by
Sankar Hajra
Indian Physical Society, Calcutta, India
Email: sankarhajra@yahoo.com
.
.
Introduction
Important observations on the behavior of light waves began to be performed from the time of Roemer (1670) and important experiments on electricity and magnetism began to be conducted from the time of Coulomb (1783). Maxwell (1865) tried to unify both streams of knowledge and dared to realize what light was. There were numerous experiments to demonstrate that Maxwell’s theory was correct, though some might argue that the theory was inadequate.
In the Maxwell’s theory, if c is considered to be the speed of light in free space, Maxwell’s equations are then valid in free space where the earth is obviously moving with an appreciable velocity. Therefore, the Maxwell’s equations should be affected on the surface of the moving ear- th. But curiously, all electromagnetic phenomena as observed on the surface of the moving earth are independent of the movement of this planet. To dissolve this problem, Einstein (1905) assumes that Maxwell’s equations are invariant to all observers in steady motion which acts as the foundation of Special Relativity. In the second place, the relativistic mass formula is routinely confirmed in particle accelerators. Therefore, Special Relativity is held to be more acceptable than Classical Electrodynamics. In the second decade of the past century, Einstein extended his special relativity to General relativity, a space-time curvature physics wherein he explained many puzzling gravitational phenomena with the application of his space-time curvature proposition.
From the days of inception of the theory of relativity (1905), numerous physicists like Paul Ehrenfest (1909), Ludwig Silberstein (1920), Philipp Lenard (1920), Herbert Dingle (1950), F. R. Tangherlini (1968), T. G. Barnes et al. (1976), R. Tian & Z. Li (1990) and many others have doubted (fully or partially) over the foundation of the theory of relativity and many of them have proposed alternative approaches.
In the period between the last decade of the last century and the first decade of the present century (1991-2010), C. A. Zapffe, Paul Marmet, A. G. Kelly, N. Hamdan, R. Honig and many others have made important contributions in this direction.
In the first part of this paper, we have shown that the mass of a point charge as per Classical Electrodynamics is the same as that of Special Relativity and the foundation of both the deductions lies in Classical Electrodynamics of Heaviside (1988). Therefore, mass formula confirmed by the particle accelerators is fully consistent with Classical Electrodynamics too.
In the second part, we have shown that the consideration of the effects of gravitational field of the earth on electromagnetic entities easily explains classically those puzzling gravitational phenomena (explained by Einstein) as well as why all electromagnetic phenomena as observed on earth’s surface are independent of the movement of the earth; and this elucidates that both the invariant proposition and the space-time curvature proposition of Einstein are unnecessary.
Our goal is to show here the efficacy of the classical physics to interpret relativistic phenomena rationally and easily. In this study we have only used Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations, Newton’s equations of motions and his theory of gravitation. We have used no theory of our own.
.
.
Dear Readers,
Please go to
http://www.rossilivecat.com
to find comments published today in other posts of this blog.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Anonymous:
Working with the Ecat SK Leonardo. Preparing the very important tests that will start on August 22 and will end at the beginning of October: after that phase we will know if the permanent SSM revolution will succeed or not. The work is hard and difficult, the matter very complex, but I am working with the best possible Team in this matter in the whole world.
I am optimist, but this is a fight.
A very hard fight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jeff:
Working in an office with an American flaf waving from the balcony.
Happy Forth of July to all our American Readers,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Today id the 4th of July: how are you celebrating it ?
Godspeed,
Jeff
Silvia:
1- the counting of the readings is calculated automatically by the Master of Researchgate, I do not know with which methodology. The counting is not made by the authors, we receive from them the results of the achievements. I too am very surprised of this absolutely unexpected achievement and, obviously, I am proud of it.
2- yes, the normal calorimetry has results conciliable with the spectrometry. By the way, I read in a blog a critic that says we measure the temperature by means fo the colors and this is obviously a wrong interpretation, as well explained in
http://www.ecatskdemo.com
3- I always say “we” when I refer to my work, because I work always in collaboration with my Team. I always have taken advantage of the help recognized in the acknowledgements published at the end of the paper.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
your paper
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
has reached 16,000 readings and this is an absolute record that makes it the most read nuclear physics paper of the world in the last three months. Can you tell us hor the number of readers is made?
Another question: you made on the video
http://www.ecatskdemo.com
of the presentation made on January 31st of the Ecat SK both the measurements with the Wien and Boltzmann equations and with the calorimetry and those measurements gave almost the same results: now, after 2 months do you confirm that these measurements give almost the same result ?
Third and last question: in your paper on Researchgate you say always “we” instead of “I” : who are the others”
Thank you if you can answer,
Silvia
Fabrizio Fassina:
I do not, but our Partners will have.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
If you are able to make direct electricity and heat with the Ecat we saw in http://www.ecatskdemo.com, you and your Partners will have a 1 billion clients market: Do you have the force to sustain it?
Fafas
M. Sc. Enrico Billi:
I said that the 1 MW E-Cat has long periods of self sustaining. The data will be published when the test will be finished ( please see my answer to Bernie Koppenhofer minutes ago).
Lavolale, Lavolale!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
recently i started to follow a new technology about heat pumps involving controlled cavitation effect.
A company developed a new kind of heat pumps calledBernoulli system with a minimum COP of 3.1
In the past you said e-cat technology can self-sustain the reaction, so finally how much is the minimum COP reachable practically with your e-cats?
LavoLaLe lavoLaLe
Enrico Billi
Viktor:
Yes.
Warm regards
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
Do you think we will see an imdustrial E-Cat generate electric emergy within the mext three years?
Thank you for your answer
Viktor
Dear Clovois Ray:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello, Dr. Rossi. I’M MAN OF FEW WORDS, I’v been a faithful fan and followed your every progress,
Over the years you and i as well, has taken lots of out right hostility from people, we have been (vindicated) thank you sir for all you have did and will do, you are a true hero in my books, and all i can think to say right now is happy, happy happy,– i just wanted to say congratulations and god’s speed.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you for your interesting info.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Here is an Oregon State University (USA) report on a project to provide cooling from a waste heat source, or perhaps, from an E-Cat/LENR source. The actual design parameters need to be matched to the application. They use R245fa which is Penta-fluoro-pentane. If it works for R245, it should work for R744 (Carbon Dioxide).
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/21679
Have a joyous Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year.
Joseph Fine
Dear Dr Fine:
1- yes (I agree with your considerations)
2- it is one of the issues to decide
3- not yet, but can be useful
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
1: Can the Hot Cat system be (easily) modified so its output temperature is less than 600 degrees C, for example 300 – 400 degrees C? That is, the goal is to use some output heat for cooling or refrigeration.
The Industrial (or Warm) E-Cat has a design output temperature of up to 120 degrees C.
System efficiency should increase with a larger temperature difference. But a reactor output temperature of 600 degrees C seems too high for cooling applications. And 120 degrees C seems too low. But again, that depends on the system design.
As in the story of “Goldilocks and the Three Bears”, there should be a reactor output temperature that is not too hot, not too cold but is “just right”!
For a specific application, heat transfer fluid and technology, there is a combination of temperatures, pressures and flow rates that will produce the most efficient combination of cooling and/or heating.
2: In your R&D work (in Italy), have you considered (or decided) which technologies and temperatures are best used for cooling/refrigeration in the Hot-Cat either from an efficiency or cost perspective?
3: Have you considered using R-744 refrigerant (CO2)?
Joseph Fine
Dear Prof. Joseph Fine:
Thank you, interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Here is a recent paper on Vortex Tubes by Raoul Liew et al. of the Eindhoven University of Technology.
The paper doesn’t discuss CO2, but apparently reveals the nature of the “Maxwell Demon” which separates Hot Molecules from Cold Molecules. ( It seems to be a function of the non-magical parameters of mass flow rate, pressure, volume and temperature. )
http://mtp.phys.tue.nl/publications/2012/LZKM12/PublicationPRL.pdf
or
http://mtp.phys.tue.nl/publications/2012/LZKM12/
Best regards,
Joseph Fine
Andrea,
This is about possible refrigeration applications and not about relativistic effects, nucleons, quarks, LENR etc. I did not know which discussion to use, but chose this one.
I have been interested in uses of and improvements to the Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube.
After previous discussions that mentioned refrigeration systems and, separately, the use of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a refrigerant or heat transfer fluid, I wondered if anyone had ever developed a vortex tube using CO2 (or refrigerant R-744).
Typically, compressed air goes into a Vortex tube and has two outputs – both hot air and cold air. The only moving part is the airstream. (See “Maxwell’s Demon” and “Vortex Tube” for more information.)
I thought if this works for compressed air, it should also work for CO2.
Several researchers at Georgia Tech (Atlanta) also thought of this idea and have patented a CO2-based Vortex Tube refrigeration system.
Perhaps, this idea may be used in your applications.
This development should be an improvement to compact cooling systems. (Portable cooling systems used by astronauts before they went aboard their space vehicles used compressed air Vortex Tube coolers.)
http://books.google.com/patents/US7669428.pdf
Best regards,
Joseph Fine
Dear Clovis Alan Ray:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you sir.
My faith is restored, in you, and the knowledge that God is still in control.
May his hand always be on your shoulder, and his strength always give you comfort.—clovis
Dear Clovis Alan Ray:
We made a contract regarding our Intellectual property and now we are working together with our US Partner.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear,Sir.
May I be so bold as to ask, do you alone still hold the fire, or have you passed it off to another.
To me, this has the potential for being like the story of(the lord of the rings,) you being Froto the ring barrier, and the ring as e-cat,the power that will light the world. I have heard of your fail-safe, for the secret sauce ,via the internet,and many of us was wondering if you still hold your secret.–Clovis
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
1- maybe both gas and electric, but remember the certification issue, still in course…
2- no, the issue is not this: electric or gas boilers are already certified …the issue, as you imagine, is another, for the domestic applications, destined to be used by unskilled persons.
3- maybe, but after the original basic certification
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
Are you planning to produce the domestic E-Cat with 1) an electrical heater or 2) a natural gas heater? (Or some of each type?)
Do you think it will be easier for a domestic E-Cat to be certified if it uses an electrical input or a natural gas (thermal) input?
Do you think certifying agencies would permit the use of domestic E-Cats in (mostly stationary) houseboats, aboard trains or in mobile home vehicles?
Best regards,
Joseph Fine
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Correct.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You stated “We are presently manufacturing 3 1 MW E-Cats:
1- Low Temperature 1 MW E-Cat
1- 1 MW Hot Cat
1- 1 MW Hot Cat gas fueled”
Is it correct to characterize this activity as the Customer is having you build and demonstrate three Pre-Production units? If so, is this so the Customer can choose which types he will proceed with in larger quantities?
Dear Jan Srajer:
Realistic.
Warm Regards,
A. R.
Mr. Rossi
I have a dream. Winter 2013 : E-cat 1MW in trial plant . Springtime 2013 : public announcement about the investors and demo for the journalists. Summer 2013: start the productions plant. Autumn energetic boom. What do you think about?