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 2006
Abstract
Quantum Ring Theory (QRT) proposes a new model of neutron, a new hydrogen model, a photon model, a model structure for the aether, a model of electron, a model of proton, and a new nuclear model named Hexagonal Floors Model.
Here we analyze the Rossi-Focardi cold fusion experiment by considering the nuclear properties of the Hexagonal Floors Model.
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Yes, we will.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Bennet Britton:
So far we are just working on the reactor. When we will have consolidated it at 600 Celsius, the specialists will work on the Carnot Cycle and other applications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You have really taken a big stride from 100.1 degrees Centigrade to 600, congratulations. But as you know it takes more than temperature to cram electricity out of steam. At 600C, can you tell us what pressure and steam flow you can get?
//Kind regards, Ben
Ioannis,
1. Have you considered that the effects that you have noted concerning a photon approaching an electron may be caused by the stress in the aether like I mentioned in my previous post? If such is the case, then a metric tensor would be a factor in quantifying all those effects. (Of course, that is easier said than done.)
2. You say that a neutrino travels faster than light within a field. What type of field do you mean, and is that field infinite or finite in range?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea,
A little celebration event would not be misplaced.
Now you have achieved a quality of energy production that competes with most common use of hydrocarbons.
This is History !
The further development of the technology, e.g. power concentration in volume and weight, startup and dynamic control, will depend more on classic and also very specialized engineering and knowledge of materials than on the basics of the E-Cat, I believe. The possibilities are numerous for the coming generations.
Do you already have a plan on the further steps to let others multiply your achievements ?
The market is one way, but schools are also very important, I believe. At least, their generation has no interest in ignorance of the e-cat.
Now the competition will have to come with some spacecraft, or with some high-octane-Nickel that permits better COP’s, as we see in internal combustion engines. But since price is always very important: the cheaper will be the better. (I buy 95 and never 98)
Kind regards,
Koen
Dear Giuliano Bettini:
Correct!
Wartm Regards,
A.
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Thank you very much. We will contact him.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi,
The stuff that you can find on the Internet are amazing. I have found this article about an Automotive Stirling Engine program ran by NASA, right here:
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2010/08/26/found-nasas-stirling-engined-dodge-d-150/ and
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2009/01/27/nasa-gets-spiritual-and-drops-stirling-engines-in-some-odd-vehicles/
The article mentions a scientist who was running the program: Mr. John Corey who in turns has his own consulting page devoted to Stirling Engines:
http://www.stirling-world.com/www.stirling-world.com/Welcome.html
Perhaps he will make for a good consultant?
Last but not least, here is a general “gateway” type of a info web site solely devoted to Stirling Cycle:
http://stirlingengines.org.uk/index.html
Dear Andrea Rossi: 600 °C !?
LOL! So you are right: “We’re not here to make the tips of the pyramids.”
My best wishes.
Giuliano Bettini
Dear Joe,
Very nice way of thinking, although I did not understand completely why some properties of the Aether must be as you write. Anyway, I will try to put some light (or totally darkness. I am searching also to understand some aspects of Aether, even if I have written myself the equations that does not mean especially on the issue of Aether, is everything bright and clear for me too.) on this difficult issue of Aether:
i)On page 24, it is explained (mathematically) the fact that VA is a Tangential Constant Velocity of Aether. This points in different distances, the angular velocity is different. As close to the center (Ex. Electron) the angular velocity increases, but VA remains always constant. Please do not simulate this situation with planets since it is not the same due to the reason a system of planets in a solar system, is a complex system with various parameters. In our case the system is the simplest possible (where the birth of Aether came from). Just a stationary Electron and an approaching photon.
ii)During the writing of my work, I was also confused about the nature of Aether (I am still not 100% sure) since, it was revealed itself through the theoretical experiment where a gamma photon approaches a stationary (not rotating as also not having translation motion. This is very important!) Electron. This revealed as soon as the photon was approaching the stationary Electron, the angular velocity of the Aether was increasing, which the later was influencing negatively the velocity of the photon. As you will read on the first pages of my work, the above theoretical approach gives an alternative mathematical proof (very simple) of the reduced fine structure constant.
iii)The Aether can be a solid or not (I cannot say, but imaginary almost certain), but can have the property of condensation where appears on matter. As I mentioned on a previous post, the charge is directly associated with mass and the rotating Aether. In free space absence of matter, the Aether is still present (It was not clear for me at the beginning).
iv)How can that be? When I started to write about Neutrinos with their strange properties of no charge, penetrating entire planets without to stop, it was a need to find a way to see what is going on (since my theory could collapse very easy). As it was proved that created matter is associated with the spinning Aether (Page 40 of SEPPv3.pdf through the new expression of Planck constant), which means a just created real mass has also tangential velocity of that of Aether (348 Km/sec) on its surface, then this was the key to see why Neutrinos have such penetrability as also no charge. On Page 40 (SEPPv3.pdf), I put some arguments to explain it. Since real mass created in free space (pair production effect) rotating with VA Tangential Velocity and charged, then this torque from the moment it does not come from the real world (it starts to happen earlier) must be imaginary (invisible). I mean that the created matter does not come in existence non rotating and someone “sits” near the particle and gives it a “slap in the face” (torque) of the particle to rotate. Matter comes in existence rotating (real rotation given by the imaginary rotating Aether), which points that in the non existence phase (not manifesting in the real world) the Aether is stationary but spinning.
From the iv) explanation the conclusion is that the Aether in free space is imaginary (since the cause of matter rotation is out of the real world), having imaginary mass and imaginary charge (8.23E-23 Cb). The imaginary mass of the quantum Aether must be around 5.1E5 Kgr (I forgot to mention it on my paper). The calculation of the imaginary mass comes from the model of Electron. The maximum photon frequency in the Universe was calculated 5.167E62 Hz, which is the photon which will collapse instantly due to the presence of Aether. Now this photon frequency corresponds to the largest possible created mass by a single photon which has the value of 1.902E12Kgr (Probable Primordial Black Hole Mass Value). Now if you divide this value with 3.7E6 (see Electron Model on Page 40) it will give the value of 5.1E5 Kgr for the imaginary mass of the quantum Aether and its radius will be equal to the quantum length (6.74E-58m).
Probably under these circumstances the Aether has the properties of the densest solid but invisible (imaginary) as also interacting with matter through the field of the Charge located in the real world. This is just an assumption.
Those who are going to detect the existence of Aether, will give more information about its nature. Until now my work gave the theoretical result of 348 Km/sec (Tangential). It is much better than to search blindly 100 years ago or some 10 to 20 years ago, experimentally with much divergences due to year seasons and day time. According to this link: http://www.helical-structures.org/new_evidences/modern-ether-drift-exp/ether-drift-exp.pdf , most of them are near the 348 Km/sec and as you will read the most of the experiments use rotating frames or circular paths, which this feature is related with the rotation of Aether.
Since the entire Universe rotates with the Tangential Velocity of 348 Km/sec (The reason that we feel as we are moving in a non rotating frame and this due to our co-rotation with the Universe), if someone would like to detect this motion must create locally another rotating frame which will rotate in different angular velocity which will correspond to different Tangential Velocity. It is the opposite effect where two cars are running with the same speed (their relative velocity is zero) where it seems like you are not moving.
I am not sure if the above helped, but it is the way how I understand these matters for the moment! Maybe tomorrow I will change my mind (who knows!). I do not claim that I have all the answers and especially on the subject of Aether. Maybe you or somebody else can develop a better understanding through my work. Do not forget I am not a physicist and maybe I am wrong about all of these (even if I strongly believe that many aspects of my work are probably correct).
Best Wishes
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi & Lenr4you,
I have found another Sterling Engine focused start-up based in the US:
http://www.infiniacorp.com/howitworks.html
Looking at the list of investors, it seems that they must have at least a well performing prototype.
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Thank you for the info.
If he has a proposal for a prototype to test, we will test it immediately.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Lenr4you and Mr. Rossi,
Thank for the information about the prototype of the engine. The inventor of that proof of concept is from Poland. The inventor’s name is:
Ing. Andrzej Wasowski.
His email address: rotary.stirling@gmail.com
or his comapny’s page: http://www.bdt.pl/
Not sure about Ing Wasowski English skills but I can translate if necessary. It seems like currently a first prototype of the engine is being build at the “Aviation Institute” of the local university. It seems like it is a very simple concept, but I do not have any data re: efficiency.
Regards,
Adam
Ioannis,
Allow me to elaborate on my previous post.
When you mention the word ‘tangential’, that brings to mind the phenomenon of rotational motion. And rotational motion involves angular velocity which is related to radial distance and to the linear velocity of an object that is placed at that distance. Therefore, if different objects move about a common point with the same angular velocity but at different distances, they will have different linear velocities. Now, if VA is synonymous with linear velocity at the end of a radial distance, then VA could only be constant if the various objects undergo angular velocities that are different one from the other. This seems elegant if one considers the slower motion of a distant planet versus a closer one within the same system. But the elegance gets lost when we realize that other systems with a similar setup of planets undergo other types of speed. Therefore, if there is an upper limit – VA – to tangential velocity, it would only seem logical that lower values would explain slower phenomena. If VA is truly a singular, absolute value, then the aether is a medium that should replete and reconstitute itself locally and perpetually whenever natural phenomena occur in order to maintain its steady value. This, of course, is an act of magic – creating aether from nothing. (Here, we assume that aether is the ultimate medium, of course, not being created from a more fundamental medium.) If it did not do this, then VA would take-on different values – all lower, of course – as the aether itself would undergo various vicissitudes. All of this should be true for an aether that is not solid. (A solid aether would maintain a singular VA, but that VA would equal c since no deformation of the aether would ever occur and therefore the characteristic speed would remain unaltered. But, alas, your model would then be nullified.)
All the best,
Joe
Joe,
If you go on page 27 of the SEPPv3.pdf, there is the answer on your question. Anyway:
VA=384 Km/sec in free space
α/2π=VA/c represents the situation in Vacuum (free space). For another Wave Transmission Medium, the VA is lower as you note correctly.
On page 27 (SEPPv.pdf) it is mentioned:
α/2π=VA/VM. Now I see,it is not written very well there (I had to write VA’) on SEPPv3.pdf, but from the moment the speed of the E/M wave in different medium is lower than c, then also on that medium VA is lower than 348 Km/sec.
For example an experiment I tried three years ago was to measure an E/M Wave velocity inside a Ferromagnetic material. The result was about VM=800 m/sec. Now if you use α/2π=VA/VM–>VA=VM*α/2π=0.92m/sec. Means the Aether’s Tangential Velocity is 0.92 m /sec (almost 1 m/sec)
The ratio α/2π=constant always, it has nothing to do with variations with time of the fine structure constant as some papers claim. Again α/2π=constant and due to expansion of the Universe, then the speed of the E/M wave in vacuum, will increase with increasing radius of the Universe (See Eq.(33) of SEPPv3.pdf solving to light speed) as also the Aether Tangential Velocity will increase (VA’>348 Km/sec)after some thousands or million of years.
Again VA is constant on a medium with constant E/M characteristics. For the Vacuum VA=348 Km/sec, for another medium is lower, as also the velocity of the E/M Wave (light or whatever). Absolute constant is only α/2π= constant (which has a value around 1/861) from the beginning of creation until its end.
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Switzerland
Dear Joe:
Please explain better yourself.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Lenr4you:
Yes, we are studying it,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
A PISTONLESS ROTARY STIRLING ENGINE:
“simple and cheap new Rotary Stirling Engine is produced in both on-grid and off-grid forms. This is micro combined heat and power (microCHP) system used all kind of energy…”
an easy-to-producing and cost-effective rotary Stirling engine. An ideal partner for your “eCAT”. 😉
http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/Pistonless-rotary-stirling-engine/WO2012047124.html
http://challenge.ecomagination.com/home/Heat-and-power-system-with-rotary-Stirli
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWASE_2
Greetings
LENR4you
Dear Andrea,
if you need a calculation software:
Simple Performance Prediction Method for Stirling Engine
http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~khirata/academic/simple/simplee.htm
Kind Regards
LENR4you
Ioannis,
Why is VA constant? I could understand a medium having an ultimate characteristic speed, but why could VA not have a lower value under certain conditions?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Per:
The COP and the input electrical power are not changed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Congratulations on the new results with 600 C operation! Can you give a hint at what the input electrical power that is required and what is the COP with this new setup? Has the size in reactor changed (can it still be made very compact).
Curious for new details!
kind regards,
Per
Dear Saverio Costa:
All the tests conducted have been published. No further tests have been conducted since October 28th.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Larry Jameson:
Either, or at any voltage used in any Country.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Will your home eCat be powered by household 110v or 220v or either.
Thanks
Larry Jameson
Dear Mr Rossi,
any news from the tests conducted by the universities?
Good luck for the future.
Hi Joe,
I would not like to disclose it myself but to let be discovered by the readers of my work. Since you make this question, I will say it and the answer is very simple and straight as I have also mentioned this information was hidden (Science probably was blind or influenced by the great Academic or social Powers of that time) inside the interpretation of the reduced Fine Structure Constant which participates in the equation of the elementary charge or Planck Charge (The know Planck Charge is wrong according to my theory).
Since the Planck Charge is equal to the elementary Charge as I write in my work, this rules out the existence of fractional charge which points to nonexistence of Quarks (Page 21 of my work).
Now: α/2π=VA/c (meaning the Reduced Fine Structure Constant is the ratio of the Tangential Aether Velocity to the Light Speed). See page 39 of my work.
Qe2/(4π*εo*)=h*VA
Or go to the link of the fine structure constant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
And on the Definition equation of the fine str.constant, replace h_ (reduced Planck constant)=h/2π. Then after that replace α/2π=VA/c which is an undeniable mathematical fact. This gives the eq.(94.1) on page 39 of my paper. You see it was exactly under our feet!!!!
This discovery points that the Charge is directly associated with mass (due to h) and the spinning Aether (VA). Exactly what Nikola Tesla mentions on some of his lectures: http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb16.html
In his 1891 A.I.E.E. lecture at Columbia College, Tesla said in pertinent part (emphasis mine): “What is electricity, and what is magnetism? “…We are now confident that electric and magnetic phenomena are attributable to the ether, and we are perhaps justified in saying that the effects of static electricity are effects of ether in motion”.
In his statements, Tesla was balancing the various arguments in preparation for his decision: “…Electricity, therefore, cannot be called ether in the broad sense of the term; but nothing would seem to stand in the way of calling electricity ether associated with matter, or bound ether; or, in other words, that the so-called static charge of the molecule is ether associated in some way with the molecule.”
I believe now you have enough indications of what is probably going on.
Comments and suggestions are always welcome!
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Switzerland
Koen Vandewalle wrote in May 18th, 2012 at 9:24 AM
“Dear Wladimir,
Maybe not such a clever question, but how about inertia ? Gravity without a mass-particle, OK, but inertia ?”
Dear Roen
in any theory where it is considered the existence of the aether, inertia is resultant of the interaction of matter with the aether.
In current Modern Physics, as the space is considered empty, there is need to look for an explanation for the inertia. That’s why Higgs proposed his theory.
Ioannis,
Before we have a full comprehension of electricity, we will need to know the nature of electric charge. Can you tell us how Tesla defined electric charge? How does your model describe electric charge?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Hank Mills:
We will do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe,
As I am not an expert or not having at all knowledge (very-very few) of the Standard Model, but I allow me to use the reference of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons#cite_note-SW1993-3
So according to Wikipedia the Z Boson has spin (most probably imaginary but in weak interaction is concluded to have perhaps real spin. Meaning what results on the products after the interaction.), no charge and it is consider as theoretical force mediator. A direct answer is yes, you are right if we see it under the prism of my theory (having imaginary mass). It is also written that the Z boson is electrically neutral as also it is its own anti-particle. This looks like to have similar properties to the Higgs Boson (Massless Anti-Vortex Aether and Massless Vortex Aether glued together having no rotation as also no charge). The Neutron inside a nucleus can be consider as the simulation of the Higgs or Z Boson of two glued opposing Vortices which makes it to not appear charge as also no rotation (See decay of free Neutrons: n0 → p+ + e− + _νe (Anti-neutrino)).
The fact that Z Boson has spin, I believe again is concluded after the result of the interaction which the Z Boson takes place. For this explanation is responsible the Standard model itself, since they will conclude according to the already built theory, even if it does not sound so logical. This is also the reason that the Standard Model became so complex to explain all of these interactions where I doubt if someone really understands (hundreds of parameters) how all of these create a clear understanding and physical sense.
The Aether in free space has two opposing rotations. The initial topology of the Aether in free space is one Anti-Vortex at the center and six Vortices in periphery, creating a Rhombus. But the final topology could be Stellated Octahedral. I wrote something about it in the first and second version, but I removed it on the third since I need to reconsider it. The initial Rhombus topology is logically consistent since the Aether must be sustainable and should not be able to collapse (Vortex and Anti-Vortex at critical distance creates a repulsive force. Similar to the repulsive force which appears between an Electron and Positron at critical distance. With other words it is proven in my theory that is related with the Casimir Force).
Conclusively a force mediator cannot be a particle, in the sense of massive particle (real mass) but can be consider as virtual or imaginary particle which involves the Aether which is the mediator and actuator in every particle process. The detection of the Z Boson as I understood is again indirectly concluded of what comes out from an interaction. Finally it means that it is an unstable glued (if it is also its own antiparticle) Condensed Massless Aether Vortex/Anti-Vortex (Imaginary Mass) where due to the Weak interaction with other particles is concluded to appear and having real spin (which actually does not have).
All of these strange particles sound like the official Science avoids to say the word “Aether” due to their own reasons.
As Nikola Tesla said “I am even grateful to Einstein and others because through their erroneous theories they lead Mankind away from that dangerous path I followed. Let the future tell the truth and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine.”.
It is known that Tesla was supporting the idea of Aether and personally I understand very well his technological breakthroughs (Superluminal transmission of information and not only) with High Voltage Transformers which are wrongly interpreted today (since they use the common knowledge of Electromagnetism).
There is another quote of Tesla that I would not like to present but it is very important/revealing of what we discuss on this blog and is related to “The day when we shall know exactly what electricity is……”. The rest you can find it on the Internet. If you find the rest of this quote I suggest just to think clearly why he said that and why is it so important? (Think in terms of Physics only.).
Best Wishes
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Switzerland
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I would like to congratulate you for the rapid progress that has been made towards achieving stable high temperatures with the new industrial E-Cat module. Your progress is remarkable and is certain to continue.
In 2011 you gained many supporters who became fascinated with your technology, and the potential it holds to be utilized for the betterment of human civilization. Many of these supporters, including myself, became emotionally invested in your progress and the success of the E-Cat. In a world of almost constant warfare, human suffering, and economic turmoil a technology like the E-Cat represents a ray of hope in a dark, gloomy world.
The frequent tests you allowed in 2011 were extremely meaningful. To anyone without an agenda or pseudo-skeptic bias, they clearly demonstrated beyond any doubt the E-Cat technology works as claimed. In addition, the tests gave your supporters something to study, share with others, and discuss amongst themselves while they waited for the “world” as a whole to take notice.
In contrast to last year, 2012 has been quite different. For reasons that no one can refute, you have chosen to stop allowing tests of the E-Cat, and focus totally on pushing the technology to the market place. Obviously, this is the goal we all want to see met, so the E-Cat technology can go from an amazing discovery, to being utilized in a widespread manner.
I recognize that you are not going to allow any additional tests. However, I would like to ask you to consider posting some test data — from a test you have already performed — as a “pick-me-up” for your supporters. For example, it would be a very significant morale booster to see a sheet of test data and some graphs from one of the new modules producing high temperature steam.
Obviously, this will do nothing to change the minds of diehard skeptics and cynics. However, it would be appreciated by those who have been following your work and progress on developing the E-Cat. We have went for a while now with little hard data (which was plentiful last year) and having a “bone” to chew on would do us a lot of good.
Unlike conducting a new test, posting such already acquired data would not take you a lot of time, would require little preparation, and you could control exactly what information is released. Although the same skeptics will howl like they always have, I think you would get a lot of appreciation from those of us who have been trying our best to support your efforts in whatever way we can.
Sincerely,
Hank Mills
Dear Wladimir,
Maybe not such a clever question, but how about inertia ? Gravity without a mass-particle, OK, but inertia ?
Kind regards,
Koen
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Thanks for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
You are perfectly right, I totally agree with your comment regarding Countries’ perfection,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe,
The boson of Higgs cannot exist. Its existence is absurd, because it violates a fundamental law that rules the stability of the elementary particles: they cannot exist without motion
Motion is the fundamental law that rules the existence of the universe.
An elementary particle with no spin cannot exist.
Particles without spin like the bosons (mesons, pions, etc.) have no spin because they are formed by other particles with spin.
But the boson of Higgs is a fundamental particle (it is not formed by other particles).
So, it is actually an absurd particle.
Supersymmetry and the boson of Higgs are among the most stupid theories of the whole time
God is laughing at these existing theories of Physics as superstrings, Susy, and Higgs.
Ioannis,
How do you explain that the Z boson has mass and spin but no charge? Would you claim that the Z boson has imaginary charge that creates imaginary spin which only APPEARS to be real spin due to its Weak interaction with the field of a charged particle? If so, by your model, the mass of the Z boson would consequently be imaginary as well, wouldn’t it, since those other 2 properties are imaginary?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea:
Concerning reply to Enzo De Angelis, my opinion: Perfect countries do not exist, and we are all more familiar with problems of our home countries. Relying on one country or region, whatever it is, is risky, it is better to have more than one. When considering countries, one metric that one can look at is the so-called perceived corruption index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index).
Dear Dr Rossi,
I have a slightly different suggestion:
Please consider writing a detailed journal in either English or Italian that goes over everything that is happening with you, your invention, and your crew. Also, do not throw anything away from your lab. All of those things should be preserved for future generations. 500 years from now historians will study Mr Rossi the same way we study Master Leonardo. It seems that your interaction with us through the journal is also helping…
P.S. Whoever controls the supply of energy controls the universe and I for one am looking forward to our new ECat overlords
http://youtu.be/QH2-TGUlwu4
Joe,
I am the most unsuitable person to develop arguments about the Standard model as also I never spend time to understand (do not have the studies and interest to do it) how all of these particles (intermediate particles) could give the solution for the ultimate theory that explains everything after the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Instead of this, my work is based on the properties of the pair Electron-Positron (stable particles) which led to the discovery of the Aether and the Unified Field Force.
So, if the so called Higgs Boson is the particle which does not have charge and spin, but is the cause of mass to all other known particles, then who gives mass to the Higgs Boson? It sounds like a paradox. My answer about the existence of the probable Higgs Boson according to my theory is the following:
In my work the new expression of the Planck constant (h=re*m*c2/VA) and Charge constant, includes the Tangential Velocity of the Aether (VA=348 Km/sec). These two constants together with the reduced fine structure constant (α/2π=VA/c which is the ration between the Aether’s Tangential Velocity and the speed of light) are the fundamentals ingredients for the creation of any kind of mass in the Universe. These tools could give the following picture in case of a Higgs Boson:
a)No real spin and no real charge, points to a massless Higgs particle (similar to Neutrinos).
b)If we suppose Neutrinos are massless but have measurable real spin (which I doubt), then Neutrinos have mass which results also to existence of charge. Since Neutrinos was proved that do not possess charge, they must be massless and the measured spin (as the Physicists claim) is the interaction between the imaginary spin (due to imaginary charge) with the Field (Weak Interaction. See proposed formula on the Unified Field Force Chapter) of a charged particle. This is an indirect detection of the Neutrino spin (because it is imaginary).
The above can give two different final scenarios for the Higgs Boson:
i)Higgs Boson is forced to have imaginary spin, charge and mass. Actually the Higgs Boson would seem as an invisible particle. It is exactly the massless Aether in a condensed unstable phase. It does not make sense to me (I am not aware) why it is expected to have mass (but massless particle) between 115GeV to 140GeV.
b)Higgs Boson could be an extremely unstable phase of the Aether (Condensed Aether) where it will possess imaginary zero spin (Vortex And Anti-Vortex similar to the moment of creation of matter/Antimatter), imaginary zero charge (at critical distance as it is proved in my work the Electric Field vanishes and there is no rotation) and imaginary mass. It is expected to be initially an invisible particle (Condensed Aether but similar to a glued picture of a Neutrino and Anti-neutrino) and due to extreme instability (repulsive force) to disintegrate quickly which will result to the creation of Matter and Antimatter probably followed with the creation of Neutrinos and Anti-Neutrinos.
I believe the hunt of today Science to trap all possible existing particles in the laboratory (CERN Accelerators) is futile and it does not lead anywhere. The Higgs Boson has a possibility to be found as an unstable Condensed massless Aether phase (Vortex and Anti-Vortex glued together) in case the energy of 115GeV to 140GeV is calculated as one of the next temporary (1E-24sec or less) stable mass level, but it will not help to develop the so called ultimate theory (especially if it is consider a particle that is responsible for the mass of every existing particle).
Conclusively, If the Standard model expects the Higgs Boson to have no charge and no spin and is the creator of mass, then simply they are trying to create a Condensed Massless Aether which will be transformed after some 1E-25sec to matter and Antimatter as also Neutrinos and Anti-neutrinos.
Regards
Ioannis Xydous
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Electronic Engineer
Switzerland
Dear Joannis:
I prefer not to get the robot nervous…let it be!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ioannis,
If the hypothetical Higgs boson is finally confirmed to exist, how does such a discovery affect your theory? You claim that measurable mass is always associated with spin and charge – that a particle which lacks spin has no measurable charge or mass necessarily. Yet, a Higgs boson with its supposed lack of spin and charge but bountiful mass would obviously upset your model.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea, I really appreciate it!
Thank you!
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
P.S. I sent two times the previous comment because I thought that it was not sent. If it is technically possible you can remove the comment with the text which is not correct formatted (my comment exactly below your comment “Dear Joannis: Attention, I got recovered from the spam your comment:”. Otherwise never mind!
Dear Joannis:
Attention, I got recovered from the spam your comment: for some reason the robot has put it in the spam. The fact that I recovered it from a random control of the spam is totally casual. Probably there is something in your address that compels the robot to spam your comment. If in future you will not find your comments published within 48 hours, please resend your comments from another address.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Joe!
I hope not to hijack the discussion space of Wladimir Guglinski and I suggest to discuss this subject or other related to my work, in the discussion space where the “The
secret of the Electron-Positron pair” is published.
Shortly: As you have probably read on my Web Site ( http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ )or SEPPv3.pdf, I present that Space and Time is quantized with space quantization down to
6.74E-58 m and time quantization down to 2.24E-66 secs. Indirectly this results to velocity quantization too, but this is not the explanation of the flavor change. Today
Physics almost suggest that neutrinos have mass, which I find it wrong and I prove it mathematically.
If you read my work, you will see that is proved through the new expression of Planck constant as that of the Charge, the creation of particles (real mass, visible and
measurable in our world) is associated always with mass rotation and charge. A non rotating just created mass (impossible) does not appear charge and real mass. With other
words measurable charge on created particles is always associated with a spinning real mass like that of the electron or positron.
From the moment Neutrinos are proved to not have charge, then this points that they do not possess real mass (like electron) but they have rotation (Neutrinos rotate clockwise
and Anti-Neutrinos rotate counter clockwise). They possess imaginary mass and imaginary charge. They behave similarly to photons but as half waves (the reason that they could
surpass the light speed inside a field only) since in case of Electron Neutrino their origin is the Electron. On my Web Site, I present a new model for the Electron.
The way that the flavor change as presented in the literature is not also very clear to me. The understanding (this does not mean that is 100% correct, but for me it gives a
clearer picture about neutrinos as also it is a new proposal) that I acquired by writing about neutrinos is: For example a gamma photon with 1.022MeV travels with the speed of
light and it is capable to create a pair of Electron-Positron under specific conditions. The 1.022MeV photon energy is the sum of 511KeV (Electron)+ 511KeV (Positron), where
the 511KeV represents the Electron/Positron mass eigenstates. Now a photon with larger energy than 1.022MeV for example 1.222MeV is the sum of 511KeV (Electron)+ 511KeV
(Positron) + 200KeV (additional energy). This additional energy corresponds to a higher oscillation frequency (like Electron/Positron flavor eigenstates). This 1.222MeV photon
will give also a pair of Electron-Positron under specific conditions where the additionally energy will be shared as Kinetic Energy to the pair.
If it would be possible (actually is impossible since photons are full waves) a photon of 1.022MeV to increase its Energy to 1.876GeV then this photon it could be capable to
create Proton and Anti-protons (similar change of flavor) under specific conditions.
Below is presented the calculation of the eigenstate mass for all Neutrinos according to my paper:
1)Electron Neutrino: 0.1380442eV (today it is believed that Electron Neutrino must have mass below 0.2eV
2)Tau Neutrino: 0.4793407eV
3)Muon Neutrino: 28.50393eV
Similarly with the photons a half wave Neutrino (imaginary mass) with 0.1380442eV eigenstate mass could be accelerate inside a Field (or Vortex or Anti-Vortex depends on the
distance) and acquires half wave Energy equal to 0.4793407eV or 28.50393eV then it could be transformed (change of flavor) to Tau or Muon Neutrino. Oppositely as it is was
also proved recently that a Muon or Tau Neutrino (if I remember correctly) could be transformed (change of flavor) to Electron Neutrino which points to a deceleration inside a
field. In free space absence of Field or near Vortices or Anti-Vortices Neutrinos travel with the speed of light.
This brought the need to introduce the imaginary Planck constant for Neutrinos which has the value of 1.788E-40 Joule X secs.
The difference with the photons is that photons inside Electric Fields can only be decelerated which results after their exit to a reduced momentum or oscillation frequency.
This is how I understand the change of flavor in Neutrinos.
Best Wishes
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Hi Joe!
I hope not to hijack the discussion space of Wladimir Guglinski and I suggest to discuss this subject or other related to my work, in the discussion space where the “The secret of the Electron-Positron pair” is published.
Shortly: As you have probably read on my Web Site ( http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ )or SEPPv3.pdf, I present that Space and Time is quantized with space quantization down to 6.74E-58 m and time quantization down to 2.24E-66 secs. Indirectly this results to velocity quantization too, but this is not the explanation of the flavor change. Today Physics almost suggest that neutrinos have mass, which I find it wrong and I prove it mathematically.
If you read my work, you will see that is proved through the new expression of Planck constant as that of the Charge, the creation of particles (real mass, visible and measurable in our world) is associated always with mass rotation and charge. A non rotating just created mass (impossible) does not appear charge and real mass. With other words measurable charge on created particles is always associated with a spinning real mass like that of the electron or positron.
From the moment Neutrinos are proved to not have charge, then this points that they do not possess real mass (like electron) but they have rotation (Neutrinos rotate clockwise and Anti-Neutrinos rotate counter clockwise). They possess imaginary mass and imaginary charge. They behave similarly to photons but as half waves (the reason that they could surpass the light speed inside a field only) since in case of Electron Neutrino their origin is the Electron. On my Web Site, I present a new model for the Electron.
The way that the flavor change as presented in the literature is not also very clear to me. The understanding (this does not mean that is 100% correct, but for me it gives a clearer picture about neutrinos as also it is a new proposal) that I acquired by writing about neutrinos is: For example a gamma photon with 1.022MeV travels with the speed of light and it is capable to create a pair of Electron-Positron under specific conditions. The 1.022MeV photon energy is the sum of 511KeV (Electron)+ 511KeV (Positron), where the 511KeV represents the Electron/Positron mass eigenstates. Now a photon with larger energy than 1.022MeV for example 1.222MeV is the sum of 511KeV (Electron)+ 511KeV (Positron) + 200KeV (additional energy). This additional energy corresponds to a higher oscillation frequency (like Electron/Positron flavor eigenstates). This 1.222MeV photon will give also a pair of Electron-Positron under specific conditions where the additionally energy will be shared as Kinetic Energy to the pair.
If it would be possible (actually is impossible since photons are full waves) a photon of 1.022MeV to increase its Energy to 1.876GeV then this photon it could be capable to create Proton and Anti-protons (similar change of flavor) under specific conditions.
Below is presented the calculation of the eigenstate mass for all Neutrinos according to my paper:
1)Electron Neutrino: 0.1380442eV (today it is believed that Electron Neutrino must have mass below 0.2eV)
2)Tau Neutrino: 0.4793407eV
3)Muon Neutrino: 28.50393eV
Similarly with the photons a half wave Neutrino (imaginary mass) with 0.1380442eV eigenstate mass could be accelerated inside a Field (or Vortex or Anti-Vortex depends on the distance) and acquires half wave Energy equal to 0.4793407eV or 28.50393eV then it could be transformed (change of flavor) to Tau or Muon Neutrino. Oppositely as it is was also proved recently that a Muon or Tau Neutrino (if I remember correctly) could be transformed (change of flavor) to Electron Neutrino which points to a deceleration inside a field. In free space absence of Field or near Vortices or Anti-Vortices Neutrinos travel with the speed of light.
This brought the need to introduce the imaginary Planck constant for Neutrinos which has the value of 1.788E-40 Joule X secs.
The difference with the photons is that photons inside Electric Fields can only be decelerated which results after their exit to a reduced momentum or oscillation frequency.
This is how I understand the change of flavor in Neutrinos.
Best Wishes
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Dear Enzo De Angelis:
What we risk in Italy is to get stuck as it already happened to me in past. To start in Italy, before a solid reference abroad, is risky: this is the clear signal coming from the politic guy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Caro Ing. Rossi,
il sottosegretario De Vincenti prima di dare quella risposta all’interrogazione parlamentare avrebbe dovuto alzare il suo didietro dalla sedia e venire prima a parlare con lei, ammesso che lei lo avesse ricevuto, per rendersi personalmente conto di come stanno le cose. Non lo ha fatto evidentemente per interessi contrari o perché non gliene frega nulla.
Al suo posto anch’io sarei tentato di mandare a quel paese l’Italia che in fatto di presa a calci delle sue migliori menti non è seconda a nessuno a livello mondiale.
Però la prego di non dimenticare che se ai potenti italiani non può fregare nulla di energia diffusa, economica e non inquinante non per questo ne devono pagare le conseguenze i cittadini che da loro vengono fuorviati e ingannati.
Il lavoro non deve mica offrirlo ai governanti ma ai cittadini italiani onesti che meritano di vivere dignitosamente.
E’ a queste persone che lei e la sua azienda dovrebbe pensare quando pensa di fabbricare l’E-Cat solo in USA e Svezia.
Spero con tutto il cuore che saprà farlo.
Ioannis,
You claim that a change in the flavor of a neutrino is caused by a change in velocity of that neutrino. Since flavors are discrete properties, are the velocities that are undergone by neutrinos within fields also discrete (not continuous)?
All the best,
Joe