Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity

Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin,
Evan Robinson, Mario Human,
Alan Macey, Riaan Theron

This First part of a two-part paper deals with results from a circuit that was designed to determine whether the amount of energy dissipated in a circuit could exceed the amount of energy delivered from a battery supply. If so, then this result would prove the basis of a magnetic field model that predicts an exploitable non-conservative field condition. This model is the subject of the second paper.
The distinction is drawn that the energy that is dissipated in a circuit is sourced from the induced potential difference in the circuit material itself.
Correspondingly then, the proposal is that the circuit material itself may be used as a supplementary and secondary energy supply source that has not, typically, been factored into the analysis of power conversion.
This raises the question as to whether Kirchhoff’s Laws exceed Faraday’s Laws of Induction. And if not, then there is also a potential for the conservation of potential difference at a supply that may be exploited to enhance energy efficiencies.
Test results show that this is, indeed, possible and that the inductive and conductive components of circuit material may be factored in as a potential energy supply source depending on the circuit design and intention.

190 comments to Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity

  • Joe


    1. Since the secondary field is electric, it can not be induced by the action of a principal field that is either gravitational or electric. A rotating gravitational field induces a gravitomagnetic field. And a rotating electric field induces an electromagnetic field. Neither one is coulombic.

    2. How do each of two 1H2 overcome the repulsive gravitational field of the other in order to form one 2He4?

    3. You say that gravity is independent of mass at the smallest scale. If that were true, then 2He4 should not have a greater gravitational influence than the less massive 1H2. And yet you claim that 2He4 is central precisely because it exerts a greater gravitational flux over its orbiting 1H2.

    Also, you say that 1H2 is composed of 2 protons and 1 orbiting electron. How do the protons overcome electrostatic repulsion? Also, how do they overcome repulsive gravity?

    Also, why do you not believe that a neutron is composed of 3 quarks? Does the strong interaction not have a place in QRT?

    All the best,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Joe,
    I would like to speak a lillte more about the symmetry of 2He4

    In the question 3 you said:

    3. The perfect symmetry within 2He4 indicates a lack of distinction between the natures of proton and neutron

    You cannot find such lack of distinction in the current model of neutron of Nuclear Physics, because the neutron is considered an elementary particle, as the proton.

    But you can find the lack of distinction in the neutron model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, because the neutron is not considered a fundamental particle.
    Unlike, according to QRT, the neutron is composed by proton+electron.
    The electron moves about the proton.

    In the structure of 1H2, the electron moves about two protons (the orbit has the form of the infinite symbol).

    There is no way to explain the magnetic momentum of 1H2 by considering the current Nuclear Physics.

    – the neutron has magnetic momentum -1,9103
    – the proton has magnetic momentum +2,7896
    – Therefore 1H2 would have to have magnetic momentum +0,8793
    – Nevertheless, experiments show that 1H2 has magnetic momentum +0,857
    – So, there is a difference 0,0223

    In the page 103 of the book QRT it’s exhibited a calculation for the magnetic momentum of 1H2.

    In that page it’s shown that such difference +0,0223 is due to a distortion of the electron’s orbit when it moves about the two protons (when the electron moves about one proton,its orbit is circular, but moving between two protons there is a small increase in the area of the electron’s orbit).

    So, now consider the 2He4.
    It is formed by two 1H2, and each 1H2 is perfectly symmetric, because it is formed by one electron moving about two protons.
    Therefore according to Quantum Ring Theory the 2He4 is formed by two perfectly symmetric 1H2, and so 2He4 has a perfect symmetry.


  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in June 19th, 2012 at 4:07 PM

    1. The electric force is very strong at all ranges.

    According to Quantum Ring Theory, the elementary particles have two concentric fields.
    In the case of the proton we have
    – The principal Sp(p). I am not sure yet if its nature is gravitational or electric.
    – The secondary Sn(p), reponsible for the Coulomb interactions, and it involves the principalfield

    The secondary field is induced by the rotation of the principal field

    In order to pack two protons together, there is need to perforate their secondary fields.
    So, when two protons are packed together, they have not a Coulomb repulsion.
    If the principal field is electric, then there is a residual electric repulsion between them
    If the principal field is gravitatinal, then there is a gravitational repulsion between them, due to repulsive gravitons

    2. Does 2He4 have a property that 1H2 does not?

    Yes, there is
    The gravitational flux n(o) of the 2He4 is stronger than that of the 1H2.
    And when the 1H2 is captured by a 2He4, the flux n(o) of the 1H2 reinforces the flux produced by the 2He4. The more nucleons 1H2 are captured, more stronger the flux n(o) into the 2He4 becomes.

    3. The perfect symmetry within 2He4 indicates a lack of distinction between the natures of proton and neutron. Each has a different mass and therefore a different gravitational field.

    The gravity within the elementary particles is different of the macroscopic gravity in the sense of Newton, which is stationary.
    Within the elementary particles the gravity is dynamic. It is caused by the flux of gravitons.
    The difference of masses between proton and neutron has not influence in the case of dynamic gravity.

  • Joe


    1. The electric force is very strong at all ranges. Even if the strength of the 2 different gravitational forces rivals that of the electric one at very small range, the electric force of both 2He4 and 1H2 would ensure that these 2 bodies never get close enough to experience the dual gravitational forces that you believe exist within fundamental particles. Hence, it would be impossible for 2He4 to capture 1H2.

    2. Even if we accept that 2He4 can capture 1H2, why does 2He4 have such tremendous command over a potential myriad of 1H2 that oscillates about it? It might be easy to understand in the case of the atom where electrons and nucleons are of a different nature and mass. But 1H2 and 2He4 are of the same nature and comparable mass. In fact, the collective mass of 1H2 could easily be greater than that of the single, central 2He4. Does something special happen when one 2He4 is formed from two 1H2? Does 2He4 have a property that 1H2 does not? In other words, why does 1H2 not have a set of gravitational and electrical fields that is similar to that of 2He4?

    3. The perfect symmetry within 2He4 indicates a lack of distinction between the natures of proton and neutron. Each has a different mass and therefore a different gravitational field. Even if these fields reinforce each other, this should not render a 2He4 that is perfectly symmetrical. Further, if we include electrostatic repulsion between protons, 2He4 should be even less symmetrical.

    All the best,

  • Mirko

    Dear dr. Rossi,
    on Dec 6th 2011 a new room-temperature superconductor was discovered (28° C). No one seems to take care of this wonderful discovery. Could it be used in conjunction with the e-cat in any way? Here’s the link: http://www.superconductors.org/rtsc2mkt.htm
    Best regards

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in June 17th, 2012 at 4:39 PM


    1. In QRT, how can 2He4 have a strong enough gravitational field to attract 1H2 when compared to their electric fields’ great repulsive strength?

    As explained in the paper published here in JNP last month, according to Quantum Ring Theory the gravity has the magnitude of the electromagnetism.
    The macroscopic gravity is very weak (10^40 times weaker) because it is the combination of attractive and repulsive gravitons.
    However, within the elementary particles as nuclei, photons, etc., the repulsive and attractive gravitons can work alone.

    2. What prevents 1H2 from bonding with each other and forming further 2He4 about the central 2He4?

    Each 1H2 is captured by the gravity flux n(o) produced by the central 2He4.
    Such question of yours worried me along a decade (earlier I realize the existence of repulsive gravitons), because before 2011 I did not know how to explain why two fluxes n(o) do not attract one each other.

    The flux n(o) captures repulsive gravitons (they form a field about the flux n(o).
    That’s why two flux n(o) repel one each other, and so two 1H2 cannot form further 2He4.
    It is explained in my paper published last month here.

    3. Why is the central 2He4 so symmetrical with itself? Should not the 2 protons repel each other further and stretch the 2He4? As it stands, this entity consisting of 2 protons and 2 neutrons is structured no different than if it consisted of 4 neutrons.

    So that to understand it, you have to look at the structure of my 2He4 model, in order to realize how the flux n(o) is formed within the 2He4.
    The protons have the form of a ring (such ring is formed by the rotation of the 3 quarks). Such rotation of the quarks induces the flux n(o), which crosses within the ring.
    When a proton and a neutron are packed together, their two fluxes n(o) reinforces one each other.


  • Tim

    Dr. Rossi

    Could you use a high temperature e-cat to heat thermal oil to power low temperature e-cats. Would this be a way to up the COP to 36?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Franco:
    We will deliver in July, then we will give the information in due time. it will take some time for the set up and the authorizations. We will give information after the consolidated operation of the plant for some month.
    Warm Regards,

  • Franco

    Dear Ing. Rossi,

    talking about the 1MW plant, You are delivering one to an European customer during next July,
    I would to know the week of July in which this delivery has been planned.
    Kind Regards


    P.S. My previous messages were “under moderation” and then disappeared probably due to the spam filtering.

  • To Sterling Allan,

    Dear Sterling,

    Thank you for posting that link to Hank Mills’ article. It was most heartening to see the rapid development of the E-Cat. Roll on tomorrow and all that wonderful energy. And thank you to Andrea Rossi. Your work is monumental and there is no question that your name will reverberate through history. I think it is now long over due that our media sit up and take note. They’re losing their credibility in direct proportion to their intentional refusal to comment on this remarkable technology. I am not sure that they’ll ever recover it. Sterling has referenced this before. I think that one of the more significant paradigm shifts is that our public will entirely lose their confidence in our standard news media. It seems to have developed an agenda that has nothing to do with public interest.

    And thank you for this blog of yours Andrea. It is a refuge for those of us who need the comfort of knowing that the old order of energy monopoly is about to come to an end. Which is also long over due. It is a bright future that we’re looking to. And so, so much needed. Our prodigal use of energy has been rather a blot on our proud history of science.

    Kindest regards,

    Sterling Allan
    June 15th, 2012 at 5:16 PM

  • Joe


    1. In QRT, how can 2He4 have a strong enough gravitational field to attract 1H2 when compared to their electric fields’ great repulsive strength?

    2. What prevents 1H2 from bonding with each other and forming further 2He4 about the central 2He4?

    3. Why is the central 2He4 so symmetrical with itself? Should not the 2 protons repel each other further and stretch the 2He4? As it stands, this entity consisting of 2 protons and 2 neutrons is structured no different than if it consisted of 4 neutrons.

    All the best,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Roberto B.
    Please contact
    Warm Regards,

  • Roberto B.

    Egr. Dott. Rossi,
    Le scrivo dopo che un mio amico, l’Ing. Mario Del Pozzo, con il quale ha già avuto modo di comunicare in passato, mi ha parlato di Lei e della Sua “creatura”. Devo di re di esserne rimasto immediatamente affascinato e impressionato. Quello che sta facendo è incredibile. Mi presento brevemente: io sono uno dei soci titolari di una impresa italiana che si occupa di costruzioni, prevalentemente. Siamo imprenditori da tre generazioni e da più di cinquant’anni. Questo breve accenno per dire che dietro di me c’è una struttura solida e discretamente affermata. Le scrivo per chiedere se può esserci interesse, da parte Sua, ad una collaborazione per l’industrializzazione e la commercializzazione del Suo prodotto in Italia. Io sarei molto interessato ad approfondire la questione e, se l’interesse fosse reciproco, mi rendo già da ora disponibile ad un eventuale incontro per avere il piacere di conoscere Lei e per parlare più approfonditamente della cosa.
    Cordiali saluti.


    Mr. Rossi
    I am writing after a friend of mine, Eng. Mario Del Pozzo, with whom he had the opportunity to communicate in the past, told me about you and your “creation”. I have a king that he had been fascinated and impressed immediately. What you are doing is incredible. Let me introduce myself briefly: I am one of the members enjoying an Italian company that deals with construction, mainly. We are entrepreneurs for three generations and more than fifty years. This brief reference to say that behind me is a solid and fairly stated. I am writing to ask if there may be interest on your part, to a partnership for the industrialization and marketing of your product in Italy. I’d be very interested to explore this issue and, if the interest was mutual, I am already available now for a possible meeting to have the pleasure to meet you and talk more in depth of the thing.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Only Quantum Ring Theory can save current Nuclear Theory

    The nuclei are formed by protons and neutrons. Protons have positive charge and neutrons have no charge, and therefore all the nuclei have positive charge.

    The distribution of positive charge within the nuclei may be of two types:

    1- spherical distribution
    2- no spherical distribution

    The distribution of charges within the nuclei is measured by the electric quadrupole moment, represented by Q(b) in nuclear tables. The data of these nuclear tables are obtained by experiments.

    If the distribution of charges is spherical, then Q(b) = 0 .
    If the distribution of charges is no spherical, then Q(b) is not zero.

    Among other nuclei with Q(b)=0, the experiments had detected that oxygen nucleus 8O16 and beryllium nucleus 4Be8 also have Q(b)=0.

    The fact that oxygen 8O16 and beryllium 4Be8 have Q(b)=0 is interpreted, in current Nuclear Physics, as those two nuclei must have a spherical distribution of charge.
    This means that, according to current Nuclear Physics, within the nucleus 8O16 the 8 protons take a spherical distribution, and within the 4Be8 the 4 protons also take a spherical distribution.

    However, the experiments made by John Arrington, published in March-2012, detected that the nucleus of beryllium has NOT a spherical distribution. Unlike, the experiments detected that within the beryllium nucleus the positive charges perform a rectilinear distribution.
    See the beryllium structure in the link 1:
    Link 1:

    By looking at the beryllium nucleus, we realize that it defies the foundations of current Nuclear Physics, because there is a nucleon with distance 7fm regarding to the central nucleon 2He4, and therefore such beryllium structure is impossible, because according to Nuclear Theory the nucleons are aggregated by the strong force, and it acts in the maximum distance of 2fm.

    That’s why in his article John Arrington wrote that he and his crew are trying to explain such strange structure of beryllium, impossible to exist according to current Nuclear Theory.

    And Arrington tells that he is trying to explain the beryllium structure by considering that the structure of the protons can be changed due to the disturbances between the forces of interaction of the quarks which compose those protons.

    But note the following:
    1- Suppose that Arrington (or any other nuclear theorist) finds a successful theory, so that to explain why within the beryllium a nucleon is separated by a distance 7fm from the central 2He4.

    2- However, there is no way to explain (from the prevailing foundations of Nuclear Physics) why the experiments detect Q(b)=0 for the beryllium nucleus, because that structure detected by Arrington has not a spherical distribution of positive charges.

    3- Therefore it’s IMPOSSIBLE ( by considering the foundations of current Nuclear Physics ) to explain why the experiments detects null electric quadrupole moment Q(b)=0 for the beryllium, no matter what sort of theory the nuclear theorist can use for the explanation why there is a distance 7fm within the beryllium nucleus.

    The solution for such paradox of beryllium nucleus can be eliminated only by considering the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    According to Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, the oxygen nucleus 8O16 and the beryllium nucleus 4Be8 have NOT a spherical distribution of positive charges.

    However, as there is a central nucleon 2He4 within all the nuclei, such nuclear structure proposed in Quantum Ring Theory explains why oxygen 8O16 and beryllium 4Be8 have Q(b)=0 obtained in the experiments, in spite of they have NOT a spherical distribution.

    The reason why 8O16 has Q(b)=0 is shown in the Figure 6.3 of the article published in Peswiki, shown in the link 2:
    Link 2:

    The oscillation of the nucleons within the oxygen nucleus 8O16, shown in the Fig. 6.3 of the link 2, is responsible for Q(b)=0.
    Due to that oscillation, and because the nucleus 8O16 has null magnetic nuclear moment, the nucleus 8O16 oscillates chaotically, and by this way it behaves as it should have a spherical distribution (detected in the experiments), in spite of its true structure is NOT spherical.

    But such oscillation of the nucleons in the 8O16 shown in Fig. 6.3 is possible only for the structure proposed by Quantum Ring Theory, because there is a central 2He4 which makes possible that oscillation.
    That oscillation shown in Fig. 6.3 is not POSSIBLE if we consider the nuclear models of current Nuclear Physics, because they do NOT have a central 2He4.

    In the case of the beryllium nucleus, it happens the same, and that’s why, in spite of its structure has NOT a spherical distribution of charges (as Arrington’s experiment detected), nevertheless it behaves as it should have a spherical distribution, detected in the experiments that measured its electric quandrupole moment, and obtained Q(b)=0.

    So, any wise person may realize that only Quantum Ring Theory is able to explain the beryllium paradox, detected by Arrington experiment.

    And any wise person must to agree that, no matter what sort of attempt the nuclear theorists can try, they will NEVER succeed to explain why the beryllium nucleus has Q(b)=0, because the structure detected by Arrington cannot have Q(b)=0 according to current Nuclear Physics, since that structure shown by his experiment has NO spherical distribution of charges.

    And the conclusion is obvious for any wise person: only Quantum Ring Theory can save current Nuclear Theory.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Sterling Allan, Hank Mills:
    I will send to PESN the report of the official tests we are making on the high temperature reactors as soon as we will have completed the job.
    Warm Regards,

  • The latest article by Hank Mills:

    600 Celsius – The Accelerating Evolution of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat – Andrea Rossi’s cold fusion technology, called the E-Cat, has been developing rapidly over the past year. Currently, it is asserted that an extended test of a high- temperature module is taking place. What could the next evolutionary adaptation be for the Energy Catalyzer? (PESN; June 15, 2012)

  • Francesco

    Dear ing. Rossi
    @Joe June 14th, 2012 at 6:42 PM
    “Would you consider swapping out the entire reactor instead of only exchanging the fuel rod if the E-Cat keeps getting smaller? It would be much easier for the customer and would ensure a greater degree of secrecy for your intellectual property.”
    I don’t see this a good system to protect the brevet unless tight contracts that could not be met.
    Besides, sincerely, I would not buy the rediscovered anymore because I don’t want monopoly of the energy anymore in my house. I am tired of the Enel that has skinned me for so many years let’s show up us if, for instance, after having bought my thermosolar panels , I had to give the monopoly to others…
    If this were the condition,sincerely, I would not buy anymore E-Cat.
    Best Regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joe:
    It is a good idea.
    Warm Regards,

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    Would you consider swapping out the entire reactor instead of only exchanging the fuel rod if the E-Cat keeps getting smaller? It would be much easier for the customer and would ensure a greater degree of secrecy for your intellectual property.

    All the best,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear John Robinson:
    Yes, there is inspiration, but also a lot of perspiration.
    Warm Regards,

  • John Robinson

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    After careful studies I have arrived at the conclusion that you have to believe in LENR. Religion is all about believing. Therefore the acronym LENR should be spelled out Low Energy Nuclear Religion.

    //Kind regards, John Robinson

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Nixter:
    Thanks for the suggestion, we will analyze it.
    Warm Regards,

  • Nixter

    Engineer Andrea Rossi,

    Is the 50% duty cycle needed to control unwanted heat buildup in the core?
    Could the duty cycle be increased by “forced” cooling of the reactor using the water meant to be heated? NASA cools its engine nozzles with the LOx fuel component, can this idea be used to control the reactor temps?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Sterling Allan:
    Thank you, interesting link.
    Warm Regards,

  • I’ve prepared this bullet for next weeks weekly review, but wanted to give you a heads up about it.

    The Progress made in the Different Fields of Nuclear Fusion – In this landmark article, Professor Chris Rhodes, who is the youngest person to have achieved professorship in the U.K., reviews various genres of nuclear fusion, starting with the conventional modalities, then shifting to Cold Fusion and Rossi’s E-Cat developments. “This is all quite fascinating and all I can say is: watch this space.” (OilPrice; June 10, 2012)

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Rosemary
    please send the answer you tried to send me to my hotmail:



  • Dear Wlad,

    I tried to answer you through that link but failed. My email address is ainslie@mweb.co.za. Alternatively you can reach me through our new forum Energy & Shifting Paradigms.com.

    Kindest regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gregory Chaitin:
    I wish you good luck for your book,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Eernie1:
    Thank you for your insight, very interesting.
    Warm Regasrds and best of luck to you,

  • eernie1

    Dear readers,
    I have not contributed anything to this discussion since Rossi has entered the engineering stage of his program.There are two reasons for this,(1)I have little to offer for his use and(2)he doesnt need more discussion to occupy his time.However,
    I have followed the science portion of the inputs and I am satisfied that I have constructed a feasable process that is acceptable to me for the energy generation within the Ecat structure.I offer this explanation for your amusement and would enjoy your comments.
    There are two clues that direct my thoughts about the process.(1)The heating must be ohmic because there is a minimal amount of radiant energy reported by observers.(2)The amount of energy created must involve the nucleous since chemical sources are not capable of providing what is claimed to be generated.If it is ohmic then electron interaction within the crystal bonds must be occuring.The question then is where are the electrons comming from? The only place that can provide enough energetic electrons for the reported outputs must be the nucleous.Previously,in my past contributions,I had proposed a nuclear decay mechanism caused by extermally imposed fields(H-)which involved kaon to pion to muon(heavy electron)generation with expulsion from the nucleous into the surrounding crystal electron configuration.I concluded after much thought that this process was too complicated for my satisfaction.I also was leary of the other theories which required forcing a massive particle(proton)into the nucleous to generate the effect.But there is a process experimentally observed which can provide the necessary energetic electrons.This process called internal conversion of electrons(google”conversion electrons”)involves forcing 1S1 electrons of an atom into the nucleous by imposing a large negative field(H-) into the outer electron configuration of the atom.When the electron enters the nucleous,it stimulates an isomer within the nucleous(excited proton or neutron)and absorbs a portion of the deexcitation energy as the isomer returns to the ground state.The energetic electron then is ejected from the nucleous along with a neutrino into the surrounding electronic configuration.If the atom is bound into a crystal the interaction causes ohmic heating.There is also a small probility that a gamma ray may be generated and expelled in the stimulation of the isomer.Since the neutrino can absorb a broad range of the induced energy(dependent upon the angle of electron encounter with the isomer)the expelled electron also possesses a broad emission spectra.Experimentally,this fact is used to assure that the detected converted electrons are not Beta electrons or Auger electrons since they possess a much narrower spectra.Along with this electron movement through the electron configuration,another source of additional electron movement involves the movement of outer electrons into the inner levels to replace the ejected 1S1 electrons.
    With this contribution,I am signing off of this blog to return to my first scientific love,cosmology.My main purpose is to debunk the worst scientific analogy I have ever encountered,the Big Bang theory of universe creation.I have previously presented in a blog my version of the creation process which makes more sense to me.I will not bore you with a repeat.
    To Rossi,I wish you the best of luck.

  • Dear Ing. Andrea Rossi,

    Just wanted to let you know that in Chapter 7 “The Politics of Creativity” of my book “Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical” I refer to your LENR work as an important example of the kind of immensely valuable creativity that our current scientific establishment is attempting to suppress. My book was published by Pantheon/Random House in New York in May. Amazingly enough, the publisher did not ask me to remove the reference to cold fusion!

    Keep up the good work!

    With my best wishes for your success,
    Gregory Chaitin

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie

    Perhaps overunity is consequence of interactions of electricity with gravitons of the aether.

    The lifter is an assymetric capacitor:

    Nobody knows why the lifter levitates.
    A portion of its levitation is due to ionization of the air. However calculations have shown that ionization itself cannot make the lifter levitate.
    It’s possible the other portion of the thrust is due to antigravity.

    In the vacuum the lifter does not levitate. However the experiments showed that there is a thrust on the lifter in the vacuum experiments, and so it’s possible it is caused by antigravity:

    The assymetric capacitor is supplied by a 20-30kV flyback.

    The circuit for the flyback you may find here:

    If overunity is indeed caused by interaction between electric currents and gravity, then I think it would be of interest to try to incorporate the influence of the flyback in the overunity experiments.

    I suggest you to try it in your experiments, in order to verify if the flyback is able to increase the generation of excess energy.

    Please look at the circuit, so that to verify if it is possible to make it:

    Perhaps the transistors used by you cannot support 20-30kV ( in spite of a current induced by the flyback will not cross them ). Then we would have to think about a solution for such problem.

    In my oppinion, the influence of the assymetric capacitor on overynity experiments (as cold fusion) would have to be tested.

    Unfortunatelly, as in general the cold fusion researchers do not believe that cold fusion may have connection with gravity, they have no interest to try to incorporate the assymmetric capacitor in their experiments.


  • Dear Hank,

    I entirely agree with you. We are looking at the start of a paradigm shift that will entirely change us all. It is heartening. But it is also fraught with many jealous efforts to prevent this. Thankfully there’s a growing awareness of some serious flaws in the standard model. And LENR is the first real reason to do some required revisions.

    Hank, the real benefit of your support is in the caliber of that support. It is always more welcome when it is also associated with high principle. And we are all of us aware of your own. Not often evident in these days where pragmatism is usually considered enough.

    Kindest regards,

    Hank Mills
    June 8th, 2012 at 11:39 PM

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Rosemary,

    Thank you for the kind words. I am honored to have been able to contribute in some very small way to the advancement of the ECAT technology. I sincerely think that it will not only spark a technological revolution, but also a philosophical revolution. The reality of cold fusion will prove that ideas once considered totally impossible by the mainstream can turn out to be hard fact.

  • To all

    I am afraid that our previous link to our second paper has now changed. Please be advised that it can be found at this link together with the first paper.

    Kindest regards,


  • Dear Wlad,

    You are right. It is indeed thanks to the internet that this knowledge is disseminated as quickly as it is. Which is a very good thing. I’m intrigued with your arguments related to gravity which I’ve never actually considered.

    Thanks for your contributions Wlad. It’s always a good thing to be reminded on the necessity of proof before determining what our Natural Laws are.

    Kindest regards,

    Wladimir Guglinski
    June 8th, 2012 at 7:07 AM

  • TO Javier M Martinez

    Dear Javier,
    Regarding your letter of the 8th instant. The six of us co-authors, a host of electrical engineers and even public companies have accredited or duplicated these and similar circuit results. We have never, before now, been able to get our academic experts to the table to evaluate these results. But with this publication I see that this resistance is crumbling. Which is a good thing. We are about to engage in a public demonstration of this through the internet by showing a a continuous and live broadcast of these experiments against a control to show the unequivocal proof of a unity breach.

    I am afraid, therefore, that I can’t oblige you by denying the evidence that we are in fact, intending to promote. Having said that – our technology must play second fiddle to the E-cat and LENR technologies as we are not yet able to increase the wattage output to significant levels. And I doubt that the use of batteries as a supply source will ever be more efficient than the E-cat which is a miracle of design excellence. However, I most certainly can oblige you by denying that there is any marked departure from conventional or standard physics in our results. And since you are so heavily accredited I am sure you will see why. The first proof is in that these results can be simulated. And the second proof is in that they are readily replicable.

    Where I think we may be able to make a modest contribution to the general cause of energy efficient technologies is that we have proposed an explanation that conforms to the standard model of physics with the only minor departure being the proposal of a material property to a magnetic field. I suspect that this explanation may go some way towards explaining LENR which, as we all know, has not yet been resolved within the standard model. And I need to stress this. Our explanation does not represent a radical departure from known physical paradigms.

    That the circuit may be ‘offensively’ simple is because that is all that is needed. We are exploiting counter electromotive force which has – thus far – been assumed to be from ‘stored’ energy. We are proposing that it is, in fact, generated energy. And counter electromotive force is easily obtained from any switched circuitry.

    Kindest regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear readers

    For those ones who did not understand my argument regarding the moon motion about the Earth, I made 3 figures so that to ilustrate it:

    TRAJECTORY OF THE MOON – three figures:

    The legend of the 3 figures:

    Fig. 1
    The moon moves about the Earth, under the force of gravity Fo , with an orbit where g ~ 3×10^-3m/sec²

    Fig. 2
    Between the instants to = 0s and t1 = 1s , the gravity “g” stops to act over the moon. Then according to Newton’s law, the moon travels the space shown as the red line in the figure above.

    Fig 3
    In the instant t1 =1s the gravity is back again, and it acts with the overllap of two gravities:
    1- the normal g ~ 3×10-3m/sec²
    2- the gravity which was missed between to and t1 .

    Therefore, F > Fo in the instant t1 , and so the action of gravity puts the moon again in its normal orbit.

    The force F makes a work F.d.cos(alfa)


  • Koen Vandewalle

    Javier, Vladimir,
    Very interesting discussion. What about the harvesting of tidal energy ? Will this cause that the moon falls on the earth ? Or will it accelerate some rotation of our planet?
    Kind regards ,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    A. Javier M. Martinez in June 8th, 2012 at 5:12 AM

    “Please RoseMary.

    Bes so honest to say the true…

    Please, be honest.


    HA HA HA

    Dear Javier,
    Why dont you follow your own advise ????

    HA HA HA

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    A. Javier M. Martinez wrote in June 8th, 2012 at 10:54 AM
    >>Wladimir Guglinski

    >> “According to prevailing theories, the multiplication Fxd is “work” (energy).”

    The ‘work’ is not the product of magnitude of force by the magnitude of the distance, but the scalar product of this two vectors.

    Work = Vector(Force) · Vector(Distance)
    = Absolute((Vector(Force))*Absolute(Vector(Distance))*Cosin(Angel between them).

    Indeed, the force of gravity produces a deviation of the moon trajectory in the RADIAL direction (having the Earth as the center of the trajectory).

    So, the vector deviation (distance) is RADIAL.
    The vector force is also RADIAL.

    Therefore, the two vectors are radial, and as cosO°=1, there is a work done by Fxdxcos0° = Fxd .

    The Mon, spinning over the hearth, the hearth, over sun, etc, does NOT give or take energy.

    You are wrong. Even by considering the prevailing theories, such spinning would have to take energy, as I explained above.

    However, as the betrayers of the scientific method (as you) cannot explain from where such energy comes (by considering the theories in which you believe), then people like you are obliged to claim that “The Moon, spinning over the hearth, the hearth, over sun, etc, does NOT give or take energy.

    “Vladimir, when you get with your hands a children, and spin over yourself, you do not give or receive any energy from the mas of this children.”.

    This is a stupid comparison. In the case of the moon motion, according to the Newton’s law of inertia the moon would have to move in rectilinear motion. The moon’s trajectory is deviated by the force of gravity.

    In the case of the children spin over myself, there is not any deviation of the children trajectory.

    Sorry, Javier,
    but the betrayers of the scientific method will not succeed in their attempt of stopping the advancement of science.


  • >>Wladimir Guglinski

    >> “According to prevailing theories, the multiplication Fxd is “work” (energy).”

    Vladimir, when you get with your hands a children, and spin over yourself, you do not give or receive any energy from the mas of this children.

    The ‘work’ is not the product of magnitude of force by the magnitude of the distance, but the scalar product of this two vectors.

    Work = Vector(Force) · Vector(Distance)
    = Absolute((Vector(Force))*Absolute(Vector(Distance))*Cosin(Angel between them).

    The Mon, spinning over the hearth, the hearth, over sun, etc, does NOT give or take energy.

  • Wladimir Guglinski


    The moon gyrates about the Earth. There is a gravitational force which keeps the moon gyrating about the our planet.

    The gravitational force “F” deviates the moon trajectory (without such force the moon would travel with rectilinear trajectory in the space).
    So, such force produces a deviation “d” in the moon trajectory, by second.

    According to prevailing theories, the multiplication Fxd is “work” (energy).

    So, the deviation of the moon trajectory requires energy per second.
    But where such energy comes from ?

    Suppose that such energy comes from the lost of Earth mass according to Einsteins equation E=mc^2.
    I calculated that along 5 billion years (the Earth’s age) the lost of mass would be 3×10^11kg.
    It’s a despicable mass, compared with the Earth mass, about of 6×10^24kg.

    Besides, such mass 3×10^11kg could not be transformed in energy according to Einstein’s equation. The transformation of mass in energy requires nuclear reactions.

    Then, where such energy comes from ?

    One could say that it comes from the gravitational field of the Earth. But from such assumption the gravitational field would have to decrease along the 5 billion years of the planet existence. But the gravitational field of the Earth depends on the mass of the planet, and as the mass did not change along the 5 billion years (because there is no way to justify it with Einstein’s equation), so the gravitational field did not change along the 5 billion years.

    Therefore there is no way to explain where the energy that keeps the moon gyrating about the Earth comes from, by considering the prevailing theories.

    I think that God, when faced the question on “how to create the Universe”, so that to get it working along billion years, He concluded that there was need to create the Universe in a way that would be possible to get energy from the gravity existing in the Universe.

    If God should have created the Universe according to the prevailing theories, His Creation would not work.

    The new technologies that are now being developed (cold fusion, magnet motors, etc) can work just because God created the Universe by some laws which allow the transformation of gravity in energy.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
    Interesting technology, thank you very much,
    Warm Regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    rosemary ainslie wrote in June 7th, 2012 at 10:32 PM

    I also know something about that level of attack that follows on the heels of any claims that defy standard predictions. I think the precedent was set when Dr Vest went to some considerable lengths to deny the early evidence shown us by Fleischmann and Pons in their Cold Fusion tests. In effect he and his cohorts were able to set the clock back by about 20 years. Sadly effective.”

    Dear Rosemary
    They did not clock back by more than 20 years because the internet interrupted their actions.

    The irruption of cold fusion now (and other new technologies which defy the prevailing theories) is happening thanks to the fast dissemination of the experiments by the internet.

    Those betrayers of the scientific method cannot stop such dissemination.

    If internet should not exist, nobody of us would be knowing that Rossi invented the eCat.

    You, Rossi, and many other ones, would be working alone, each one without to know the work of the other


  • >>rosemary ainslie
    >> June 4th, 2012 at 11:38 PM

    >> Dear Javier,
    >> Your comments hereunder refer.

    >> We do NOT propose that any of the circuit components are ‘giving’ as you put it, ‘more >>energy than they take’. We are only attempting to draw expert attention to the fact that >>there is repeated and measured evidence of this. How our experts resolve this anomaly is >>yet to be determined. We required this measured result as proof of a magnetic field model >>that conforms entirely to Faraday’s Lines of Force. The only proposed variation to this is >>to the inclusion of a bipolar tachyon. This is proposed as the material structure of those >>lines of force.

    Please RoseMary.

    Bes so honest to say the true, never, never, a system like you sayd, can give (Does not matter if it is understood or not) mor energy than they get.

    “We are only attempting to draw expert attention to the fact that >>there is repeated and measured evidence of this”

    Rose Mary, it was 1973 when, just with 13 Years old, I started to work with tings like this.

    Does not matter how much Study I have (P.H. Degree for EEUU study level, but done in Spain, Madrid).

    Does not matter how much time I have been working on this (Since 1989, and since 1990, in multinational Company, in R&D, and much, much more high level than this absolutely simple circuit).

    Does not matter how much patents (Not only on systems of telecommunication, but also on Physics fundamental).

    Your circuit is a toy, just for children’s, and never, never, can give more energy (Steady sate, not transitorious) than it take from the sources.

    If I came here, is because I hope to see some real.

    But this…………………………….

    I am strong enough to tell those from CERN, taht the ‘neutrinos ‘ explication that they are slower than light speed, is a fake.

    I have been for 20 years in R&D telecommunications, I know how systems are done.

    But similarly, I am rigurous enough, to tell you your circuit (And with the pointing to ‘tachyons’ on this, my god,,,,,,,,,,,,) does not give, NEVER, in steady state, more energy than it take.

    Please, be honest.

    I encourage all to repeat this circit.


  • H.Hansson:
    Governments tax things that are considered harmful to the environment or otherwise. Cheap energy enables circulation of raw materials, so taxes could be put on mining, forest logging and waste production for example. I trust in governments’ ability to take care of their income and invent new taxes when needed.

  • Antonella

    Dear Rosemary, Dear Hank,

    thank you for your comments. I don’t have personal words for the subject, but I would like to offer a quote:

    “Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.” Robert A. Heinlein

    Best regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear H.Hansson:
    One step per time.
    Warm Regards,

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>