Classical Interpretations of Relativistic Phenomena

Sankar Hajra
Indian Physical Society, Calcutta, India
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.

173 comments to Classical Interpretations of Relativistic Phenomena

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Franco:
    We choose our Customers for that reason.
    Warm Regards,

  • Franco

    Dear Ing. Rossi,

    just a question.
    Some important international patents have not yet been released but You have already sold and delivered an E-cat to a military Customers.

    How now can you be sure that “the Customer” don’t copy your technology or leak important and reserved information ?
    (It seems to me that just an NDA could be not suffucient to protect industrial secrets)

    Kind Regards


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Amedeo Anteni,
    Ing. Scolari is very welcome to send the link of the report to this blog. I don’t have it anymore.
    Warm Regards,

  • Amedeo Anteni

    Dott. Rossi,
    Scolari non ha ancora divulgato, come da sua richiesta, il report che lei gli ha affidato a Pordenone. Può cortesemente metterlo online lei così da poterlo confrontare con i test di terze parti appena questi saranno resi noti?
    Caldi saluti.

  • Robert Curto

    Dear Dr. Rossi, I notice you are placing your reply directly above the question.

    This is a major improvement over having to scroll down to search for the question.

    Like wine, you seem to be improving as time passes !

    Ft, Lauderdale, Florida

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    We respect his opinion, but I deem it wrong.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Liberty90:
    Any sincere idea has to be respected, even if you do not agree.
    Warm Regards,

  • liberty90

    orsobubu… Marxist nonsense. Mr. Rossi, please, don’t waste your valuable time by answering to this man.

  • orsobubu

    Steven Karels and Marco Serra,

    I really don’t think that a machine self-producing its requested energy be the ultimate dream of the entire human race. A variety of energetic technologies, electricity, batteries, generators, combustion machines, turbines, fossil fuels, nuclear fission etc, built our civilization but also materialized our worst nightmares: war machines able to increase their lethality-per-hour index from 20 (sword) to (25 megaton H bomb strategic missile). Machines can be used to destroy instead of create. Cycles of creation and destruction are a regularity in capitalism and war is the ultimate solution to escape from the inflation/deflation spyrals generated from the inevitable fall of the profit rate, overproduction and unemployment (Marx, Schumpeter, Kondratieff). Capitalism collapses if it fails to increase at a minimum rate of 1.5-2% yearly and this increase depends exclusively on capacity to generate surplus value, that is, converted human wage work. More and more workers without end have to be constantly subdued to the capitalistic wage work machine. Every productivity development generates unemployment so even more workers than before must be added to the production chain, and the situation is worsened because the constant capital in machines cannot be converted in surplus value, so driving down product prices and salaries. Future technologies like automation, artificial intelligence and LENR will surely wipe out countless numbers of old-skilled workers. In the future, homes or cars will be built by nano-robots; traditional fossil energy production and distribution is 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 and every job in the field creates another job in transports, equipment and so on. As a result, revolutionary technologies will require – in capitalistic conditions – that an absolutely outstanding number of more workers than today became wage workers, possibly working a lot more hours than today. In addition to this, an outstanding bigger mass of goods will necessarily have to be absorbed by world markets. These dramatic processes necessarily encounter at least two difficulties. Earth resources will be depleted at an higher rate than before, also with atmospheric heat input increasing toward the insuperable hotness barrier. More important, since market cannot phisically expand further than Asia and Africa, big conflicts will arise among imperialistic blocs to contend and redivide the cake. In this frightful scenario, robotic and LENR technologies will arrive like a blessing to arms industries, where probably the high-end secret research
    in respective fields will be soon concentrated.
    Innovative discoveries and technologies costantly push the productivity level higher and higher, but this process contains an immanent contradiction. Marx: “Given the rate at which machinery transfers its value to the product, the amount of value so transferred depends on the total value of the machinery. The less labour it contains, the less value it imparts to the product. The less value it gives up, so much the more productive it is, and so much the more its services approximate to those of natural forces. But the production of machinery by machinery lessens its value relatively to its extension and efficacy.” Obviously, LENR technologies will be produced by robots, and robots will reproduce themselves. They will replace plenty of labour-intensive obsolete technologies. So, the only way to escape from the fall of profit rate would be to invent an amazing number of new productive sectors, WITHOUT – doing so – replacing in the mean time other labour-intensive activities. This appears extremely improbable, also taking into account that just present crisis is generated exactly by overproduction: too much cars, too much homes, too much mortgages, too much debt, too much fiat money, also too much energy: producers try every cartel-trick to boost prices of their energy sources because we have plenty of them. Italy is risking to compromise highly profitable tradtional combustion power plants due to independent electricity production via solar cells; and solar industry is a new, clean, scarcely profitable sector, already given up by Siemens in example. We know that high-tech sectors require relatively low numbers of high-skilled engineers; Nasdaq market index fall in 2000 is a clear proof. Air is free and carries enormous user value and an exchange value (the price due to worked hours to produce it) of zero. Instead, horribly Earth-deforming and pollutant fossil and fission energy sector is marvelously profitable from a capitalistic point of view, also with a potentally enormous futuristic de-contaminating industrial sector employing disposable manual workers.
    But, after all, Marx gave us a perspective: as machines advance the productivity, they get nearer to the maximum level typical of natural forces: LENR could extract efforlessly the immense energy preserved inside the inner nuclear matter. At that point, relatively no more human work is needed, no more surplus value is required, no more exhange value (surplus value converted in money) has to be payed to obtain the energy. Only in this sense, Andrea Rossi’s work – if proved – could represent a milestone in humankind march towards the REAL dream of the entire human race: a communistic production system based on automation and user value, and the liberty from capitalistic wage work slavery.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Kaj:
    Warm Regards,

  • Kaj

    Dear Sir,

    Thank you for exciting news about the hotcat and 3rd party validation. But what about the 1MW normal ecat, are there plans for a civil installation?

  • Steven Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    To put a human perspective on your work and potential outcome, I know a person, recently divorced (as in no money left) who lives in a run down trailer and for his only heating source has a 1,500W electric heater because he is limited to a standard 115VAC, 15Amp feed. It gets cold here in New Hampshire during the wintertime. If he had a domestic eCat, he could get 6 times the amount of heat from the same electrical feed.

    God Speed with your certification process. You will never know the people your work will help.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Marco Serra:
    We are working on it. The most difficult part has been done, as you correctly say.
    Warm Regards,

  • Marco Serra

    Dear Ing. Rossi,
    many thanx for your detailed answers. May I ask you another extremely important question ?
    I’ll suppose yes. :)
    You have a device that produce 1050°C. Why is it so difficult to put around it a water cooling system where the water temperature is rised up and collected toward a turbine ?
    To me this is the very first thing I’d try to make. I admit I’m not so technical in this field but can’t imagine what the problems are. Aren’t these problem already solved by any of the market product ? Turbine engines are quite common.
    Or does the hotcat reaction become uncontrollable when cooled ?

    I’m sure you realize that an HotCat that can self-produce its requested energy is the ultimate dream of the entire human race. I’m not underestimating your current results, it’s the opposite, they really make me dream, but as you stated “the favorite son of an inventor is the next one to come”.

    May God bless you and your work.


  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Is born a little italian cat !

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gian Luca:
    The noise of an E-Cat of 1 MW is:
    dB(A) < 50@ 6 m
    Translation: is silent.
    Warm Regards,

  • Gian Luca

    Buon giorno Ing.
    volevo chiedere se i macchinari, sia ECAT che HCAT, sono rumorosi.
    Ovvero. Avete verificato la loro contenstualizzaizone in ambienti civili, residenziali? L’aspetto acustico è molto importante per l’eventuale impiego domestico o presso strutture ospedaliere/scolastiche.
    Cari saluti

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Eridanio:
    Your option is not allowed. The certification for a domestic device is for all or for nobody.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Hurley:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear K.D.:
    We have received more than half million requests, but we cannot start the production and distribution of the domestic devices without a full certification.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Claud:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,

  • Claud

    Dear Andrea, it’s about two years that I follow you and your fantastic adventure and I read every single answer and reply on this blog (besides offering my help, as you know, if you need it). Unlike many other supporters of yours that are impatient about the official statement of your results and divulgation of the progressive goals you reach, I think that no big event can be born in a rush and if ITER requests fifty years (or more), setting up an e-cat device that works well in a five year period would be a very extraordinary result. So take your time and keep on making us closely follow your fantastic achievement.
    Good luck.
    Claudio Rossi

  • K. D.

    Dir Mr.Rossi
    It’s long time, when you said to your supporters, that if you will get orders for 10,000 E-Cats, you will organise mass production.
    Since that there are some problems with certification and still so many non believers, as we can see under article in Popular Science.
    I am curious about how many peoples made such orders and for how many in total number of E-Cats.

    Of course it’s are preliminary and not binding orders, but can show us the level peoples are seriously interested in E-Cats.

  • Hurley

    Mr. Rossi,

    Thank you for all your efforts. You do not owe anyone an explanation and I understand you get some assistance by doing it but also set yourself up to the chatters. I can think of hundreds of applications for both low and high temp Cats. We are like kids before Christmas shaking the box to see what is inside. Waiting for the big guy in red, You are the guy.


  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Caro Dott Rossi,La informo che oggi ho inviato una mail all’associazione industriali di Ravenna di cui Le invio una copia. Cari saluti G G

    Gentili signori, Vi scrivo in merito alla tecnologia atta alla produzione di energia concepita dal dott Rossi,denominata e-cat. Trattasi di un reattore funzionante con reazioni nucleari a bassa energia presumibilmente di fusione. Non avendo nulla a che fare con reazioni di fissione nucleare non utilizza materiali radioattivi nè li produce inoltre è intrensicamente sicuro in quanto utilizzando nickel come uno dei reagenti, essendo che la temperatura di fusione di questo è molto inferiore a quella per la quale si potrebbero ipoteticamente verificare situazioni potenzialmente pericolose,queste non possono sorgere in quanto alla fusione di detto materiale la rezione cessa immediatamente ed autonomamente.I regenti sono idrogeno,nickel ed una sostanza catalizzatrice la cui natura al momento è coperta da segreto industriale.Faccio notare che la quantità di idrogeno impiegata è dell’ordine di pochi grammi e solo una parte di essa concorre alla rezione,quindi anche da questo punto di vista è meno pericoloso di una caldaia a gas. Allo stato attuale è stato sviluppato un reattore a bassa temperatura (120°) e-cat già in vendita dalla Leonardo Corporation ed è in fase di definizione il reattore ad alta temperatura(1050°) hot-cat. Il primo è capace di un cop 6,il secondo da test privati(di cui allego documento) di un cop 11,7.Quest’ultimo consentirà di produrre energia elettrica con alta efficienza. Il 12 ottobre scorso il Dott Rossi ed i suoi collaboratori hanno relazionato presso la sede del polo tecnologico di Pordenone (allego video della conferenza).In questi giorni si stanno svolgendo altri test riguardanti l’ hot-cat e ritengo che un interessamento da parte Vostra sarebbe opportuno e tempestivo.Vi invito ad approfondire la cosa in quanto operare per agevolare l’ingresso sul mercato di questa tecnologia costituirebbe una sintesi perfetta tra il dovere morale verso l’ambiente e la convenienza in termini economici derivante dalla propulsione al sistema produttivo per la nascita di aziende produttrici di energia e dal futuro conseguente calo dei prezzi della stessa.Aggiungo che essendo reazioni nucleari la quantità ed il costo dei reagenti è irrisoria ed ad ora si aggira, comprensiva di manutenzione,a meno di un centesimo per kW/h. La tecnologia costruttiva del reattore non è onerosa economicamente e quando le economie di scala saranno a regime
    si potrà produrre energia elettrica vendendola al prezzo di mercato (senza incentivi !) rientrando dall’investimento in pochissimi anni (la mia stima del tutto personale si aggira sui 2 anni). Vien da sè che in futuro questa fonte sarà utilizzata dai grossi produttori di energia,ma a mio avviso è molto importante che possa essere messa in opera anche da piccoli e medi imprenditori.Questo per favorire il calo del prezzo dell’energia e per creare impresa e lavoro.Credo che questi obbiettivi siano in cima alla lista dei Vostri scopi.

    La mia persona è completamente a Vs disposizione per chiarimenti ed eventuali collaborazioni.

    Cordiali Saluti Giovanni Guerrini

    allego materiale:

    video conferenza Pordenone

    rapporto test interno

    sito società Dott Rossi

    rivista scientifica Dott Rossi

    rapporto 41 ENEA su positivi risultati di esperimenti deuterio palladio avvallanti l’esistenza del fenomeno fisico detto “fusione fredda” in allegato.

  • eridanio

    A certification for general public sale is a hardstuff.
    Try asking for a limited certification let’s say for 1,000 to 10,000 devices to be sold to volunteer customer involved in a closed beta program to be held in a small territory with all the required NDA signed and compulsory training,reporting and maintenance issues.

    A real field (controlled) certification test

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Avi:
    Prof. Sergio Focardi will always be in the team developing the E-Cat, as well as in our heart.
    Warm Regards,

  • Avi

    Dear Andrea Rossi
    Does Prof. Sergio Focardi is now also in the developming team of the ECAT?

    Warm Regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Marco:
    I appreciate wholeheartedly the enthusiasm of our supporters, but sometime I have the impression that the difficulties we are fighting against are strongly underevaluated, just like to make a LENR industrial apparatus should be a normal thing. If I say that we will make a thing betwen October and November, this does not mean October 1st, could also mean Nov. 30st.
    Can also happen that new difficulties raise, so a delay comes up. The NUCLEAR FUSION ( ITER and the likewise) scientists had foreseen to put their plant in operation 20 years ago. After 100 billions of (taxpayer’s) money, they today foresee that perhaps they will have a plant in operation in the next 50 years, after further hundreds of billion dollars, and the scientific context is comfortable with this. Their present target is COP 1.1; we published our work in 2009 ( see Focardi-Rossi paper on this Journal). After 3 years and few millions ( of our private company, no public funding requested, no taxpayer money spent) we are manufacturing ( completely at our risks) plants of 1 MW, one of which will go in operation within February 2013 and will be exposed to the public after a period of operation ( 2-3 months). The plant will be put in the concern of a major world holding, which has signed with us an extremely important contract. The plant will heat a fluid. No electricity will be produced in the first plant, because the Customer wants to make thermal energy with the forst application,but obviously, due to the high temperature we are now able to reach, the coupling with turbines in a Carnot cycle is possible and will surely be made by the same Customer in the next plants. We still guarantee COP 6, even if the supposition that the COP can be increased is not groundless. The self sustained mode happens for approximatively the 50% of the operational time, regulated by a new concept remotely governed control system. Well, after all this, somebody talks of infinite delays…well, allow me to say that some scientific context sometimes gives the impression not to be very scientific. We don’t bother, anyway, just work.
    As you can see, the answers are not confidential.
    Warm Regards,

  • Marco Serra

    Dear Ing. Rossi,
    I read your Journal every day for more than a year now to monitor the advances of your wonderfull discovery. You make us followers sometime enthusiastic but often impatient with your (understandable) reserve in showing what’s happening in your secret lab.
    At the time of Pordenone, few weeks ago, you stated that you got the HotCat under full control but it was just a “free” device, that is, without any loading (water to be heated). Then you said that “Tesla dream is close”. And now … BOOOOOM ….. the first 1MW HotCat will be ready in 3 months, and it will be used by a third party in a power plant.
    Please tell me what the HotCat will do in the power plant, I mean what its role will be ?
    Will it produce electricity or pre-heated fluid ?
    If yes will it use a turbine or an unusual heat-electricity converter ?
    And, the most important question, does HotCat still need external energy or you get it to self produce its needed energy ?

    Please Ing. Rossi don’t answer that these info are confidential. I did not ask anything about the inner behaviour of the HotCat.

    Best Regards

  • Steven Karels

    Dear Orsobubu,

    Crises and wars will continue independent of the economic system. Rossi’s eCat, if it is accepted, will help reduce some current economic and environmental issues but the real problem is human nature. Until we become “enlightened” and tolerant, in some way, conflicts will occur, disparities will exist. Changing economic systems is a slow process so I am fortunate to be old enough not to see my system change in my lifetime.

    Depending on the Nickel enrichment issue, still not clearly defined, it will tell us how much “fuel” we really have on thie planet. Perhaps other similar metals can do the same “trick”. Perhaps other aneutronic “fuels” such as Helium-3 could be mined and used. But that is for a future generation to explore.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    I think that this tecnology is a synthesis:
    it will save the world earning money.
    For a world without money now is too early.

    Regards G G

  • orsobubu

    Luca Salvarani, I’m out of topic, but since you’ve written and repeated that you’re an extremist-misian-vonhayekist-mengerian-libertarian-free market ninja, I feel obliged to observe that free market has totally failed: without enormous, cyclopic, gigantic state intervention all over the world – from usa to europe and china – your free market would be a relic of the past, with predons on black horses roaming the smoking capitalistc ruins on the burned land. Privatize the profits and socialize the losses is their “free market” smart solution; the trick worked because the crisis, after all, is still only modest, as Asia expanded and absorbed our debt. And take into account that I’m absolutely AGAINST any state capitalism, soviet-style. Capitalism inherently fails due to the fall of profit rate. I’m saying that techonologic marvels like Rossi’s ones are the proof that only a new economic paradigm – based on use value rather than exchange value, without money, wages, banks and markets – could save the world from next crisis and wars.

  • Luca Salvarani

    Dear Andrea,

    1) I’m very happy for the next release of the third party report! It won’t surely improve your e-cats or solve its engineering challenges… but it could be a powerful new source of hopes and dreams for a lot of people, and right now that’s exactly what we need, expecially when it’s believable and for free! And it would also help you to build the very necessary consensus among the public, politicians, regulators, media… for this new source of energy! Your entrepeneurial efforts to compete as it really was a free market are commendable, really (I’m a pro free market “extremist” so I LOVE the way you work, on your own and without government support indeed this is the very reason of your success)! But you definitely need also a large-consensus from all the stakeholders and you can’t build it only on your own… since they can easily and quickly stop you using many tricks: safety certifications, incomplete patents, spurious charges as you’ve experienced here in Italy..
    2) So let me me repeat a yet unanswered but crucial question, already pointed out here: is the US government fully aware of your technology? Yes or not? (When I say the US government I don’t necessary imply the President and his cabinet).
    3) I’m asking this because this morning “someone” has said: “I’ve never been more hopeful about our future”. For a pro-free market libertarian like me there’s only one thing that “someone” could ever do to really help America: back the e-cat! I would never use this topic for political tricks and I’m absolutely serious! Thank you!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Georgehants:
    As I said , I think that by November the report could be issued (Actually, I said by October/November…).
    Warm Regards,

  • georgehants

    Mr. Rossi, many people where hoping for third party reports on your E-Cat in October.
    Why do you think the guys have not reported yet.
    Best Wishes.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Pekka Janhunen:
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,

  • Dear Andrea,
    A comment regarding X-ray direct conversion. Even if its efficiency remains too low (this I do not know), one could combine it with other direct methods, especially thermophotovoltaics (, without reducing the other method’s conversion efficiency. This is because the direct-converted X-ray power does not reduce the temperature of the outer wall, only the total power. Hence the efficiency of an outer thermophotovoltaic converter or heat engine would not be reduced by the existence of an inner X-ray converter: the electricity produced by both schemes would just add up.

    Concerning thermophotovoltaics, in the above link they propose to use it for solar power. In the solar case, the “Intermediate” (in the figure at the link) also cools by thermal radiation into the environment, which is an additional loss mechanism. In the HotCat application this loss mechanism would not exist, because the backradiation of the outer shell would be directed just back into the reactor core. Thus, the thermophotovoltaic conversion efficiency could be higher in the HotCat case than in the solar case if both have the same temperature. The thermophotovoltaic cells must be cooled from the outside by e.g. water because their conversion efficiency drops at higher temperature. Overall this kind of HotCat based device would produce electricity and warm water without moving parts other than the water circulation pump, and it would be scalable down to home devices or smaller without losing efficiency. The device would also be compact, not much larger than the HotCat itself… Well, I guess this is more or less what you have had in mind already for 2 years for an electricity producing home unit.
    regards, /pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Valery Tarasov:
    Who wants to publish papers on the Journal of Nuclear Physics is invited to mail the papers AS AN ATTACHMENT to:
    The papers are peer reviewed and published after the approval.
    Along with the paper must be sent a permission to publish. The publication is free.
    Warm Regards,

  • Valery Tarasov

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Concerning a possible publication in Journal of Nuclear Physics. Will it be considered for publication a unified physical theory, which does not correspond to the mainstream physical theories? Cold fusion in this theory is obvious.
    Best wishes,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Paul:
    We have a team who is working specifically on this issue. Yes, we made progress, even if we are not ready with a working prototype, bu we have obtained a direct current someway. Much work to do. Honestly, we started from an idea of yours that I read on a paper you sent me.
    Warm Regards,

  • Paul


    In previous discussions you have expressed an interest in high energy photon direct conversion by means of a photo electric cell similar to the one described in expired U.S. patent 4178524.

    Have you made any progress in this regard?


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joe:
    As I already said, every 6 mo we want to check everything in this first period.
    Warm Regards,

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    It seems that the charge composition is hardly affected by 4400 hours of use. Any change in the distribution of Ni isotopes is not noticeable. And there is also very little diminution of total charge. So the question is, what are the criteria that you use to decide when a charge must be refreshed?

    All the best,

  • @Sankar Hajra,

    I can be wrong, but I don’t agree that you can explain ‘the invariant proposition’by ‘classical physics’. The fact that the speed of light remains a constant in vacuüm, and that it is not affected by the relative movement of the sender in respect to the receiver, is an unusal aspect of the behaviour of light/fotons, that cannot be explained by classical physics. But beside that one exeption, I agree with the rest.

    Kind Regards,

    Ir. Daniel De Caluwé
    Mechelen Belgium

  • Salve ing. Rossi

    Per i sostenitori dell’ Ecat ho realizzato il primo notiziario aperto al pubblico su internet relativo al mondo E-Cat, nel sito é possibilie registrarsi e inserire notizie, eventi, commenti chat, foto, forum, video ecc. il tutto completamente gratuito e aperto al pubblico. A breve sto lavorando per inserire anche interviste e altro materiale.
    Il sito é:
    Ho in programma di renderlo multilingue con inglese, francese, spagnolo e tedesco.
    Il concetto é quello di realizzare una comunitá attiva che mette a disposizione idee, fantasia, voglia di andare avanti, progetti, notizie insomma una comunitá che vuole portare avanti la barca della fusione fredda e non lasciarla morire nel sistema “senza notizie” dell’informazione ufficiale.

    grazie, D. Monterisi

  • Andrea Rossi


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    I will,
    Warm Regards,

  • Dear Wladimir Guglinski,

    I just would like to interfere since you published an interesting web link:

    This link suggests (it is also under the quantum length equation on my web site) that the Integral project has provided results that the quantum graininess of space must be below 1E-48m, which makes all String and Quantum theories invalid (those which use the Planck Units that come from dimensional analysis).

    The only theory on the web that is in accordance with this prediction is “The secret of the Electron-Positron pair”. The quantum Length or Planck Length as calculated from this theory is: lq=hˑG/λceˑc3=6.7438E-58m. The most interesting thing of it, is that the quantum length results after making equal the Complete Casimir Force with Newtons Gravity which are both a reality. Although I sent my paper to ESA, never received an answer and I will never have for obvious reasons.

    Comment: The Casimir Force is not based on Vacuum fluctuations (virtual photons), but due to the deceleration of light on the metallic surfaces. With other words the free electrons are the cause of deceleration of light (real traveling photons), where the later as it is proved precisely from the theory that the Charge, Mass and Planck Constant are associated with the Tangential Velocity of the Aether (348.43 Km/sec), where the spinning Aether (in our world is the spinning charge and on the imaginary world is the Massless Aether) is the cause of the deceleration of light.

    For those who have not yet visited my web site: , it is highly recommended. It is a new Physics based on the existence of Aether and gives formulated answers for the Quantum world mysteries to Cosmology. It can be read by everyone who has interest in Physics and just a high school degree(not needed to have a University degree).

    Some of the subjects with complete formulated answers:
    Aether, Massless Neutrinos, Dirac’s Magnetic Monopole, Complete Magnetic Force, Complete Casimir Force, Nuclear Strong Force, Quantum Newtonian Gravity, Unified Field Force, Aether Control, Antigravity, Space-Time Engineering

    And a couple of real experiments as also some proposals!

    Warm Regards

    Ioannis Xydous

    Electronic Engineer


    Web Site:

  • Steven N. Karels

    Congratulations on the LARGE contract. I hope it executes smoothly. Let us know when you need some enthusiastic help!

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>