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

  • Christos Stremmenos

    Eg. Peter Gluck
    Sono stato molto titubante a rispondere ai suoi commenti nei miei confronti, per i seguenti motivi:
    1. Non ho tempo da perdere con gente che pontifica da un blog senza mai aver avuto relazione (sperimentale) scientifica di competenza, con gli argomenti che commenta.
    2. Si, sono un alleato di A. Rossi e collaboro con lui a livello scientifico, perché riconosco la validità della sua tecnologia e l’onestà intellettuale ed umana della persona … ringraziando sempre il collega S. Focardi che a suo tempo mi ha fatto conoscere.
    3. Non scendo al suo livello di commentare il termine “henchman” attribuito mi…. Si vede che la sua maestra elementare, malgrado i soldi che ha preso da suo padre, non le ha insegnato L’EDUCAZIONE CIVILE.
    Le rispondo dal JoNP perche’ il blog su cui Lei mi ha attaccato non ha pubblicato questa mia risposta.
    Mr Peter Gluck:
    1- I have not time to lose with a person that does not have the scientific bases to talk of the matter he wants to master about, not having ever experimented anything
    2- Yes, I work scientifically with Andrea Rossi, because he is intellectually integer and because I know his technology : the same with Sergio Focardi, Prof. Emeritus of the same University of Bologna where I teached Physic Chemistry .
    3- I do not comment the fact that you define me a “henchman”: my career as a Professor and as the Ambassador of Greece for 7 years speaks for me; your father, evidently, has wasted his money sending you to your level of studies ( I suppose, from your behaviour, elementary schools) since it appears you didn’t even understand Civic Education from your teacher.
    Regards,
    Ch. Stremmenos
    p.s. I am answering to you from the JoNP because the blog where you attacked me did not publish this answer of mine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Pekka janhunen:
    Thank you very much for yupour useful information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,
    A random thought which might (or might not) be useful to you. There is a Norwegian company who makes a membrane which can separate nitrogen and oxygen from air, http://www.airproducts.no/technology. Such a capability might perhaps be useful in the following ways:
    1) if hydrogen leak is a safety risk in some application, a nitrogen filled double hull could be used with hydrogen detector between the walls, and the nitrogen could be generated with this membrane technology on site, instead of buying it in cylinder.
    2) the same technology can also enrich oxygen, perhaps that would enable a hotter gas flame (or hydrogen flame) for gascat.
    regards, pekka

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Steven,
    well 😉 here there are only friends.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear eernie1:
    The work of Prof. Ikegami is very interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    Dear Ing Rossi;
    Have you read the recently published papers by Hidetsugu Ikegami on the subject of “The Nature of The Chemonuclear Transition”?
    A few months ago,I proposed a possible explanation for LENR based on the formation of conversion electrons by forcing 1S electrons into the Nickel nucleous by means of a strong negative external field.These papers seem to correlate and agree with my hypothesis.Any comments would be appreciated.
    Continuing good luck on the third party report.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    I am so glad of your comment! I was afraid you could be offended, but, as you well understood, I just joked with you, not against you. It was just a homouristic way to tell you I can’t explain what happens inside the reactor. The very strange happenings in the patents world make me have to stay well tight about the industrial secret regarding the intellectual property: it appears that if you want to get an intellectual property you can only maintain the industrial secret about it. Nevertheless, I appreciate a lot your intellectull contributions.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Giovanni,

    No offense was taken. Thank you for your postings and your sense of humor.

  • Christos Stremmenos

    Dear Daniel De Caluwé
    sorry for the delayed answer, …..translation problems …!. Thank you for the positive comments in my regards. I can state that I was not the first to use nickel rods. In fact, I was against it, after the observations I made on experiments which I had conducted at the Faculty of Industrial Chemistry in Bologna.
    I began to use nickel powders because I had observed, on the rods or foils, the formation of microscopic craters, within which “half the periodic table”(…!.), could be found (trasmutation!).
    I tried to pass the information I had acquired on to Focardi and Piantelli, who replied that they had also detected the surface phenomena, but that powders (development of a surface) were unfeasible.
    In any case, I continued to make use of nano-powders together with Prof. Paolo Cammarota, then Chair of the Institute of Metallurgy. We did not restrict ourselves to nickel powders, and we obained information at the level of resonant iterations in transition elements and electromagnetic fields (Ramman Spectroscopy); see my post Cold Fusion a Continuing Debate 1999 in the JoNP.
    In those days, besides nickel, we were using everyting — Pd, Ti, Fe, and other transition elements. We all obtained some watt from our experiments, while Andrea Rossi, who worked with Ni powders from 1995, has been the first to make real energy with nickel, in the range of kWh, not of some watts or something alike. And so far nobody has been able to do the same!
    Best regards,
    Christos Stremmenos

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Koen Vandewalle:
    Yes, we are studying the “strange energy” that we are getting as a side effect.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    First of all thanks for your very kind comments at the end of last year.

    May I hope that The Tank has recovered from the threat of the cluster-munition ? The manufacturing of this kind of cluster munition should be forbidden, for the same reasons as real cluster munition has been forbidden in civilized countries ! Anyway, it reveals some intentions that were hidden in the silence.
    Keeping a secret a secret remains the better option. For many reasons and for many important inventions. If humanity cannot be honest nor fair and does not seek equilibrium, it should suffer.

    Now something very different: If you were capable of positioning every Ni-atom in the ecat-core where you want it, do you believe it will ever be possible to ectract EMF (or EMP) directly and efficient from the core to make a fully solid-state and self-sustaining hot cat? Or even better ? (Maybe a hint to other “inventors in armchairs” to write some papers intended for patent trolling).
    I think this because of the following: Carnot cycles derive their energy extracting capabilities from a flow of high energy-density chaos towards low energy-density chaos. The balance of the efficiency and the losses is very much determined by the “chaos”. With electricity and magnetism, it seems to be easier to avoid chaos than it is with heat. I think the future of energy production in this nano-era will be there.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Dear Steven,
    it was a joke,not a criticism at your question that I find reasonable.

    Regards

    Segnalo interrogazione parlamentere del 21 dec 2012 e non è la prima…

    http://parlamento.openpolis.it/atto/documento/id/95323

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Julian_becker:
    I don’t think Sapphire can work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels,
    I am really sorry to have to repeat that I cannot give information regarding what happens inside the reactor.
    Your comment makes sense, but I cannot give this information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Giovanni and Andrea Rossi,

    I appreciate humor. What I was trying to postulate was that the primary energy reaction, since Andrea Rossi has stated that Ni + H -> Cu is not the primary reaction, was Hydrogen + Hydrogen -> Deuterium. But Andrea Rossi has reported that no Deuterium was found as a by product. If Deuterium was produced, then there are a number of nuclear reactions whereby Deuterium is consumed to form Helium and Tritium. Likewise, there are reactions that consume Tritium to produce Helium. So Helium might be the end product. But why was it not detected as an output product? I further postulated that the eCat containment may not be secure to Helium as it has a very high diffusion rate. So high that after six months of operation are elevated temperature, the Helium content would be the same as that of the surrounding air. Apparently flying cats are attracted to Helium? (LOL)

    There are insufficient numbers of Deuterium atoms in one or even ten grams of natural Hydrogen for the Deuterium alone to produce sufficient energy (10kW for 6 months). So, if Helium is made and then escapes, this could be consistent with the reported observations by Andrea Rossi. I hope this is a reasonable analysis and if I could get something other than Humor or Confidential, I would really appreciate it!

  • julian_becker

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    What about if in case of Nickel, an artificial Sapphire crystal would be used. The material is not very expensive (also used in shatter-proof glasses because it is only second hardest to a diamond) and has a high melting point of 2030 degrees celsius. Would this work or would it create instabilities in the LENR process? because it is not the metal, but a mineral (Al(2)-O(3))would this have negative effects on the occurring of the LENR process in general?

    Kind regards and eagerly waiting like everybody for good news from the validation,

    Julian

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
    Right!
    In any case, to answer seriously to our friend Steven N. Karels: no, we do not use He.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Andrea,
    I think that your reactor does produce He,I have seen near Bondeno some flyng Cats !

    Joking Regards

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Dear Dott Rossi,
    if I should be in your position I should not be worried, because when your apparatus will give a lot of thermal or electric kWh,the truth will be clear.

    Trusting Regards G G

  • Eric Ashworth

    Dear Carloluna,

    Could not agree more with what you wrote. Life is a true learning experience, full of surprises at various twists and turns and yes I have and will continue to advertise it. Lets hope the theory of professor Roberto Monti becomes fact and is a trigger for science to re-evaluate and re-design itself for the benefit of mankind. All the best to both yourself and Andrea. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Italo R.:
    I am worried means that I really am worried, because I do not know the report that will be published from the Third Party, I don’t even know where it will bepublished and I have not been always attending. Anyway,let’s wait and work, work, work.
    WarmRegards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    I was joking…obviously I know what is He !!!
    It was just to answer with humour that the information you are asking for is confidential…
    Warm rgards,
    A.R.

  • Italo R.

    Gentile Dr. Rossi, si leggono in giro molti messaggi nei quali la gente si domanda il significato della sua frase “I’m very worried”.
    Molti la traducono col significato di “essere nervoso”, altri attribuiscono il significato di “preoccupato”.
    Mentre è normale essere nervosi (in fondo è sempre un esame), non credo che lei debba essere preoccupato dato che sa che l’Hot-Cat è funzionante.
    Comunque certamente siamo tutti molto “nervosi”, in attesa della pubblicazione di questi test…
    Con viva cordialità,
    Italo R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Wiki – “Helium is a chemical element with symbol He and atomic number 2. It is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-toxic, inert, monatomic gas that heads the noble gas group in the periodic table. Its boiling and melting points are the lowest among the elements and it exists only as a gas except in extreme conditions.”

    Wiki – “The Helium leak test, The leak detection method uses helium (the lightest inert gas) as a tracer gas and detects it in concentrations as small as one part in 10 million. The helium is selected primarily because it penetrates small leaks readily.”

    So… Have the eCat reactors been tested using Helium leak detection methods? If not, perhaps your eCats are producing Helium and that Helium escapes to the surrounding atmosphere? You previously told us no Helium was detected as a by product of the eCat reaction.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Helium? What is it?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Can you tell us if the current eCat design is sealed tight such that Helium would not diffuse — welds versus high temperature sealants?

  • Alex

    Dear Ing. Rossi,

    Many thanks for your most valuable reply:
    >>>
    Dear Alex:
    I am not yet able to give a precise scheduling, but should be within this year.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    <<<

    This is good news. The hot cat will be a game changer, a paradigm shift, the new fire which will provide cheap energy to the poor of the world, helping them to rise above the poverty line.

    God be with you,

    Alex

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giuliano Bettini:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Franco:
    No, I do not know.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    DearAlex:
    I am not yet able to give a precisescheduling, but should be within this year.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Sorry, this infois confidential,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Since you are using natural Hydrogen which has about 1/6000 Deuterium, have you considered the possibility that the role of the Hydrogen is as a catalyst for the Deuterium-Deuterium as the reaction that produces the power? Then, perhaps the Helium product departs the enclosure through a leak process? That, I think, is consistent with the energy production and the lack of apparent by-products. Thoughts?

  • Alex

    Dear Ing. Rossi,

    Do you see a time/year when the first hot cat will be supplyinmg steam to a turbine coupled to an alternator?

    Regards,

    Alex

  • Carloluna

    Dear Eric Ashworth
    Thank you. In Pordenone Andrea spoke of a truck stuck in the road of science.
    Tesla said that Relativity is like a beggar dressed in a royal robe.
    This block will not be removed until the true science will regain its rightful place in human progress.
    I believe that the false theories have contributed to the destruction of the biosphere and the corruption of the human race.
    Now more than ever it is necessary that wonderful invention of Andrea is applied.
    The theory of Professor Roberto Monti (as Andrea worthy of the Nobel Prize) is the solid basis
    on which the change can take place. Advertise it!

  • Franco

    Dear ing. Rossi,
    are You aware of which kind of tests this professors’s commission has performed on the Hot-Cat during third party verification activity?
    If yes, may You lists these topics?
    Thanks.

    Best Regards

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea
    you said “I’m very worried”; don’t worry. I would be worried if I was a professor who should write the report.
    I’m always waiting for that phrase: “the Italian navigator has landed in the New World-Part Two”.
    The First Part has been Enrico Fermi.
    Ad maiora
    Giuliano Bettini

  • Eric Ashworth

    Dear Carloluna,

    Found your article most interesting Jan 20th inst. Unfortunately, today it appears that science refuses to re-design itself and thereby truth and knowledge with regards cosmology, geophysics, biology and most regrettably medicine will remain as, it were, subjects beyond comprehension. Tommorrow will be another day but when who knows, we shall have to wait and see when this necessary decision to re-design will be made. I also am an optimist. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Dear Prof. Stremmenos,

    1. Thank you again for this objective clarification that, like your previous message some time ago, gives more information about how Ni-H ‘cold fusion’ came into being.

    2. By these messages and clarifications, I now understand better who was involved and who contributed to Ni-H ‘cold fusion’ we have now. (In both messages, you mentioned not only your work, but also that of Prof. Focardi and the important contribution of Dr. Rossi).

    3. But I do have a question: Pons and Fleishman worked with Palladium (Pd) and Deuterium (D), but who was the first to try with Ni (Nickel) and H (Hydrogen)? Was it Piantelli who first tried with Ni and H, although he did it with an oridnary Ni-rod and not with the more effecitive nano-powder? (In the case he started with Ni-H, he also made a big contribution, I think. But, I agree, in that case he cannot say he was the first to use a nano-powder).

    4. Anyway, I thank you and all Italians who kept believing in ‘cold fusion’ and worked it out further with Ni-H

    Kind Regards,
    Ir. Daniel De Caluwé
    Mechelen, Flanders (Belgium).

  • Steven Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Regards to larger eCat rector modules, I think this would be a mistake. Given your current eCat rectors produce somewhere around 10kW of thermal energy and you have previously stated a linear response and SSM, we can say that each module can be turned-on, turned-off and controlled in output power to some limited range(say 8kW to 12kW). When incorporated into a 1MW combined unit where there are 100 eCat reactors, this allows you to control the generated total power from 10kW to 1MW in 1% steps (of full output) by simply turning-on or turning-off individual reactors. I think this is an important feature when the user demand can change with time, such as an intermediate electric power generation plant. Even in baseload electric power generation applications, the thermal energy must be controlled within limits. Your eCat works best in long term (months) of operation with static or slowly changing loads (time periods of change in minutes or hours)

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Christos:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Don Witcher

    Dr. Rossi

    Did the commission do all their tests with a single Hotcat or did they use multiple units to obtain their data.
    Don Witcher

  • Henry Higgins

    ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE STREMMENOS COMMENT ABOUT THE PIANTELLI PATENT

    In case someone is interested, here is a translation of Prof. Stremmenos’ comment.

    To all JoNP readers.

    I was very much surprised, upon reading the “Description of Prior Art” in the publication of European Patent EP 2368 252 B1 (Jan 16th 2013, priority 24/11/2008) granted to inventor Francesco Piantelli, to find out that the inventor was said to have been working with nickel nano-powders since 1998. This is completely inaccurate. At that time, the only one who, together with Prof. Focardi, was making use of Ni and Pd nano-powders (prepared at Prof. E. Bonetti’s laboratory at the Department of Physics of the University of Bologna) was the present writer. I also know that Andrea Rossi had been working with nickel powders since the mid nineteen-nineties.
    I had repeatedly consulted with Piantelli, who insisted that powders could not work —  he explained why it was so with his more or less abstruse theories.
    In my publication “Fusione fredda, Un dibattito che prosegue” ) [“Cold Fusion, an Ongoing Debate”], which appeared in La chimica e l’industria. Organo Ufficiale della Società Chimica Italiana, RICHMAC Magazine, N. 81, Aprile 1999, pp. 361-363), I reported on the results and methods used in the previous three years.
    In this publication [p. 363] attention is brought to the structure of the samples used:
    «Now, as far as the metallographic structure is concerned, we know that a metallic sample is composed of mono-crystalline grains, having variable dimensions at different textures. 
    Eliminating at least the variability in grain dimension is possible if one uses mono-crystalline and granulometrically homogenous metal powders in order to prepare, by light compression, samples of the appropriate size.
    This determines an enormous increase in the interacting surface, and a homogenous statistical distribution of the various textures, including the most absorbent one, as well as of the defective state of the sample; these thus become reproducible on a percentage basis, irregardless of the sample’s thermal and mechanical history.
    The current technique for preparing powders by grinding under vacuum allows one to obtain granulometric dimensions varying from several micrometers for micro-phases, to a lower limit of 10-15 nanometers for nano-phases. It is therefore possible to prepare samples with an ample range of granulometry» […]. 
    At the time, Piantelli was not only working with nickel rods, he was also saying that it wasn’t possible to get the the process to work with powders. One may gather that he got the idea of using powders by copying the work of others: mine, and Dr. Andrea Rossi’s. One cannot really understand how he was able to get his patent recognized, considering that his apparatus doesn’t work, and never did: Piantelli acknowledged his own publication on Nuovo Cimento, but no mention was made of the fact that in the following number of Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, No. 12), Prof. Zichichi and his team at the University of Bologna, where I also was teaching at the time, tested Piantelli’s apparatus and discovered that it didn’t work at all, and that all of Piantelli’s statements were unfounded. If you want to check the veracity of my statement, just look up the above-mentioned number of Nuovo Cimento – the most established Physics journal in Italy. How is it possible to grant a patent for a process that doesn’t work? Moreover, what’s the point of saying that an inventor, in order get a patent granted, must be able to allow an expert reader to reproduce the process? If  the inventor, in this case Piantelli, wasn’t able to do anything, how can he say that he is enabling others to successfully implement a process which he himself cannot get to work? I would love to know how he managed to get his patent granted. It is obviously useless, both because the process doesn’t produce anything, and because Rossi had already patented a similar process. Rossi’s patent was granted in Italy: whether or not he gets an international extension for it, it’s obvious that nobody can patent something which has already been patented in any other country in the world where patent laws are recognized.
    Andrea, go right on, don’t get discouraged — besides, I know that you are veritable lion.
    Christos Stremmenos, Prof. of Chemical Physics, University of Bologna (Ret.); former Ambassador for Greece in Rome.

  • Dr Bruce Williams

    Earlier today I downloaded and read the patent application(that has just been approved). To my astonishment there was NO EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THE ENERGY WAS GENERATED (ie, the E=MC2 bit)…………I heartily agree with Prof Stremmenos, why was this patent granted ?(and why did it take so long?) I repeat his words of encouragement to Dr Rossi,
    be not discouraged, you have the heart of a lion !

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    The 1 MW plants have been certified, are already manufactured and, as you correctly said, are made by small modules.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

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

  • Carloluna

    dear Andrea

    The biological transmutations that have a history of centuries old surveys, the geophysical transmutations, the testimonies of the alchemists, the cold fusion experiments are not explained by the prevailing model of the atom.
    However, the phenomena lenr can find easy explanation if we adopt the Alfa extended model of Roberto Monti. The key points of this theory are:
    The atoms are constituted by structures of the particles arranged in cluster
    The atoms are immersed in a medium: the ether.

    “The atom is seen as a rigid structure, block and periodic of period 4 (the base becomes in fact the alpha-particle, the neutral atom of Helium, inclusive of its electrons). How elementary constituents (but not punctiform) of an atom are considered electron, proton and neutron. was assumed that the electric field of the proton and electron at the atomic level are substantially bidirectional. A substantial asymmetry at the nuclear level of the electric field of the electron and proton, can assume the presence of stable areas of balance between these particles inside nuclei, thus highlighting a rigid structure. As defined by Harkins in beginning of ‘900, the neutron is seen as a proton bound to an electron:
    n ← → (pe), stable only within a nucleus.
    The possibility that has a proton, in particular conditions, to capture an electron becoming a neutron allows to hypothesize the presence inside the nucleus heavier (higher than 20CA) of “polineutrons”, as the particle α0, result of the double “capture K” by a particle α of its electrons. Fundamental particles, according to Harkins, thus become: e (electron), p (proton), P (uncle), P0 (neutron), D (deuterium), D0 (2n), T1 (tritium), T2 (helium -3), T0 (3n), α (helium-4), α0 (4n).
    These particles and their compounds, are considered to be immersed in a material medium (which is essentially what they are made of waves) with which they interact continuously in accordance with the “Principle of Action and Reaction.” It is expected that this material means – ether – is able to accumulate energy, not making necessary interactions that take place always and only through the exchange of particles.
    Reconstruction of the periodic table according to the extended alpha model is simple and can be done literally at the table, with it you can know in advance the possible results of low-energy nuclear reactions, these being, in principle, simple addition and subtraction of elements well defined. ”

    from “La struttura nascosta del mondo” di Luca Chiesi Macroedizioni
    http://www.edizioniandromeda.com/media/1/30.pdf

    If science would deign to analyze all the physical and biological phenomena based on this model there would be a new paradigm in every field from cosmology to geophysics, biology and medicine.
    And this will happen!

    warm regards,
    Carloluna

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: Recently you said, “By the way, we do not need bigger reactors.” Why are you trying to start by building huge reactors? Why not build 20, 50 or 100 klW reactors , there are thousands of applications for the small reactors? Would the smaller reactors be easier to design and build? By building the smaller reactors you will prove the concept and then build the 1mW and bigger reactors.

  • Ch. Stremmenos

    A tutti i lettori del JoNP
    Con enorme sorpresa ho letto nella pubblicazione del Breveto Europeo EP 2368 252 B1 in data 16.01.2013 con priorità:24.11.2008, concesso al inventore Francesco Piantelli, che nella “Description of the prior art”, è riportato che il suddeto inventore sebrerebbe che lavorasse su delle nanoporveri di Nichel fin dal 1998. .. Questo è assolutamente inesatto, perché solamente lo scrivente in quel periodo adottava le nanoppolveri di Ni e Pd, preparate presso il laboratorio del Prof E. Bonetti (Dip. Fis. UNIBO), coivolgendo Prof. Focardi. So che anche Andrea Rossi fin dalla meta’ degli anni 90 lavorava con le polveri di nickel.
    Piantelli, da me ripetutamente consultato, diceva che le polveri non possono funzionare e spiegava il perche’ con le sue teorie piu’ o meno astruse.
    Nella mia pubblicazione con titolo:” Fusione fredda, Un dibattito che prosegue”, nel Giornale “La chimica e l’industria “ Organo Ufficiale della Società Chimica Italiana(81-La chimica e l’Industria-363, RICHMAC-Aprile 1999 ), sono riportati risultati e metodi di ricerca adottati nei precedenti tre anni.
    In un framento di questa pubblicazione viene segnalata la stuttura dei campioni usati:
    « ……Ora, per quello che riguarda la struttura metallografica si sa che un campione metallico è un insieme di grani monocristallini di dimensioni variabili a differenti tessiture.
    Eliminare almeno la variabilità nelle dimensioni del grano risulta possibile utilizzando delle polveri monocristalline e granulometricamente omogenee del metallo per la preparazione del campioni in forme appropriate mediante lieve compressione.
    Ciò comporta un aumento enorme di superficie interagente ed una distribuzione statistica omogenea sia delle varie tessiture, compresa quella più assorbente, sia
    dello stato difettivo del campione che, a parità della sua storia termica e meccanica, divengono così, percentualmente riproducibili.
    La tecnica attuale di preparazione delle polveri mediante macinazione sotto vuoto, permette di ottenere dimensioni granulometriche che variano da alcuni micrometri per le microfasi fino al limite inferiore di 10-15 nanometri per le nanofasi e quindi la
    possibilità di poter preparare campioni in una vasta gamma granulometrica…»
    Piantelli in quel tempo non solo lavorava con le barrette di nickel, ma diceva che con le polveri non poteva funzionare. Quindi l’idea delle polveri l’ha tirata fuori copiando il lavoro di altri, ossia mio e del Dr Andrea Rossi. Inoltre non si capisce come abbia avuto il riconoscimento del brevetto, dato che il suo apparato non funziona e non ha mai funzionato: Piantelli ha citato la sua pubblicazione su Nuovo Cimento, ma si e’ dimenticato di pubblicare il lavoro che nel successivo numero di Nuovo Cimento ( Vol. 109- N. 12) il Prof. Zichichi, dell’Universita’ di Bologna, in cui a quei tempi io insegnavo, ha fatto con il suop team un test dell’apparato di Piantelli ed ha scoperto che non funzionava assolutamente e che tutte le affermazioni fatte dal Piantelli erano prive di fondamento: andate a leggere il citato volume di Nuovo Cimento, la principale rivista di Fisica Italiana, per vedere se quello che scrivo e’ vero o no. Come si fa a dare un brevetto per un processo che non funziona? Ma allora che senso ha dire che un inventore, per avere un brevetto, deve mettere in condizione il lettore esperto di riprodurre il processo? Ma se neanche l’inventore, in questo caso Piantelli, non e’ mai stato capace di fare niente, come fa a dire che mette in condizione gli altri di fare un processo che nemmeno lui e’ capace di fare? Mi piacerebbe sapere come ha fatto ad ottenere quel brevetto, che ovviamente non vale niente, sia pwerche’ non produce niente, sia perche’ Rossi aveva gia’ brevettato un processo analogo, brevetto confermato in Italia: sia che Rossi ottenga l’estensione internazionale, sia che non la ottenga, e’ ovvio che nessuno puo’ brevettare una cosa che e’ gia’ stata brevettata in qualsiasi Paese del mondo in cui e’ riconosciuta la legge sui brevetti.
    Forza Andrea, non farti scoraggiare, anche se so che sei un leone.
    Prof. Christos Stremmenos, Prof. of Chemical Physics, University of Bologna (Ret.); former Ambassador for Greece in Rome
    ENGLISH TRANSLATION PENDING

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giuseppe:
    We needed years to arrive to stability and reliability, allowing the certification of our modules as they are. To make bigger modules is very time consuming and in this moment we are strongly focused. Yes, the stability with bigger reactors could be doubtless more difficult to find, but not impossible. By the way, we do not need bigger reactors, think how Natire made things: with small atoms of water you make the Niagara Falls.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • 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. Everybody can try…
    Every further comment is useless.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

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