Formulas for Magnetic Moments of the Proton and Neutron

.
by
Sergey P.Efimov
Senior-lecturer, Department of mathematics,
Bauman Moscow State Technical University. Moscow. Russia
E-mail: serg.efimo2012@yandex.ru
.
.
Short Content
Modern ideas presume that the nucleon has a complex structure. Accordingly, one should not expect simple and exact formulas for the above quantities in future theory. Still, if we suppose that future theory possesses hidden symmetry then there possibly exist simple formulas for the magnetic moments, since in quantum theory, symmetries normally generate comparatively simple formulas involving integer numbers. The hypothesis can be verified by a simple, but not at all obvious, method of numerical analysis of the experimental data.
Based on it, we find simple phenomenological formulas for the magnetic moments of the proton and neutron with 10 valid digits. We also obtain a compact formula for the relation of the electron’s anomalous moment to the summary magnetic moment of the nucleon with 11 valid digits, and propose dependencies of the neutron and proton masses in electron mass units as functions with argument π.
.
.

192 comments to Formulas for Magnetic Moments of the Proton and Neutron

  • Dear Dr. Rossi,
    Maybe you’re a little ‘tired of giving answers to people who ask for details and tidbits about your creature, but as not to ask questions, you are making a dream come true for all of us, your followers.
    This is for you as a duty, you have to quench our thirst for knowledge and participate.
    This is my question:
    using a cylinder with dimensions much larger than what can happen, the temperature may rise uncontrollably?
    There may be of radiation?
    This could lead to the destruction of the components of the system?
    Thank you, Giuseppe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine,
    Yes, you are right, but also the focused heat production is valid. The interruptions of service issue can be resolved with proper back up, the money saving is very high where heat is needed.
    Thank you for your usual help,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Steven Karels, Andrea Rossi:

    In recovering oil from tar sands, a single nuclear reactor is a centralized source so its heat has to use a long network of pipes to cover a large area. If many smaller heat sources are used, the plumbing is simpler (and shorter) and there are reduced heat losses. If a resource site used a single reactor and it had to be shut down, its production would be completely halted. In contrast, in a distributed network, only a small percent of production would be affected if one of many heat sources is down for maintenance or testing.

    The need for electricity and/or gas as an energy input for the E-Cat/Hot-Cat(s) is a valid one. Producing electricity should already be at the top of the list of things to do.

    Distributed regards,

    Joseph

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Readers:
    I receive many requests of opinion about the last patents granted in matter of LENR: this comment answers to all.
    None of those patents explains how the E-Cat can work. I read very shaky theories in them that never produced anything really working. The described apparatuses, that we replicated with high fidelity after the publication of such patents to check their validity, actually do not work. Not at all. Everybody can try…
    Every further comment is useless.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I agree the Canadian Tar Sand effort needs a Hot eCat. Steam temperature is around 350C so well within the reach of the 1100C Hot eCat. Since it would be on-site, there are no natural gas lines to bring to the site. This sounds perfect for an eCat. Even better if electricity produced by an eCat that could be used to power the Hot eCat producing the steam.

  • Dear ing. Rossi and readers of the Journal, I do not know if it’s true the patent mentioned below:

    Gentile ing. Rossi e lettori del Giornale, non sò se sia vero il brevetto di cui sotto:

    http://www.bachecadeibrevetti.it/invenzioni/centrale-elettromeccanico-autoproduzione-energia-elettrica-%E2%80%9Cdabramo%E2%80%9D#richiesta

  • Dear ing. Rossi watch these videos, they say they can create energy with a new patent, it could be useful for the ‘E cat?

    ELECTROMECHANICAL UNIT FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejyfkoxeQiI

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9szRkvfjZk

    http://www.bachecadeibrevetti.it/invenzioni/centrale-elettromeccanico-autoproduzione-energia-elettrica-%E2%80%9Cdabramo%E2%80%9D

    Gentile ing. Rossi guardi questi video, affermano che riescono a creare energia con un nuovo brevetto, potrebbe essere utile per l’ E cat?

    CENTRALE ELETTROMECCANICA PER LA PRODUZIONE ENERGIA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejyfkoxeQiI

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9szRkvfjZk

    http://www.bachecadeibrevetti.it/invenzioni/centrale-elettromeccanico-autoproduzione-energia-elettrica-%E2%80%9Cdabramo%E2%80%9D

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Readers:
    I receive many requests of opinion about the last patents granted in matter of LENR: this comment answers to all.
    None of those patents explain how the E-Cat can work. I read very shaky theories in them that never produced anything really working. The described apparatuses, that we replicated with high fidelity after the publication of such patents to check their validity, actually do not work. Not at all. Everybody can try…
    Every further comment is useless.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    Very interesting: yes, you are right, we could be very useful in that application.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea,

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/17/toshiba-creating-nuclear-reactor-for-mining-canada-tar-sands/

    Toshiba wants to mine Tar Sands in Canada using heat from a Nuclear Reactor. It would be more environmentally friendly to use the heat from a Hot Cat (or Cats) instead.

    And much less expensive as well.

    Also, in the event of an accident, the result is radioactive tar sands.

    Toshiba and Canada both need a better approach.

    Best regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Nicola:
    Interesting,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Nicola

    Dear Andrea, Herb and Carloluna:

    it seems that the Earth’s Mantle is rich in hydrogen ions too! See:

    http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i3/p40_s1

    H+ ions are usually found as impurities in minerals of olivine [(Mg,Fe)2SiO4], Garnet [(Ca,Mg,Fe)3Al2Si3O12] and pyroxene [(Ca,Mg,Fe)2Si2O6], which polymorphs to Perovskite in the lower Mantle as Carloluna wrote.

    Experimental work has shown that those defects, even in tiny quantities, significantly affect the properties of the minerals and rocks of the mantle. If they also can trigger LENR processes, and if the size of the mineral deposit is sufficiently large, they could even be the source of heat generating a mantle plume, whose origin is still controversial:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_plume

    Hugs,
    Nicola

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Carloluna:
    Thank you for your insight, again!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • carloluna

    dear Andrea
    Let me express two other concepts

    Mechanical explanations of gravitation

    “Similar to Newton, but mathematically in greater detail, Bernhard Riemann assumed in 1853 that the gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid and normal matter represents sinks in this aether. So if the aether is destroyed or absorbed proportionally to the masses within the bodies, a stream arises and carries all surrounding bodies into the direction of the central mass. Riemann speculated that the absorbed aether is transferred into another world or dimension.Another attempt to solve the energy problem was made by Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky in 1888. Based on his aether stream model, which was similar to that of Riemann, he argued that the absorbed aether might be converted into new matter, leading to a mass increase of the celestial bodies.
    Criticism: As in the case of Le Sage’s theory, the disappearance of energy without explanation violates the energy conservation law. Also some drag must arise, and no process which leads to a creation of matter is known.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation

    no process which leads to a creation of matter is known?

    But the confirmation that the Higgs boson exists, spending billions of euro, what has it brought? to demonstrate the creation of matter from the Higgs field (ether)

    Perovskite
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite_(structure)#Common_occurrence“common occurrence
    At the high pressure conditions of the Earth’s lower mantle, the pyroxene enstatite, MgSiO3, transforms into a denser perovskite-structured polymorph; this phase may be the most common mineral in the Earth.[3] This phase has the orthorhombically distorted perovskite structure (GdFeO3-type structure) that is stable at pressures from ~24 GPa to ~110 GPa
    material properties
    Perovskite materials exhibit many interesting and intriguing properties from both the theoretical and the application point of view. Colossal magnetoresistance, ferroelectricity, superconductivity, charge ordering, spin dependent transport, high thermopower and the interplay of structural, magnetic and transport properties are commonly observed features in this family. These compounds are used as sensors and catalyst electrodes in certain types of fuel cells[4] and are candidates for memory devices and spintronics applications.[5]
    production
    The most common synthesis often involve processes of calcination or overheating of mixtures of metal salts. The enormous interest for applications has led the research, not only in the discovery and characterization of new synthetic perovskites but also of new synthetic methods with different reagents and catalysts that make production more economical on an industrial scale. The La0.8Sr0.2CoO3 oxide (abbreviated as LSCO) was prepared using the properties of adsorption of the cellulose,”
    it seems to me that this material can trigger LENR processes in the mantle.

  • Steven Karels

    Daniel,

    Thanks for correcting my factor of two error. I believe we disagree over only matter of words. For the Electric plant, they will probably replace 1 MW units, so as you computed, around 20 per day.

    When the consumed units are returned to Rossi’s factory, they will need to replace at 2000 10kW components per day.

    Assuming a sufficient supply of workers and 10kW components, this should not be a problem. They can scale up as needed.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Carloluna,
    Thjank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven Karels,
    About a thousand.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Herb Gillis:
    We tried Ni pyrite, with no results. So far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven Karels:
    You are right. We are very close, now, to start the tests with the Carnot cycle.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
    This information is confidential, so far. Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Alex:
    For the domestic E-Cat is necessary a certification that at the moment is impossible to get. All the clowns around who say that the certification issue has been resolved are just clowns, who not only do not have a certification, but to not have but a mock up.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear tomconover:
    I did not read the report, yet, because it has not been published yet. By the way, the Third Party members returned this week to make more tests to clear some points that they had to repeat, while I am in Miami. I know that there are skeptics too.
    I fear we will have to wait for the publication to know about the report. Maybe I will have its final version the day before the publication, maybe not.
    About the plantas, they are in construction.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Fibb:
    Thank you for your opinion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Fibb

    Dear Ing. Rossi, I first posted this on ecat world and since I was the first one to ask you the “revolution vs evolution” question – which has fostered so much discussion on the blogs lately – I thought I’d post it here as well for the benefit of you and your readers:

    “We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. [snip] Yes, this coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it’s already economically above ground – it’s figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony. [snip] – those reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their value. It’s why they’ve worked so hard these past years to figure out how to unlock the oil in Canada’s tar sands, or how to drill miles beneath the sea, or how to frack the Appalachians.”

    from http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719?print=true

    Now I completely agree with Bill McKibben but I’m not posting these quotes because I want to persuade anyone here about AGW. I’m posting it to show that what Rossi and Defkalion said recently – that “it will be a evolution that takes years” [paraphrasing] – IS COMPLETE BS, no matter what they do and how slow they go.

    Once LENR commercializers sell multiple working units to real bonafide customers, these fossil fuel reserves, that McKibben says are “economically above ground”, will be buried.

    That WILL cause major economic disruption, end of story. The reserves – which is big oil and coal’s “primary asset” – will start winding down immediately on their balance sheets and they’ll want to replace it with something in a big hurry. Ergo, big fossil fuel will be WANT to become big LENR so fast it will make your head spin. And governments all over the world that were dependent on the diminishing revenue will be urging the big players to “catch the new fire.”

    Certainly it WILL take decades for LENR products replace the world’s current energy infrastructure… but there is no way in hell that it won’t be an economic and social revolution in the player’s minds from day 1.

  • tomconover

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Your reply to Franco, “You will read on the report the answers to your question. I can say that here were skeptical scientists.” reads like a fortune cookie, teasing our imagination. Does this mean that you have seen the report?

    If so, can you tell us any other tiny detail so that we can rejoice with you?

    Have you completed building any of the three plants you hope to ship as of today?

    Thank you in advance for responding to our questions.

    Tom

  • Alex

    Dear Ing. Rossi, people in the northern hemisphere are just now freezing to death. Some because they cannot afford to purchase gas and/or electricity or simply because they don’t have any available.

    Your 10KW e-Cat was promised for this year but due to spanners in the works (patent offices and their bureaucrats)the 10KW unit is still a poor man’s dream. Meanwhile people continue to die of the cold.

  • captain

    Re to Steven N. Karels
    quote:
    We can argue whether the number of 1MW Hot eCat units to generate 1GW of electrical power is 2,000 to 4,000 units based on the assumption of thermal efficiency we make. Assume the number of 1MW Hot eCat units is 3650. That means 10 units are replaced per day…

    I would add: …for a 6 months period, hence 20 plants (of 1MWt or 0.274MWe ea.) for 12 mths.
    A ratio of 27.4% is a very low efficiency, assumed here only to give an idea with simple numbers.

  • Gentile ing. Rossi che potenza hanno i campi elettromagnetici che si formano dal reattore dell’ Hot cat? pensate di schermarli? siete riusciti a bypassare il diagramma di Carnot?

    Dear ing. Red power have electromagnetic fields that form the reactor of ‘Hot cat? designed to shield them? you have managed to bypass the diagram Carnot?

  • Stefano

    Dear Dr. Rossi
    Is the process of Ni isotopes selection energy demanding? And time-consuming? I would not like to find that all the net energy produced by an ecat goes into nickel preparation and hydrogen extraction. Calculations were made that a photovoltaic cell needs four years to produce the energy necessary for its fabrication. Thus by the fifth year all the energy produced is net. Could you say how long does it take (in terms of energy) for an ecat to self-pay?
    Kind regards and i wish you all the best.
    Stefano

  • Steven Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Several months ago you stated that your experimentation with the Hot eCat did not include steam generation. Has that changed? Have you produced steam? If so, to what pressure and temperature?

    Siemens has a relatively low power steam turbine generator (SST-040) that can produce up to 300kW of electrical power. Sounds like it might be a good match for the 1MW Hot eCat. Comments?

  • @Steven,

    You wrote: ‘Assume the number of 1MW Hot eCat units is 3650. That means 10 units are replaced per day.’

    My answer: No, because every 10kW module needs to be refueled every 6 months (=two times a year), so in the case of 3650*1MWth units, you have to replace the fuel of 20*1MWth units each day, and this means you have to replace the fuel of 2000*10kW modules each day!

    You wrote: ‘The knowledge that a 1MW Hot eCat really consists of 100 10kW Hot eCat units is irrelevant. The maintenance action is on the replacement level, not the component level.’

    My answer: I do not agree, because each 1MWth unit is composed of 100 individual 10kW modules, each with their own fuel-cartridge, that has to be replaced two times a year, the maintenance action is on the level of each individual 10kW module! So, in your example, you need to replace the fuel of 2000*10kW modules each day!

    But of course, as I have no idea what this would mean in terms of working hours, I’m not saying that this means more maintenance than with coal-fired power plants, I only wrote that scaling-up could be interesting/necessary and/or would be more optimal.

    Kind Regards,

  • Herb Gillis

    Andrea Rossi:
    Regarding your discussion with Nicola on the possibilities and implications of LENR in the earth’s mantle; do you know if nickel pyrite shows an LENR effect (with a source of hydrogen)? If so, this could explain a lot.
    Regards; HRG.

  • Steven Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    If you are permitted, can you tell us how many, to date, Warm eCat modules and Hot eCat modules you have made, both prototype and production? I assume herein a module can output approximately 10kW of thermal power.

  • carloluna

    @Andrea Rossi@Nicola Cortesi

    The revival of the theory of the expanding Earth

    Osipovich Ivan Yarkovsky, in 1888, trying to reformulate gravity, founded a theory based on the flow of aether. According to his hypothesis celestial bodies absorb the ether. their mass augment.The Italian scientist Roberto Mantovani evoked the possibility of expansion in 1889 and then in 1909. In the second publication, he assumed that one and the same continent would cover the surface of a smaller Earth. As a result of the volcanic earth grew, then this continent broke up into several pieces that went away, leaving the oceans filled up these cracks. This is the first time that the idea of Pangaea was evoked.
    This theory, which is not found in modern science, constituted a source of controversy and was overcome by the theory of plate tectonics.
      but …..
    The modern replicas michelson-morley experiment demonstrate the existence of the ether. Crystals are also capacitors ether.
      ergo …..
    the perovskites of the mantle, as well as being the source of Earth’s magnetic field,
    are also the cause of the expansion of the earth.
    And therefore the theory of plate tectonics may sink(with the relativity), with a movement of subduction in the magma theories forget

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Reasonable considerations.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Daniel,

    We can argue whether the number of 1MW Hot eCat units to generate 1GW of electrical power is 2,000 to 4,000 units based on the assumption of thermal efficiency we make. Assume the number of 1MW Hot eCat units is 3650. That means 10 units are replaced per day. The knowledge that a 1MW Hot eCat really consists of 100 10kW Hot eCat units is irrelevant. The maintenance action is on the replacement level, not the component level. I am sure an actual electric power plant station would have the capability to switch out sections of the Hot eCat units to support maintenance activities. This is a minor problem comparded to the coal-fired electric plants that consume 100’s of tonnes of coal each day and the operators must dispose of the exhaust and the ash, plus cleaning, conveyor belts, coal storage, etc.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Nicola:
    Maybe you are right. The more I study books of Physics, the more I understand that there are wide unexplored and unknown fields. The concept of “Sigma” is the paradigmatic example of this fact: where deviations from what is considered normal give evidence of discoveries, but then all is based on what is considered normal. The problem is: what does normal mean? Tell me what is normal for you, I will find infinite situations wherein it is not. See pag. 175, 176 of the very interesting book “The particle at the end of the Universe” of Prof. Sean Carroll (New York, 2012).
    Warm Regards, same wishes to you!
    A.R.

  • Nicola

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    maybe the missing Earth heat source that geophysicists are trying to understand might be explained to LENR effect in the Earth’s Mantle or in other layers that have a crystalline form similar to that of the Nickel inside the eCat, even if I don’t know how could Hydrogenum be also present in the bowels of the Earth to start the reaction (perhaps when a sea plate slides below a continental one?). If some geophysician is reading could help us expanding this hypothesis.

    Thank you very much for your attention, ne approfitto per farle le mie piu’fervide congratulazioni per la sua importantissima invenzione e per augurarle ogni bene per l’avvenire.

    Nicola Cortesi

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Franco:
    You will read on the report the answers to your question. I can say that here were sceptical scientists.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Daniel De Caluwè:
    A piece of matter is made by 6.022 136 7(36) x 10^23 mol^-1 units.
    Can you imagine a single molecule as big as all this the mess that could make?
    I do not see why modules of 10 kW each are not good enough to make a 1 GW plant. The Whole Universe is made upon this system, and I prefer to learn from God that to outsmart Him. The problem is in the controls: they can be centralized.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you for the information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea

    I’m not sure this article is readable here since it is from the New Scientist and is a premium item available to subscribers. If available, it is only for a limited time.

    The idea here would be to use E-Cats to cool the underground (subways in the USA).

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128241.800-tubular-hell-taking-the-sizzle-out-of-the-subway.html?

    Hope you can read the article.

    Joseph Fine

  • Dear Dr. Rossi,

    1. I agree with Steven Karels’ point about DERs, but as I’m one of these guys that’s interested in replacing our present big nuclear power plants (and big coal or other fossil fuel fired plants as well), I wonder if, in the future, by doing further engineering research, it will be possible to enhance the scale of the individual modules (bigger than 10kWth each), without reducing the safety?

    Because, if we would like to replace a 1000MWe nuclear power plant, we need about 2564 (based on 39% thermal-to-electrical efficiency (Carnot cycle with superheated steam)) to 3030 (33% thermal-to-electrical efficiency, like our present nuclear power plants, that work with a Carnot cycle with only saturated steam, which has a reduced efficiency) of your 1MWth plants.

    2. But as your 1MWth plants have 100 10kWth units each, this makes 256400 (39% thermal-to-electrical efficiency) to 303000 (33% thermal-to-electrical efficiency) 10kWth units, that need to be refueled two times a year each, so that makes: 1404 (39% thermal-to-electrical efficiency) to 1659 (33% thermal-to-electrical efficiency) replacements of fuel each day!. So, in the case of a 1000MWe power plant, wouldn’t a bigger scale of the individual units (bigger than the 10kWth you have now) be more optimal? (With less replacements of fuel each day, as only one of the improvements in this specific application)?

    Kind Regards

  • Franco

    Dear ing. Rossi,
    how many people was composed of the third party validation commission?
    Were skeptical scientists among them?
    Thanks.
    Best Regards

    Franco

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Caroly Witkowsky:
    Our patent situation and strategy is confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Caroly Witkowsky

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    You told us that Nickel enrichment still is necessary for your reactors. Since we know that the standard procedures for isotopic enrichment are very expensive and taken into account the very low cost that you offer for a fuel replacement the enrichment procedure that you have invented must be unique and truly miraculous. Therefore it should be a rather straight forward process to protect this invaluable IP with appropriate patents. These patents could easily provide you with economical leverage for further development of your energy solutions. Perhaps you can tell us something about the patent situation?
    Kind regards, Caroly

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    Interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N.Karels:
    About swimming pools: yes, I agree.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    I am very sorry, this information is confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Can you give us any hint as to what you believe the primary energy generation mechanism is? I know you said Nickel to Copper was a small contributor. Deuterium? Hydrogen? What do you think is the “fuel” and what is the end product? Please, please, please tell us!

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>