Categories

Peer Review

All the articles published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics are Peer Reviewed. The Peer Review of every paper is made by at least one University Physics Professor.

The Quantum Space Theory (QST) could explain the LENR

.
by
F. Santandrea
R&D systems analyst – Labor s.r.l. Rome Italy
E-mail: f.santandrea@labor-roma.it
.
U. Abundo
Physics teacher – Leopoldo Pirelli I.T.I.S. high school Rome Italy
E-mail: interprogetto@email.it
.
.
The QST theory elaborated in 1994 by F. Santandrea, now under revision, contains some topics concerning the LENR recently submitted and appreciated from LENR researchers, QST could giving an unifying point of view on the whole Physics.
For further detailed please refer to the following link QST updated topics:
Ten years later the same basic ideas were independently approached by U. Abundo employing  the tools offered by the J.Von Neumann’s Cellular Automata from a point of view focused on information traveling, please refer to the following link:
The well known Widom-Larsen theory, basically focused on the cooperating behavior of the electrons in condensed matter (tuned with the theory of G. Preparata) may be regarded as a special case, under specific conditions, of what is predictable by the QST.
According with QST, it is naturally predictable the loss of identity of the electrons confined into condensed matter lattice, while the properties of space have priority and permit/control existence and behavior of electrons, so giving a natural coherence to the assumptions of Widom-Larsen.
Into the present new approach to space and particles structure, the latter become just expression of stable resonance frequencies of space; the same electron, particles and generally condensed matter are “electromagnetic objects” constituted of standing waves into the space quantum found by TSQ.
.
.

366 comments to The Quantum Space Theory (QST) could explain the LENR

  • Riccardo

    the excess of energy could be a resonance effect on vacuum structure? http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/aug/13/fractals-boost-superconductivity and if we use a fractal pattern in the metal?

  • Man

    Dear F. Santandrea,

    It’s just curious that this new constant the distribution Plank constant has exactly the same numerical value of Planck’s constant and it has a very similar name but then is not the same.

    Anyway, could You write a formula that links this distribution Plank constant to the energy of an electron? Could You get the energy value of 8.187*10^-14 Joule using this new constant?
    Best Regards

    Man

  • F. Santandrea, U. Abundo

    Dear Man,

    again, hd is not Planck constant,

    therefore cannot be applied to the mentioned Einstein formula Energy = h*c/lambda

    Best Regards

    F. Santandrea

  • Man

    Dear F. Santandrea,

    Your definition is a new costant called distributed Planck costant that have physical dimension J/s but You don’t take into account the Einstein equation:

    Energy = h*c/lamda
    in which is simple to verify that [J] = [J*s]*[m/s]/[m]

    Even if this distribution Plank constant has exacly the same value of the well know Plank constant, it fails the elementary check of measurement unit with respect to Einsten relation.

    Should I suppose that Einsten was wrong and You are correct?
    It seems more probable that You are wrong.

  • F. Santandrea, U. Abundo

    Dear Man,

    h and hd are two distinct constants:

    h (action space quantum) is the well-know Planck costant and have physical dimension J*s
    hd (reaction space quantum) is a new costant called distributed Planck costant and have physical dimension of J/s

    Best Regards

    F. Santandrea

  • Man

    Abundo/Santandrea,

    with reference to your document:

    The “Quantum Space Theory” (QST) could explain the LENR

    You talked about and wrote a comparison with Planck constant:

    H = 6.626 · 10^-34 Js Planck constant ( Action space quantum )
    “hd = 6.626 · 10^-34 Js^-1 Distibuted Planck constant ( Reaction space quantum )”.

    hd (named by You “Distibuted Planck constant“) has a measurement unit Js^-1 but J/s is measurement unit of Power.

    Are You aware that measurement unit of Planck constant is J*s and can’t be J/s? or now we should believe that measurement unit of Power is equal to measurement unit of Plank constant?

    I believe that something in your theory is wrong.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Avi:
    If all goes well, 1 to 2 months of full and regular operation will be necessary before making it public. Obviously it will also depend on the Customer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Avi

    Dear Andrea Rossi
    Can you say please how much time after February 2013
    (when the 1MW plant begin to work for the non military customer) the 1MW plant will be presented to the public?

    Thank you for the patience
    Warm Regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    I am receiving many requests of interview in this period, and I am spamming all of them. This comment is the answer for all: I will not release any more interview of any kind until the 1 MW plant for civil use will be presented to the public. This decision has been agreed upon between our new US Partner and the Trust that owns Leonardo Corp. We think any interview in this period is simply useless, because we have nothing to add to what we have already said, while we have an enormous work to do.
    I will continue to answer to the questions put on this blog from the readers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, though, because this blog is useful to us: here we learn, many times.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Deare Avi:
    As I said many times, the certification of the domestic versoin of the E-Cat meets many hurdles: you can imagine easily why: there is a substantial difference between an industrial application, where certified operators control the plant, and domestic appliances, operated by unexperienced and untrained persons. The liabilities are, as you surely understand, much different. You ask “what are the obstacles”: experience and statistics , not enough for domestic applications so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Avi

    Dear Andrea Rossi
    After all the changes has been done (the changes that the certifiers wants in the domestic ECAT), what is the obstacles now for certify the domestic ECAT?

    Warm Regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Antenna:
    Now I understand. Yes, the certifiers told me they have taken in account this issue, but we have a shielding that forbids radio frequency interferences. Anyway, to install a plant are necessary the local Authirities permissions, so that if this particular authorization will be requested, we will obtain it. Interesting question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Antenna

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Equipment which generates radio frequencies often need a Federal Communications Commission certification to ensure that Radio Frequency Interference is not an issue. I was under the impression that your Home E-Cat was using ‘frequencies’ to help to control or augment the reaction. It is possible that certain shielding may be necessary to insure that these frequencies do not affect other devices in the vicinity.
    I wish you the best,
    Antenna

  • captain

    Re for Antenna’s mex:

    Dear Andrea,
    Antenna [= an 'antenna' :-) ] is kindly asking if a domestic E-Cat, when in operation, needs to comply with standards of Federal Communications Certificate for Radio Frequency Interferences…
    Regards.
    captain

  • drew

    FCC = federal communications commission I think Antenna is worried about radio frequency interference (rfi)
    Drew

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Antenna:
    Can you kindly explain?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>