Is proton the harmonic mean of up and down quark fermi-gluons!

by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
DIP QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti-517641, A.P, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com

Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Vizag-530003, AP, India.
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com

Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file

Introduction
Estimated or phenomenological [7, 8] masses of up and down quarks are 1.3 to 3.3 MeV and 4.1 to 5.8 MeV respectively.
Standard model assumes that proton constitutes 2 up quarks and one down quark. Neutron constitutes 2 down quarks and one up quarks.
In any way their estimated or phenomenological [7, 8] mass sum is not matching with the nucleons rest mass.
In any way their sum is not matching with the nucleons rest energy.
There should be some reason for this mismatch. This clearly indicates that there is something missing from the standard model.
In standard model there exists 8 gluons having `color’ charge with no rest mass and in between the quarks strong interaction is mediated by these gluons.
If gluons has no rest mass and up and down quarks mass sum is small (compared to the nucleon rest mass) how to generate the existing nucleon rest mass? To over come this difculty [1] it is suggested that there exists integral charge quark fermions, integral charge quark bosons, integral charge (massive) quark fermi-gluons and integral charge (massive) quark boso-gluons.
Note that fermi-gluon means massive gluons having fermion behavior and boso-gluon means massive gluons having boson behavior.
(Effective) fermi-gluons play a crucial role in baryons mass generation and boso-gluons play a crucial role in mesons mass generation.

Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file

300 comments to Is proton the harmonic mean of up and down quark fermi-gluons!

  • Dear Dr Rossi,
    I would like to inquire about a theoretical possibility of using E-CAT to power locomotives/trains.
    Because we are originally from Europe, we know that most of the railroad tracks in Europe are electrified so the constant availability of electricity could solve the problem of the “drive” and “control” system for the E-CAT.
    Do you foresee such a hybrid (Electric/E-CAT) locomotive system to be a possibility?

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi if you read the link below you will know it cost $21,000 to install Solar Power in a home.
    It will produce electricity for
    ELEVEN cents per kilowatt hour

    Can E-Cat beat that ?
    I think so !!!

    http://www.cleanedge.com/resources/news/Boston-Locks-in-Solar-Energy-Prices-Lower-Than-Traditional-Energy-Sources

    Robert
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    USA

  • Jam

    This is if you don’t remove some heat to be used. Then the material conductivity is paramount.

    [quote]3- 4: we go 24/7, so the thermal conductivity does not matter, after some time the system is in equilibrium indipendently from the thermal conductivity: e.g., if you put a glass bottle of water and a plastic bottle of water in a frigid, after few minutes you will have water colder in the glass bottle respect the plastic bottle, because the thermal conductivity of glass is higher than of plastic; but after 3 hours the temperature will be the same, because an equilibrium is anyway reached after due time. Therefore in our case thermal conductivity is not an issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.[/quote]

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N.Karels:
    Thank you for the suggestion,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I have been thinking about the RF “vibrations” that help to control the eCat reaction. It seems to me to be similar to the MRI technology used in the medicine. Do you have a magnet within the eCat? If so, Lamar’s precession frequency is known for a given strength of the magnetic field for hydrogen.

    If this assumption is correct, then control of the eCat reaction may be related to control of the hydrogen nuclei aligning with the applied magnetic field. As in an MRI, short duration bursts of RF energy at the Lamar frequency might enhance the probability of a Ni-H fusion? I would envision a periodic application of RF energy to preferentially align the hydrogen nuclei. The periodicity of the RF energy would be related to the relaxation time of the hydrogen nuclei. A longer period between RF pulses might tend to slow down the reaction while short times between the RF pulses might increase the rate reaction. Comments?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joseph Fine:
    1- indipendently
    2- yes
    3- 4: we go 24/7, so the thermal conductivity does not matter, after some time the system is in equilibrium indipendently from the thermal conductivity: e.g., if you put a glass bottle of water and a plastic bottle of water in a frigid, after few minutes you will have water colder in the glass bottle respect the plastic bottle, because the thermal conductivity of glass is higher than of plastic; but after 3 hours the temperature will be the same, because an equilibrium is anyway reached after due time. Therefore in our case thermal conductivity is not an issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Guru

    Dear Wladimir,

    I agree.

    Dear Steven N. Karels, I carefully pick up words “a number of competing other technologies”.

    For example: for some Hospital and Big Hotel complex laundry will E-Cat optimal solution, for powering notebooks and tablets will other new technology better.
    I analysed this whole new situation last 5 years, so I see a number of developing “graphs”. Some companies (if they have special clause with banks) will bankrupt not after 8 years, they will bankrupt 4 years after launch of new tech, because their clauses in credit contracts cover this: after lowering rating from rating agencies, they must pay all 10 years debts immediatelly (in 30 days). In such situation, it’s not possible to withstand. They will bankrupt EVEN if they buy these new techs. Their overheads, profit margins, VAT, transmissions fees, VAT on transmissions fees etc., etc., not allowed them to survive against decentralized new tech.

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    The output power of a Hot-Cat module depends on geometrical considerations (cylinder length, inner and outer diameters), the temperature difference (delta T) and the thermal conductivity of the wall material.

    1) For a fixed geometry and given material, when changing output power levels, do you control inner and outer temperatures independently, or are they controlled together because they are interdependent?

    2) Can the outer wall temperature be maintained nearly constant? That is, increasing the reaction rate raises the internal temperature, but the outer wall temperature also may be controlled (to some amount) by changing fluid flow rate at the outer wall (steam, molten salt, S-CO2, liquid metal etc). (S-CO2 is Supercritical CO2.)

    3) Copper has a high thermal conductivity (k = 400) or about twenty times that of steel. With such high thermal conductivity, the temperature difference between the inner and outer walls could be reduced by the same factor. For a nominal delta T of 300 degrees C (with steel), the temperature difference may be only 15-20 degrees C (with Copper). Why not use copper instead of steel (strength, cost etc)? Then you don’t have to worry about it melting? (Or not until the temp. gets to 1000 degrees C.)

    4) Forget about copper. If you use metal ceramics (e.g. the so-called Max Phase materials) such as Ti3SiC2 with a thermal conductivity of about 40 vs 20 for steel, can you get twice as much power from a module of the same size compared to using steel? It is also called Maxthal (TM).

    http://www.3one2.com/main.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAX_Phases

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Guru wrote in August 27th, 2012 at 2:32 PM

    Steven N. Karels wrote: “…Coal-fired Power Plant upgrades…”
    ………………………………
    Dear Mr. Karels, within 8 years virtually ALL traditional powerplants and centralized distribution (electricity) systems will be BANKRUPT.

    This will not only effect of myriads of E-Cats, a number of competing other technologies too.

    Dear Guru
    probably yes, because the traditional powerplants cannot produce cheap energy, because they have a high cost of production.

    However, it is better to avoid to speak about it, in order do not inflame the resistance of traditional energy producers against the new emerging technologies, as the e-Cat.

    regards
    WLAD

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Guru,

    Your assertion is incorrect. Should eCat techology become widespread, certain industries will be negatively affected. Examples that come to mind are the coal mining industry. If eCat technology makes it way into automotive transportation, oil companies will be affected, but probably not eliminated.

    It takes a LONG time to overcome infrastructure-based systems, even if the new technologies are less costly to operate. The introduction of the automobile did not immediately replace horse and buggy. Aviation has still not replaced trains transporting people and bus transportation.

    That is why I contend that industrial heating and coal-fired power plant conversions are the most likely applications to quickly assimilate eCat technology. They are large enough to pay for a support staff trained in the new technology. I remember as a kid hearing (and believing) that every family would have its car/airplane. It did not happen.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Your comment “Regarding the Hot cat in symbiosis: is not possible because the drive is a safety system and a safety system cannot depend from the Ecat itself.” is obviously true for one eCat directly driving another eCat. There might be unforseen modes where things could get out of control.

    One way of solving that problem is to use an independent source of thermal energy to control an eCat. In the past, we understand this has been from electricity and now can be from natural gas. Even if the electricity is eventually produced by the energy of an eCat reaction as long as there is sufficient isolation, the “feedback” problem cannot occur.

    I would suggest you consider a large, self-regulating thermal storage unit, fed by one eCat and the thermal output of that thermal unit able to feed multiple eCats independently. The thermal storage unit would need to: a.) make demands on its source eCat; b. remove excess heat from itself to maintain a desired temperature; and c. independently control a number of eCats and vary the amount of thermal power each eCat receives. A difficult but not impossible task in my opinion.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    ERRATA:
    It seems it is not working the link posted in my comment of August 27th, 2012 at 6:11 AM:

    ======================================================================
    This means that all the theories based on current Theoretical Physics, (as for instance the attempts made by Peter Hagelstein, Widom-Larsen, Edmund Storms, etc.), actually are very far away from the true explanation for cold fusion, and they are wasting their time trying to understand cold fusion with their surpassed understanding on Nuclear Physics.

    So, there is need, indeed, a New Physics, with new foundations.

    Perhaps Rossi is using the flyback suggested by me in May-2012:
    Is Rossi’s New Solid State e-Cat a gravity device ? (Score: 1)
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=Reply&pid=14765&sid=3385&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0

    If yes, then Rossi’s new Hot e-Cat is indeed a gravity device.

    Regards
    WLAD
    =======================================================================

    The correct link is:

    ======================================================================
    This means that all the theories based on current Theoretical Physics, (as for instance the attempts made by Peter Hagelstein, Widom-Larsen, Edmund Storms, etc.), actually are very far away from the true explanation for cold fusion, and they are wasting their time trying to understand cold fusion with their surpassed understanding on Nuclear Physics.

    So, there is need, indeed, a New Physics, with new foundations.

    Perhaps Rossi is using the flyback suggested by me in May-2012:
    Is Rossi’s New Solid State e-Cat a gravity device ? (Score: 1)
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3385&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0#14765

    If yes, then Rossi’s new Hot e-Cat is indeed a gravity device.

    Regards
    WLAD
    ===========================================================================

  • […] necessaria all’arrivo sul mercato del suo dispositivo per la fusione fredda. Lo scrive sul suo blog in risposta alla specifica domanda di un […]

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    old physicist wrote in August 27th, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    “Dear Wlad
    Following your theory, do you have any explication for justifying the difference of neutron’s mean-life when free or inside nucleus or into neutron’s stars?
    Thank, old physicist”

    Dear old physicist,
    there are many hypothesis to be considered. One among them is to consider the influence of gravity (in my QRT it is considered that gravity has the magnitude of electromagnetism).
    Among the many hypothesis, I actually do not know what is the correct. There is need to discover some experimental parameters missing in current Nuclear Physics.

    regards
    WLAD

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 27th, 2012 at 3:19 PM

    “Wladimir,
    Helicity in an orbit is independent of that orbit. An orbit is an orbit whether its path is helical or not. And if one body is orbiting another body, then that second body is also orbiting the first body – but not as obvious, of course. Certainly both rotate about their common barycentre, and this means that the proton too is moving. The only question is, does the proton move helically or linearly?
    All the best,
    Joe”

    Dear Joe
    you use to think about trajectory in the sense of current Modern Physics, in which the space is considered empty, and so there is no way to consider the space as a referential frame at rest.

    However in Quantum Ring Theory it is considered that the space is filled by aether. And the rrajectories are refered to the aether.
    So, considering the neutron, when the electron moves about the proton, its helical trajectory has interaction with the aether at rest (the aether is the refential frame).
    Unlike, in the neutron`s structure the proton do NOT move with regard to aether.

    Regards
    WLAD

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Guru:
    Sorry, I do not agree. I think all the existing system will be integrated for a long time.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    Helicity in an orbit is independent of that orbit. An orbit is an orbit whether its path is helical or not. And if one body is orbiting another body, then that second body is also orbiting the first body – but not as obvious, of course. Certainly both rotate about their common barycentre, and this means that the proton too is moving. The only question is, does the proton move helically or linearly?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Guru

    Steven N. Karels wrote: “…Coal-fired Power Plant upgrades…”
    ………………………………
    Dear Mr. Karels, within 8 years virtually ALL traditional powerplants and centralized distribution (electricity) systems will be BANKRUPT.

    This will not only effect of myriads of E-Cats, a number of competing other technologies too.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Leslie:
    All the domestic apparatuses are on hold, safety certification pending.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels,
    Regarding the Hot cat in symbiosis: is not possible because the drive is a safety system and a safety system cannot depend from the Ecat itself. This is an issue emerged during the safety certification process .
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N.Karels:
    Your considerations have good sense. Our applications have not environmental impact and the Ni we consume in a plant like that is a drop in a lake respect the world yearly production of nickel.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    The Case for Hot eCat and Replacement of Coal-Fired Power Plants

    The electrical power plant network is generally composed of three types of power plants: Base Load; Intermediate; and Peaker power plants

    Base Load plants are usually coal-fired, nuclear of hydroelectric. Examples of intermediate power plants are wind and solar. Peaker power plants may run from natural gas, or light oil.

    Base Load plants take a long time to start up, tend to run continuously and are usually sized to run 35-40 percent of the maximum load. They produce relative cheap power, typically around $50USD per MegaWatt-hour. Intermediates produce more expensive power and Peakers produce the most expensive power, sometime approaching $5000 per MegaWatt-hour.

    A recent CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) Retrofit study stated there were 1600 GW of coal-fired capacity globally that produces 8.5 Gigatones of CO2 or about 1/4 of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that an additional 1,000 GW of coal-fired generation capacity will be added by 2035.

    If existing and future coal-fired power plants were replaced by Hot eCat-based technology, does this make economic sense and what are the environmental impacts?

    Assume Hot eCat units were used in a modern ultra-critical steam with an electrical output to thermal input of 47%. Assume Hot eCat units can continuously produce 10 kW of thermal power for 6 months before being replaced. Assume $100USD to replace a spent Hot eCat unit. Assume a linear replacement of all current and future planned coal-fired power plants with Hot eCat technology between 2013 and 2035 or 23 years.

    To produce 1 MegaWatt of electrical power at 47% requires a thermal source of 2.128 MegaWatts or about 213 Hot eCats. In 6 months of operation, the 1 MegaWatt output will yield 4,320 MegaWatt-hours. The “fuel” cost of the replacement of the 213 Hot eCats is $21,300USD. Therefore, the cost per MegaWatt-hour is around $4.90. This cost is consistent with the $50 utilities are willing to pay for base load electricity (adding in operating costs, etc). So Hot eCat technology is definitely competitive with coal as an energy source for electrical power production.

    If 2,600 GW of capacity of coal-burning power plants are to be replaced, how many Hot eCats will be needed? As shown above, each 1 GigaWatt of electrical output will require 213,000 Hot eCat 10 kW units or 553.8 million Hot eCat 10kW units. The average annual rate (over 23 years) will be around 24 million units. While this seems large, I estimate the production difficulty in producing a Hot eCat is about the same as producing a light bulb. And there are 2 billion light bulbs produced per year.

    What is the environmental impact from using Hot eCat technology? Is there enough Nickel to meet the demand? Assume 50 grams of Nickel per each Hot eCat unit. The annual nickel consumption for Hot eCats would be 50 grams time 553.8 million units (when all coal-fired plants have been replaced times twice a year (6 month Hot eCat lifetime).
    The annual nickel consumption is therefore, 55.38 million kilograms or 55,380 metric tonnes. About 1.572 million tons were produced in 2011 (International Nickel Study Group) so the additional nickel required is about 3.5% of the annual supply.

    Recommendations: Should Andrea Rossi’s company enter the electric power generation market — not directly. Be a supplier of Hot eCat units and you will have more work than you can handle. If we assume in production, Hot eCat 10 kW units are sold for $1000USD each, then the average sales will be $24,000 million per year over at least a 23 year duration. Sounds like a good business basis.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    The following is my opinion on your business on how you should proceed. You are obviously free to accept it, disagree and take another position.

    As an engineer, it always bothers me that we (Americans), burn a fossil fuel, to heat water, to run turbines, to generate elctricity, to transmit the electricity to our electric water heater to heat out water. As a person living on the planet, I worry about the anthropogeneic CO2 we load into the environment to burn our fossil fuels to produce power or nuclear rod waste management. That said, I suggest the following business concentration:

    a. Industrial heat generation: As you have said, industrial certification is much faster and easier than certification for residential usage. I see “the most impact” occurring from filling this need with relatively inexpensive local heat generation and discontinuance of relying on electrical power as a heating source. I think it is far more efficient and environmentally friendly to have a local clean heat generation source. Industrial applications pay well, are easier to maintain and manage than residential units.

    b. Coal-fired Power Plant upgrades: This is another “the most impact” application. Electricity is “clean”. but generating it is currently not so clean.

    I would take your time on the residential applications. If not done correctly, you could be paying more for legal costs on frivilous lawsuits.

    Perhaps restrict you business to production of Hot eCats and let others do the integration.

    Eventually, any “secrets” you have will be revealed or stolen. Your key to economic survival is to produce reliable, proven units, fast, inexpensively and in large quantities to make the “start-up hill” too costly for others.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    There is some confusion. You were asked “Dear Mr. Rossi,
    Recently you stated that new versions of E-cat can work with gas heating. My question is: Would it be possible to use the heat produced by one E-cat to activate a second E-cat?” and your answer was “No”.

    We know from your postings that you have achieved 1250C output temperatures for Hot eCats. We also know this is with 200C of the melting point of nickel. And you have previously stated that natural gas could be used to ignite the eCat reaction. So why would not the thermal output from one Hot eCat be capable of igniting the reaction of another eCat? Please clarify as you can without revealing any secrets.

  • Leslie

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    Did you already plan to build some kind of portable heating unit ?
    It would be great to have the possibility to use an e-cat as a portable device, which can be operated out of the box.
    Given that a small apartment usually requires about 20kw of heating power, a portable e-cat could quickly fit in as a temporary solution, without requiring major “surgery” and within “minutes” from the purchase.

    Regards,
    Leslie

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Visitor:
    Enough.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear JuJu:
    Good intuition. Actually, I am strongly attracted from North Europe.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Christen:
    No.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Adrian M:
    Please read carefully the answer today I gave on this blog to Larry Jameson.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • old physicist

    Dear Wlad
    Following your theory, do you have any explication for justifying the difference of neutron’s mean-life when free or inside nucleus or into neutron’s stars?
    Thank, old physicist

  • Adrian M

    Dear Andreea Rossi
    We leave in very confusing times and some clarity and stability will cheer up our faces.

    Recently, University of Bologna made a statement in which they deny involvement in E-CAT tests. They are also saying that they are willing to do the tests if they are allowed to publish the tests findings. My question is: which is it? Is Bologna people doing tests but denied to publish? Were they involved in tests at some levels or not?
    If they were not involved and other universities were doing the tests, will they be allowed to publish the results, as Bologna clearly asks to do?
    These tests publications questions are now in the minds of everybody I know interested in the story of ECAT.

  • Christen

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    Recently you stated that new versions of E-cat can work with gas heating. My question is: Would it be possible to use the heat produced by one E-cat to activate a second E-cat?

    Best regards

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Rossi Suggests More Than Transmutation Taking Place
    “In fact, he says the ability to produced the high heat of the ‘hot cats’ came about because of a new level of understanding. Now he suggests that more than transmutation accounts for the energy produced in the reaction.”
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/rossi-suggests-more-than-transmutation-taking-place/

    ==========================================
    Guru
    August 19th, 2012 at 3:23 AM
    Dear dr. Rossi,
    last few months I carry in my mind this question:

    a) A sum of output energy from E-Cat is equivalent to sum of all transmuted materials plus all energy inputs ?

    or
    b) A sum of output energy from E-Cat is many times bigger then equivalent of all transmuted materials (in fuel) plus all energy inputs ?

    I have this heretic hypothesis, that b) is in order.
    ==========================================

    ==========================================
    Andrea Rossi
    August 19th, 2012 at 5:57 PM
    Dear Guru:
    b) is better.
    Warm Regards,.
    A.R.
    ==========================================

    This means that all the theories based on current Theoretical Physics, (as for instance the attempts made by Peter Hagelstein, Widom-Larsen, Edmund Storms, etc.), actually are very far away from the true explanation for cold fusion, and they are wasting their time trying to understand cold fusion with their surpassed understanding on Nuclear Physics.

    So, there is need, indeed, a New Physics, with new foundations.

    Perhaps Rossi is using the flyback suggested by me in May-2012:
    Is Rossi’s New Solid State e-Cat a gravity device ? (Score: 1)
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=Reply&pid=14765&sid=3385&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0

    If yes, then Rossi’s new Hot e-Cat is indeed a gravity device.

    Regards
    WLAD

  • JuJu

    Yeah, so in situation where (for example) some political pressure may brake one university (from some Med country), there may step up another university from some northern lesser corrupt country. This is for sure right medicine for reactionary old structures.

  • Visitor

    Dear mr. Rossi,

    How many Customers have now signed contracts for MW size plants with your Company?

    regards
    Lande

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Larry Jameson:
    Thank you for your important question.
    My speak in Zurich will regard the report of the tests made on the 16th of July and on the 6th of August made basically for the product certification in course for the Hot Cats. This report will be published by thechnical and specialistic publications after the 9th of September, by the scientific journalists who will attend the meeting.
    The rigorous publication deriving from the third party validation that we will make, as I said, within October by a University will be made by the professors who will make the validation, so I do know where it will be published. Please do not ask me which will be the University, I am under NDA and, by the way, three Universities are candidates for this work, should the one that has been chosen since now will retreat for any reason. We have to respect the rules and the decisions of the Universities, who, obviously, do not depend from us. I can anyway say that the test made on the 16th of July has been made with 6 professors of 2 Universities, but unofficially: it has been a preparatory test.
    I am under a strict NDA for this test, whose results will be published in the context of the Certificator’s work, not of the Universities.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear JuJu:
    Your hypothesis envisions a possible development, but for now let us work to make the real things that have been ordered to us. Rome has been made brick by brick and some time has occurred.
    Warm Regareds,
    A.R.

  • JuJu

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    clerly hypothetically: If your robotized manufactures will go ahead all full capacity (1 million e-cats per year) and your supply will one PROMILLE (1/1000th) of world’s demand and some real global players like Samsung or Hitachi or ABB comr to you with lucrative bid for production licensing deal, will you consider about possible licensing or you want wait 1000 years to fulfill all demand/orders ?

    Only developed nations are some 250-300 millions families (i.e. demand for 300 millions e-cats) and demand from third world will some 700 millions devices more. In sum 1 billion devices, i.e. 1000 years of your future production capacity.

    Plus few hundreds thousands industrial units multiple 80 reactor pieces in every industrial unit, in sum few tens millions units to add.

    I know your stance about general without army, however my question above is clearly hypothetical.

  • Larry Jameson

    Dear Dr Rossi

    Do you know when we can be told the name of the scientific journal that will publish the report you plan to present in Zurich on Sep 8.

    Thanks
    Larry Jameson

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 25th, 2012 at 1:45 PM

    Wladimir,
    In orbital motion, ALL bodies orbit a common barycentre. The difference in their mass might give the impression that some bodies are fixed spatially (they do not move). Examples are, the Sun with respect to the planets; the Earth with respect to the Moon; and the proton with respect to the electron.

    Dear Joe,
    you cannot compare the electron’s motion about the proton with the classical motion of the Earth about the Sun.

    The Earth does NOT move about the Sun with helical trajectory. It moves with Newtonian’s classical trajectory (by considering the Sun as the referential).

    The free electron moves with helical trajectory.
    The electron moving about the proton in the hydrogen atom also moves with helical trajectory.

    But within the neutron’s structure, the electron does NOT move with helical trajectory about the proton.
    Within the structure of the neutron the electron loses its helical trajectory: it moves with Newtonian’s classical trajectory.
    The electron loses its helical trajectory due to two things:
    1- it moves with velocity near to light speed (0,92.c)
    2- its interaction close to the proton

    Unlike, the proton does not move with newtonian’s classical trajectory about the electron.

    regards
    WLAD

  • […] Rossis kommentar. Dear H. Hansson: Thank you for your important questions. Here are the answers: 1- Yes 2- The safety certification process for the industrial plants has been made. Besides this, within October will be finished and published the indipendent validation test made by a University. Warm Regards, A.R. Dear H. Hansson: Thank you for your important questions. Here are the answers: 1- Yes 2- The safety certification process for the industrial plants has been made. Besides this, within October will be finished and published the independent validation test made by a University. Warm Regards, A.R. […]

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Achille Conti:
    The sole thing that counts is our work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • achille

    Caro Ing. Rossi, non trova singolare che il 21/12/2012, interpretando alcuni scritti Maya, dovrebbe cominciare una nuova era per l’umanità? Come non pensare a lei e al suo E-cat? Cari saluti, Achille Conti

  • Dear Wladimir, There seems to be some problem with regards the understanding of the neutron and its relation to the proton and the electron. I believe that p+e=n. When I say equals n what I really mean is that without either, the neutron would not exist. I believe its the dynamics that produce the neutron that is responsible for the non understanding. You mention the barycentre I refer to the centre of positive gravity. Around the positive gravity is the proton field made up I believe of protons that are themselves composed of charges and charges are of aether content. The electron field is made up of electrons that are composed of charges that are likewise of aether content. Neutrons form the binding force within the atom and connect the proton with the electron. Neutrons are mobile units of force that rapidly transmute as they enter and exit the respective fields. Neutrons travel on helical trajectories to stay neutral as they cycle between positive and negative zones. Because they are transitionary they don’t have to equal any specific value. They operate over a spectrum. The positive gravity of an atom is balanced with regards its exterior environment. The inner binding force is with regards to the quality aspect/density of the atom of which I give the label ‘Inner economy flow system’. Every structure also has an ‘exterior flow system’. The inner flow is with regards to the barycentre, the outer flow is with regards the exterior positive gravity which could be referred to as the negative gravity when comparing it to the positive gravity that is responsible for the preservation of the unit. I believe a charge is comprised of a cloud of aether. Positive and negative is fizzed and fused states with regards to the aether content which is related to the position within the atom. Browns Gas seems to also hold a mystery only if you cannot explain the electrical make up of an atom. Now I have said this before and I shall repeat myself, electrical, mechanical and theoretical physicists should all sit at the same table and if they were allowed I can guarantee that this apparent mystery would be solved within a very short time. Unfortunately the name of the present game is ‘divide and conquer’. Thus the JONP is not only bringing the much needed e-cat technology into the public domain but allowing free thinking minds to communicate on important aspects of physics by allowing individuals to share their thoughts even if they are not agreed upon by any or all. Regards Eric Ashworth

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Visitor:
    We are working for that, at the top of our efforts.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    In orbital motion, ALL bodies orbit a common barycentre. The difference in their mass might give the impression that some bodies are fixed spatially (they do not move). Examples are, the Sun with respect to the planets; the Earth with respect to the Moon; and the proton with respect to the electron. The reason for this is that the greater the RELATIVE mass of a body, the closer it will orbit about the common barycentre. So even the proton has an orbit albeit with a small radius. And since it orbits, we must assume that it does so in a helical manner for the sake of consistency with theory (QRT). It may be that this will not have any negative effect on the conclusions that you have already reached using your model, but it still is something to keep in mind.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Visitor

    Mr Rossi!

    The world in a growing Recession and Choking from pollution.
    Your technology can start saving life the moment you choose.
    You would still earn tons of money if you choose that today is the day.
    So, what else is keeping you from starting to save lives right now?

    Regards
    Ron

  • John

    India desperately needs electric power generating Hot-Cats.

    Centralized coal fired power plants are causing economic and environmental disaster in India.

    Published on Saturday, August 25, 2012 by The Nation
    How Did Coal-Rich India End Up With Power Blackouts?
    by Daphne Wysham
    “If you work hard, and put your heart and soul into it, then you are allowed to steal some,” said Shivpal Singh Yadav, a minister for public works for India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh (UP). “But don’t be a bandit.” Caught on camera, Yadav’s words were replayed in newscasts across India on August 9, 2012, nine days after a power failure left half of India’s population—one-tenth of the planet’s people—without power. Among the Indian states that suffered the blackout, twice, was Yadav’s home state of UP.

    Workers walk on a heap of coal at a stockyard of an underground coal mine in the Mahanadi coal fields at Dera, near Talcher town in the eastern Indian state of Orissa March 28, 2012. Reuters/Rupak De Chowdhuri
    A preliminary government investigation into the cause of the blackouts blamed “indiscipline of state electricity boards and faulty management by the northern grid operator Power Grid Corporation” for the blackouts. Yet two other simpler reasons, theft and climate change, should not be overlooked.

    Theft and corruption have played a role in India’s power failures for decades. At every step in the supply chain, money is siphoned off via direct bribes or shortcuts. There is the theft of the politically connected—like Yadav. And there are special deals cut with farmers, large hotels and others who collect favors in the form of free or guaranteed electricity in exchange for bribes of powerful officials. Then there is theft of the Adivasis, or tribals, the untouchables and other disenfranchised people of India. More than a third of India’s households do not have enough electricity to power a light bulb, according to last year’s census. And so they steal it. In fact, as much as 40 percent of India’s electrical power is stolen.

    June and July is traditionally the season for planting rice in the north. Rice is a staple crop for India, and India’s paddies provide a significant share of rice for export to global markets. Rice paddies require an abundance of water. With a delayed monsoon (yet another anticipated outcome of climate change), farmers in North India were using more power than usual to pump groundwater to irrigate their crops. This, together with the ongoing theft of power from the grid, certainly played a pivotal role in the northern grid’s power failure.

    How did India, a country with plentiful coal reserves and a growing GDP, get into a situation of energy theft and such energy inequality? World Bank policies had a lot to do with it. Coal is India’s biggest and dirtiest source of power, providing over 57 percent of the country’s electricity. Yet, despite its abundance, it is increasingly hard to come by. One reason: unsettled land is in short supply in a country about a third the size of the United States but home to almost four times—or 1.2 billion—people.

    For decades, the World Bank provided inducements to the government of India to expand its exploitation of coal. The bank also pushed privatization of the power sector and expansion of strip mining. Underground miners once had one of India’s most powerful labor unions. While dangerous and dirty, these jobs provided a decent living, and underground mining prevented the widespread environmental and social destruction that open-pit mines ushered in. At the World Bank’s behest, however, strip mines replaced thousands of underground mines; miner’s unions were busted and replaced with a handful of workers driving large dump trucks.

    Strip mines ravage the landscape and cause acid drainage, which kills fish and makes the water unsafe for drinking or bathing. They smolder in a constant state of combustion. As with large dams, another energy development approach favored by the World Bank (which are also proving unreliable as they fill with silt), thousands of India’s poorest tribal people have been uprooted to make way for strip mines and placed in resettlement camps where prostitution and alcoholism are endemic.

    India’s coal is heavy in ash content, and population pressures on available land means ash disposal is also a problem. So, often, the polluting ash—with heavy metals and radioactive elements—is merely dumped in the already polluted rivers. Or it is dumped back in the empty mining pits, where it leaches into the aquifers.

    Though the bank recognized a focus on privatization of the power sector and coal-fired power for the grid would result in power largely being provided for heavy industry and urban areas, where payment rates were highest, they rationalized this approach the same way they rationalized “trickle-down” models of development elsewhere in the world: they assumed that energy services would eventually trickle down to the poor.

    However, civil society groups, including ours, urged the bank to review this flawed assumption and instead focus on providing renewable energy to the poorest in rural areas. At our urging, former World Bank President James Wolfensohn agreed in 2001 to conduct a thorough review of the Bank’s investments in oil, gas and mining to determine whether or not their loans were helping the poor. Their own hand-picked “eminent person,” Emil Salim, a former board member of one of Indonesia’s largest coal companies, who headed up their three-year Extractive Industries Review, urged them to uphold a moratorium on lending for coal and to get out of oil completely by 2008. The poor were “worse off,” not better, Salim determined, as a result of the World Bank investments in coal and oil. Nevertheless, the Bank ignored his advice and continued to provide billions to one of the most polluting of fossil fuels, while ignoring its climate impact.

    The World Bank once claimed it would provide an acre of land for every acre taken from those who got out of the way for the mines and dams they financed. But that promise was long ago watered down, then forgotten. The regions of India where coal is most abundant—including the newly formed state of Jharkhand, which means “Land of the Forests”—also happen to be the most densely tribal, where trees and other natural beings are viewed as sacred. And this is where resistance is the strongest. With a tribal government, Jharkhand has kept twenty-three proposed thermal plants and about twenty-two coal-mining companies from entering tribal villages and going online since 2005.

    A primary rationale India and the World Bank gave for burning India’s coal was “energy independence.” Yet two decades after the World Bank opened up India’s mines for rapid exploitation, as India runs into roadblocks and runs out of space for open-pit mines and ash disposal, it is increasingly turning to coal from abroad—which comes with lower ash content but at a higher price, from places such as Indonesia, Australia and even Appalachia.

    And because of problems with coal and large dams, the government of India is increasingly trying to force nuclear power on the agenda. Yet, here, too there are obstacles: In the aftermath of the Fukushima meltdowns, in Kanyakumari Kundakulam, more than a thousand women have been protesting a nuclear power plant proposed for that rich agricultural area with regular hunger strikes.

    Ironically, one region that did well during the recent power crisis in India was Jodhpur, where, after a brief interruption, the windmills kept hospitals and households powered up while half of the country went black.

    Had the bank heeded its own studies in the early 1990s, which showed that a more economically efficient way of handling the energy needs of the poorest in rural areas would have been to invest in renewable energy, many of India’s energy and environmental problems would have been solved. And had the World Bank focused on its mandate—providing energy for the poorest, rather than rich urban areas, and businesses—India might have ramped up its use of renewable energy to a level comparable to Germany’s, which, with far less insolation, recently derived 40 percent of its electricity from solar power.

    Instead, the bank foisted on the largest democracy in the world a neoliberal trickle-down model—where unions were busted, wealthy corporations like Tata were given development assistance to build coal mega-burners, people were treated like pawns on a giant chess board, while they targeted the affluent and heavy industries first for energy delivery using some of the most environmentally destructive energy resources on the planet. Nearly two decades later, after billions in investment, one-tenth of the world sits in the dark, the planet is rapidly heating up, electricity theft consumes as much as 40 percent of India’s power, and the only thing trickling down to the poor is contaminated water or, if they’re lucky, enough water to keep their parched crops alive.

    © 2012 The Nation

    Daphne Wysham is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and the host of Earthbeat Radio. IPS is a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear H. Hansson:
    Thank you for your important questions.
    Here are the answers:
    1- Yes
    2- The safety certification process for the industrial plants has been made. Besides this, within October will be finished and published the indipendent validation test made by a University.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • H. Hansson

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    The last several months you have been very upbeat about two issues in your comments on this website.

    1.
    That it soon will be enough confirmed and verified information about LENR for ordinary main stream media and journalist to write for their readers in laymen terms.

    2.
    That you very soon will have a valid certification for your industry eCat.

    Do you still have the same positive view on above issues?? ..

    Rgds,
    H. Hansson

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>