anti-matter was captured and matter was that who expanded in space. So we have two horizons: One due to the photons and the second due to the matter expansion which can be calculated precisely through the Electron-Positron pair findings.

    About the Aether, if you are interested to detect it(I would be very glad if someone send some feedback about it), just download some arbitrary Earth’s Magnetic Field data from the link provided on my web site and analyse them with the same way I did, using your EXCEL. You will not need a set up of an experiment to do this. Actually Experiment #3 has the same principle like Experiment #1. Of course it would be very interesting if someone could observe the frequencies on Experiment #3.

    I am open to discuss everything related to my work!

    Best Wishes and Thank you

    Ioannis Xydous

    Web Site:http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

  • Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear Ioannis,

    Although (and up to now) I have no experience in QM-theory, I quickly went trough the latest version of the pdf.file (SEPPv3.pdf), and I have following remarks:

    i) On page 17 (of the pdf-file) you calculated the age of the universe (‘Tage’ = the ‘universe expansion time’) and its acceleration/deceleration (‘au(r)’), assuming that the expansion takes place at the speed of light (in the calculation of ‘Tage’), and that it happens with a constant acceleration (it looks more like you calculated the mean acceleration instead of the probably time-variabele acceleration.) [At the present level of scientific understanding, and with the knowledge we got from the measurements with the Hubble-telescope, I thought the universe is estimated to be about 15 billion years old, with, in the beginning (the first 5/6/7 billion years) at a decelerating pace (due to gravity), and after that (and upto now), with an ever increasing acceleration. So according to present science, the acceleration of the universe is not happening at a constant pace, but with a time-variable acceleration au(t)].

    ii) Also on page 17, I think you made a calculation-mistake:

    You wrote d(iU) = 1.4093 * 10^−15 m eq.(41), but as d(iU) = 2*re, and as re = 2.8179*10^-15 m, I thought d(iU) = 5.6358*10^-15, isn’t it?

    iii) On page 38, where you discuss the very intresting Experiment #3 : (from the second line in the column to the right) you calculate TA , but am I right that you wrongly multiplied with a factor 3? [TA = (6.28*1*10^-2)/(3.484229*10^5) and NOT (6.28*3*10^-2)/(3.484229*10^5)]?

    iv) But besides these details, I found your vision about neutrino’s and (the properties of) the Aether very intresting!

    Kind Regards,

    Ir. Daniel De Caluwé
    Mechelen, Belgium

  • Good Evening everyone!

    I initiate an open challenge for the Blog: Is it possible the conclusions of the paper “The secret of the Electron-Positron pair” (SEPPv3.pdf)to be true? Please first visit my web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
    and download the latest version (SEPPv3.pdf).

    The challenge for those who belong to the Scientific community:

    a)The calculation of the Nuclear Force and Energy between two Protons (SEPPv3.pdf or directly via the Web Site)using constant speed of light (due to Einstein which my work denies. Einstein’s special relativity is applicable beyond the distance which is equal to the Compton wavelength of a particle. Below that, the speed of light is reduced according to the conclusions of my work.): What are the values (ration between the Nuclear and Coulomb force as also their values)predicted from todays accepted conclusions of Nuclear Physics?

    b)Is the Complete Casimir Force (as also the known Casimir Force) as it is given on the SEPPv3.pdf logically consistent and finally correct and inside Physics?

    c)A Unified Field Force must be simple and fundamental in its description. The most fundamental ingredients in particle Physics are the charge and the mass. If you look at my Web Site, the proposed fundamental form of the Unified Field Force has only Charges and masses as terms. Is is possible this to be the answer?

    Since the third challenge is much more difficult to be considered, then:

    If a) or b) is true then 99% of my work is logically consistent (for those who must have read the entire paper) and most probably all of its conclusions are true. The simplest test (or even only by the Complete Casimir Force (b) as it is proposed)for the validity of my theory is the above two first and straight suggestions. Nothing more and nothing less!

    Please think openly and give it enough consideration (I do not claim that everything is true and this is the reason I ask for your help). I would be glad for a sincere comment!

    Best Wishes

    Web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

    Ioannis Xydous

    Electronic Engineer

    Switzerland (Living the last 6 years)

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    Let me go through this.
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    The following articles discuss Thermal Inertia, Thermomass, “Thermon Gas” and Non-Fourier Heat Conduction.

    https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/article/view/69

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p28114702141524v/fulltext.pdf

    I have only read these papers superficially. But I think it may be important.

    Thermal inertia also is referred to as thermal inductance. Thermal inductance, usually, is very small or insignificant (if it exists).

    But, perhaps, it now is significant.

    Heat does not flow instantaneously (as in Fourier Law), so a better model is needed.

    I don’t know if Thermomass/Thermal Inertia etc. apply to ecat phenomena.

    What do you think?

    Joseph

    Abstract

    The thermomass theory regards heat owning mass-energy duality, exhibiting energy-like features in conversion and mass-like features in transfer processes. The equivalent mass of thermal energy is determined by the mass-energy equivalence of Einstein, which therefore leads to the inertia of heat in transfer. In this work, we build up a thermomass gas model based on this theory to describe the fluid-flow-like heat conduction process in a medium. The equation of state and the governing equations for transport for the thermomass gas have been derived based on methodologies of the classical mechanics since the drift speed of thermomass gas is generally far lower than the speed of light. We therefore present the general heat conduction law to describe the relationship between the heat flux and the temperature fields. The general law provides us a new viewpoint to understand the previous laws for heat conduction, such as the Fourier’s law and the CV (Cattaneo-Vernotte) model. The general law will degenerate to the Fourier’s law when all the thermal inertial effects are negligible or to the CV model for the unsteady heat conduction when the space-dependent inertial effects are negligible. The non-Fourier conductions, both the ultrafast heating/cooling and the ultrahigh-rate steady-state ones, have been studied using the general heat conduction law with the thermal inertial effects fully considered, and compared with the previous theoretical models and experimental data.

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, I think your readers may like to read about Taylor Wilson, 17.
    Google:
    TAYLOR NUKE SITE

    Also you can read the Bio of
    Dr. Phaneuf, who is helping
    him.
    Google:
    DR. RONALD PHANEUF UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA

    Enjoy
    Robert
    Ft. Lauderdale

  • Andrea Rossi

    TO THE READERS OF THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS:
    Today has been published on the Journal the article ” Avogadro Number And The Mistery Of TOE and the Quantum Theory”, by Prof. S. Lakshminarayana (Dept. of Physics, Andra University, India) and U.V.S. Seshavatharam (Lanco Industries).
    The Board Of Advisers of JONP

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Tamal Krishna:
    I didn’t see your letter and neither did Prof. Focardi, but, please, email as an attachment your paper to:
    info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
    It will be peer reviewed and, if accepted, will be published on the Journal.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Tamal Krishna

    Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi,

    I wrote you a letter already more than six weeks from now, in it I described the method or a concept behind the E-Cat you built up, which I believe is true. I did that to attract your interest and gain your trust, because I would like to pass on to you a specific knowledge about hydrogen. Knowledge that can be beneficial for all users of E-Cat and for you as well.
    The thing I did is that I wanted to send letter over regular post, because of the safety reasons. And since I couldn’t get to any personal address of yours, I sent it to Dr. Sergio Focardi and kindly asked him to give it to you in personal.

    I sent it on this address:

    Dr. Sergio Focardi
    Universita de Bologna
    Dipartimento Fisica
    Viale Berti Pichat 6/2
    40127 Bologna

    I sent it with the return card that should get back to me, when Dr. Focardi pick it… but I didn’t get back neither the confirmation card neither the letter, which should also get back to me if Dr. Focardi didn’t get it.

    Can you confirm that there is a letter from Slovenia waiting for you at Dr. Focardi?

    Warm regards,

    Tamal Krishna

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Koen Vandewalle:
    Thank you very much, this is a fruitful thread.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Robert Curto:
    We are working in the USA as well as in Europe, and the American People has shared his strength for the freedom of the world since they exist.
    Yes, we will make the electric power appendixes in the same factories where we produce the thermal generators.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, congratulations on your second Factory. Now you need a third one in China.
    Apple loves it there, because of the low labor cost, and good workers.

    I like it because it helps people who have very little.
    The American people are so greedy, they do not want to share a dime of their wealth with anyone.

    I like to count my
    chickens….lets see 3 Factories, 3
    million E-Cats X 700 = 2.1 billion
    dollars, the first year.

    I was wondering, will you have space next to your
    Thermal E-Cat Factories for your Electric Factories ?

    Robert
    Ft.Lauderdale,
    Florida

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Dear Joseph Fine,
    Indeed a very good idea. I had been thinking and pre-designing (sketching) a small E-cat-like core with a thick copper mantle. Normally, the thermal flow trough the copper can be calculated from the delta-T between core and coolant. But since e-cat is unstable at higher temperatures, there should be (thin)auxiliary cooling channels in the thick copper housing. With a high pressure pulsating injection of near-supercritical water (or something else) at 20-25 bar and 200°C in these auxiliary cooling channels. (like a common-rail diesel) The unstability of the E-cat can be managed by increasing the amount and timing of the auxiliary cooling.
    A little less-sophisticated, could be the management of the flow around the (primary stage) core-vessel. With pressurized and pumped water, the speed of the passing water around the mantle of the primary core can also manage the thermal flow from the e-cat. The more you pump, the faster the water moves and the more cooling capacity exists. All this to compensate the unstabilities of the nature of the device. (worn Nickel, too hot temp, etc…)
    I thought this would already be an obsolete idea, and Andrea’s focus seemed more on the low cost and mass production side.
    For realising this, you need a very good model of the thermal flow trough the solid parts of the vessel and the core, and good systems to measure real time temperature changes on the most critical spots. I also do not know if you can use copper at 200° and 25 bars. There may be some coating required.

    I hope this can be usefull for the further developement of the e-cat, aiming at +500°C.
    Without production capacity, nor funding, nor staff, nor customers even a good idea is worthless. The value is in the cooperation.

    Kind regards.
    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Pekka Janhunen:
    Thank you very much, appreciated suggestion,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea,
    Coming to Joseph Fine’s suggestion, after each stage of units, perhaps one could additionally combine the output streams from different units into a mixer, so as to equalise the fluid temperature as much as possible before feeding it into the next stage. Mixing the streams should mitigate or prevent power fluctuations of individual lower stage units from propagating to the higher temperature stages. In other words the idea is to reduce positive feedback between different stages by averaging (mixing). No new valves are needed, only a static mixing chamber.

    If removing positive feedback is not enough to stabilise the high-temp units, then one can add closed-loop negative feedback, as per Joseph Fine’s suggestion. After the mixer one can add cooler fluid from the previous stage or indeed from the unheated fluid, according to the instantaneous need of each individual high-temp unit.

    In principle the mixing concept is unnecessary since Joseph Fine’s negative feedback can do it alone. But using a mixer might still be beneficial because it could reduce the amount of bypass coolant flows needed.

    regards, pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Alex 2E:
    Thank you very much for your attention. I understand what you say and what you feel.
    I think that soon you will have information the like you are asking for in this blog. In due time.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

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>