.
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.
.
.
Dear Daniel De Caluwé and others,
I am tempted for once more to intervene on this discussion about the Aether without to have the intention to be annoying. Daniel, I believe that you put the subject on the right frame. Yes, the Aether as entity can be found on a higher dimension or better on a hidden dimension. The Aether is imaginary as I prove in my work: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
The Michelson-Morey Experiment brought null results since they were expecting to find an opposing “Aether wind” (translational motion) in regards to the motion of light. As you will see on my Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ , I propose an experiment (it does not need a set up) for the indirect detection of Aether: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/AetherDetection/
which is the effect of the imaginary Aether in our world. This effect makes all matter and non matter (free space) of the Universe to rotate with the Tangential Velocity of 348.43 Km/sec. The proposed experiment simply detects the rotational motion of the Universe. The experiments which took place so far for the measurement of our absolute motion in free space are the following:
(see also the below on the link: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/AetherDetection/ )
1925-26 David Miller: Interferometer, continuous light. Result: 208 Km /sec
1927 K.Illingworth: Interferometer, continuous light. Result: 369+/-123 Km/sec
1973 Stefan Marinov: Rotating mirrors, chopped light. Result: 130+/-100 Km/sec
1975-76 Stefan Marinov: Interferometer, Rotating mirrors, chopped light. Result: 303+/20 Km/sec
1976 Muller : Velocity towards Leo. CMB. Result: ~400 Km/sec
1977 G. Smoot : CMB Result: 390+/-60 Km/sec
1978 Wilkinson/Corey : CMB Result: 320+/-80 Km/sec
1978 Monstein/Wesley : Muon flux Anisotropy Result: 359+/-180 Km/sec
1984 Stefan Marinov: Coupled shutters, chopped light Result: 362+/-40 Km/sec
1986 E.Silvertooth : Rotating mirrors, chopped light Result: 378+/-? Km/sec
2006 M. Consoli : Analysis of rotating optical resonators Result: 276+/-71 Km/sec
2012 I.Xydous : Analysis of Earth’s Rotating Magnetic Field Result: for 348.43 Km/sec (theoretical), the Aether frequencies:
8.67mHz and 17.36mHz superpositioned on Earth’s long period Magnetic Field.
Comments and Conslusions:
i) The Aether is invisible and can be indirectly detected.
ii) Almost all of the above attempts of the past, as you will notice they have (the most of them) circular or closed loop topologies.
iii) Due to the (ii), they attempt to detect a circular motion.
iv) According to my theory and the above past experiments the conclusion is: The Aether of free space is INVISIBLE (IMAGINARY), STATIONARY (No translational motion) but ROTATING with a TANGENTIAL VELOCITY of 348.43 Km/sec.
v) All matter like: Protons, Electrons and every particle and sub-particle which comes into existence, enters our material Universe with this tangential velocity of 348.43 Km/sec.
vi) The Aether is the cause (actually in our real world is the spinning mass) of attraction between Proton-Proton in Nuclear Force. The Aether with other world has the power of a strong Gravitational Field, which shields against the Electrostatic Force. On page 14 on my paper SEPPv5, it is proved clearly in case of an Electron, the Gravitational constant is G=2.78E32 N*m2/Kgr2 on its surface. It is 1E43 times stronger than Earth’s Gravity.
vii) The new expression of Charge and Planck Constant include Aether’s Tangential Velocity. See page 37: Eq.98, Eq.99, Eq.100. It is very obvious! (I did not add something. It was always there, but wrongly interpreted due to the development of Quantum Physics all these years).
I strongly encourage everyone to read my work and I will be very glad to discuss all these. This work is completely formulated with simple Mathematics (of High School) and less philosophical. Nothing is left in the “Air”. There are complete (understandable mathematically formulated) answers on the following subjects:
Aether, Massless Neutrinos (exact imaginary mass, Upper and Lower Velocities), Dirac’s Magnetic Monopole, Complete Coulomb Force, Complete Magnetic Force, Complete Casimir Force, Nuclear Strong Force, Quantum Newtonian Gravity, Unified Field Force, Universe Properties: Age, Acceleration (actually deceleration), radius, Temperature, Aether Control, Antigravity, Space-Time Engineering and much much more….
I hope you will enjoy the ride!
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Switzerland
Just a quick comment to both Andrea and Wladimir. Andrea you have the technology and Wladimir you have a challenging new theory. It is an uphill strugle only because you are both correct. With regards Quantum Space Theory and ‘how can 30% of nickel in Rossis reactor be transmuted into copper?’. Maybe the answer lies in the (QST). The hydrogen electron could provide the low energy heat and the hydrogen proton provide the high energy transmutation rays. Once 30% nickel transmutates to copper the space energy of the copper effects the space of the entire nickel hydrogen interaction. This is a question, if you put 30% copper into the reactor to start with does the the LENR occur?. This is no doubt something you have already considered and done but it would be interesting to know as it would help validate (QST) or at least provide more thoughts on LENR. My own theory of the neutron is that it has not an independent identity but it has an illusionary concept due to an oscillation of two identifiable charges. To extend this theory Copper could have less resistance than nickel because copper has more fusion and more fission within its structure. More fission would give the nickel greater protection from the hydrogen and cease the reaction. Electricity is a fission fusion activity. Hope you find this info interesting. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Dear P. Onierna:
As you know, I do not give any information regarding the charge.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Of course I am very much aware of the confidentiality requirements of your work, so if you feel that an answer on your part is inappropriate, please do not hesitate to say so.
Lately, from various and hopefully knowledgeable sources whom I have been in contact with (not on the Web, but through private communication), there has been some talk about a new possible “candidate” for your catalyst. Specifically, I am referring to PdF, i.e. (I suppose) Palladium Fluoride, which may be found either as Palladium Difluoride, or, more commonly, as Palladium Tetrafluoride. Its conventional applications may be easily found online.
Would it be too brash on my part to ask you to comment on this?
Best regards,
P. Onierna.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
You can find the brochure on
http://www.ecat.com
About more details, we supply them to the Customers, once we have made the due diligence necessary to decide if accept the Customer or not.
We are submerged from requests, most of which from all but Customers…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Since you state that the Thermal eCats are “are already on market”, I would expect there to be brochures and/or datasheets describing them with specifications. May be even price lists. These would generally be available with any new market release of equipment. Are these available? Is there a site to download them?
About Ether and the Michelson-Morley-experiment
Dear Wladimir and other readers,
About two years (plus four months) ago, I wrote something about ether and the Michelson-Morley experiment on the Dutch niburu-forum:
http://niburuarchief.info/showthread.php?tid=20448&pid=317784#pid317784
My opinion was and is that the Michelson-Morley experiment only proved that the speed of light was independent of the relative motion of the sender (of the light) in respect to the receiver, so the speed of the relative motion was not transferred to the (speed of the) light itself, and so their experiment proved (far in advance) this property of propagation of the light explained by Einstein in his theory of Special Relativity.
And based on this experiment, the scientific community rejected the existence of the ether, but in fact, the Michelson-Morley experiment only rejected a kind of a ether that transfers the relative movement (of sender towards receiver) to the speed of light. But if we suppose an ether that doesn’t transfer the relative motion of sender and receiver to the speed of light, than such an ether still would be possible, and could not be rejected by the scientific community based on the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Is such an ether, (that doesn’t transfer the relative movement of sender and receiver to the speed of light), possible? I think the answer is yes, especially when we envision a kind of ether that behaves like a higher dimension that supports the propagation of light, but that doesn’t transfer the relative motion of sender and receiver, who belong to the normal/ordinary (and lower) physical dimension.
Is there an interaction between the (lower and) ordinary physical dimension and the higher dimension of such an ether? The answer is yes:
i) For instance when we heat up a piece of metal that starts to glow and sends its light (based on the well known mechanism of excitation of electrons that send fotons when they fall back in their normal orbits).
ii) And also we know by experiment(s) that the speed of light depends of the physical medium where it is passing through. The speed of light is the highest in the vacuüm, but decreases in media with higher density. In the air, the speed of light is already a little bit lower, and in water the speed is lower than in air. (Also the laws of the breaking of the light are based on this). So if we suppose that light is propagated in the higher dimension of the ether, than by experiment we know that the fysical medium that surrounds it has influence on the speed of light in the ether. (So that’s a second kind of interaction between the higher dimension of the supposed ether and the lower physical world).
iii) And also via Einsteins’ General Theory of Relativity, we know that light is bend by the interaction of heavy bodies. So gravity, that is supposed to belong to the (lower) physical dimension ;-), also has an influence on the propagation of light through our hypothised ether.
But to conclude so far: If we suppose or hypothise such an ether (in a higher dimension than the ordinary physical world), we know from the interaction explained under i), that electrons have to do with the interaction between the two worlds (the ordinary physical world and the higher ether dimension) and because of the measured interactions under ii) and iii), we also know that there’s also an interaction because of the mass mainly composed of particles (neutrons and protons) in the nucleus.
Does this make sense and/or can we do something with this? 😉
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Dear Guru:
The 1 MW plants for industrial use are already on market.
The other apllications are not because not yet certified. I cannot foresee the time of certification because it does not depend from me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
(b)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In an electricity production plant, there is typically a boiler(s) where a cold fluid (usually liquid water or low temperature steam) is changed to the fluid at the operating temperature and pressure (e.g., 600C).
Is your envisionment to (a) to produce the boiler or (b) to only be a heat source to a conventional boiler?
Dear dr. Rossi,
after quarter of century in business, I was started some informative activities about your E-Cat technology in our country (Republica Cecca), because in our country there is big fat zero news about E-Cat. I contacted a number of business leaders from relevant sectors. they are serious and don’t buy your cliché about “E-Cats are already on market”. They are interested because of obvious tremendous impact of tech and they want to know one thing:
When you will starting real delivery of classic thermal E-Cat (to whatever Italia or elsewhere) customers ?
2 weeks or 2 months or only God knows ?
Thanks. I have for months extreme sick pain and not withstand forever.
To the readers of the Andrea Rossi’s blog:
The measurements made by John Arrington in Argonne National Laboratory, concerning the structure of the 9Be, detected that the isolated neutron is 7fm far away of the rest of the nucleus.
As the strong force (which, according to standard Nuclear Physics, promotes the aggregation of nuclei) actuates in the maximum distance of 2fm, then it seems that the structure of 9Be does not fit to the principles of the standard Nuclear Theory.
John is trying to explain such strange structure of 9Be by considering the hypothesis that within the nuclei there is a disruption of the quarks (and so they would be distributed along the distance 7fm).
John Arrington is conducting new experiments, so that to verify if his hypothesis is correct.
In the case his new experiments do not detect the disruption of quarks, this means that it’s impossible to explain the 9Be structure from the principles of the standard Nuclear Physics.
Also, we will be obliged to conclude that the strong force, itself, is not able to promote the agglutination of the nuclei (this hypothesis is proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory).
Obviously the response for such question is very important for the theorists who try to explain the cold fusion occurrence.
Because if John Arrington next experiments show that there is no disruption of quarks (and therefore the strong force is unable to promote the agglutination of the nuclei), then it is obvious that such new information is very important for the understanding on how cold fusion occurs.
regards
WLAD
Exchange of emails between John Arrington and W. Guglinski
Dear John Arrington
I would like to comment what you wrote in your previous reply to me:
==================================================
2) You demonstrate again that you have a severe misunderstanding of our experiments. The key results from the two experiments were published in 2009 (J. Seely, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 202301) and 2012 (N. Fomin, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 092502). I think that they are very interesting results, but they say nothing at all about the size of 9Be, nothing about the separation of the ‘isolated’ neutron from the rest of the nucleus, and nothing about the shape of light N=Z nuclei.
===================================================
First of all, I feel very strange your claim about your experiments:
===================================
“but they say nothing at all about the size of 9Be”.
===================================
After all, as the isolated neutron is far away 7fm from the rest of the nucleus, therefore the size of the 9Be is 7fm (diameter). Thereby it makes no sense to claim that your experiments say nothing about the size of the 9Be, because your experiment is showing that 9Be has a diamenter 7fm.
And it would be of interest to verify the diameter of 10Be.
Dear John,
When we make experiments, we actually are making questions to the nature. And when we get results from the experiments, those results are the response of the nature to our questions.
If we make the wrong question, the nature responds to that question, and our interpretation on the result of the experiment can be wrong, because we made the wrong question.
In the end of the 19th Century the theorists had supposed that light should be a propagation of a disturbance of the aether. Therefore they supposed the existence of a luminiferous-aether.
So, when Michelson made his experiment, he was not trying to detect the aether. Actually he was making the following two questions to nature:
1- Is light a propagation of an aether’s disturbance ?
2- Or, in another words: does exist the luminiferous-aether?
However, Michelson (and the theorists) had supposed wrongly that he was doing the following question to nature:
Does aether exist ?
After 1916 Einstein tried to bring back the aether to Physics again, and he wrote some papers where he proposed it.
However, as the Michelson experiment was interpreted by the physicists as an experimental evidence that aether does not exist, they did not take in consideration Einstein’s new attempts.
Today new experiments (as Casimir effect) are showing that space is not empty, and so the aether exists. Therefore the theorists had interpreted wrongly the Michelson experiment, because when the nature responded “NO” to him, her answer “no” was referring to the following two questions:
“is light a propagation of an aether’s disturbance?”
“does luminiferous-aether exist?
She responded NO.
But her response “No” was not concerning the question “does aether exist?”.
You and me, we are making different questions to nature, when we interpret your experiments.
You are taking in consideration what you know from the standard Nuclear Physics, and you are trying to interpret your experiments from such viewpoint. In another words: you are asking to nature some questions suggested to you by what you expect from the current Nuclear Theory.
Unlike, I interpret the results of your experiments by taking in consideration the following viewpoints:
1- what I had already concluded about current Nuclear Theory (it has so many flaws)
2- what I expect from my new nuclear model
You are trying to interpret the distance 7fm of the isolated neutron in 9Be by considering that “forces that usually constrain quarks can get disrupted”, and your next measurement will try to examine this question directly by taking a snapshot of the quark distributions at the moment when the nucleons are close together.
And suppose that such next measurement do not detect what you expect (that quarks are not disrupted, as you suppose), and, instead of that, suppose that you verify that the neutron is actually concentrated in one point (and it is not spreaded as you expect to find it).
What will be your conclusion?
For me, the conclusion is obvious: as the neutron is 7fm far away from the rest of the nucleus, it means that the neutron is not kept in the Be9 by the actuation of the strong force only. In another words: the strong force, itself, cannot respond for the nuclei aggregation (there is need to consider one more additional force beyond the strong force).
Suppose the snapshot of your next experiments do not detect any disruption of quarks, and so suppose they detect the neutron as an indeformable particle concentrated in one point far away 7fm from the rest of the nucleus.
How will you explain the force of attraction which keeps the neutron tied to the rest of the nucleus?
Other difference between our interpretations on you experiment is the following:
1- You consider satisfactory the standard Nuclear Physics, as you wrote to me:
================================================
“I am not aware of any deficiencies in the current models, and in particular, not in the context of our recent measurement. That does not mean that there aren’t any deficiencies, but I’m not going to believe that these common and well-tested models are wrong simply because you say so and provide a hand-waving argument.”
================================================
2- Unlike, I consider the standard Nuclear Physics wrong because there are many inconsistences in it, and if the principles which rule it should be correct it would be impossible for the nuclei to exhibit the nuclear properties detected by some experiments.
So, when you analyse your experiments, the questions you make to the nature are different of the questions made by me. And when the nature responds YES or NO to your questions, the answer she gives to me can be different of those YES or NO interpreted by you.
Regarding to the paper published in the journal Nature, let’s analyse what you wrote to me:
First you wrote the following:
==============================================
I took a quick look at the nature article, and as far as I can tell, it doesn’t include any new experimental findings. It also does not make any connection to my work or cite our experimental results.
It does have some small indirect connection, to the extent that it is showing calculations aimed at understanding cluster structure in nuclei, while we have measurements which we believe may be explained by such structure. But there is really no direct connection between what they are calculating and what we have measured.
===============================================
Then I replied to you:
===============================================
Dear John,
dont you think that there is too much “coincidence” ?????
First, you published the results of your experiments.
And some months later the journal Nature publishes a theoretical model suitable to your measurements.
Pay attention that Martin Freer already published a paper in 2010, by considering clusters in nuclei, nevertheless the light nuclei with Z=N=pair (as the 16O ) had SPHERICAL form in his paper.
And now in 2012 they proposed clusters in light nuclei with non-spherical form.
That smells to me as plagiarism.
Or, at least, they developed their theoretical work based on the results published by you.
However, it it is the case, they would have to cite your experimental work.
It’s seems to me very strange.
=================================================
And your lastest reply to me:
==================================================
I don’t see anything that could be called either coincidence or plagiarism.
First, Martin Freer has been studying nuclear structure for 20 years or more, and has published 100+ papers on the topic, including articles discussing cluster structure going back at least 15 years (based on a very quick literature search). So it’s hardly surprising that he’s going to be making progress and publishing results on cluster contributions in nuclei.
Next, I’ll repeat what I said before: the connection between my work and the nature paper is minimal. Our experiments do NOT provide any information at all about the shape (spherical or non-spherical) of nuclei. The could not in any way, shape or form be interpreted as predicting something which is included in the nature paper or confirming anything about the shape of nuclei predicted by your model.
==================================================
First of all, as Martin Freer has been studying nuclear structure for 20 years or more, why didn’t he arrive EARLIER 2012 to the conclusion that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical form ?
Why, after studying nuclear structure more than 20 years, has he arrived to the conclusion that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape JUST ONLY AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF YOUR EXPERIMENT IN JULY-2012 ?
Why did not he get such conclusion EARLIER the publication of your experiments ?
And as Martin Freer is studying nuclear structure along more than 20 years, I suppose that some of his INTERPRETATIONS on your experiments can be different of your interpretations. So, he analyses your experiments by considering points that do not interest you, and so he can get conclusions that do not occur to you.
Therefore, the conclusion of the authors of the Nature’s paper “How atomic nuclei cluster” (that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape) is AD HOC. They did not infer such conclusion from a theoretical way. They did infer such conclusion based on your experiments (or similar experiments made in other laboratory).
And probably they do not mention what experiments suggested their conclusion just because they want to avoid that their proposal be considered as AD HOC (adapted to the results of experiments)
They want their conclusion be considered theoretical, obtained independently of the results of any experiment.
After all, they are studying nuclear structure more than 20 years. In 2010 Martin Freer published the paper “Clusters in nuclei”, where he proposed a SPHERICAL shape for the oxygen nucleus 16O:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei
And now, 5 months after your publication in March-2012, Martin Freer proposes that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape. It’s too much coincidence. It smells an AD HOC proposal.
Martin Freer (and nobody before he) had never proposed a non-spherical shape for light nuclei with Z=N=pair because such nuclear property of those nuclei is IMPOSSIBLE by considering the current principles of standard Nuclear Physics. And as it’s impossible, never somebody had proposed it before. Now Martin Freer proposed it because it is suggested by the experiments published in 2012, but as non-spherical light nuclei with Z=N=pair is impossible (by considering the principles of standard Nuclear Theory), then Martin Freer was obliged to adopt some AD HOC hypothesis.
But as always happens when ad hoc hypothesis are proposed, they will be in contrast with other nuclear properties.
I have to remember you, dear John, that when my book was published in 2006 there was not any experiment suggesting that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical form.
My conclusion was a THEORETICAL PREDICTION, different of the AD HOC conclusion proposed now in 2012 by Martin Freer.
Your proposal that in the 9Be the isolated neutron takes that place because of quarks disruption is also ad hoc.
Your attempt is obvious: you try to keep the a fundamental principle of the standard Nuclear Theory, according to which the nuclei aggregation is due to interactions by the strong force.
If your next experiments do not confirm the disruption of quarks, your ad hoc proposal will be unacceptable.
And I would like to remember you that, according to my new nuclear model, neutrons can be kept by a nucleus in a distance between 6fm and 7fm, because in my Quantum Ring Theory the agglutination of the nuclei is not promoted by the strong force only.
The possibility of the existence of isolated neutrons far away from the rest of the nucleus (like in the 9Be detected by your experiments in 2012, with a distance of 7fm), was predicted in my nuclear model in 2006, because in my nuclear model the aggregation of nuclei is not promoted by the strong force.
I hope your next experiments bring us the response to these questions.
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
Dear drew:
as soon as possible, hopefully in 2013.
Warm Reards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
You published a little while ago the hotcat now has steam and pressure to produce electricity, when do you expect to start trials with turbines etc to make electricity?
Hank Mills: Leonardo Corporation is now Beta testing the Warm cat and in the process of research/Alpha testing of the Hot cat. Do you know of any corporation who would call a press conference and give preliminary information on Beta testing of their new products or progress of Alpha testing developments of a new product still in their labs? I am afraid we must be patient.
Dear Hank,
You have a well reasoned and logical summary. My first question is — In self sustained mode (ssm), when the load demand suddenly decreases, how do you turn down the eCat output quickly? I know Andrea Rossi says even in ssm, the Hot eCat is under control. But there must be some reason not to use ssm or it would be the logical choice.
You make a point that a one hour demonstration of a Hot eCat in ssm would silence the critics. Would not a 30 day test at a COP of 6 do the same? One in which there can be no way for a chemical based heat generator in the size of a Hot eCat to contain sufficient energy to do what is measured? The measurements could be automated and monitored online by all, including the skeptics.
As with all engineering developments, improvements are inevitable. But why would I buy an eCat with a COP of 6 if I thought a newer eCat with a COP of 200 was just around the corner? I think Leonardo Corporation is wise in their approach.
AND THE CONSPIRACY OF THE PHYSICISTS… GOES ON
Ahead is shown an email to Xecnet, publisher of the John Michell book <b<Rossi's eCat
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: info@xecnet.com
CC: cisp@cisp-publishing.com
Subject: book submission: THE MISSED U-TURN, from Newton to Rossi’s eCat
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:08:12 -0300
To Xecnet
cc: Victor Riecansky (cisp@cisp-publishing.com)
I am Wladimir Guglinski, author of the book “Quantum Ring Theory- foundations for cold fusion”, published in 2006 by the Bäuu Institute Press:
http://www.bauuinstitute.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22:quantum-ring-theory-foundations-for-cold-fusion&catid=8:publishing&Itemid=103
I wrote a new book, in which I explain the evolution of Physics and the evolution of Quantum Mechanics so that to be understood by the lay reader, and the book covers the evolution since the age of Newton up to the new age of Rossi’s eCat, and it also shows how the fundamental questions in Theoretical Physics should be solved by considering the proposals of the book Quantum Ring Theory.
The title of my new book is THE MISSED U-TURN, the evolution of Physics from Newton to Rossi’s eCat
Between 2009 and 2012 several new experiments are corroborating the theoretical proposals of my Quantum Ring Theory (posted in ZPEnergy.com)
The last experimental confirmation of my theory is concerning the new nuclear model proposed. The experiments were made by the Argonne National Laboratory, published in March-2012:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3375
In July-2012 the scientific journal Nature had published the article “How atomic nuclei cluster”, in which there is a plagiarism on the new nuclear model proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3402
In October 2011 I had signed an Agreement with the Cambridge International Science Publishing for the publication my new book (see attached the 3 pages of the Agreement scanned, signed by the publisher Victor Riecansky).
I sent them the last draft with the final corrections in April-2012, and according to the Agreement, they would had to publish the book in 6 months.
The publisher Victor Riecansky do not respond my emails since July-2012.
Two days ago I sent to the Cambridge publishing house (with copy to Victor Riecansky) the following email:
===================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: cisp@cisp-publishing.com
Subject: Agreement of the book THE MISSED U-TURN
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:30:55 -0300To Cambridge Int Science Publishi9ng
In October 20 2011 the Editor Victor Riecansky assigned the Agreement for the publication of my book THE MISSED U-TURN
In April-2012 I sent to Victor Riecansky the final draft of the book.
In the item 2 of the Agreement is written the following:
“The Publisher undertakes to publish the Work in full conformity with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to put it for sale not later than 6 months after receiving ll the necessary materials for publishing the book.”
So, I would like to know what is the situation, because the time of the term is over.
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
==================================
They did not send me any reply, and so I conclude that they decided to breach the Agreement, and do not publish my new book.
I suppose that there is a conspiracy of some physicists, trying to avoid the publication of my book by that publishing house, and they may have made threats against the publisher Victor Riecansky and his publishing house (in the end of 2011 I had mentioned in Andrea Rossi’s blog that my new book would be published in 2012 by an important publishing house of London).
As my book will not be published by the Cambridge Int S. Pub. , I would lik to know if there is interest to publish my book by Xecnet.
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
NOTE:
I will incorporate in the end of the book the last news concerning the confirmation of my new nuclear model by the experiments made in the Argonne National Laboratory (March 2012), and the plagiarism published in the journal Nature (July-2012).
Continued
self sustain mode. I sincerely think that the reality of the hot cat — the ultimate holy grail of cold fusion technology if validated — can be proven by releasing data from self sustain mode without creating unrealistic expectations from the public. No one today expects a Honda Civic to perform like a Formula 1 race car and no one expects a Cessna airplane to perform like the stealth fighter. I think that most people will accept that a first generation ECAT will have a COP of six, and not 200.
Regardless what test data is released at the conference, I hope it furthers the development and commercialization of cold fusion technology. I think data from self sustain mode would do this better than anything else.
To All,
Andrea Rossi seems quite positive about the latest test results from the newly modified hot cat reactor. From what we have been told, I think that there is a lot to be optimistic about. As one licensee of the technology has repeatedly claimed, the hot cat can produce — during torture testing — a COP of around 200. This is of course the self sustain mode we have heard about in which the thermal drive, which maintains the stability of the system, is turned off.
I can understand why some individuals — directors of Leonardo Corporation or those involved with the certification of the technology — may not feel it is best to share test data from self sustain mode. They may think that since self sustain mode has not been made absolutely, 100% stable and will not be used in actual products, it is not a good idea to show off the capability. For example, would it do Ford Motor Company any good to show off a Mustang that can travel 1,000 MPH, faster than the speed of sound, if the commercial version would never be designed to travel at such speeds due to the obvious safety concerns?
However, despite the fact that I may grasp a little of their thought processes on this issue, I think the situation with the hot cat technology is different than the above example. Although self sustain mode may or may not be used in the first couple generation of products, releasing test data from periods of self sustain mode — in which no input power is used except the few watts needed to power the RFGs and control electronics — could provide diffinative, indisputable proof that could help silence some of
the harshest critics of this version of the ECAT technology.
If such data is provided at the upcoming conference it could….
– Convince the honest skeptics of the reality of the tech who then might become supportive of the development of the technology.
– Silence some of the dishonest cynics, because if they tried to continue denying the reality of the tech their statements would seem plainly absurd.
– Take some weight off the shoulders of those who support the development of this technology, who have to continually endure mocking, ridicule, and negative remarks from various skeptical parties and individuals.
– Increase the level of interest in the technology, because such test — if it clearly showed kilowatts of output with near zero input — would be very newsworthy.
I should point out again that data from self sustain mode is not required to validate the hot cat. Even with a thermal drive inputting kilowatts of power, rigorous and properly conducted tests (with all the issues of precisely and accurately measuring input power
sorted out) hold the potential to prove the reality of the ECAT.
However, due to the hostility against the hot cat technology by various groups and individuals, I think test data from a period of self sustain mode — of at least one hour — would be the most powerful tool to end the mumbo-jumbo, silence the cynics, and prove beyond any doubt the reality of the technology.
If such test data convincingly showed near zero input, kilowatts of output, and no drop in temperature of the reactor surface the benefits would be worth the risk of showing off a not yet mature mode of operation.
I suggest that such a report be covered with disclaimers that read….
“This data is obtained from torture testing, and may not be indicative of the performance of any final product.”
“Warning! This data comes from an experimental mode of operation that may yield unstable power fluctuations. Do not try to replicate!”
“Experimental Maximum COP Test Data Showing Speculative Future Potential Only”
Such disclaimers could help make it clear that actual ECAT products cannot be expected, neccesarily to produce such high levels of COP or ustilize
Eric Ashworth: Forgive my ignorance, but are you saying nano scientists must create perfect “cracks” in nickel for a perfect reaction to take place? If yes what would these “cracks” look like?
Dear comme
nel senso che Andrea Rossi come Nikola Tesla ha avuto grandi idee e visioni, più di una volta ha cercato di tradurre in realtà, ma si è scontrato contro l’establisment di potere.
Una per tutte la conversione dei rifiuti in combustibile, lui è stato boicottato, mentre qualche anno dopo sono stati messi in funzione i termovalorizzatori che bruciando direttamente i rifiuti generano energia fanno in sostanza quello che aveva già pensato di fare Andrea Rossi.
Ma nonostante queste ingiustizie Andrea Rossi ha continuato a sognare e lavorare e la sua memorabile tenacia ci sta portando in una nuova Era, il “Nuovo Fuoco” di Rossi ci renderà molto più liberi.
Cordiali Saluti
F. Santandrea
Dear comme
in the sense that Andrea Rossi as Nikola Tesla had great ideas and visions, that more than once tried to achieve into reality, but was crushed by the potentates.
I.e. the conversion of waste into fuel, Rossi was boycotted, and a few years after are they were put into operation the incinerators that burn waste directly generate energy, in substance what had already thought and realized Rossi.
But despite these injustices Andrea Rossi continued to dream and work and his memorable tenacity is leading us into a new Era, the “New Fire” of Rossi will make us much more freedom.
Best Regards
F. Santandrea
Dear Eric Ashworth,
I think your observations are right, it is a different perspective on QST.
In QST we have found that electron has a natural frequency of oscillation / pulsation of the space, the electron is a “stationary photon”.
We are very grateful for your ideas
Francesco Santandrea, Ugo Abundo
Dear Mr Santandrea. Your Quantum Space Theory (QST) with regards resonance I find most interesting. I believe what you are saying is that it is animation from without that constructs and maintains the physical world. If so, I totally agree. These are my thoughts on the subject of resonance. Resonance I believe requires distance to function and this produces a duration i.e. a period of time. Could it be that to resonate within a structure you would need a minimum of two receptacles to maintain a given quantity of energy within a field?. For instance to penetrate from periphery to centre one would have to lose volume i.e. shed energy and conversely to move out from centre to periphery one would gain in volume i.e. expand and absorb, thereby, as it were, tossing energy back and forth. Such an activity could be compared to a mini fission/fusion activity. Could this activity be going on by both the proton in its field and the electron in its?, whereby physical structure i.e. fused matter provides a method to achieve resonance on a penetration and fizzed matter to achieve resonance on extrication. This would indeed make space an important contributing factor with regards structure. If indeed energy is tossed back and forth within all structure then it could be that if the energy is unable to be tossed back and forth because the volume energy that is extricating itself becomes laden with energy from an external source then the structure would fall to pieces because the fused energy that is fizzing off has nowhere to go but exit the structure as excess energy i.e. combustion would occur that then feeds itself in a self generating state of destruction. Something to think about. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Yes, we can,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You previously reported that control of te eCat was linear (input power vs output power). Can you control an eCat well enough to prevent it from going into SSM (self-sustaining mode)?
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Thanks for this intelligent contribution regarding Niels Bohr.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi and Readers:
Here is the link to the famous story about Niels Bohr and the barometer. I can’t verify that it is a true story, but it is crazy enough to be true.
http://www.mentors.ca/bohr.html
Joseph Fine
Here are some famous quotes by Niels Bohr.
Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future. *
Niels Bohr
* ( And I thought that was said by Yankees Baseball catcher Yogi Berra.)
Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true.
Niels Bohr
It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.
Niels Bohr
Einstein, stop telling God what to do!
Niels Bohr
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field.
Niels Bohr
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.
Niels Bohr
A physicist is just an atom’s way of looking at itself.
Niels Bohr
If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.
Niels Bohr
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niels_bohr.html#TZZqtpM9QYZRfGHE.99
Google reminded me. Today is the birthday of the Physicist Niels Bohr. He would be delighted to read about the latest news in LENR. See google.com and click on the background graphic.
Joseph Fine
>comme, October 6th, 2012 at 2:26 AM
>[…]Ci si può credere a cose del genere ?
Se intendi il fatto che si possano avere sogni o illuminazioni (associazioni di idee e fatti) in stati di coscienza non strettamente legati alla veglia (o anche sì), devo notificarti che la leggenda è realtà, come è realtà la sinestesia. Non per tutti, però, e se tu non fai parte di quel gruppo di persone che ne hanno avuto esperienza lameno una volta nella vita, non è colpa nè di Tesla nè di nessun altro.
Se invece intendi se si può credere che tutte le illuminazioni siano anche buone, questo è un altro paio di maniche…
Dear Italo R.:
No, it is a convention, not a demo. I will present reports.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
During the conference in Pordenone, will it be possible for you show to all present people one of your hot-cat?
It would be GREAT!
Hoping regards,
Italo R.
Dear F.Santandrea
Nel senso che A.Rossi estrae energia nello stesso modo , oppure è inteso come inventore-scienziato ? A Tesla i progetti venivano in sogno o aveva dei flash nei quali trovava le soluzioni dei problemi che incontrava , oltre ad avere una sensibilità straordinaria per le onde elettromagnetiche che sembra sentisse ripercuotersi sul suo corpo.
Un’altro inventore Italiano era illuminato durante la notte : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_mulEUXWvg&feature=relmfu
Ci si può credere a cose del genere ?
Saluti
Dear Guru:
This is another interesting source.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear jan srajer:
No.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
Today’s LENR is characterized transmutations the heavy electrons to ultra low energetics neutrons and the heat.
Tomorrow will be in signs transmutations low energetics neutrons to electrons and thus to electricity.
Question: Do you have any idea about this fenomen?
Some very low-tech, however efficient and useful prospective use of low-temp 1MW E-Cat:
Heating of biomass at some Green Tech Countryside companies.
They are heating biomass old was with their own precious and costly biogas. So they may have more biogass for sale.
@Ducky1
This is just positive for me, anyway I divulge my ideas early in 1994 and 2005 and my colleague U. Abundo in 2004
Warm Regards
F. Santandrea
Francesco Santandrea:
Hmm, I think there may be some similarity between Randell Mills GUTCP theory and this theory. Has the authors taken a look at Dr. Mills work?
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/theory/
regards
Eridanio,
I agree that it will not radically change very much of what we know at the present depth of knowlegde. But it is a long way down to the fundamental building blocks structure of our reality. Some scientists claim that space is not smooth, like Einstein based his theories on, but that at the bottom it is “granular”, consisting of discrete points interacting in some way. I tend to agree with that. Reality compares to mathematics, very complex at higher levels, but the basis is just one particle, and the void, 1 and 0, and those two are mutually dependent, you can not have either of them without the other.
To create a universe, you need the following:
An indivisble particle with one feature, bounce (lossless), in counless numbers.(Newtonian mechanics, Actio=Reactio)
A “box” to keep them in.(The void)
Add energy from three dimensions at multiple frequensies.(Shake)
Stir,and magic will happen.
A small scale experiment along those lines vere conducted years ago, briefly mentioned in SciAm. The fluidised bed showed that the hills and holes created in the particles behaved similar to electrically charged particles, holes repelled holes, hills repelled hills, opposites annihilated each other.
Similar experiments are conducted today, using silicon fluid with droplests floating on the surface, demonstrating something looking like wave/particle duality, it was shown on one of the science TV channels recently(Morgan Freeman).
In my opinion these experiments show that the real basics of the universe may be muchh less complicated than we imagine, and at the same time can display the variety and complexity we see, with strings, quarks, atoms intermediate steps far above the basement. I think it is sometimes useful to try to design something from the bottom up, our top down approach with increasing complexity as we progress downard is doomed to fail. We end up with one dimensional creatures with infinite small size, and infinite complex behaviour, it does not add up. I think Roger Penrose with his Twistor is going in the right direction, it is a stable structure that is repeated throughout the universe at small and large scales, just look at a smoke ring.
I am an engineer, I look for the mechanism, the physical interaction of entities. A formula, however beautiful, is only half an answer. Sometimes things get clearer when they are turned up side down and inside out.
Bård
Dear comme,
I think Andrea Rossi with his discoveries and inventions is scientific heir of Nikola Tesla
Warm Regards
F.Santandrea
Dear Koen Vanderwalle,
thank for you question and appreciation,
is not sufficient to heat a metal and presence of Hydrogen to obtain a LENR / cold fusion,
but, as widely reported by Rossi, the essence of his discovery was the increase of the surface between metal and hydrogen , the thermionic effect emission of electrons from a hot cathode (also known as the Edison effect), still secret catalyst and as we think (in accordind with QST) presence of nanostructures /microcavities of comparable lenghts to the Compton wavelength of the electron (2.4263^-12 m) or derived lenghts in accordance with relative magnetic permeability and electric permettivity of used metal powders
Warm Regards
F.Santandrea
@Bård Havre
I’m also considering inverse density with no revolution in sperimentally demostrated physics
Beautiful, most sensible approach for the more than fifty years I have been following particle physics. But consider space as a dense fluid, and particles as bubbles, that would in my opinion make even more sense, and would get rid of all the tooth fairies this field, and in gravitational theories. Space as fluid/gas (flas) would also clean up cosmology. As for the deeper connections in the universe, I have found a direct link between Number Theory and Physics, that may reveal new insight in the basic structure of matter. It may be published, but at present I am reluctant, new knowledge seems to be utilized first in warfare, and we have enough ways to kill each other at present.
Keep up the good work.
Best wishes,
Bård
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Engine Heater Application using a Small Thermal eCat
How about using an eCat for a vehicle engine heater? In cold places, vehicles typically have engine heaters to make starting easier. A survey indicates the wattage size is from 400 W to 1500 W. The heater is run between two and ten hours before starting up the vehicle. Current units typically use electricity to power the heater.
Assuming an average size of 1000 W, the pre-start heating time of four hours, 6 months of usage and a COP of 6, what are the energy savings in six months of operation?
(5/6) * 1000 W * 4 hours/day * 180 days = 600 kW-hr.
Assuming $0.12 per kW0hr, a savings of $72.00 is realized.
May not be cost effective if the eCat module must be replaced every year.
Malcolm Lear wrote in October 3rd, 2012 at 9:45 AM
“Dear Wladimir,
Its highly unlikely the Hotcat uses ‘flyback’. Such a system would require electronics and a coil. The temperature of the Hotcat would make it impossible for electronics or an induction coil to be utilized and would be clearly visible in the photos of the disassembled unit. Therefore the idea of a self sustaining test should still be possible.”
Dear Malcolm,
the flyback is not installed within the eCat.
In May-2012 I suggested to Andrea Rossi to use the flyback so that to use it as a source for an asymmetric capacitor, as it is used in the case of the lifter.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm
The eCat would work as an asymmetric capacitor
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/labhvps/index.htm
regards
WLAD
Dear Dr Rossi,
A colleague recently sent to me an interesting article about a high performance direct electrical conversion. In this field, R&D still going on, like hot fusion !
http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/materials/waste-heat-to-electricity-breakthrough
Regards
Michel
Dear Mr. Santandrea, Dear Mr. Abundo.
First of all, my deepest respect and gratitude for all your efforts in your research and your work to bring this magnificent technology to the next generation directly. Teaching by doïng is the most penetrating and fascinating way to share knowledge and insights.
Very interesting article. But a first question that comes into mind is: why does the phenomenon not happen in “normal” metals that are used as conductors, resistances, bulbs, etc ? The now-banned old fashion incandescent lamp had all of them: electrical current, tungsten, heat. Maybe a tungsten lamp, if we still can find one, can be opened, re-filled with hydrogen and sealed again. Maybe it could shine brighter with allmost no electrical power, and produce excess energy as light AND heat. Would be better than a hot-e-cat. (Sorry Andrea, this is meant a joke, but an E-cat made of glass would not be so stupid I think)
I Think we’re still missing something.
Luminiscent Regards,
Koen
Allora il reattore di Andrea Rossi è un altro modo di estrarre energia più simile al modo di Tesla oppure no ?