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

  • @ Steven,

    1. If the measurement of the radioactivity was ok after three hours, then you could look at reactions with a half-life of 3 hours devided by 7 = 25.7 minutes. (After 7 times half-life, the number of nucleons that still can desintegrate has fallen back to less than 1%).

    2. In my previous message, I wrongly wrote: ‘that reaction does not happen, and this because of the halflife of 76,500 yrs for the last step (59Cu -> 59Ni)’. But of course I meant the long halflife of 59Ni, which remains (low-)radioactive for a very long time. (I think it becomes 59Co (which probably is stable) by electron capture, but unfortunately only after a very long time. So to see if this reaction occurs, you could look at the presence of 59Co, but of course, because the activity is very low, only after a long time). Was the radioactivity of 59Ni not seen because it’s so low? Anyhow, I agree with ‘Man’ that it’s a potential health hazard, with a low but long during activity, but because they didn’t measure any radioactivity after three hours, I concluded that the first reaction you mentioned earlier could not happen. (59Ni remains low-radioactive for a very long time).

    3. Why do you treat all possible reactions equal? Thinking, for instance, on QRT of Wladimir Guglinsky, there maybe are preferrable reactions? (Affinity to/possibility of proton-capture can be different for the different isotopes). And also, if the goal would be to obtain stable isotopes of Cu, I would prefer working with 62Ni (and 64Ni to a lesser degree), because with 62Ni we could get stable 63Cu (and with 64Ni we could get stable 65Cu), but as the transmutation to Cu is not the main energy-source, it probably is not interesting anymore?

    4. Remaining 60Ni and 61Ni as interesting isotopes? 😉

  • Koen Vandewalle

    @ Steven N Karels, @ ir. Daniel De Caluwé,

    Maybe a stupidity, but why not go for a second fusion 59Cu + H ? If 59Cu is unstable, maybe this makes it a sensitive or attractive partner for further fusion reactions.
    Sometimes, “for free” exists in nature.

    Kind regards,
    Koen

  • Herb Gillis

    There is another possibility. If the Ni-58 is reacting to form the expected radioactive products and the said radioactive products (being, by definition, less stable) react further- – at a rate equal to or faster than the rate at which they are formed. It might be a good idea to do a thourough isotope analysis of the nickel fuel and the nickel in the spent fuel, and compare them.
    Could the ultimate end products of the Ecat reaction possibly be the heavy stable isotopes of nickel (ie. 62 and 64)??

  • Man

    @ Steven N. Karels

    Read carefully document at link:
    http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/nickel.pdf
    Nikel-59 is radioactive isotope and it’s a risk for health. Before to write something, study it!

  • Steven Karels

    Daniel and Andrea Rossi,

    The 58Ni + H -> 59CU could occur at some rate. The radioactive half-life of 59Cu is 81.5 seconds. So in terms of a 6 month run, essentailly all of the 59CU would convert to 59Ni. The 59Ni half-life of 76,500 years is long compared to the 6 month operation so essentially none of the 59Ni would be decayed.

    The three hour time period — is that the radioactivity presents a half-life of three hours or that the measureable radioactivity is gone after three hours? Please clarify. If you can tell me the effective half-life of the residual readioactivity, it would help validate or discard the Ni-to-Ni reaction.

  • @ Steven,

    As there is no residual radioactivity measured in the fuel after a short time (3 hours as affirmed by A. Rossi in his recent message) after the E-cat is stopped, I wrote that reaction number one (’58Ni + H -> 59Cu (halflife of 81.5 sec) -> 59Ni (halflife of 76,500 yrs)’) does not happen, and this because of the halflife of 76,500 yrs for the last step (59Cu -> 59Ni).

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    It is true, the time is 3 hours.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I recall you stating in the past that within a short period of time (minutes or hours?), there is no radioactivity in the fuel present. Is this accurate?

  • Steven N. Karels

    Daniel.

    I hope there is uniform probability for all stable isotopes of Nickel. If 58Ni does not participate in eCat reactions, we have lost 68% of the Nickel on the earth as a fuel.

    I do not see why the 58Ni reaction should not work. Please explain.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    I am not able to answer to your question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Steven N. Karels,

    Roughly, I agree with your approach, but as there are no residual nuclear reactions when the E-cat is stopped, the first reaction that you mentioned (i.e. ’58Ni + H -> 59Cu (halflife of 81.5 sec) -> 59Ni (halflife of 76,500 yrs)’) will not occur, I think…

    So, could it be that the first reaction does not occur because some of the (four) others are easier? (Remember that processes in nature always tend to follow the way of least resistance).

    Kind Regards,

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I read the translated comments by Gianvico Pirazzini about his projection of in 18 months achieving a COP of 7, 8, 9 or 10.

    Do you think this might be another example of Moore’s Law where the COP will double every 18 months?

    Perhaps next year we will see a COP of 12? Then in 18 months from then a COP of 24? I suspect the law will break when you achieve a high enought COP that excess heat from the eCat can be directly converted into electricity to self-operate.

  • Steven N. Karels

    WaltC,

    I think the salient point is that where there was no 59Ni in the sample before the start of the eCat reaction, at the end of six months of continuous operation, there should be a detectable amount. This remains true until several times the 76,500 year half-life.

    Likewise, copper will be formed but in very small amounts.

    CORRECTION

    Copper isotopes

    63Cu(3.6%*0.01 = 0.036%) of 10 grams = 0.036 grams
    65Cu(0.9%*0.01% = 0.009%) of 10 grams = 0.009 grams

    SHOULD READ

    Copper isotopes

    63Cu(3.6%*0.01 = 0.036%) of 10 grams = 0.0036 grams = 3,600 micro grams
    65Cu(0.9%*0.01% = 0.009%) of 10 grams = 0.0009 grams = 900 micro grams

    If we do not see the formation of 59Ni, then I would question the belief that a Ni to Ni operation is the majority energy producing process.

  • WaltC

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Your statement, “Assuming the conversion probability is the same for all Nickel isotopes…” is a key one. If true, then the relative distributions of all the nickel isotopes will remain the same (due to the distributive property of math). (Put another way, your original distribution totals to 99.9%, your 2nd distribution totals to 98.9%…) So, 58Ni will remain 68.1% of all the nickel in a used “charge”, etc. If that assumption is correct, then there will be no net depletion of any one isotope, versus the others, after a charge is repeatedly used and recycled over dozens of years– which *would* be a convenient property to have.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Estimate of eCat Isoptopic Changes

    Assuming an eCat (Thermal or Hot) runs continuously for 6 months, has a 10 kW thermal output, what percentage of the Nickel is converted from one isotope to another isotope?

    Fuel load is 20 grams – assume 10 grams are Nickel.

    Natural Nickel isotope distribution: 58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni(26.2%), 61Ni(1.1%), 62Ni(3.6%) and 64Ni(0.9%).

    If we assume a Ni + H -> Cu -> Ni reaction only, then the following reactions are of interest

    58Ni + H -> 59Cu (halflife of 81.5 sec) -> 59Ni (halflife of 76,500 yrs)
    60Ni + H -> 61Cu (halflife 3.33 hrs) -> 61Ni (stable)
    61Ni + H -> 62Cu (halflife of 9.67 sec) -> 62Ni (stable)
    62Ni + H -> 63Cu (stable)
    64Ni + H -> 65Cu (stable)

    The mass defect for each reaction is about 1 amu. The total number of Nickel atoms is about 1.04 x 10**23. If all the Nickel atoms went through the change, about 4,260 MWh of energy would be released.

    An eCat producing 10kW of power for 6 months will produce about 43.1 MWh of energy or about 1% of the total conversion energy.

    Assuming the conversion probability is the same for all Nickel isotopes, we should have the following isotopic distributions:

    58Ni(68.1% – 0.68% = 67.4%)
    59Ni(0.68%)
    60Ni(26.2% – 0.26% = 25.9%)
    61Ni(1.1% – 0.01% + 0.26% = 1.35%)
    62Ni(3.6% – 0.04% = 3.56%)
    64Ni(0.9% – 0.009% = 0.9%)

    Copper isotopes

    63Cu(3.6%*0.01 = 0.036%) of 10 grams = 0.036 grams
    65Cu(0.9%*0.01% = 0.009%) of 10 grams = 0.009 grams

    A difficult task to measure micrograms of copper. However, the distinguishable isotope should be the presence of 59Ni at around 0.68% should be observable.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Yes, this is a possibility.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    For Hot eCat applications, is there any advangate for either heat transfer purposes or architecturally to combine a Thermal eCat complex with a Hot eCat complex? Use the Thermal eCat complex to preheat the water into steam. Use Hot eCat to only increase the steam temperature and pressure to the working point.

    Return steam and water could be separated and the water re-introduced to the Thermal eCat. While lower temperature steam would go directly to the Hot eCat complex. It might make your heat transfer design easier.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    You are right.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joseph A.:
    1- At the moment 27, considering the suppliyer’s engineers
    2- 70%
    3- I am constantly observing all the very smart persons around. I choose our brains on the battlefield. All our braind have been chosen this way.
    4- Maybe, but for the domestis apparatus a lot remains to be decided, pending the certification
    Thankk you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph A.

    Rossi,

    I have been following your work for years. As a System Engineer I am a great admirer of your work.

    I think any good System Engineer can conclude your E-cat works by the 2011 demo you provided along with the observer reports and information. I plotted the data and studied it and I agree you got it to work. Thank you for doing those past demos, however at this time I wonder if you should curtail future demos and instead focus all your energies your new cat designs, and commercialization of products and work toward protecting your IP rights. As you once stated, the final proof will be the end users being pleased with the units you sell.

    I read your earlier comments in this forum about you examining the possibility of direct electrical conversion. I hope that is feasible for your cat technology. Another company with a different type technology claims to have made direct electrical conversion using a derivative of a hydrogen fuel cell. I am not certain that would work in an E-cat (or hot-cat) but you should investigate such an approach.

    Question_1) Approximately how many engineers and technical managers do you have in your company and in partner companies which are supporting work on new cat designs or completing production units?

    Question_2) What percentage of this total technical work force currently reside in North America as compared to outside North America?

    Question_3) As your company secures a revenue stream selling products, do you and your partners plan on hiring additional Engineers or technical sales staff? If so when? I believe there will be intense competition worldwide in new cat designs and finding new applications in the near future; I hope your company and partners continue to innovate and keep pace with all the new competitors that will join.

    Question_4) As for your design using natural gas as the control for your e-cat, I agree that for a residential home units providing heat for winter time that using natural gas for the control would be cheaper than commercial electrical input. However, if you were to connect a Sterling engine (or a cyclone engine) with a generator to produce electricity and get the COP high enough, then it seems that the electrical output of your system’s generator to power e-cat control would be ideal. Do believe that anyone will obtain this solution in the near future for residential or commercial use?

    I continue to look forward to your progress. And thank you for responding to so many people in this blog.

    With regards,
    Joseph A.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    The use of natural gas may have some unintended results. For the same amount of energy applied to the eCats, there is considerable waste energy that must be dealt with. Output gas must be correctly dealt with, especially if carbon monoxide is generated. Of course, there is also the carbon footprint issue. But I understand the market pressure to use natural gas when electricity is not available or very expensive.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Interesting questions.
    a- gas is less efficient, this is out of any doubt. But it costs very much less in the USA by the Watthour. The choice has to be related to the price of the gas in the specific location. The efficiency of gas, as you correctly say, is lower in particular in our application, wherein only specific spots need to be heated.
    b- confidential
    c- like in any gas fueled heater
    d- no
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    While I congratulate you on apparently demonstrating an eCat design using natural gas as a control input, I have some questions that come to mind?

    a. What is the efficiency of converting the natural gas energy into heat into the eCat? Some home furnaces only are 70% efficient. Electric heating is generally considered to be 100% efficient. This make a difference in any comparative analyses that I may do.

    b. How do you couple the thermal energy produced by burning natural gas into the “fuel” section of eCat? One way would be to only mount the eCat vertically, have a central hole and use a chimney effect. But I would think that is not very efficient or practical.

    c. How do you handle venting the exhaust fumes away from eCat and in a controlled manner?

    d. Is the natural gas version much larger than the electric version for the 1 MW eCat?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Orsobubu:
    All the existing energy sources have to be integrated.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • orsobubu

    Thomas Florek, I think there is a big difference between LENR and computer industries. The latter created a totally new market from scratch. LENR – if validated – would create marvelous possibilities, but would also wipe off and replace a large chunk of existing flourishing energy industry. Energy industry – particularly fossil sector – represents the biggest of all human activities in the world. One out of 2.7 millions new jobs created in US since 2002 is in energy. Every job in the field creates also a job in transports, equipment and so on. You could argue that LENR could expand economic activities, but consider that present crisis is already due to overproduction (homes, mortgages, cars, etc) and producers try every political trick to boost prices of their energy sources because we have plenty of them. Since, in average, money and capital are exclusive byproduct of employed workers number (see Karl Marx), we risk a worsening of falling profit rates’ trend.

  • Methusela

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    Hopefully you will have a nice present for us close to Christmas?

    :)

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    Yes, the dimensions will be very small. Our team is working on the design, there are heat exchange issues too.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Deasr Thomas Floreck:
    Thank you: I too would like to make a jam session with you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Moreless, yes. We are still working on the design.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dereck V.C.:
    The domestic E-Cat is waiting the certification.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dereck V. C.

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    Could you please shed any light on the progress of the low temperature E-CAT? I know HOT-CAT would definitely change the world but that should take no short time. However, I have been eagerly looking forward to the low temperature E-CAT for over a year because it would cut down on my household expense in cold seasons. So how about it now? Will it be accessible this winter?
    Thank you!

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You stated “The Hot Cat will have 72 modules and the whole generator will stay in 1 cubic meter of volume.”

    a. Assuming a total output of 1 MW, then each Hot eCat must be able to output about 14 kW of thermal power. Please confirm.

    b. To stay within 1 cubic meter and constrained by the assumed Hot eCat length of 33 cm and a diameter of 9 cm of a single Hot eCat, then 72 of them will occupy about 1/7 of a cubic meter. Arbitrarily assuming a vertical cylinder shape and a height of 50 cm, then the diameter of the cylinder must be less than 1.8 meters. Is ths abot right?

  • Hello Andrea,

    When I think about the e-cat and LENR, I like to compare it to the development of the personal computer. 45 years ago, information processing was expensive and restricted. Now each person has comparatively infinite ability to process information quickly. This has sent shockwaves through our entire culture, and these shockwaves are still reverberating strongly today. I can not see how the ecat/hotcat will not affect everything that people do…including art and culture (and music of course).

    I am also fascinated by the texture of this moment in time, when only a small percentage of people are aware of such very real possibilities. I look at your work as being a phenomenally powerful artistic statement (as well as a cool and valuable invention). We continue to root for your success! (and we’d love to play music with you at some point when you find that you’d like to pull out the drums).

    Tom (of the Tom and Doug Radio show).

  • Joseph Fine

    Ing. Rossi,

    If the 1 MW Hot-Cat has 72 modules, my volume estimate is about 400 liters or 0.4 cubic meters. This estimate depends on the distance between module centers as well as the container geometry. I will just have to be patient.

    Well done. Bravo.

    Joseph

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Herb Gills:
    We are close to the solution.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Herb Gillis

    Andrea Rossi:
    According to the data released in your October-9-2012 report on the extended hot cat test it would appear to me that the overall energy output and high temperature are well suited to the production of electricity with high efficiency. Please correct me if I am in error, but if this amount of high quality heat and high stability were provided in a “black box”, one would think it relatively easy to produce electricity (with an appropriately sized turbine) by conventional means. I mean this with all due respect, but I must ask if there are any problems unique to the Ecat device that might make electricity production more difficult than if it were just a “back box” having the same output? Could you please go into a little more detail on problems with electricity generation from the hot cat (as reported)? Thank you and regards; HRG.

  • Fabio82

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    You say: Leonardo Corp. will not be the same from the next week. I am in the USA, where an inportant event has been born from the last tests.
    Please tell us more! we’re waiting for so long!, there’s no mercy in this way :)

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Adrian Monk:
    Next week we will have no particular communications to make. We are working very hard here, in the USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Tom Conover:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    The Hot Cat will have 72 modules and the whole generator will stay in 1 cubic meter of volume. I suppose.
    Very important progree is in course.
    About what “might” be: if I might have 6 balls, I could be a flipper.
    Warmest Regards

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    You said you will soon provide information about the new 1 MW Hot Cat.

    I have not yet made a volume estimate of the Hot-Cat (1 MW).

    But I think the 1 MW Hot Cat will have 90 to 100 modules.

    Some one commented on E-Cat World that Apple might buy Leonardo Corporation and rename the E-Cat the “I-Cat”.

    Please say it isn’t so!

    Joseph

  • Koen Vandewalle

    An important event coming.
    Time for some guessing…
    A triple digit shift in available financial and human resources because of a major (well known but has to be kept secret) company that was all of a sudden convinced by a test or – who knows – disclosure of some theory.
    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Tom Conover

    Mr. Rossi,
    I am hoping the hot-cat certification is completing by next week as the big event you smile about!
    About theory, it seems to me that your ‘extreme material’ might need 1400 degrees or so to release a tiny amount of hydrogen – enough to run the cat for about an hour or so. Then, the reaction starts to slow, and you feed it some more hydrogen. Every kitty needs milk once in a while, eh?
    You keep us very excited about your progess, and I for one hope shipment of product starts soon enough to help us survive the days ahead.
    Thank you for you dedication, you inspire hundreds of thousands of us.
    God bless you,
    Tom Conover

  • Adrian Monk

    Some comments on E-Catworld are saying (as a joke) that you will light up Red Square or something similar in US on December 21 2012. That is a joke to lower the expectation bar for your news next week.
    So if it is not that (is it? :-) ) what can we expect next week in terms of communication to us, fans? A small press release in JONP, a big public press release or no press release at all because you cannot share the news being too confidential?

  • Marco

    @Pekka, Andrea Rossi

    Interesting issue the 2)… If the reactor is capable of “burning” radioactive isotopes, then maybe it can be used for nuclear waste processing…

  • U. Abundo, F. Santandrea

    Dear John Proof,

    thank you for your strong interesting in our work.

    So, we believe you can appreciate some insight into the structure of our logic chaining.

    Relating to eq. 36 is an identity, we think this is obvious, not a discovery.

    The relevant meaning is hidden: by considering the electric charge q as distributed at r radius, the self-energy, equating the Planck constant multiplied by the frequency of a stationary wave along the circumference at r radius, should show alpha to be unitary!

    Moreover, it is universally recognized that dimensional constants may be not-unitary owing to our arbitrary choosing of measurement units, but adimensional ones should be unitary.
    Thus, the alpha value suggests a failure of actual theories.

    We believe it is necessary to account for space properties that phenomenologically suggest a “shape factor”of space inside electron such to modify the mathematical form of self-energy.
    (This proposition will be developed according to Schwarzschild radius.)

    The first release of theory has no importance. In a near future, we will release the revised version.

    Relating to our claims, they are not claims, but “concluding remarks”, an expansion of proposed “axioms” in the first page of “Electromagnetic…”

    We can just show the meaning of each of them, we are on the point of doing it.

    Therefore to achieve real progress in physics and in all science we need a new epistemological approach (our firm conviction) as was explained on site “22 passi d’amore e dintorni” (22passi.blogspot.com)

    search article “Una proposta coraggiosa da Ugo Abundo e Francesco Santandrea: Il tentativo di volare alto non è più rimandabile” (sorry only italian)

    Ultimately, you shouldn’t wish a theory can ever proof its own axioms!

    Sincerely yours.

    U.Abundo, F. Santandrea

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Marco: not yet, we aim at itt.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Pekka Janhunen:
    1- very difficult
    2- interesting suggestion
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear captain:
    Very interesting, thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Neri B.:
    No, it is not that the issue.
    Warm Regasrds,
    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=""> <s> <strike> <strong>