Categories

Peer Review

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

Strong Nuclear Gravitational Constant and the Origin of Nuclear Planck Scale

by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Spun QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti, AP, 517641, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, AP, 530003, India.
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
It can be supposed that elementary particles construction is much more fundamental than the black hole’s construction.
If one wishes to unify electroweak, strong and gravitational interactions it is a must to implement the classical gravitational constant G in the sub atomic physics.
By any reason if one implements the planck scale in elementary particle physics and nuclear physics automatically G comes into subatomic physics.
Then a large arbitrary number has to be considered as a proportionality constant.
After that its physical significance has to be analyzed.
Alternatively its equivalent “strong nuclear gravitational constant GS can also be assumed.
Some attempts have been done in physics history [1–5].
Whether it may be real or an equivalent if it is existing as a “single constant” its physical significance can be understood.
“Nuclear size” can be fitted with “nuclear Schwarzschild radius”.
“Nucleus” can be considered as “strong nuclear black hole”.
This idea requires a basic nuclear fermion! Nuclear binding energy constants can be generated directly.
Proton-neutron stability can be studied.
Origin of “strong coupling constant” and “Fermi’s weak coupling constant” can be understood.
Charged lepton masses can be fitted.
Authors feel that these applications can be considered favorable for the proposed assumptions and further analysis can be carried out positively for understanding and developing this proposed “nuclear planck scale”.
.
.

79 comments to Strong Nuclear Gravitational Constant and the Origin of Nuclear Planck Scale

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Davide C.:
    The problems, for now, are confidential. They have been resolved, though.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    Technical, during the tests.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Georgehants:
    The third party is indipendent and they will publish what they want, where they want and when they want.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Herb Gills:
    The third party test report will be available when the third party will publish it. It is not an issue of ours.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Herb Gillis

    Andrea Rossi:
    Now I am quite confused. Could you please clarify when you think the “third party test report” will be available? Thank you.
    Regards; HRG.

  • georgehants

    Mr. Rossi, just to clarify is the third party report still to be published soon or have the problems led to a delay that will stop that for now.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Mr. Rossi: You stated on November 30th, 2012 at 7:08 AM
    “…we met serious problems that we had to resolve, which delayed the tests conclusion.”

    Could you tell us if these “problems” were administrative (lawyers/accountants/contracts) or were the problems technical and part of the actual testing?

  • Davide C.

    Dear dr. Rossi, is it possible to know which kind of problems did you have? Did you have problems shutting down the hot-cat?
    Best regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giuliano Bettini:
    Yes, we got problems after the statement. Thank you for your attention!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea Rossi
    On JoNP you wrote:
    November 30th, 2012 at 12:01 AM
    “..the third party validation will finish in 2 weeks, after which they will prepare the report.”
    (….but I think the date is a mistake. I suppose the true date is November 29th. Isn’t?)

    Then on JoNP appeared:
    November 30th, 2012 at 7:08 AM
    “…we met serious problems that we had to resolve, which delayed the tests conclusion.”

    So the question is: how is possible to speak about “serious problems” and in the same time “we will finish in 2 weeks”? The problems are “no problems? Or: the problems occurred AFTER the first statement?
    My best regards
    Giuliano Bettini

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    I still do not see where the attraction is between the neutron and proton within the deuteron.

    The neutron is essentially an electron orbiting a proton, with the electron’s primary field (positive) therefore predominating on the outside of the neutron over the proton’s primary field (negative).

    The proton still retains its secondary field (positive).

    Therefore, only repulsion can be the result of any meeting between proton and neutron – and not a deuteron.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 30th, 2012 at 1:05 PM
    Wladimir,

    In QRT, how would it be possible for a deuteron to remain stable since, once the orbiting electron finds itself on the far side of both protons, the 2 protons would repel each other – never approaching each other again, even with the return of the electron between them since the size of the gravitational attraction would be much too small to overcompensate for the Coulomb repulsion?

    Joe,
    the secondary field Sn(N) of the neutron (responsible for Coulomb interactions) is formed by the overlap of two fields:

    - The Sn(p) field of the proton (responsible for Coulomb repulsion or attraction)

    - The Sn(e) field of the electron (responsible for Coulomb repulsion or attraction)

    So, the secondary field Sn(N) of the neutron is null, since it is formed by Sn(p), which is positive, and Sn(e), which is negative, and the fields are concentric.

    Therefore there is no Coulomb repulsion between the proton and the neutron (due to the external secondary field).

    There is only a small repulsion between the principal fields Sp(p) of the protons, because the principal field Sp(e) of the electron is not able to get a perfect overlap with the field of the proton with which it forms the neutron (because the fields Sp(e) and Sp(p) are not concentric, while the fields Sn(e) and Sn(p) are concentric).

    regards
    wlad

  • Steven N. Karels

    Adrian Monk,

    Like Wind Power, Solar is useful at certain times. In the case of Solar, when the sun is shining. Both Wind Power and Solar Power have been used as Peak Load power sources. Recall, there is Baseline Power (cheap, available 24 hours per day), Intermediate Power and Peak Power electrical generation (expensive, so it is used only during high demand times). So for commercial users and the grid, Andrea Rossi’s eCat-based power can find a niche in replacing coal-fired electrical generation power plants (e.g., Baseline power). Solar, like wind, has been used as a Peak Power generation — to help with the peaks during the summer day time when air conditioning usage is maximum. So the two technologies (eCat and Solar) actually complement each other, not compete with each other.

    I have driven past fields of wind turbines in California where they are still– not producing electricity, even though the wind was blowing hard. Peak Generators are only run during high demand times.

    If Solar became like a paint that you applied to your house, then the grid requirements would be eased but Baseline Power would still need to be there for the multi-day events of no or limited sunshine.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Adrian Monk:
    As I always said, the different energy sources must be integrated, not disintegrated. The competition, eventually, is made in the market, not in the parlors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    In QRT, how would it be possible for a deuteron to remain stable since, once the orbiting electron finds itself on the far side of both protons, the 2 protons would repel each other – never approaching each other again, even with the return of the electron between them since the size of the gravitational attraction would be much too small to overcompensate for the Coulomb repulsion?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of Rossi’s JNP:

    <New experiments (Nov/2012) corroborate a fundamental principle of Quantum Ring Theory

    The new experiments challange QED-Quantum Electro Dynamics:
    http://phys.org/news/2012-11-fundamental-electromagnetism.html#jCp

    The reason why the new experiments defy QED is because the theory was developed by keeping the fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics, where it is considered that the space within the electrosphere of the atoms is Euclidian.

    In the experiments published now in Nov/2012, 20 of titanium’s 22 electrons are removed, it becomes a highly charged ion that looks in many ways like a helium atom that has been shrunk to a tenth its original size.

    Unlike, according to Quantum Ring Theory, the space in the electrosphere of atoms is non-Euclidian.
    Look at the Figures 1 and 2 in the Peswiki’s article:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:NewHIDmodel-scriptTELESIO-fig-1%262.JPG

    And the Figure 3 of the page 51 of the book Quantum Ring Theory:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:AAAfig3-coldfusion-donBORGHI-hydrogen.gif

    The density of the non-Euclidian space within the electrosphere grows with the quantity of protons and neutrons in the nucleus about which the electron orbits. The density is higher near to the nucleus, and it falls down with the growth of the distance from the nucleus.
    The innermost electrons move in a space with higher density.
    The outer electrons move in a space with a lower density.

    So, the two first innermost electrons in the titanium atom are moving in a space with higher density than the other 20 electrons removed.
    Therefore, according to Quantum Ring Theory those two innermost electrons in the titanium atom must emit heavier photons than it is predicted in QED, because QED do not consider the growth of the space in the electrosphere.
    There is need to introduce in QED a correction due to the non-Euclidian space within the electrosphere of the atoms.

    QED and QRT are two rival theories, because both were proposed for being the successor of Quantum Mechanics, and the aim of the both theories is to eliminate some inconsistencies of QM.

    The difference between QED and QRT is the following:

    - QED was developed by keeping all the fundamental principles of QM

    - QRT was developed by considering that some fundamental principles of QM are wrong, and must be replaced.

    One of the fundamental principles that must be replaced in QM, according to QRT, is the Euclidian space within the electrosphere of atoms considered in QM, replacing it by a non-Euclidian space.

    In the paper Fundamental Requirements for the proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom ( which begins in the page 38 of the book QRT ) it is shown that the missing of a non-Euclidian space in Quantum Mechanics is one among the principal reasons why the theory is developed from wrong fundamental principles.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

  • Adrian Monk

    Hello Mr. Rossi,

    I am looking at the Solar industry and I see marvelous breakthroughs that might reduce or even invalidate ECat breakthroughs.

    I will give you 3 examples of 2012 solar breakthroughs that will make a green revolution no matter what in the next 5-10 years:

    3D PV cells – efficiency 30% (2.5 times more than regular cells)
    http://www.solar3d.com/

    40%+ Solar Cells(going to 50% soon) to go from R&D phase to pilot project and industry in 2013.

    http://www.solarnovus.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5212:world-record-435-s3j-cell-could-bring-grid-parity-for-cpv&catid=52:applications-tech-research&Itemid=247

    19%(going over 20% soon) very thin nano-material cell that don’t need expensive anti-reflective coatings, reducing cost to minimum.

    http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2012/2009.html

    These 3 advances alone can make a 10kW solar house project a reality, reducing cost to implement to 5000$-7000$. That project will pay itself in less than 5 years, giving your family 15-20 years of free energy. After 25 years of operation, if technology does not advance at all (hard to believe) repeat 5-7k investment.

    Also, for industry projects, this efficiency opens a lot of possibilities.

    World Energy problem solved! Am I wrong in my assessment?

    If not, how do you plan to compete with solar?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Curious:
    1- not true
    2- whomever makes the validation, thousands of wannabe competitors will say ” the only real validator is me”. I am tired of all these stupidities. No conflict of interest will be around : the only conflict of interest that I see is the conflict of our competitors that would be eager to become the validators. And never forget a foundamental thing: in any case, the sole real validator is the Customer, who pays the plant only if the plant works. Is this so difficult to be understood?
    3- same as above
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Curious

    Dear Andrea,

    I cannot believe what I’m hearing: that FINALLY, in the immediate future, there will be an independent validation of the E-Cat! This is MOMENTOUS news! But I’ve been somewhat disheartened by your undermining the impact of said report. This leads me to speculate that:

    1. The report will be published in a way that only a very niche audience will be privy to its existence.

    2. The third-party validator will not be a credible entity, or will suffer from a “conflict of interest”.

    3. The identity of the third-party validator will not be revealed, thus invalidating the whole point of the validation.

    If none of the above is the case, I cannot think of a scenario under which there would NOT be a huge public reaction from the report. Being in the know, perhaps you are not fully appreciative of the power of having a trustworthy entity step in to validate a part of your claims, and thus by extension, adding immense credibility to ALL of your claims.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Pietro F.:
    Yes, we met serious problems that we had to resolve, which delayed the tests conclusion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Henk:
    Thank you, we will verify.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Wladimir Guglinski

    Your arguments that support your theory (QRT) for light nuclei are very convincing.

    But what about bigger nuclei? (Z > 8)

    And what about the stability of very big nuclei, with a lot of protons and a lot of neutrons in excess (A >> 2*Z)? Are they also built up with a 2He4-core in the centre and deuterons (1H2) in hexagonal floors (6 deuterons in each floor), with all the excess neutrons on the edge?

    Intuïtivly, it appears to me that with your model (QRT), very big nucleï with a lot of excess neutrons would be less stable (and much quicker involved in nuclear reactions) than according to classical theory, where a lot of protons (that oppose each other by Coulomb repulsion) are glued by much more neutrons (A >> 2*Z) in excess. So for very big nucleï/cores, more neutrons have to be in the centre and in between the protons, to glue (and hold) the core together (and probably relativly more protons are on the edge of the nucleus), but with your QRT, not the protons, but most of these excess neutrons are on the edge, and wouldn’t that make the core less stable?

    Nevertheless, your arguments for smaller nucleï are very convincing to me.

    Kind Regards,

  • Henk

    Hello Andrea Rossi,

    Do you know already about this small generator, suitable maybe for the E-cat?

    http://www.greenturbine.eu/en/product.php

    regards,
    Henk

  • Pietro F.

    Buongiorno Ing. Rossi,
    solo un chiarimento: il 21 novembre ha detto che la verifica effettuata da terzi era terminata, oggi ci fa sapere che mancano ancora due settimane, si é verificato qualche problema nel frattempo per cui si é dovuto prolungare la validazione?
    La ringrazione per l’attenzione e buon lavoro

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Frank Acland:
    Our Partner shares our philosophy.
    Stay alert: the third party validation will finish in 2 weeks, after which they will prepare the report. I’ll keep you informed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
    As you know, your papers are always welcome. When you are ready, please send them to the JONP and, after the due peer review, as usual, the JONP commettee will be glad to publish. Take in account that the peer review takes at least 3-4 months.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mark Saker:
    So far we are manufacturing the 1 MW plants ( Hot, LowT, Gas and electric).
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • Mark Saker

    Dear Andrea,

    Which of the e-cat products will the ‘very important partner’ be manufacturing, is it just the hot cats or the low temp cats also?

    Will there be any further pictures or videos to keep us entertained before the public visits to the non military client? It’s a long wait with little information to keep us interested (although I appreciate that is not your concern).

    Many Thanks

    Mark

  • Henk

    Hello Andrea,

    Good news for you, this might pave the way for domestic E-cat electricity generation.

    http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/11/29/a-new-cheap-and-abundant-thermoelectric-material-found/

    kind regards,
    Henk

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    I did not submit to your JNP my papers on the stability of light isotope because I know that there are several papers submitted for publication in your journal, wating their time to be published.
    So, the delay can be of more than three of four months.

    But my papers have obtained very important results which corroborate my new nuclear model, and so I think they merit to be published in your journal, in order to get more people to get knowledge of my achievements.

    I will start up to work in the paper No. 3, in the upcoming days.

    If you decide to publish the series of three papers, the two first papers are in the links:

    Stability of Light Nuclei – PART TWO
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:_Stability_of_Light_Nuclei_%E2%80%93_PART_TWO

    Stability of Light Nuclei – PART THREE
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:_Stability_of_Light_Nuclei_%E2%80%93_PART_THREE

    Regards
    WLAD

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    What you say about your new partner is very intriguing. From what you say, it seems this partner has the engineering and financial strength to bring your technology to market. Some are concerned that Leonardo’s interests (and the interests of customers) might be swallowed up by the interests of a strong partner

    How will Leonardo Corp. be able to maintain control of E-Cat technology in such a relationship?

    Many thanks, and best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 27th, 2012 at 11:34 PM
    Wladimir,

    Thank you for the clarification.

    Does this mean that a deuteron exists because the two protons share one electron between them? If so, is the electron still moving, or is it stationed between the protons?

    Dear Joe
    in the page 103 of the book QRT is calculated the magnetic moment of the deuteron, and it is considered the electron orbiting one of the protons.
    When the electron passes in the position between the two protons, it is submitted to two forces:

    a) centripetal force (trying to leave out the orbit of the proton about which it moves)
    b) Coulomb attraction with the other proton.

    This causes a distortion in the electron’s orbit, and it explains why the magnetic moment of the deuteron is not the sum of the magnetic moments of the proton and the neutron.

    regards
    WLAD

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Tim:
    The cost of the Hot Cat fueled by gas or by electric power is not substantially different from the low temperature E-Cat: our costs don’t go by the weight of the materials we use.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Herb Gills:
    Thank you for the information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Koen Vandewalle:
    We made an Agreement with a very important Partner who will be able to develope the production as much as requested from the market. The first step are the 1 MW plants we are manufacturing now. It is true what you say, we are changing the design during the manufacturing, because we discover every day possible upgradings, but this is normal when it turns into a completely new technology.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    Some time ago, the MW-design of the Hot-Cat was called the “honeycomb”. As far as I understand, the complexities involved in this design that has to
    1. produce as-high-temperature-as-possible fluidum with 1000C hotcats, and to
    2. put the hotcats in a compact design, and to
    3. make them all stable,
    4. at multiple setpoints of flow and temperature,
    5. and many more
    …..may be an extremely difficult task.

    Do you provide “intermediate goals”, (eg lower temperatures, partial usage of the total power of each hotcat,…) of which you will accept their imperfection in order to be able to build a complete and working device that produces electric power at lower performances but earlier in time than the perfect version ?

    At a certain point, you may have to choose between:
    1. the speed of integration in the world economy by letting others use the basics of your invention, and
    2. maximum technical and (personal or intra-company)economical performance under secrecy with a limited number of customers.

    The obligation to choose may come with the achievement of an important intermediate goal.

    Can you tell something about that ?

    Kind regards,
    Koen

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Email sent to Dr. John Arrington (Argonne National Laboratory):

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: johna_6@yahoo.com
    CC: m.freer@bham.ac.uk; noerters@uni-mainz.de
    Subject: stability of light nuclei PART THREE = beryllium isotopes
    Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:04:37 -0200

    Dear John Arrington
    cc: Martin Freer
    Wilfried Nörtershäuser

    The paper on the stabilty of light isotopes PART THREE is ready, and it is available in this Peswiki link:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:_Stability_of_Light_Nuclei_%E2%80%93_PART_THREE

    In the paper there are:

    1) Calculations on the magnetic moments of beryllium isotopes

    2) It is shown how the nucleons take place within the structures of light isotopes, so that to get an equlibrium according to:

    a) Least Action Principle

    b) Pauli Exclusion Principle

    c) spin-interaction between the neutrons and the deuterons.

    3) The mechanism of neutron halo formation

    Regards

    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    Thank you for the clarification.

    Does this mean that a deuteron exists because the two protons share one electron between them? If so, is the electron still moving, or is it stationed between the protons?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Herb Gillis

    Andrea Rossi:
    You may find the link below to be useful. It describes software systems which have proven useful in the discovery of optimized material compositions (optimized for any given purpose). The software learns from examples of compositions that work, and predicts new ones. I think this software might help you optimize and improve compositions for the LENR effect. I am sure you must have lots of formulations that would serve as raw material for the machine learning program described:

    http://imagination-engines.com/iei_materials_discovery.php

    Regards; HRG.

  • Tim

    The new 1MW Hot Cats appear to be a lot smaller than the original 1MW Warm Cat. Is the cost lower too? Any price info?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    The length is 2 m, the height 1 m.
    The design has not been decided completely. We are testing many variables.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 26th, 2012 at 10:55 AM
    Wladimir,

    If you are saying that the Sp(p) field of one neutron repels the Sp(p) field of the other neutron, and likewise for the Sp(e) fields, and that it is for this reason that a dineutron does not exist, then how do you explain the existence of a deuteron which is close in composition to the dineutron?

    dineutron = proton + proton + electron + electron

    deuteron = proton + proton + electron

    Dear Joe

    This question is explained in my book.

    I already answered this questions so many times to so many people that I am tired to repeat it every time, and when I explain it again and again sometimes I make mistakes

    The repulsion between two neutrons in distances shorter than 2fm is actually between the fields Sp(e) of the two electrons of each neutron.

    But it is good to hear questions from you, because I realize that you have interest to understand my ideas.

    Kind regards
    WLAD

    PS: I am finishing the PART THREE of the article on the stability and magnetic moments of the light isotopes, and it will be available soon in Peswiki in the upcoming days.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You stated the gas-fired Hot eCat was 2m high x 1m wide x 1 m deep. Is this correct? Is the gas-fired portion primarily in the bottom of the unit with a “chimney” providing the heat to the eCat modules? If so, does this limit the tilt angle away from vertical in which a gas-fired unit will correctly function?

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    If you are saying that the Sp(p) field of one neutron repels the Sp(p) field of the other neutron, and likewise for the Sp(e) fields, and that it is for this reason that a dineutron does not exist, then how do you explain the existence of a deuteron which is close in composition to the dineutron?

    dineutron = proton + proton + electron + electron

    deuteron = proton + proton + electron

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    TO ALL THE READERS FROM POLAND:
    WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THERE IS AN UNAUTHORIZED WEBSITE WHICH IS PROPOSING TO SELL E-CATS FRAUDOLENTLY, WITHOUT ANY AUTHORIZATION FROM US, WITHOUT HAVING ANY CHANCE TO OBTAIN FROM US OUR PRODUCTS, THEREFORE THEY ARE SELLING PRODUCTS THAT THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DELIVER.
    THE WEBSITE IS:
    http://www.ecat-polska.pl
    WE DO NOT KNOW THEM, WE NEVER GAVE THEM ANY LICENSE, THEY WILL NEVER OBTAIN FROM US OUR PRODUCTS. THEIR SALES OF E-CATS IS A FRAUD.
    I REPEAT WHAT I WROTE MANY TIMES: IF ANYBODY PROPOSES TO SELL E-CATS, PLEASE INFORM US OF HIS NAME WRITING TO
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    WE WILL CONFIRM YOU IF HE IS AUTHORIZED OR IF IS A BOGUS.
    WARM REGARDS,
    ANDREA ROSSI, LEONARDO CORP (CEO)

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mark Saker:
    1- we are still modifying the design of the Hot Cat
    2- yes
    3- 100/1
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Mark Saker

    Dear Andrea,

    The following links to an article I had published on the e-cat in my local newspaper. I hope you are happy with the content (and that Frank is ok with my linking to his site)

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/11/cold-fusion-in-the-local-paper/

    A quick couple of questions please. Has the design for the 1MW hot cat been finalised and entered the manufacturing stage yet or is it still in planning? Has the design taken into account grouping of 1MW hot cats to create a more powerful system in a small space? What is the total number of cylinders and how many reactors per cylinder?

    Many Thanks

    Mark

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Eric Ashworth:
    Interesting insight.
    Sorry, I cannot answer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 24th, 2012 at 9:06 PM
    Wladimir,

    1. In QRT, what is the mechanism that prohibits the creation of a dineutron?

    2. In QRT, what is the mechanism that prevents the collapse of the deuteron?

    3. In QRT, are single protons – and not just neutrons and deuterons – allowed in the nuclear halo?

    Dear Joe

    Questions 1 and 2:

    The neutron is formed by proton+electron.

    The body of the proton is involved by two concentric fields:
    a) External field Sn(p), which is positive
    b) Internal field Sp(p), which is negative

    The body of the electron is involved by two concentric fields:
    c) External field Sn(e), which is negative
    d) Internal field Sp(e), which is positive.

    The neutron is formed by the overlaping of those fields. The external field Sn(N) of the neutron has no charge, because it is an overlap of Sn(e) and Sn(p).

    But internally it’s impossible to be an overlap of the fields Sp(e) and Sp(p).

    So, the dineutron cannot exist because there is repulsion between the fields S(p) and the fields Sp(e) of the two neutrons

    Question 3:
    What do you consider a halo?

    For instance, 4Be7 is formed by:

    - a central 2He4
    - one deuteron
    - a proton

    If you consider that proton as a halo, then the anwwer is yes.

    Regards
    WLAD

  • Eric Ashworth

    Dear Andrea,
    As you are aware LENR fascinates many people and there are various theories as to what accounts for the anomalous amounts of heat provided by the nickel and hydrogen. I have been never been involved in LENR science but I do have a theory based on observations with regards unrelated material. Could and I ask the question, have you considered an adiabatic reaction occurring within the e-cat?. I believe adiabatic reactions are not confined to material substance but also occur at the charged particle eather level. I shall now attempt to explain. There is no such thing as empty space, eather permeates our entire system. Hydrogen one proton and one electron. Octahedral cavity of nickel captures hydrogen proton, electron loses contact with proton/positive gravity, expands and becomes negative electron cloud capturing free eather. Octahedral cavity loses gravity value and nickel electrons move into higher orbits and become more negative. Nickel proton move into a lower orbit to become more positive to compliment the electron charges. nickel protons lose an amount of mass. Positive eather is discharged that combines with the electron cloud forming a neutral charge. Neutrals outside of structure could in theory disintegrate creating an amount of heat. Is the catalyst a resonator?, somewhat like a sun system in nature. Do you use four isotopes to create a systemic reaction?, from nickel 58 with large cavities to nickel 61 with small cavities that increase in size due to the initial hydrogen nickel 58 heat reaction. Pure speculation on my part but I do find the e-cat technology a challenging subject and one that will inevitably knock out fossil fuels etc. Wishing you all the best. Regards Eric Ashworth.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

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