By
Introduction
In this paper previously [1, 2] defined lepton mass generator XE is redefined in a unified approach and is shown that it is more fundamental than the fine structure ratio α. Muon and Tau masses are fitted. With a new (uncertain) quantum number at n=3, a new heavy charged lepton is predicted at 42260 MeV. Without considering the classical gravitational constant Gc establishing a relation in between charged particle ‘s s mass and charge is impossible. Till now Avagadro number [3] is a mystery. The basic counting unit in chemistry, the mole, has a special name Avogadro ‘s s number in honor of the Italian scientist Amadeo Avogadro (1776-1856). The commonly accepted definition of Avogadro number is the number of atoms in exactly 12 g of the isotope 12/6 C and the quantity itself is 6.02214179(30) x 10ˆ23 . Considering N as a fundamental input in grand unified scheme authors made an attempt to correlate the electron rest mass and its charge. It is also noticed that h is slipping from the net and there lies the the secret of true grand unification.
As the culmination of his life work, Einstein wished to see a unification of gravity and electromagnetism [4] as aspects of one single force. In modern language he wished to unite electric charge with the gravitational charge (mass) into one single entity. Further, having shown that mass the gravitational charge was connected with space-time curvature, he hoped that the electric charge would likewise be so connected with some other geometrical property of space-time structure. For Einstein [5, 6] the existence, the mass, the charge of the electron and the proton the only elementary particles recognized back in 1920s were arbitrary features. One of the main goals of a unified theory should explain the existence and calculate the properties of matter.
Stephen Hawking – in his famous book- “A brief history of time ” [7] says: It would be very difficult to construct a complete unified theory of everything in the universe all at one go. So instead we have made progress by finding partial theories that describe a limited range of happenings and by neglecting other effects or approximating them by certain numbers. (Chemistry, for example, allows us to calculate the interactions of atoms, without knowing the internal structure of an atomic nucleus). Ultimately, however, one would hope to find a complete, consistent, unified theory that would include all these partial theories as approximations, and that did not need to be adjusted to fit the facts by picking the values of certain arbitrary numbers in the theory. The quest for such a theory is known as “the unification of physics . Einstein spent most of his later years unsuccessfully searching for a unified theory, but the time was not ripe: there were partial theories for gravity and the electromagnetic force, but very little was known about the nuclear forces. Moreover, Einstein refused to believe in the reality of quantum mechanics, despite the important role he had played in its development.
Dear Mr Rossi and Mr Fine,
I too appreciate your explanations and enjoy the discussion. To change the subject, I have a question to Mr. Rossi in regards to the operation of the home E-Cat. Will it feature a “red button” type of a rapid emergency shutoff system?
In addition to being a safety feature, it could be a great “PR feature” as well – as it could help to convince people who are afraid of “anything” nuclear that the E-Cat technology could be easily tamed.
I am sure that you do have a plan for such a system, but in case you do not, here is my proposal:
In case the red “emergency” button is pressed, just fuse and melt the nickel present in the cartridge – so that the reaction phenomena can not continue. You could do that by sending an intense impulse (or few impulses) of electrical current through the nickel fuel. The required electricity could be stored in one of few large capacitors connected to a kind a modified spark plug capable of generating the “kill spark”.
Thank you for your time. Looking forward to your comments.
Dear Daniel De Caluwé,
I was thinking about your question, and there is another conclusion about the motion of the electron.
When I wrote the paper on Mosier-Boss experiment, published in Peswiki in 2009, I was thinking about the electron’s contribution from the electromagnetic interaction viewpoint.
However, according to Quantum Ring Theory there are laws of induction between electric massless particles of the aether and gravitons.
They are laws similar to that discovered by Faraday for the electromagnetism:
– the motion of an electric particle of the aether induces a flux of gravitons
– a flux of gravitons induces the motion of electric particles.
As the electron’s field is composed by electric particles of the aether, so an electron with relativistic speed can induce a flux of gravitons (and they can form a gravitational field).
Therefore, in the case of the electron moving in the Fig. 10 of my paper, the influence of the electron is not only electromagnetic, it is also gravitational (with the magnitude of the electromagnetism).
Eric Ashworth wrote in April 17th, 2012 at 12:38 PM:
“Wladimir, Is there a need for a new physics in explaining cold fusion?. Yes I believe you are absolutely correct. Your comments regards John Arrington and experiments sound fascinating. Unfortunately the terminology is way too technical for me to understand yet with the latest diagrams I think I get a grasp of what you are relating to. “
Dear Eric,
I wrote a new article and published it in Peswiki, so that people like you be able to understand the theoretical implications we must infer from John Arrington experiment, and what they represents for current theoretical Nuclear Physics.
Please see it in the link:
New nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory corroborated by John Arrington’s experiment
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_New_nuclear_model_of_Quantum_Ring_Theory_corroborated_by_John_Arrington%E2%80%99s_experiment
Regards
WLAD
Dear Dr Joseph Fine, Dear Adam Lepczak:
Interesting discussion, thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Adam Lepczak,
Wind power is as variable as the E-Cat power output, if not more so. My assumption was that a turbine (wind or otherwise) drives a DC generator and then uses an inverter to produce 60 Hz AC (or 50 Hz in Europe). Alternatively, the turbine may drive an AC generator (e.g. 400 Hz) if the application does not require an exact frequency or voltage. Thank you for your comments. Even though the primary loop varies in temperature, if several loops from several Cats are mixed together, the average temperature and power will not vary as rapidly. There are lots of techniques that can be used to stabilize temperature/pressure etc. I mentioned the MRC generator since it seems to be more efficient.
http://www.rpc.com.au/pdf/wind6.pdf
Joseph Fine
Dear Mr Joseph Fine,
I thought about your question re: variability in generation of the power by the E-Cat. The answer to your question may exist already. There are multiple systems in operation right now that output variable power to the grid – I am talking about wind turbines and generators. Clearly, wind does not blow at the constant speed; rather it changes the vector all the time (hence the produced power output varies more than with the E-Cat AND it is more unpredictable). But in spite of that variability wind turbines routinely do supply power back to the central grid. So perhaps a person with a background in either solar or wind generators (solar also produces variable power) will be able to pitch in?
Dear Daniel De Caluwé
The electron orbits in the helium is the orbitron in the link:
http://www.webelements.com/nexus/content/orbitron-atomic-orbitals
The resonance is due to the two electrons along the z-axis (red orbit).
They move in two orthogonal planes (one in the z-y plane, and the other in the z-x plane).
When the electron of the z-y plane is in the top in the figure 10 in my paper, the other one (of the z-x plane) is the center of the distance between the two nucleons 2He4.
If you analyse their positions, you will realize that they will work together in partnership, increasing the resonance process.
The other two electrons move along the x-y plane (blue orbit).
They do not contribute for the resonance process.
Concerning electrical generation and frequencies issues discussion by Joseph Fine.
Mr. Fine has discussed electrical generation and load balancing in transmission lines by conventional generators. Since the fuel cost is negligible you need to treat an Ecat generator more like a must run load generator. You run the Ecat electrical generator at maximum output continuously and waste any excess electricity as heat in a standalone system. In some renewable systems a variable resistive load greater than the total output of the generator is used to dump excess electricity if the load drops away. In other words a big electric heating element is used to shed the electricity. You can always do a grid connected system for net metering which requires very specific voltage and frequencies which can help pay off the Ecat.
Sorry, but although my question remains valid (for the deuterium-pair in figure 8), I need to correct my previous message (see: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=619&cpage=1#comment-225684 ) for the helium pair (in figure 10) as follows:
– As every helium atom (He: Z=2; A=4) has 2 protons, 2 neutrons and 2 electrons, the helium pair in figure 10 shares 4 electrons in total. So, in this case (of helium), we need to consider the position of 4 electrons in figure 10, and so the question in my previous message becomes even more complicated…
– But my question, as formulated in my previous message (see: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=619&cpage=1#comment-225684 ), remains valid for the deuterium-pair in figure 8, where we need to consider the position of 2 electrons (1 electron for each deuterium atom).
– And also, at the end of my previous message, where I last referred to figure 10.C, I meant (and it should have been) figure 10.B.
My apologizes for these mistakes.
Dear Wladimir,
I’ve read your article ‘How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment’ (see: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment )
And like all your articles (and answers) about QRT, your explanation is very clear, and proves you have a profound knowledge of the field, and also a very interesting vision/theory to offer (QRT), that as well explains new fenomena (like LENR/Cold Fusion), corrects wrong explanations wrongly done with the old theory; but also fits well where the old theory is valid. (So it’s a very good candidate to expand the old knowledge and theories, explaining very well new fenomena, and thus going some steps further, but respecting (and building further on) the good work done by the old theories so far, doing so without throwing away the child with the bathwater).
So, about the article (link given above), I have only a minor question to ask:
In figures 8 and 10 (for figure 8, see: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:AAAfig8-coldFUSION-pamelaMOSIERboss.gif ; and for figure 10, see: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:AAAfig10-coldFUSION-pamelaMOSIERboss.gif ), you only drew 1 electron, while both deuterions (fig. 8) and both He-nuclei (fig. 10) have one electron each, so actually, they share 2 electrons.
So, as the probability that both electrons share the same position is very low (if not zero ;-), and while the first electron is in between the two deuterions (fig. 8.B) or He-nuclei (fig. 10.B), could the second electron (in these cases probably often being on the side of one of the two surrounding Pd-atoms (like in fig. 8.AorC and fig. 10.AorC), and thus not in between the two deuterions (fig. 8.B) or He-nuclei (fig. 10.B), disturb the fusion-process (of the deuterions in fig. 8.B and the He-nuclei in fig. 10.B), reducing the fusion-force (indicated by the two green arrows in figure 8.B and figure 10.B), to only one time the green arrow (like in figures 8.A, 10.A, 8.C and 10.C), and not two times, so that the force (in that case only one green arrow in the figures) acts upon the whole chain, not trying to fuse together the nuclei (deuterions (fig. 8.B) or He (fig. 10.C))? But anyhow, in that case, maybe an ion and a neutral atom will do? Or maybe the second electron as other and non disturbing possible positions too (reducing only a little bit (and in certain positions) the probability for fusion)?
Andrea Rossi, Adam Lepczak,
http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp.pdf
The above French NEA Report (Nuclear Energy Agency or Agence Energie Nucleaire) describes load following in Nuclear Reactor power plants. The reactor may be designed either to furnish a constant base load or to follow the electrical power demand. A symptom of power demand change is frequency variation. Variation of output frequency of 0.020 Hertz (20 mHz) can require reactor power changes of about 1%.
The E-cat may have a variable output of 5-10%, though producing some “average” power.
Perhaps there is a way of producing a variable frequency output and then converting it to 50 or 60 Hz, or producing a DC power output and inverting it to AC.
It does not look ready for the electrical grid. Not if one has to control frequency to 50 or 60 Hz +/- 20 milliHertz. But it could be great for on-site electrical power.
Joseph
Adam Lepczak,
If the output of a typical power plant varies by 10-20% (e.g. 1/6th), conventional turbo-generators may have a difficult time operating efficiently since they normally operate at constant speed. There must be ways of having turbines accept small changes in power output, (varying pressures, temperatures, adding or deleting turbine sections, controlling the power plant driving it back to its normal operating point etc. Sometimes, if the load factor changes, you want the output power to change, but then the generator operates at a constant speed under the new circumstances. If E-Cat output power levels change rapidly, conventional turbines may not deal well with the changes. That’s why MRC, or similar, generators might be a better choice. Perhaps someone with turbogenerator experience can comment on what happens if the source power level varies, and varies rapidly, rather than the demand power level.
Just a thought.
Adaam Lepczak,
If the MRC generator does not have to run at only a constant (or near constant) speed, the turbine does not have to do so either so the e-cat can have a variable power output.
That makes it difficult to obtain a constant frequency alternating current.
Joseph
Dear Herbert Gillis:
I can’t give this info for what concerns the E-Cat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi
Here is a link to developments in thermoelectric power production.
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/04/26/thermoelectric-gains-performance-with-better-materials/
It is probably to early to meet your needs, but one to watch as your technology could drive this to market quickly.
Regards,
Bob Norman
Does anyone know if helium formation has actually been observed in a Brillouin reactor (as suggested)? Or, for that matter, in an Ecat?
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Thank you, interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Joseph Fine,
The technology that you referred to (he MRC motor) is similar to the technology that Mr. Thane C. Heins has been working on for over a decade. Please visit his youtube channel for more info about his “back EMF” harnessing technology.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins
And here is some Dutch kid replicating his experiments:
http://youtu.be/4RxahDkEvW8
http://youtu.be/b9bCAMWetL8
Regards,
I am not really sure how it applies to the Ecat, but its an interesting concept nevertheless.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Interesting, thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Another correction: It is Millenial Research not Millenium Research. Sorry for the typo.
Dears Neil Taylor and Joseph Fine
I am sure that Robert Godes’ theory is wrong, because he does not consider the influence of the gravity in his explanation for LENR (cold fusion).
That’s why his theory cannot explain some “details”, as for instance why neutrons are captured by atoms in a metallic lattice (in his theory), since neutrons have no charge.
I am sure that cold fusion cannot occur without the participation of the gravity.
When I wrote my paper on the Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment in 2009 (published in Peswiki), I did not understand yet the gravity influence, because at that time I did not realize yet that gravity has the same magnitude of the electomagnetism.
So, in that article I did not consider the influence of the gravity:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment
But at that time in 2009 I felt that “something” was missing in my theory.
For instance, look at the figure 7 and 8 of that article:
FIG. 7:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:AAAfig7-coldFUSION-pamelaMOSIERboss.gif
FIG. 8:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:AAAfig8-coldFUSION-pamelaMOSIERboss.gif
In the item Tritium is formed I wrote:
“When the otimum point of resoance occurs for two deuteriuns, they have fusion. A tritium is formed, with the emission of a proton with energy about 2,5MeV.”
However, I that time in 2009 I felt that the mechanism responsible for the oscillation of the two deuterium (with the help of the electron) could not be, itself, capable to make the proton of one deuterium to penetrate within the structure of the other deuterium, so that to form the tritium.
Something was missing in that mechamism, because the radius of the orbit of the electron is very big (in order of the Bohr’s radius). And, by considering that large distance, the resonance could not occur (it was missing “something” so that the resonance to occur).
So, something was missing in my explanation for the Mosier-Boss experiment, and I was aware of that.
Only 2 years later, when I was thinking about Rossi’s experiment, I discovered that gravity actually has the magnitude of the electromagnetism, and it helps cold fusion to occur.
There is no way to explain cold fusion without the participation of the gravity.
My idea on the gravity influence is shown in the paper How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion occurrence in Rossi-Focardi experiment, submitted for publication in Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics.
Regards
WG
Correction: The MRC motor worked properly. The July 10th tragedy was that the partner company of Millenium Research, specifically US Highland Inc. (and some staff from Tesla Motor) lost some of its key personnel in an aircraft accident.
Andrea,
I followed PESN’s coverage of Millenium Research’s Motor-Generator work back to an earlier article. I think the generator and motor are integrated in the same unit. If you input mechanical energy (Torque), you get electricity, if you put in electrical energy, you get torque. ( Why didn’t I think of that? )
It covers an earlier test on July 10th (birthday of Nikola Tesla) that did NOT go as planned. Hopefully, they fixed whatever problems they had 2 years ago.
http://pesn.com/2011/05/30/9501836_Millennial_Research_Corporations_Magnetronic_Generator_Emerges/
J.F.
Andrea Rossi,
As you work to increase the output temperature of the Industrial E-Cat, here is information (courtesy of PESN) on improvements in electrical generator (and motor) technology.
PESN reports on the Millenium Research Corporation’s improvements to motor/generator technology:
http://pesn.com/2012/04/25/9602080_MRCs_100_kW_new_paradigm_generator-motor_proves_itself_in_field_test/
In addition to their generators, you might also consider their motors for your pumps.
http://www.millennialresearchcorp.com/welcome.html
Hope this helps.
Joseph Fine
* (Steam or Supercritical CO2)
Wladimir Guglinski,
If your hypothesis is correct, and I believe it holds merit, then most of the world’s best research scientists and laboratories are really missing the opportunity of a lifetime by not researching these potentially world changing LENR anomalies. There probably exists many approaches and many new wonderful discoveries awaiting us by actively researching LENR (cold fusion) on a much larger scale in MHO as a long ago retired chemist…
Wladimir,
Whatever the LENR, cold fusion, or controlled electron capture phenomenoa may be or whether Nickel is the catalyst or a reactant, Hydrogen is still involved. (My favorite is one of the Hydrides or the negative Hydrogen ion.) Also other lighter elements.
Since the word ‘Metaphysics’ is already used, and Alchemy has a bad name, I came up with the term ‘Meta-Chemistry’. Meta from Meta-stable since an excited nucleus may decay or stabilize as a new element.
Joseph
Brillouin: “Understanding How LENR Works” ???
I was thinking about the interview with Robert Godes in Peswiki, because I did not understand some things.
Let’s see some points of the interview.
In the item How it works, Sterlling Allan says:
“One of the biggest surprises for me in this interview was learning that Nickel is not consumed in the reaction. According to Robert, this is not Nickel-Hydrogen fusion reaction. Nickel is merely a catalyst.
Robert said that the nuclear process they are utilizing is the same (though better understood and thus controlled) as is being used by their competitors: Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, Defkalion’s Hyperion, Piantelli’s Nichenergy, George Miley’s LENUCO, and Celani’s Cold Fusion Energy Inc.
According to Robert, all these technologies use essentially the same process, though some do it more effectively than others.”
However, we know that in Rossi’s eCat there is consumption of Ni.
Rossi uses a catalyst.
Besides, we also know that Ni is transmutted to Cu in his process.
But in the Brillouin process, the catalyst is Ni.
Then we have to conclude that Robert Godes is wrong. Actually those technologies do NOT use essentially the same process.
They are different tecnologies.
And what is a surprise: in each one of those technologies, the cold fusion reactions occur in different ways.
So, when a researcher changes the condictions within the cold fusion reactor (catalyst, temperature, pressure, frequency of the laser, lattice, etc.), the cold fusion reactions which take place within the reactor also change.
Therefore, the theory used by Robert Godes for explaining the Brillouin process (supposing that his theory is indeed correct) can be applyied for the Brillouin process only, and it cannot be applied for other processeses using the Ni-H technology.
Dear Andrea,
Hope you will help post my message here to help Eric. Thanks and God speed.
@ Eric Ashworth
Dear Eric,
I am working as an IT professional and I can help you upload the images or the videos you may wish to share with the world. All you needs is an internet connection and access to your computer where you keep your files.I can help wherever you are in the world. If you are interested and need my help with this please contact me on cbistriceanu@hotmail.co.uk
Best Regards,
Christian.
Dear Thomas Florek:
Thanks, I will be delighted to invite you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Brillouin: “Understanding How LENR Works”
Peswiki published an interview with Robert Godes, inventor of the controlled electron capture reaction, used by Brillion Energy Corporation of Berkeley, CA.
http://pesn.com/2012/04/19/9602078_Brillouin–Understanding_How_LENR_Works_Will_Enable_Us_to_Be_First/
In that link it is written:
Here is how it works.
“A tiny amount of hydrogen protons are converted into neutrons. These newly produced neutrons are soon captured by hydrogen ions or other atoms in a metallic (e.g. nickel) lattice near to where the hydrogen ions were converted to neutrons.”
However, such explanation seems to be no satisfactory. Indeed, the neutron has no charge. So, why would they be captured by atoms in a metallic lattice ?
A mechanism for the capture of the electron in the Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment was proposed by me in April 2009, published in Peswiki:
Fig. 8:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment
Also, Robert Godes does not explain how a neutron is formed by proton+electron, since such phenomenon is impossible accodring to Quantum Mechanics.
A mechanism is proposed in the Fig. 9, where it is shown the formation of neutron by the capture of one electron by a proton within the electrosphere of the Pd atom:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:AAAfig9-coldFUSION-pamelaMOSIERboss.gif
From such mechanism it is possible to explain why Pamela obtained neutrons with energy in order of 10MeV in her experiment.
Hello Andrea,
You had mentioned that you might soon have a 1MW plant that is visitable. Please do let us know if you would like to have live music for such an event (I can tune up my accordion).
– Tom (of the Tom and Doug Radio show).
7Be + e- = 7Li + v (sharp Neutrino with 862 keV)
1H + e- + 782 keV = 1n + v (sharp Neutrino with 273 keV)
Hi all,
if my theory about the shrinking Hydrogen Atom to a Neutron is true,
you can prove this:
I calculated the energy
for to build a complete Neutron from a complete Hydrogen Atom
to 509134.428 eV
Theory of the Hydrino
Dietmar Stölting, 7.August 2008
dietmar.stoelting@t-online.de
Germany
Now, the energy, that is needed in Nature to build a Neutron from a Hydrogen Atom is
n – p – e = 782333.242 eV
The difference 782333.242 – 509134.428 belongs to the needed Neutrino, to keep angulo momentum.
So, there should be a VERY sharp energy peak for the build neutrino
with an exact energy of
273198.814 eV
So, Hydrogen shrinking to Neutron means
H + 782333.242 eV = n + v(with 273198.814 eV)
The neutron n takes about 2/3 of the energy, the neutrino v about 1/3.
This can be validated with the Boraxino Neutrino detector, similar to the PEP reaction, a VERY sharp Neutrino peak,
Dietmar
PS: That a neutrino with 273198.814 eV is needed to destroy a Neutron
to become Hydrogen, may be the reason, why a naked Neutron lives LONG, about 15 min.
Wladimir, Yes I do have photographs and a video of the original prototype in action and models of where this technology can ultimately be applied in one specific application. I am unable to load anything onto a web site myself due to lack of knowledge but I know someone who is able and I shall have them do it for me. It may take a little time but it will be put on. Thanks for your interest. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Dear Franco,
Thanks.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Andrea Rossi,
during a recent interview with an Italian journalist (Antonella Spotti Basilico), replying to a question:
Where the plant will be located in Europe? In Sweden?
You said:
That translated in English means more or less:
I would like to thank You because You don’t forget Italy and if You allow, I would remember to You in particular the forgotten South Italy.
Kind Regards
Dear Italo A. Albanese,
Thank you for the suggestion: I will try, we always try any interesting suggestion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
you will not need any pump at all if the molten lead is only in a small space between the nickel core and the water heat exchanger. In other words, just use the lead jacket as you do now, but enclose it in a waterproof (better, leadproof) case.
Best regards,
Italo A.
Eric Ashworth wrote in April 17th, 2012 at 12:38 PM
“… I do have some thoughts that have been embodied and have been able to demonstrate an interesting phenomena with regards kinetics and a unified field. This finding has been acclaimed as a new technology in some circles but frowned upon by others who ultimately denied funding and thereby further research. I am going to keep this brief but the subject could run into several pages. This is my take on the subject. Aether which is all there is, is governed by the law of kinetics”
Dear Eric,
do you have a video showing your experiment ?
If yes, why dont you put the link here ?
Dear Mauro Rossi:
Theoretically you are right, but practically liquid lead has created enormous problems wherever it has been used as a primary fluid. I have experience on this, I patented in the USA in 1998 an apparatus that worked with liquid lead. It is unthinkable to use liquid lead, practically, in an E-Cat: pumps problems, condensation devastating if the temperature goes down for any reason, etc. I already tested it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
why would lead solidification be so unfortunate?
I mean that lead can be melted quite easily, with a gas flame for example
Mauro
Dear Renato:
Yes, this is a hypothesys we thought about, but abandoned it for the risk of lead condensation, which can cause a disaster.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dott. Rossi,
Regarding electrical power generation: would it be thinkable to run and sustain the LENR in the bulk of a molten alloy?
For instance of Pb and Ni-Hydride?
A “molten lead reactor”, while still absorbing the gamma rays, could reach the temperatures you need for efficient power generation (unless the eutectic temperature is too low).
The safety would be ensured by encasing the molten lead volume in a heat exchange casing that prevents runaway reaction by melting at a designed T.
Sorry for wasting your busy time with my ramblings, and keep up the good work!
Dear Steven N Karels:
Thank you for your useful comment, you are right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Some additional constraints or concerns. For both the residential heating and residential electrical generation units, they must be both nearly silent and vibration free. No louder than a current oil or gas furnance. No annoying vibrations. On the other hand, they should have an indication when they are on, visual or audio indications. A tricky requirement. Similar to the electric cars in Japan that are too quiet so pedestrians don’t know they are approaching. The manufacturer had to add a noise generator to make them “safe”.
Dear Robert Curto:
Thanks for the info.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Italo A. Albanese:
You are perfectly right, I pass it immediately to the editor of the JONP.
Thank you for your help,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir, Is there a need for a new physics in explaining cold fusion?. Yes I believe you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, to me it seems that atomic physics is a subject that has severe constraints upon it by an established hierarchy. Reasons are too numerous to mention or dwell upon but free thinking is definitely taboo and this is why Andreas blog site is so important with regards being rich in information and able to challenge primitive thought. Your comments regards John Arrington and experiments sound fascinating. Unfortunately the terminology is way too technical for me to understand yet with the latest diagrams I think I get a grasp of what you are relating to. I suppose, I am more of a lay physicist due to a lack of an academic background but nevertheless I do have some thoughts that have been embodied and have been able to demonstrate an interesting phenomena with regards kinetics and a unified field. This finding has been acclaimed as a new technology in some circles but frowned upon by others who ultimately denied funding and thereby further research. I am going to keep this brief but the subject could run into several pages. This is my take on the subject. Aether which is all there is, is governed by the law of kinetics. The only difference with the aether substance is its ability to permeate atomic substance and thereby hide itself on various levels. Anyone is able to demonstrate this unified field and achieve the field and flow with regards a gas or liquid flow. The number of protons in a stable dense atom is four with four electrons. The design of the mechansim achieves four dense inner whorls (proton position) and four less dense outer whorls (electron position). Both of these whorls oscillate towards and away from one another. The proton whorl and the electron whorl are connected by a very tight helical trajectory of a neutral flow comprised of a partial inner whorl and outer whorl. This I believe to be a binding force that originates from the two whorls and subsequently flows across the flow outwardly and then up to north whereupon it crosses the flow once again over the neutral position between the two oscillating units of force, creating a circuit comprised of transitional units. This inner circuit contains more density i.e. energy and thereby is able to cross through both the electron and proton position. This is what I refer to as the inner ‘economy flow system’ and is responsive to the inner positive gravity. Around this complex flow field is a static barrier layer of none flow, polarized by the oscillating units within. The flowing material was air, not aether, but demonstrated a phenomena with regards a steady state, non turbulent kinetic interaction whereby a unified field was formed and tied together by an internal knot. This knot I believe represents the kinetic heat within an aton. The two whorls represent the latent heat. If you thinkl about it, four pieces of a jig saw puzzle fit together by the same means as 3000 would, all you need is the basic pattern. I also believe that atomic physics as a stand alone subject is incomplete and has been shuffled off as such so as to divide and conquer by those who benefit the most from the secret of this mysterious yet important fascinating subject.
Kind Regards, Eric Ashworth.
A small typo: “Avagadro” for “Avogadro” in the title.
Best regards,
Italo A.
Dr. Rossi 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